1662 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the suit decides that there was probable cause, the captain of the cruiser 

 is not to be condemned, but the owner has a right to arrest and try him 

 before a competent court. But all these rights were brushed away by 

 the legislature of Nova Scotia always supposing that Judge Foster was 

 right in his statement of the character of that law. 



Nor is that all, by any means. There was a further difficulty. No 

 one could know what would become of us when we got into court. 

 There was a conflict of legal decisions. One vessel might go free, when 

 under the same circumstances another vessel might be condemned. The 

 Treaty of 1818 did not allow us to go within three miles of certain shores, 

 except for the purposes of shelter and getting wood or supplies, and pro- 

 hibited fishing within three miles. An act of the 59th of George III 

 was the act intended to execute that treaty. That act provided that 

 "if any such foreign vessel is found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to 

 have been fishing, in British waters, within three miles of the coast, 

 such vessel, her tackle, &c., and cargo, shall be forfeited." That was 

 the language of the statute of George III and of the Dominion statutes. 

 Is it not plain enough it seems to me, it has seemed so to all Amer- 

 icans, I tbink that that statute was aimed, as the treaty was, against 

 fishing within three miles? But in one court the learned judge who 

 presides over it a man of learning and ability, recognized in America 

 and in the provinces, therefore giving his decision the greater weight 

 decided, first, that the buying of bait was a preparing to fish. We had 

 supposed that tbe statute meant "for fishing within three miles, you 

 will be condemned," and in order that it should not be. required that a 

 man should be caught in the very act of drawing up fish (which would 

 l>e almost impossible), it was extended by saying, " or caught, having 

 fished or preparing to fish" such acts as heaving his vessel to, prepar- 

 ing his lines, throwing them out, and the like. The learned court de- 

 cided, first, that buying bait, and buying it on shore, was " preparing 

 to fish," within the meaning of the statute. If an American skipper 

 went into a shop, leaned over the counter, and bargained with a man 

 who had bait to sell on shore, he was " preparing to fish," and, as he 

 certainly was within three miles of the shore, his preparation was made 

 within three miles; and it was apparently utterly immaterial whether 

 he intended to violate the provision of the treaty by fishing within three 

 miles of the shore, so long as he was preparing, within three miles, to 

 fish anywhere in the deep sea, on the Banks of Newfoundland, or in 

 American waters. Then came the decision of another learned judge in 

 New Brunswick (they were both in 1871), who said that buying bait was 

 not the "preparing to fish" at which the statute was aimed; and, fur- 

 ther, that it was essential to prove that the fishing intended was to be 

 within three miles of the shore. There was a conflict of decisions, and 

 we did not know where we stood. 



Another effect of this restriction was. that it brought down upon the 



Dominion fishermen the statute of the United States, laying a duty of 



svo dollars a barrel upon every barrel of mackerel, and one dollar a 



barrel U|NII every barrel of herring. That statute was and I shall pres- 



r have the honor to cite the evidence upon that point, that I may 



supposed to rely upon assertion that statute was, in substance, 



The result was, that it killed all the vessel fishing of 



provinces. They had no longer seamen who went to sea in ships. 



lore fishery sprung up lor the use of the people themselves, and was 



illy somewhat extended I mean a boat fishery around the shores. 



Khali eite authorities to show, as I hope that your honors already 



t effect was to draw away from these provinces the en- 



