15,876.
}
No. 187. (NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICERS:
MY LORD,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's
Royal Courts of Justice, August 12, 1890. letter of the 21st ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of rules and regulations made under section 18 of the Newfoundland Fisheries Commission Act of 1889, together with a copy of the Act.
That the regulations aimed at protecting and preserving the fishery on the coasts of the Colony, that they were in themselves beneficial and such as Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to approve if, in our opinion, they might lawfully do so. For, as we should perceive from the proviso to the last regulation, such approval was necessary before the fisheries on that part of the coast where the French had treaty rights could be affected by the regulations or obtain the benefit of them.
That neither the treaty of Utrecht nor the subsequent engagements between the countries in terms exempted the French fishermen from the laws of the Colony, nor did they in terms declare that the French exercised their fishery rights subject to those laws.
That the question, so far as your Lordship had discovered, did not appear to have been directly raised in any case submitted to the Law Officers in former times, but that it was now necessary to consider whether the French fishermen, exercising their rights under the treaties, were subject to regulations which, though beneficial to the fishery in general, might yet to some extent restrict the operations of individual French fishermen by limiting the size of the mesh in their nets (No. 18) and by preventing the use of certain engines (No. 19) before a given date.
That it was further to be observed that by establishing a close time for lobster fishing (regulation 7) and by fixing the size of the lobsters which might be taken, the rules, though framed to prevent the extinction of the lobsters, would be a restriction upon the French fishermen should it be held, contrary to the contention of Her Majesty's Government and to our report of August 6th, 1888, that they had a right to fish for lobsters.
That there could be no question as to the competence of the Legislature to pass, and of the executive to enforce, such regulations upon all fishermen, whether French or Colonial, upon all other parts of the coast than that called the French shore, and upon Colonial fishermen upon that shore; but that the question was whether the French fishermen upon that part of the coast could be bound.
That it would be observed that penalties were attached to the breach of the regulations, and were (No. 27) to he recovered in a summary way before a magistrate. That your Lordship would be obliged if we would advise whether Her Majesty's Government might properly give the approval under Regulation 31.
We have taken the matter into our consideration and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report
That, in our opinion, dealing with these regulations as a whole Her Majesty's Government cannot properly give the approval mentioned in the regulation No. 31.
The regulations with respect to the lobster canning industry can, in our opinion, be lawfully made, and enforced on any part of the coast, as, for the reasons stated in our report of the 6th August 1888, we do not admit that in respect of this industry the French have any special treaty rights.
The regulations with respect to the cod fishery would, however, clearly interfere with such rights, and ought not be attempted to be made except by arrangement, or convention, with the French Government.
The Right Hon.
Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.,
&c. &c. &c.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER,
EDWARD CLARKE.
a 61207.-23. 25.-8/00.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
mmimi TTILL C.O. 885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
1