ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2069 



determined or was repealed, all the statutes that it had repealed re- 

 vived. So that when the statute of 1824 expired, all the repealed 

 statutes therein contained revived. Otherwise Newfoundland would 

 have been left without regulation at all. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Without legislation at all without 

 anything? 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Without legislation, yes. But, in fact, 

 of course, all these statutes continued, and the law officers of New- 

 foundland were all right when they said there were no local regula- 

 tions; because there had been no local regulations since 1834. But 

 the whole of the antecedent imperial legislation continued and was in 

 full force. 



I hope Mr. Root will forgive me for making this statement at this 



time. I did not wish to interrupt him while he was speaking. 



1252 and I thought I had better mention it now, so that if he wishes 



to deal with it at a later period in his argument, he will have 



an opportunity to do so. 



[Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p. m., the Tribunal took a recess until 

 2.15 o'clock p. m.] 



AFTERNOON SESSION, MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1910, 2.15 P. M. 



THE PRESIDENT : Will you please to continue, Mr. Senator Root ? 



SENATOR ROOT: Regarding the subject of which the Attorney-Gen- 

 eral spoke just at the time of adjournment, my remarks were ad- 

 dressed solely to the question of the continuance of the statute of 

 1824, and the question as to whether the expiration of that statute 

 in the year 1834 resulted in reviving the statutes which it had re- 

 pealed, was one that I did not address myself to, and it does not seem 

 to be a matter of any particular consequence upon the issues in this 

 case, because those statutes contained no regulation of fisheries in 

 Newfoundland. The situation as it existed when the Act of 1824 was 

 passed was that there were no regulations in respect of the time and 

 manner of taking fish in Newfoundland. 



It may be an interesting question, although not material to this con- 

 troversy, as to whether the limitation of the statute applies to the 

 repeal ; the statute of 1824 is an Act to repeal several laws relating 

 to the fisheries carried on upon the banks and shores of Newfound- 

 land, and to make provision for the better conduct of the said fisheries 

 for five years. That is the title. It recites: 



" Whereas it is expedient to repeal and amend divers statutes and 

 laws relating to the fisheries," 



And so on. 



Now, whether the limitation of time would operate as a limita- 

 tion upon that apparently executed provision of the statute so as 



