(I confess I liavc not road it ; I looked for it, hut was not able to find it) in whicli he 

 said tliero was a provision, that if, in i-aso of capture, an American seaman, fisl>(!rman, 

 or master, did not mai{(; true answers, he forfeited KiO/. ; tlial tlie omis, the burden of 

 proof, to siiow tiiat tiie vessid was not sulyect to capture was upon tiie owner, not upon 

 tiie captor ; that before the owner could contest tlie (juestion witii the man who seized 

 liis vessel, he must file a bond of ()()/. for costs; he coidd l)ring no suit ai^ainst his captor 

 until one montli's notice, <iivinu; tlic captain an opportunity, as it is said, to obtain 

 evidence, but, as a practical lawyer, I slionid add, givinif him also an opportn.nity to 

 escape and to conceal his property ; findin<i: treble costs in case the American was 

 convicted ; and also providinsj; that the simple judicial sif^natnre, declariuij, ex parte, 

 that there was jjrobable cause for the seizure, pn-vented any action or suit whatever. 



Now, thi'se W(!re strong penal measures, luiknown to anything; but criminal law, and 

 even sti'oni?er than the laws of war ; because if in hi<>h war a vessel is seized and 

 released, the owner of the vessel may sue the connnander of the cruizer, though he bears 

 \]\c colours of Great Hritain or of the United States ; he may sue him without 

 giving him any previous notice, without giving any previous bond, and no ex parte 

 certificate of probable cause fron) the Court will "prevent the trymg of tiie suit. I 

 know it is true that if the Court which tries the suit decides that tiiere was probable 

 cause, the captain of IIk; cruizer is not to be condemned, but the owner is not barred 

 of tlu; rii^ht to arrest and try him before a competent Court. Hut all these; rights were 

 brushed a\vay by the Legislature of Nova Scotia— always supposing that Judge Foster 

 was right in "his "statement of the character of that law. ' 



Nor ;s that all, by any means. There was a further difHculty. No one could 

 know wiiat would become of us wiien we got into court. There was a conflict of legal 

 decisions. One vessel miglit go free, whi;n under the same circumstances another vessel 

 niiuht be condemned. Tiie Treaty ot 1H18 did not allow us to go witliin tiirec miles of 

 certain shores, except for the purpose ot shelter, and getting wood or supplies, and 

 proliibiled lisliing within three miles. The Act of the SUth of George III was the Act 

 iiUended to (>xecute that Treaty. That Act provided that, "if any such foreign vessel 

 is found fisliini>;, or preparing to fish, or ui have been fishing, in ISrilisli waters, within 

 three niil(>s of tlie coast, such vessel, her tackle, Stc, and cargo shall be forfeited." Tliat 

 was the language of tlie Statute of George 111, anci of ttic l)ominion statutes. It is not 

 plain enough, — it seems to \w\ it has seemed so to all Americans, I tiiink, — that tiiat 

 statute was aimed, as the Treaty was, against fishing witiiin three miles ? liut in one 

 court the learned ,ludi;c who [iresides over it, a man of learning and ability, recognized 

 in America and in the provinces, therefore giving his decision the greater weigiit,decitled 

 two points against us We had supposed tliat the statute meant "for fishing witliin 

 three miles, you will be condemned," and in ordt.'r that it should not be recpiired 

 that a man should be eaiigjit in the very act of drawing up fish (which would be almost 

 impossible), it was explained by saying "or caught having fished or preparing to 

 fish," meaning such acts as heaving his vessel to, preparing Jiis lines, throwing 

 them out, and the like. The learned Court decided, first, that buying bait, and buying 

 it on shore, was " preparing to lisli," within the meaning of the statute. If an American 

 skipper W( nt into a shop, leaned over the counter, and l)argaine'\ witii a man who had 

 bail to sell on shore, he was ■' preparini; to iish," and, as he cet- linly was within three 

 miles of the shore, his preparation was made within three miles ; and the judge treated 

 it as immaterial whether he intended to violate the jirovisiim of the Treaty by fishing 

 within tJiree miles of the shore, so long as he was preparing, within three miles, to fish 

 anywhere in the deep sea, on the banks of Newt()iin(ilaiid, or in American waters. Then 

 came tin; decision of another learneci Judge in New Brunswick (they were both in 1871), 

 who said that buying bait was not the " preiiarinj>' to fi^h " at which the statute was 

 aimed ; and further, that it was essential to prove that the fishing intended was to be 

 williin threi! miles of tlu; shore. Tiiere was a conflict of decisions, and we did not know 

 where we stood. 



Anollier effect of tliis restriction was, that it brought down u|)on the Dominion 

 fishermen the statute of tin; United States, laying a duty of two dollars a barrel upon 

 every barrel of mackerel, and one dollar a barrel upon every barrel of herring. That 

 statute was, — and I shall presently have the honour to cite the evidence upon that point, 

 that I may not be supposed to rely upon assertion — that statute was, in substance, 

 proiiibitory. The result was, that it killed all the vessel fishing of these provinces. 

 They had no longer seamen who went to sea in ships. A shore hshery s[)rung up tor 

 the use of the people themselves, and was gradually somewhat extendetl — I mean a boat 

 fishery around tlu; shores. But, as I shall cite authorities to show, as I lio[)e that your 

 Honours already believe, that the first effect was to draw away from these provinces tlio 



