THE FISH CASES.

Southland Times, Issue 19681, 7 October 1905, Page 2

THE FISH CASES.

The decision given yesterday by the Stipendiary Magistrate in the case in which the Southland Acclimatisation Society prosecuted two fishermen for having trout illegally in their possession in the close season was undoubtedly in accordance with the spirit and intention of the lnt\. and, we think, with its letter also. The points raised by the defence showed great ingenuity and astuteness, but they also betrayed inherent weakness. That Edmund Rask was t in possession of. the. trout could not be denied. The evidence on that point was absolutely conclusive. There was no doubt either that he had them in his possession during a close season. In these circumstances defendant’s counsel had to disentangle his client from the moshes of a. law which was specially framed with a • view to protecting trout from capture for a certain period in each year. Astute as counsel’s argument was, it would have been fatal to the cause of acclimatisation in the colony if his contentions had been upheld, since that would have been equivalent to finding that__owing to defects and omissions! of ’language the Act had failed to effect the purpose for which it was framed. It would be ludicrous, for instance, if it could be found that for the purposes of this Act Ipvercargill is not a borough comprised within the county of Southland. The plain meaning of “ comprised,” as thus used, is not that the borough is part of the county for administrative purposes and under the jurisdiction of county management, but that it lies geographically within the boundaries of the county. From the common sense point of view Invercargill is a borough situated within the provincial district .of Otago, or with' in the county of Southland. In this sense the word “ comprised ” or its synonyms, included, contained, embraced, is frequently used ; and to have rendered the Act inoperative on such hairsplitting arguments as this would have been to further illustrate the truth of . a certain disrespectful but frequently quoted reference to the law. , Another question of some public interest was raised by the defence. It was argued that the fish were caught beyond the ” three mile limit, ’ and that therefore tho Court had no jurisdiction. This point-the Magistrate was not called upon to consider. It lay on the defence to prove.that the actual capture was made outside the" " three mile limit.” In this they failed, and the Magistrate ,was therefore entitled to dismiss the point. But even if it had been proved beyond doubt that the fish were actually caught at a distance of more than three -nautical miles from the shore, it is questionable whether that would have been a sound defence. Though the question of territorial waters is not settled in international law and is largely a matter for special agreement between nation and nation, it is at least beyound doubt, that the limit cannot now be set at three nautjeal miles from low water mark. The right of a nation to claim territorial rights in the waters on its coasts is governed by its capacity to control them, and this in turn is determined by the range of artillery. The effective range of modern big guns ( is considerably more than 3 nautical miles, and in the most recent case in which an effort was made to guide international usage it was agreed that not less than six nautical miles Would be a fair limit to the territorial waters of a country. Had the settlement of this question been essential to the Magistrate’s' decision we think that it would have gone against the defence, and fishermen would do well not to feel to certain of their immunity from “ The Fisheries Conservation Act ” when more than a marine Jeague from the shore. In this case his Worship very properly said that pvep assuming that the trout were taken beyond the 3 mile limit they were still fish inhabiting the waters of the Colony, and therefore protected by law. That is a point of the utmost importance from the point of view of acclimatisation since it upholds the purpose for which the law was placed upon the Statutes —the purpose, namely, of cxtepdjng to fish ‘'introduced at considerable expense and propagated with much labour and skill absolute protection for five mouths in tffe year. Anglers will feel assured to learn that this case has resulted in strengthening their position, and also that the work of the Acclimatisation Society, In which they ore so deeply interested, is being assisted and protected by a vigilant and resourceful ranger.