QUESTION FIVE. 85 



issued a notice, in which, admitting that the term " bays," as " usually 

 understood," was " applied equally to small and large tracts of water 

 thus situated," he informed United States fishermen how the case 

 then stood. In his notice he said (App., p. 153) : 



It would appear that, by a strict and rigid construction of this 

 article, fishing vessels of the United States are precluded from enter- 

 ing into the bays or harbours of the British provinces, except for the 

 purposes of shelter, repairing damages, and obtaining wood and 

 water. A bay. as is usually understood, is an arm or recess of the sea, 

 entering from the ocean between capes or headlands, and the term is 

 applied equally to small and large tracts of water thus situated. It 

 is common to speak of Hudson's Bay, or the Bay of Biscay, although 

 they are very large tracts of water. 



The British authorities insist that England has a right to draw a 

 line from headland to headland, and to capture all American fisher- 

 men who may follow their pursuits inside of that line. It was un- 

 doubtedly an oversight in the convention of 1818 to make so large a 

 concession to England, since the United States had usually considered 

 that those vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to 

 American fishermen as freely as the sea itself to within three marine 

 miles of the shore. 



Attempt has been made to minimise the effect of Mr. Webster's 

 declaration, and it is sometimes said that Mr. Webster indicated in 

 his notice that the " strict and rigid construction " was not the true 

 construction. But Mr. Webster said nothing to that effect. His 

 language was (App., p. 153) : 



Not agreeing that the construction thus put upon the treaty is con- 

 formable to the intentions of the contracting parties, this information 

 is, however, made public to the end that those concerned in the Ameri- 

 can fisheries may perceive how the case at present stands, and be upon 

 their guard. 



97 In Mr. Webster's view, the British interpretation of the 



language of the treaty appears to be conceded; but he sug- 

 gested that possibly the language had not properly expressed that 

 which its authors had intended. 



That Mr. Webster meant, by the language of his circular, precisely 

 what he said, is shown (if that be necessary) by a despatch from 

 Mr. Crampton (British Minister at Washington) to Lord Malmes- 

 bury (2nd August, 1852) (App., p. 157) : 



I observe with satisfaction that Mr. Webster now clearly perceives, 

 and fairly admits, the correctness of the construction of the conven- 

 tion of 1818 maintained by Her Majesty's Government. The opinion 

 of the Queen's Advocate and of the Attorney-General is, Mr. Web- 

 ster said, " undoubtedly right " : and he afterwards informed me 

 that the President, from whom he had just received a letter on the 

 subject, now concurred in that opinion. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4 7 



