2064 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



* 



said fishery to have on board any goods, wares, or merchandise what- 

 ever, except such as may be necessary for the prosecution of the 

 fishery, or the support 01 the fishermen whilst engaged therein or in 

 the prosecution of their voyages to and from the said fishing grounds. 

 And any vessel of the United States which shall contravene this 

 regulation may be seized, condemned, and confiscated, together with 

 her cargo." 



That is putting the enforcement directly into the hands, 1 suppose, 



of the 



1249 SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : That is a customs regulation. 

 SENATOR ROOT: Yes. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: That is a customs regulation, not a 

 fishery regulation. 



JUDGE GRAY : It regulates fishing- vessels. 



SENATOR ROOT: It regulates fishing- vessels and subjects fishing- 

 vessels to the supervision and judgment of local officers; for of course 

 somebody has to determine whether the " goods, wares, or merchan- 

 dise on board of the fishing- vessel " are necessary for the transaction 

 of their fishery or the support of the fishermen. Somebody has to say 

 that ; and this regulation, I apprehend, was objected to because it put 

 the decision of that question in the hands of the local officer, who, if 

 he did not feel very kindly toward foreigners that were coming there 

 to take his neighbours' fish away, would be apt to find that they had 

 things on board which they did not need, just as in Canada there was 

 for a time applied the rule that a vessel under the renunciatory clause 

 could not go to the non-treaty coast for shelter, wood, and water, 

 unless she was actually in distress, and unless she brought wood and 

 water with her sufficient for her voyage, and had been unexpectedly 

 deprived of her store ; that is to say, they held that a vessel could not 

 come up to the coast with an insufficient supply of wood or water and 

 rely upon getting it there. It had got to be a case of real distress, 

 arising without premeditation in order to justify it. Of course that 

 did not last for many years. I think that was disposed of by the 

 opinion of the law officers of the Crown of 1839. 



These two were rejected by the United States, and the ground of 

 the objection is stated at p. 314 of the United States Case Appendix, 

 in a formal memorandum given by the United States Commissioners 

 to the British Commissioners. I read from the second paragraph on 

 p. 314. The American Commissioners say, regarding these pro- 

 posals : 



" The liberty of taking fish within rivers is not asked. A positive 

 clause to except them is unnecessary, unless it be intended to compre- 

 hend under that name waters which might otherwise be considered a- 

 bays or creeks. Whatever extent of fishing ground may be secured to 

 American fishermen, the American plenipotentiaries are not prepared 

 to accept it on a tenure or on conditions different from those on which 



