QUESTION FIVE. 101 



tance not exceeding three miles from the same. In estimating this 

 distance, 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 in- 

 dentations usually so accounted, as included within that line. But 

 the undersigned cannot admit it to be reasonable, instead of thus 

 following the general directions of the coast, to draw a line from 

 the south-western-most point of Novia Scotia to the termination of 

 the northeastern boundary between the United States and New 

 Brunswick, and to consider the arms of the sea which will thus be 

 cut off, and which cannot, on that line be less than sixty miles wide, 

 as one of the bays on the coast from which American vessels are ex- 

 cluded. By this interpretation the fishermen of the United States 

 would be shut out from the waters distant, not three, but thirty miles 

 from any part of the colonial coast. The undersigned cannot per- 

 ceive that any assignable object of the restriction imposed by the 

 convention of 1818 on the fishing privilege accorded to the citizens 

 of the United States by the treaty of 1783 requires such a latitude 

 of construction. 



" It is obvious that (by the terms of the treaty) the furthest dis- 

 tance to which fishing vessels of the United States are obliged to hold 

 themselves from the colonial coats and bays, is three miles. But, 

 owing to the peculiar configuration of these coasts, there is a succes- 

 sion of bays indenting the shores both of New Brunswick and Nova 

 Scotia, within the Bay of Fundy. The vessels of the United States 

 have a general right to approach all the bays in her Majesty's colo- 

 nial dominions, within any distance not less than three miles a privi- 

 lege from the enjoyment of which they will be wholly excluded in 

 this part of the coast, if the broad arm of the sea which flows up be- 

 tween New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, is itself to be considered one 

 of the forbidden bays. 



* * * * * * * 



" The undersigned trusts that the Earl of Aberdeen, on giving a 

 renewed consideration to the case, will order the restoration of the 

 Washington, if still detained, and direct the colonial authorities to 

 abstain from the further capture of the fishing vessels of the United 

 States under similar circumstances, till it has been decided between 

 the two governments whether the Bay of Fundy is included among 

 ' the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors ' which American vessels are not 

 permitted to approach within three miles." (British Case, App., p. 



135.) 



115 It is clear from this letter that the United States did not con- 

 tend, in 1844, that the three marine miles must be measured 

 from the sinuosities of the coast. Mr. Everett in terms admits that 

 it is to be measured from .the general line of the coast, and that bays, 

 creeks and harbours, that is the indentations usually so accounted, 

 should be included within that line although he makes an exception 

 in the case of the Bay of Fundy. 



Lord Aberdeen referred the question as to the Bay of Fundy to 

 the Governor of Nova Scotia, and received a reply (17th September, 

 1844), in which the Governor (Lord Falkland) after discussing the 



