DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 283 



seems to me to stamp it with a decided character of authority. The 

 Treaty is capable of that construction without any violation to lan- 

 guage, and no other fair or just construction, can be put upon it. 

 Now, is it to be pretended, after all this has happened, that under the 

 opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, lines are to be stretched 

 from headland to headland across the Bay of Fundy, and across 

 certain portions of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, of still more doubtful 

 character, and that our fishermen are to be excluded from grounds 

 which they have always occupied ? No, Sir. It is a stringent, unfair, 

 and unjust construction given to the instrument, and moreover, it is 

 one which, in my opinion, the people of this country never will 

 acquiesce in. 



The term " bay " is exceedingly indefinite in its application to the 

 waters of the ocean; take, for instance, Hudson's Bay and Baffin's 

 Bay, which are parts of the great ocean, and compare the use of the 

 term applied to such waters, with its application to those indentations 

 of the coast which serve as harbours of refuge, and are properly so 

 called. There is also the Bay of Fundy, a large body of water, from 

 which our fishermen are now sought to be excluded, but in which 

 they have the right of fishing at the distance of three miles from the 

 British coast, not only in accordance with the terms of the Conven- 

 tion, but also by another right, which was pointed out by the Senator 

 from Michigan the right of coterminous proprietorship; it having 

 the coast of Maine on the one side, and the coast of Nova Scotia on 

 the other, as forming the headlands of that bay. It flows along the 

 coast of the United States for a considerable distance, and, therefore, 

 even under the British construction, our fishermen are entitled to 

 fish there. This language of the British authorities is much less 

 applicable to the Bay of St. Lawrence, for that is as much a part of 

 the open ocean as theh Gulf of Mexico. The headlands are a little 

 nearer together, it is true, but it is as much a part of the open sea 

 as any of those which all nations have a right to enjoy. 



Now, to undertake to shut our fishermen out from that gulf, 

 168 is a very singular, and stringent, and, in my apprehension, a 

 very unjustifiable construction to the Treaty. I do not desire 

 to enter into a discussion of this matter at length. This, it seems to 

 me, is not the fit or proper occasion for that. But, nevertheless, as it 

 is open to inquiry, and as the main point in controversy is the con- 

 struction of this Treaty, and as I have not seen precisely this view 

 given to it. I thought that I would make these statements, that the 

 attention of the Senate might be drawn to it ; and if it is drawn to it. 

 and the construction which I have given is taken in connexion with 

 the contemporaneous construction given at the time, together with the 

 use of the fisheries for so long a time, I think the Senate will conclude 

 that my construction is the true one. 



If Great Britain wants a war, undoubtedly she can have it ; but I 

 do not believe she wants any such thing. But I do not believe she 

 will maintain the position she has assumed, nor do I believe she will 

 maintain her pretensions to an extent to violate and break up the 

 pacific relations which now exist between us. I do not think she will 

 do it ; I hope not, at least. 



