1730 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



exists at tliis very hour in the legislation of the United States. And it 

 is not a reproach that I am casting here against the United States. They 

 have done like other nations who made effectual provisions against the 

 violators of their customs, trade, or navigation laws, and they could 

 not do less or otherwise than the legislature of Nova Scotia. 



The customs statute of the Dominion, 31 Y., c. 6 (1867), contains 

 similar provisions to those of the fishing act of the same session, ch. 

 61, ss. 10. 12, 15, and lays upon the owner and claimant of goods seized 

 by customs officers the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure ; 

 it obliges the claimant of any vessel, goods, or thing seized, in pursu- 

 ance of any law relating to the customs, or to trade or navigation, to 

 give security to answer for costs. Other parts provide for all the things 

 contained in the Nova Scotia statute, so much animadverted upon, as 

 being contrary to common-law principles, but which are applicable to 

 British subjects as well as to foreigners. The imperial act, 3 & 4 Will., 

 4, c. 59, ss. 67, 69, 70, 71, consolidated former acts, dating as far back as 

 when the thirteen revolted colonies were a part of the empire, contains 

 similar provisions as our Dominion acts concerning customs and fish- 

 eries, and as the Nova Scotia statute of 1836. I had intended to cite 

 some words of the American law on the subject, but the volume is not 

 at hand. I supplement the omission by 1 Gallison, p. 191; 2 Gallison, 

 p. 505 ; 3 Greenleaf, sec. 404, and note 2, p. 360 ; 5 Wheaton, sec. 407, p. 

 461, and sec. 411, p. 463. 



Mr. DANA. Mr. Doutre, do you not consider that to the same effect 

 as if the judge says that the government must make out a prima facie 

 case ? 



Mr. DOUTRE. I have only read a small portion of the decision ; but 

 the seizure constitutes A prima facie case. 



Mr. DANA. O, no. 



Mr. DOUTRE. Seizure was made for open violation of the law, and it 

 is for the claimant to show that he did not violate the law. 



Mr. DANA. The decision is that the government must make out a 

 prima facie case. 



Mr. DOUTRE. It is impossible for me to satisfy your mind on that 

 point ; the report is very long, and if you read it you will be convinced 

 that 1 am right. 



Mr. DANA. It says the government are obliged by statute to prove 

 a prima facie case. 



Mr. DOUTRE. These cases are all of a similar character. I admit 

 that the ordinary rules of evidence are here reversed. The reason is 

 that the maintenance of the ordinary rules concerning evidence would 

 work great mischief if applied to such matters as these. 



Mr. FOSTER. This is a judgment based on suspicion, in the opinion of 

 the court, and not on the opinion of the boarding officer. 



Mr. DOUTRE. The boarding officer makes the seizure, and reports 

 hat he lias made it, and unless the defendant comes and shows that the 

 Keizure has been illegally made, the court ratifies the seizure, and con- 

 demns the goods or ships seized. 



Mr. DANA. Are you speaking of war now ? 



Mr. DOUTRE. No; of profound peace. 



Mr. DANA. This was in time of war, and in the very case you cite it 

 \ said that the acts must be established by the government which has 

 to make out a prima facie case. 



Mr. DOUTRE. I will take the law of the United States on this point 

 stabhshing my view. I will now give the reasons why such legisla- 



on has been adopted in England, in the United States, and in Canada, 



