285 



ants, linve a claim for services rendered to the British crown in the 

 original conquest from France. 



If asked how the term " bays" is to be (h.sposed of" in the treat}', I 

 answer ihat it a})plies to such arms of tlie sea as on some coasts are 

 called cores and creeks, and was meant to designate all sheets of water 

 which are not six miles wid(>, and no others. That our ministers acted 

 upon iiifornuition obtained li-om persons engaged in the fisheries is cer- 

 tain, for the negotiation was suspended to obtain it; and we may rea- 

 sonably conclude that their informants spoke of these coves or creeks 

 by the popular name of hays. Any person with a mariner's chart in 

 his hand can observe that on the colonial coasts there is a multitude 

 of " bays," some of which are more, and many less, than six miles 

 wide at their mouths, or outer headlands. In fact, I know of no coast 

 where the}' are so numerous. To mention all, would occupy more room 

 than can be spared in this rej:)Oit. Mace's, St. Mary's, Harrington, 

 Liverpool, Malaguash, Mahone, Margaret's, Blind, Tenant's, Pennant's, 

 Chisselcook, Mnscjuidoboit, Newton (^uoddy, 8hoal, Tom Lee's, Nicom- 

 qnii(]ue, Nicomtan, and Dover, are a part (though the most considera- 

 ble) between the St. Croix and Cape Canso alone. That it may be 

 lully understood in what sense the word "bay" is used in speaking of 

 indentations of the coast at the east, 1 give an example in the case of 

 the Passamaquoddy, which in itself is only a branch-bay of Fundy. 

 In this small branch-bay, then, in common language, are Cipp's, South, 

 East, Rumsey's, Cobscook, Strait, Friar's, Casco, and West Quoddy; 

 and the Passamaquoddy, after being thus minutely divided, takes the 

 name of St. Andrew's bay, northerly and westerly of Eastport. The 

 term " bays" is therefore a word of sufficient signiticance in the treaty, 

 without embracing bodies of water which are as large as many Euro- 

 pean seas, and which are to be held in America as seas. I claim that 

 our vessels can enter them of right, and fish in them, and can enter 

 and fish in their branches, where the shore on either hand is more than 

 three miles distant. We renounced the right to fish in the bodies of 

 sea-water which are less than six miles wide at their entrance or 

 mouths, and in no others. That this is the true meaning of the con- 

 vention is apparent trom the proviso of the renunciatory clause, which 

 allows oiu" fishermen to enter '■'■such ba^'s or harbors for the purpose of 

 shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of puix-hasing wood, and of 

 obtaining water," &c. Now, as every practical man knows that neither 

 of these pur])oses is or can be accomplished in larg(> op(Mi bays, it is 

 certain that while we renounced the right to fish in the small ba^-s, we 

 retained the right to enter them in cases of distress and emergency. 

 The bays relincjuished are of a description which allow of anchorage 

 and shelter in stormy weather; that actually afford safety during the 

 days and weeks which disabled vessels may occupy in repairs; that 

 have accessible f()r(\sts, and springs or streams of fresh water. The 

 idea embraced is, that f)ur vessels, in the cases specified, may run into 

 anv ;nid every indent of tlu; coast; li)r tlx^ term "purchasing wootl" 

 supposes a colonial owner, wiili a hiibiiailoii on the shore, of whom fuel 

 can be bought and paid for; and thus iiieludes places which are inhab- 

 ited. Persons wh<> are ac(|iiainted with the iiold and rocky shores of 

 the largi; bays of British America — those of Chaleurs and Funtly, for 



