100 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



EVERETT-ABERDEEN CORRESPONDENCE. 



On the 10th May, 1843, the United States fishing- vessel ' ; Wash- 

 ington " was seized for fishing in the Bay of Fundy, at a distance 

 of more than three miles from the shore. Complaint was made 

 (10th August, 1843), by letter from Mr. Everett (United States 

 Minister in London) to Lord Aberdeen, Secretary of State for For- 

 eign Affairs, in which he said that the seizure appeared to have 

 been made (British Case, App., p. 131) 



" on the ground that the lines within which American vessels are for- 

 bidden to fish, are to run from headland to headland, and not to fol- 

 low 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. 



In view of the subsequent modification by Mr. Everett of this 

 opinion, it is important to observe that, in some way, he had been 

 misled as to the wording of the treaty which he was interpreting. 

 In an earlier part of the same letter he said (British Case, App., 

 p. 130) : 



" By the first article of the convention above alluded to, the United 

 States renounce any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by their 

 inhabitants to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles 

 of any of the coasts of her Majesty's dominions in America, for which 

 express provision is not made in the said article. This renunciation 

 is the only limitation existing on the right of fishing upon the coasts 

 of her Majesty's dominions in America, secured to the people of the 

 United States by the third article of the treaty of 1783." 



It will be observed that Mr. Everett was not aware that the three 

 miles was to be measured not only from the " coasts " but from the 

 " bays, creeks or harbors," Lord Aberdeen's reply (15th April, 1844) 

 called attention to the mistake; and Mr. Everett immediately modi- 

 fied his opinion. Replying to Lord Aberdeen (25th May, 1844), he 

 said (British Case, App., p. 134) : 



" The existing doubt as to the construction of the provision arises 



from the fact that a broad arm of the sea runs up to the northeast, 



between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This 



arm of the sea being commonly called the Bay of Fundy, though not 



in reality possessing all the characters usually implied by the term 



' bay,' has or late years been claimed by the provincial au- 



114 thorities of Nova Scotia to be included among ' the coasts, bays, 



creeks and harbors ' forbidden to American fishermen. 



"An examination of the map is sufficient to show the doubtful 

 nature of this construction. It was notoriously the object of the 

 article of the treaty in question to put an end to the difficulties which 

 had grown out of the operations of the fishermen from the United 

 States along the coasts and upon the shores of the settled portions of 

 the country, and for that purpose to remove their vessels to a dis- 



