"The coasts" named in these treaties were not only the coasts of the Bay or Gulf of St. Lawrence, and of the island of Cape Breton, but extended from the head of the Bay of Fundy along the bay entirely around Nova Scotia to the Gulf or Bay of St. Lawrence.

There never had been any misunderstanding as to the application of this term, or denial of the right to fish on these coasts, as I have named them, under all these treaties down to 1818. The term coasts, as applied to Nova Scotia during this long period, was as well known and understood as the term "coasts" applied to England or Ireland; and it included the coasts on the Bay of Fundy as fully and certainly as the term coasts of England applies to the coasts of the English channel. It was a fixed locality, known and established, and the right of taking fish had always been "enjoyed there."

When, therefore, the treaty of 1818 "renounced the liberty, heretofore enjoyed, of taking fish within three marine miles of any of THE COASTS, bays, creeks, etc., of his Britannic Majesty's dominions," the renunciation was, for this distance from a fixed locality, as fully settled and established as language, accompanied by a long and uninterrupted usage, could make it.

"The coasts" named are those of 1783, and of prior treaties, and the renunciation of three miles was to be reckoned from these coasts. The Bay of Fundy was therefore not excluded from the fishing grounds of the United States.

The annexed sketch of the Gulf or Bay of St. Lawrence, with the adjoining waters and coasts, will show how the term coasts was practically applied under all the treaties referred to prior to 1818.

I am not aware of any reply to the points here taken that I think can at all invalidate them.

From the papers filed in the case, it appears that in 1841, the province of Nova Scotia caused a case stated to be drawn up and forwarded to England, with certain questions to be proposed to the law officers of the crown.

One inquiry was, whether the fishermen of the United States have any authority to enter any of the bays of that province to take fish. These officers, Messrs. Dodson and Wilde, reply that no right exists to enter the bays of Nova Scotia to take fish, "as they are of opinion the term headland is used in the treaty to express the part of the land excluding the interior of the bays and inlets of the coasts."

Now it so happens that no such term is used in the treaty, and their decision, based on it, falls to the ground.

They were also specifically asked to define what is to be considered a headland. This they did not attempt to do. The headlands of the Bay of Fundy have never been defined or located, and, from the contour of the bay, no such headlands properly exist.

These officers held that the American fisherman, for the reason. named, could not enter the bays and harbors of Nova Scotia. But the Bay of Fundy is not a bay or harbor of the province of Nova Scotia, and was never included in its limits. The Bay of Fundy is bounded on one side by Nova Scotia, and on the other by New Brunswick, and it is not clear that either the question proposed, or answer given, was designed to include this large arm of the sea.

It is also said, that Mr. Webster has conceded the point in issue in a notice given to American fishermen. The claims, now asserted were not put forth till many years after the treaty of 1818; and it was not until 1852 the British government gave notice that seizures would be made of fishermen taking fish in violation of the construction of the treaty of 1818, as then claimed by them, when Mr. Webster, to avoid the collisions that might arise, issued a notice setting forth the claims put forth by England.

In one part of his notice he says: "It was an oversight to make so large a concession to England," but closes by saying: "Not agreeing that the construction put upon the treaty by the English government is conformable to the intentions of the contracting parties, this information is given that those concerned in the fisheries may understand how the concern stands at present, and be upon their guard."

Mr. Webster subsequently denied relinquishing, in any manner, by this notice, the rights of the United States, as claimed under this treaty.

Detached expressions quoted from it, to sustain a different opinion, can hardly be regarded, under such circumstances, as an authority. I have seen no other argument or suggestions tending, as I think, to sustain the grounds taken by the British government.

On the other hand, I have adverted, briefly, as I proposed, to the history of the fisheries; the views expressed by the negotiators of the treaty of 1818, as to the object to be effected by it; the subsequent

practical construction of it for many years; the construction given to a similar article in the treaty of 1783; the evident meaning to be gained from the entire article of the treaty taken together; and from the term "coasts" as used in the treaty of 1818, and other treaties in reference to this subject; and the whole combine, as I believe, to sustain the construction contended for by the United States.

I am therefore of opinion, the owners of the Washington should receive compensation for the unlawful seizure of that vessel by the British government, when fishing more than three miles from the shore or coast of the Bay of Fundy.

HORNBY, British Commissioner:

An opinion was delivered by Hornby conflicting with the views and conclusion of the United States commissioner, and sustaining the position taken by his government, on the ground that Great Britain, by virtue of her ownership of both shores of the Bay of Fundy, had exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of the bay, by virtue of the law of nations, applicable to such sheets of water, and cited various claims that had been put forth to a similar jurisdiction.

He also held that the provision in the treaty by which the United States "renounced the liberty previously enjoyed to take, dry, or cure fish on, or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in North America," excluded by its terms, and by a just construction of the treaty, fisheries of the United States citizens in the Bay of Fundy.

NOTE. The opinion of the British commissioner in this, and some other cases, was to hav been drawn up at length, and furnished, to be placed on file. It is to be regretted that these opinions have not been received, and that, after this length of time, they pro bably will not be.