to him singular that they adverted to expressions as being used in the Treaty which were nowhere to be found in it: he alluded to that part of the opinion where it is said, "as we are of opinion that the term headland is used in the Treaty to express the part of the land we have before mentioned including the interior of the bays and "indents of the coast." Now, said Mr. Fillmore, there is no such term as headland in the Treaty at all, which would look as if the opinion had been drawn up without reference being made to the text of the Convention of 1818. He also remarked that as well as he had been able to ascertain the fact, the Government of the United States had, on various previous occasions, contested the construction maintained. by the opinion in question. Mr. Fillmore concluded by saying that he had been strongly urged to send some vessels of war to the fishing grounds in question for the purpose of protecting American interests there, but that he had hitherto declined doing so from his apprehension of the consequences of such a measure so long as the two Governments were not agreed as to the rights which each sought to define and to assert. What he would propose was that Mr. Webster and myself should make some temporary arrangement of the matter until the true sense of the Treaty should be determined by the two Governments between themselves, or, if necessary, be referred to the decision of some friendly Power, and he suggested that such an arrangement might be effected by each party's abstaining for the present to take any measures assertion of their supposed right,-that is to say, that the British authorities on the sea board should refrain from molesting any American fishing vessel which might be found to be carrying on its operations within the prescribed distance of three miles, as this is understood by the British construction of the Treaty, but at the same time without the prescribed distance. as understood by the American construction: while the United States Government, on the other hand, should take every means in their power to prevent their own citizens from fishing within the prescribed distance as understood by the British construction, until such time as the question as to which construction ought to prevail, should be determined on, or until the question should be otherwise disposed of by treaty or mutual legislation. I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, my Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient humble servant, JOHN. F. CRAMPTON. The Right Honorable, Earl of Malmesbury. &c. &c. &c. P.S. New York. 22nd July, 1852. I open this despatch to inclose the copy of a publication which has been made by Mr. Webster of a despatch from Mr. Everett to Mr. Buchanan dated London, 26th April 1845, which bears upon the point in question in regard to the fisheries. It would appear from this that the United States Government did not, at the time that despatch was written, demand as a right the privileges they now contend for, and that consequently they did not contest the construction of the Treaty then and now held by Her Majesty's Government. JFC No. 97.-1852, July 20: Letter from Mr. Fillmore (President of the United States) to Mr. Daniel Webster. 156 WASHINGTON CITY. July, 20th. 1852. MY DEAR SIR: Your note of the 17th. dated at Franklin came to hand this morning, inclosing a copy of your's of the same day to Mr. Crampton, and Mr. Hunter has shown me your telegraphic despatch of yesterday, requesting him to ask me whether it was not best to send one of our naval ships to Newfoundland to look after the disturbances among the fishermen. I have also perused your article in the Boston Courier of yesterday, and sincerely hope that these difficulties will not prove as serious as you seem to anticipate. I have seen Mr. Crampton who informs me that he will leave for Boston to-morrow morning, for the purpose of having a consultation with you upon the subject of the fisheries. He informs me also, that he has addressed a circular to the several Governors of the British Provinces of North America advising moderation and forbearance upon this subject. I doubt not that when you and he meet, you will be able to agree upon some line of proceeding that will allay the present excitement and prevent any bloodshed. I would suggest that you unite in a publication in which you should express your regrets that any misunderstanding had arisen between our fishermen engaged in the fisheries at Newfoundland, and the colonial subjects of Great Britain; that the differences of opinion which have arisen between the two Governments, in reference to their respective rights under the Convention of 1818, have called the attention of both Govcrnments to the subject, and that together with the subject of reciprocal trade between Her Majesty's Provinces of North America and the United States, will doubtless become the immediate subject of negotiation between the two countries; that in the meantime and until these matters can be amicably adjusted, you both concur in the opinion that under the Treaty of 1818 our citizens had the unquestioned right of fishing on the Southern and Western shore of the Island of Newfoundland, lying between the Islands of Ramea on the south and the Island of Quiperon on the north, and of entering upon any unoccupied lands upon the shore of said island between Cape Ray and said Island of Ramea, for the purpose of drying and curing fish; and also of fishing upon the shores of the Magdalen Islands; and with regard to all the rest of the Island of Newfoundland, and the other islands and mainland of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the English Government, so far as they have not conceded it to the French, have the exclusive right of fishing in all the waters adjacent to such islands or mainland and within three marine miles of the shore; but as for those waters in the several bays and harbours which are more than three marine miles from the shore of such bay or harbour upon either side, and within three marine miles of a straight line drawn from one headland to the other of such bay or harbour, that you as the Representative of the United States conceived that our fishermen have the right under the Treaty to fish therein, but the British Government having held that by a true construction of the Treaty such right belonged exclusively to British subjects; and as those waters were thus in dispute between the two nations, you respectively advised the citizens and subjects of both countries not to attempt to exercise any right that either claimed within the disputed waters until this disputed right could be adjusted by amicable negotiation. I perceive by the papers that your publication in the Boston Courier is somewhat misunderstood, and has consequently created unnecessary alarm; and some such joint publication as I have suggested above will, I think, quiet the apprehensions of the country, and be generally acquiesced in and obeyed by the parties engaged in the fisheries. I do not, of course, intend to indicate the precise words of such a declaration, as I write in much haste, and you are much more competent to prepare the article than I am. As to the subjects of negotiation, beyond those growing out of the construction of the Treaty of 1818, I will write you more fully hereafter. I do not know whether our citizens engaged in the fisheries seek for anything more than what they would obtain under the Treaty of 1818 if it received the construction for which we contend. If they do, then that will be one additional subject of negotiation; the right of navigating the St. Lawrence and the Welland Canal will of course be another; but the reciprocal trade between us and the British Provinces is one which I greatly prefer should be settled by legislation. If however that cannot be done, it may be best to settle it by a treaty for a limited time. But, as I said before, I will write you more fully upon this subject when I have had more time for reflection. I have seen the Secretary of the Navy, who says the Mississippi steam frigate, Captain Mc Cluney is now at New York and could be sent to the Banks of Newfoundland, if desired. She is however, as you are aware intended as the flag-ship of Captain Perry and of course will soon be wanted for that expedition. I thought however I would wait until you and Mr. Crampton had settled upon something definite, from which proper instructions might be drawn before I ordered the vessel to proceed to that destination. Regretting that this unfortunate business compels you to leave the mountains and valleys of your native State, but hoping that it will detain you but a short time I remain, truly & sincerely yours (Signed) The Honourable, DANIEL WEBSTER. MILLARD FILLMORE. Secretary of State. Boston. Masstts. No. 98.-1852, August 2: Letter from Mr. Crampton to the Earl of Confidential. No. 107. Malmesbury. MARSHFIELD, MASS., August 2nd. 1852. MY LORD: I have been at this place, (Mr. Webster's country residence) since the date of my last despatch (No. 106 of the 26th ultimo), and I have had several conversations with Mr. Webster on the subject of the late measures of Her Majesty's Government for the better protection of the British fisheries. 157 I observe with satisfaction that Mr. Webster now clearly perceives and fairly admits the correctness of the construction of the Convention of 1818 maintained by Her Majesty's Government. The opinion of the Queen's Advocate and of the Attorney General is, Mr. Webster said, "undoubtedly right ":-and he afterwards informed me that the President, from whom he had just received a letter on the subject, now concurred in that opinion. Mr. Webster remarked however that he thought that more had been conceded on the part of the United States by the Convention of 1818 strictly interpreted, than had been intended, or ought to have been conceded: and that at all events a very important American interest had grown up under its practical operation:-an interest which was now threatened with destruction by a strict enforcement of its provisions, and one which the American Government could not, if it would, abandon. Any injury which should be now inflicted upon that interest by the measures contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, would not fail to excite an angry feeling on the part of the inhabitants of the new England States against the neighbouring British Colonies, which he was most anxious to prevent: He felt therefore, he said, most desirous that the whole matter might now be taken up by negotiation, and he read to me a letter addressed to the President of the United States, in which he recommends the adoption of this course in preference to a settlement of the matter by legislation, stating his apprehension that the arrangement of the matter by the latter mode, though preferable on some accounts, might be subjected to indefinite delay. Congress in the meantime has at length taken a step towards the settlement of the question of reciprocal trade with the British North American Colonies by the Committee of Commerce of the House of Representatives bringing up a report on this subject by which a comprehensive measure for this purpose is recommended. I fear however at this late period of the session and in the midst of other pressing business, and also perhaps in the presence of the feeling which has been got up in regard to the measures of Her Majesty's Government for protecting the fisheries, which measures are represented as meant to constrain the United States to negotiate with us under duress," there is but little prospect of the immediate success of this measure. 66 Mr. Webster informs me that the President, in consideration of the strong feeling which exists upon this subject at Washington, and the loud calls which were made for such a measure, has instructed Commodore Perry to proceed to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the steam frigate "Mississippi " for the protection of American fishing vessels there. I could not learn what were the exact instructions given to Commodore Perry, but as the United States Government does not now seem to differ with Her Majesty's Government as to the construction of the Convention of 1818, I should suppose that these would not be of a nature to produce collision or disagreement between the American naval forces and the naval forces of Her Majesty or the Colonial authorities. With regard to the suggestion contained in the letter of the President to Mr. Webster, a copy of which I had the honour to inclose in my despatch No. 106 of the 26th ultimo, that Mr. Webster and myself should unite in a joint publication for the purpose of allaying the present excitement in regard to this subject, Mr. Webster has, upon consideration, judged it expedient to abstain for the present from taking this step, as one likely to produce fresh discussion on the subject without leading to any definite result. I entirely agree with him in this opinion; the more so that the excitement in question has already very much diminished, and that a very general impression prevails that the question is now under discussion between the two Governments, with a view to its settlement upon a satisfactory basis. My present visit to Mr. Webster has, I believe, tended to strengthen this impression. I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, My Lord, The Right Honorable EARL OF MALMESBURY, JOHN F CRAMPTON &c. &c. &c. Foreign Office. No. 99.-1852, August 3: Debate in the Senate of the United States on North American Fisheries. Speeches of Mr. Cass of Michigan and Mr. Davis of Massachusetts. A message having been received from the President, in relation to the fisheries on the coasts of the British possessions, with accompanying documents, and Mr. CASS having moved to refer the same to the Committee on Foreign Relations Mr. Cass said: MR. PRESIDENT: I have looked with some care into this question of the fisheries since it was first brought before us, and as there seems to me to be some important errors prevalent, I desire to take this opportunity, before the just cause of our country is prejudged, to correct them. 158 The ocean which unites, while it separates the nations of the earth, is at once their common highway, and a liquid field, whose abundant supply of food for man is among the most wonderful and beneficent dispensations of nature. No nation can appropriate it to itself. For the purpose of mutual convenience and of proper internal police, it seems to have been understood that the authority of every country may control the shores of the ocean within one marine league, or three miles of its coasts. But within this distance vessels may navigate the seas, though they ought not to violate the municipal laws passed for revenue and for other proper purposes. When the United States asserted their independence, and entered into negotiations with England for its recognition, the question of the fisheries was one of the most important, whose adjustment was required by the relations existing between the two countries. England contended that we were in the condition of any other foreign Power, and that, consequently, we had no rights but such as every nation possessed by virtue of its sovereignty. Our revolutionary patriots contended, and justly and successfully, that the colonists were among the first to carry on the fisheries-that they did their full share, and more, too, in defending and acquiring them from the French; and that, as a portion of the common empire, which possessed them, they had a right to enjoy their just proportion, as well |