DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



701 



63; and " Mouat v. Mc- 

 Phee," [Mowat v. Mc- 

 Fee] 5 Sup. Court of Can- 

 ada Keports, p. 66.) 



The Convention with 

 France in 1839. and simi- 

 lar Conventions with 

 other European Powers, 

 form no precedents for 

 the adoption of a 10-mile 

 limit. Those Conventions 

 were doubtless, passed 

 with a view to the geo- 

 graphical peculiarities of 

 the coast to which they 

 related. They had for 

 their object the definition 

 of the boundary-lines 

 which, owing to the con- 

 figuration of the coast, 

 perhaps, could not read- 

 ily be settled by refer- 

 ence to the law of na- 

 tions, and involve other 

 conditions which are in- 

 applicable to the terri- 

 torial waters of Canada. 



This is shown by the 

 fact that in the French 

 Convention the whole of 

 the oyster-beds in Gran- 

 ville Bay, otherwise 

 called the Bay of Can- 

 cale, the entrance of 

 which exceeds 10 miles 

 in width, were regarded 

 as French, and the enjoy- 

 ment of them is reserved 

 to the local fishermen. 



A reference to the ac- 

 tion of the United States' 

 Government, and to the 

 admission made by their 

 statesmen in regard [to] 

 bays on the American 

 coasts, strengthens this 

 view ; and the case of tht 

 English ship "Grange" 

 shows that the Govern- 

 ment of the United States 

 in 1793 claimed Delaware 

 Bay as being within ter- 

 ritorial waters. 



Mr. Bayard contends 

 that the rule which he 

 ask^ to have set up was 

 adopted by the Umpire of 

 the Commission appointed 

 under the Convention of 

 1853 in the case of the 

 United States' fishing- 

 schooner " Washington," 

 that it was by him ap- 

 plied to the Bay of Funny, 

 and that it is for this rea- 

 son applicable to other 

 Canadian bays. 



It is submitted, how- 

 ever, that as one of the 

 headlands of the bay of 

 Fundy is in the territory 

 of the United States any 

 rules of international law 

 applicable to that bay are 

 not therefore equally ap- 

 plicable to other bays the 

 headlands of which are 

 both within the Territory 

 of the same Power. 



The second paragraph 

 of the 1st Article does 

 not incorporate the exact 

 language of the Conven- 

 tion of ISIS. For in- 

 stance, the words " and 

 for no other purpose 

 whatever," should be in- 

 serted after the mention 

 of the purposes for 

 which vessels may entei 

 Canadian waters, and 

 after the words " as may 

 be necessary to prevent" 

 should be inserted, " their 

 taking, drying, or curing 

 fish therein, or in any 

 other manner abusing 

 the privileges reserved,' 

 &c. 



To tunke the language 

 conform correctly to the 

 Convention of 1S18, sev- 

 eral other verbal altera- 

 tions, which need not be 

 enumerated here, would 

 be necessary. 



Reply to " Observations " 

 on Proposal. 



A prior agreement be- 

 tween the two Govern- 

 ments as to the proper 

 definition of the " bays 

 and harbours" from 

 which American fisher- 

 men are hereafter to 

 be excluded, would not 

 only facilitate the labours 

 of the proposed Commis- 

 sion, by materially assist- 

 ing it in defining such 

 bays and harbours, but 

 would give to its action a 

 finality that could not 

 otherwise be expected. 

 The width of ten miles 

 was proposed not only be- 

 cause it had been fol- 

 lowed in Conventions be- 

 tween many other pow- 

 ers, but also because it 

 was deemed reasonable 

 and just in the present 



case; this Government 

 recognizing the fact that, 

 while it might have 

 claimed a width of six 

 miles as a basis of settle- 

 ment, fishing within bays 

 and harbours only slight- 

 ly wider would be con- 

 fined to areas so narrow 

 as to render it practically 

 valueless and almost nec- 

 essarily expose the fisher- 

 men to constant danger 

 of carrying their opera- 

 tions into forbidden wa- 

 ters. A width of more 

 than ten miles would give 

 room for safe fishing 

 more than three miles 

 from either shore, and 

 thus prevent the constant 

 disputes which this Gov- 

 ernment's proposal, fol- 

 lowing the Conventions 

 above noticed, was de- 

 signed to avert. 



It was not known to 

 involve the surrender of 

 rights " which had al- 

 ways been regarded as 

 the exclusive property of 

 Canada," or to " make 

 common fishing ground of 

 territorial waters, which, 

 by the law of nations, 

 have been invariably re- 

 garded, both in Great 

 Britain and the United 

 States, as belonging to 

 the adjacent country." 



The case of the Baie 

 des Chaleurs, the only 

 case cited in this relation, 

 does not appear to sus- 

 tain the " observation " 

 above quoted. From 1S54 

 until 1S66 American fish- 

 ermen were permitted 

 free access to all terri- 

 torial waters of the 

 provinces under Treaty 

 stipulations. From 1S66 

 until 1870 they enjoyed 

 similar access under spe- 

 cial licences issued by the 

 Canadian Government. In 

 1870 the licence system 

 was discontinued, and un- 

 der date of May 14 of 

 that year a draft of Spe- 

 cial Instructions to offi- 

 cers in command of the 

 marine police, to protect 

 the inshore fisheries, was 

 submitted by Mr. P. 

 Mitchell, Minister of Ma- 

 rine and Fisheries of the 



