DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 217 



cution of American vessels for abuse of the privilege ceded to them 

 shall take place, and consecutive precedents for future guidance be 

 thereby established, it appears probable that doubts may, and will 

 arise, as to the interpretation to be borne by the said Treaty. 



It is true that some seizures have been made of American fishing 

 vessels under the provincial Act 6th. Win. 4th. referred to by Mr. 

 Stevenson, but his Excellency has fallen into much misapprehension 

 as to the character of this law, the extent of its operation, and the 

 nature of the seizures made under it. The Act recites the Conven- 

 tion and the Imperial Statute 59 : Geo 3rd cap : 38, before mentioned, 

 and in describing the encroachments on the coasts of the province, 

 which it was its object to prevent, it will be found to be in perfect 

 conformity with the letter, and spirit, of that Statute : while the 

 provisions by which it seeks to effect the object in view, are borrowed 

 from imperial enactments relating to trade and navigation'. Its 

 operation is limited as of necessity, it must be, to Nova Scotia and 

 therefore, it could not have been passed as is assumed by Mr. Steven- 

 son, with a view to restrict or destroy the fisheries of the United 

 States on the coast of Neivfoundland, and for the same reason this 

 Act does not affect the Bay of Chaleurs also mentioned by his 

 Excellency. 



In point of fact, I have not been able to learn that any seizures 

 have been made when the vessels have not been within the distance 

 prescribed by the Statute, or considered so to be; altho' it is true 

 that the Bay of Fundy (as well as smaller bays on the coast of Nova 

 Scotia), is thought by the law officers in the province to form part 

 of the exclusive territory of the Crown, under the authority of a 

 principle of the law of nations laid down by Grotius, and adopted 

 by English jurists vide Chitty's Commercial Law vol i. page 90. 

 extracts from which are contained in the paper marked No. 1, here- 

 with transmitted. 



The complaint made that " the provincial authorities assume the 

 right to prohibit the approach of American vessels, within 

 128 three miles of a line drawn from headland to headland, instead 

 of from the indents of the shores of the province," is another 

 exemplification of the difference I have stated to exist in the interpre- 

 tation put upon the treaty by the subjects of the two Governments, 

 the following words of the Convention of 1818, cited by Mr. 

 Stevenson, 



" The United States renouncing any liberty before enjoyed by their 

 citizens to take fish within three marine miles of any coasts, bays, 

 creeks or harbours of the British dominions in America not included 

 within the above limits. i. e. Newfoundland and Labrador," appear- 

 ing to the authorities here to bear them out in the assumption of such 

 right, whereas the citizens of the United States maintain the direct 

 contrary. 



On this point the law officers of the Crown in the colony express 

 themselves very strongly both on the general principle of interna- 

 tional law and the letter and direct spirit of the Convention. They 

 deem it to be a settled rule, that the shore of a state lying on the sea 

 is determined by a line drawn from the projecting headlands and not 

 by following the indentations of the coast (Vide Chitty vol 1st. page 

 99 & 100. an extract from which is contained in the paper marked 

 No 2. herewith transmitted.) and therefore think it a necessary con- 



