296 



colonists by saying, that "The commanders of -these vessels wIB-Re 

 caulioned to take care that, while supporting the rights of British sabr 

 jects, they do not themselves overstep the bounds of the treaty." 



Lord Aberdeen, April, 1844, in a letter to Mr. Everett, adopts the 

 opinion of the crown lawyers. This, I suppose, was t!ie first unquali- 

 fied official avowal to a functicHiary of our government of the headr 

 land construction of the convention. His lordship, in March, 1845, 

 in another communication addressed to Mr. Everett, reaffirms this 

 construction, and distinctly states that with reference to the Bay of 

 Fundy and the other bays on the British American coasts, " bo United 

 States fisherman has, under that convention, the right to fish within 

 three miles of the entrance of such bays as designated by a line drawn 

 from headland to headland at that entrance." 



Our right, therefore, to the _bays in dispute rests upon the British 

 interpretation of the treaty, as well as our own. 



Nor are we unsupported by colonists. Some, with great fairness, 

 admit all that we claim. Two examples will suffice. A respectable 

 colonial newspaper, in commenting, in 1845, upon Lord Stanley's des- 

 patch oi March 30, of that year, which, it will be remembered, opens 

 the Bay of Fundy, objects to the measure on the ground that our privi- 

 leges were already ample : for, it remarks, " in the convention of 1818^ 

 it is stipulated that the citizens of the United States shaUbe allowed to 

 fish within three nautical miles arovmd all our coasts ;" that instrument, 

 it argues, " should hai'e reserved to us [to British subjects] the quiet and 

 undisturbed possession of our lays and inlets." The article from which 

 thisexti-act is made is able, and was copied into several other colonial 



newspapers.* 



, . 



*Some of the colonial newapapers still maiotain similar views. The St. John. New Bruns- 

 wicker said, in August, 1852, in commenting on Mr. Webster's despatch or " proclamation," 

 that " it will be seen that Mr. Webster labors under the impression that her Majesty's govern- 

 ment are about to enforce the convention strictly, according to the opinions of the law officers 

 of England. We believe that such is not the case. I'or some years past there has teen a tacit 

 understanding that American fisliing vessels should only be excluded from those bays or inlets 

 of our coasts which were less titan six miles wide, and within which American vessels couM not ' 

 fish unless within three miles of the land, either on the one side or the other. There is not 

 the slightest necessity for straining the terms of the convention, fur it is notorious that 

 American fishing vessels pursue everywhere near the shores of these provinces, within three 

 miles of the land, where only in the autumn they get the best fishing ; and it is to prevent this 

 flagrant and acknowledged breach of the convention that the preseant movements are taking 

 place." 



The St. John Kews, in the same month, disavowed the new construction of the conventioa 

 in these words : 



" Now all this tempest in a tea-pot amounts to just nothing at all, and we think the Americaa 

 press will find out before a very great while tjiat they have been wasting their powder, and . 

 getting nothing in return but pity for their ignorance. They will learn that the legislatures of 

 these provinces have not attempted to give a new reading to the treaty — neither has England ; 

 that they do not refuse to American fishermen the privilege of taking fieh in the Bay of Fjindy; 

 whether right or wrong, is another thing. 



"All that we intend to do is nothing more nor less than we have been doing for the last 

 thirty years — and that is, to seize vessels caught within three miles of the shore, taking fish 

 contraiy to the treaty, as thoroughly wnderstood both by England and America, and also by the ■ 

 fishermen themselves. Whenever it' can be shown that an American vessel has been talien 

 outside of the prescribed limits, then it will be time enough for our neighbors to get in a 

 pucker." 



A newspaper published at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (also in August, 1852,) in 

 an article in answer to the, question "Is war pvobable?" advocates the policy of permitting the 

 Americans ,to have access to the colonial shores, and remarks : " But a very pretty quarrel 

 -with Amenca is by no means improbable, if our cruisers insist on tapluring all Ytat&ie Jishiag 



