ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1401 



I do not think that anyone would argue that that is the only 

 restriction that could be imposed upon them.. There is a provision 

 an unnecessary provision, I think that they are not to interfere 

 with the rights of private property or the peaceable use of any part 

 of the coasts by people in occupation. It was unnecessary to put 

 that in, but having been put in, I do not think that any one would 

 argue that no other restrictions could be placed upon them. 



I wish to make just one or two observations with reference to the 

 statute and Order-in-Council of 1819, upon which Senator Turner 

 relied so strongly. But before coming to that, perhaps I had better 

 refer to a passage in Lord Bathurst's instructions to the Governor of 

 Newfoundland (British Case Appendix, at p. 99), as it antedated 

 the statute and Order-in-Council. The passage I refer to seemed to 

 indicate that in Lord Bathurst's opinion the regulations that had 

 been in force before the treaty of 1818 should be enforced afterwards 

 on the shores of Labrador : 



" With respect to the fishery which the citizens of the United States 

 are authorised to carry on upon the coast of Labrador you will take 

 care that it be carried on by them within the specified limits in the 

 same manner as previous to the late war with the United States, 

 taking every precaution however against that introduction of'contra- 

 band articles into Newfoundland or His Majesty's possessions, in 

 North America to which it was previous to the war notoriously per- 

 verted." 



The gist of Senator Turner's remarks with reference to the Statute 

 and Order-in-Council of 1819 was, as I understood him, that their 

 limited nature would tend to show that Great Britain did not believe 

 that she could make regulations concerning the fisheries. It must 

 be noted, however, that Great Britain enacted no " restrictions," such 

 as I have been speaking of, and yet it could not be argued that she 

 had no power, or that she thought she had no power, to provide 

 such restrictions. Under power expressly given her by treaty she 

 has never passed any law in reference to these restrictions, and yet 

 the absence of such laws cannot be used for the purpose for which 



the Senator uses the absence of other regulations. 

 846 This further observation is important, that Great Britain 

 could not have had any idea that she had no power to make 

 these regulations. She had made regulations between 1783 and 1818, 

 and there is no indication anywhere that she got the idea that she 

 could not do it in the future. So far from there being any such indi- 

 cation, the fact is that the statute of 1824 (passed just five years 

 afterwards) to which I referred this morning, shows quite clearly 

 that Great Britain had not the idea that the treaty of 1818 took away 

 the right of regulating the right which she had constantly exer- 

 cised anc i she proceeded to pass that statute of 1824. 



