100 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



ing, that, ''it was just a quarter of a century after the date of the con- 

 vention before the first American fisherman was captured for fishing 

 at large in the Bay of Fundy !" I find it difficult, under any lights at 

 present before me, to explain the extraordinary circumstances which 

 environ this international question, consistently vnth. all that is due 

 to the high party on the other side; feehngs the most friendly being 

 due to her from the magnitude of the interests bound up in the sub- 

 sistence of relations the most harmonious at all points between the 

 two countries, and which all ought to cherish and improve. 



It is impossible for me to doubt that the convention as v)e now 

 construe it, and have alvmys construed it, was entirely acceptable 

 to tlie British government at the time of its adoption. But I re- 

 member also that other feelings were afloat at that epoch bej'ond 

 the pale of the government in London. The fishery article was 

 sharply assailed out of doors. Journals of prominence in the cap- 

 ital represented it as sacrificing high maritime interests of England, 

 following up like sacrifices which they said had been made in the 

 treaties of Vienna. The Legislative Assembly and Comicil of Xova 

 Scotia, sent forward murmurs deep and loud from that quarter. 

 They alleged, that the prospects of British Colonial industry and 

 advantage in North America were exposed to a shock in the com- 

 petition which this fishery article opened up to the Americans," 



The novel interpretation, devised by Nova Scotia with respect 

 to the meaning of the word ''bays" was called to the attention 

 of Mr. Forsyth, then Secretary of State, by the United States 

 Consul at Pictou in his letter of November 25, 1840, in which 

 he says, referring to certain documents enclosed, "these documents 

 possess considerable interest but more particularly that part of the 

 Assembly's interpretation of the Convention of 1818, by which it 

 asserts that the prescribed distance of 'three marine miles' therein 

 expressed, is to be measured from the headlands and not from the 

 shores of the Provinces." This seems to have been understood to 

 mean that the "prescribed distance of three marine miles" should 

 be measured from a line drawn between the headlands instead of 

 following the indentations of the coast. 



On the 20th of February follo^ving, the Secretary of State wrote 

 to Mr. Stevenson, the American IVIinister in London, calling 

 attention to this novel interpretation and to the proceedings 

 of the authorities of Nova Scotia, which had taken place under 

 the provincial Act of 1836, in relation to the seizm-es and inter- 

 ruptions of the American fishing vessels in the prosecution of the 

 fisheries on the coasts of that Province, and instructed him to brmg 

 these matters to the notice of the British Government without 



o Appendix, p. 555. 



