The daily union., 1852-08-05

bayr b81n srwct with liz magnitude from
recently made in the papers and wnich represents that we
have $4,000 seamen, among the best 10 the world, and
900 vessels engaged IN The various branches OF The
fisheries This is interest that no Just government
can neglect. and one That would expose us 10 The Sc
yerest apprehension OF The American people should We
neglect II.
The Gut OF Canso. which is ihe passage from the
main ocean 10 the Gulf OF ST. Lawrence, and which
avoids a long detour rounl The island OF Cape Breton is
also 10 be shut 10 that great gulf itself, If the
decision OF the law officers OF England is 10 be carried into
effect This pelenson opens some OF ie gaves maritime
questions as TO narrow Communications between various
oil the sea- and the night OF jurisdiction over
large expansions OF the ocean. shall leave them for
other pqurers
There are two episodes if may term them, in this
drama which deserve bref remark.
The first is the declaration oi Lord Stanly, Lord
Derby and The head of The British ministry in 1854 in
a letter to the governor OF Nova Scotia, acknowledging
the receipt of the stated Tor the consideration OF the
Advocate and Attorney General and transmitting the de
cison of those officers The whole subject was then
before him. and he thus communicates the determination
OF the British government:
We have howe ver come to the conclusions as regards
the Nova Scotia thai the by
the provincial appear adequate alludmg 10 the
law before referred TO and that such being practically ac
in by the Americans, further
CURED"
| Now this is significant enough. The home govern
men refuses to endorse the exorbitant demands of the
colonies, fortified. they by high legal opln
ions and puts the whole upon the question of the
practical acq uiescence OF the Americans. Now, will
contend that at any tme-then, or before, or sincsdid
government citizens practically, virtually or IN
any other manner acknowledge this pretenson to ex-
cude from the great bays OF that regions and OF course
declaration The second assurance is found in the all
mission OF Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett that The Bay of
Fundy would not be shut 10 and more distinctly in
the despatch OF Lord Stanley 10 the governor OF Nova
| Scotia. Here it Isl:
| To Sir William Colebrook
DowNINa STREET Both March, lSl5
SIR have the honor to acquant you, for your inor-
and guidance. that her government have
/ had nd
the United States to fish IN the Bay OF Fundya claim
which has hitherto been resisted tha ground that that
bay is included with the British pos sessions
Her Majesy's government feel satisfied that tho Bay OF
Fundy has been rightly claimed by Great Britain bay
within the treaty OF 1918; but they conceive that the
Taxation OF the exercise OF that right viii be attended with
mutual advantage both couniriesro United States,
comforting amaleral benefit the fishing trade, and
Great Britain and the United States conjonuy and equally
by removal fertile Of disagreement between
them IL has accordingly been announced the United
States government that Amcrc citizens would hencefar.
ward be allowed TO fish in any part OF the Bay OF Fudy
provided they approach, except in specified
ths realy sls within three miles OF the of any
''' Ii have. @ @c. .'' ', : STANLEY.
Now, Mr. President, take il for granted, that one
who knows the OF British statesmen, and the in
sncts OF the British people upon all questions touching
territorial rights interests, will doubt for instant that
this concession, they call il, but recognition
consider it, made in the CONJUNCTION that the right
with any rate the full persuasion that the
peteDson of England doubtful, that they ought
not hold to It. And Mr. Everett justly remarks
the principle of this acquescence applies with equal force
estuary of the ST. Lawrence; and pretty clear that
the British ministers suffered themselves TO be driven
from their proper in the application Of their
principle elsewhere in the other bays and waters by the
unreasonable clamor and smonstrances OF the colonies
Now, sir, this acqulescence IN our practical conslruc
ton of the treaty absolute surrender Of the point
in dispute; and ii is too late in the day TO recall the
step Nations cannot safely play the game OF last and
loose, Of give and take at pleasure, with another
the practical exposition OF their conventional arrange
ments It will not do Nothing is gained on the con.
trary things made by such temporary recog-
nitions, be resumed changed when The opposite
party most strongly convinced by time and usage OF lis
rights. England had just the same interest IN
cuson from the great arms of the in 1912 which
she has at this time; and her surrender OF the poa
then implies her views OF the case, and the ten
years which have since nervened, unques'ioned have
been enough to place our rights beyond dispute.
tween our rights and iberes-dcsgnalion first used
the treaty OF 1888, and transferred from that instrument TO
The convention OF lsls-and thereby TO establish the pre-
tension that the indefeasble than the other
And regret that this effort countenanced by
the views OF some OF lournals-honestly have
no doubt, bu, enormously am satisfied do not sup.
pose that Engllshman can be found from Johnny
Goas house to the Lands End who will not firmly be-
leve in the claim OF England this case he believes
II in all other No man will accuse the English
people OF OF patriotic ardor and il rare, indeed,
that their demands upon foreign nations not sup
ported by the almost unanimous sentiment of the
try. | wish had little more OF this ieeling-noi
enough blind the truth, but enough 10 render
OF congratuaiion TO find our government IN the
right In looking back upon past history, recoeci
where have not found doubts and opposition
among own citizens in controversies with for
egn powers. | hope this will yet prove excep-
ton the right is manifesty with US, and that
shall be found united in feeling and 10 action Such
exhibition of patriotism would be worth more and do
more Than 'an army with banners"
Now, sir, man. II appears TO me, read the letter
OF Mr. John Quincy Adams TO Lord Balhand written,
believe, in 1916, without being satisfied that claims
not in the least affected, either in their strength
or duIation by the OF one the other OF those
words rights hberiss; and the subject placed be.
yond dispute by Mr. John Adams 10 the erer to which
have already referred, and in which be explains the
gin OF the difference, and shows that il had relation
| TO the pretensons OF the parties
Fnrther from the hto of Mr.. John adam, before
/ rtftrrtd to,
"And the word right was in the article agreed by
the British ministers, bat they aftewa rd requested that the
word liberty might be substituted instead OF right They
said 1t amounted to the thing for hbsry right
and privilege right but the word rgtf might be
dsplea, ing the people England than liberty; and
did not think It necessary TO contend for word"
| And cannot refrain from asking the attention OF the
Senate to the able and interesting letter of Mr Steven
son. then minister in England. Lord Paine rston
dated March 81 lstl II is written with great force and
with full knowledge OF this whole subject, and Mr.
Stevenson successfully combats what the Republic of
this city we'll terms the prepoaerous preension Of Eng
land
The danger and Improperly OF tran sferng the
to be pursued in such delicate questions to the colonial
authorities, locally interested in the establishment OF
their construction is well shown in this letter
and am glad 10 that Mr. Webster, in some recent
remarks at Marshheld, advances views similar those
OF Mr. Stevenson The colonial legislatures are author
ized to pass laws and 10 make regulations upon the
/