ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWAKT. 1287 



been adduced to shake the confidence of the Government of the 

 United States in their own construction of the treaty. While they 

 have ever been prepared to admit," 



776 not in Mr. Stevenson's time 



" that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there 

 is some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fisher- 

 men from the Bay of Fundy (it being difficult to deny to that arm 

 of the sea the name of ' bay,' which long geographical usage has 

 assigned to it) , they have ever strenuously maintained that it is only 

 on their own construction of the -entire article that its known design 

 in reference to the regulation of the fisheries admits of being carried 

 into effect." 



Then the second last paragraph on that page: 



" In the case of the ' Washington,' which formed the subject of the 

 note of the undersigned of the 25th May, 1844, to which the present 

 communication of Lord Aberdeen is a reply, the capture complained 

 of was in the waters of the Bay of Fundy ; the principal portion of 

 the argument of the undersigned was addressed to that part of the 

 subject; and he is certainly under the impression that it is the point 

 of greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto car- 

 ried on between the two Governments, in reference to the United 

 States' right of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts." 



There was one other matter pending between the Governments of 

 that time. It related to the seizure of the "Argus," but, as one may 

 well understand, Mr. Everett confidently expected a favourable 

 termination to his representations with reference to it, as may be seen 

 in the British Case Appendix, at p. 145, where Mr. Everett so reports 

 to his Government. Everything seemed to have been satisfactorily 

 settled, therefore the admission of British construction had been 

 made by Mr. Everett. On the other hand, the United States had 

 got what they wanted principally at that time admission to the Bay 

 of Fundy. 



I shall now read a page or two from Sabine's Report, which will 

 express more authoritatively than I could give it to the Tribunal, the 

 impression that was created in the United States by the publication 

 of a paragraph in a newspaper later on (United States Case Ap- 

 pendix, 2nd volume, p. 1230). It must be remembered that this is 

 the report of no ordinary man, so far as the fisheries are concerned, 

 but the report of a man who had studied the matter more fully per- 

 haps than anyone in the United States, and that his report was 

 made for the United States Government. I will read from the foot 

 of p. 1230: 



" The events of 1845 were highly interesting and important. The 

 colonists had, apparently, accomplished their long-cherished plans. 

 The opinion of the crown lawyers in 1841 ; the declaration of Lord 

 Stanley in 1842, that our government ' practically acquiesced ' in the 



