As regards the shore fishery, for the kinds usually dried, that in the 

 region of Barrington is of itself a mine of wealth. Colonial fishermen, 

 here and elsewhere along the coast, may be at home after every day's 

 toil, and look out upon their American competitors in the offing, rejoic- 

 ing in advantages of pursuing their avocation in open boats, and the 

 consequent advantages of social life, and of fishing and of attending to 

 their little farms ^between "Slacks of the tide," in "blowy weather," 

 and when the fish "strike off^" 



The Queen's advocate and her Majesty's attorney general answer 

 Lord Falkland's fourth query as follows : 



"By the treaty of 1818 it is agreed that American citizens should 

 have the liberty of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, within certain 

 defined limits, in common with British subjects; and such treaty does 

 not contain any words negativing the right to navigate the passage of 

 the Gut of Canso, and therefore it may be conceded that such right 

 of navigation is not taken away by that convention; but we have now 

 attentively considered the course of navigation to the gulf, by Cape 

 Breton, and likewise the ca,pacity and situation of the passage of 

 Canso, and of the British dominions on either side, and we are of opin- 

 ion that, independently of treaty, no foreign country has the right to 

 use or navigate the passage of Canso; and attending to the terms of the 

 convention relatii^ to the liberty of fishery to be enjoyed by the Amer- 

 icans, we are also of opinion that that convention did not, either ex- 

 pressly or by implication, concede any such right of using or navigating 

 the psissage in question. We are also of opinion that casting bait to 

 lure fish in the track of any American vessels navigating the passage, 

 , would constitute a fishing within the negative terms of the convention." 



This reply and the report* of the committee of theHouse of Assembly 

 of Nova iScotia wiU be considered together. The committee laud the 

 late Chancellor Kent, cite firom his Commentaries, and aver that he 

 "agrees with the principles put forth by the law officers of the crown, 

 and which justify the conclusion that no foi'eign power, independent of 

 treaty, has any right to navigate the passage of Canso." It is not so. 

 The passage t which they quote firom Kent relates to "an immunity 

 from belligerent warfare;" to ships of an enemy "hovering on our 

 coasts;" to the degree of "uneasiness and sensibility" we rnight feel, 

 "in the case of w^ar between other maritime powers," were they to 

 •'use the Waters of pur coast" for the purpose of cruising and of cap- 

 turing vessels. He gives no exact rule even in thisrespect. He gives 

 no exact rule in time of peace. He says that "the claim of dominion to 

 close or narrow seas is still the theme of discussion and controversy" He 

 then states the doctrine of several ,writers on international law, and 

 remarks that "all that can reasonably be asserted is, that the dominion 

 of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as far as 

 is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end. A more extended 

 dominion must rest entirely upon force and maritime supremacy." 

 Now, it may be asked whether the "safety" of Nova Scotia demands 

 the closing of Canso;. and whether the refusal of its use is for "some 



* Inserted ta the Mstorical notice of the controyersy in this report, vmder dote of 1861. 

 t Kent's Commentaries, edition of 1832, toI. 1,- pages S9 and 30. > 



