QUESTION FIVE. 47 



and the British Attorney-General were undoubtedly right in the con- 

 struction they had placed on the treaty (British Case, App., p. 156). 



The Case of the United States attempts to explain Mr. Webster's 

 expressions in this Notice by saying that his meaning was that the 

 treaty did not correctly express the agreement into which the parties 

 intended to enter, and they referred to the concluding sentence of 

 the capital Notice in support of this view. The whole of this subject 

 has been already discussed in the British Case at pp. 96 and 97. It 

 is enough now to point out that the only meaning that can be put 

 upon Mr. Webster's language is that he concurred in the British 

 construction of the treaty, but considered that the American nego- 

 tiators had entered into such a treaty by some oversight. 



It is clear that the contract between the two countries must be 

 construed according to the language used in the treaty itself, and 

 the suggestion that owing to some oversight the United States nego- 

 tiators failed to make a better bargain is quite immaterial. 

 55 It is also clear from the terms of Mr. Rush's letter of the 



18th July, 1853, set out in the appendix to the United States 

 Case at p. 549, that he took the same view of the meaning of Mr. 

 Webster's Notice that is here supported; indeed, he attributed it to 

 a " momentary inadvertence " on the part of Mr. Webster. 



The United States Case suggests that Mr. Webster's Notice could 

 not have been understood by the British Government as an accept- 

 ance of its view as to the meaning of the word "bays," because the 

 British Foreign Secretary (Lord Malmesbury) shortly afterwards 

 expressed (United States Case, p. 129) 



the sincerest regret that such a publication should have been made. 



Lord Malmesbury's language be disregarded. The expression of 

 But this suggestion has force, only if the proper application of 

 regret had no reference whatever to that part of Mr. Webster's an- 

 nouncement which has just been under discussion. In his publica- 

 tion Mr. Webster had also said (British Case, App., p. 152) : 



With the recent change of Ministry in England has occurred an 

 entire change of policy. 



And after referring to the British contention he said (British 

 Case, App., p. 153) : 



It is this construction of the intent and meaning of the Conven- 

 tion of 1818 for which the colonies have contended since 1841, and 

 which they have desired should be enforced. This the English Gov- 

 ernment has now, it would appear, consented to do, and the immedi- 

 ate effect will be, the loss of the valuable fall fishing to American 

 fishermen; a complete interruption of the extensive fishing business 

 of New England, attended by constant collisions of the most unpleas- 

 ant and exciting character, which may end in the destruction of 

 human life, in the involvement of the Government in questions of a 

 yery serious nature, threatening the peace of the two countries. 



