2214 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Now, on the subject of light and harbour dues, these are no restric- 

 tions at all. It is perfectly plain that they cannot be imposed under 

 this question, because they do not come within the purview of this 

 renunciation clause. There is nothing in requiring a man to pay 

 light, or harbour, or any other kind of dues, which tends in any way 

 to restrict the taking, drying, or curing of fish, or to prevent the 

 abuse of privileges; unless it be upon the theory, which sometimes 

 happens in domestic affairs, that by taking a man's money away 

 from him you may keep him from going off and getting into trouble. 

 There is no other conceivable way in which the exaction of this 

 money from the master of an American fishing-vessel can be deemed 

 to come within the terms of the treaty which provides for making 

 him subject to " such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their 

 taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner what- 

 ever, abusing the privileges thereby reserved to them." 



I wish to make one observation about both Questions 3 and 4. 

 Whatever may be required in the way of report, declaration, identi- 

 fication, or, on the non-treaty coast, regulation of intercourse with 

 the shore, should be of course, of such a character as not to pre- 

 vent the exercise of the treaty right. We made very serious objection 

 to some provisions of this Act of 1905 of Newfoundland, objections 

 to which the British Government gave their practical assent. The 

 provisions objected to in form, were directed solely to the prevention 

 of something which, very likely, they had a right to prevent; that 

 is certain trade transactions, the purchase of fish, or the purchase 

 of nets and implements of fishing which, I say, very likely, they 

 had a right to prevent. I put in " very likely " because it might 

 depend upon your decision under Question 1, and I do not want to 

 ignore that. But those provisions to which I refer in the Act of 

 1905, while directed only to the prevention of certain trade, author- 

 ised the local officer to go on board of any fishing-vessel, take it into 

 port, take it away from the fishing ground, subject the master to 

 examination and the vessel to search for the purpose of ascertaining 

 whether he had on board any fish, or fishing gear, the purchase of 

 which was prohibited, and whether he had purchased any fish or 

 fishing gear, and provided that the presence of any fish or fishing 

 gear on board should be primd facie evidence that he had purchased 

 it. Those provisions, though directed to the enforcement of a 

 statute which I am not now contesting the right of Newfoundland 

 to make, were provisions which plainly interfered with and pre- 

 vented the exercise of the fishing right, because they took the ship 

 away and put it in a position where it might be impossible to pre- 

 vent it from being condemned, and made the mere presence upon 

 the ship of the very things which the ship was entitled to have on 

 board as a result of its fishing enterprise, the implements which 



