APPENDICES TO ORAL ARGUMENTS. 



2351 



Br. App. 597. 1799. 



39 Geo. Ill, c. 5. 



By Lieut. Cfover-nor, Council 

 and Assembly. 



Sect. 1. Eepeals Act of 1793 as 

 to County of Northumberland. 



In Bay of Miramichi and its 

 branches no net to be set in the 

 bay except as therein permitted 

 (elaborate provisions as to length 

 of nets in different places). No 

 net to be in water between sunset 

 Saturday and sunrise Monday. 



Sect. 2. Penalty on any person 

 who sets net in Miramichi Bay 

 except as permitted. 



Sect. 9. Magistrates to make 

 regulations for fishing in all other 

 rivers, coves and creeks in said 

 County. 



[N.B. Whole of Miramichi 

 Bay in the County.'] 



There is no evidence that the 

 Act was ever enforced against 

 American fishermen. 



"An Act for Regulating the 

 Fisheries in the County of Nor- 

 thumberland, 1799." 



Like the Act of 1793, which it 

 in part repealed, this Act is di- 

 rected to the regulation of shore 

 and river fisheries "in the Bay 

 and River Miramichi and its 

 branches." It defines certain pri- 

 vate fishing beaches and limits 

 the length of nets " to extend into 

 the Bay " from such beaches and 

 the length of nets " to extend into 

 the River " from defined lots on 

 its banks. 



The local character of the regu- 

 lations is shown by the provision 

 that no net was to be set along a 

 certain part of the shore " but by 

 the Acadian or other inhabitants 

 of lower Bay du Vin." Clearly 

 this provision shows that the act 

 was to apply only to local fisher- 

 men and not to American fisher- 

 men under the Treaty of 1783. 



In the Sunday prohibition, it is 

 stated " that this clause shall ex- 

 tend to the cross-net claimed by 

 the heirs of the late William Da- 

 vidson, Esq., at the Elm Tree in 

 the southwest branch of Mira- 

 michi river aforesaid." The lo- 

 cal character of the prohibition is 

 plainly shown. 



The defining of private fishing 

 rights on the inhabited shores of 

 Miramichi Bay and on the banks 

 of Miramichi River are not regu- 

 lation of the fisheries in general. 

 Their purpose was not to protect 

 the fish or to limit the vessel fish- 

 ery. The limitation upon nets 

 from the shore, on the contrary, 

 operated as a protection of the 

 fishing liberty of vessels by pre- 

 venting the nets from the shore 

 being unreasonably extended 

 therefrom. Nor did the provi- 

 sions interfere with the use of the 

 shores by Americans under the 



