1292 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



period of ten days, in order to discuss the question of the fisheries as 

 Avell as other questions, including the possibility of arranging 



779 reciprocal trade relations. At p. 510 of the United States 

 Case Appendix, there is a letter from Mr. Webster to the 



President stating that he had " prepared a paper which will appear 



in the newspapers in this part of the country." At the top of the 



next page : 



" We shall be obliged, I am persuaded, to look up this business 

 of the fisheries as well as the whole subject of the Canadian trade as 

 matter of negotiation. Congress will never do anything. I will 

 thank you, at your earliest convenience, to signify to me your wishes 

 and your opinions." 



Mr. Webster saw the difficulty he was in with reference to the 

 fisheries. He thought he saw a way out of it indeed, the way which 

 was afterwards carried to a successful completion by combining 

 the negotiations respecting trade with the fishery question. Pursu- 

 ing that line of thought, he wrote to Mr. Crampton the letter which 

 follows immediately after the one I have read, and in that, in the 

 second sentence, he asks Mr. Crampton to follow him to Marshfield, 

 and proceeds: 



" I have recommended to the President, that we take up the whole 

 subject of the fisheries and the Canada trade at once, as matters of 

 negotiation." 



By this time considerable excitement had arisen over the notice 

 issued by Mr. Webster and, in order to calm the excitement, Mr. 

 Everett sent to Mr. Webster a letter which he had previously sent to 

 Lord Aberdeen the last of the correspondence between these two 

 men and Mr. Webster published it. In a later letter (United 

 States Case Appendix, p. 535) Mr. Everett tells Mr. Ingersoll, in the 

 middle paragraph that: 



" The publication of my note was intended, in this way, to calm 

 the existing excitement, and I have no doubt contributed materially 

 to that end." 



If we are to believe Mr. Crampton (British Case Appendix, p. 

 155), it rather had the opposite tendency, because the effect of the 

 letter was to show that the Bay of Fundy was a concession. Then, 

 I call attention to a letter, which Mr. Warren dwelt upon, from Mr. 

 Fillmore to Mr. Webster (at the end of p. 160, United States Coun- 

 ter-Case Appendix). He says: 



" I have also perused your article in the Boston Courier of yes- 

 terday," 



that is the Webster notice 



" and sincerely hope that these difficulties will not prove as serious 

 as you seem to anticipate. I have seen Mr. Crampton who informs 



