Enclosed with this despatch will be found a note addressed by me to Lord Aberdeen, on the subject of the seizure of the fishing schooner Washington, on the coast of Nova Scotia. I sent with it copies of the documents relative to this affair which accompanied your despatch No. 49. A. P. UPSHUR, Esq., Secretary of State. [Enclosure.] Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen. 46 GROSVENOR PLACE, August 10, 1843. The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to transmit to the carl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, the accompanying papers relating to the seizure on the 10th of May last, on the coast of Nova Scotia, by an officer of the provincial customs, of the American fishing schooner Washington, of Newburyport, in the State of Massachusetts, for an alleged infraction of the stipulations of the convention of the 20th of October, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain. It appears from the deposition of William Bragg, a seaman on board the Washington, that at the time of her seizure she was not within ten miles of the coast of Nova Scotia. By the first article of the convention above alluded to, the United States renounce any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by their inhabitants to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coast of her Majesty's dominions in America, for which express provision is not made in the said article. This renunciation is the only limitation existing on the right of fishing upon the coasts of her Majesty's dominions in America, secured to the people of the United States by the third article of the treaty of 1783. The right, therefore, of fishing on any part of the coast of Nova Scotia, at a greater distance than three miles, is so plain that it would be difficult to conceive on what ground it could be drawn in question, had not attempts been already made by the provincial authorities of her Majesty's colonies, to interfere with its exercise. These attempts have formed the subject of repeated complaints on the part of the government of the United States, as will appear from several notes addressed by the predecessor of the undersigned to Lord. l'aimerston. From the construction attempted to be placed, on former occasions, upon the first article of the treaty of 1818, by the colonial authorities, the undersigned supposes that the "Washington" was seized because she was found fishing in the Bay of Fundy, and on the ground that the lines within which American vessels are forbidden to fish, are to run from headland to headland, and not to follow the shore. It is plain, however, that neither the words nor the spirit of the convention admits of any such construction; nor, it is believed, was it set up by the provincial authorities for several years after the negotiation of that instrument. A glance at the map will show Lord Aberdeen that there is, perhaps, no part of the great extent of the seacoasts of her Majesty's possessions in America, in which the right of an American vessel to fish can be subject to less doubt than that in which the "Washington" was seized. For a full statement of the nature of the complaints which have, from time to time, been made by the government of the United States against the proceedings of the colonial authorities of Great Britain, the undersigned invites the attention of Lord Aberdeen to a note of Mr. Stevenson, addressed to Lord Palmerston on the 27th March, 1841. The receipt of this note was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston on the 2d of April, and Mr. Stevenson was informed that the subject was referred by his lordship to the Secretary of State for the colonial department. On the 28th of the same month Mr. Stevenson was further informed by Lord Palmerston, that he had received a letter from the colonial department, acquainting his lordship that Mr. Stevenson's communication would be forwarded to Lord Falkland with instructions to inquire into the allegations contained therein, and to furnish a detailed report upon the subject. The undersigned does not find on the files of this legation any further communication from Lord Palmerston in reply to Mr. Stevenson's letter of the 27th March, 1841, and he believes that letter still remains unanswered. In reference to the case of the Washington and those of a similar nature which have formerly occurred, the undersigned cannot but remark upon the impropriety of the conduct of the colonial authorities in undertaking, without directions from her Majesty's government, to set up a new construction of a treaty between the United States and England, and in proceeding to act upon it by the forcible seizure of American vessels. Such a summary procedure could only be justified by a case of extreme necessity, and where some grave and impending mischief required to be averted without delay. To proceed to the capture of vessels of a friendly power for taking a few fish within limits alleged to be forbidden, although allowed by the express terms of the treaty, must be regarded as a very objectionable stretch of provincial authority. The case is obviously one for the consideration of the two governments, and in which no disturbance of a right exercised without question for fifty years from the treaty of 1783, ought to be attempted by any subordinate authority. Even her Majesty's government, the undersigned is convinced, would not proceed in such a case to violent measures of suppression, without some understanding with the government of the United States, or, in the failure of an attempt to come to an understanding, without due notice given of the course intended to be pursued. The undersigned need not urge upon Lord Aberdeen the desirableness of an authoritative intervention on the part of her Majesty's government to put an end to the proceedings conplained of. The President of the United States entertains a confidant expectation of an early and equitable adjustment of the difficulties which have been now for so long time under the consideration of her Majesty's government. This expectation is the result of the President's reliance upon the sense of justice of her Majesty's gov ernment, and of the fact, that, from the year 1818, the date of the convention, until some years after the attempts of the provincial authorities to restrict the rights of American vessels by colonial legislation, a practical construction was given to the first article of the convention, in accordance with the obvious purport of its terms and settling its caning as understood by the United States. The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to tender to Lord Aberdeen the assurance of his distinguished consideration. EDWARD EVERETT. [Extract.] [No. 130.] Mr. Everett to Mr. Calhoun. LONDON, May 26, 1844. SIR: In pursuance of instructions from the Department of State, I addressed a note t› Lord Aberdeen on the 10th of August last, on the case of the Washington, a vessel belonging to the United States, and seized for having been found fishing within the Bay of Fundy. The receipt of my note was promptly acknowledged, and I was informed that it had been referred to the colonial department for inquiry. On the 15th ultimo the result of this inquiry was communicated to me in a note from Lord Aberdeen, which I herewith transmit to you, together with a copy of my reply, bearing date the 25th instant. I have endeavored to present the strong points of our case in a favorable light; and I cannot doubt that the spirit and intent of the convention of 1818 are such as I have represented them to be in my answer to Lord Aberdeen. * ** * * EDWARD EVERETT. [Enclosure.] Mr. Everett to Mr. Aberdeen. GROSVENOR PLACE, May 25, 1814. The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, had the honor duly to receive the note of the 15th of April, addressed to him by the Earl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to the note of the undersigned of the 10th of August last, relative to the seizure of the American vessel, the Washington, for having been found fishing within the limits of the Bay of Fundy. The note of the undersigned, of the 10th of August last, although its immediate occasion was the seizure of the Washington, contained a reference to the correspondence between Mr. Stevenson and Viscount Palmerston on the subject of former complaints of the American government, of the manner in which the fishing vessels of the United States had in several ways been interfered with by the provincial authorities, in contravention as is believed, of the treaty of October, 1818, between the two countries. Lord Aberdeen's attention was particularly invited to the fact that no answer as yet had been returned to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord Palmerston, of 27th March, 1841, the receipt of which and its reference to the Colonial department were announced by a note of Lord Palmerston of the 2d April. The undersigned further observed that on the 28th of the same month Lord Palmerston acquainted Mr. Stevenson that his lordship had been advised from the Colonial office, that "copies of the papers received from Mr. Stevenson would be furnished to Lord Falkland, with instructions to inquire into the allegations contained therein, and to furnish a detailed report on the subject;" but that there was not found on the files of this legation any further communication from Lord Palmerston on the subject. The note of Lord Aberdeen, of the 15th of April last, is confined exclusively to the case of the Washington; and it accordingly becomes the duty of the undersigned again to invite his lordship's attention to the correspendence above referred to between Mr. Stevenson aud Lord Palmerston, and to request that inquiry may be made, without unnecessary delay, into all the causes of complaint which have been made by the American government against the improper interference of the British colonial authorities with the fishing vessels of the United States. In reference to the case of the Washington, Lord Aberdeen, in his note of the 15th of April, justifies her seizure by an armed provincial vessel, on the assumed fact that, as she was found fishing in the Bay of Fundy, she was within the limits from which the fishing vessels of the United States are excluded by the provisions of the convention between the two countries of October 1818. The undersigned had remarked in his note of the 10th of August last, on the impropriety of the conduct of the colonial authorities in proceeding in reference to a question of construction of a treaty pending between the two countries, to decide the question in their own favor, and in virtue of that decision to order the capture of the vessels of a friendly State. A summary exercise of power of this kind, the undersigned is sure would never be resorted to by her Majesty's government, except in an extreme case, while a negotiation was in train on the point at issue. Such a procedure on the part of a local colonial authority, is of course highly objectionable, and the undersigned cannot but again invite the attention of Lord Aberdeen to this view of the subject. With respect to the main question of the right of American vessels to fish within the acknowledged limits of the Bay of Fundy, it is necessary, for a clear understanding of the case, to go back to the treaty of 1783. By this treaty it was provided that the citizens of the United States. should be allowed "to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen islands and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of that ground." These privileges and conditions were in reference to a country of which a considerable portion was then unsettled, likely to be attended with differences of opinion as to what should, in the progress of time, be accounted a settlement from which American fishermen might be excluded. These differences in fact arose, and by the year 1818 the state of things was so far changed that her Majesty's government thought it necessary in negotiating the convention of that year, entirely to except the province of Nova Scotia from the number of the places which might be frequented by Americans as being in part unsettled, and to provide that the fishermen of the United States should not pursue their occupation within three miles of the shores, bays, creeks and harbors of that and other parts of her Majesty's possessions similarly situated. The privilege reserved to American fishermen by the treaty of 1783, of taking fish in all the waters and drying them on all the unsettled portions of the coast of these possessions was accordingly by the convention of 1818 restricted as follows: "The United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, 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 America, not included within the above mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of sheltering and repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever." The existing doubt as to the construction of the provision arises from the fact that a broad arm of the sea runs up to the northeast, between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This arm of the sea being commonly called the Bay of Fundy, though not in reality possessing all the characters usually implied by the term "bay," has of late years been claimed by the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia to be included among "the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors forbidden to American fishermen. An examination of the map is sufficient to show the doubtful nature of this construction. It was notoriously the object of the article of the treaty in question to put an end to the difficulties which had grown out of the operations of the fishermen from the United States along the coasts and upon the shores of the settled portions of the country, and for that purpose to remove their vessels to a distance not exceeding three miles from the same. In estimating this distance, the undersigned admits it to be the intent of the treaty, as it is itself reasonable, to have regard to the general line of the coast; and to consider its bays, creeks and harbors, that is, the indentations usually so accounted, as included within that line. But the undersigned cannot admit it to be reasonable, instead of thus following the general directions of the coast, to draw a line from the southwestern-inost point of Nova Scotia to the termination of the northeastern boundary be tween the United States and New Brunswick, and to consider the arms of the sea which will thus be cut off, and which cannot, on that line be less than sixty miles wide, as one of the bays on the coast from which Ameri can vessels are excluded. By this interpretation the fishermen of the United States would be shut out from the waters distant, not three, but thirty miles from any part of the colonial coast. The undersigned cannot perceive that any assignable object of the restriction imposed by the conven |