wmsm 





142 



■ij 





'li 



■ i * 



II l.ililiiiliMit' coiistnictiDii. It is olividiis tliiil, liy tlii! U;i'iiis of llii' Tii'iity, tlio ruitliuat ilistaiiRi! to 

 wliirli tisliiiii,' vessels iil' tlio l.'iiiteil Suites urn oliligeil tn liolil theiiiselvi!'; tVoiii tliu Colonial cnivsts iiml 

 bays, is iIuim! miles. lint nwiiif^ In tlie )ioeiiliiU' i'oiilii;uriitioii ol' llieso coasts, llieni is a suceessioii <il 

 liays iiuleiitiiii,' tiie siiores liotli ol' Ni;w liinnswick ami Xoviv Scotia, williiii any distance not less tlinii 

 tlirii' miles — a }iiivile;4e IVoiu the eiijoymi'iit ol' ^vllicll tl»ey will lie wholly exelmled — in this part of 

 the coast, if the liroiid ann of the sea wliiili llows up lietween .Xew I'.ninswick and Nova Scotia is 

 itself to 1m' I'onsiilcii'd one of ihe foiliidden luivs,' 



Hero in plain, iiniinibigiioiis I;inj>uai.>,(\ Mr. lOverott roprosonts to Lord Aberdeen 

 that the Hay oC Kiindy ouf^ht not lo In; treated as a liav Ironi uliicli United States' 

 tishernicn were to bo excluded under the Convention of ISIH, hccnnse llii; lirndlnndK 

 irerc not onh/ si.iii/ villi-s apuii, hut oiw of llifin iras not liritish. Moreover, ho points 

 out that "owing to tlie pe;iili;ir con!i.':;uratinn of these eoasts " (i.e. the coasts ol" 

 the l>ay of Kundv itsell), ''there is a succession ol' bay:-: indenting the shores both of 

 Xew Urunswick and Nova Scotia (/. i\, the two siuires of the I5ay of Kuudy), within 

 any distance not less tiuan tiiree miles," IVoni which his!, named bays the American 

 lis'icrmen had a right to apjiroaeh, and from which privilege they were necessarily 

 excluded i)y liolding the wtioh- body ol' Ihe Hav of I''undy lo be I'ritish territorial 

 vvater. 



It is by no means eon'cded (hat because oi\ 'iotli coasts ol" tlie Great Bay of 

 Fundy large bavs exist which, according to the British contiMition, .American 

 lishermen are forbidden to approach, Mr. I'lverelt was right in his argument that 

 the iiiiy of Kundv is rcidlv ()|.i"n sea, yet there is at Jill events a plausibility about 

 the reasonin;;' which caniinl ;itl;ieli lo the contention of ti'e Unitcil States in reference 

 lo ;uiy other bav on liie liritisii .\merican coasts. 



S'ot a woni [:i to be found in l!ns letter aH'ording tiie slightest coiuitenance to 

 liie d(;cliine contended for iti IIk; .Answer and Brief of the United States, viz., that 

 no b;iy w.as intended lo be included in the Convention of 18l><, except bays of no 

 greater wi ith at lh(> mouths than si.\ miles. Had such a doctrine been in the mind 

 of ;\Ir. i'',\erett when lie v.rotc^ liiis letter, it mav be a.Hsumed that l;e would not have 

 refrained from bringing il under Lord .Vberdeen's notice. But so far from setting 

 uj) sucli a doctrine, he says that he " adndts it to be the intent of the Treaty, as it 

 is in iiseir reasonable, (o have regard lo the general line of liie coast, and to consider 

 its bni/s, cricks. (i:id hdrliaiirs- —ihiit is. liidiiildlioiiK iisnalhj so d'coitnt/'d — as included 

 a-illihi /,'.■•</ /(■;•." Wliat line? t'leaih the line within three miles from which 

 all Ami'iicau lishing vessels are excluded under the Convention. Mr. Kvcrett 

 never ventured I i hint that tin; l}av of .Miramichi, oi- the Uay of Clialeurs,di(l not fall 

 vithin t!.e words o!' th(> Convenlioa of ISIS. lie argues that, if the United States' 

 lishernK'n are lo be e\elii(!;'d from t!ie Hay of Fundy, " two entirely dilfcrent 

 limitations v.oidd exist in reference lo the right of sludter reserved to .\merican 

 Missels on tlu> shores ol' ller .Majestv's Colonial possessions. 'I'liey uoidd be 

 .illowed lo fish within three miles of the place of shelter along the grcaler part of 

 the co;ist, while in reference to (he entire extent of sliore witiiin tii(> Bay of Fundy, 

 tliey would b(> wholly prohibited fiom lishing .along the coast, niul would be kept at 

 a dh.tanee of twenty or thirty miles from anv place of rei'uge in case of extremity.'' 



This aigumeiit impliedly admits that, whatever may be the case as to the Bay 

 of Fundy, United States' lishermen were, by the Treaty of IHls, (\xclmled, except 

 for purposes of necessilv, Irom other b.-iys along the coast of Her .Majesty's 

 Colonial possessions, and from lisliing within three miles of those bays. 



The liiitisii {iov(>riimenl, howiwer. in 1S4.0. whilst maintaining :is a matter ol 

 strict conslruction that the IJay of Fundv was rightfully claimed by Great Britain, 

 as a bay w illiiii the meaning of tlu; Conv<aUioii of ISIS, relaxed the application of 

 this constnictiou to that bay, and "allowed the United St.ates' lisliermen to pursue 

 their .ivocations in anv ))arl of it, provided Ihev .should not ap|)roach, except in 

 cases specified in tiie Treaty of ISIS, within three miles o!' the entrance of .any bay 

 on the (•(Ki'^t of Nova Scotia or .\ew Mriinswick." 



This proviso shows clearly the constiuetioti put at that time ( |s|,");, and before, 

 by the liritidi (iovernment. upon the word •'bay' in th.(! Convention of 181S, on 

 both |)oints that Ihe dimensions of the bay w(>re immateri;d, and that no .approach 

 was |)erndssible within three miles of the entr.ance of ;i bay. 



In a State paper, dated .Inly 'i, I'^.'j'J, Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, although 

 contending that the \vording of the; Convention of 1>^1,'^ was not conformalile to tho 

 iniriilloiis of IJK! United !^(at"s as one of Ihe Con'raeting Parties, savs: — 



