QUESTION FIVE. 169 



the undersigned supposes that the Washington was seized because 

 she was found fishing in the Bay of Fundy, and on the ground that 

 the lines within which American vessels are forbidden to fish, are to 

 run from headland to headland, and not to follow the shore. It is 

 plain, however, that neither the words nor the spirit of the convention 

 admits of any such construction, nor, it is believed, was it set up by the 

 provincial authorities for several years after the negotiation of^that 

 instrument. A glance at the map wall show Lord Aberdeen that there 

 is. perhaps, no part of the great extent of the seacoasts of Her 

 Majesty's possessions in America, in which the right of an American 

 vessel to fish can be subject to less doubt than that in which the 

 Washington was seized. * * * 



In reference to the case of the Washington and those of a similar 

 nature which have formerly occurred, the undersigned cannot but 

 remark upon the impropriety of the conduct of the colonial authori- 

 ties in undertaking, without directions from Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, to set up a new construction of a treaty between the United 

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

 ble seizure of American vessels. * * * 



The undersigned need not urge upon Lord Aberdeen the desirable- 

 ness of an authoritative intervention on the part of Her Majestv's 

 Government to put an end to the proceedings complained of. The 

 President of the United States entertains a confident expectation of 

 an early and equitable adjustment of the difficulties which have been 

 now for so long time under the consideration of Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment. This expectation is the result of the President's reliance 

 upon the sense of justice of Her Majesty's Government, and of the 

 fact that, from the year 1818, the date of the convention, until some 

 years after the attempts of the provincial authorities to restrict the 

 rights of American vessels by colonial legislation, a practical con- 

 struction was given to the 1st article of the convention, in accord- 

 ance with the obvious purport of its terms and settling its meaning 

 as understood by the United States." 



The Government of Great Britain again declined to assert juris- 

 diction over the large bodies of water, to which American fishermen 

 were free to resort and had resorted for years prior to the treaty of 

 peace in 1783, for thirty-five years thereafter until the treaty of 1818, 

 and for twenty-five years since the treaty of 1818; but referred the 

 note of Mr. Everett to the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia. 



Lord Aberdeen, after delaying eight months, replied to the note 

 of Mr. Everett, April 15, 1844. 



Lord Aberdeen quoted the renunciatory clause of the treaty, and 

 continued : 



It is thus clearly provided that American fishermen shall not take 

 fish within three marine miles of any bay of Nova Scotia, etc. If 

 the treaty was intended to stipulate simply that American fishermen 

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

 etc., 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 



XL S. Case, Appendix, 474. 



