Kentucky Gazette

INTERESTING TO OUR FISHERMEN

By the Enterprize, Capt. Frazer, arrived at this port yesterday, in 11 days from Halifax, we learn by a decision of the Admiralty Court at that place on the 29th August last, that the twenty sail of American fishing vessels carried into Halifax on the 17th June by his Majesty's ship Dee, Capt. Chambers, are to be restored to the claimants.

THE FISHERIES.

FROM A HALIFAX PAPER OF SEPT. 6TH.

DECREE pronounced by the Hon. Michael Wallace, Judge of the vice-admiralty court, on Friday, the 29th ult. in the case of American fishing vessels, seized and detained by his majesty's ships of war, in the harbors, and on the coasts of Nova Scotia.

This case is of great national importance. Under that impression, it has had as much consideration on my part as my humble talents are capable of giving.

I entirely accede to the principle laid down by the advocate general, that the American government, when it commenced hostilities against Great-Britain, cut the cord on which their treaty of 1783, with our government, hung, and thereby dissolved every condition, obligation and privilege it contained. But as American subjects have long enjoyed under that treaty, the privilege of fishing on our coast; and there being no specific notification from our government that I know of since the treaty of Ghent published on the subject, for me to have recourse to; I cannot adopt so serious a measure as the condemnation of the property of individuals, who seem generally ignorant of the intentions of our government with respect to the prohibition. Besides, it does not appear to the court, that any of them were found in the act of catching fish or trading with the inhabitants in any of our bays or harbors, but merely seeking shelter from the weather, or a little fresh water; which, under existing circumstances, I cannot view in the light of an infringement of our rights.

Independent of this consideration, were I inclined to enforce the principle of national law against the claimants in this case, I should be at a loss what penalty to pronounce upon the aggressors. In other cases in which foreigners are seized for unlawful traffic, there are positive acts of Parliament inflicting a forfeiture of the property, and other penalties for the offence.

Is it a matter of course in this instance, that these vessels are to be condemned and forfeited to his majesty? I cannot think so.

I have no law to guide me in my judgment, no proclamation or orders in council, no instructions of any kind, by which I can measure the punishment to be inflicted.

I therefore decree and adjudge that the vessels and their cargoes be restored to the owners, and that the costs of the prosecution be paid by the captors.
be inflicted for this infringement of our colonial rights.

It is totally a new question, and one that I conceive to be involved in much doubt and difficulty, in consequence of the silence of the treaty of Ghent on this very important subject.

I am not ignorant that negotiations have been carried on respecting the fishery in question, between our government and that of America: Those negotiations were broken off in January last, it is true; but it is equally true that they have been renewed, and are still pending.

Under which circumstances, therefore, I do not consider myself justified in condemning this property to his Majesty; but shall decree that the vessels and property belonging to them, be restored to the claimants, on paying costs; from which decree, if the seizers are dissatisfied, they are at liberty to appeal to a superior court, where it is probable the subject has been under the discussion of abler minds, and where the intentions of our government, with respect to it, can be fully ascertained.