QUESTION FIVE. 79 



But the only official objection made at the time was that by the 

 United States Secretary of State on the 14th August, 1839, as follows 

 (App, p. 120) :- 



In the absence of information of a character sufficiently precise to 

 ascertain either, on the one side, the real motives which carried the 

 American vessels into British harbors, or, on the other, the reasons 

 which induced their seizure by British authorities, the department is 

 unable to state whether, in the cases under consideration, there has 

 been any flagrant infraction of the existing treaty stipulations. The 

 presumption is that if, on the part of citizens of the United States, 

 there has been a want of caution or care in the strict observance 

 of those stipulations, there has been, on the other hand, an equal 

 disregard of their spirit, and of the friendly relations which they 

 were intended to promote and perpetuate, in the haste and indiscrimi- 

 nate rigour with which the British authorities have acted. 



And two years afterwards (20th February, 1841), the United 

 States Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, wrote to Mr. Stevenson 



00 (American Minister at London) acknowledging that no spe- 

 cific complaint could be made against the conduct of the local 



authorities. He said (App., p. 124) : 



At the time of addressing you the instructions numbered 71, of 

 17th of April last, relating to the interruptions experienced by the 

 vessels of our citizens employed in intercourse with the ports of Nova 

 Scotia, and in the prosecution of the fisheries on the neighbouring 

 coasts, it was deemed expedient, before presenting through you the 

 latter branch of the subject to Her Majesty's Government in a formal 

 manner, to await the communication to this department of a case in 

 which the details of the seizure the grounds on which it was made, 

 and the consequent judicial and other proceedings should be fully set 

 forth. Several cases of seizures and detention have, as was appre- 

 hended, occurred since the date of my letter, but none of those 

 reported to the department have been presented in a form to fulfil 

 the expectation entertained that the Government would be enabled to 

 found upon it a specific complaint against the conduct of the local 

 authorities, whilst protesting against the injurious operation of pro- 

 vincial law upon American interests brought involuntarily and un- 

 justly within its jurisdiction. 



In this letter, the United States for the first time adopted the argu- 

 ment suggested by Lieutenant-Commanding Paine. Mr. Forsyth 

 said (App., p. 124) : 



From the information in the possession of the department, it ap- 

 pears that the provincial authorities assume a right to exclude Ameri- 

 can vessels from all their bays, even including those of Fundy and 

 Chaleurs, and to prohibit their approach within three miles of a line 

 drawn from headland to headland. 



in* ***** 



Our fishermen believe, and they are obviously right in their opinion, 

 if uniform practice is any evidence of correct construction, that they 

 can with propriety take fish anywhere on the coasts of the British 

 provinces, if not nearer than three miles to land, and resort to thc-ir 

 ports for shelter, wood, water, &c. 



