PERIOD FROM 1836 TO 1854. 499 



It becomes the more necessary to make this observation, in conse- 

 quence of some doubts as to the extent of the proposed relaxation. 

 Lord Aberdeen, after stating that her Majesty's government felt 

 themselves constrained to adhere to the right of excluding the 

 United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, and also with 

 regard to other bays on the British American coasts, to maintain the 

 position that no United States fisherman has, under that convention, 

 the right to fish within three miles of the entrance of such bays, as 

 designated by a line drawn from headland to headland at that 

 entrance, adds, that " while her Majesty's government still feel them- 

 selves bound to maintain these positions as a matter of right, they 

 are not insensible to the advantages which would accrue to both coun- 

 tries from the relaxation of that right." 



This form of expression might seem to indicate that the relaxation 

 proposed had reference to both positions; but when Lord Aberdeen 

 proceeds to state more particularly its nature and extent, he confines 

 it to a permission to be granted to " the United States fishermen to 

 pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided 

 they do not approach except in the cases specified in the treaty of 

 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of 

 Nova Scotia and New Brunswick," which entrance is defined, in 

 another part of Lord Aberdeen's note, as being designated by a line 

 drawn from headland to headland. 



In the case of the "Washington," which formed the subject of the 

 note of the undersigned of the 25th May, 1844, to which the present 

 communication of Lord Aberdeen is a reply, the capture complained 

 of was in the waters of the Bay of Fundy ; the principal portion of 

 the argument of the undersigned was addressed to that part of the 

 subject; and he is certainly under the impression that it is the point 

 of greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto 

 carried on between the two governments, in reference to the United 

 Suites' right of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts. 



In the case, however, of the "Argus" which was treated in the note 

 of the undersigned of the 9th of October, the capture was in the 

 waters which wash the north-eastern coast of Cape Breton, a portion 

 of the Atlantic ocean intercepted indeed between a straight line 

 drawn from Cape North to the northern head of Cow bay, but pos- 

 sessing none of the characters of a bay, (far less so than the Bay of 

 Fundy,) anfl not called a " bay " on any map which the undersigned 

 has seen. The aforesaid line is a degree of latitude in length; and 

 as far as reliance can be placed on the only maps (English ones) in 

 the p< od of the undersigned on which this coast, is distinctly 



laid down, it would exclude vessels from fishing grounds which might 

 be thirty miles from the shore. 



Lord Aberdeen, in his note of the LOtfa instant, on the case of the 

 u Argus i n ob that, " as the point of the construction of the con- 



vention of L818, in reference to the right of fishing in the Anglo- 

 American dependencies by citizens of the United States, is treated 

 in another note of the under igned of this date, relative to the ease 

 of the "' Washington" the undersigned abstains from again touching 

 on that subject. 



This expre rion taken by itself would seem to authorize the expec- 

 tation that the waters where these two vessels respectively were 

 captured would be held subject to the same principles, whether of 



!,2 f i09°-R. Doe. 870, 81-8, vol 2 33 



