293 



"The rights of fishery ceded to the citizens of the United States, arid 

 those reserved for the exclusive enjoyment of British subjects, depend 

 altogether upon the convention of ISIS, the only existing treaty on this 

 subject between the two countries; and the material points arising 

 thereon have been specifically answered in our replies to the preceding 

 queries." 



That this opinion is not conclusive against us, and that, indeed, it 

 has no binding force whatever, hardly need be said; especially since 

 there is probable cause to believe that it was paid* for in the common 

 course of professional duty. But whether the Queen's advocate and 

 her Majesty's attorney general did or did not appear in the "case" 

 submitted to them as the counsel of Nova Scotia, is a matter of no mo- 

 ment to us. The judgment which they have rendered, and the exam- 

 iaation of which is now concluded, deserves no respect either for its 

 iaw, its common sense, its humanity, or its justice. Its only claim to 

 the notice bestowed upon it consists in the fact that it is relied on to 

 prove that we are in the wrong and England in the right, in the contro- 

 versy which has arisen as to the intent and meaning of the convention 

 of 1818. 



We arc now ready to inquire what, up to 1841, was the British con- 

 struction? First, however, let us glance at the British pretension prior 

 to the concluding of the convention. In 1817, in the orders of Admiral 

 Milne to Captain Chambers, under which several American vessels 

 v/ere seized, it is said: "On meeting with any foreign vessel fishing or 

 at anchor in any of the harbors or creeks in his Majesty's North American 

 provinces, or within our maritime jurisdiction, you will seize," &c. Here 

 is the extent of the British claim. Captain Chambers, in reporting his 

 <ioings to his commander-in-chief, remarked that he "did not receive 

 any intelligence of foreign vessels being within onr jurisdiclion until the 

 3d instant," (June 3, 1817,) when he was informed "tliat they con- 

 stantly resorted to the creeks on this coast in order to catch their bait, 

 •clean their fish, wood, water, &c." The harbors of Cape Negro and of 

 the Ragged Island, he said further, were visited by such vessels; and 

 in these harbors and for resorting to these harbors he captured eleven 

 American fishermen. 



The bodies of sea-water of more than six miles in width were not 

 claimed, then, in 1817, and pending the negotiations; and Admiral 

 Milne acted in strict conformity to Ijord Bathurst's suggestion to Mr. 

 Adams in 1815, that we must relinquish "the harbors and creeks," and 

 the "nzaritime jurisdiction three marine miles from the shore." If the 

 •construction of the crown lawyers is just, it follows that the convention 

 of 1818 is an injury rather than a benefit, for the simple reason that 

 previoias to that year we were allowed to fish in the bays which, it is 

 pretended b}-" these gentlemen, we cannot enter under the stipulations 

 of that instrument. 



What, in the second place, has been the course pursued siiice 1818? 

 i^orae of the colonial writers have aflSrmed during the present year, 



* When Lord Falkland solicited Lord John Russell to submit his queries, he said : " I 

 .am authorized by the House of Assembly hej-e to defray any expense that may be incurred 

 4tbtwmng such opinion," &.c. 



