244 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



United States in their own construction of the treaty. While they 

 have ever been prepared to admit, that in the letter of one expression 

 of that instrument there is some reason for claiming a right to ex- 

 chide United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, (it being 

 difficult to deny to that arm of the sea the name of "bay," which long 

 geographical usage has assigned to it,) they have ever strenuously 

 maintained that it is only on their own construction of the entire 

 article that its known design in reference to the regulation of the 

 fisheries admits of being carried into effect. 



The undersigned does not make this observation for the sake of 

 detracting from the liberality evinced by her Majesty's government 

 in relaxing from Avhat they regard as their right; but it would be 

 placing his own government in a false position to accept as mere favor 

 that for which they have so long and strenuously contended as due to 

 them under the convention. 



It becomes the more necessary to make this observation, in con- 

 sequence of some doubt as to the extent of the proposed relaxation. 

 Lord Aberdeen, after stating that her Majesty's government felt 

 themselves constrained to adhere to the right of excluding the United 

 States Fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, and also with regard to 

 other bays on the British American coasts, to maintain the position 

 that no United States fishermen has, under that convention, the 

 right to fish within three miles of the entrance of such bays, as 

 designated by a line drawn from headland to headland at that 

 entrance, adds, that kk while her Majesty's government still feel them- 

 selves bound to maintain these positions as a matter of right, they 

 are not insensible to the advantages which would accrue to both 

 countries from the relaxation of that right." 



This form of expression might seem to indicate that the relaxation 

 proposed had reference to both positions; but when Lord Aberdeen 

 proceeds to state more particularly its nature and extent, he con- 

 fines it to a permission to be granted to " the United States fishermen 

 to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, pro- 

 vided they do not approach except in the cases specified in the treaty 

 of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast 

 of Nova Scotia and Xe\v Brunswick." which entrance is defined, in 

 another part of Lord Aberdeen's note, as being designated by a line 

 drawn from headland to headland. 



In the case of the "Washington." which formed the subject of the 

 note of the undersigned of the 25th May, 1844, to which the present 

 communication of Lord Aberdeen is a reply, the capture complained 

 of was in the waters of the Bay of Fundy; the principal portion of 

 the argument of the undersigned was addressed to that part of the 

 subject; and he is certainly under the impression that it is the point 

 of greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto car- 

 ried on between the two governments, in reference to the United 

 States' right of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts. 



In the case, however, of the "Argus." which was treated in the note 

 of the undersigned of the 9th of October, the capture was in the 

 waters which wash the north-eastern coast of Cape Breton, a por- 

 tion of the Atlantic ocean intercepted indeed between a 

 144 straight line drawn from Cape North to the northern head of 

 Cow bay, but possessing none of the characters of the bay, 

 (far less so than the Bay of Fundy,) and not called a " bay " on any 

 map which the undersigned has seen. The aforesaid line is a degree 



