1620 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Then comes the third division, which, from the British point of 

 view, does not matter. It is after the war of 1812, but still the same 

 regulations are in force. Then we have the regulations in New 

 Brunswick. Of course that would not affect the United States, ex- 

 cept uncler the treaties of 1854 and 1871; but, however, they are all 

 here. So, in the same way, we have the laws of Lower Canada and 

 Newfoundland. There was a very important statute of Newfound- 

 land passed in 1824, to which the attention of the Tribunal has 

 already been drawn specially; questions were asked upon it, I think, 

 both by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and Mr. Justice Gray. Then there 

 is the Act of 1838, the Act of 18G2, and so on ; however, that, I con- 

 sider, is not very material. I am not going to trouble very much 

 over that long controversy which followed upon the treaty, and which 

 has been dealt with with such extraordinary care and skill by my 

 learned friend, Mr. Ewart, because, although it is all-important. I 

 think he has done that part of the work, and I shall not now concern 

 myself with it at all. 



But, now, this shows how complete and full the exercise of our 

 jurisdiction was at every material stage and upon every material 

 point. Mr. Turner could not get over that. He does not get over 

 it. He could do much, and he did much ; but the facts being all the 

 other way they remain just where they were. In spite of every- 

 thing counsel could do or say of them, and about them and around 

 them, there they still are, and after Mr. Turner's speech these regu- 

 lations still remain, and they are not disposed of at all. 



They are not obsolete. Why should they become obsolete? They 

 were necessary. If Mr. Turner were going to prove that these stat- 

 utes were obsolete, nobody knows better than he does the way in 

 which he should set about doing it. If Providence had given him 

 the facts he would say that they had become superfluous ; that these 

 regulations had ceased to be applicable; that the people had ignored 

 them ; that they had forgotten them. Nothing of the kind is shown. 

 It is only suggested by mere affirmation, not suggested in the evidence 

 or in the argument not a word to show that they are obsolete. We 

 have laws that are much more ancient than these are in this old 

 Empire of ours, but we do not find them obsolete. We find that the 

 older they are the better they are. 



Now, at p. 2732 of the official report of the Argument [p. 449 

 supra] we find the following: 



" JUDGE GRAY : May I ask, Mr. Turner, if during that period they 

 undertook to impose, or did impose, any regulations on fishing hv 



either British subjects or American citizens? 



980 " MR. TURNER : They did not turn their attention to the sub- 

 ject of regulations at all, in their relation to either one or the 

 other." 



