552 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



great importance lo us of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the bay of 

 Chaleur. The latter is represented as having been "famous fiishing 

 ground" before the Revolution, and still productive. Heavy in- 

 Tiirv is anticipated should we not secure it. There is a letter from 

 Israel Trask to Mr. Tilsbee, member of congress, dated Gloucester, 

 January the 20th, 1818, giving valuable information; and a general 

 concurrence is seen as to the importance of our securing ample fishing 

 ground even if we did not get shore privilege, though the latter also 

 was desirable. If my memory does not fail me, there were strong 

 representations from the honorable James Lloyd, then an eminent 

 senator from Massachusetts, on this head, and especially as to our 

 not losing the bay of Chaleur, though I do not find them among my 

 papers. 



Forewarned by information of this nature and much more not now 

 in my possession, it ought not to be lightly supposed that the nego- 

 tiators of the convention would sign away the right of entering the 

 fishing grounds in any of the large outer bays or gulfs. It would 

 have been a blow upon all the fishermen of New England. It would 

 have been to forget the whole spirit and object of our instructions; 

 to disregard the information which in part dictated them; and to 

 yield up or endanger great public interests, naval and national. 

 The Senate of the United States could never have ratified such a 

 convention. We had come out of the war of 1812 under too high a 

 tone of national feeling, and most especially as regarded our rising 

 naval capabilities and all the sources for sustaining them. 



The idea of fencing us out by a line drawn from " headland to 

 headland " by any of those large outer bays, is perfectly new. It 

 has burst upon us as altogether an ex post facto affair. No such 

 words are in the Convention. I was amazed when I first caught 

 the rumor of them. Since receiving your letter I have diligently 

 searched through all my papers, including the memorandums and 

 informal notes which passed between the negotiators on both sides 

 from time to time whilst the negotiation was in process. I find 

 no trace or shadow of them on any protocol or elsewhere from the 

 beginning to the end of the whole negotiation. Yet the presence of 

 such words in the convention is assumed in an opinion, as published 

 in the newspapers, which the Attorney general and Advocate gen- 

 eral of England have given against our construction of the instru- 

 ment; and this assumption would seem to be an essential prop of 

 their opinion. It was drawn forth, as is stated, under the requisi- 

 tion of Lord Palmerston at the instance of the public authorities in 

 Nova Scotia in 1841. The period of invoking such an opinion against 

 us was somewhat remote. It came twenty-two years after the date 

 of the convention. 



It is indispensable to the just construction of this high interna- 

 tional compact to which the attention of both nations is now directed., 

 to recall the state of things existing when it was formed; and 

 although this has been a well-understood branch of the question, 

 hitherto, its summary but distinct recapitulation in outline becomes 

 full}' appropriate at the present juncture. 



By the old treaty of peace of 1783 which separated the two coun- 

 tries, we secured these valuable fishing rights. Britain said we lost 

 them by the war of 1812. We denied it. Her doctrine was, that war 

 abrogated all pre-existing treaties. We admitted this to be the gen- 



