QUESTION ONE. 27 



was done under it. And having thus reduced the statute to the limits 

 of the Order-in-Council, it argues that the treaty must, for like 

 reasons, be reduced to the limits of the statute. 



2. Acceptance of such method of argument would lead to the con- 

 clusion, not, as the United States Case puts it, that the statute 

 " was intended to authorize the adoption of regulations for the pur- 

 pose of preventing interference " 



with United States citizens; but that the statute was intended to 

 authorise a notice to be sent to the Colonial authorities advising them 

 of the treaty and telling them to conform to it. 



3. The statute authorised both the making of regulations, and the 



giving of the notice. The Order-in-Council of 1819 made no 

 33 regulations ; but the power to make them nevertheless remained 

 and still remains. 



4. The United States Case says that the (United States Case, 

 P- 72)- 



" section of the act has never been interpreted in such orders as 

 authorizing the imposition of regulations upon American fishermen.' 3 

 The " every instance " of making regulations consists (so far as 

 cited by the United States Case) of the Orders-in- Council of 1819 

 and 1907 above alluded to. But the Case omits to. mention the regu- 

 lations of the Newfoundland statutes to which it is objecting, which 

 were passed prior to 1907; and which the Order-in-Council of 1907 

 merely mitigated. And it omits to mention that for more than 

 twenty years United States fishermen have conformed to the colonial 

 regulations requiring them to take out licences prior to purchasing 

 bait or transhipping fish, &c., in British territory. 



JOINT REGULATIONS. 



The United States Case calls attention to the various occasions upon 

 which the British Government invited the co-operation of the United 

 States in framing regulations for the coast-fisheries. A short refer- 

 ence to these occasions will show, not only that the British Govern- 

 ment has been willing to consult with the United States upon a sub- 

 ject which is of great moment to the inhabitants of both countries, 

 but has urged consultation upon the United States while, at the same 

 time, always reserving its own sovereign rights. 



Prior to the treaty of 1818, at the time when Lord Bathurst was 

 evincing a disposition to make some concession to United States fisher- 

 men in view of the hardship caused to them by the loss of the fishing 

 privileges, his Lordship observed to Mr. Adams that he hoped that 

 the United States might be induced (United States Case, p. 34) 



" amicably and cordially, to co-operate with His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment in devising such regulations as shall prevent the recurrence of 

 similar inconveniences," 



