251 



tempted to be guardetl, and is pleased to declare that it ^possesses 7wne 

 uj the qvdiittcx of tlie law of civilized states but its forms.'' 



"His excrllfncry, in using this language, possibly supposed that the 

 colonial act had attempted to give a construction to the treaty of 1818, 

 or had originated the penalty and mode of confiscation which he 

 deprecates. But had his excellency examined the act of the province 

 he has so strongly stigmatized, he would have discorered that, as re- 

 gards the limits within which foreign fishermen are restricted from 

 fishing, the colonial legislature has used but the words of the treaty 

 itself, and a comparison of the provincial act with an act of the impe- 

 rial Parliament, the 59 George IIJ, cli. 38, would have shown him that, 

 as regards the description of the offence, the confiscation of the vessel 

 and cargo, and the mode of proceeding, the legislature of Nova Scotia 

 has, in eflijct, only declared what was already, and still is, the law of 

 the realm wider impciial enactments. 



"Mr. Everett adverts to what he considers '■the extremely ohjcctionahlt 

 cjiaractcr of the course pursued by the provincial authorities in j^resianing to 

 decide for themselves a question under discussion between the two governments.'' 



"But it is submitted, that if the American government controverted 

 the construction given to the treaty, the course pursued on the part of 

 Nova Scotia, which made confiscation dependent on a judicial trial and 

 decision, was neither presumptuous nor inexpedient; nor could the ne- 

 cessity of security for <£G0, or the risk of costs, in case of failure, 

 offer any serious impediment to the defence in a matter which, as Mr. 

 Everett declares, the government of the United States deems of great 

 national importance. 



"Upon the other hand, if the American fishermen could only seek a 

 relaxation of the construction giyen to the treaty in England and Nova 

 Scotia, as a matter oi' favor, ^presumption'' would rather seem to lie on 

 that side which insisted on enjoying the privilege before the boon was 

 conferred. 



" In any view of the matter, as the American fisherman was never 

 meddled with until he had voluntarily passed the controverted limit, it 

 is difficult to comj)rehend why the American minister's proposition 

 would not stand reversed with more propriety than it exhibits in its 

 present form; for his excellency's regret might not unreasonably, it 

 would seem, have be(3n expressed at '■the extremely objectionable course 

 pursued by American subjects in presuming to decide Jor themselves a question 

 under disctission. between the two governments,'' by fishing upon the dis- 

 puted grounds, and thereby reducing the provincial authorities to the 

 necessity of vindirating their claim or seeing it trani[)l('d on, before 

 any sanction had been Obtained, (.'itlK-r of legal decision or diplomatic 

 arrangement. 



"When Mr. Everett says that the necessitv of liistcring the interests 

 of their fishermen rests on the highest ground of national policy, he ex- 

 presses the sentiment felt in Nova. Scotia as regards the jjiovineial wel- 

 fare in connexion with this subject. 'J'hc Americans are li)rtunate in 

 seeing the principle carried into practice; for the encouragement af- 

 forded their fishermen by the government of the United States is not 

 small, and its strenuous, persevering, and successful cfl<>rts to extend 



