BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 395 



or form part of their exportation or sale. It declared it to be unlaw- 

 ful to sell bait-fishes to another, not having a license under the Act, 

 who purposed shipping or exporting them; and throws upon the 

 party accused the onus of proof that the bait-fishes were not intended 

 for shipment or exportation. It makes it an offence for a man to 

 have in his possession bait-fishes intended for exportation. 



The putting on board, because it is one of the incidents of exporta- 

 tion, is an act which the Legislature has expressly aimed to prevent. 

 The interpretation of " vessel " too, is given in most general and 

 unrestricted terms. 



It has been argued that no license is provided for persons in the 

 position of the appellants. So far as Statutable provision is con- 

 cerned the authority conferred by Section 2 of the Act is ample, and 

 the complement of Sub-section 4 of Section 1 is to be found in the 

 sub-sections of Section 2 which I have before quoted. 



Then it is argued that although there were nine purposes for which, 

 according to Section 2, licenses might be issued, the Governor in 

 Council had only prescribed two forms of license. These forms, how- 

 ever, purport to deal only with specific purposes, and leave untouched 

 other matters, and it is not a legitimate inference that a limitation to 

 the scope of the Act is to be implied from this fact. In support of 

 the contention that the appellants do not come within the scope of 

 the Act, it has been said that persons in their position were unable to 

 comply with the requirements of the fifth and seventh sections. To 

 say that the Act does not apply to persons because they have no con- 

 trol over the movements of the vessel on board of which they put bait, 

 or the final disposition of the cargo, would be to place upon the 

 Statute a very restricted application. It was not necessary for the 

 appellants to possess such control in order to comply with the section. 

 They were bound to make inquiry, and satisfy themselves as to the 

 purpose for which the bait-fishes were required, and place themselves 

 in a position to comply with the provisions of the Act. 



The words of the Statute import an absolute prohibition against 

 certain acts being done without a license issued under the authority 

 of the Governor in Council. 



The question for the determination of the Court in the present 

 appeal is whether the appellants having put herring on board the 

 Ralph L. Hall without a license have been guilty of an infraction 

 of Sub-section 4 of one of the Chapters. 



It is to be observed that the sub-section is not only directed against 

 every person who " takes, ships or puts or hauls on board any vessel " 

 any bait-fish, but governs the case of persons who " assist in taking, 

 shipping or putting or hauling on board of any ship or vessel, bait- 

 fishes for any purpose whatever, without a license." 



Whether the defendants might have been prosecuted under the 

 Chapter for selling bait for the purpose of exportation to a person 

 not holding a license, is beside the question. The issue here is simply 

 was it necessary for them to have held a license from the Governor 

 in Council for the purpose, before they put the bait- fish on board 

 the vessel? 



The language of the section is most comprehensive, and indicates 

 that the intention of the Act was to prohibit the putting of bait- 

 fishes on board vessels under any circumstances, unless by the author- 

 ity of a license. To prevent any evasion of this statutable prohi- 



