554 COKUESPONDENCE, ETC. 



In signing it, we believed that we retained the right of fishing in 

 the sea, whether called a bay, gulf, or by whatever other term desig- 

 nated, that washed any part of the coast of the British North Ameri- 

 can Provinces, with the simple exception that we did not come within 

 a marine league of the shore. We had this right by the law of na- 

 tions. Its confirmation was in the treaty of :83. We retained it 

 undiminished, unless we gave it up by the first article of the conven- 

 tion of 1818. This we did not do. The article warrants no such 

 construction. Mr. Everett when minister in London, writing to Lord 

 Aberdeen, August the 10th 1843, under instructions from the Sec- 

 retary of State, remarks that the right of fishing off any part of the 

 coast of Nova Scotia (consequently in the Bay of Fundy) at a greater 

 distance than throe miles, is so plain, that it would be difficult to 

 conceive on what ground it could be drawn in question had not at- 

 tempts been made by the Provincial authorities of her Majesty's 

 government to interfere with its exercise; and Mr. Stevenson, minis- 

 ter in London before Mr. Everett, while writing to Lord Palmerston, 

 March the 27th, :41, in reference of our right to fish in the large 

 outer bays, says, " the stipulations of the treaty (convention of 1818) 

 are believed to be too plain and explicit to leave room for doubt or 

 misapprehension." 



As to the Bay of Fundy, part of its coast belongs to one of the 

 states of the Union — Maine. Hence Britain cannot claim it as her 

 exclusive jurisdiction. Had Mr. Gallatin been told by the British 

 plenipotentiaries, that the first article of the convention would close 

 the extensive waters of that bay against our fishermen, I do not be- 

 lieve he would have signed it; nor could I have signed it. The spirit, 

 context, all the concomitants of the article, pointed to a different 

 meaning. I need not cite all its words. You know them. It will be 

 enough to bring into view the proviso which follows the clause of 

 renunciation. That part was thus : "And the United States hereby 

 renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the 

 inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three 

 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors of his 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the 

 above mentioned limits: (those set out for us in the beginning of the 

 article;) provided however, that the American fishermen shall be 

 permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter 

 and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of ob- 

 taining water; and for no other purpose whatever." 



These are the decisive words in our favor. They meant no more 

 than that our fishermen whilst fishing in the waters of the Bay of 

 Fundy should not go nearer than three miles to any of those small 

 inner hays creeks or harbors which are known to indent the coasts 

 of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. To suppose they were bound 

 to keep three miles off from a line drawn from headland to headland 

 on the extreme outside limits of that bay, a line which might measure 

 fifty miles or more according to the manner of drawing or imagining 

 it, would be a most unreasonable and therefore unnatural supposition. 

 I cannot think that it entered the minds of the British plenipoten- 

 tiaries any more than ours. For would it not be useless to tell half 

 ship-wrecked fishermen they might cross such a line for the purpose 

 of seeking shelter in bays, creeks and harbors lying at an immense 

 distance inside of it? Tempest-tost outside of a great sea-line like 



