1346 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



be found in American fishing-vessels. It will be observed that it 

 permits the entry of American fishermen into British ports for 

 shelter ; but if there had been any idea that in those American vessels 

 there might be persons other than American fishermen, these other 

 persons would have been included in the permission. Nobody had 

 thought of such a thing, and the permission was given to American 

 fishermen only. 



I now wish to pass on to the first statute after the 1818 treaty, 

 namely, the statute of 1824 (British Case Appendix, p. 567). That 

 statute repealed the old statute of 1699 and certain portions of other 

 statutes. In section 2, in lieu of the section in the 1699 statute which 

 I have just commented upon, this statute provided as follows 



"And be it further enacted, That no Alien or Stranger whatsoever 

 shall at any Time hereafter take Bait, or use any sort of Fishing 

 whatsoever in Newfoundland, or the Coasts, Bays or Rivers thereof, 

 or on the Coast of Labrador, or in any of the Islands or Places 

 within or dependent upon the Government of the said Colony ; always 

 excepting the Rights and Privileges granted by Treaty to the Sub- 

 jects or Citizens of any Foreign State or Power in Amity with His 

 Majesty." 



That section calls for two observations. The Tribunal will observe, 

 in the first place, the word "whatsoever." The previous statute of 

 1699 prohibited aliens not residing in England, Wales, or Berwick. 

 This statute removes that exception. It applies to all aliens. The 

 second observation is with reference to an exception which is now 

 created for the first time because of the treaty between Great Britain 

 and the United States the last lines : 



" always excepting the Rights and Privileges granted by Treaty to 

 the Subjects or Citizens of any foreign State or Power in Amity with 

 His Majesty." 



Now, Sirs, it seems to me that the construction of that statute is 

 identical with the construction of the statute of 1699, that is that it 

 would apply to aliens, whether they were fishing for themselves or 

 fishing for somebody else. I will not recall or re-picture the trial, but 

 it does seem to me that if defence was set up to a prosecution under 

 this statute, that an alien, although actually fishing, was under en- 

 gagement to somebody else, that the defence w r ould be an extremely 

 bad one. And the only observations that are open, as I think, to the 

 United States with reference to this statute are two: It might say 

 that this statute was a breach of the treaty because it prohibited the 

 employment of persons who were non-inhabitants. But plainly it is 

 not a breach of the treaty, because it expressly saves all treaty rights. 

 And the only other observation, as it seems to me, would be that, not- 

 withstanding this statute, non-inhabitants could be employed, which 

 raises the point that I have discussed as to the 1699 statute (and this 



