1168 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



This was a confirmation of the statement made by Lieutenant Paine 

 in 1839. 



The Department of State immediately took the question up with 

 the British Government, and the notes exchanged, which are fully 

 set out in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, and 

 which have been fully presented in the Case of the United States, 

 and amply discussed in the printed Argument, conclusively establish 

 that there had been no former discussion between the two Gov- 

 ernments concerning the interpretation of this treaty. 



The Secretary of State addressed a note to the Minister of the 

 United States in Great Britain with regard to the matter. Thereupon 

 followed the notes exchanged between the American Minister and the 

 Foreign Office of Great Britain, all of which appear at length in the 

 Appendix to the United States Case, and have been referred to by 

 the counsel for Great Britain, and, of course, read by the Tribunal ; so 

 there is no necessity for my going into those long notes between Mr. 

 Stevenson and Lord Aberdeen, and Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen. 



The Government of the United States, in these notes, stated its posi- 

 tion as to the interpretation of the renunciatory clause of the treaty, 

 which was in harmony with the understanding at the time of the mak- 

 ing of the convention, and with the construction placed upon the 

 words of the treaty by both Governments for something over twenty 

 years. 



In 1841 Governor Falkland of Nova Scotia presented a case stated 

 to the British Government, with the request that the Crown Officers 

 render an opinion thereon. The remarkable opinion of the Law 

 Officers of the Crown is well within the memory of this Tribunal, and 

 needs no further discussion by anyone. This opinion was rendered 

 30th August, 1841, and was transmitted to Lord Falkland in Novem- 

 ber 1842, as appears in the Appendix to the Case of the United States 

 at p. 1046. 



It is indeed unfortunate that this remarkable opinion, which relied 

 solely upon the alleged fact that the term " headland " was used in 

 the treaty to express " extreme points of land next the sea of the coast, 

 or of the entrance of the bays," was never communicated to the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States. If it had become the subject of diplo- 

 matic discussion, perhaps this long controversy, and even this sub- 

 mission, might have been avoided. 



It appears that as late as 1866 a Committee of the House of Assem- 

 bly of Nova Scotia, of which the late Sir Charles Tupper was Chair- 

 man, referred to this opinion as clearly establishing the rights of the 

 Colony of Nova Scotia. That year, 1866, was just before the passage 

 of the British North America Act, which created the Dominion of 

 Canada. 



