32 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



the sense of being within the reasonable province of local civil juris- 

 diction, and not encroaching upon the province of freedom of the 

 fishery as imparted by the Reciprocity Treaty. But the right of this 

 Government to inspect all such laws and pass upon them, as fallino; 

 one side or other of the line thus firmly drawn, is explicitly stated 

 by Mr. Marcy. He says: 



Should they be so framed or executed as to make any discrimination in favour 

 of British fishermen, or to impair the rights .ecure:l to Americsin fishermen by 

 that Treaty, those injuriously affected by them will appeal to this Government 

 for redress. 



Accordingly, the fishermen are directed to make complaint, upon 

 the case arising, either in respect to any law or its execution, ' ; in 

 order that the matter may be arranged by the two Governments." 



This language is in some respects important, and in some not quite 

 accurate : 



(1.) Mr. Evarts says that regulations (1) of the disposition of 

 offal and (2) of close season upon the spawning grounds were 

 regarded as 



being within the reasonable province of local civil jurisdiction, and 

 not encroaching upon the province of freedom of the fishery, as 

 imparted by the Reciprocity Treaty. 



This admission covers the whole case. For all that His Majesty's 

 Government contends for is authority to make " reasonable " 



regulations. 

 36 (2.) It is incorrect to treat Mr. Marcy's circular as referring 



merely to (1) gurry grounds and (2) close seasons. In addi- 

 tion to those, it specifically mentioned a regulation prohibiting the 

 setting of seines " across the mouth of any haven, river, creek, or 

 harbour." The case which Mr. Evarts was dealing with was one of 

 setting a seine across a whole bay. Mr. Marcy thought that that too 

 was 

 within the reasonable province of local civil jurisdiction. 



(3) And it is incorrect to say that one of the reasons which 

 actuated Mr. Marcy in requiring obedience to local laws was that they 

 had "met the approval of this Government." For although Mr. 

 Marcy, in the appendix to his circular, referred specifically to the 

 three local laws which he had seen, his injunction of obedience ap- 

 plied to those which he had not seen. He commenced his appendix 

 with the words: 



It is believed that the principal regulations referred to above are 

 the following: 



This was Mr. Evarts' last word upon the subject. And we may 

 take him as admitting that (Ante, p. 32) 



1. The common interest of preserving the fishery and preventing 

 conflicts between the fishermen require regulation by some compe- 

 tent authority. 



