Siw^5«RI^S«^l 



iitii»mi>«w<«)»«j(«,owi 



nrTrTTHiMimM 



104 



nnd creeks uf the southern part uf the const of Nuwfouudlaud hereiiibefui'e described, niid ol the coast 

 oi' Librador. But as soon ns the some or any portion thereof shall lie settled, it sliall not be hiwfid for 

 said tisheriuen to dry or cure fish at such portion mo settled without ])nviiius iij^'recnieni lor such 

 purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground ; and the United Stuti's jiereby 

 renounces for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to toljc, dry, or 

 cure fish, on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, cn>cks, or harbours of His 

 Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limiU; : Prondnl, 

 however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bnys or harbours for the purpose 

 of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of piirchasiug wood, and of obtaining water, and fur nu otlier 

 purpose whatever. But they shall be under such I'estrictions us shall be necessary to jirevcut their 

 taking, drying, or curing tish tlierein, or iu any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby 

 secured to them." 



The construction placed upon this Article by the Government of the Dominion 

 has been formerly, — First, that American fishermen are thereby excluded from, and 

 have given up all rights to, the fisheries in the large bays, such as the Bay of Fundy, 

 the Bay of Cnaleurs, and the Bay of Mirumiclii. Second, that a straight line should 

 be drawn, from headland to headland, across the mouths of all bays, gulfs, or 

 indentations of the shore, and from this line the three marine miles mentioned in the 

 Convention should be measured ; and that this was the limit within which the 

 Americans were forbidden to prosecute the fisheries. On the other hand, the 

 American Government has always insisted that the three-mile limit should follow 

 the coast parallel to its sinuosities, and should be measured across the mouths of 

 bays only when the distance from headland to headland did not exceed six miles. 



After 1818 there appears to have been no correspondence between the tvvo 

 Governments until 1824; and, during these six years, American fishermen used the 

 fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, and more than three miles heyond the line of low- 

 water mark along the shores, without molestation or intcrreretue. 



In September 1824, Mr. Brent writes to Mr. Addington, Charge d'AITaires from 

 Great Britain : — 



" I have the honour to transmit to you three memorials from sundry oiiizcns of the United States 

 belonging to the State of Maine, accompanied by seven protests and aHida\ its, which exhibit tlie nature 

 and extent of the facts referred to by the mcnioriidisls, complaining of llie interniiition which they 

 have experienced during the present season in their accustomed and lawful iinploynu'nt of taking and 

 curing lish in the Bay of Fundy and upon the Grand Banks by the I'rilinb aniiod lirig ' Dotterel,' 

 commanded by Captain Hoare, and another vessel, a provincial cutter of New I'nniswick, acting under 

 the ordei-8 of that officer, and earnestly soliciting the interposition of this Ciovernnienl to procure tlieni 

 suitable redress." 



This complaint of the American Government was caused by the seizure of two 

 vessels, the " Reindeer" and the "Ruby," on July 26, 1824, at Two-Island Harbour, 

 Grand Menan. The correspondence does not show what the precise cause of the 

 seizure was. The Report of Captain Hoare merely says, " infringing the Treaty." 

 These two vessels were afterwards resv-jued by the fishermen, and carried into the 

 harbour of fiastport. 



Afterwards, in answer to this, February 19, 1825, Mr. Addington writes to 

 Mr. Adams, Secretary of State : — 



" It will, I trust sir, most conclusively appear to you that the complainants have no just ground of 

 accusation against the officers of the ' Dotterel,' nor are entitled to reparation for the loss thc^y have 

 sustained ; tliat, or the contrary, they rendered themselves by the irregularity of their own eonduct, 

 justly obnoxious t*y the severity exercised against them, having Ixjen taken, aome Jtagmnte di I irto, and 

 others in such a position and under such circumstances as rendered it absolutely in)]iossible that they 

 coidd have hod any other intention than that of pursuing their avocations as lishermen within the 

 lines laid down by Treaty as forming boundaries within which such ptu'suit was interdicted to 

 them." 



The evidence regarding the seisurc of these and various other American vesh-els 

 is appended to this letter, and will be found in full, with the affidavits of the 

 American seamen, in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 100, 32nd Congress, 1st Session. 



The next correspondence was January 1836, when Mr. Charles Bankhead, 

 Charg6 d'Affaires, writes to Mr. Forsyth concerning the encroachments "on the 

 limits of the British fisheries carried on in the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence." 



At this time a circular was issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to the 

 American fishermen, enjoining them to observe the limits of the Treaty, but without 

 saying what these limits were. The claim of the provincial authorities to exclude 

 American fishermen from the great hays, such as Fundy and Chalcurs, and ulso 

 from a distance of three miles, determined by a line drawn from headland to head- 



