280 COKKESPONDENCE, ETC., PRIOR TO TREATY OF 1818 



Britain and any other nation? and, if not, whether the whole scope 

 and objects of its stipulations were not expressly intended to con- 

 stitute a new and permanent state of diplomatic relations between 

 the two countries, which would not, and could not, be annulled by 

 the mere fact of a subsequent war between them? And he makes 

 this appeal with the more confidence, because another part of Lord 

 Bathurst's note admits that treaties often contain recognitions and 

 acknowledgments in the nature of perpetual obligation, and because 

 it implicitly admits that the whole treaty of 1783 is of this character, 

 with the exception of the article concerning the navigation of the 

 Mississippi, and a small part of the article concerning the fisheries. 



The position that " Great Britain knows of no exception to the rule 

 that all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the 

 same parties," appears to the undersigned not only novel, but un- 

 warranted by any of the received authorities upon the laws of na- 

 tions; unsanctioned by the practice and usages of sovereign states; 

 suited, in its tendency, to multiply the incitements to war, and to 

 weaken the ties of peace between independent nations; and not easily 

 reconciled with the admission that treaties not unusually contain, 

 together with articles of a temporary character, liable to revocation, 

 recognitions and acknowledgments in the nature of perpetual obli- 

 gation. 



A recognition or acknowledgment of title, stipulated by convention, 

 is as much a part of the treaty as any other article ; and if all treaties 

 are abrogated by war, the recognitions and acknowledgments con- 

 tained in them must necessarily be null and void, as much as any 

 other part of the treaty. 



If there be no exception to the rule that war puts an end to all 

 treaties between the parties to it, what can be the purpose or meaning 

 of those articles which, in almost all treaties of commerce, are pro- 

 vided expressly for the contingency of war, and which, during the 

 peace, are without operation ? On this point, the undersigned would 

 refer Lord Castlereagh to the tenth article of the treaty of 1794 be- 

 tween the United States and Great Britain, where it is thus stipu- 

 lated : " Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to 

 the individuals of the other, nor shares, nor moneys, which they may 

 have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever, 

 in any event of war, or national differences, be sequestered or confis- 

 cated." If war puts an end to all treaties, what could the parties to 

 this engagement intend by making it formally an article of the 

 treaty? According to the principle laid down, excluding all ex- 

 ception, by Lord Bathurst's note, the moment a war broke out between 

 the countries this stipulation became a dead letter, and either state 

 might have sequestered or confiscated those specified properties, with- 

 out any violation of compact between the nations. 



The undersigned believes that there are many exceptions to the 

 rule by which the treaties between nations are mutually considered 

 as terminated by the intervention of a war; that these exceptions 

 extend to all engagements contracted with the understanding that 

 they are to operate equally in war and peace, or exclusively during 

 war; to all engagements by which the parties superadd the sanction 

 of a formal compact to principles dictated by the eternal laws of 

 morality and humanity; and, finally, to all engagements which, ac- 



