287 



As regards the sliore fishery, for the kinds usually dried, that in the 

 region of Barrington is of itself a mine of wealth. Colonial lishcnnen, 

 here and elsewhere along tlie coast, may be at home after every day's 

 toil, and look out upon their American competitors in the offing, rejoic- 

 ing in advantages of pursuing their avocation in open boats, and the 

 consequent advantages of social life, and of fisliing and of attending to 

 their little firms between "slacks of the tide," in "blowy weatlier," 

 and wlien the fish "strike ofl'." 



The Queen's advocate and her Majesty's attorney general answer 

 Lord Falkland's fourth query as fbllow's: 



"By the treaty of ISIS it is agreed that American citizens should 

 have the liberty of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, within certain 

 defined limits, in common Avith British subjects; and sueli treaty does 

 not contain any words negativing the right to navigate the passage of 

 the Gut of Canso, and therefore it may be conceded that such right 

 of navigation is not taken away by that convention; but we have now 

 attentively considered the course of navigation to the gulf, by Cape 

 Breton, and likewise the capacity and situation of the passage of 

 Canso, and of the British dominions on either side, and we are of opin- 

 ion that, independentl}' of treaty, no foreign country has the right to 

 use or navigate the passage of Canso; and attemhng to the terms of the 

 convention relating to the liberty of fishery to be enjoyed by the Amer- 

 icans, we are also of opinion that that convention did not, either ex- 

 pressly or by imj)lication, concede any such right of using or navigating 

 the passage in question. We are also of opinion that casting bait to 

 lure fish in the track of any American vessels navigating the passage, 

 "W'ould constitute a fishing within the negative terms of the convention." 



This reply and the report* of the committee of the House of Assembly 

 of Nova iScotia will be considered together. The committee laud the 

 late Chancellor Kent, cite from his Commentaries, and aver that he 

 "agrees with the principles put forth by the law officers of the crown, 

 and which justify the conclusion that no foreign power, independent of 

 treaty, has any right to navigate the passage of Canso." It is not so. 

 The passage t which they quote from Kent relates to "an immunity 

 from belligerent warfare;" to s]ii])s of an enemy "hovering on our 

 coasts;" to the degree of "uneasiness and sensibility" we might feel, 

 "in the case of war between other maritime powers," were they to 

 "use the waters of our coast" for the purpose of cruising and of cap- 

 turing vessels. He gives no exact rule even in this respect. He gives 

 no exact rule in time of peace. He says that "///c claim of dnnvn'wn to 

 close or narrow seas is still (he thane of discussion and con/rorersi/.^'' He 

 then states the doctrine of several writers on international law, and 

 remarks that "all that can reasonably l)c asserted is, that the dominion 

 of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as fir as 

 is re(|uisile for his safl'ty and f<)r some lawtid end. A more extended 

 dominion must rest entirely upon force and maritime supr(Mnacy." 

 Now, it may he asked whether the "safety" of Nova Scotia demands 

 the cl(»sing of Canso; and wlicthcr tln' refusal of its use is l()r "some 



* Inserted in the hiHtorical notice of the controversy in this report, nuder date of 1851. 

 t Kent's ConuucutarifH, edition of IS'^i, vol. J, pages 2\) iiud 30. 



