234 



fish can be subject to less doubt than that in which the ' Washington 

 was seized. 



"For a full statement of the nature of the complaints which have, 

 from time to time, been made by the government of the United States 

 against the proceedings of the colonial authorities of Great Britain, the 

 undersigned invites the attention of Lord Aberdeen to a note of Mr. 

 Stevenson, addressed to Lord Palmerston on the 27th of March, 1841. 

 The receipt of this note was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston on 

 the 2d of April, and Mr. Stevenson was informed that the subject was 

 referred by his lordship to the Secretary of State for the coloilial de- 

 partment. 



"On the 28th of the same month Mr. Stevenson was further in-, 

 formed by Lord Palmerston, that he had received a letter from the 

 colonial department, acquainting his lordship that Mr. Stevenson's com- 

 munication would be forwarded to Lord Falkland, with instructions to 

 inquire into the allegations contained therein, and to furnish a detailed 

 report upon the subject. The undersigned does not find on the files of 

 this legation any further communication from Lord Palmerston in reply 

 to Mr. Stevenson's letter of the 27th March, 1841, and he believes that 

 letter still remains unanswered. 



"In reference to the case of the 'Washington,' and those of a similar 

 nature which have formerly occurred, the undersigned cannot but re- 

 mark upon the impropriety of the conduct of the colonial authorities 

 in undertaking, without directions from her Majesty's government, to 

 set up a new construction of a treaty between the United States and 

 England, and in proceeding to act upon it by the forcible seizure of 

 American vessels. 



" Such a summary procedure could only be justified by a case of ex- 

 treme necessity, and where some grave and impending mischief required 

 to be averted without delay. To proceed to the capture of vessels 

 of a friendly power for taking a few fish within limits alleged to be 

 forbidden, although allowed by the express terms of the treaty, must 

 be regarded as a very objectionable stretch of provincial authority. 

 The case is obviously one for the consideration of the two governments, 

 and in which no disturbance of a right exercised without question for 

 fifty years from the treaty of 1783 ought to be attempted by any 

 subordinate authority. Even her Majesty's goveniment, the undersigned 

 is convinced, would not proceed in such a case to violent measures of 

 suppression without some understanding with the government of the 

 United States, or, in the failure of an attempt to come to an under-, 

 standing, without due notice given of the course intended to be pursued- 



" The undersigned need not urge upon Lord Aberdeen the desira- 

 bleness of 'an authoritative intei-vention on the part of her Majesty's 

 government to put an end to the proceedings complained of. The 

 President of the United States entertains a confident expectation of an 

 early and equitable adjustment of the difficulties which have been now 

 for so long a time under the consideration of her Majesty's government. 

 This expectation is the result of the President's reliance upon the sense 

 of justice of her Majesty's government, and of the fact that from the 

 year 1818, the date of the convention, until some years after the at- 

 tempts of the provincial authorities to restrict the rights of Americaii 



