AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 17/9 



Card well, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to guide the licet 

 about to protect the British North American fisheries : 



It is, therefore, at present the wish of Her Majesty's Government neither to concede nor. 

 for the present, to enforce, any rights in this respect which are in their nature open to any 

 serious question. Even before the conclusion of the Reciprocity Treaty, Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment had consented to forego the exercise of its strict right to exclude American fisher- 

 men from the Bay of Fundy, and they are of opinion that during the present season (hat 

 right should not be exercised in the body of the Bay of Fundy, and that American fishermen 

 should not be interfered with, either by notice or otherwise, unless they are found within 

 three miles of the shore, or within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or 

 creek which is less than ten geographical miles in width, in conformity with the arrange- 

 ment made with France in 1839. 



American vessels found within these limits should be warned that by engaging or pre- 

 paring to engage in fishing, they will be liable to forfeiture, and should receive the notice 

 to depart which is contemplated by the laws of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince 

 Edward Island, if within the waters of one of these colonies under circumstances of suspi- 

 cion. But they should not be carried into port except after willful and persevering neglect of 

 the warnings which they may have received, and in case it should become necessary to pro- 

 ceed to forfeiture, cases should, if possible, be selected for that extreme step in which the 

 offense of fishing has been committed within three miles of land. 



Her Majesty's Government do not desire that the prohibition to enter British ba> shnulJ 

 be generally insisted on, except when there is reason to apprehend some substantial invasion 

 of British rights. And in particular, they do not desire American vessels to be prevented 

 from navigating the Gut of Canso(from which Her Majesty's Government are advised they 

 may be lawfully excluded), unless it shall appear that this permission is used to the injury 

 of colonial. fishermen, or for other improper objects. 



I have it in command to make this communication to your lordship* as conveying tl 

 decision of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. 

 I have, &c., 



EDWARD CAKDWELL. 



I quote those instructions and niake these observations in order that 

 hereafter it may not be said that the views expressed by the American 

 counsel in regard to the Bay of Fundy and the Gnt of Canso were ac- 

 ceded to by being passed sub silentio by the counsel for Great Britain. 



With these preliminary observations, I shall return to the main ques- 

 tion, and here I may say that some weeks back, when your eawet- 

 lency and honors arrived at the conclusion that this inquiry slroviVl be 

 closed by oral instead of written arguments, I foresaw that great diffi- 

 culties must occur if counsel were expected to do what counsel ordinarily 

 do whilst closing cases in courts of justice. If the immense mass of tes- 

 timony, covering many hundreds of pages, together with the voluminous 

 appendices and addenda to the evidence, were to be gone over and the 

 relative value of the testimony on either side to be weighed, it seemed cer- 

 tain that the several speeches closing this case, on either side, must 

 necessarily extend over weeks. I had some curiosity, when my learned 

 friend, Mr. Foster, commenced his address and a very able one it was 

 to see in which way he would treat this matter, and whether or not he 

 would attempt to go over all this evidence. lie quite reassured me when 

 he said : 



A great mass of testimony has been adduced on bath sides, and it might seem to be in ir- 

 reconcilable conflict. Bat letusjnot be dismayed at this appeitr.inct>. There are certain 

 landmarks which cannot be changed, by a careful attention to which I think we may ex- 

 pect to arrive at a tolerably certaiu conclusion. 



I thought he had made an epitome of the evidence, and had attempted 

 to sift it, but I was "dismayed" afterwards, when I discovered that, 

 so far from considering himself bound by the testimony, he conveniently 

 ignored nearly the whole of the British evidence, and that the small por- 

 tions to which he did refer, ho was pleased to treat in a way that did 

 much more credit to his ingenuity as an advocate, than to his spirit of 

 fair dealing with the witnesses. 1 therefore did not feel at all relieved 

 by his course. Throughout his speech, as I shall show, there have been 



