1890 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



treaty, as it is in itself reasonable, to have regard to the general line of 

 the coast, and to consider its bays, creeks, and harbors, that is, indenta- 

 tions usually so accounted, as included within that line." What line? 

 Clearly the line within three miles from which all American fishing-ves- 

 sels are excluded under the convention. Mr. Everett never ventured to 

 hint that the bay of Miramichi or the bay of Chaleurs did not fall within 

 the words of the Convention of 1818. He argues that if the United 

 States fishermen are to be excluded from the Bay of Fundy, "two en- 

 tirely different limitaiious would exist in reference to the right of shelter 

 reserved to American vessels on the shores of Her Majesty's colonial 

 possessions. They would be allowed to fish within three miles of the 

 place of shelter along the greater part of the coast, while in reference 

 to the entire extent of shore within the Bay of Fuudy they would be 

 wholly prohibited from fishing along the coast, and would be kept at a 

 distance of twenty or thirty miles from any place of refuge in case of 

 extremity. 



This argument impliedly admits that, whatever may be the case as to 

 the Bay of Fundy, United States fishermen were, by the Treaty of 1818, 

 excluded, except for purposes of necessity, from other bays along the 

 coast of Her Majesty's colonial possessions and from fishing within three 

 miles of those bays. 



The British Government, however, in 1845, whilst maintaining as a 

 matter of strict construction that the Bay of Fundy was rightfully 

 claimed by Great Britain as a bay within the meaning of the Conven- 

 tion of 1818, relaxed the application of this construction to that bay, and 

 allowed the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in 

 any part of it, provided they should not approach, except in cases 

 specified in the Treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any 

 bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. 



This proviso shows clearly the construction put at that time (1845) 

 and before by the British Government upon the word u bay "in the 

 Convention of 1818 on both points, that the dimensions of the bay were 

 immaterial, and that no approach was permissible within three miles of 

 the entrance of a bay. 



In a state paper dated July 6, 1852, Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, 

 although contending that the wording of tne Convention of 1818 was 

 not conformable to the intentions of the United States, as one of the con- 

 tracting parties, says : 



It would appear that by a strict and rigid construction of this article (Article I of 

 Convention of 118) fishing vessels of the United States are precluded from entering 

 into the bays or harbors of the British provinces except for the purposes of shelter, 

 repairing damages, and obtaining wood and water. A bay, as is usually understood, 

 is an arm or recess of the sea entering from the ocean between capes or headlands ; and 

 the term is applied equally to small and large tracts of water thus situated. It is common to 

 peak of Hudson's Bay or the Bay of Biscay, although they are very large tracts of t 

 water. 



The British authorities insist that England has a right to draw a line from headland 

 to headland and to capture all American fishermen who may follow their pursuits in- 

 side of that line. It icos undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of 1818 to make so 

 large a coooenioD to England, since the United States had usually considered that 

 those vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to American fishermen as 

 freely as the sea itself, to within three miles of the shore. 



Had this language been used by so great and experienced a statesman 

 as Mr. Webster in any ordinary debate, it would be testimony of the 

 most weighty character against the views put forth on this subject in 

 the answer of the United States. But when it is borne in mind that 

 Mr. Webster used these words in his official capacity as Secretary of 

 State they must be considered as conclusive. 





