1778 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



vessels in those bays. They have not done so. The evidence on our 

 side has shown that, to a very great extent, the value of the fisheries is 

 inshore; that, undoubtedly, very large catches could be made in the 

 bodies of those bays, and that the fish frequent the body of the bays as 

 \vell as the portion within three miles from the contour of the coast all 

 around those bays ; but we tendered evidence chiefly with relation to 

 the fisheries within three miles of the shore, by no means intending to 

 have it understood in fact, we expressly disclaimed the intention of 

 having it understood that there were not in the bodies of those bays 

 valuable fisheries. I can only say, however, that before this Commis- 

 sion there is no evidence of that, and you may dismiss it, therefore, from 

 your minds. When this headland question shall hereafter arise, if it 

 should unfortunately arise, then I beg to say that the position laid down 

 when the Convention of 1818 was made, has since been in no way de- 

 parted from. My learned friends on the other side point to the Bay of 

 Fumly. They say, there is a bay which Great Britain contended came 

 within the Convention of 1818, and yet she was obliged, in consequence 

 of the decision given by Mr. Bates, in the case of the Washington in 

 1854, to recede from that position in reference to that bay. I beg to 

 say that Great Britain did not recede. It was stated on the other side 

 that it was res adjudicata. I say it is not. It is wholly improbable that 

 the Bay of Fundy will ever again become a matter of contest between 

 the two nations; but the fact in regard to that case is, that Great Britain 

 gave the United States the right to do in that bay that which answered 

 their purpose quite as well as if she had abandoned her claim. She re- 

 laxed any claim that she had by the Convention of 1818, and that relax- 

 ation has never been departed from, and in all human probability never 

 will be departed from for all time to come. But it is relaxation, and 

 nothing else. 



My learned friend rather assumed than distinctly stated, that the de- 

 cision in regard to the Bay of Fundy would have considerable weight 

 in reference to other bays. I deny that. Great Britain expressly 

 guarded herself against any such construction. And, moreover, she 

 guarded herself against another construction placed upon the negotia- 

 tions between the two governments, viz, that the Gut of Canso was 

 common to the two nations. The British Government, so far as I am 

 informed I have no special knowledge on the subject, except that 

 afforded by the correspondence and negotiations between the two gov- 

 ernmentsemphatically deny that doctrine. The Gut of Canso is a 

 mare clauvutn, belonging to Great Britain to the Dominion of Canada. 



t is a strait on either side of which is the territory of the Dominion. 

 There is no foreign shore to that strait. It is not necessary for me to 

 argue, nor shall I argue, what would be the effect on the international 

 question, assuming the Gulf of St. Lawrence to be an open sea, whose 

 waters could be traversed by the keels of other nations, and to which 

 the Gut of Canso was the only entrance. How far the position I assume 

 might be modified, if that were the case, I shall not consider : but such 



i not in fact the case. There is another entrance north of the island 

 of Capo Breton, and also one by the Straits of Belleisle. 



In connection with this suhject, permit me to call your attention to 

 the instructions issued by the British Government to the Admiralty, 

 ^mediately after the Reciprocity Treaty had been abrogated by the 



mted States. 



These instructions are dated April 12, 1866, and were issued by Mr. 



