2106 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



stringent ; and he also inserts this clause, which is in italics in the 

 copy in the British Case Appendix on p. 238 : 



" It will be observed, that the warning formerly given is not re- 

 quired under the amended Act, but that vessels are liable to seizure 

 without such warning." 



Well, now is it not plain that the whole subject-matter to which the 

 circular related was the non-treaty coast, and that it had no refer- 

 ence whatever to the treaty coast? That the regulations for the pres- 

 ervation of the Canadian fisheries, which the fishermen of the United 

 States were said by Mr. Boutwell to be bound to respect to the same 

 extent to which they are applicable to British or Canadian fishermen, 

 are the regulations in force and effect prescribed by these statutes for 

 the preservation of the fisheries on the non-treaty coast to which the 

 circular related, and in which he desired to warn American fisher- 

 men against incurring the penalties of these statutes which related 

 to the non-treaty coast, and only to the non-treaty coast. These stat- 

 utes were statutes for the preservation of their fisheries. They were 

 statutes to prevent American fishing-vessels coming in under the 

 colour of the right of shelter and repairs, and wood and water, and 

 taking without leave or license, by device and deceit, the benefit of 

 the Canadian fisheries away from the Canadians. Those statutes 

 were binding upon our fishermen. 



JUDGE GRAY : Would they or would they not have been binding if 

 they had not referred to the preservation of the fisheries? If they 



had been merely acts of exclusion ? 



1274 SENATOR ROOT: Unless they excluded in contravention of 

 the four purposes; except, within the limits of the treaty 

 right to enter for those four purposes on what we call the non- 

 treaty coast, all those laws were binding upon the Americans who 

 went in there of course. 



Now, to take a circular issued with express reference to one thing, 

 limited to express terms to one thing, take the lanrruage of it and 

 carry it over and apply it to something else, cannot add much 

 strength to a case. 



THE PRESIDENT: And American fishermen fishing in these waters 

 without violating any of these regulations for the preservation of 

 the fisheries would be punishable for the act of fishing itself, without 

 having violated any of the acts concerning the preservation of the 

 fisheries? Would the boat of an American fisherman have been for-' 

 f cited if he had fished in non-treaty waters, without having violated 

 any one of these regulations? 



SENATOR ROOT: He could not fish in non-treaty waters without 

 violating. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. but if he did? 



$ENATOR BOOT : Fishing would be a violation. 



