282 



of three miles is to be measured from the headlands or extreme points 

 of land next the sea of the coast, or of the entrance of the bays, and 

 not from the interior of such bays or inlets of the coast; and, conse- 

 quently, that no right exists, on the part of American citizens, to enter 

 the bays of Nova fScotia, there to take fish, iilthough the fishing l)eing 

 within the bay, may be at a greater distance than three miles from the 

 shore of the bay, as we are of opinion that the term headland is used 

 in the treaty to express the part of the land we have before mentioned, 

 excluding the interior of the bays and the inlets of the coast." 



It is somewhat remarkable that the term "headland" docs not oiice 

 occur in the convention. Of course, so important a mistake as this leaves 

 these learned gentlemen in an unfortunate position. The single word 

 "headland," on which they found their argument, is not once "used," 

 I repeat, in the instrument which they are required to interpret. I af- 

 firm, further, that the idea of excluding our vessels from the "bays of 

 Nova Scotia" was not entertained, nor so much as mentioned, during 

 the negotiations which preceded the convention. The consultations 

 between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst commenced on the basis of re- 

 quiring of us the renunciation of the shore or boat fisheries, and of no 

 others. At the first interview his lordship used this distinct and em- 

 phatic language: 



"As, on the one hand. Great Britain could not permit the vessels of 

 the United States to fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of 

 the British territories, so, on the other hand, it was by no means her 

 intention to interrupt them in fishing anifwhcre in the open sea, or without 

 the territorial jurisdiction, a, marine league from the shore.'''' Again, and 

 on a subsequent occasion, he said, it is not "of fur competition that his 

 Majesty's government has reason to complain, but of the preoccupa- 

 tion of British harbors and creeks." The conferences, the corre- 

 pondence, proceeded and terminated on this supposition — that we 

 rehnquished the inner grounds, as they are called, and retained the outer, 

 or vessel fisheries. We were no longer to interfere with the colonists in 

 the "harbors and creeks;" but, beyond the common three-mile mari- 

 time jurisdiction, were to retain every right to catch fish that we had 

 previously enjoyed. Did space allow, I could show from both sides of 

 the corresponflence that this original thought of Lord Bathurst was 

 kept continually in view, and that the baijs mentioned by the crown 

 lawyers were not even once referred to. Is it, then, to be believed for 

 a single moment — recalling, as we fairly may do, the course pursued 

 by Mr. Adams and Mr. Gallatin at Ghent, in 1814, and the remarks of 

 Lord Bathurst the following year — that, after three years of negotia- 

 tion, a treaty should have been formed which took from us very much 

 more than the British government required us to surrender at the out- 

 set? The thing seems utterly impossible.* 



* The extract from Jcihn Qiiiiicy Adams's diary which I have inserted as a note, in consid- 

 erhij,' tlic crown lawyers' reply to Lord Falkland's first query, shows, conclusively, that as late 

 as May 15, 1^18, and after the nefjotiations of more than two years, our n;i)V('rnment had not 

 even f)ri)p()sed to surrcndrr aiitj portion of l/u ft. •s/iinsf-ir rounds which we occupii'd under the 

 treaty of 178:5. Mr. Adams records, at the date mentioned: "■Perhaps wc slwttld ultimately 

 offer to <ricc up the right of drying and curing on the shore, and reserve the whole right of 

 Ashing." 



