AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



1 may mention here that the simple question at issue w8 whether 

 Conception Bay was a British bay, and I think that it is 20 or 30 mile* 

 wide at the mouth 



and should not enter any "bays " in any part of the coast except for the purpose of shelter 

 and repairing, and purchasing wood and obtaining water, and no other purposes whatever. 

 It seems impossible to doubt that this convention applied to all bays, whether large or m*ll. 

 on that coast, and consequently to Conception Bay. It is true that the convention would* 

 only bind the two nations who were parties to it, and consequently that, though a strong 

 assertion of ownership on the part of Great Britain, acquiesced in by no powerful a state a* 

 the United States, the convention, though weighty, is not decisive. But the act already 

 referred to (59 Geo., Ill, chap. 38), though passed chiefly for the purpose of giving fleet to 

 the Convention of 1818, goes further. It enacts not merely that subjects of the United 

 States shall observe the restrictions agreed on by the convention, but that persona not being' 

 natural-born subjects of the King of Great Britain shall observe them under penalties. 



Now I think, in regard to this case, that if my learned friend had 

 really taken time to read and consider this decision he would have Men 

 that it goes further than he supposes. 



Mr. DANA. I did read it. 



Mr. THOMSON. Then you are laboring under a misconception in ref- 

 erence to its scope. 



Before 1 pass to Judge Foster's argument and in point of fact this 

 is part of his argument I want to call your attention to a complaint 

 that was made it struck me, very unnecessarily by the counsel of the 

 United States with reference to a law of 183C, contained in the statute- 

 book of Nova Scotia, which law shifts the burden of proof from the 

 Crown to the claimant of any vessel seized. At h'rst sight it appeared 

 to be unfair, but I believe that the revenue laws of every country cer- 

 tainly the revenue law of England, from time immemorial have con- 

 tained that clause, and I think that the same is true of the revenue laws 

 of the United States, as I will have the honor of pointing out hereafter. 

 These laws in eft'ect enact simply this: that with regard to any seizure 

 made by a public officer in his public capacity, the burden of proof must 

 lie on the claimant, and you must recollect that this provision applies 

 not only to the seizure of a vessel, but also to the seizure of any poods 

 liable to seizure and condemnation. The law enacts that when the claim- 

 ant comes into court he shall be compelled to prove that all that may 

 have been done has been done legally. Well, that is fair enough, is it 

 not f for within his cognizance lie all the facts of the case. He knows 

 whether everything has been fairly done, and whether he has honestly 

 paid the duties; and he knows if we take, for instance, the case of a 

 vessel which has entered the limits here very well for what punnxso 

 she entered, and he can prove it. He knows that under this conven- 

 tion fishing-vessels can enter for certain purposes British waters; that 

 is to say, for the purpose of getting wood and water, for the pur|x>se of 

 repairs, for shelter in case of stress of weather, and for no other purpose 

 whatever. He knows that, and he can show, therefore,' that although 

 his vessel was seized within the limits, he was really in there for n 

 other purposes than those prescribed by the Convention of LS1S. Thus 

 there was no great injustice put upon him. Besides this, all public oft 

 cers, while acting in the discharge of their duties, are supposed to have 

 no private interest involved, and it would be very hard to subject them 

 to the annoyance of actions if even priwa-facie grounds are shown 

 acting as they did ; the law, therefore, declares that no action 

 under such circumstances, and even if it turns out that the seiz 

 strictly speaking, illegal, nevertheless if the judge certifies 

 was reasonable and probable cause for the seizure being i 

 plaintiff shall not recover costs. There is nothing unfair 

 there f 



