1108 MISCELLANEOUS. 



Now, it so happens that no such term is used in the treaty, and 

 their decision, based on it, falls to the ground. 



They were also specifically asked to define what is to be considered 

 a headland. This they did not attempt to do. The headlands of the 

 Bay of Fundy have never been defined or located, and, from the con- 

 tour of the bay, no such headlands properly exist. 



These officers held that the American fisherman, for the reason 

 named, could not enter the bays and harbors of Nova Scotia. But 

 the Bay of Fundy is not a bay or harbor of the Province of Nova 

 Scotia, and was never included in its limits. The Bay of Fundy 

 is bounded on one side by Nova Scotia, and on the other by New 

 Brunswick, and it is not clear that either the question proposed or 

 answer given was designed to include this large arm of the sea. 



It is also said that Mr. Webster has conceded the point in issue in 

 a notice given to American fishermen. The claims, now asserted, 

 were not put forth till many years after the treaty of 1818; and it 

 was not until 1852 the British Government gave notice that seizures 

 would be made of fishermen taking fish in violation of the construc- 

 tion of the treaty of 1818, as then claimed by them, when Mr. Webster, 

 to avoid the collisions that might arise, issued a notice setting forth 

 the claims put forth by England. 



In one part of his notice he says: " It was an oversight to make 

 so large a concession to England," but closes by saying : " Not agree- 

 ing that the construction put upon the treaty by the English Govern- 

 ment is conformable to the intentions of the contracting parties, this 

 information is given that those concerned in the fisheries may under- 

 stand how the concern stands at present and be upon their guard." 



Mr. Webster subsequently denied relinquishing, in any manner, by 

 this notice the rights of the United States, as claimed under this 

 treaty. 



Detached expressions quoted from it to sustain a different opinion 

 can hardly be regarded, under such circumstances, as an authority. 



I have seen no other argument or suggestions tending, as I think, 

 to sustain the grounds taken by the British Government. 



On the other hand, I have adverted briefly, as I proposed, to the 

 history of the fisheries ; the views expressed by the negotiators of the 

 treaty of 1818, as to the object to be effected by it; the subsequent 

 practical construction of it for many years ; the construction given to 

 a similar article in the treaty of 1783; the evident meaning to be 

 gained from the entire article of the treaty taken together ; and from 

 the term "coasts" as used in the treaty of 1818 and other treaties 

 in reference to this subject; and the whole combine, as I believe, to 

 sustain the construction contended for by the United States. 



I am therefore of opinion the owners of Washington should receive 

 compensation for the unlawful seizure of that vessel by the British 

 Government when fishing more than three miles from the shore or 

 coast of the Bay of Fundy. 



