ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWAftT. 134? 



one, which is completely in pari materid) as to whether those stat- 

 utes did not prohibit fishing by aliens, although fishing for some- 

 body else. 



813 THE PRESIDENT: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the last 

 proviso clause in section 2 of the statute of 1819 on the page 

 just preceding p. 565 of the British Case Appendix, at the end of 

 section 2: 



" provided that nothing in this Act contained shall apply, or be con- 

 strued to apply to the ships or subjects of any Prince, Power or 

 State in amity with His Majesty, who are entitled by treaty with 

 His Majesty to any privilege of taking, drying or curing fish on the 

 coasts, bays, creeks or harbours, or within the limits in this Act 

 described." 



What might be the reason that, besides the " subjects of any Prince, 

 Power or State " they also mention the " ships " ? Of course, in a 

 treaty with the United States the expression " subjects " is not quite 

 correct; it should be " inhabitants " instead of " subjects." 



MR. EWART : It should be " inhabitants " ; yes, Sir. 



THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it is not a great difference. But what 

 might be the reason that, besides the " subjects," the " ships " are also 

 mentioned here? 



MR. EWART: The President will observe that this section relates 

 to the non-treaty shores, and provides for the prohibition of persons 

 not natural-born subjects of His Majesty in any foreign ship, vessel, 

 or boat from fishing in non-treaty waters. Then the proviso to 

 which you referred is that nothing in the Act is to 



" be construed to apply to the ships or subjects of any Prince, Power 

 or State in amity with His Majesty, who are entitled by treaty with 

 His Majesty to any privilege of taking, drying or curing fish on the 

 coasts, bays, . . ." 



The word " ships " evidently goes back to the word " ships " in the 

 first part of the first clause: 



" That from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful 

 for any person or persons, not being a natural born subject of His 

 Majesty, in any foreign ship, vessel or boat, nor for any person . . ." 



The President will see that the clause is somewhat comprehensive, 

 and for the purposes of the first clause would properly include the 

 word " ships," and therefore when the proviso is reached it includes 

 the word " ships." That is what suggests itself to me, Sir. 



I think it advisable (because these statutes are a little compli- 

 cated) to ask permission to make a little summary of the effect of 

 them, as I have presented them to the Tribunal. First, there seem 

 to have been in England, Wales, and Berwick, prior to 1699, for- 

 eigners available for employment as fishermen. Second, those for- 



