AEGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2053 



Now, as to Nova Scotia : In 1770 it appears by this Memorandum 

 and by the Appendix to the British Case that there was a law passed 

 prohibiting the throwing of gurry overboard for 3 leagues from 

 the c"oast of Nova Scotia a police regulation, and of course not 

 applicable to anybody but the citizens of Nova Scotia, by the settled 

 principles of English law. A statute of that description, which in 

 terms extends beyond the territory of Great Britain, applies only to 

 the subjects of Great Britain. I will not stop to cite authorities 

 upon it. You will find the rule referred to by, I think, several of 

 the judges in the case of the Queen v. Keyn, which has been so often 

 cited here, 'in the Law Reports, 2 Exchequer Division, p. 63. It is 

 of no particular consequence. It was a police regulation. 



That is all there was in Nova Scotia in 1783. 



Then there was, in 1786, a law passed to amend an old Act against 

 obstructing the passage of fish in the rivers, an Act which by its 

 terms was to last but one year, and which in the preamble said that 

 it was an Act in addition to and amendment of an Act made in 

 the third year of the reign of his present Majesty George III, 

 entitled "An Act to prevent nuisances by hedges, weirs, and other 

 incumbrances obstructing the passage of fish in the rivers of this 

 province." 



That Act undertook to remedy this interference with the run of 

 fish up the rivers by authorising the local justices to make regula- 

 tions regarding the manner of placing nets and seines in rivers, 

 creeks, and so on. As I say, it lasted but one year ; and there is no 

 indication or evidence whatever that any such regulations were ever 

 made, or if they were ever made that they were applied, or if they 

 were ever applied that they were ever applied to any American. 



So, when we come down to 1818, there never had been a statute in 

 Nova Scotia which in any way affected the exercise of the liberty 

 granted to the United States by the treaty of 1783. 



Now, as to Prince Edward Island : There were no statutes of any 

 kind. There are none cited in the Memorandum. 



Lower Canada : Covering this great stretch of the Labrador coast 

 from the banks of the St. Lawrence (indicating on map). In 1783 

 there had been no statute whatever. In 1785 there was a statute 

 which related strictly to the regulation of the rights of the people 

 who landed and used the beach, the shore of the Bay of Chaleur; 

 and it did also contain a ballast provision against throwing offal into 

 the sea within 2 leagues of the shore extra-territorial. Of course 

 that was because the shore people did not want the offal to be washed 

 up on their shore, to be driven in, where it would become offensive. 

 I say this statute relates specifically to the people who came to use 

 the beach, the shore, on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleur, within 



