1140 XORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



exclusive jurisdiction of the British provinces, and within three 

 marine mtt-es of the shores." 



687 I also desire to direct the attention of the Tribunal to the 

 letter of Mr. Rush, found in the United States Case Appendix, 

 on p. 549, and to read the portion of that letter found on p. 554 : 



" In signing it, we believed that we retained the right of fishing 

 in the sea, whether called a bay, gulf, or by whatever other term 

 designated, that washed any part of the coast of the British North 

 American Provinces, with the simple exception that we did not come 

 within a marine league of the shore. We had this right by the law 

 of nations. Its confirmation was in the treaty of : 83. We retained 

 it undiminished, unless we gave it up by the first article of the con- 

 vention of 1818. This we did not do. The article warrants no such 

 construction. Mr. Everett when minister in London, writing to 

 Lord Aberdeen, August the 10th 1843, under instructions from the 

 Secretary of State, remarks that the right of fishing off any part of 

 the coast of Nova Scotia (consequently in the Bay of Fundy) at a 

 greater distance than three miles, is so plain, that it would be difficult 

 to conceive on what ground it could be drawn in question had not 

 attempts been made by the Provincial authorities of her Majesty's 

 government to interfere with its exercise ; and Mr. Stevenson, min- 

 ister in London before Mr. Everett, while writing to Lord Pal- 

 merston, March the 27th, : 41, in reference of our right to fish in 

 the large outer bays, says, ' the stipulations of the treaty (convention 

 of 1818) are believed to be too plain and explicit to leave room for 

 doubt or misapprehension.' 



"As to the Bay of Fundy, part of its coast belongs to one of the 

 states of the Union Maine. Hence Britain cannot claim it as her 

 exclusive jurisdiction. Had Mr. Gallatin been told by the British 

 plenipotentiaries, that the first article of the convention would close 

 the extensive waters of that bay against our fishermen, I do not 

 believe he would have signed it; nor could I have signed it. The 

 spirit, context, all the concomitents of the article, pointed to a dif- 

 ferent meaning. I need not cite all its words. You know them. It 

 will be enough to bring into view the proviso which follows the clause 

 of renunciation. That part was thus : 'And the United States hereby 

 renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the 

 inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three 

 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors of his 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the 

 above mentioned limits: (those set out for us in the beginning of the 

 article;) provided however, that the American fishermen shall be 

 permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and 

 of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining 

 water; and for no other purpose whatever.' 



" These are the decisive words in our favor. They meant no more 

 than that our fishermen whilst fishing in the waters of the Bay of 

 Fundy should not go nearer than three miles to any of those small 

 inner bays creeks or harbours which are known to indent the coasts 

 of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. To suppose they were bound 

 to keep three miles off from a line drawn from headland to headland 

 on the extreme outside limits of tliat bay^ a line which might measure 



