1290 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



esced in. Then commencing at the first sentence at the top of the 

 page : 



" The opinion thus disposed of in November, 1842, was suffered to 

 rest until the capture of the Washington and the Argus. Mr. Ever- 

 ett's arrangement in 1845 was, in effect, an abandonment of the 

 whole matter." 



I think I do not put it too high, in view of that language, when I 

 say there was something of a tacit understanding. 



As some evidence of the existence of that tacit understanding, I 

 refer to the fact that, during the succeeding years, no representation 

 was made to the British Government with reference to the other 

 bays. I quote in support of that statement a sentence from Sabine, 

 at p. 1248 of the same volume, just below the middle of the page : 



" It is of consequence to remark, that, as far as there is evidence 

 before the public, the fisheries were not once mentioned by Mr. 

 McLane, (who succeeded Mr. Everett,) in his correspondence with 

 the British Government, during his mission. Nothing, in fact, seems 

 to have passed between the two cabinets relative to the subject for 

 more than six years, though England retraced no step after opening 

 the Bay of Fundy." 



And I will show that the orders under which the British cruisers 

 were acting, from 1845 to 1852, required the enforcement, although 



in the most gentle manner, of the British view. 



778 I now ask the attention of the Tribunal to the notice which 

 was issued by Mr. Webster on the 19th July, 1852, and pub- 

 lished in the " Boston Courier " of that day. It is to be found in 

 the British Case Appendix, p. 152. 



JUDGE GRAY : Mr. Ewart, may I ask you a question ? Do I under- 

 stand you to say that during those six years after the Aberdeen- 

 Everett correspondence, that vessels were ordered out of the other 

 bays? 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir. 



JUDGE GRAY : And that there was no insistence or protest in regard 

 to it? 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir. 



JUDGE GRAY : That the exclusion was actually practised ? 



MR. EWART : Yes, Sir ; by warnings, and only in case of " con- 

 tumacious " (is the word used) refusal, in obedience to orders, was 

 there any direct interference, and no seizure. Those were the orders 

 from the Admiralty at that time. 



JUDGE GRAY: Yes, but was there any actual putting into force of 

 those orders, as appears in this record ? 



MR. EWART: Yes, Sir. I will give you that particularly. I would 

 rather not generalise. I will shortly give, particularly, all I have 

 to say about it. 



