THE FISHERIES. 235 



It may be quite admissible for the British Gov 

 ernment, as they are accustomed to do, to throw 

 off all their responsibilities on the &quot;Law Officers 

 of the Crown,&quot; when the question is one of mere 

 domestic relation ; but it * is dangerous for that 

 Government to do so in matters affecting other Gov 

 ernments. 



We have already had occasion to comment on the 

 very extraordinary circumstances attending the fail 

 ure of the Law Officers of the Crown to report upon 

 the case of the Alabama, and its disastrous influence 

 on the conduct of the Government. 



As to the opinion of the &quot;Law Officers of the 

 Crown &quot; in construction of the fishery clauses of the 

 treaty of 1818, it is difficult to say which produced 

 the more amusement or amazement in the United 

 States, the fact that the &quot;Law Officers&quot; should inter 

 polate a phrase into the treaty in order to give to 

 their opinion its sole foundation to stand upon, or 

 that the British Government should placidly accept 

 such fallacious and baseless reasoning without chal 

 lenge, and proceed in obedience to it to enter into hos 

 tile maritime operations, and hurry on to the verge 

 of war against the United States. 



After much agitation and discussion, however, the 

 question was settled for the time being by articles 

 of the Treaty of September 9, 1854, commonly called 

 the Reciprocity Treaty, as follows : 



&quot;Article I. It is agreed by the high contracting Parties that, 

 in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen 

 by the above-mentioned Convention of October 20,1818, of 



