MISCELLANEOUS. 1275 



would constitute a fishing within the negative terms of the 

 convention." 



This reply and the report* of the committee of the House of Assem- 

 bly of Nova Scotia will be considered together. The committee laud 

 the late Chancellor Kent, cite from his Commentaries, and aver that he 

 "agrees with the principles put forth by the law officers of the crown, 

 and which justify the conclusion that no foreign power, independent of 

 treaty, has any right to navigate the passage of Canso." It is not so. 

 The passage f which they quote from Kent relates to "an immunity 

 from belligerent warfare;" to ships of an enemy "hovering on our 

 coasts;" to the degree of "uneasiness and sensibility" we might feel, 

 "in the case of war between other maritime powers," were they to 

 "use the waters of our coast" for the purpose of cruising and of cap- 

 turing vessels. He gives no exact rule even in this respect. He gives 

 no exact rule in time of peace. He says that "the claim of dominion to 

 close or narrow seas is stul the theme of discussion and controversy ." He 

 then states the doctrine of several writers on international law, and 

 remarks that ' ' all that can reasonably be asserted is, that the dominion 

 of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as far as 

 is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end. A more extended 

 dominion must rest entirely upon force and maritime supremacy." 

 Now, it may be asked whether the "safety" of Nova Scotia demands 

 the closing of Canso; and whether the refusal of its use is for "some 

 lawful end." I am defending the rights of men in peace. I am 

 asking for a free sea when our fishermen are bound to and from the 

 distant scenes of their toil. I assume that they neither loiter nor 

 traffic; that they violate no municipal law; and that in no other way 

 do they harm or molest her Majesty's subjects. Perhaps the eminent 

 jurist, who is quoted so triumphantly against them, will sustain my 

 defence. We shall see. " Every vessel in time of peace," says the 

 same Chancellor Kent, "has a right to consult its own safety and con- 

 venience, and to pursue its own course and business, without being 

 disturbed, and without having violated the rights of others." Again, 

 he says: "As the end of the law of nations is the happiness and per- 

 fection of the general society of mankind, it enjoins upon every nation 

 the punctual observance of benevolence and good will, as well as of 

 justice, towards its neighbors. This is equally the policy and the duty 

 of nations." Still again: "No nation has a right, in time of peace, to 

 interfere with, or interrupt, any commerce which is lawful by the law 

 of nations, and carried on between other independent powers, or 

 between different members of the same state." Nor is this all. 

 " Every nation is hound, in time of peace, to grant a passage, for lawful 

 purposes, over their lands, rivers, and seas, to the people of other states, 

 whenever it can be permitted without inconvenience. "J Let us apply 

 these principles to the case before us. In passing through Canso,T>ur 

 fishermen consult their "safety and convenience." They promote 

 the "happiness" of mankind, for they are producers of human food. 

 Their "purpose is lawful," for the crown lawyers themselves admit 

 that the right of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is secured to them. 



* Inserted in the historical notice of the controversy in this report, under date of 1851. 

 t Kent's Commentaries, edition of 1832, vol. 1, pages 29 and 30. 

 t These several quotations are from Kent, edition of 1832, pages 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 

 and 34. 



