cap. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 379
the wide power given in that Act it was possible to prevent
all British ships from engaging in the fisheries, however far
out at sea, without taking out a licence, and in effect, as the
fishery could only be carried on by vessels which could rely
on the use of the shore for stores and shelter, it was possible,
as shown in 1911, to require all foreign vessels to take out a
licence and pay the fees as a condition of using the shore at all.
The other case is that of The Queen v. Delepine,! in which,
as in the former case, the waters of Newfoundland were held
in the case of bays to extend from a line drawn three miles
from headland to headland, quoting the decision of the
Chief Justice of Newfoundland and of the Privy Council in
Anglo-American Telegraph Co. v. The Direct United States Co. ?
where it was laid down that Conception Bay was territorial
waters of Newfoundland. The well-known Canadian case of
the Frederick Gerring® illustrates, however, only the ordinary
three-mile limit if the evidence is to be accepted as correct.
At the same time it may be noted that in a recent case?
the Canadian Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine that
capture of a vessel which has just infringed some local law
in territorial waters while it is being hotly pursued from
these waters is lawful even if the capture is outside the
three-mile limit, as it is recognized as legal in international
law, and there seems nothing to justify us in supposing that
the doctrine would not be upheld if an appeal had been
brought to the Privy Council on the question. The Court
evidently considered the usual question of the limitation of
authority and decided against it, on the ground that the
power of the fishing regulation could not be exercised effectively
 without it. It may be noted also that the Natal Treason
Court held that it could punish treason committed outside

1 1897 Newfoundland Decisions, 378. It arose out of an alleged contravention
 of the Bait Act, 50 Vict. c. 1.
* 2 App. Cas. 394. See also the Hague Arbitration Award of 1910, which
accepts the judgement, Cd. 5396, p. 23. Chaleurs Bay is territorial according
 to Mowat v. McFee, 5S. C. R. 66.
* (1897) 27 8. C. R. 271, a decision much resented in the United States.
The Ship < North® v. The King, 37 8. C. R. 385; and cf. Hall, International
 Law p. 246.