1 64 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



That is the proposition on which these laws were presented to 

 Mr. Marcy for his consideration and approval: the proposition that 

 their provisions were not inconsistent with the full enjoyment of the 

 American citizens' rights of fishing secured to them by the treaty. 

 And, indeed, a provision might well be approved which prevented 

 the throwing of gurry overboard except at a particular place, and 

 which protected the spawning ground, and which protected the 

 rivers of New Brimswick in which we had no right. to fish. 



But the paucity of regulation twenty-seven years after the treaty 

 of 1818 was made is what I call the attention of the Tribunal to 

 now, as tending to support the statements which I have made 

 regarding the existence of any system of regulation in 1818 or at 

 any time prior to that time. 



One other thing is to be observed. Mr. Crampton, in his letter 

 of June, 185 s, which appears on p. 206 of the British Case Appendix, 

 says: 



"I have thought it right to bring this matter under the immediate atten- 

 tion of the Governor-General of Canada, and the Lieutenant-Governors of 

 Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, with a view to the adoption of a similar 

 arrangement in regard to the fisheries of those provinces, to that now pro- 

 posed, in regard to the fisheries of New Brunswick; — I have the honor to 

 enclose herewith the copy of a letter which I have addressed to their Excel- 

 lencies for that purpose." 



Then follows the letter of the 28th June, 1855, on pp. 206 and 

 207 of the British Case Appendix, from Mr. Crampton to all these 

 governors; but that produced no regulations whatever. 



So that down to 1855, in all this stretch of coast of Nova Scotia, 

 Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Lower 

 Canada, there were no regulations whatever that were worthy to 

 be brought to the attention of the American fishermen, who were 

 about to resume fishing upon all that coast under the provisions of 

 the treaty of 1854. And you come down to a clear case of no regu- 

 lation which could by any possibiUty affect the exercise by American 

 fishermen to their hberty under the treaty 1783, evidence afi&rma- 

 tively establishing that, though it was unnecessary to affirmatively 

 establish it, because there has been no evidence produced whatever 

 that any regulation was brought into contact in any way whatever 

 with any American fisherman exercising his liberty. 



