AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1577 



not make a statute which would alter our rights under this treaty nor 

 revive an old statute to do so. The learned judge was careful to say 

 that he did not mean to apply his decision one step beyond the point of 

 taking bait for the purpose of fishing within prescribed limits. 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I desire to ask the learned counsel (Mr. Dana) 

 if 1 understood him to say that no seizure or confiscation of American 

 fishing- vessels took place before 1854. I think there were confiscations, 

 and I should like to know whether those confiscations were confined to 

 vessels catching fish and that alone, within the three-mile limit. 



Mr. DANA. So far as I am concerned, I assume that there has been 

 no condemnation for " buying bait." 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not refer especially to the purchase of 

 bait, but to anything except catching fish. 



Mr. THOMSON. There have been several convictions for catching bait. 



Mr. FOSTER. I never had my attention called to any conviction or 

 attempted conviction, except for fishing inside, the case of the Nicker- 

 son, before Sir William Young, at Halifax, in 1870, and still later the 

 decision in New Brunswick in the case of the White Fawn. 



The first was the only case I have heard of in which there was a con- 

 viction for " preparing to fish." 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not specially refer to "preparing to fish," 

 because there are other offenses created by the statute. 



Mr. FOSTER. I have here a list of vessels seized up to 14th December, 

 1870, and the following are entered as their offenses : 



"Actively fishing; the men on board in the act of hauling iu their lines." "At an- 

 chor preparing to fish, and a quantity of fresh-caught herring in the hold ; taken on 

 the spot, having been previously warned off." " Smuggling." " Fishing seven days 

 in Gaspe" Harbor, and preparing to fish at time of seizure." "At anchor ; lines set, on 

 which were six halibut." " Throwing out bait, and crew casting their fishing-lines." 

 " Smuggling." " Having fished in the cove, and actually found with mackerel wet 

 and dripping, and hooks baited with fresh bait ; also fresh-fish blood and mackerel offals 

 on deck." "Smuggling." " Having fished at Three Islands, Grand Manan." " Prepar- 

 ing to fish at Head Harbor, Campo Bello." 



The last was the case in regard to preparing to fish, and where the 

 learned judge discharged the vessel in opposition to the decision of Sir 

 William Young iu the case of the Eickerson. 



.Mr. THOMSON. In the case of the White Fawn, decided at St. John, 

 the decision, as 1 understand it, is not in conflict with that of Sir Will- 

 iam Young. Sir William Young condemned the Nickerson because it 

 was fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prescribed limits. In the 

 St. John case the libel was framed expressly for buying bait within the 

 harbor, with the intention of fishing. It was shown that the fisherman 

 had purchased bait, but evidence that he went in there with the inten- 

 tion of fishing was wanting. 



Mr. THOMSON. The question is whether there has ever been a convic- 

 tion of an American vessel for taking bait. I call your attention to the 

 fact that the Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart were convicted 

 in 1839 of being within the prescribed limits and cleaning fish on deck. 

 In 1840 the Papineau, Alms, and Mary were seized and sold for pur- 

 chasing bait on shore. 



Mr. TRESCOT. The judgment went by default. There was no defense 

 made. 



THURSDAY, Septemler 6. 

 The Conference met. 

 Argument resumed. 



Mr. DANA. Mr. Foster will state the results of inquiries maJe respect- 

 ing the condemnation of American vessels. 



