1348 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



eigners were, by the statute of 1699 (British Case Appendix, p. 525), 

 permitted to fish at Newfoundland. All other foreigners were ex- 

 cluded, even if they resided in Jersey or Guernsey. Third, this 

 exclusion extended to these other foreigners, whether they desired to 

 fish for themselves or to fish for British subjects. Fourth, the stat- 

 utes of 1775, section 12 (British Case Appendix, p. 546), and of 

 1786, section 12 (British Case Appendix, p. 558), were directed 

 against the employment of British subjects by foreign fishermen, 

 even including the United States. Fifth, by the treaty of 1783, the 

 places of permitted residence of those who were to fish were extended 

 so as to include the United States. The joint effect of the statute of 

 1699, and the treaty of 1783, was that no aliens could fish unless they 

 resided in England, Wales or Berwick (by the statute) or the United 

 States (by the treaty). Sixth, the statute of 1824, section 2 (British 

 Case Appendix, p. 567), widened the scope of the prohibition against 

 fishing, by removing the exception of the statute of 1699 in favour 

 of foreigners residing in England, Wales, and Berwick. After the 

 statute of 1824, all foreigners, other than those having treaty rights, 

 were prohibited from fishing, whether they resided in England or 

 not. Seventh, the joint effect, therefore, of the treaty of 1783, and the 

 statute of 1824, was that no aliens could fish unless they resided in 

 the United States. Eighth, this prohibition extended to foreigners 

 whether they desired to fish for themselves, or to fish for persons who 

 had a right to fish. 



Now. Sirs, I wish to call the attention of the Tribunal to the close 



similarity existing between the 1824 statute, that I have just been 



referring to, and the Newfoundland statute of 1906 (British Case 



Appendix, p. 758). When I say statute of Newfoundland, the 



Tribunal will remember that that statute never really became 



814 operative, because of the modus vivendi between Great Britain 



and the United States. I read from p. 758 of the British 



Case Appendix, section 5 : 



" No alien, not so entitled by treaty or convention for the time 

 being in force, shall fish in the waters of this Colony ; " 



In effect it is the same as the British statute of 1824, passed almost 

 immediately after the treaty of 1818. Both of them prohibit aliens 

 from fishing. Both of them make an exception in favour of persons 

 having treaty rights. And if I have been correct in my assumption 

 that the statutes of 1699 and 1824 applied not only to persons desiring 

 to fish for themselves, but to persons desiring to fish for other people 

 who had rights, then I must be correct in saying that this statute 

 would have the same interpretation and the same effect. If so, it 

 seems to me that our case is established; because the United States 

 cannot say that this clause is a breach of the treaty, inasmuch as the 



