[Review of dispute between the British and French Governments over the fishery in Newfoundland] … The case for the Colony as stated by Chief Justice Pinsent is that the French have no right whatsoever to this industry, that they have no right to take bait fishes within the treaty limits for any other purpose than for the local cod-fishery, and that they have no right to take bait for export. The colonial case is based on the contention that the Treaty of Utrecht covers only fishing then actually in existence, which was the cod-fishery. It is, therefore, not lawful for the French to erect buildings except those necessary and customary for drying codfish and their rights are limited to fishing for and drying cod within the specified areas. Chief Justice Pinsent lays it down as a principle of law that as there was no such industry as a lobster fishery in Newfoundland at the time of the Treaties of Utrecht and Versailles, and as such a thing as a lobster factory was never even heard of until within the last few years, the right to catch and can lobsters cannot belong to France by treaty.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893