QUESTION ONE. 27 



rather than contradicting, the evidence produced by the United States 

 in support of its contention. It will be appropriate, therefore, to 

 examine briefly the evidence presented in the British Case on this 



point. 



The Marcy Circulars. 



A circular issued under date of July 9, 1853, by Mr. Marcy, when 

 Secretary of State, and addressed to the United States Directors of 

 Ports, is cited in the British Case as evidence in support of the British 

 contention under Question I. In what respect this circular is sup- 

 posed to apply to this Question is far from clear ; for, in view of its 

 date and the purpose of its issue, which is fully set forth by its terms, 

 it is evident that it had nothing whatever to do with the observance 

 of local laws or regulations on the treaty coasts, either under the 

 treaty of 1854 or the treaty of 1818. The conditions, which this cir- 

 cular was intended to meet, were much the same as those which called 

 forth Mr. Webster's circular a of the previous year, and grew out of 

 the apprehension of the American fishermen that the British cruisers 

 and the fleet of armed provincial vessels, patrolling the coasts of the 

 British North American Colonies covered by the renunciatory clause 

 of the treaty of 1818, would interfere with and harass American 

 fishing vessels on those coasts, whether outside or inside the three 

 mile limit. There had been at that time no attempt or threat to inter- 

 fere with American fishermen on the treaty coasts of the treaty of 

 1818. But, even if the circular was intended to apply to the treaty 

 coasts, it would contradict rather than confirm the British contention, 

 as will appear from an examination of a portion of it which is 

 omitted from the extract quoted in the British Case. The part quoted 

 contains the statement that " any armed resistance on the part of the 

 fishing vessels, either singly or combined, would be an act of private 

 hostility which can never receive any countenance from this Govern- 

 ment," and that " no violation of the colonial local law should be at- 

 tempted, and their civil authorities and other officers should have due 

 respect paid to them within their jurisdiction." * These two state- 

 ments, when applied to the non-treaty coasts, obviously have no rela- 

 tion whatever to the Question under consideration ; but, as the circular 

 is cited in connection with this Question, it was apparently intended 

 that these two statements should be taken as applying to the treaty 



U. S. Case, p. 122. 6 British Case, p. 25. 



