110 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



States and England, and in proceeding to act upon it by the forcible 

 seizure of American vessels." 



After a lapse of eight months, during which Mr. Everett's note had 

 been referred to the Colonial Office, and by it to the Governor of Nova 

 Scotia, "the result of those references" was communicated to Mr. 

 Everett by Lord Aberdeen in his note of April 15, 1844, from which 

 the following extract is taken: 



The words of the treaty of October, 1818, article 1, run thus: ' 'And 

 the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore 

 enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure 

 fish, on or within tliree marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks 

 or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not 

 included within the above mentioned limits, (that is, Newfoundland, 

 Labrador, and other parts separate from Nova Scotia;) provided, 

 however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter 

 such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter," &c. 



It is thus clearly provided that American fishermen shall not take 

 fish within three marine miles of any bay of Nova Scotia, &c. If the 

 treaty was intended to stipulate simply that American fishermen 

 should not take fish within three miles of the coast of Nova Scotia, 

 &c., there was no occasion for using the word ' 'bay " at all. But the 

 proviso at the end of the article shows that the word ' ' bay " was used 

 designedly; for it is expressly stated in that proviso, that under cer- 

 tain circumstances the American fishermen may enter hays, by which 

 it is evidently meant that they may, under those circumstances, pass 

 the sea-line which forms the entrance of the bay. The undersigned 

 apprehends that this construction will be admitted by Mr. Everett. 



That the Washington was found fishing within the Bay of Fundy 

 is, the undersigned believes, an admitted fact, and she was seized 

 accordingly. ^ 



Mr. Everett replied to Lord Aberdeen on May 25, 1844, stating 

 that, although the immediate occasion of his previous note was the 

 seizure of the Washington, it contained a reference to the corre- 

 spondence between Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston on the sub- 

 ject of former complaints made by the United States against the 

 manner in which the American fishing vessels ''had in several ways 

 been interfered with by the provincial authorities in contravention, 

 as is believed, of the treaty of October, 1818 ", and as no answer had as 

 yet been returned to Mr. Stevenson's note of March 27, 1841, and, as 

 Lord Aberdeen's answer to Mr. Everett's last note was confined 

 exclusively to the case of the Washington, it, therefore, became neces- 

 sary "again to invite his lordship's attention to the correspondence 

 above referred to between Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston and 

 to request that inquiry may be made, without unnecessary delay, into 



"Appendix, p. 475. 6 Appendix, p. 478. 



