QUESTION FIVE. 173 



( The undersigned flatters himself that these considerations will go 

 far to satisfy Lord Aberdeen of the correctness of the American 

 understanding of the words " Bay of Fundy," arguing on the terms 

 of the treaties of 1783 and 1818. When it is admitted that, as the 

 undersigned is advised, there has been no attempt till late years to 

 give them any other construction than that for which the American 

 Government now contends, the point would seem to be placed beyond 

 doubt. a 



While this note is under consideration, is an opportune time to 

 correct a remarkable statement in the British Case : 



It would seem that the British contention with an exception in 

 favor of the Bay of Fundy, was officially accepted by the United 

 States Government, at least it was accepted by Mr. Everett, United 

 States minister in London." 



Now what Mr. Everett did say has just been quoted : 



In estimating this distance [three marine miles] the undersigned 

 admits it to be the intent of the treaty as it is itself reasonable to 

 have regard to the general line of the coast ; and to consider its bays, 

 creeks and harbors, that is the indentations usually so accounted, as 

 included in that line. * * * 



There is, of course, ho shelter or means of repairing damages for 

 a vessel entering the Bay of Fundy, in itself considered. It is neces- 

 sary, before relief or succor can be had to traverse that broad arm 

 of the sea, and reach the bays and harbors properly so called which 

 indent the coast and which are no doubt the bays and harbors re- 

 ferred to in the convention of 1818. 



Lord Aberdeen did not reply to Mr. Everett's note until March 

 10, 1845, nearly a year afterward." 



In the meantime, however, the authorities of Nova Scotia seized 

 the American fishing schooner Argus off the coast of Cape Breton 

 and about sixteen miles from any shore. The seizing officer claimed 

 the vessel was within three miles of a line drawn from Cow Bay 

 Head to Cape North, and on their construction of the treaty, " he said 

 he seized us to settle the question." A 



In October, 1844, Mr. Everett transmitted to Lord Aberdeen, the 

 papers relating to the capture of the Argus, and stated, " the under- 

 signed again feels it his duty on behalf of his Government, to for- 

 mally protest against an act of this description." 



BRITISH ATTITUDE TOWARD THE NOVA SCOTIA THEORY. 



In March, 1845, Lord Aberdeen advised Mr. Everett at length con- 

 cerning the views of Great Britain : 



Her Majesty's Government must still maintain and in this view 

 they are fortified by high legal authority, that the Bay of Fundy 



U. S. Case, 112 ; Appendix, 479. c U. S. Case, 114 ; Appendix, 488. 



British Case. 83. * U. S. Case, 114 ; Appendix, 483, 485. 



