230 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



States, to the effect that war does not, as an absolute, 

 universal rule, abrogate existing treaties, regardless 

 of their tenor and particular contents ; and it is the 

 only doctrine compatible with reason, justice, common* 

 sense, and the diplomatic history of Europe. 



But the British Government, in the celebrated dis 

 patch to Mr. Adams of October 30, 1815, signed by 

 Lord Bathurst, and understood to be the composition 

 of Mr. Canning, declared the position of Great Britain 

 to be : &quot; She knows no exception to the rule that all 

 treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war be 

 tween the same parties.&quot; This proposition, in its ab 

 soluteness of expression, if it is intended as an asser 

 tion of any established practice of nations, or any rec 

 ognized doctrine of the law of nations, is unfounded 

 and unauthorized. Many treaties are made precisely 

 for the case of war, and only become efficacious in 

 virtue of the existence of war. The assertion of Lord 

 Bathurst is altogether too broad, as Dr. Bluntschli 

 demonstrates. * 



Nevertheless, acting on such extreme premises, Great 

 Britain pretended that our rights of fishery had been 

 abrogated by the war, and were not revived by peace; 

 and that this effect was the true interpretation of the 

 omission to mention the subject in the Treaty of 

 Ghent. 



The Commissioners of the United States who ne 

 gotiated the Treaty of Ghent were men of unques 

 tionable patriotism and of the highest character and 

 intelligence: it would be out of place here to reopen 

 the dispute as to certain special causes of the failure 



