Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-03-05

has altogether Inexperienced its purpor In the SEN
tence whchhe quotes from letter. the important word
in reference to the matter in hand is cOncde But after
stating that the British Government had the de-
termination TO coneeae American fishermen the right
fish in the Bay of Fundy added not as Lord Malmes
burys despatch represents to have DONE that had
claimed the right regards other bays" but that
had expressed the hope that the meant TO
extend to them and further that it ought to be under
stood in the United States that the extension of the
privilege to the other great bays is matter Of negetia
ton between the two Governments.
All this is certainly true. The Fright" which state
have been conceded is right which reserved
by Great Britain The right conceded u.s. she under
stood the matter the right to fish in the Bay of Fun
dy the right reseved by Great Britain the right to
exclude fishermen from that bay and this right as
she deemed it, she relaxed in favor There is not
only contradiction between the statements but the
taxation las Great Britain considers it of her right
exclude from the bay the foundation by conces-
sion of right enter it. Lord Mamebury does not
surely deny that fishermen have right to enter
the Bay of Fundy The difference between the two Gov
ernments is that claim that right under the
ton of 1873 while Great Britain admits it under the
cession Of l645
Lord Malmesbury's structures on my language imply
that be the basis Of right whereas half
the land titles of Europe have other foundations All
conceding property to the grantees; and on the
European continent concession is the technical term for
grant of land .as
There is one expression in my letter of the 26th Of
April, l845, which, hastily read, may have led Lord
Mamesbury suppose that it would cause impression
that Great Britain had acknowledged right under the
convention of 1873 to fish in the Bay of Fundy That
expression is follows: careful point to
Lord Aberdeen that all the for admitting the
! D..
the other bays This of is true but it refers
to what had maintained, not to what England had
knowledged Ny letter of Goth of April needs only to
be carefully read to perceive that its whole is in
accordance with the facts of the case and with the
of the concession las her Maesys Government regarded
it, as to the Bay of Fundy.
In my letter to Lord Aberdeen of the 18th of March,
while strenuousy ed the American construction
of the convention which limits to the inner bays the
remuneration contained in the first article of the
vention acknowledged the berality Of her Majesty
Government in making what they regarded concession
in favor, and am not that any misconcepon
has existed to the opposite grounds taken of late
by the two Governments this subject. say Of late
years.; for it was just quarter of century after the
date of the convention before the first American fisher
captured for fishing at large the Bay of Fundy
The other point in which Lord Malmesbury thinks my
calculated incorrect view Of the sub
ecto be taken by the American public this that
ted impression that Lord Aberdeen had request
referred the colonial Office the question whether the
relaxation the Bay of Fundy should be extended
the other outer bays, whereas Lord Malmesbury
derstands it, Lord Aberdeen merely submitted the colo
NAL Office the question relating the seizure of the par
| ticular vessels, the = Washington and argus"
Here must admit myself at loss to conceive what
other question could arise could be supposed have
arisen, under reference to the colonial Office Of the
seizure of the Washington and Argus" than that of the
right of American vessels fish in the other large
bays The Washington captured in the Bay of Fun
dy and far that individual bay concerned the
question already settled The Argus was seized
! in large open bay off the coast of Cape Breton,
while she fifteen miles from the shore. 1t was
somewhat doubtful what grounds the capture
of this vessel made; but in my letter this subject
mentioned the doctrine relative the line drawn from
headland headland of the grounds which this
vessel supposed to have been seized What can be
palmer under these circumstances and considering the
Of controversy at the tme than that the chief, il
the only question which would arise before her Ma
estys Government, under my complaint relative to tho
Argus would be- whether the relaxation just made in
reference the Bay Of Fundy should be extended the
other large outer bays?
But believe it is in my power put this point entire
" beyond dispute. Nothing is certain than that
this precise question under the consideration of her
Maesys Government at this time in consequence of
complaints. This / shall prove by authority which
Lord Malmesbury will admit to be decisive.
On the 18th of May, 1885, just four weeks after Lord
Aberdeen informed that my letters of the 25th of
March and I'd Of April had been referred the colonial
Office, Lord Stanley NOW the Earl of Derby, and that
time Secretary of State for the Coones) despatch
Viscount Falkland Governor Of Nova Scotia Of which
the following is extract:
" Her Majestys Government haring frequently had be-
fore them The complaints Of the Minister Of the United States
longing fishermen Of the United States by the Provin-
cal cruisers Of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for al
legged attractions Of the convention Of the Goth of October
1878, between Great Britain and the United States,
have to acquaint your lordshp that after mature deberd-
oH her Maestys Government deem it advisable for the
interests of both countries to relax the strict rule of
clusion the fishing vessels of the United States
terng the bays Of the the British North American
coasts.
81 have to request that your lordshp will inform
whether you have any objections offer provincial or
other grounds to the proposed relaxation Of the
strucon Of the treaty OF 1873 between this country and
the United States
The above is all Of this important despatch which the
colonial authorities have thought proper to publish The
only cases Of capture of fishermen Of which had
specifically complained those of the " Washington
and Argus" and the above letter Of Lord Stanley Of
course demonstrates that gave the American public
incorrect view" when led them, by my letter Of the
26th Of April S45 suppose that my instance her
Maiestys Government had under consideration that
time the question Of extending the other outer bays
~. l,14 a. =,