284 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



No. 100. 1852 * August 9: Letter from Mr. Crampton to the Earl 



of Malmesbury. 



Confidential. 



No. 115. WASHINGTON, 9th August 



. My LORD: I left Marshfield on the 5th instant and arrived here 

 on the evening of the 6th. 



Mr. Webster having been earnestly requested by the President to 

 repair immediately to Washington, would have accompanied me 

 had not the delicate state of his health and the inclemency of the 

 weather induced him to put off his journey to the following day. He 

 will probably arrive here in a day or two. 



At Mr. Webster's suggestion I immediately waited upon the Presi- 

 dent of the United States, who, Mr. Webster said, evidently felt a 

 good deal of uneasiness respecting the view taken in the Senate of 

 the fishery question, as evinced by a debate which took place on the 

 3rd instant, in regard to the President's message on that subject. 



I have the honour to inclose herewith two extracts of the " Na- 

 tional Intelligencer " containing a report of this debate and a notice 

 of the message, which has not yet been printed. 



Mr. Fillmore's tone and manner in a long and confidential con- 

 versation which I had with him on the subject of the fisheries, was 

 frank and conciliatory. I remarked however with regret that, con- 

 trary to what I had been led to expect from my conversations with 

 Mr. Webster at Marshfield, he did not seem to concur in the con- 

 struction of the Convention of 1818 as regards the definition of bays, 

 laid down in the opinion of the Advocate General and Attorney 

 General of 30th of August 1841, but seemed rather disposed to adopt 

 the view taken of that point by General Cass and Mr. Davis in the 

 debate to which I have alluded. I say " rather disposed " because 

 Mr. Fillmore in avowing his impression of the correctness of that 

 view, frankly admitted that he had not yet sufficiently examined all 

 the documents relating to the subject, and more particularly the 

 opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown referred to, of which he 

 requested me to furnish him with a copy in extenso. 



I remarked to Mr. Fillmore that I had been struck in reading the 

 speeches of the Senators who had impugned the opinion in question, 

 by the absence of any allusion to the doctrine on the subject of the 

 true definition of the maritime jurisdiction over bays which had 

 been invariably held by the United States in regard to their own 

 waters, and which was laid down by the highest American authori- 

 ties, a doctrine exactly coinciding with that which had always been 

 held by Her Majesty's Government. 



The President not seeming to be clearly aware of the existence 

 of any authoritative statement on this subject by an American au- 

 thority, I read to him, with his permission, a short memorandum, 

 which, with the assistance of an eminent lawyer of this city, I had 

 drawn up for my own use, a copy of which I have the honour to 

 inclose. Mr. Fillmore seemed struck with the justice of the argu- 

 ments adduced by Chancellor Kent (a very high authority in this 

 country) which he said would certainly be applicable to the case 

 of two nations when their rights had not been modified by treaty, 



