ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1179 



The distinguished counsel for Great Britain as reported at p. 94 

 of the Oral Argument, stated: 



" So that there really appears to have been, during this seven years, 

 a period t)f quiet, the Bay of Fundy having been opened and no 

 attempts being made to press for an opening of further bays in 

 furtherance of the concession which, as a matter of favor and grace, 

 the British Government had made in regard to that one special case. 



In 1852 the matter became again a pressing one, under what cir- 

 cumstances we do not exactly know; but there appear to have been 

 rumors that vessels had been despatched by the British Government 

 for a stricter enforcement of the supposed rights of Great Britain 

 with regard to the fisheries. It did not appear that these rumors 

 were well founded. There had been some rearrangement of the dis- 

 position of the naval forces, and nothing more than that; but a cor- 

 respondence opened in 1852, and certain letters were written and 

 notices given which are of very considerable importance." 



I now take up, if the Tribunal please, the evidence before the Tri- 

 bunal with a view of establishing the fact that the vessels of 

 711 the United States were fishing within the bays between 1845 

 and 1852; and I am speaking -about the large bays, always, 

 in this connection the bodies of water from which the United States 

 claim they are not excluded. 



I refer first to the memorial of the Gloucester fishermen of July, 

 1852, which appears in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the 

 United States, at p. 159. I also refer to Paul Crowell's Report to the 

 Assembly of Nova Scotia, under date of the 10th February, 1852, 

 found in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, at 

 p. 209. Mr. Crowell was reporting for the Assembly of Nova Scotia 

 upon the fisheries. 



I refer also to Sabine's Report, on a page from which Sir Robert 

 Finlay read a statement which was claimed to be in support of his 

 contention that the Americans did not fish within the bays between 

 1845 and 1852. And I respectfully refer the Tribunal to the follow- 

 ing foot-note on the very page of Sabine, United States Case Ap- 

 pendix, pp. 1283-84, from which the extract was read : 



" Some of the colonial newspapers still maintain similar views. 

 The St. John New Brunswicker "- 



That is the paper printed in St. John, New Brunswick 



" said, in August, 1852, in commenting on Mr. Webster's despatch 

 or proclamation, that ' it will be seen that Mr. Webster labors under 

 the impression that her Majesty's Government are about to enforce 

 the convention strictly, according to the opinions of the law officers 

 of England. We believe that such is not .the case. For some years 

 past there has been a tacit understanding that American -fishing 

 vessels should only be excluded from those bays or inlets of our 

 coasts which were less than six miles wide, and within which Amcr- 



