The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-04-27

risen, under reference 70 the coonalsOmes Of the
q the to snS al as oshs9 tSs o.
paws The Washington was captured in the Bay OF Fundy
md as far that individual bay was concerned the
ooen bay oil the coast Of Cape Breton, while she
vas dfteen miles from the shore. II was somewhat
doubtful Whit the swsoesa %
doctrine relative to the line drawn from nesdland
to headland, as one OF the grounds On Whst TINS
he palmer under these circumstances and considering
the state Of at the time than that the cn
no. me only under NV complaint relative to
the Argus would be whether the relaxation just made in
to the Bay Of FuIdy should be extended 10 the
But bsieve is in my power to put this point en-
trely beyond dispute. Nothing is more certain than
that precise question under the
her Majestys government at this time in consequence
Of my complaints. This shall prove BY an authority
which Lord Malmesbury will admit to be decisive.
On the 10th of May lS45 just four weeks after LORD
Aberdeen informed me that letters Of the 10Th Of
Office Lord Stanley (now the Earl of Derby and at that
time Secretary of State for the Coloniesl wrote des
patch to vseount Falkland Governor Ct Nova Scotia Of
me sG Es sss
to United States Tie PROVINCIAL
Hsvs
is:Sp
advisable for the interests Of both sSqn
vessels Of the United States bays
the British orth American coasts
that will %s
m s ss s:
The above is all of this important despatch which the
colonial authorities have thought proper to publish
The only of capture Of our fishermen. OF which
had specifically complained, were those Of the Washing
ton Argus and the above letter OF Lord Stanley OF
coarse demonstr aes that gave the Amersan public no
"ncorrect view' when led them, by my letter OF 10th
April ls4S to suppose that on my t nsr I
question of extending to the other outer bays the re-
Taxation which had taken place in reference to the Bay OF
Not only So but it would thatmy representations
had been successful for whereas on the 2lst OF April
Lord Abe deem informed that the relaxation annouuc
ed in his note Of the 10th of March intended to ap
ply to the Bay of Fundy alone Lord Stanley four weeks
aferwards we have just SEEN wrote to Lord Faikand
tiop deemed it advisable for the interests of both
countries extend the relaxation to the other bays
The omission of portion-and that DO doubt. the
most important and significant portion-of Lord Stan
leys despatch unpublished at Halifax puts out OF my
power to quote from his own words as TO the extent OF
the proposed relaxation 1t appears, however, sufficient
y from the report Of Mr. Attorney General Johnston OF
the 10th june 1s45 that the intention Of the imperial
government was to admit American fishermen into all
bays, creeks and nles of which the entrance IS more
than six miles wide. cite passage from the concluding
portion Of Mr.. Attorney Generals letter
Iii hoped my lord that if arrangement such as is
contemplated should unhappy be made, its terms may
miles Of
bays creeks and nets into which they are not to De
doubt this point rests the lansuago Of Lord
streted bays creeks the width Of the dou
&c. the shores Of the general coast were to be consd
an stan
the 18th Of Sci tember will also show that was intended
TO admit the American fishermen into all the outer bays
Of certain dimensions it will also unhappy show the
cause why that liberal policy was abandoned which had
been adopted Lord Stanley in his letter Of the 10th Of
Nav had
ests Of both countries:'-
% Se iss pssy in the R
Sai % eo aaa on
Would tY Is luxurious 70 the British NORTH
haa aids he Subject adhere The
he
50 tran they nn p ss S t. as say
whether my letter Of the Goth of April 1s45 is justly
chargeabe with having msed the American public to
the fact that the farther relaxation of the exclusion of
our fishermen from the great bays had been at my
stance referred to the Colonial flee, and to the consde
ration Of her Majestys government Should the entire
May 1s45 ever be publis he'd apprehend that it win
still more plainly show this which is apparent from the
fragment Of it that has appeared at Haa but also the
reasona eness OF the American argument had been
tically rec gIised by her Majesty - government
Lord damesbury aludes to two erroneous suppostons
summers one, that it the intention Of her Males.
tvs government. to revoke the sion of 1S45 rea
tive to the Bay Of Fundy and the other that notwith
standing the express terms of the convention American
fishermen privileged either by usage right to fish
upon any part of the British coast within three marine
miles of the shore.
have already remarked the uncertainty which ex-
sted on the first point to the real design Of the Br
fish laval movene emit. As far am aware the msa
prehepsons in this respect extensive in England
as in America. With regard to the second supposed
ror whatever suggestion to that effect may have been
thoan out in the heat of unprecedented debate can
only that has happened to to fall in with
any IeIson who entertained the opinion. Lo:d Mames-
bury himself on the next page of his despatch says
Her Males Us 60 ernment not that it has
any time been maintained by the Cover nment of the Uni
supposed to be, the slightest doubt that her Maetys
government are not only entitled but bound to maintain
that istance tree from encr0achment.p
Lord Malmesbury remarks that the croachInents of
the French included with those of the Americans
State of the 5'h OF July last This certainly sho we'd that
no exclusive action contemplated against Americ
fisher and was accordingly calculated to mitigate the
alarm which for short time prevailed TIE Importance
which Lord halmesbury justly attaches to the Joint
ton OF the supposed entertainments both of France and
the 9th OF July makes it matter of regret that
in the Queens speech at the opening Of the present
sion OF Parliament, the American encroachments only
are mentioned as the cause of the naval movement.
have already disclaimed the intention of going into
{. general discussion Of the fishery question, but
sion in the British argument which, though it has no
doubt had the chief agency in producing the difference
Vi opinion between the Two governments as 10 the
true intent Of the convention of 1918, has not /
believe been pointed out in the diplomatic discussions
between the United States and Great Britain Lord Aber
deem in his note of the 10th of March, 845 announcing
the relation to the Bay of Fundy thus expresses him
sell - Her Majestys government must still maintain
and th view they fortified by high legal authority
that the Bay Of Fundy is rightully claimed by Great
Britain bay within the meaning Of the treaty of 1918
And they equally maintain the position which was laid
down the note Of the undersigned dated the 18th Of
APRIL last, that with regard to the other bays the
British American coast no United States fisherman has
under that convention the right to fish within three
miles Of the entrance of such bays designated by
line drawn from to headand of that entrance
The high legal authority here referred TO not
communicated to me by Lord Aberdeen and is believed
TO have besu communicated the government OF
the United States. But think do not slpposing
the aluson to be to the opinion signed j. Dodson and
Thomas Wilde, then the law officers of the crown
given on requistiop Of Lord Pamerston in ls4l.
in this opinion, which has been published at Halifax,
these distinguished Irsts say hat right exists on
the art Of American ctzons to enter the bays Of Nova
scotia there TO take fish, although the fishing being with
in the bay may be at greater distance than three mites
ir' he shore OF the bay OF opinion that the