204 



have no right, as fishermen, and by the general law, irrespective of the consent of 

 the Crown, to biiy bait, ice, ami supplies, and transship cargoes in British 

 dominions, then 1 concede that an regards American fishermen tishing within the 

 three-mile limit, we have not those rights. Why arc we, then, in the A;ercise of 

 them? In that case, by the concession of the Crown. There is, however, no 

 Statute against fishermen buying bait, obtaining su|)plics, bartering or transshipping* 

 fish, if tlicy comply with tiie fiscal rci;iilations ol the Government regarding all 

 trade and commerce. IC a lisliorman has violated no Statute or rule respecting 

 trade, commerce, and navigation in this realm, there is no Statute which can 

 condemn him, because lie is a iisiierman, for having bought bait and supplies, and 

 traiiss!ii|i|)ed cargoes. So long as liiero is no Statute prohibiting it, our tisiierinen 

 have gone on exercising that privilege, not believing they were excluded from it by 

 the Treaty of k'lS, wlicthcr they were correct or not. It is in that view only that 

 the facts regarding siizoies are ol' any iniporlance ; but yet we may make our 

 ans«cr at once and say, uiiellier we have the right to do those things or not, we do 

 not pretend that it was given to us by the Treaty of ls71. Your Honours will not 

 be able to lind it includcil untler Article XVlil u\' that Treaty. Hut it is ever 

 satisfactory to l;c able to account for all the surrounding circumstances of any 

 question. It secins there was a Statute passed in li^lO, ;')'J (ieorge HI, generally 

 against ioreign vessels which shall be found fishing, or be found having fished, or be 

 found jiieparing to fish, within the |)reseribed limits. The Statute reaches before 

 and alter the act. It is not necessary that tishermen should betaken in the act 

 of tishing. That would be a Statute very diflicult to interpret, and very easy to 

 evade, which rctpiired that llsliermen should be taken in the act of fishing. So the 

 Statute says, d' a foreign fisherman is found having fished, or in the act of fishing, 

 or preparing for the act of fishing, within the prescribed waters, he is to be treated 

 as an ofl'encier. We see no objection to that Statute. The preparing to fish is a 

 step in the process of fishing. 



ibit the true construction of that Statute is of very little importance. Yet 

 certainly it must lie meant that the act prepared for must have been illegal, for it 

 cannot be supposed for rne moment tliat Great Britain intended to say that no 

 foreign vessels, French or American, should come into the provinces, and buy 

 bait for tiie purpose of fishing olf the (Jrand Banks or tiie coast of Greenland. 

 If this province got a reputation for having some bait which certain kinds of 

 fish off (ireonland swallow with eagerness, and a Danish vessel should come here 

 and buy it in the market, complying with all the regulations of the market, 

 and fiscal laws, and then set sail for Greenland, surely that vessel could not be 

 seized and condemned. 



1 have put the argument of the counsel for the Crown as strong as I could put 

 it ; they say you exercise that right now, and you did not exercise it before. Our 

 answer is, simply, that wc have always exercised it, and that we have done it 

 irrespective of the Treaty of 18"j-I, or of the Treaty of 187S. We have never been 

 interfered \\ith in exercising it. There is no case of condemnation of a vessel for 

 exercising that right, and ii there had been a good many, it would have made no 

 diflerence to your Honours, because the judgments would have been simply the 

 provincial interpretation of tiie Trt aty, given ex jiarlr, and it is certain that no act 

 of Great liritain has ever sanctioned the position that the United States had not 

 this right, irrespective of Treaties. Then, as has been suggested by my colleagues, 

 and i follow the suggestion merely, the whole corrcspoiulencc between the (jovernor- 

 Gencral and the Head of the Colonial Oflice, and between the United States' 

 Government and the British (iovernmcnt, shows that Great Britain never intended 

 that American fisl.ermen should be exclude<l from the use of those liberties or 

 rights, whatever be our claim to them, or w hether we had them as of right or not. 

 These privileges are those which fishermen have always exercised, and it has only 

 been as po| ulation has increased, and fiscal laws have become important, and the 

 inhabitants have become more apprehensive in regard to vessels hovering about 

 the coast, that nations have enacted laws restricting |)ersoiis in the exercise of those 

 rigiits. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, cited Fhillimore, I, 

 page L"24 ; Kent's " Commentaries," vol. i, pages 32 to 36 ; and Wheaton's 

 •'International Law" (Dana's edition), sections HJ7, 1()9, and 170. 



i have read these passages, not that they distinctly assert, or indeed 

 that they take up the very question I am presenting before this tribunal, but 

 they show the general principles ujion which the great writers on international 

 law, the Govermnents themselves, and the people, have acted with regard to 

 fishermen and their rights, especially of supplying their wants from time to time in 



