This statement is a good deal, if I may so term it, mixed up; but the point to which I wish to call attention is this: That this territory from Cape La Hune to the eastward, within about 30 miles of the Rameau Island, includes of course waters over which the Americans had no right, and at the time of the passing of these regulations the Americans were not fishing, as I have stated, with seines at all, and this was purely a fishery regulation, intended to protect that part of the coast from seining, because on that part of the coast, from Cape LaHune right around, the herring were found to be not in sufficient abundance to withstand seining. The herring were more abundant in other parts of the coast farther to the eastward, in Fortune Bay. The great fishing ground for herring is in Fortune Bay, and it was found necessary and useful to prohibit seining altogether from Cape La Hune right round to the west, into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and right north to Cape John. And, further than that, to show that it was not intended against the Americans, the prohibition is right through the Straits of Belle Isle to Cape John, a long distance on the north-east coast of the island, where the Americans have no right of fishing, and where it could not have been directed against them.

This examination of this legislation, Mr. President, I consider necessary in order to satisfy the Tribunal, as far as I can, that not one of these acts or regulations was designed to injuriously affect in any way whatever the rights and privileges of the Americans under the treaty of 1818. In so far as the fishery was concerned, the fishery regulations applied to the people of both countries, both when the Americans were fishing under the treaties of 1854 and 1871 and also when they had not those rights. They were aimed at our own people principally, because the prohibition against any appliance, no matter what it is-seines, cod-traps, bultows, or anything else-applies to ten Newfoundland fishermen as against one United States fisherman to whom it can apply at all. The only fishery-I cannot help repeating it too often, because it is important to this case-the only fishery that can be called a fishery, that was carried on by the fishermen of the United States in Newfoundland waters down to 1905 and down to the present day, was the cod fishery, and that out in the deep waters, not even near the coast of Newfoundland. They only came into the ports,

bays, harbours, and creeks for the purpose of getting bait, and 568 when they came in for the purpose of getting bait they invari

ably purchased it and never fished for it. None of these minor fishery regulations that are on the Newfoundland statute book, numerous as they are, as the Court will see, was intended to have any relation to or effect upon American fishermen, nor as a matter of fact has it had. The Americans have taken no notice whatever of them, and we have heard nothing about them until the present moment in this case. The whole object of these rules and regulations was the

preservation and protection of the fisheries whether the United States participated in them or not, as they did for a great period of the time over which the legislation extended. It would be impossible and utterly impracticable for the Newfoundland Legislature to devise or contrive any rules or regulations which would injure the American fishermen and not injure the Newfoundland fishermen as the fishery is carried on.

I will pass on to a few observations upon what was said by the learned counsel in relation to the character of these regulations; that is as to whether they were or were not necessary for the preservation of the fishery and as to whether they were good or objectionable. I do not know how far an enquiry of that sort would be relevant to the present position of this case, because Question 1, which is submitted to the Tribunal is, broadly and generally, as to the power or the right of Great Britain, or the colony, to make laws and regulations in relation to the prosecution of the fishery, and the question for the Tribunal is: Assuming these regulations to be reasonable, whether it is competent for the United States to object to them altogether, no matter how reasonable they may be, and whether there is power to pass them at all without the consent of the United States? I do not see that the criticisms of learned counsel upon these regulations have any direct bearing upon or relevancy to the question which is before the Tribunal; but, in so far as they may have any bearing upon the question, I must just refer to these observations and endeavour to answer them very briefly and precisely as well as I can.

Speaking of bultows and trawls, learned counsel-I shall not refer to his language, but generally-made the observation that there was great difference of opinion among qualified authorities as to the wisdom of legislating to prohibit the use of bultows or trawls. No doubt upon this question there is a considerable difference of opinion, and there probably will be for many years. Some scientific authorities are of the opinion that regulations prohibiting the use of bultows are not necessary, that bultows or trawls do not damage the fishery; others are of the opinion that, on the contrary, they do, and particularly in certain localities. Newfoundland has such legislation as it considers desirable, after having considered the matter most carefully, and after having had the experience and the opinion of the best qualified authorities in the country. It must be borne in mind in any consideration of this question that the trade and commerce, and almost the whole life and existence of Newfoundland depend upon the successful prosecution of the cod fishery more than any other fishery, and of other fisheries also, but to a minor degree, and that it is not only the interest but the duty of the people and legislators of Newfoundland to study these matters carefully from day to day and year to year. The result is that under our legislation, regula

tions are made dealing with all sorts of matters affecting the prosecution of the fisheries-bultows amongst them-and that from time to time, profiting by the experience gained from year to year, these rules are changed, amended and sometimes rescinded altogether. This goes on and must of necessity go on from year to year. Among other things, those who are entrusted with these powers and duties have come to the conclusion that in certain places bultows are objectionable, that they have a bad effect upon the fishing operations of these localities and the result is, without going into details, as has already been stated, at certain places which are marked on the maps, which I believe, are being put in for the information of the Tribunal, these regulations against the use of bultows are in force. It is not general or universal. It is only applied to certain places around the coasts and shores of the island and, as one of my associates has observed, none of these places are where the Americans go to catch fish. None of these regulations affect the Americans in the prosecution of their fishery except in one place only, and that is between the Rameau Islands and Cape Ray where the use of bultows is prohibited. As I have stated already, the position of the United States fishermen on that matter is either that they do not fish there at all, or if they do fish at all in that neighbourhood it is to a very small extent indeed. The fishing grounds, as everybody knows, because it is a matter of public knowledge and notoriety, are farther than 3 miles out to sea. If any fish are caught in near the shore it is in very small quantities. The American fishermen have complied with the law, because there is no evidence before this Court to the contrary, and we must presume that they have obeyed the law. Certainly they have never found any fault with the law up to the present time. On the other hand, as I have stated, on other parts of the coast bultows are prohibited, but it is only the Newfoundland fishermen who are prohibited from using them by these rules and regulations, because the Americans have no right to fish there, and even when they had the right they never went there to fish because the fishery prosecuted by the American fishermen is out in the deep water on the banks and not in the bays, creeks and harbours of Newfoundland where these bultow regulations are in force.

569

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be useful for us to indicate the different localities on the map.

SIR JAMES WINTER: All I can say is

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps one of the other gentlemen will have the kindness.

SIR JAMES WINTER: I might observe that counsel on the other side. said that they had maps and were ready to furnish them to the Court. JUDGE GRAY: This gentleman (referring to Mr. O'Reilly) will point them out on the map here.

SIR JAMES WINTER: Mr. O'Reilly, will you point out the places where the regulations against bultows are in force?

Mr. O'Reilly indicated Cape La Hune and Cape Ray.

SIR JAMES WINTER: Now, on the coast east of Cape LaHune.

Mr. O'Reilly indicated points in Fortune Bay and Placentia Bay. THE PRESIDENT: These are on the non-treaty coasts?

MR. O'REILLY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any on the treaty coasts too?

MR. O'REILLY: There are very few.

SIR JAMES WINTER: Do not the names appear in the regulations? I think they do.

MR. O'REILLY: Yes, I think they do.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you be so kind as to furnish the names to the Tribunal to-morrow?

MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE GRAY: Your contention is that this prohibition of bultows extends largely to the non-treaty coasts and not to the treaty coasts?

SIR JAMES WINTER: Yes, to a far greater extent to the non-treaty coasts than to the treaty coasts. I think No. 58, p. 764 of the British Case Appendix, applies to the non-treaty coast.

I see a number of these regulations on p. 764-55 and 56.
THE PRESIDENT: 58 and 59.

SIR JAMES WINTER: Yes, I referred to No. 59, but I see that there are others. For instance:

"55. No cod-jiggers, trawls, or bultows shall be used inside of a line commencing at a point one-half mile north of the northern head of Salvage, thence east three miles, thence south to a line drawn east from a southern point of Little Harbour Head, in Bonavista Bay."

That is on the non-treaty coast.

Nor shall any bultow be used before the 20th day of September in any year, within four miles northward or westward of the shore, including Green Island, Stone Island or Gull Island, and Cape Island, between Black Head, Bonavista Bay, and Cape Bonavista; nor within three miles northward or eastward of the shore between Cape Island and Spillar's High Rock, in the vicinity of Cape Bonavista."

Then the next one is No. 56:

"No person shall use any bultow or trawl on the fishing grounds in Trinity Bay between a line running south east from Deer Harbour (West) and a line running south east from Seal Islands (East) nor inside of a line from Green Island, south east of Ireland's eye and half a mile off Bonaventure Head; nor between a line running south east from Bonaventure Head (West) and a line running south extending three miles from the shore

570

JUDGE GRAY: It is hardly worth while. Are most of these on the non-treaty coasts?

SIR JAMES WINTER: All of these are on the non-treaty coast. They are in the vicinity of Bonavista and Trinity Bays.

JUDGE GRAY: It will save your time.

SIR JAMES WINTER: Yes, thank you. The whole of these regulations on p. 764 have reference to non-treaty waters. The only exception is that covered by regulation No. 62, which will be found at the top of p. 765:

66

No bultows shall be used on the fishing grounds from Cape La Hune to Cape Ray, both inclusive, in the district of Burgeo and LaPoile."

That includes both treaty coast and non-treaty coast, and that is the only part of the treaty coast, as I think, to which any prohibition applies. So much with regard to bultows.

The same general observations that I have made about bultows apply to seining, with this exception, that there is more unanimity of opinion on the matter of seines than there is as to bultows. The fact that bultows are prohibited in a number of places on the coast is because, on account of local circumstances, the reasons are different, and it is generally left to those who have the best information on these matters in each of the localities to decide and to help the legislators. It is generally upon their opinions and views that these regulations are made; in other words, they are made to suit the circumstances, views and opinions of the people. It is a sort of what is called local option, and from this it results that the prohibition of bultows is not general or universal. But it is different with seining. There is a general consensus of opinion against the use of seines, or rather not against the use, but as to the necessity for restricting and limiting the use of seines, and that is done under the general legislation which I have already referred to, going back to 1862 and applying to the whole colony, from the 20th October to a certain day in April, the date having been changed from time to time. The one other method or appliance which has been discussed is the use of purse seines. Purse seines are different from other seines. I need not delay the Court with a discussion with regard to purse seines. Whatever objections apply to the common seine are considered to apply with very much greater force to the purse seine, for the reason, probably, that they are more efficacious. They sweep the ground very much more efficiently than the ordinary seine, and they take in, in their sweeping, all kinds of fish besides the fish that is being particularly sought for at the time, and a large number of small and useless fish are taken and destroyed. For further information upon that point, if any should be necessary, I would refer the Tribunal to the British Counter Case Appendix, p. 195, where will be found an extract from the seventh annual report of the Deputy Minister of Fisheries for Canada, headed "Purse Seines." It is a long and exhaustive document; it would take too long for me to read