1532 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



and in America, without question, was overturned by this decision in 

 Oregon in 1887. The excerpts from the decision do not make it en- 

 tirely plain what the case turns upon, but apparently it was the con- 

 struction of a deed given by the owner of land to other parties, of the 

 rights of hunting in that property to the grantee, his heirs and 

 assigns. It was the construction of that deed which the Court re- 

 garded as the turning-point in that case. The terms of it are set 

 out. It seems that the complainant had himself issued licenses and 

 sent all sorts of people into this property ; they treated the owners of 

 the property with great contempt and insult, and apparently the con- 

 troversy arose in that way, as the Court suggests. The Court holds 

 in that case that the termination of the grant was justified. From the 

 language of these excerpts it appears that : 



"A grant of this description is construed by the Court. The Court 

 is therefore of the opinion that such permits were unauthorized and 

 not within the purview of the privilege granted." 



So that the complainant himself was guilty of a breach of this con- 

 tract. It can go no farther than a construction of that contract. 



Well now, the case of Wickham v. Hawker is referred to. The 



learned counsel admits that this American case did not over-rule it, 



and it did not. Apparently no dissent is suggested to that case. 



There does not seem to be, in the Judges' opinion, any intention to 



qualify or to express disapproval of it. That this is a busi- 



927 ness to be carried on for profit is shown by the cases of 1669 



and 1775 to which I have referred, and Mr. Ewart expressly 



so stated himself. 



It is interesting to note that it is not only a fishing for profit, or for 

 the serving of the inhabitants of the United States with food fish, 

 but that it was clearly a business which was to be conducted with 

 foreign countries as well. For instance, in 1793, the 24th April, a 

 committee of the House of Commons of Great Britain was appointed 

 to inquire into the state of the trade to Newfoundland (United States 

 Counter-Case Appendix, p. 562), and I want to stop to turn to that. 

 I have the excerpt written out, but it can be verified : 



"As they " 



The United States fishermen 



" can build and fit out ships cheaper, pay less for their provisions, 

 and less wages to their seamen and Fishermen than the British trader 

 can or does, they can sell their Fish for a less price than he can afford 

 to take, and they have accordingly almost beat out the British traders 

 from all the markets on the coast of the Atlantic; and although the 

 Barbary States are at war with them, they find means to procure 

 Mediterranean passes through their friends in Novia Scotia, to pro- 

 tect them in carrying their Fish within the Streights, where it is pre- 

 ferred to the Newfoundland bank Fish." 



