AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. : 



fishermen of the United States believe that they can with propriety take 

 fish anywhere on the coasts of the British provinces if not uearer than 

 three miles to laud." 



But Mr. Everett, also United States minister in London, in 1S44, May 

 25, pots a different construction upon the Treaty of ISIS. In his letter 

 to Lord Aberdeen of May 25, 1844, quoted in the United States Brief 

 (pp. 15, 16, 17, and IS), he says: 



It was notoriously the object of the article of the treaty in question to jnt aa cod 

 to the difficulties which had grown out of the oj-erat ions" of the fishermen from taw 

 United States along the coasts and upon the shores of the settled port ions of the oo*n- 

 try. and for that purpose to remove their vessels to a distance not exceeding three 

 miles from the same. In estimating this distance the undersigned admit* it to he ta 

 imtfmt of the treaty ta it it in itedf rta*o*aMf to tanr regard t tit fnwnri limt of At rwut, 

 amd to comfidtr it* bay*, crwi*. a*d kat+ontkat u, Ou imdemtatiem* tumtUy no * 

 at imdmtkd uitkim that ?. But the undersigned cannot admit it to be 



, 



instead of thus following the general directions of the coast, to draw a line from the 

 southwesternmost point of Nova Scotia to the termination of the northeastern bound- 

 ary between the United States and New Brunswick, and to consider the arms of the 

 sea which will thus be cut off. and which cannot, on that line, be leas than sixty mile* 

 wide, as one of the bays on the coast from which American Teasels are excluded. By 

 this interpretation the fishermen of the United States would be shut oat from the 

 waters distant, not three but thirty miles, from any part of the colonial coa*t. The 

 undersigned cannot perceive that any assignable object of the restriction impoed bj 

 the Convention of 1818, on the fishing privilege accorded to the citizens of the United 

 .States by the Treaty of 1783. requires such a latitude of construction. It i* obvious 

 that' by the terms of the treaty the farthest distance to which fishing vessels of the 

 United States are obliged to hold themselves from the colonial coasts and bays is three 

 tiles. But owing to the peculiar configuration of these coast*, there is a succession 

 of bays indenting the shores both of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, within any dis- 

 tance not less than three miles a privilege from the enjoyment of which they will 

 be wholly excluded in this part of the coast, if the broad arm of the sea which flow* 

 up between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is itself to be considered one of the for- 

 bidden bays. 



Here, in plain, unambiguous language. Mr. Everett represents to Lord 

 Aberdeen that the Bay of Fuudy ought not to be treated as a bay from 

 which United States fishermen were to be excluded, under the Conven- 

 tion of 1818, because the headlands trere not only 60 mile* opart, but one of 

 them wot not British, Moreover, he points out that * owing to the 

 peculiar configuration of these coasts'' (i. r., the coasts of the Bay of 

 Fundy itself), there is a succession of bays indenting the shores both of 

 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (i. ., the two shores of the Bay of 

 Fundy), within any distance not less than three miles," from which last- 

 named bays the American fishermen had a right to approach, and from 

 which privilege they were necessarily excluded by holding the whole 

 body of the Bay of Fnndy to be British territorial water. 



It is by no means conceded that because on both coasts of the great 

 Bay of Fundy large bays exist which, according to the British conte 

 tion, American fishermen are forbidden to approach, Mr. Everett was 

 right in his argument that the Bay of Fundy is really open sea, j 

 there is at all events a plausibility about the reasoning which cani 

 attach to the contention of the United States in reference to any o 

 bay on the British American coasts. 



Not a word is to be found in this letter affording the dtcMHli 

 nance to the doctrine contended for in the answer and 

 United States, viz, that no bay was intended to be included 

 vention of 1818, except bays of no greater width at the mouths i 

 miles. Had such a doctrine been in the mind of Mr. Kverett 

 wrote this letter, it inav be assumed that he would not have r 

 from bringing it under Lord Aberdeen* notice. But so far frot 

 op such a doctrine, he says that he "admits it to be the 

 119 F 



