iOJ 



land across their mouths, was not attempted to be enforced until the years 1838 and 

 1839, when several of the American fishing- vessels were seized by the British 

 cruizers, for fisliing in the large hays. On July 10, 1839, Mr. Vail, the acting 

 Secretary of State, writes to Mr. U. S. Fox, complaining of seizures in the Bay of 

 Fundy by the British Government vessel the "Victory." 



A letter from Lieutenant-Commander Paine to Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, 

 dated December 29, 1839, sums up the matters in dispute, thus: — 



" Tho authorities of Nova Scotia seem to claim a right to oxchide Americans from all bays, 

 ineliidin(; such large seas as tho Bay of Fundy and the Bay of Chuleurs ; and also to draw a line from 

 headland lu headland, the Americans not to approach within three miles of this line. The tishermcn, 

 on the contrary, believe they have a ris'lit to work anywhere, if not nearer than three miles from tlie 

 land." 



With the exception of the vessels seized in the Bay of Fundy, referred to in 

 the letter from Mr. Vail, this construction of the clause in the Treaty was not 

 rigidly enforced. Indeed, the orders of Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy, as stated by 

 himself, were only to prevent American vessels lishing nearer than three miles from 

 shore. 



in February 1841, Mr. Forsyth writes to Mr. Stevenson, the American Minister 

 at St. James's, desiring him to present formally to the Hritisii Government the 

 demand of the United States in regard to the right of fishing off the Canadian 

 coast : — 



Mk. FoiisYTii TO Mu. Stevenson, Feb. 20, 1S41. 



" The first Article of the Convention of 1818 between the United States aiid (Ireat Britain, which 

 contains the Treaty stipulations relating to the subject, is so ex])licit in ils terms that there would 

 seem to be little room for misapprehending them ; and, indeed, it does not appear that any conflicting 

 qtiestions of right between the two Governments have arisen out of difl'erences of opinion between them 

 regarding the intent and meaning of this Article. Yet in the actual application of the provisions of 

 the Treaty, committed, on the part of Great Britain, to the hands of sulxu'dinate agents, subject to and 

 controlled by local legislation, difficulties growing out of individual acts have sprung up from time to 

 time ; and, of these, perhaps the most grave in their cliaracter are the recent seizures of American 

 vessels made, it is believed, under colour of a provincial law, entitled William IV., chap. 8, 183G ; 

 enacted, doubtless, with a view rigorously to restrict, if not intended to directly aim a fatal blow at, 

 our fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia. From information in the possession of the Department, it 

 ajjiiears that the Provincial authorities assume a right to exclude American vessels from all their bay.s, 

 even including those of Fundy and Chaleurs, and to prohibit their approach within three miles of a line 

 drawn from headland to headland." 



" Our fishermen believe-- and they are obviously right in their opinion, if uniform pmctice is any 

 evidence of correct construction — that they can with propriety take fish anywhere on the coasts of the 

 British I'rovinces, if not nearer than throe miles to land, and resort to their ports for shelter, wood, 

 water, &c. ; nor has this claim ever been seriously disputed, based as it is on tiie plain and obvious 

 terms of the Convention, whilst the construction attempted to be jmt upon that insti-ument by the 

 authorities of Nova Scotia is directly in conflict witii its provisions, and entirely subversive of the rights 

 and interests of our citizens. It is one which would lead to the abandoinneut, to a great extent, of a 

 highly important branch of American industry, and cannot for one moment bo admitted by this 

 Government." 



Mr. Stevenson, in his official note to Lord Palmerston, states the matter in 

 dispute and the claims of the United States very strongly : — 



"It also appears, from information recently received by the Government of the United States, that 

 tlie Provincial authorities assume a light to exclude the vessels of the United States from all bays, even 

 including those of Fundy and ChiUeurs ; and likewise to prohibit their approach within three miles of 

 a line drawn from headland to headland, instead o/from tlie indents of tlvc shores of the provinces. Tliey 

 also assert the riglit of excluding them from British ])ortB, except m actuol distress, warning them to 

 depart, or get \mder weigh and leave harbour, whenever the Provincial Custtim-houso or Britisli 

 naval oflicer shall suppose that they have remained a reasonable time, and this without a full exami- 

 nation of the circumstances under which they nuiy have entered the port. Now the fishermen of the 

 United States lielieve— and it would seem that they are right in their opinion, if uniform practice is 

 any evidence of correct construction — that they can with propriety take fish anywhere on the coasts of 

 the British provinces, if not nearer than three marine miles from land, and have the right to resort to 

 tlieir jHirts for slielter, wood, and water ; nor has this claim, it is believed, ever been seriously disputed, 

 based as it is on the plain and obvious terms of the Convention. Indeed, the main object of the Treaty 

 was not only to secure to American fishermen, in the pursuit of their employment, tho right of fishing, 

 but likewise lo in.sure them as large a jiroportion of the conveniences afl'orded by the neigiibouring 

 coasts of liritish settlements as might lie reconcilable with the just rights and intei'ests of Britisli 

 subjects and the due administration of Her Majesty's Dominions. The construction, therefore, which 

 has been attemiited to be put upon the stipulations of the Treaty, by the authorities of Nova Scotia. i« 

 directly in P(mtt'<'t with their object, nml ptttircly siibvciriv" if tl'.e ; Vl.tn jifil irici..'.;-- <■( tl.c riti^.i ;.< 



