PEKTAINIiSTG TO NEGOTIATION OF TEEATY OF 1818. 305 



By the decree of the judge of the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, 

 on the 29th of August last, in the case of several American fishing 

 vessels which had been captured and sent into that port, a copy of 

 which is also now transmitted to you, it appears that all those cap- 

 tures have been illegal. An appeal from this decree was entered by 

 the captors to the appellate court in England, and the owners of the 

 captured vessels were obliged to give bonds to stand the issue of the 

 appeal. Mr. Rush was instructed to employ suitable counsel for these 

 cases if the appeals should be entered, and, as we have been informed 

 by him, has accordingly done so. If you do not succeed in agreeing 

 upon an article on this subject, it will be desirable that the ques- 

 tion upon the right should be solemnly argued before the lords of 

 appeals, and that counsel of the first eminence should be employed in 

 it. Judge Wallace agreed with the advocate general that the late war 

 completely dissolved every right of the people of the United States 

 acquired by the treaty of 1783. But it does not appear that this 

 question had been argued before him, and the contrary opinion is 

 not to be surrendered on the part of the United States upon the 

 dictum of a vice-admiralty court. Besides this, we claim the rights 

 in question not as acquired by the treaty of 1783, but as having 

 always before enjoyed them, and as only recognised as belonging to 

 us by that treaty, and therefore never to be divested from us but by 

 our own consent. Judge Wallace, however, explicitly says that he 

 does not see how he can condemn these vessels without an act of 

 Parliament; and whoever knows any thing of the English constitu- 

 tion must see that on this point he is unquestionably right. He says, 

 indeed, something about an order in council, but it is very clear that 

 would not answer. It is a question of forfeiture for a violated terri- 

 torial jurisdiction; which forfeiture can be incurred not by the law 

 of nations, but only by the law of the land. There is obviously no 

 such law. 



The argument which has been so long and so ably maintained by 

 Mr. Reeves, that the rights of antenati Americans, as British sub- 

 jects, even within tin- kingdom of Great Britain, have never been 

 divested from thorn, because there has been no act of Parliament to 

 declare it. applies in its fullest force to this case; and, connected with 

 the article in the treaty of 1783, by which this particular right was 

 recognised, continued, and placed out of the reach of an act of Parlia- 

 ment, corroborates the argument in our favor. How far it may be 

 proper and advisable to use these suggestions in your negotiation, 

 niu-t be left to your sound discretion: but. they arc thrown out with 

 the hope that you will pursue the investigation of the important 

 question <>f British law involved in this interest, and that every 

 possible advantage may be taken of them, preparatory for the trial 

 before the Lords of appeals, if the ,;, ,. hould ultimately come to 

 their decision. The British Government may he well assured that 

 not a particle of tie 1 e rights will be finally yielded by the Onited 

 States without :i truggle, which will cosi Great Britain more than 



the w orth <>f the prize. 



These are the subjects to which the President is willing (hat your 

 negotiation -hould he confined. With regard t<> the others of a 

 general nature, and relating to the respective rights of the t wo nations 



in time- of maritime war. you are authorized to treat of them, and to 



