282 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., PRIOR TO TREATY OF 1818 



There are four several articles of the treaty of Ghent, in every 

 one of which the treaty of 1783 is not only named, but its stipulations 

 form the basis of the new engagements between the parties for carry- 

 ing its provisions into execution. These articles are the fourth, fifth, 

 sixth, and seventh. The undersigned refers particularly to the fourth 

 article, where the boundaries described are not adverted to without 

 reference to the title by which they were acquired; but where the 

 stipulation of the treaty of 1783 is expressly assigned as the basis 

 of the claims, both of the United States and of Great Britain, to the 

 islands mentioned in the article. 



The words with which the article begins are, "Whereas it was 

 stipulated by the second article in the treaty of peace of one thousand 

 seven hundred and eighty-three, between His Britannic Majesty and 

 the United States of America, that the boundary of the United States 

 should comprehend all islands," &c. 



It proceeds to describe the boundaries as there stipulated ; then 

 alleges the claim of the United States to certain islands, as founded 

 upon one part of the stipulation, and the claim of Great Britain as 

 derived from another part of the stipulation; and agrees upon the 

 appointment of two commissioners " to decide to which of the two 

 contracting parties the islands belong, in conformity with the true in- 

 tent of the said treaty of peace of 1783." The same expressions are 

 repeated in the fifth, sixth, and seventh articles ; and the undersigned 

 is unable to conceive by what construction of language one of the 

 parties to those articles can allege that, at the time when they were 

 signed, the treaty of 1783 was, or could be considered at an end. 



When, in the letter of the undersigned to Lord Bathurst, the treaty 

 of 1783 was stated to be a compact of a peculiar character, importing 

 in its own nature a permanence not liable to be annulled by the fact 

 of a subsequent war between the parties, the recognition of the 

 sovereignty of the United States and the boundary line were adduced 

 as illustrations to support the principle; the language of the above- 

 mentioned articles in the treaty of Ghent, and the claim brought for- 

 ward by Great Britain, at the negotiation of it, for the free naviga- 

 tion of the Mississippi, were alleged as proofs that Great Britain, 

 herself so considered it, excepting with regard to a small part of the 

 single article relative to the fisheries; and the right of Great Britain 

 was denied thus to select one particular stipulation in such a treaty, 

 and declare it to have been abrogated by the war. The answer of 

 Lord Bathurst denies that Great Britain has made such a selection, 

 and affirms that the whole treaty of 1783 was annulled by the late 

 war. It admits, however, that the recognition of independence and 

 the boundaries was in the nature of a perpetual obligation; and that, 

 with the single exception of the liberties in and connected w T ith the 

 fisheries within British jurisdiction on the coasts of North America, 

 the United States are entitled to all the benefits of all the stipula- 

 tions in their favor contained in the treaty of 1783, although the 

 stipulations themselves are supposed to be annulled. The fishing 

 liberties within British jurisdiction alone are considered as a tem- 

 porary grant, liable not only to abrogation by war, but, as it would 

 seem from the tenor of the argument, revocable at the pleasure of 

 Great Britain, whenever she might consider the revocation suitable 

 to her interest. The note affirms that " the liberty to fish within 



