The Sun.
London, England, 1818-10-16 00:00:00

a Li itish Judge, thereiorc, 't-cce',ye -with
every disposition- of kindness this grown' of de-
'fence; but let it not be a galb assumed by ar-
tifice to deceive and mislead, While lam ready
to acknowledge the interesting features of distress,
1 am vigilant to detect the subtle contrivances of
art. NOW what is the truth of this case? That this
vessel was in any serious distress cannot be pre-
tended. Thrt she might have wanted a little wa-
ter is very possible, but it must he made out to
this Court that the deficiency did not arise either
front design or from ate unittstifi,ible neglect ; and,
let it have arisen limn whatever cause it might,
that it was such as to lIIACC the crew in imminent
danger o! perishing. The master says that they
:mind themselve3 nearer to the land than they
expected, ‘ehi h shews that his distress WiS 1101
stich as to have forced hint to serk a harbout.
lie expresses his distress to arise from his water
being scant, hut lac does not say that any incon-
xtutience had been experienced, or that be could
not have prosecuted voyage. Besides, vessels
are botind to have a sufficient quantity of water
and provisions on board for the voyage in which
they arc engaged, and it would be absurd to sup-
pose, that a seateity of water, arising out of ne-
glect, or, what is more probable, design, can
Optl'Me to supersede the laws, and thcow open
British ports to any adverturer who way wish
to evade the regulations of British trade and na.

vrcalion.
'the evidence on this and other points is ex-
tremely contiadictury. One says that vessels
cold(' carry on ;-1 voyage without going
into any harbour, and another says it would be
impossible without the privilege of putting into
some of the British ports for ‘vood and water ;
and it is in evidence that they informed the
Midshipman that they expected to supply them-
aelves with wood and water from the Htitish
coasts. One of the witnesses expressly swears
that they had full supply for their voyage, but
that one of the barrels of water proving bad, they
put into Pope's harbour to get a fresh supply ;
also, that a ten gallon ca,lc of Water uvas spoiled
by being put into an old gin cask. Now it would
be'benentit the dignity of a Court to spend time in
commenting on such evidence as this, brought
forward to support a point which always requires
to be made out in the most satisfactory manner,
and in the proof of which such strictness has al-
ways betty observed. Nothing could have in-
duced me to give the attention 1 have done to it,
but a great anxiety that this subject, which has
already excited much public interest, should be
thoroughly investigated; and that not only the
principles of law, but the facts of the case, should
be presented to the world in the clearest point of
view. _ _ .

I shall conclude my observations on this point
of the case with ttie words of a Judge (Sir W.
Scotr)., whose decisions are not only studied by
Ora lawyer, nS the sources of profound instroc-
tion, but arc read with interest by the enlighten-
ed and accomplished scholar, as tl►e finest exer-
cises of the human; intellect :—" Where the party
justifies the act upon the plea of distress, it must
i►ot be a distress which he has created himself, by
putting on board an insufficieot quantity of water
of provisions for such a voyage ; for there the
aaistress is only a part of the mechanism at the
• fraud, and cannot be set iu excuse lot it ; and in
the next place, the distress most he proved by the
claim tut in a clear and satisfaciory manner. It
is evidence which conies Irons himself, and front
persons subject to his power, and probably iu-
volved in the fraud, it any fraud there be, and
therefore it is liable to be rigidly examined."
The last point which is to be considered by the
Court, is a right which has been set op by the
claimant to enter the ports and harbours of this
Province, and there to core the fish which he
may have taken in the course of his fishing voy-
age. And certainly it such a right exists, the
principles of law which I have laid down wit)► so
much care will not be applicable to this vessel,
sinless proof shall have been made of at► actual
trading. Because it would not be consistent to
permit foreign vessels to enter these harbours fur
a certain purpose, and then to make that entry a
ground upon which to raise the presumption of il-
licit trade. This right is asserted to belong to
the citizens of the United States, under the treaty
of peace entered into between his Britannic Ma-
jesty and the Government of that country, in the
vear 1783 ; and it is contended in the first place,
that a right to take fish on our coasts, and in our
harbours and bays, and to cure the same on the
shores of this Province, was absolutely acknow-
ledged and given by the third article of that
treaty : and it► the second, that admitting the
treaty granted only a privilege to do so, that such
privilege still exists, because the treaty itself lots
not been annulled. This question now results
itself in a way which obliges the Court to enter
into the full consideration of the right here as-
serted. Fur although it has already determined
that it cannot take cognizance of it as a direct
charge against this vessel, having no authority so
to do ; yet as it becomes essential to the deter-
n►ivation of the second point in this cause, as it
arises incidentally oat of the consideration of the
municipal laws of the country, anti as it must be
entertained in order to do justice to the parties
svhose private interests are involved, it is its duty
to sustain it, and to place it its such a point of
view as may put an end to those doubts which
state have affected to indulge on this subject. It
might be sufficient for me to say, on this point,
that his Majesty's Government having determined,
that the privileges granted to the citizens of the
United States by the treaty of 1783, to early on
the fishery upon the coasts of this Province, and
to cure fish in tl►e harbours thereof, haul ceased ;
and that determination having been made known,
it would not be necessary to consider this right as
entitled to any attention. But as it will require
brit little reasoning to spew the weakness of such
pretensions, I shall take a cursory view of the
grounds upon which this extraordinary right seems
to have been placed.
It will not be requisite for me, in this case, to
enter into those general considerations of the
rights of nations to a dominion of the sea, whicf►
have occupied the attention of the gentlemen of
the bar. Very able writers on abstract law
have diffeted, both as respects the right of do-
minion over pat ticolar parts of the sea, and also
as to the distance from the shore over which a