ARGUMENT OP ELIHTJ ROOT. 2045 



Now, as to the Statutes of Great Britain and her colonies : In the 

 first place there were proclamations in this Memorandum. Procla- 

 mations were succeeded by statutes and were superseded by statutes, 

 and had been superseded by statutes long years before these treaties 

 were made ; and in the printed Memorandum which the United States 

 has handed in your Honours will see that we have arranged these 

 Statutes and proclamations under the heads of the Colonies to which 

 they relate; Newfoundland by itself; Nova Scotia by itself; New 

 Brunswick by itself; Lower Canada by itself. 



JUDGE GRAY: That is the arrangement of the British Memoran- 

 dum, is it not? 



SENATOR ROOT : No, they put all before 1783 in a series, containing 

 all the countries, and then they put all between 1783 and 1818 in a 

 series, and then all after that in a series, so when you come to read 

 them there is a confusion of statutes with reference to their terri- 

 torial application. 



As an Appendix to this paper we insert an extract from a decision 

 of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in the year 1820, passing 

 upon the validity and effectiveness of one of these proclamations 

 which is printed in the British Case Appendix, and deciding that 

 the proclamations had not the force and effect of law. They are 

 gone. They are disposed of, as would naturally be the case. They 

 are in their nature but preliminaries to the establishment of Govern- 

 ment, and when a Governor has made a proclamation, and after- 

 wards the legislative body comes and covers the subject by its enact- 

 ment, of course that takes the place of the previous proclamation. 



Many of these proclamations were made during the intervals of 

 possession, which was afterwards given up by Great Britain to 

 France, and, of course, sovereignty or possession changing, the 

 proclamation in the previous occupation went by the board. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: That would not apply to proclama- 

 tions issued under statute, by authority of statute. 



SENATOR EOOT : No, it would not. 



Now, I will refer to the regulation of fishing in Newfoundland. I 

 will not detain you by going into all these details, because you have 

 them in print. I will state merely the conclusions which I draw 

 from them, and I hope you will not find that I have been unduly in- 

 fluenced by the attitude of counsel in drawing those conclusions, and 

 that what I say is sustained by the facts that are pointed out. 



I draw the conclusion first, that there was not, either in 1783 or in 

 1818, any regulation as to the time and manner of fishing on the 

 coasts of Newfoundland or Labrador. 



There had been in an Act of 15 Charles II, 1663, away back before 

 France ceded Newfoundland to Great Britain, by the Treaty of 



Appendix (J), infra, 1909. 



