2086 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



3rd August. 1863, which appears in the United States Case Appendix 

 at p. 1082. This is headed: " Copy of a despatch from the Secretary 

 of State for the Colonies in reply to a request from the Governor that 

 a copy of a draft bill for regulating the fisheries may be looked 

 over, and any parts pointed out, such as probably might not be sanc- 

 tioned by the Crown." 



This is the year after the Act of 1862 was passed that first Act 

 regulating the fisheries. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Are these words in italics on the orig- 

 inal document? 



SENATOR BOOT: Well, I really do not know. Mr. Anderson can 

 tell. Mr. Anderson calls attention to the fact that there is a pn-red 

 ing line: "Extracts from the journal of the Legislative Assembly <>l 

 Newfoundland, 1864." That is where we got it. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT: And these words that I have read appear in that 

 journal. I suppose they are the description of the despatch by the 

 clerk or secretary, or whoever made up the journal; but it appears 

 to be a correct description or syllabus of the letter. 



The Duke acknowledges the letter of the Governor, and the copy 

 of the proceedings of the committee appointed to inquire into the 

 state of the fisheries, together with a draft Bill, and says: 



" I apprehend thai it is not your expectation that I should express 

 an opinion respecting the practical modes of conducting those 

 fisheries." 



And then he says: 



"The observations which suggest themselves to me, however, on 

 the perusal of the draft bill are 



" 1st. That if any misconception exists in Newfoundland respect- 

 ing the limits of the colonial jurisdiction, it would be desirable thai 

 it should be put at rest by embodying in the act a distinct settlement 

 that the regulations contained in it are of no force except within 

 three miles of the shore of the colony." 



I would stop on that if I were arguing Question 5 now; but I 

 am not. 



" 2nd. That no act can be allowed which prohibits expressly, or is 

 calculated by a circuitous method to prevent, the sale of bait. 



" 3rd. That all fishing acts should expressly declare that their pro- 

 visions do not extend or interfere with any existing treaties with any 

 foreign nation in amity with Great Britain. 



" 4th. That, in any part of the colonial waters, it would be highly 

 unjust and inconvenient to impose upon British fishermen restric- 

 tions which could not, without violating existing treaties, be imposed 

 upon foreigners using the same fisheries. On this point, however, I 

 would refer you to my despatch, marked 'confidential,' of the 2nd 

 of February." 



That we have not. 



