DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 233 



if excluded from it American vessels could not use for shelter &c. 

 those other bays, and harbours. Had the treaty of 1818 used only the 

 word " coasts " it is presumed it would under general international 

 law have excluded approach within three miles of any line to be 

 drawn from the headlands of the coast; not the outer points of each 

 harbour and inlet but the extremities of the coast in its main 

 features and general configuration. 



The treaty was however, specific, and excluded bays creeks and 

 harbours by name, probably to prevent dispute as the treaty of 

 1783 had used these words in conjunction with the word " coasts " in 

 defining the privilege then granted. 



Under the word " coasts " and still more emphatically under the 

 term " bays " it is conceived the American fisherraen are excluded 

 from the Bay of Fundy. 



The American minister has failed to advert to the fact that the 

 Bay of Fundy after entering Her Majesty's possessions, is encircled 

 and enclosed therein and terminates in the heart of the country. 



If the term coasts in international law embraces a large expanse of 

 water stretching into and forming one with the Atlantic ocean, and 

 which every passing ship may find occasion to use as part of the high- 

 way of nations and defined only by an imaginary line drawn from 

 two far separated promontories or headlands, it is not a little diffi- 

 cult to exclude from its import an inlet of water, tho' considerable 

 in size, confined and situated as the Bay of Fundy is. 



If, however the term " coasts " did not operate to exclude the 

 American fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, the word " bays " used 

 in the treaty it is conceived must, if any language can do so short 

 of an identical designation by name. 



For there is not only nothing in the size or situation of these 

 waters to exclude them from the distinctive term " bay," but no other 

 general term could be used with equal, or with any propriety. 



The alterations in the stipulations of the two treaties, reasoned 

 upon by the American minister, had it is believed not the limited 

 cause or end which his Excellency has suggested namely, to avoid 

 disputes which had arisen under the former treaty as to what should 

 be esteemed unsettled portions of Her Majesty s North American 

 provinces. 



The treaty of '83 gives permission to fish on the coasts of Nova 

 Scotia without reference to their settlement or non settlement. The dis- 

 tinction regarding the settlement of the country applied only to the 

 privilege of curing fish on the shores, and any disputes arising from 

 this cause would have been prevented by withdrawing this latter 

 privilege alone; but the treaty of 1818 went further and withdrew 

 the privilege of fishing also, about which no such dispute existed or 

 could arise. The occasion and object of the treaty in this particular 

 therefore was much more extensive than his Excellency has supposed. 

 TVe must believe it was designed to give to the inhabitants of these 

 British North American provinces the exclusive right to take the 

 fish which entered their waters over which the British Crown could 

 exercise control; Hence the restriction within three marine miles, 

 the limit of British authority. 



This obiect would be better advanced bv including the Bav of 

 Fundy within the prohibition than most of the bays besides, about 

 which no dispute is now raised. 



