DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 7f9 



indents of the coast." It may here be said that the same opinion 

 in answer to the fourth query denied the free right of navigating 

 the Gut of Canso. Mr. Stephenson, our minister at London, recog- 

 nized the distinction in his note to Lord Palmerston of March 27, 

 A. D. 1839, where he said: "The provincial authorities assume a 

 right to exclude the vessels of the United States from all their bays, 

 including those of Fundy and Chaleur, and likewise to prohibit their 

 approach within 3 miles of a line drawn from headland to head- 

 land," c. So Mr. Everett, in his note to Earl Aberdeen of May 25, 

 A. D. 1844, admitted that it was " the intent of the treaty, as it is in 

 itself reasonable, to have regard to the general line of the coast, and 

 to consider its bays, creeks, and harbours, that is, the indentations 

 usually so accounted, as included within that line." 



Now, the present treaty apparently holds to the rule stated by Mr. 

 Everett, except that it defines what has heretofore been undefined. 

 This, of course, is subject to the qualification that, except in special 

 cases, in A. D. 1818 jurisdiction bays were limited to those not ex- 

 ceeding 6 miles in width between their headlands, or even to nar- 

 rower ones; while the present treaty has adopted the more modern 

 rule of the 10 miles opening as a practical and not injurious solution 

 of this whole dispute concerning bays and headlands. 



Therefore, under the convention of 1818 the question arises in 

 every case: What is a jurisdictional bay, that is, a British bay, or, 

 in other words, a bay which was then a part " of His Britannic 

 Majesty's dominions in America ?" This having been ascertained, 

 another question arises, whether any bay w T hich was not jurisdictional 

 in A. D. 1818 has since become so inclosed by the growth of popula- 

 tion that, on the principles by which we claim as our exclusive waters 

 Chesapeake and Delaware bays and Long Island Sound, we may 

 properly concede it to Great Britain according to its existing cir- 

 cumstances, as an inducement to a suitable and just arrange- 

 431 ment of all questions of delimitation ? With reference to this 

 question, and indeed with reference to all this branch of the 

 case, the United States, with its extensive coasts, its numerous bays, 

 its rapidly increasing population and commercial interests can not 

 wisely permit a narrow precedent. 



The bay of Chaleur, the shores of which in A. D. 1818 were unin- 

 habited, has by the advance of population become a part of the adja- 

 cent territory for all jurisdictional purposes; and it has ceased to be 

 of special value to our vessels except for shelter or supplies. The same 

 observations apply with greater force to the bay of Miramichi. The 

 bays of Egmont and St. Ann's are hardly more than mere sinu- 

 osities of the coast; but they and the excluded parts of the New- 

 foundland bays are of no value to our vessels for fishing. It is not 

 unreasonable to grant the release of all of them, in view of the fact 

 that as to all other water we remove long standing disputes. It is 

 not to be overlooked that all these bays have long been claimed by 

 Great Britain as of right. 



At the mouths of all the bays designated in the treaty by name, 

 the fourth article makes special lines of delimination. There seems 

 to be an impression with some that the exclusion is 3 miles seaward 

 therefrom ; but this is plainly erroneous. Each of these lines is run 

 from one powerful light to another, except one terminus at Cape 

 Smoke, which is a promontory over 700 feet in height. The external 



