AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1785 



to the Hon. Richard Rush, one of the negotiators of the Convention ot 

 1818. It is as follows : 



, UEl'ARTMKNT OF 8TATK, 



Washington, July (J, 1853. 



fra : You are probably aware tbat within a few years past a question has arisen between 

 the United States and Great Britain as to the construction to be given to the 1st Article of 

 the Convention of 1818, relative to the fisheries on the coast of the British North American 

 Provinces. For more than twenty years after the conclusion of that convention there was 

 110 serious attempt to exclude our fishermen from the large bays on that coast ; but about 

 teu years ago, at the instance of the provincial authorities, the home government gave a 

 construction to tl.e 1st Article which closes all bays, whatever be their extent, agiiinxt our 

 citizens for fishing purposes. It is true they have been permitted to fish in the Bay of Fundy. 

 This permission is conceded to them by the British Government, as a matter of favor, but 

 denied as a right. That government excludes them from all the other large bays. 



Our construction of the convention is that American fishermen have a right to resort to 

 any bay and take fish iu it, provided they are not within a marine league of the shore. 

 As you negotiated the convention referred to, I should be much pleased to be favored with 

 your views on the subject. 



I have the honor to be, &c., 



W. L. MARCY. 

 The Hon RICHARD RUSH, 



Sydenham, near Philadelphia. 



This clearly proves that the American Government understood tlm 

 matter thoroughly. Official correspondence is the best authority on the 

 subject. 



Mr. FOSTER. That correspondence was before the decision in the case 

 of the Washington. 



Mr. THOMSON. Lord Aberdeen wrote the dispatch containing the re- 

 laxation on March 10, 1845. The schooner had been seized in 1843, and 

 the decision of Mr. Bates, as umpire, was given in 1854, in December. 

 The reason why I cited the letter to Rush was to show that in 1853, io 

 July, the United States had full knowledge of the construction which 

 , had been placed upon that relaxation. It is true, says Mr. Rush, they 

 have been permitted to fish in the Bay of Fuudy, but that is conceded 

 as a matter of favor and not of right, and that was in 1845. 



Mr. DANA. But you recollect that after we had that decision, we did 

 not accept the concession as a favor. 



Mr. THOMSON. Great Britain has expressly adhered to her opinion 

 from the beginning to the end, as I said before. It is no use to quarrel 

 about the terms of relaxation. Whether the terms mean a relaxation 

 or not is behind the question. It is a practical abandonment, since Great 

 Britain has said that as regards the Bay of Fundy she has relaxed her 

 claim and does not purpose to enforce it again. Xo such claim has been 

 made since that time, and we have given no evidence of any fishing in 

 the Bay of Fundy, except the fishing within territorial limits around 

 Grand Manan, Campobello, Deer Island, and the coasts of the county 

 of Charlotte and the Province of Nova Scotia. 



Mr. TRESCOT. No one objects to the view that Great Britain adheres 

 to the construction you insist upon, so long as you admit that the United 

 States adheres to its construction under which the waters of the Bay of 

 Fundy are not British territorial waters. 



Mr. THOMSON. I only wish to say that the United States thetnse 

 understood the position of the British Government, and that th**y ">i 

 take the concessions in the terms and with the meaning that the 1 

 ish Government attached to it. A man who accepts a gift cannot qiiii 

 rel with the terms of it. 



Mr. DANA. Mr. Everett declined to accept it as a courtesy. 



Mr. THOMSON. As a matter of fact the United States have i 

 clined to accept it. Tlu-.v have acted upon it ever since. 



