Now, Sir, can we, in any event, yield our right to navigate the Gut of Canso, and with it the fisheries of the Straits of Northumberland? No! Can we enjoy our fisheries as we ought while these disputes exist? No! Are we to leave them open and if so, shall our fisheries be carried on hereafter under the surveillance of an armed British squadron, and the guardianship of a naval fleet of our own?

The indications are abundant that it is the wish of the Senate that the Executive should not treat upon this subject, and I think wisely. I agree on that point with my honourable and distinguished friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS]. What the Colonies require is some modification of commercial regulations which may affect the revenue. That is a subject proper to be acted upon by Congress, not by the President, if it is to be acted upon at all. It must not be done by treaty. We seem to have courted the responsibility, and it rests upon us. Let us no longer excite ourselves and agitate the country with unavailing debates; but let us address ourselves to the relief of the fishermen, and to the improvement of our commerce.

Now, Sir, there is only one way that Congress can act, and that is by reciprocal legislation with the British Parliament or the British Colonies of some sort. I commit myself to no particular scheme or project of reciprocal legislation, and certainly to none injurious to any agricultural or manufacturing interest. I, for one, will give my poor opinion upon the subject, and it is this: That so long hereafter as any British force shall be maintained in those northeastern waters, an equal naval force must be maintained there by ourselves. When Great Britain shall diminish or withdraw her armed force, we ought to diminish or withdraw our own; and that in the meantime, a commission ought to be raised, or that some appropriate Committee of this body-the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, or the Committee on Commerce-should be charged to ascertain whether there cannot be some measure adopted by reciprocal legislation to adjust these difficulties and enlarge the rights of our fishermen, consistently with all the existing interests of the United States.

No. 106.—1852, August 15; Letter from Commander Campbell to Vice-Admiral Seymour.

H.M.SS. DEVASTATION Pictou 15 Aug 1852. SIR: I beg to inform you that in consequence of the extraordinary determination evinced by the American fishermen to encroach upon the shores of the Bay of Chaleur I left the pinnace of this sloop at Port Daniell, under Lieutenant Newport, from 3rd. to 13 inst., to keep them in check. Altho' the Americans have never (on being warned out of that bay by me) asserted their right to be there I fear an idea has arisen among them that such is the case, & I have deemed it my duty, in consequence, clearly to point out that the Treaty of 1818, excludes them from all bays on this part of the coast, except for the purposes thereon specified

The doubt has arisen from the fact of the fishing having been carried on by those people, in defiance, of the Treaty, in former years, in consequence of the vessel of war having so much ground to go over

as to render one or two short visits to each port all she could accomplish.

I hear from the people of the country that for years after the Treaty of 1818, was ratified, the Americans never did attempt to fish in any part of Chaleur Bay, and that they have only done so within the last 12 or 15 years-or since the mackerel fishery has been followed by them with so much advantage-The obvious inference then is that it was not till long after the Treaty of 1818 was concluded, that the fishing in the Bay of Chaleur was valued by 191 them, consequently no exception, as regards the word "bays,

seems to have been thought of, & none would ever have been thought of had not the lucrative mackerel fishing become knownSurely then since they are excluded by the Treaty from fishing &c. "within 3 miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours-whatever " they can have no right to fish in any part of Chaleur Bay.

A contrary interpretation to this would be fatal to the interests of a vast number of H M subjects on both sides of the bay, on the waters of which they meet each other while fishing, a proof that there is no room for foreign fishermen &, therefore, that the reservation of the exclusive right to them was a just and necessary one.

The mischief done to the fisheries by the Americans is not perceived at once in all its bearings. They with characteristic energy pursue the mackerel to the spawning grounds. & such is their power of attracting the fish, that they leave few along the shores, & will certainly soon, if allowed, exterminate them.

On the cod fishing the effect of their depredations is not to be calculated. for not content with catching the mackerel close to the shore, they clean them there also, often in the very harbours, the consequence is that the cod fish become gorged & will not take bait, so that not only do our own fishermen lose the mackerel as bait, but the fish are prevented by feeding from taking the small quantity they can procure. As a proof of this I found that no sooner had the cutter of this sloop been stationed at Point Peter than (from the Americans being effectually kept off) the cod fishing improved vastly; indeed I am assured on all hands that the fishery is better than it has been for a great many years, & the people are surprised at discovering how much harm the Americans have done them in former years. It is the poorer fishermen who suffer most from the want of bait while the Americans infest the coast for they cannot compete in capturing the mackerel with the American vessels which are fitted out at a great expense, & have the means of attracting all the fish-leaving none for those who cannot afford to pursue them on the same system

If the Bay of Chaleur is to be open to the Americans, all the evils I have mentioned with many others must remain and increase for it is in vain to attempt to keep them 3 miles from the shore the fish being all close to the land for the purpose of spawning and they will follow them to the very beach the instant a ship of war is out of sight.

I trust you will pardon my dwelling at such length on this subject, but its extreme importance is my excuse having witnessed the very prejudicial effects of the depredations of the Americans, as well as having heard the well grounded complaints of the people, at the

Americans fishing in a bay from which they believe them to be excluded by Treaty

I have, &c

No. 107.-1852, August 17: Vice-Admiral Seymour's Memorandum of conversation with Commodore Perry.

Confidential

Memorandum from recollection on some points which became the subject of conversation between Commodore Perry of the U.S. Navy and Vice Adml. Sir G. F. Seymour-on the 17 August 1852.

1 The Commodore showed a map of the Gulf of St Lawrence (a copy of which is herewith inclosed) purporting to be drawn up by Mr. Perley, H.M's Emigration Agent at St. Johns N.B. for a report about to be made by Mr. Andrews, who is employed by the U.S. Govt-on the subject of the fisheries in which certain lines are drawn as fishing boundaries demanded by the British Colonial authorities

2 I acquainted the Commodore that I had not previously known these lines to have been proposed nor had I reason to suppose Mr. Perley was authorized in having described them as claimed by the Colonial authorities.

3 (I have since shown the chart to the Lieut Govr: of Nova Scotia, & Mr. Attorney Genl Uniacke who are of the same opinion & do not know Mr. Perley's authority Mr. Uniacke is particularly conversant with the claims & fishery interests of Nova Scotia)

4 (This chart may probably on its publication in the United States create an erroneous impression of the claims of the British Govt-) In my opinion the terms of the Convention would not admit of the space between the east point & north cape of Prince Edwards Island being considered a bay from which foreigners may be excluded & I collected from the Commodore that as the space it includes is where the American fishermen fish, with most advantage the U.S. Govt would most strenuously resist the definition of the term bay being applied to the space between the two headlands before named, beyond the distance of three miles from the actual shores to exclusion from which last they can make no valid objection, even on their own reading of the Convention:

192 6. The Commodore was disposed to admit that the proper limits of the Bay of Chaleur were Miscon and Cape Despair & that the U.S. vessels should keep 3 miles beyond a line drawn between those points but as I observe Capt. Bayfield states the northern boundary is generally considered Point Macquereau it is probable the Americans may claim it as the northern limits of the bay.

7 I observed that the same principle which he was disposed to apply to the Bay of Chaleur should attach as against fishing purposes to Georges Bay, at the western end of the Gut of Canso. The Commodore did not dissent nor did he agree further to this observation than in allowing the immediate headlands of bays to form their proper boundaries.

8 Commodore Perry also treated as one of the points which required to be settled [to be settled] regarding the Convention whether

a vessel which had been discovered infringing within 3 marine miles of the British shore, was liable to seizure subsequently, when out of that limit (I consider it manifestly just that the vessel contravening the Treaty should be liable to seizure altho' she might have succeeded in getting beyond that limit & the want of such power would enable those who had transgressed the limits to escape in 9 cases out of 10 with impunity)

9 The 2nd clause of the Act 59 Geo: 3. cap 38, authorize the seizure of vessels which shall be found fishing or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish, but I am of opinion that no action in its exercise, under the language of the Convention of 1818, however necessary will be more liable to opposition from the United States, than a seizure beyond the British waters, and that the principle which I brought under their Lordships observation in my letter No 101, of the 8th July, postscript of legal questions, should be established-I think future difficulties more likely on this subject than any other;

10-In reference to the United States desire to enjoy to [the] privilege to fish upon our coasts, I took occasion to inquire whether it was not illegal for a native of any other State than Massachusetts to fish on its shores which, Commodore Perry admitted

11 I have since examined the Statute cap: 85 of the laws of that State which enacts that "no person living without the State shall "take any lobsters, tantog, bass, blue fish, or scappang, within the "harbours, streams or waters, of any town on the sea coast, under a penalty not exceeding: 20 dollars," which shows that the rights of fishery, even on their own shores, are restricted to the immediate inhabitants

66

No. 108.-1852, August 19: Letter from Sir J. S. Pakington (British Colonial Secretary) to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

DOWNING STREET, 19. August 1852. My LORDS: In my letter of the 2d. June last, I conveyed to you Her Majesty's commands for stationing off the coasts of the British Possessions in North America a sufficient force of small vessels to protect the fisheries and prevent infractions of the Convention of 1818 with the United States, desiring at the same time that the officers employed on this service should be enjoined to avoid all unnecessary interference with the vessels of friendly Powers and all harshness in the performance of their duty.

Since the time when these instructions were issued, apprehensions have been expressed in the United States that it was intended by them to withdraw the concession made by Her Majesty's Government in 1845, of liberty to the fishermen of the United States to pursue their avocation within the waters of the Bay of Fundy, provided that they should not approach within 3 miles of the inlets and coasts of the British Provinces situated within that bay.

And Admiral Sir George Seymour has referred to the instructions given to successive Naval Commanders in chief that although no right on the part of the United States fishermen to fish from the shores of the Magdalen Islands, or to dry and cure their fish there, could be acknowledged, yet they should not be practically interfered with at those islands.

Sir G Seymour has also stated that the fishing vessels of the United States resort in large numbers to the various harbours in Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, where they pass the Sundays without entering those harbours from stress of weather, or to repair damages or for obtaining wood and purchasing water, as provided for in the Convention, and he has inquired what course should be taken as to these vessels.

With reference to these several subjects, I have it in command to instruct your Lordships to inform the Admiral Commanding in chief on the North American station, that Her Majesty's Government in ordering that the British fisheries should be protected, are not making new claims against the United States, nor altering, or reversing any standing orders to Her Majesty's Governors and public functionaries, nor revoking any such concession as that which was granted in 1845 as regards the Bay of Fundy, or that which has long been practically made in the Magdalen Islands, it being clearly understood that no right of American citizens to land their crews upon those islands is acknowledged by this permission and sufference on the part of the British authorities.

193 I have further to apprize your Lordships that unwilling to withdraw any accommodation which fishermen of the United States now find in British harbours, although such accommodation may go beyond the terms of the Treaty, Her Majesty's Government do not for the present desire any interference with the resort which it appears that they have formed the habit of making to various ports in the British provinces at times when they are not engaged in fishing, so long as they may conduct themselves in an orderly and peaceable

manner

What course may be taken hereafter on these several concessions it is unnecessary now to determine. The various questions at issue between the Governments of this country and the United States will be the subject of future discussion between them; but in the meantime Her Majesty's Government have no wish to withdraw the foregoing privileges from the fishermen of the United States in any manner which could be considered abrupt.

I have therefore to request that your Lordships will desire the Admiral to execute the instructions which you before conveyed to him with due regard to the above concessions and with as much moderation and forbearance as may be consistent with the firm maintenance of those rights on the part of the British North American Provinces, the encroachments upon whic.. have been the subject of their recent and repeated complaints.

I have &c