1294 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



At the very foot of the letter, referring to a letter which he had 

 received from the President about a joint publication, Mr. Crainpton 

 said : 



" I entirely agree with him in this opinion ; the more so that the 

 excitement in question has already very much diminished, and that 

 a very general impression prevails that the question is now under 

 discussion between the two Governments, with a view to its settle- 

 ment upon a satisfactory basis. My present visit to Mr. Webster 

 has, I believe, tended to strengthen this impression." 



He was wrong about the excitement abating. The matter was 

 taken up the very next day in the Senate of the United States, and 

 caused very acrimonious debate. The speeches which are quoted in 

 the British Case Appendix, commencing at p. 157, are the speeches 

 of Messrs. Cass and Davis, and these ones have been selected, because, 

 afterwards. Mr. Crampton mentions them as being the ones with 

 which the President was then inclined to agree. I read only very 

 short extracts from those speeches, the first of Mr. Cass, at p. 160; 

 indeed, I need not read them at all because all I wish to refer to them 

 for is to indicate the line of argument that Mr. Cass was pursuing, 

 namely, the shelter idea, and at p. 167 there is a passage in the 

 speech of Mr. Davis which shows that he took up the same line of 

 argument. Mr. Webster noticed this discussion, as very naturally 

 he would, and on the 4th August, he wrote to the President about 

 it United States Counter-Case Appendix, p. 166. The first para- 

 graph of the letter does not refer to the matters in question, but to 

 other matters. I commence at the second paragraph : 



" I have been informed of the flare-up in the Senate, yesterday 

 respecting the Fisheries. I have very considerable alarm on this 

 subject. Your enemies, and mine, among the Whigs, and the Young 

 Americans among the Democrats, are very like to join in opposing 

 the Adiministration and in embarrassing the State of our affairs 

 with England. I have reflected much on the subject of these English 

 orders; as well from the Home Government, as the Canadian Gov- 

 ernment, respecting interference with our vessels. In my opinion 

 there is solid grounds for remonstrating against both independently 

 of anything which has yet been suggested. Certainly, such seizures 

 are not within the ordinary jurisdiction of a Court of Admiralty. I 

 think the High Court of Admiralty in England could not take cogni- 

 zance of such a seizure, or condemn the vessel seized, without a special 

 act of the Imperial Parliament ; and, as to the Acts of the Provinces, 

 I am prepared to say at once, that we ought not to admit any seizures 

 to be made by Provincial vessels. It appears to me, that this is a 

 case of an alleged violation of Treaty, by alleged encroachment upon 

 Territory in time of peace. It is something like the converse of 

 McLeod's case. Its appropriate remedy is diplomatic complaint, 

 from one Government fro the other ; and not of redress by the exercise 

 of local jurisdiction." 



