1404 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



THE PRESIDENT : And this provision abolishing Sunday repose has, 

 in turn, been abolished by the Act of 1824, if I understand rightly. 

 Is that right or am I wrong in that supposition? The whole matter 

 is very much entangled, but one could think that the effect of the Act 

 of the 3rd June, 1824, is to re-establish the Sunday repose which had 

 been abolished by the Act of 1775. I do not know whether that is 

 the fact or not. 



MR. EWART : I do not know what the law would have been at that 

 time. Now the repeal of a repealing statute does not set up the old 

 statute. 



THE PRESIDENT: It does not? 



MR. EWART: It does not now. The interpretation Act of our 

 statutes so provides, but I do not know what would be the effect of 

 it at that time. 



THE PRESIDENT: That would have no effect upon Sunday repose? 



MR. EWART : It may perhaps be sufficient to say that this Act of 

 1824 repealed the Act which established the Sunday prohibition, as 

 well as the 1775 one, so that the statute establishing the prohibition 

 of Sunday fishing is repealed as well as the statute which repealed it. 

 and therefore it is finally gone. 



In connection with the citation of this statute, I wish to say that 

 Senator Turner quoted from the Attorney-General of Newfoundland 

 to the effect that, at one period, there were no regulations in force in 

 Newfoundland. I submit that what the Attorney-General of New- 

 foundland obviously meant was that there were no local regulations. 

 He did not mean that there were no Imperial regulations. He was 

 reporting as to what regulations there were in Newfoundland, and 

 that is what he meant. He did not at all mean that this statute of 

 1824 was not in force. Obviously he would have been wrong if he 

 had so said. 



I pass to another point made by Senator Turner in connection with 

 the French shore, and the Tribunal is so familiar with this question 

 now that I shall not dwell upon it. Senator Turner argued that 

 848 because Great Britain had not assumed to make regulations 

 with reference to the French shore, she had thereby acknowl- 

 edged that she had no power to make regulations. Well, in reply to 

 that, there is not only the argument that the French claimed exclusive 

 rights there and, as a matter of practical operation, they really had 

 exclusive rights there, notwithstanding the dissent, or the claim 

 which Great Britain always made, but there is this also, that there 

 was very little necessity for regulations on that French shore. As 

 has been pointed out, the Newfoundlanders declared close seasons, as 

 to other shores, only in 1862; and regulations as to the manner of 

 carrying on the operations were not necessary when there was no co- 

 operation by the fishermen of the different nations. Where the Brit- 



