mmmmfmmmmmmmsimmim^'^i^?^ 



wimmmmmm 



144 



of State wrong in tlic tficlinical and legal construction of an instniment. Let us test the nrp;umont 

 The honourable Senator says, that where tlie (iovernnient oecu])ies hotli sides of the coast, an<i wliore 

 the strait tliro\ii,'h which the waters of tlie hay How into tlie ocean is not more than six miles wide, 

 then there is dominion over it." 



"Xow, then, tlui (Jut ol'Canso is a Tuost indispensable coniniunicalion for our fishernien tVoni the 

 Atlantic Ocean to the Nortluiniberland Straits and to the (iulfiifSl, Lawrcncf!, tor a reason wliicli any 

 one will vimt readily see, liv rclcning to the nia]) ; yd tlic (hit «( Canso is only tliree-([uarters of a mile 

 ■wide. 1 shoulil be sorry to adopt an argument which (Jreat liritain might turn against us, to exclude 

 us from that important jia.s.sage." * • » » « 



" Again I recall the honourable Senator's argiiment, viz: — 



" ' Two things unite to give a country dominion over an inland sea. The first is, that the land 

 iiu b.ith sides nnist be >vithiu the dominion of the (tovcrnmcnt claiming jurisdiction, and then tliat. 

 file sirait is not nmre than six miles wiile ; but that if the strait is more than six miles wide, no 

 sucli jurisdiction can be claimed.' 



" Xow, sir, lliis argument seems to me to ju'ove too much. I think it would divest the T'nited 

 Stales of the harbour of I'liston, all the land around whicli belongs to JIa.ssachu.setts or the 

 I'uili'il States, wliile tlie moiitii of the luiy is six miles wide. It would surrender our dominion over 

 fAing Island Soniul, — a doniinion which 1 thinlc the State of Xew York and the United States would 

 not willingly give u]i. It wnidd sunciulcr llelinvare liay ; it wouhl snnviuler. 1 tliiiik, Albermarle 

 Sotmd and the t'hesa]ieake Bay; and I believe it would suiTcnder the ISay of ^Monterey, and perhap.n 

 the liav of San Francisco on the Pacific coast." 



Senator Tuck, during the same debate, said : — 



" Tcrhaiis I sliall lie tliuiight to cliargr flic Conimissioncrs of ISI.S with overlooking oiu' interests 

 They did so in the important reniiiiiiation wliich 1 have ([uoled ; but tliey are obnoxious to no complaints 

 for so d'liug. In ISIS, we mcik no mackerel on the coasts of Biitisii ]]ossessions, and there was no 

 reasim to aiitii'ipate that we .'Oioiild I'Vcr have occasion to do so. ^Mackerel were then found an 

 alniudantly on tiic cnast of Xcw Kiiglaiid as anywhere in the world, am it was not till years after 

 that tills beaiitiliil fi^^li, in a great degree, left our waters. The mackerel fishery on the provincial 

 roasts liiis ]iriiieipally grnwn up since tS.SS, and no vessel was ever licensed for that laisiness in t\w 

 United States till I.Sl'S. The Cnnimissioners in 1S18 had no other business but to protect the cod 

 fishery, end tjiis they did in a manner generally satisfactory to those most interested." 



The document, dated April 12, 1S6G, partially quoted at page 28 of the United 

 States' Brief, wouhl convey a far (liflerent meaning if given in full. The Commis- 

 sioners are desired to notice that the extract there given is in the text immediately 

 preceded by the following: — 



"Her Majesty's Goverimient are clearly of opinion that, by the Convention of 1818, the United 

 States ..ave renounced the right of fishing, not only witliin three miles of the Colonial shores, but 

 with"i three miies of a line drawn across the mouth of any British bay or creek. But the question, 

 WK . is a Itritish b,iy or creek? is one which has been the occasion of difliculty in former times. 



" It is therefore, at jircucnf, the wish of Her Majesty's Government neither to concede nor, 

 /or the present, to enforce any rights in this respect which are in their nature open to any seriou.s 

 question." 



It must be remembered that at the date of this document the American 

 fishermen were passing, from the free use of ail Canadian iisheries granted by the 

 Reciprocity Treaty to the limitations of the Convention of 1818, and Her Majesty's 

 Government, through friendly leclings, desired to give American fishermen sometime 

 to return quietly to the system created by the Convention of 1818. 



With regard to the Memorandum quoted at page 32 of the lirief, Her Majesty's 

 Ciovernment are not aware that any such Memorandum was communicated by 

 them to the Government of the United Slates, and the United States' Agent is 

 challenged to produce any record of such communication having been officially made 

 to the United States' Govenimont by the British Representative at Washington. 



As a matter of fact, a private Memorandum in such terms was sent to Her 

 Majesty's Representative at Washington, but accompanied by distinct instructions 

 not to bring it under the consideration of the Government of the United States at 

 the time. 



The matter with reference to which it was written was a project for the 

 appointment of a Joint Commission which might serve to remove occasion for 

 future misunc!crsi,an(iinf^-. 



The quotation given in the Brief is as follows : — 



" I'he riglil of t Ircat i'.ritiiiii to exchule American lishenuen from waters within three miles of the 

 1 oast is uiianiliigiiiais, and it is belie\ed, iiiieonteslcd. lint llieri^ ajipears to be some doul)t wliat am 

 tlie wall rs (lesenlied lis witliiu thice miles of luiys, creeks, and harbours. Where a iuiy is less than 

 Hix miles broad, its waters are w ill. in the three miles limit, and therefore clearly within the nieaniu!,' of 



