548 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



heavily for some time, and, out of doors, were thought to have been 

 on the brink of a fruitless termination. Finally, the "Reciprocity 

 Treaty ", for regulating our trade and fishing concerns with the 

 Canadas and other British Provinces north of us, was concluded and 

 signed on the fifth of June, 1854. 



If asked, did not this Treaty put the question at rest? I answered 

 that it did, for the time being. But the subject is open to other views. 

 A future day may witness the revival of the question. We thought it at 

 rest under the old Revolutionary Treaty of 1783 ; but it returned upon 

 us after the war of 1812. That war over, we again thought it at rest 

 forever, under the Convention of 1818 ; but again it came back upon 

 us. It would be unwise to consider the Reciprocity Treaty perpetual, 

 whatever its presumed or real merits. When it does come to an end, 

 this question may be upon our hands once more. The power of Eng- 

 land is not on the decline, by any evidences yet before us, but, on the 

 contrary, increases; and her adherence in the future, as in the past, 

 to the policy which tends to foster her commercial interests and 

 maritime strength, may naturally be inferred. It would hence seem 

 no more than prudent that both countries, ours especially, should be 

 in possession of all the lights still attainable, on the true nature of 

 this Fishery Question; which, altogether, is a remarkable one in our 

 diplomatic history. 



For more than twenty years the Convention of 1818 was in full 

 operation in the sense in which our Government understood the article 

 relating to the Fisheries. After this long acquiescence, Great Britain 

 applied a new and different rule for the operation of the article. 

 Whether she had good grounds for this change in its construction, is 

 the essential inquiry. High names, in the Senate and elsewhere, have 

 so well defended our construction, that it might seem unnecessary for 

 me to bring before the public the views presented in this letter to the 

 Secretary of State, were they not derived from facts intrinsic to the 

 negotiation itself. In directing its publication by my executors, I aim 

 at rendering justice to revered names in our history, and whose hum- 

 ble associate I was in this portion of our public affairs. I aim at 

 showing that this solemn international compact, made under their in- 

 structions, and receiving their sanction, did not give up American 

 fishing rights of long existence and great magnitude, but, on the con- 

 trary, secured them with the greatest care. In here vindicating their 

 memories against imputed errors or oversights in a matter so grave, 

 and in desiring that the vindication should become known to their 

 country, I trench upon no sense of propriety. As an official document, 

 upon an international subject, no secrecy belonged to this letter, writ- 

 ten on a public call upon me by the Government, other than exemption 

 from premature publicity. Vvliilst the Reciprocity Treaty was under 

 discussion, it was withheld from print by the eminent functionary to 

 whom it was addressed, for reasons deemed sufficient, no doubt, at the 

 time. A voluntary publication of it by me at that time would have 

 been out of place. But the treaty having been perfected, its execution 

 in good faith by both countries, as long as it lasts, cannot be affected 

 by historical facts, or any opinions I may have left for posthumous 

 publication. 



Richard Rush. 



Sydenham, December, 185^. 



