214 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or 

 abusing the privileges reserved to them." Such are the stipulations 

 of the treaty, and they are believed to be too plain and explicit to 



leave room for doubt or misapprehension, or render the discus- 

 126 sion of the respective rights of the two countries at this time 



necessary. Indeed it does not appear that any conflicting 

 questions of right between them have as } 7 et arisen out of differences 

 of opinion regarding the true intent and meaning of the treaty. It 

 appears, however, that in the actual application of the provisions of 

 the convention, (committed on the part of Great Britain to the hands 

 of subordinate agents, subject to and controlled by local legislation.) 

 difficulties, growing out of individual acts, have unfortunately sprung 

 up from time to time, among the most important of which have been 

 recent seizures of American vessels for supposed violations of the 

 treaty. These have been made, it is believed, under color of a pro- 

 vincial law of 6 William IV., chapter 8, 1836, passed doubtless with a 

 view -to restrict vigorously, if not intended to aim a fatal blow at the 

 fisheries of the United States on the coasts of Newfoundland. 



It also appears, from information recently received by the Govern- 

 ment of the United States, that the provincial authorities assume 

 a right to exclude the vessels of the United States from all their 

 bays, (even including those of Fundy and Chaleurs,) and likewise 

 to prohibit their approach within three miles of a line drawn from 

 lieadland to headland, instead of from^ the indents of the shores of 

 the provinces. They also assert the right of excluding them from 

 British ports, unless in actual distress; warning them to depart, or 

 get under weigh and leave harbor, whenever the provincial custom- 

 house or British naval officer shall suppose that they have remained 

 a reasonable time; and this without a full examination of the cir- 

 cumstances under which they may have entered the port. Now, the 

 fishermen of the United States believe (and it would seem that they 

 are right in their opinion, if uniform practice in [is] any evidence 

 of correct construction), that they can with propriety take fish any 

 where on the coasts of the British provinces, if not nearer than three 

 marine miles to land, and have the right to resort to their ports for 

 shelter, wood and water; nor has this claim, it is believed, ever been 

 seriously disputed, based as it is on the plain and obvious terms of 

 the convention. Indeed, the main object of the treaty was not only 

 to secure to American fishermen, is [in] the pursuit of their employ- 

 ment, the right of fishing, but likewise to insure to them as large 

 a proportion of the conveniences afforded by the neighbouring coasts 

 of British settlements, as might be reconcilable with the just rights 

 and interests of British subjects, and the due administration of her 

 Majesty's dominions. The construction therefore, which has been 

 attempted to be put upon the stipulations of the treaty by the authori- 

 ties of Nova Scotia, is directly in conflict with their object, and en- 

 tirely subversive of the rights and interests of the citizens of the 

 United States. It is one moreover, which would lead to the abandon- 

 ment, to a great extent, of a highly important branch of American 

 industry, which could not for a moment be admitted by the govern- 

 ment of the United States. The undersigned has also been instructed 

 to acquaint Lord Palmerston that the American government has 

 received information that in the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia 

 during the session of 1839-'40, an address to her Majesty was voted, 



