76 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



establishing regulations under the third section of the act was 

 ever adopted, and no attempt was made prior to 1836 to establish 

 by provincial legislation any regulations or restrictions upon Ameri- 

 can fishmen resorting for the four purposes mentioned in the treaty 

 to the bays and harbors referred to in the last part of the fisheries 

 article of the treaty. 



It appears, therefore, that, except for the provisions of section 

 II of the act referred to, there was no British or Colonial legisla- 

 tion in force during this period authorizing the seizure of American 

 vessels for alleged violations of the treaty; and under the provisions 

 of section II, which have been quoted, the only seizures authorized 

 were of foreign fishing vessels found fishing or to have been fishing 

 or preparing to fish within a distance of three marine miles from 

 the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors where the liberty of fishing was 

 renounced by the United States under the treaty. 



The only seizures of American vessels during this period were 

 made between the years 1821 and 1824 for alleged violations of 

 the provisions of this section of the act. It "will be found upon 

 an examination of the circumstances surrounding these seizures 

 that in every instance they were made under the direction of 

 British naval officers on the charge of fishing within three miles 

 of the shore in waters wherein the liberty of fishing had been 

 renounced by the treaty, or of being within three miles of the 

 shore in such waters for purposes other than the four purposes 

 of shelter, repairs, wood and water provided for in the treat}". It 

 will also be found that the objections raised to such seizures were in 

 every instance that the vessel seized had not been fishing in such 

 waters and that it had gone there for one or more of the four pur- 

 poses for which it was entitled under the treaty to resort to such 

 waters. 



The only questions presented by these seizures, therefore, were 

 disputed questions of fact as to the circumstances surrounding 

 the seizures, and the only bearing which they have upon the inter- 

 pretation of the treaty provisions will be found in the fact that the 

 orders, under which they were made, show that Great Britain did not 

 dispute the right, freely asserted and exercised at that time by 

 the American fishermen, of fishing in any of the bays along the coast 

 referred to provided that such fishing was not carried on within 

 three marine miles of the shore.** It will be found that all of the 



a Appendix, pp. 335, 338, 355, 375. 



