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 effec- 
tively 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 con- 
travention 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 accord- 
ing 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, Inter- 
national Law p. 246.