526 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



It will be perceived from these extracts, and still more clearly from 

 a perusal of the entire Act, that while reciting the language of the 

 Treaty in respect to the purposes for which American "shermen may 

 enter British ports, it provides no forfeiture or penalty for any such 

 entry, unless accompanied either (1) by fishing, or preparing to fish, 

 within the prohibited limits; or (2) by the infringement of restric- 

 tions that may be imposed by Orders in Council to prevent such fish- 

 ing, or the drying or curing of fish, or the abuse of privileges reserved 

 by the Treaty; or (3) by a refusal to depart from the bays or har- 

 bours upon proper requisition. 



It thus plainly appears that it was not the intention of Parliament, 

 nor its understanding of the Treaty, that any other entry by an Amer- 

 ican fishing vessel into a British port should be regarded as an infrac- 

 tion of its provisions, or as affording the basis of proceedings 

 against it. 



No other Act of Parliament for the carrying out of this Treaty has 

 ever been passed. It is unnecessary to point out that it is not in the 

 power of the Canadian Parliament to enlarge or alter the provisions 

 of the Act of the Imperial Parliament, or to give to the Treaty either 

 a construction or a legal effect not warranted by that Act. 



But until the effort which I am informed is now in progress in the 

 Canadian Parliament for the passage of a new Act on this subject, 

 introduced since the seizures under consideration, I do not understand 

 that any Statute has ever been enacted in that Parliament which 

 attempts to give any different construction or effect to the Treaty 

 from that given by the Act of 59 George III. 



The only Provincial Statutes which, in the proceedings against the 

 " David J. Adams," that vessel has thus far been charged with in- 

 fringing are the Colonial Acts of 1868, 1870, and 1883. It is there- 

 fore .fair to presume that there are no other Colonial Acts applicable 

 to the case, and I know of none. 



The Act of 1868, among other provisions not material to this dis- 

 cussion, provides for a forfeiture of foreign vessels " found fishing, 

 or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing in British waters within 

 three marine miles of the coast; " and also provides a penalty of $400 

 against a master of a foreign vessel within the harbour who shall fail 

 to answer questions put in an examination by the authorities. No 

 other Act is, by this Statute, declared to be illegal, and no other pen- 

 alty or forfeiture is provided for. 



The very extraordinary provisions in this Statute for facilitating 

 forfeitures, and embarrassing defence against or appeal from them, 

 not material to the present case, would, on a proper occasion, deserve 

 very serious attention. 



The Act of 1870 is ^n amendment of the Act just referred to, and 

 adds nothing to it affecting the present case. 



The Act of 1883 has no application to the case, except upon the 

 point of the omission of the vessel to report to the Customs Officer, 

 already considered. 



It results, therefore, that, at the time of the seizure of the " David 

 J. Adams " and other vessels, there was no Act whatever, either of 

 the British or Colonial Parliaments which made the purchase of bait 

 by those vessels illegal or provided for any forfeiture, penalty, or 

 proceedings against them for such transaction. And even if such 

 purchase could be regarded as a violation of that clause of the Treaty 



