ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1279 



a communication was made by the United States representative to the 

 British Government, indicative of the contention of the United 

 States. It was contained in a letter from Mr. Stevenson to Lord 

 Palmerston, and is set out in the British Case Appendix, at p. 125. 

 At the top of p. 126 Mr. Stevenson indicates that there has been no 

 difference of opinion,, so far, regarding the interpretation of the 

 treaty, and then, in the second paragraph, he proceeds in this way : 



" It also appears, from information recently received by the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States, that the provincial authorities assume 

 a right to exclude the vessels of the United States from all their 

 bays, (even including those of Fundy and Chaleurs,) and likewise to 

 prohibit their approach within three miles of a line drawn from 

 headland to headland, instead of from the indents of the shores of 

 the provinces. They also assert the right of excluding them from 

 British ports, unless in actual distress; warning them to depart, or 

 get under weigh and leave harbor, whenever the provincial custom- 

 house or British naval officer shall suppose that they have remained 

 a reasonable time; and this without a full examination of the cir- 

 cumstances under which they may have entered the port. Now, the 

 fishermen of the United States believe (and it would seem that they 

 are right in their opinion, if uniform practice is any evidence of cor- 

 rect construction), that they can with propriety take fish any where 

 on the coasts of the British provinces, if not nearer than three marine 

 miles to land, and have the right to resort to their ports for shelter, 

 wood and water ; nor has this claim, it is believed, ever been seriously 

 disputed, based as it is on the plain and obvious terms of the con- 

 vention." 



I think that is all that I need read in this connection. It bears out 

 what I said in opening to the Tribunal, that it does seem remarkable 

 that when, for the first time, the contention of the United States is 

 put forward, it is put forward as the contention of the fishermen. 

 It is, of course, supported by the United States, but that, after all, is 

 what the Foreign Department always does after a certain amount of 

 pressure. Here pressure had been brought to bear upon a depart- 

 ment for two years the fishermen making this claim and finally 

 the Secretary of State of the United States yields; but he does 

 little more than forward the contention of the fishermen, supported, 

 of course, by his own remarks. One can hardly wonder that a claim 

 put forward in that way should not have appeared to be very for- 

 midable; and there must have been some reason why Lord Stanley 

 came to the conclusion that it was not intended on the part of the 

 United States to press it. In 1842, Lord Stanley wrote to the Gov- 

 ernor of Nova Scotia a letter which appears in the United States 

 Case Appendix at p. 1046. I refer to the last sentence of the letter 

 on p. 1047: 



" We have, however, on full consideration come to the conclusion, 

 as regards the Fisheries of Nova Scotia, that the precautions taken 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10 25 



