MISCELLANEOUS. 1235 



"It becomes the more necessary to make this observation, in con- 

 sequence of some doubt as to the extent of the proposed relaxation. 

 Lord Aberdeen, after stating that her Majesty's government felt 

 themselves constrained to adhere to the right of excluding the 

 United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, and also with regard 

 to other bays on the British American coasts, to maintain the position 

 that no United States fisherman has, under that convention, the right 

 to fish within three miles of the entrance of such bays, as designated 

 by a line drawn from headland to headland at that entrance, adds, 

 that 'while her Majesty's government still feel themselves bound to 

 maintain these positions as a matter of right, they are not insensible 

 to the advantages which would accrue to both countries from the 

 relaxation of that right.' 



"This form of expression might seem to indicate that the relaxation 

 proposed had reference to both positions; but when Lord Aberdeen 

 proceeds to state more particularly its nature and extent, he confines 

 it to a permission to be granted to 'the United States fishermen to 

 pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided 

 they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 

 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of 

 Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,' which entrance is defined, in 

 another part of Lord Aberdeen's note, as being designated by a line 

 drawn from headland to headland. 



"In the case of the 'Washington,' which formed the subject of the 

 note of the undersigned of the 25th May, 1844, to which the present 

 communication of Lord Aberdeen is a reply, the capture complained 

 of was in the waters of the Bay of Fundy: the principal portion of 

 the argument of the undersigned was addressed to that part of the 

 subject; and he is certainly under the impression that it is the point 

 of greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto car- 

 ried on between the two governments, in reference to the United 

 States' right of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts. 



"In the case, however, of the 'Argus,' which was treated in the 

 note of the undersigned of the 9th of October, the capture was in the 

 waters which wash the northeastern coast of Cape Breton, a portion of 

 the Atlantic ocean intercepted indeed between a straight line drawn 

 from Cape North to the northern head of Cow bay, but possessing 

 none of the characters of a bay, (far less so than the Bay of Fundy,) 

 and not called a 'bay' on any map which the undersigned has seen. 

 The aforesaid line is a degree of latitude in length; and as far as 

 reliance can be placed on the only maps (English ones) hi the pos- 

 session of the undersigned on which this coast is distinctly laid down, 

 it would exclude vessels from fishing grounds which might be thirty 

 miles from the shore. 



"Lord Aberdeen, in his note of the 10th instant, on the case of the 

 'Argus,' observes that, 'as the point of the construction of the con- 

 vention of 1818, in reference to the right of fishing in the Anglo- 

 American dependencies by citizens of the United States, is treated in 

 another note of the undersigned of this date, relative to the case of 

 the 'Washington/ the undersigned abstains from again touching on 

 that subject.' 



"This expression taken by itself, would seem to authorize the ex- 

 pectation that the waters where these two vessels respectively were 

 captured would be held subject to the same principles, whether of 



