QUESTION FIVE. 135 



amine the papers, and prepare the answers. I asked him if he could, 

 without inconvenience, state the substance of the answer that had 

 been sent. He said certainly, it had been that as, on the one hand, 

 Great Britain could not permit the vessels of the United States to 

 fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of the British terri- 

 tories, so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to 

 interrupt them in fishing anywhere in the open sea, or without the 

 territorial jurisdiction, of a marine league from the shore; and, there- 

 fore, that the warning given at the place stated, in the case referred 

 to, was altogether unauthorized. I replied, that the particular act of 

 the British commander in this instance, being disavowed, I trusted 

 that the British Government, before adopting any final determina- 

 tion upon the subject, would estimate in candor, and in that spirit 

 of amity which my own Government was anxiously desirous of main- 

 taining in our relations with this country, the considerations which 

 I was instructed to present in support of the right of the people of the 

 United States to fish on the whole coast of North America, which 

 they have uniformly enjoyed from the first settlement of the country ; 

 that it was my intention to address in the course of a few days, a 

 letter to him on the subject. He said that they would give due atten- 

 tion to the letter that I should send him, but that Great Britain had 

 explicitly manifested her intention concerning it; that this subject, 

 as I doubtless knew, had excited a great deal of feeling in this coun- 

 try, perhaps much more than its importance deserved ; but their own 

 fishermen considered it as an excessive hardship to be supplanted 

 by American fishermen, even upon the very shores of the British 

 Dominions. I said * * * me question of right had not been 

 discussed at the negotiation of Ghent. The British plenipotentiaries 

 had given a notice that the British Government did not intend here- 

 after to grant to the people of the United States the right to fish and 

 to cure and dry fish within the exclusive British jurisdiction in 

 America, without an equivalent, as it had been granted by the Treaty 

 of Peace in 1783. * * * It was not so much the fishing, as the 

 drying and curing on the shores that had been followed by bad con- 

 sequences. It happened that our fishermen, by their proximity, 

 could get to the fishing stations sooner in the season than the British, 

 who were obliged to go from Europe, and who, upon arriving there, 

 found all the best fishing places and drying and curing places pre- 

 occupied. This had often given rise to disputes and quarrels be- 

 tween them, which in some instances had proceeded even to blows. It 

 had disturbed the peace among the inhabitants on the shores; and, 

 for several years before the war, complaints to this Government had 

 been so great and so frequent that it had been impossible not to pay 

 regard to them. 



If the Government of Great Britain had intended to claim exclusive 

 jurisdiction in respect of the fisheries over great bodies of water 

 extending many miles from shore, would the claim have been ad- 

 venced in the statement, that hereafter the vessels of the United 

 States would not be permitted to fish within the creeks and close 



U. S. Case, Appendix, 265. 



