316 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



Government that we must send not more than one, or two, or five, 

 or ten war steamers, or ships-of-the-line, off the coast of Nicaragua, 

 or into the Mediterranean. The Executive has acted with all suffi- 

 cient promptness, and. when it seemed necessary, the Mississippi was 

 sent into those waters. From accounts received, it appears that Com- 

 modore Perry found the British authorities adhering practically to 

 our own construction of the Convention of 1818. What is the Mis- 

 sissippi to do? She must not protect fishermen who, according to our 

 own construction, are encroaching, and those who are not seem to 



need no protection. 

 187 Sir, it has been complained by the honourable Senator from 



Louisiana [Mr. SOULE], that Mr. Webster conceded too much 

 in his official notice of July 6, 1851. Now, here is Mr. Webster's 

 language. After quoting the Treaty, he says: 



It would appear that, by a strict and rigid construction of this Article, fishing 

 vessels of the United States are precluded from entering into the bays, &c. 



And, in the same connexion, he adds: 



It was undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of 1818 to make so large 

 a concession to England. 



That is to say, it was an oversight to use language in that Conven- 

 tion which, by a strict and rigid construction, might be made to 

 yield the freedom of the great bays. 



It is then a question of mere verbal criticism. The Secretary does 

 not admit that the rigorous construction is the just and true one. 

 An so he does not admit that there is any " concession " in the sense of 

 the term which the honourable Senator adopts. Now, other honour- 

 able Senators, if I recollect aright and particularly that very accurate 

 and exceedingly strong-minded Senator, the gentleman from Massa- 

 chusetts [Mr. DAVIS] conceded that the Treaty would bear this rig- 

 orous construction, insisting, nevertheless, just as the Secretary of 

 State did, that it was a forced and unjust one. The Senator from 

 Louisiana dissents from him and other Senators, and maintains that 

 it will not bear that construction at all; because he says that the 

 other portions of the Convention show that the " bays " described 

 must be bays within the British dominions. He adds that, in order to 

 bring a bay within the dominion of any Power, it must be such that 

 its passage to the sea shall not exceed six miles in width, and that 

 the shores on both sides belong to the Power claiming dominion over 

 the water. I cannot assent to the force of this argument of the hon- 

 ourable Senator from Louisiana. I am the more inclined to go 

 against it, because I believe it is pretty late in the day to find the 

 Secretary of State wrong in the technical and legal construction of an 

 instrument. Let us test the argument. The honourable Senator 

 says that where the Government occupies both sides of the coast, and 

 where the strait through which the waters of the bay flow into the 

 ocean is not more than six miles wide, then there is dominion over it. 



Now, then, the Gut of Canso is a most indispensable communica- 

 tion for our fishermen from the Atlantic Ocean to the Northumber- 

 land Straits and to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for a reason which any 

 one will very readily see by referring to the map; yet the Gut of 

 Canso is only three quarters of a mile wide. I should be sorry to 

 adopt an argument which Great Britain might turn against us, to 

 exclude us from that important passage. 



