24 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



be affirmed by this Tribunal onl^' on the express evidence of an Inter- 

 national contract ; 



(/) Because even if these liberties of fishery constituted an Inter- 

 national servitude, the servitude would derogate from the sovereignty of 

 the servient State only iu so far as the exercise of the rights of sover- 

 eignty by the servient State would be contrary to the exercise of the 

 servitude right by the dominant State. Whereas it is evident that, 

 though every regulation of the fishery is to some extent a limitation, as 

 it puts limits to the exercise of the fishery at will, yet such regulations as 

 are reasonable and made for the purpose of securing and preserving the 

 fishery and its exercise for the common benefit are clearly to be distin- 

 guished from those restrictions and "molestations," the annulment of 

 which was the purpose of the American demands formulated by Jlr. 

 Adams in 1782, and such regulations consequently cannot be held to be 

 inconsistent with a servitude ; 



{g) Because the fishery to which the inhabitants of the United 

 States were admitted in 1783, and again in 1818, was a regulated fishery, 

 as is evidenced by the following regulations : 



Act 16 Charles II, Cap. IG, s. 7 (1663) forbidding "to lay any seine 

 or other net in or near any harbour in Newfoundland, whereby to take 

 the spawn or young fry of the Poor-John, or for any other use or uses, 

 except for the taking of bait only," which had not been superseded 

 either by the order iu council of March 10, 1670, or by the Statute X 

 and XI Wm. Ill, Cap. 25 (1699.) The order in council provides express- 

 ly for the obligation "to submit unto and to observe all rules and orders 

 as are now, or hereafter shall be established," an obligation which can- 

 not be read as referring only to the rules established. In a similar way, 

 the Statute of 1699 preserves in force prior legislation, conferring the 

 freedom of fishery only ' ' as fully and freely as at any time heretofore. ' ' 

 The order in council, 1670, provides that the Admirals, who always were 

 fishermen, arriving from an English or Welsh port, "see that His Maj- 

 esty's rules and orders concerning the regulation of the fisheries are 

 duly put in execution" (see. 13). Likewise the Act X and XI, Wm. Ill, 

 Cap. 25 (1699) provides that the Admirals do settle differences between 

 the fishermen arising in respect of tlie places to be assigned to the differ- 

 ent vessels. As to Nova Scotia, the proclamation of 1665 ordains that no 

 one shall fish without license: that the licensed fishermen are obliged "to 

 observe all laws and orders which now are made and published, or shall 

 hereafter be made and published in this jurisdiction," and that they 

 shall not fish on the Lord's day and shall not take fish at the time they 

 come to spawn. The judgment of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, 

 October 26, 1820, is not held by the Tribunal sufficient to set aside the 

 proclamations referred to. After 1783, the statute 26 Geo. Ill, Cap. 26 



