QUESTION THREE AND FOUfc. 35 



and accidental violation where no harm was done, which is both 

 unusual and unnecessary, whereby the voyages of vessels have been 

 broken up and heavy penalties incurred. That the liberal and rea- 

 onable construction of these laws that had prevailed for many years, 

 and to which the fishermen had become accustomed, was changed 

 without any notice given. And that every opportunity of unneces- 

 sary interference with the American fishing vessels, to - the prejudice 

 and destruction of their business, has been availed of. Whether in 

 any of these cases, a technical violation of some requirement of law 

 had, upon close and severe construction, taken place, it is not easy 

 to determine. But if such rules were generally enforced in such a 

 manner in the ports of the world, no vessel could sail in safety with- 

 out carrying a solicitor versed in the intricacies of revenue and port 

 regulations. 



" It is unnecessary to specify the various cases referred to, as the 

 facts in many of them have been already laid before Her Majesty's 

 Government." 



The United States did not demand, and it certainly was not 

 agreed, that American fishermen should be relieved from observing 

 the requirements of the Canadian Customs Laws. 



CUSTOMS ON TREATY COASTS. 



With reference to customs entries and harbour dues on treaty 

 coasts, the United States Case contains no statement of the grounds 

 upon which it is contended that such exactions are in violation of the 

 treaty, except so far as they can be gathered from the correspondence 

 of 1905, to which reference has already been made. 



It is therefore not deemed necessary to add anything on this point 

 to what has been said in the Case delivered on behalf of His Majesty's 

 Government. 



