1900 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the following taxes. So that you could not enter the bay or any part 

 of it without paying this tax. You could not have a better assertion 

 of territorial property than that. 



And then, on p. 607, in 1823, the statute of 4 George IV, chapter 

 23, section 2, is again to the same effect. It says : 



"That if any person or persons from and after the passing of this 

 Act shall erect or set up any .... nets, in the River or Bay of Mira- 

 michi, or its branches, except as is provided for in the said Act," &c. 



Then it is the same way with regard to Chaleur Bay. We have 

 legislated for it just as we might for Ottawa, Montreal, or Quebec. 

 We have legislated for it as far back as in 1785. Take the British 

 Case Appendix, p. 554 : 



" Whereas it will be for the general benefit of our subjects carrying 

 on the fishery in the Bay of Chaleur, in our province of Quebec," &c. 



That means that this is part of our territory ; and they proceed to 

 regulate the fishery in the whole of that bay, as if it were their own. 

 And now they are to be told that they had no right to do it at all, 

 and that foreign ships may sail right up into the Bay of Chaleur. 



Then, the same in the year 1788, in the same Province of Quebec. 



Then came later the case which has been so fully dealt with, the 

 Conception Bay case, when the question of that bay came up before 

 the English Privy Council, and one of our greatest judges decided 

 that Conception Bay was territory of Great Britain as much, as I 

 said yesterday, as any meadow in the land. 



Then, it is pointed out to me, that in 1851 we divided the Bay of 

 Chaleur between two provinces. But really I am obliged to check 

 the industry of my learned friends, because I might go on for ever 

 giving instances, all of them equally strong and each of them equally 

 conclusive if fairly considered. 



A question was asked me yesterday about Mitchell's map; and we 

 have looked up references to this map in Moore's " International 

 Arbitrations." It is a well-known book published at Washington, 

 and has been referred to in the course of this arbitration. There 

 I find the following references to Mitchell's map. A note on p. 6 

 says: 



" In a letter to Edmond Randolph, Secretary of State, . . . Mr. 

 Jay, referring to the fifth article, observed that in the discussions 

 before the commissioners, the old French claims might be revived, 

 and that the United States must adhere to Mitchell's map." 



That is the map which was used in 1783; but we have no direct 

 reference showing that it was used in 1818. We have its use affirmed 

 in 1783, 1794, 1823, and 1797, and various other instances, but we have 

 not got it brought exactly to 1818. But it was a very authoritative 

 map, and I cannot doubt but that it was used in every one of those 

 negotiations. 



