218 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



sequence that the three miles fixed upon by the Convention should 

 always be measured from such a line. But they also say that the 

 words of the Convention would put an end to the question could any 

 be raised on the general rule. 



The language used in the Convention (1st Article) is, "Three 

 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions in America " and it is considered 

 that three miles from a bay, creek, or harbour, must mean three miles 

 from any part of it, and consequently from its entrance or mouth, 

 or in other words, from a line drawn from its projecting headlands. 



The Convention however does not stop here, It provides that 

 American fishermen may enter " such bays or harbours " for the pur- 

 pose of shelter, repairing damages, and obtaining w r ood and water 

 and "for no other purpose whatever." -But they shall be under such 

 restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or 

 curing -fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the 

 privileges hereby reserved to them" 



This language is considered conclusive against any pretence that 

 American fishermen should have the right to enter any bays or har- 

 bours in Her Majesty's North American Colonies excepting only for 

 shelter, repairing damages or providing wood and water. Indeed 

 the claim now set up there is reason to think is new, as in point of 

 practice the American fishermen when questioned for being within 

 the waters of this province, have uniformly resorted to the pretexts 

 afforded by the Convention, viz : the want of shelter, repairs or wood, 

 and water, and never it is believed have asserted the right to fish 

 within the bays or harbours of the coasts. 



This question is of extreme importance to Nova Scotia, as from the 

 indented nature of its coasts the claim set up by the American Min- 

 ister would lead to results most injurious to the province. 



The right to resort to the ports of Nova Scotia for shelter, wood, 

 and water, which Mr. Stevenson conceives has never been seriously 

 disputed, has always been frankly conceded in cases of real distress, 

 and unaffected calamity, but never when such right was supposed to 

 be exercised for the purpose of evading the British 'commercial regu- 

 lations. Thus in the case of the " Nabby " seized in 1818 by H : M : 

 ship Saracen, and prosecuted in the Admiralty Courts of Nova 

 Scotia, it was decided, that vessels are bound to have a sufficient 

 quantity of wood, water, and provisions, on board for the voyage in 

 which they are engaged, a scarcity of either of these articles arising 

 from design, or neglect, not necessarily opening British ports, to any 

 adventurer seeking to contravene the law. 



The American Minister states in his Despatch that, " the fishermen 

 of the United States believe, (and it would seem they are right in 

 their opinion if uniform practice be evidence of correct construction.) 

 that they can with propriety take fish anywhere on the coasts of the 

 British provinces, if not nearer than three marine miles to land."- 



This from the general context of Mr. Stevenson's note evidently 

 means, within three miles of the indents of the shore, " the uniform 

 practice " alluded to by that gentleman is a practice which has 

 always been resisted by the authorities of this colony, altho' it is 

 difficult with an extended coast and inadequate means of protection 

 entirely to suppress it. 



