156 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



settled principles of English law. A statute of that description, 

 which in terms extends beyond the territory of Great Britain, applies 

 only to the subjects of Great Britain. I will not stop to cite 

 authorities upon it. You will find the rule referred to by, I think, 

 several of the judges in the case of the Queen vs. Keyn, which has 

 been so often cited here, in the Law Reports, 2 Exchequer Divi- 

 sion, p. 63. It is of no particular consequence. It was a poUce 

 regulation. 



That is all there was in Nova Scotia in 1783. 



Then there was, in 1786, a law passed to amend an old Act 

 against obstructing the passage of fish in the rivers, an Act which 

 by its terms was to last but one year, and which in the preamble 

 said that it was an Act in addition to and amendment of an Act 

 made in the third year of the reign of his present Majesty George 

 III, entitled "An Act to prevent nuisances by hedges, weirs, and 

 other incumbrances obstructing the passage of fish in the rivers 

 of this province." 



That Act undertook to remedy this interference with the run of 

 fish up the rivers by authorizing the local justices to make regula- 

 tions regarding the manner of placing nets and seines in rivers, 

 creeks, and so on. As I say, it lasted but one year; and there is 

 no indication or evidence whatever that any such regulations were 

 ever made, or if they were ever made that they were appKed, 

 or if they were ever applied that they were ever applied to any 

 American. 



So, when we come down to 18 18, there never had been a statute 

 in Nova Scotia which in any way affected the exercise of the hberty 

 gra'Uted to the United States by the treaty of 1783. 



Now, as to Prince Edward Island: There were no statutes of 

 any kind. There are none cited in the Memorandum. 



Lower Canada: Covering this great stretch of the Labrador 

 coast from the banks of the St. Lawrence (indicating on map). 

 In 1783 there had been no statute whatever. In 1785 there was a 

 statute which related strictly to the regulation of the rights of the 

 people who landed and used the beach, the shore of the Bay of 

 Chaleur; and it did also contain a ballast provision against throw- 

 ing offal into the sea within 2 leagues of the shore — extra-territorial. 

 Of course that was because the shore people did not want the ofEal 



