Ill 



pi'oniintnt of tlic f^ridviinrcs f>i)iii]iliiiin'(l of nn liolmlf of tlui I'liiteil Statis. Huviii^; retoivrd instnir- 



timis fniiii till' |)c|i!ii-|iiiriii in ri'lriiMii c i.i tin' ■'I'iziii'c i>( tlii' ' \V;isliiiii,'tiiM,' nt' N'('wlMiry|"irl, fnf li-iliiiii; 



ill llir )'i:i', i.r Fllliily, I 11] ri'Si'iili'il lln' cmsi' III l.iilil Alii'l'ilcril ill ii. llulr nl' llic IHMl iil' Allgllsl, 1H4.">. 

 All iiiiswiT was it'(;i'iM.'il in this imli' on tlic l^illi nl' Ajiril lnllduiii^', in wliicli Loiil Atierdeen uiintilioil 

 Iiinist'U' to Ntiitinj,' limt. liv liii' tunus ol' tlic ( 'imvi'iiliDii, tlu' cilizL'iis (if tliu I'liiUd Slates weit; nut 

 nliowL'il 111 tisli within tluvi' miles ul' any Imy iijiiiii tlio riMi.sL uf the Iii'itisli Anieiiran Ciiloines, anil 

 (iiinlil not, tliurcforc, liu purinittcd to jmrsnc tlieii avoi'ntiim within thd liny of Kunily. I replied to 

 this note on the 2rith of May followin;;, ami cndeavouivd to show that it was tlie sjiirit and design of 

 the 1,'it Article of the Convention of 1H18 to reserve to the (leople of the United States the right of 

 tishin<; within tlirec miles of the coast. Some remarks on the state of th(! controversy at that time 

 will he fnnnd in my dcs])atch No. I'M) of the L'flth of May last. 



' On the !»th of Octoher last, in oliediencn to yonr instructions Xo. lO'i, I addressed a note to Lord 

 Alicrdctm ill reference to the case of the ' Argus,' of Portland, which was captured while tishing on 

 St. Anne's Hank, off the norlli-eastcrn coast of (,'ape ISreton. The papers relative to this case left the 

 precise grouiiils of the seizure of llie 'Argus' in aonie uncertainty. It was, however, sufficiently 

 apparent that they were, to some extent at least, .similar to those fur which the 'Washington ' had heeu 

 captured. 



" 1 received a few days since, and herewith tmnsniit, a note from Lord Alierdcen, containing the 

 satisfactory intelligence that, after a reconsideration of the sulijc^ct, although the (iueeu's (iovernment 

 iulhere to the construction of ilie Convention wliidi they have always maintained, they have .still come 

 to the determination of rela.viiii; from it i^o far as to allow American lishonnen to iiursue tlieir avoca- 

 tions in the 15ay of Fundy. 



" I thought it iirojier, in replying to Lord Aherheeii's nut", to reeiignizc in ani|ile terms the lihcral 

 spirit evinced by Her Majesty's (iovernment ill rela.xing Irom what they consider their right. At the 

 same time I felt myself hound to say that tlu; United .States could not ncce])t as a mere favour what 

 they had always claimed as a matter of right, sccureil liy the Treaty." 



All;. J'^VDUinr to JIii. liuciiANAN, Ai'iiii, 'S.\ \M''. 



"With my despatch Xo. 27H of ^oth March I transmitted the note of Lord .Vlierdecn of the Kith 

 of March, cuniinunicaling the ini]iortaiit information tiiat this (iuverninent had come to the determi- 

 uatiun to concede to Amciican iisheiiiieii the right of pursuing their uccuiiatioii witliin the Hay of 

 Kiindy. It wa.s left aoniculiat iinccilniii liy l/ird Alienleen's note whether this cuncessiun was intended 

 to he conlined to the liay of I'niidy. or to exti^id to other ]iurtions of the cuasl nf the Aiiglo-Aiuericuii 

 possessions, to which tli(^ ]irineiplcs cnntcniled fur hy the Cuverniiient iif the fnited States equally 

 apply, and |iarli(^ulaily to the waters ow the nurth-eiiiitcrn .shoii's uf (,'ape iiret on where the ' Argus ' 

 W.1S caiitiireil. Tn my notes uf the L'"t!i ulliiiiu and lind instant, on the sulijcct uf the ' AVashiiigtun ' 

 and the ' .Vrgu.s,' 1 was careful to point out to f.,ord Alierdcen that all the rea.sons for admitting the 

 right ol Ainericans to lisli in the l>ay of Fundy apply to tho.se waters, and with .superior force, 

 inasmuch as they are less landlocked than the liay of Fundy, and to exjiress the hope that the conces- 

 sion was nionnt to extend to them, which there was some reiwnn to think, from the mode in which Lord 

 Aberdeen expi-essed himself, was the citse. 



" I received last evening the answer of his Lordship, informing me that my two notes hail been 

 referred to the Colonial Office, and that a final reply coidd nut be i-eturned till he .should be made 

 acquainted with the re.'iult of that reference, and that in the meantinie, the concession must be under- 

 stood to be limited to the Bay of Fundy. 



"The merits of the question are so clear that I cannot liut anticipate that the decision of the 

 Colonial Office will be in favour of the liberal construction of the Convention. In the meantime I 

 beg leave to suggest that, in any public notice which may be given that the Bay of Fundy is hence- 

 forth open to American fishermen, it should be carefully stated that the extension of the same privilege 

 to the other great bay.'< on the coa.^t of the Anglo-American de|)endencies is a jnatt?r of negotiation 

 between the two OoveniiiientM." 



Altnr an ineffectual attenint to iniiuci! the United States to coiiclnde a Reci- 

 procity Treaty witli the Uritisli Provinces, Mr. Crampton gave notice to the Secre- 

 tary of State, Mr. Webster, July 5, 18.')2, that a force of war-stcamers and sailins;- 

 vessels was coming" to tlic fisliing-groiinds to prevent encroachments of vessels 

 belonging to citizens of the United States on the tishing-groiinds reserved to Great 

 Hritain. 



August 23, 18.')2, the Provincial Secretary issued a notice that " no American 

 fishing-vessels arc entitled to commercial privileges in provincial ports, but are 

 subject to forfeiture if found engaged in traffic. The colonial collectors have no 

 authority to permit freight to be landed from such vessels, which, under the 

 Convention, can only enter our ports for the purposes specified therein, and for 

 no other." 



Under the clauses of the Convention of February 8, 18.53, the case of the 

 " Washington " came before the Joint Commission for settlement of claims, in 

 London, and, on the disagreement of the Commissioners, was decided by the 

 umpire, Mr. Joshua Bates, in favour of the United States, on the ground that, by 

 the construction of the Treaty of 1818, the United States fishermen had the right to 

 0sh in the Bay of Fundy and the other bays of the coast of British North American 

 [280] R 2 



