246 



to admit, that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there is 

 some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fishermen 

 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. 



*' The undersigned does not make this observation for the sake of 

 detracting from the liberahty evinced by her Majesty's government in 

 relaxing from what they regard as their right ; but it would be placing 

 his own government in a false position to accept as mere favor that for 

 which they have so long and strenuously contended as due to them 

 under the convention. 



"It becomes the more necessary to make this observation, in conse- 

 quence of some doubt as to the extent of the proposed relaxation. 

 Lord Aberdeen, after stating that her Majesty's government felt them- 

 selves constrained to adhere to the right of excluding the United States 

 fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, and also with regard to other bays 

 on the British American coasts, to maintain the position that no United 

 States fisherman has, under that convention, the right to fish within 

 three miles of the entrance of such bays, as designated by a line drawn 

 from headland to headland at that entrance, adds, that 'while her Ma- 

 jesty's government still feel themselves bound to maintain these posi- 

 tions as a matter of right, they are not insensible to the advantages 

 which would accrue to both countries from the relaxation of that right.' 



" This form of expression might seem to indicate that the relaxation 

 proposed had reference to both positions; but when Lord Aberdeen 

 proceeds to state more particularly its nature and extent, he confines 

 it to a permission to be granted to ' the United States fishermen to 

 pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided 

 they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, 

 within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova 

 Scotia and New Brunswick,' which entrance is defined, in another 

 part of Lord Aberdeen's note, as being designated by a line drawn 

 from headland to headland. 



" Li 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 sub- 

 ject ; and he is certainly under the nnpression that it is the point of 

 greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto carried on 

 between the two governments, in reference to the United States' right 

 of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts. 



" In the case, however, of the ' Argus,' wliich was treated in the 

 note of the undersigned of the 9th of October, the capture was in the 

 waters which wash the northeastern coast of Cape Breton, a portion of 

 the Atlantic ocean intercepted mdeed between a straight line drawn 

 from Cape North to the northern head of Cow bay, but possessing 

 none of the characters of a bay, (far less so than the Bay of Fundy,) 

 and not called a 'bay' on any map which the undersigned has seen. 



