396 MISCELLANEOUS 



bition, the Act prohibits even the procuring, havirg in the posses- 

 sion for the purpose of exportation, receiving in barter, assisting 

 in taking, shipping, &e. The words being plain and obvious, are 

 not to be curtailed in their meaning by reason of any hardship they 

 impose, or because of the inability of persons to comply with their 

 requirements. The prohibition contained in Section 1 is too clear 

 and absolute to admit of any doubt, and there is nothing to show 

 that the appellants can claim exemption from it. 



The Attorney-General, in his argument, has drawn our attention 

 to the fact that this Act has to some extent been the subject of judi- 

 cial interpretation. In Hann v. Sullivan (Newfoundland Law Re- 

 ports, 1894) the late Chief Justice in delivering judgment, after 

 pointing out that in the particular year with which he was dealing, 

 only three forms of licenses were authorised by the Governor in 

 Council, viz. : a license to local fishermen permitting the hauling or 

 catching and selling of bait-fishes, a license to vessels belonging to 

 the Colony prosecuting the deep sea fishery, and a license to foreign 

 fishermen or fishing vessels, makes the following comment: 



" Up to the month of June no other kind of license was permitted 

 to be issued, and no form of license for the exportation of bait-fishes 

 was issued or sent to officers to be issued, preceding or during the 

 season now in question, and consequently there was an entire sus- 

 pension of authority to export bait-fishes in that year." 



In adjudicating on the rights of the parties in this case, it has not 

 been necessary for us to enter upon a consideration of the arguments 

 addressed to us by counsel, as to the interpretation of the Convention 

 made in 1818 between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of 

 America. I may observe that Chapter 129 recognizes the rights ac- 



?uired by the inhabitants of the United States under this Convention, 

 or it contains a provision, common to our fishery legislation, to the 

 effect that nothing in the Chapter is " to affect the rights and privi- 

 leges granted by Treaty to the subjects of any State in amity with His 

 Majesty." The appellants, however, do not possess any treaty rights, 

 as they are British subjects, resident in this Colony. Whether " in- 

 habitants of the United States " who " in common with the subjects 

 of His Britannic Majesty " possess " the liberty to take fish of every 

 kind " on certain parts of the coasts of Newfoundland, could lawfully 

 have shipped bait-fish on board the Ralph L. Hall at Woods Island 

 without a special license, is immaterial, and cannot affect the rights or 

 liabilities of the appellants. It is not competent for us to consider 

 whether under the Treaty of Washington, which has since expired, it 

 was the practice of United States fishing vessels to purchase bait- fish 

 from local fishermen, before there was any restriction upon the sale of 

 bait, and when vessels of any nationality could have bought what 

 bait-fish they desired, for it was with the object of putting an end to 

 the conditions which then obtained with respect to the traffic in bait, 

 that the Statute was passed. It is impossible for the appellants to set 

 up that the acts complained of were covered by any Treaty right. The 

 appellants did not form any part of the crew of the Ralph L. flail. 

 The attempted engagement of these men by this foreign fishing vessel 

 was absolutely void, being in contravention of the Statute law of this 

 Colony. By the Statute, 5 Edward VII., Cap. 4, Section 1, it is de- 

 clared illegal for the master of a foreign fishing vessel to " engage or 



