195 



** cution, are things consummated and finished. If they are valid, 

 ** they have in their nature an effect perpetual and irrevocable. 

 &quot; In like manner, as soon as a right is transferred by a lawful con- 

 &amp;lt;; vention, it no longer belongs to the state which has ceded it : the 

 &quot; affair is finished and concluded.&quot; Vattel,b. 2, -c/j. 12, 192. 



&quot; But we must not here confound treaties or alliances, which, 

 &quot; bearing the obligation of reciprocal engagement?, can subsist only 

 &quot; by the continued existence of the contracting powers, with those&quot; 

 &quot; contracts which give an acquired and consummate right in.lepend- 

 i{ ent of all mutual engagement. If, for example, a nation had 

 &quot;ceded in perpetuity to a neighbouring prince, the right of fishery 

 &quot; in a river, or that of keeping a garrison in a fortress, Ibis prince, 

 * would not lose his rights, even if the nation from which he re- 

 &quot; ceived them, should afterwards be conquered or pass in any other 

 %t manner under a foreign dominion His rights depend not on the 

 * 4 continued existence of that nation : they had been alienated 

 &quot; by it, and the conqueror could take only that which belonged to 

 &quot; itself.&quot; Felice Commentary on Burlamaqui, Part 4, ch. 9, 161. 

 I trust I have now sufficiently shown, either that the treaty of 

 1783 was of that class of treaties which are not abrogated by a 

 subsequent war, between the parties to it, or that if it was so ab 

 rogated, not one particle of the rights or liberties, stipulated or re 

 cognised in it, as belonging to the United States, was or could be 

 abrogated with it, and consequently that the conclusion of Mr, 

 Russell s elaborate argument, that the fishing liberty secured to 

 the United States, by the third article, was entirely at an end, with 

 out a new stipulation for its revival, was as unwarranted by any 

 principle of the laws of nations, as it was pernicious to the liber 

 ties of his country. Equally groundless and untenable, is the opi 

 nion that by offering the stipulation in another treaty, the peculia 

 rity of its character would be lost. The peculiarity consisted as 

 well in the nature of the liberty, as in the character of the treaty 

 by which it was secured, as was expressly asserted by the Ameri 

 can plenipotentiaries ; and the same principles would have applied 

 to a new stipulation then, and do apply to the new stipulation since 

 made, as did apply to the third article of the treaty of 1783. 

 When Mr. Russell says that I appeal to a class of treaties which 

 are not known to exist, he only proves that it would be well for 

 him to revise his studies of diplomatic and international law. 



The doctrine that all treaties and all rights, acknowledged by 

 articles of treaties, are dissolved by war, has not always been held 

 to be sound even by the British government. In the debates in 

 parliament on the peace of Amiens, lord Auckland said 



&quot; He had looked into the works of all the first publicists on these 

 subjects, and had corrected himself in a mistake, still prevalent 

 &quot; in the minds of many, who state, in an unqualified sense, that all 

 * treaties between nations are annulled by war, and must be spe- 

 &quot; tally renewed if meant to be in force on the return of peace. It 



