BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 355 



Cross-examined by Mr. Howley, Costello said the Ralph L. Hall 

 hailed from Gloucester, was fishing at Woods Island, and that Woods 

 Island was situate between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands, on Treaty 

 Coast. 



James Collins stated that he was tide waiter on board the Fiona, 

 and, generally, corroborated the previous evidence. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Howley, Collins said the Fiona was about 

 200 yards from the schooner. He had a glass, and in the broad light 

 of day he was watching the movements of the men on the schooner. 

 His orders were to be " on the watch," and he carried them out to 

 the best of his ability. He did not know that part of his duty as 

 tide waiter was to watch fishermen who sold herring, but he did it. 

 He supposed the Government paid his salary, as cheques came from 

 that source. Everybody on the Fiona was " watching." 



Mr. Howley, for defence, stated that he would content himself with 

 proving that his clients were part of the crew of the schooner Ralph 

 L. Hall, and asked for a short recess in order to consult his clients, 

 whom he had no chance of conversing with previously. The magis- 

 trate (Levi March, esq.) granted a short recess for that purpose. 

 After consultation, Mr. Howley called George Crane, who testified 

 that he was a fisherman, belonging to Woods Island, fishing for Cap- 

 tain Hall, of the schooner Ralph L. Hall. He was shipped on Thurs- 

 day, November 8th, outside three-mile limit, and on Monday was 

 catching herring at Woods Island for Captain Hall. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Kent, K. C., Crane said he went outside the 

 limit in the schooner Lucy, three miles outside Wiebald. Was en- 

 gaged to ship for $1 per barrel, boats and gear being all found by the 

 schooner. 



Alex. Dubois' evidence was to the same effect. He was one of the 

 crew of the Ralph L. Hall, and fishing for her. 



At the conclusion of the defendants' evidence, Mr. Howley ad- 

 dressed the court, and asked that the charges against the accused be 

 dismissed. First, on the ground that defendants had not violated any 

 statute, or been guilty of any breach of the Act. He argued that, 

 while the Bait Act provided a penalty for taking fish, section 22 pro- 

 vides that subjects of States in amity with His Majesty are exempt 

 from penalty. He submitted that the United States of America, 

 being in amity with Great Britain, her subjects were not liable to be 

 penalized under the Bait Act. He further contended that the United 

 States has express and properly defined rights on the coast, including 

 the scene of action at Woods Island. The Bait Act expressly ex- 

 cepted Americans from its provisions, was directed solely against the 

 French at the time of its enactment, and was never intended to be 

 employed against Americans. Mr. Howley argued that the defend- 

 ants had been regularly engaged by Americans without the jurisdic- 

 tion of Newfoundland; that they were, to all intents and purposes, 

 American subjects, certainly American servants, and so removed from 

 the control of Colonial laws or officials. The herring fishery had 

 been conducted from time immemorial without any interference by 

 Newfoundland. The men who fished on American vessels were not 

 Americans, but Danes, Swedes, Irishmen, Nova Scotians, Russians, 

 Jews, and almost every nationality on the face of the earth. It was 

 never intended by the Act to define who should be shipped, and if the 

 accused were punished it simply meant that every nation could fish 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 6 31 



