DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 417 



very act of putting out her lines, nets, ets., into the water, and so 

 preparing to fish. Without these a vessel so situated would escape 

 seizure, inasmuch as the crew had neither caught fish nor been found 

 fishing. 



Taking this view of the Statutes, I am of the opinion that 

 248 the facts disclosed by the affidavits do not furnish legal 

 grounds for the seizure of the American schooner White Fawn, 

 by Captain Betts, the commander of the Dominion vessel Water 

 Lily, and do not make out a primd facie case for condemnation in 

 this Court, of the schooner, her tackle, &c., and cargo. 



I may add that as the construction I have put upon the Statute 

 differs from that adopted by the Crown Officers of the Dominion, 

 it is satisfactory to know that the judgment of the Supreme Court 

 may be obtained by information, filed there, as the Imperial Act 59, 

 George III., Cap. 38, gave concurrent jurisdiction to that Court in 

 cases of this nature. 



Sir WILLIAM YOUNG. 



This is an American fishing vessel of seventy tons burthen, owned 

 at Salen, Massachusetts, and sailing under a Fishing License issued 

 by the Collector of that Port, and dated March 25th, A. D., 1869. 

 In the month of June 1870, she was seized by Captain Tory of the 

 Dominion Schooner Ida E., while in the North Bay of Ingonish, Cape 

 Breton, about three or four cable lengths from the shore; and it 

 appeared the offense charged against her was that she had run into 

 that Bay for the purpose of procuring bait, had persisted in remain- 

 ing there for that purpose after warning to depart therefrom, and not 

 to return, and had procured or purchased bait while there. This case, 

 therefore, differs essentially from the cases I have already decided. 

 It comes within the charge of preparing to fish a phrase to be found 

 in all the British and Colonial Acts, but not in the Treaty of 1818. 

 In giving judgment 10th February last, in the case of the A. J. 

 Franklin, I referred to the case in hand, and stated that I would pro- 

 nounce judgment in this also in a few days, which I was prepared 

 to do. But it was intimated to the Court that some compromise or 

 settlement might possibly take place in reference to the instructions 

 that had been issued from time to time to the crusiers, and to the 

 negotiations pending between the two Governments, and I have 

 accordingly suspended judgment until now, when it has been formally 

 moved for. 



The same asguments [arguments] were urged at the hearing of this 

 cause as in the case of the Wampatuck on the wisdom of the Treaty 

 of 1818, and some severe strictures were passed on the spirit and 

 tendency of the Two Dominion Acts of 1868 and 1870. To all such 

 arguments and strictures the same answer must be given in this as 

 in my former judgments. The libel sets out in separate articles these 

 two acts with the treaty, and the Imperial Acts of 1819 and 1867, all 

 of which are admitted without any questions raised thereon in the 

 responsive allegation. I must take them, therefore, both on general 

 principles and on the pleading, as binding on this court: and it is of 

 no consequence whether the judge approves or disapproves of them. 

 92909 S. Doc. 870. 61-3, vol 4 37 



