COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 77 



It is alleged tliat — 



almost miliuiited authority is thus conferred upon the Executive to United States 

 establish close seasons, and to uuike Regulations respecting the pur- '^^^^^ ?• 223. 

 chase or sale of tish, including seals, and i)unishinent for violation of 

 the law and orders. The definition in the Act of the term " waters " 

 indicates that it applies to the entire area of the Colony, of which the 

 south-eastern corner is over 700 miles from the coast of New Zealand, 

 although a few smaller islands intervene. 



This is illustrated by a coloured Map, upon which are .ib"!. .^f^^j:^- 

 traced imaginary boundaries of the Colouy, which are '^'^°'i'- 

 asserted to be designated in the Act of 1803. 



Tlie definition of "waters" in this Act, upon whicli the 

 argument rests, is in itself sufhcient to prove the error: 



DEFINITION OF '' WATERS " IN FISHERY ACTS ONLY INCLUDES 

 " WATERS IN THE COLONY, OR ON THE COASTS OR BAYS 

 THEREOF." 



"Waters" [according to the definition] means any salt, fresh, or ibid., p. 438. 

 brackish waters in the Colony, or on the coasis or hays thereof; includes 

 artificial waters, but does not include waters the property of any 

 private person. 



If " waters in the Colony" included the ocean to a dis- 

 tance of Too miles from the shore, it wouhl have been unnec 

 essary and absurd to proceed to mention " waters ou the 

 coasts or bays " of the Colony. 



89 {G.)—Caj)e of Good Hope. 



It is stated in the United States Case that — 



in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope sealing is prohibited at the United States 

 rookeries and in the waters adjacent thereto, except under stringent ^-'^^^^ P- "^• 

 regulations. 



The evidence ottered in su])port of these allegations con- 

 sists of the following statements: 

 W. C. B. Stamp— 



I am told, altliongh I know nothing about it, that regulations of Ibid., Appen- 

 sonie kind have been made in the (Jolony of the Cape of Good Hope, dix, vol. ii, p. 576. 



G. Comer. — The rookeries — 



are m possession or control of a company, as I was then informed, Ibid., p. 597, 

 which has the exclusive right to take seals tliere. We did nut dare 

 to go to those rookeries, because sealing was prohibited, aud wo would 

 not have been allowed to take them in the waters adjacent thereto. 



The Regulations in force in this Colony are of the char- British com- 

 acter which appears troni the Government Notice which is port, p. 194. 

 printed in the Appt^ndix to the Briti'sh Commissioners' 

 L'eport. By this notice all i)ersons are prohibited "from 

 disturbing the seals on the said island " [in Mossel Bay], 

 and are warned from tresjjassing tliere. 



The Government Agent states that there is — 



j)ractical]y no pursuit of the animals in the water ou these coasts. Ibid., p. 155. 

 . . . . The system of killing the seals is the same throughout all 

 the colonial islands, namely, with "clubs," by men landing in boats. 



CAPE OF GOOD HOPE REGULATIONS ARE CONFINED TO 



THE ISLANDS. 



As a matter of fact, the legislation at the Cape of Good 

 Hope is entirely confined to the protection of seals on the 

 islands. 



