Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-07-31

|
1918. Tint was all the liberty which we got by that
treaty, and that was all the liberty which we ever
claimed under it. The privilege of fishing beyond
those "doninions" is, beyond three miles OF
any shore o. the British dominons in North America,
whether thit shore was the shore of the main land
or of any illand, bay, creek, harbor-was right
which we hid by the law of nations, and which was
solemnly acknowledged by the treaty of 1888, and
was never seriously controverted during the nego-
tiation of the treaty of 1878 1t cannot therefore,
be considered that when we renowned this liberty,
which we had claimed and enjoyed as pri0itege
conceded by the treaty Of 1888, that we also re-
nounced the right which was guaranteed to us by
the law Of nations, which we had never received as
privilege or favor from the Crown of Great Bri-
tain, and which was not in any sense liberty or
license
That this was the true meaning Of the renuncia-
ton, and that it was intended to apply only to the
liberty of fishing within three miles of the shore,
wherever that shore might be, and was not intended
to apply to the right Of sea-fshng beyond that
limit, is apparent from another consideration. We
renowned the liberty "within three marine miles OF
any of the coasts bays, harbors of his Britannia
Majestys dominions" Now, what were his " do
miaions ~ They comprised the land and one
league of the adjacent ocean. But beyond that,
the Crown Of England had no exclusive dominion J;
and yet within his dominions only was the renun-
citation on our part to taho oGeo. Therefore,
whether we consider the thing renounced, which
was mere liberty, or the territory upon which the
remuneration was to operate, are led to the same
conclusion: that we renowned no right to the sea,
but only the liberty of fishing within three miles of
the shore.
| But it is contended by Great Britain that the
remuneration the part of the United States of the
liberty to fish within the harbors, bags, &C. has not
only excluded us from such harbors and bays as we
cannot enter without approaching within three
miles of the shore on one side or the other, but
excludes us from those great of the sea known
in common parlance as the Bay of Fundy and the
Bay of Chaleur. This construction, it appears to
us, cannot be successfully maintained. The renun-
citation, it is true, is, in general language, Of the
liberty to fish " within three miles of any of the
coasts bays, creeks, or harbors,' &c.
the restricted extent of our remuneration, we may
look to the Pyoyiso which follows it for the mean
ing of the words "Jays, harbors, and creeks" That
Proviso is in the following words: "Prooided, hoW-
eUer, That the American fishermen shall be per-
mitted to enter such bays harbors for the pur-
pose of shelter and of repairing damages therein
of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and
for no other purposes whatever" This, then,
clearly shows what kind of bays and harbors were
referred to. They were such as were capable of af
fording shelter in time of storm, and to which
vessels would naturally resort to procure wood and
water. But this language can never apply to such
bay as that of Fundy or Chaleur and it seems
to clear that those who negotiated the treaty had
no such intention. 1t is true that while Great Bri-
tain insists upon the right under the treaty to ex
olude us from the Bay of Fundy she has waived
that right and permits our ships to fish within the
bay if they do not attempt to exercise that privi-
lege within three miles of the shore or the entrance
to any of the smaller bays, either in New Bruins
wick or Nova Scotia But we are not aware that
she has relinquished her assumed right under the
treaty to exclude our fishermen from the Bay of
Chaleur
We have extended this article to greater length
than we intended and have not time now to refer
to the conversations and correspondence between
JOHN O. ADAMS and Lord BATHURST, which pre-
coded the treaty, and which tend strongly to con-
firm the construction for which we contend nor to
the practical construction which both parties gave
it for several years after its ratification, which
entirely in accordance with the views which we
have expressed. And it is presumed that the Home
Government never would have adopted any other
construction had it not been pressed to it by the
Colonies in 1845.
The views which we have taken Of the true con-
struction Of the treaty of 1918 result in this that
by that treaty the United States renounced all
claim to the liberty of fishing &c. within three
miles Of the shore Of her Majesty,'s dominions in
North America but that this liberty, thus re-
nounced, did not extend beyond that distance, and
was never claimed beyond it: that the right which
we enjoyed beyond that as an independent nation
has never been renounced and it is still our right
and our duty to claim it that our remuneration, in
point Of territory, was limited to the dominions'
of the Crown that those dominions only include
the land and one marine league Of the adjacent
ocean that the construction which has been put
upon the treaty by Great Britain, by which she
claims right to exclude our fishermen from the
open bays of Fundy and Chaeur, is an erroneous