The Supreme Court says in it?
decision: “In view of the fact
that at the date of the ‘Conven
tion of 1818’ the United State,3
had not recognized the sov
ereignty of Great Britain on the
Pacific Slope.I agree with th
conclusion.that the ‘Conven
tion of 1818’ did not apply to
the Pacific waters.’’ The court
c’id not design to give even the
slightest attention to the co -
tention of the appellants that,
if the treaty did not apply to
the Pacific Coast, the United
States had never renounced the
right of fishery in any of th^
waters north of the present in
ternational boundary.
^ouri s Attitude surprising
In reading the opinion of th'
Supreme Court, one cannot es
cape the conclusion that the de
cision was reached primarily for
the purpose of upholding tii
Canadian government as against,
the claims of aliens without ri
‘pect to the justice or equity of
• he case. This is borne out o;
i he Supreme Court s complete
acceptance of the findings of
the lower court in all matters
of fact and evidence, without
giving consideration to points
raised by the appellants, some
of which certainly cast serious
doubt upon the competency of
Crown testimony
“Hair-Splitting’ Indulged In
The decision is marked to a
surprising degree by hair-spir
ting and devious reasoning. For
example: The Supreme Court
held that the convention of ldlL
does not apply on this coast.
Then it went to the extent to
say that even if the convention
\ did apply, the “Tillie M.” the
“Queen City” and “Sunrise’
could find no protection under
it. The court quotes the treaty
by which citizens of the United
States renounced the right of
fishery within three miles of
the “coasts, bays creeks or har
bors” of Cadana; and quo »js
further where the treaty gives
Americans the right to “enter
such bays and harbors” for
shelter, water, fuel or repair. In
its decision the Supreme Court
says:
“Now the place where the-e
three vessels were seized is n >t
shown on the chart or establish
ed by the evidence to have been
either a bay or harbor, and if
it is not, there is no provision
either in treaty or statute which
authorizes entry for the purpose
of shelter.” By its own words
the court admits this anchorage
was a place of shelter. What is
a harbor if it is not a place of
shelter?
Attitude Is Heartless
Another example of devious
reasoning is found where the
court says: “If a foreign vessel
enters Canadian waters fo *
shelter against weather whica
is known to prevail on the fish
ing grounds, and the vessel is
so constructed that it cannot
with safety remain outside the
three-mile limit in such weath
er, there might arise a suspicion
of want of bona fides on the
part of the master or owner in
bringing a vessel ni that class
1: to r,vch seas to fish. A want
bon? fides woi Id abrogate
ar y right or privilege to shelter
<TT cn by the sta ute.” It 's
evident that where a vessel is
overwhelmed ov sea and weath
er conditions it is because she is
so constructed that she cannot
cope with such conditions. Und
j-r the court’s reasoning then it
would appear that the inability
of any vessel to cope with nao
»: al conditions at sea would
subject the master’s good faith
to suspicion. If his vessel was
incapable of keeping the sea
it would be evidence of bad fare i,
which would exclude him from
right of shelter in Canadia 1
v/aters. This is a heartless at
titude, indeed.
. .A Duty Far The U. S.
The decision of the Supreme
Court closes the legal aspect oi
the cases of the “May", “Queen
City”, “Tillie M.” and “Sunrise ”
It could be appealed to the
Privy Council, but such a course
is most improbable. If the mat
ter were merely one of the rul
ing of Canadian court in the
case of four trolling boats it
would be Qnded. However, the
court has held that the Treaty
of 1818 is not applicable on this
coast. In so doing it has open
ed the way to almost certain in
ternational difficulties. Certaivi
ly the State Department of the
United States should intervene
in the matter with a view t)
establishing clearly the rights of
American vessels in the waters
between the United States and
Alaska.
A Canadian View
In discussing the Supremo
Court decision, a Canadian at
torney has said: “The judgment
of Mr. Justice Lamont reads li e*
a piece of special pleading, in
which he has accepted the ev
idence of the Crown witnesses
and ignored the evidence of the
men on the seized vessels. A1 j
both on the lav/ and on th:
facts the only judge who rend
ered a judgment has accept'd
thefindings of the judge in ad
miralty, so that for the purposes
for which the appeal was taken
the appeal has been useless, and
you have no further light as to
the law on the question of t.'•
application of the treaty.
“You will note that the court
has not dealt with the question
of the continuance of the Am
erican rights on the Pacific
Coast as they existed prior to
1818.
The matter really should go tj
the Privy Council, where a
question of such importance as
the application of an imperial
Treaty and the extinguishment
of ancient rights of a friendly
nation would receive considera
tion from a court which is con
stantly giving consideration *3
questions of international law,