220 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



original statute of 1868. That new circular is to be found in the 

 British Case Appendix at p. 237 and in that new circular he 

 included this sentence: 



"Fishermen of the United States are bound to respect the British laws 

 and regulations for the regulation and preservation of the fisheries to the 

 same extent to which they are applicable to British or Canadian fishermen." 



Then he goes on to recite the Act of 1868 again, and the Act of 

 May, 1870, which amended it, by making the third section more 

 stringent; and he also inserts this clause, which is in itaHcs in the 

 copy in the British Case Appendix on p. 238: 



"It wiU be observed, that the warning formerly given is not required 

 under the amended Act, but that vessels are Hable to seizure without such 

 warning." 



Well, how is it not plain that the whole subject-matter to which 

 the circular related was the non- treaty coast, and that it had no 

 reference whatever to the treaty coast ? That the regulations for 

 the preservation of the Canadian fisheries, which the fishermen of 

 the United States were said by Mr. Boutwell to be bound to respect 

 to the same extent to which they are apphcable to British or 

 Canadian fishermen, are the regulations in force and effect prescribed 

 by these statutes for the preservation of the fisheries on the non- 

 treaty coast to which the circular related, and in which he desired 

 to warn American fishermen against incurring the penalties of 

 these statutes which related to the non-treaty coast, and only to 

 the non-treaty coast. These statutes were statutes for the preser- 

 vation of their fisheries. They were statutes to prevent American 

 fishing vessels coming in under the color of the right of shelter 

 and repairs, and wood and water, and taking without leave or 

 hcense, by device and deceit, the benefit of the Canadian fisheries 

 away from the Canadians. Those statutes were binding upon our 

 fishermen. 



Judge Gray: Would they or would they not have been binding 

 if they had not referred to the preservation of the fisheries? If 

 they had been merely acts of exclusion? 



Senator Root: Unless they excluded in contravention of the 

 four purposes; except within the limits of the treaty right to enter 



