322 APPENDIX TO BEITISH COUNTER CASE. 



No. 15. 1886, July 21 : Report of a Committee of the Honourable the 

 Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Gov- 

 ernor-General in Council. 



On a Report dated the 17th July, 1886, from the Honourable Mr. 

 Thompson, for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, submitting the 

 following observations in reference to the Act entitled "An Act fur- 

 ther to amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," which 

 was passed at its last Session by the Parliament of Canada, and which 

 has been reserved by your Excellency for the assent of Her Majesty 



the Queen. 



194 A full and careful consideration of the subject with which 

 the Act deals made apparent the necessity for such a measure 

 for the enforcement, within Canadian waters, of the Statutes which 

 have been already passed in the Imperial and Canadian Parliaments 

 for carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 between Great 

 Britain and the United States. 



The Statute 59, Gep. Ill, cap. 38, provides the penalty of forfeiture 

 as to any foreign fishing-vessels found fishing, or to have been fishing, 

 or preparing to fish within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, 

 creeks, or harbours in any part of Her Majesty's dominions in 

 America, &c. 



The Canadian Act of 1868 (chapter 61), entitled "An Act respect- 

 ing fishing by foreign vessels," and its amendments, followed the 

 Imperial Act and established the same penalty for the same offences. 

 For all other offences against the Treaty and against the Imperial 

 Act above referred to the only penalty now provided by Statute is 

 that mentioned in section 4 of the Imperial Act viz., the penalty of 

 200?., to be recovered in the Superior Courts. 



The Minister has had his attention called to the fact, that the ordi- 

 nary common law remedy for violation of a Statute, viz., indictment 

 as for a misdemeanour, is an unsuitable one for such cases, because 

 it would involve long personal imprisonment, even before trial (as 

 the defendants would generally be foreigners without available secur- 

 ity to offer for their appearance), and would after conviction be fol- 

 lowed in nearly all cases by a further term of imprisonment, as the 

 persons on whom the penalties would fall would probably be unable 

 to bear a considerable fine. 



It is obvious that the mere right to bring a suit against the masters 

 of offending fishing- vessels is a remedy of little or no avail. Before 

 Judgment for the 200Z. could be obtained, the persons sued would 

 be almost certain to be out of the jurisdiction of the Dominion Courts, 

 and the enforcement of the Judgment would for that reason become 

 in most cases impossible, even if the defendants possessed the means 

 from which the Judgment could be realized. 



The Minister submits that the penalty of forfeiture applied by the 

 2nd section of the Imperial Statute, and by the Canadian Act, to 

 the offence of fishing, &c., would be a suitable and most available 

 penalty for the infringement of the Statutes. 



It cannot be claimed by the United States Government to be an ex- 

 cessive or an unreasonable penalty, because, by Statute No. 85 of the 

 United States' Congress, lately assented to by the President of the 

 United States, the same penalty is established against foreign vessels, 

 whose masters, officers, or agents do any act which may be contrary 

 to any Proclamation issued under that Statute. 



