1234 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



report, they did not indicate that the United States had any view 

 different from that of Great Britain, and in that report he said that 

 he had found that the fishermen had an idea about this treaty. He 

 said that the fishermen believed that they could fish within 3 miles 

 of the coast; that they could fish in any bay, so long as they did not 

 go within 3 miles of the coast. That report remained from 1839 to 

 1841, unacted upon. Notwithstanding what Mr. Thayer said, and 

 what Mr. Levitt said (I shall refer to those statements afterwards) 

 to the United States Government about the advisability of having 

 some declared policy about this treaty, it remained until 1841 unacted 

 upon; when Mr. Stevenson, the United States Ambassador at Lon- 

 don, was directed to present the matter to the British Government; 

 and the way in which he did it is most remarkable. He did not do 

 it as a statement made by the United States, but he put it forward 

 as an idea of the fishermen. He said : " The United States fishermen 

 believe " so and so. Then, of course, he went on to sustain the idea 

 of the fishermen. 



It will be observed that in this contention (which, for brevity, I may 

 speak of as the " fishermen's contention," or the " fishermen's 

 theory") the question of territoriality has no place whatever. It is 

 a mere question of the construction of the treaty. Does the distance 

 of 3 miles count from the bays, or from the shores of the bays? 

 Territoriality has no place in that discussion whatever. 



Mr. Stevenson's letter remained unanswered, because the British 

 Government seems to have assumed, for some reason that we are not 

 able now to divine, that the view expressed in it was not going to be 

 pressed; and the Colonial Secretary said to the Governor of Nova 

 Scotia that the United States had " practically acquiesced " in the 

 British view. 



I cannot, upon the material before the Tribunal, inform the Tri- 

 bunal upon what the Colonial Secretary based that statement. 

 Whether it was well founded or not at the time, this much is cer- 

 tain that the acquiescence had not taken such formal shape as to 

 have enabled Great Britain afterwards to point to it as an acquies- 

 cence, or settlement. It, therefore, must be taken not to have been 

 an acquiescence of any formal character; and I put no stress upon it. 



In 1845 Mr. Everett put forward Mr. Stevenson's contention, and 

 it was argued out with Lord Aberdeen; but, as the Tribunal will 

 remember, Mr. Everett was quite unable to sustain, in argument, this 

 fishermen's theory; and he admitted, in the course of his second let- 

 ter, that it was reasonable that the headlands of bays should be 

 joined, conceding, therefore, the validity of the British contention. 

 I shall discuss this, afterwards, more at large, and try to meet Mr. 

 Warren's argument with reference to it. I am merely giving a sum- 

 mary at the present time. It seems to me, and I submit it with confi- 



