PERIOD FROM 1854 TO 1871. 567 



In the treaty of Ghent, terminating the last war with Great 

 Britain, no allusion was made to the subject of the fisheries. 



In July, 1815, complaint was made that American fishing vessels, 

 engaged in the cod-fishery off the coast of Xova Scotia had been 

 ordered away by a British sloop-of-war, and this act, while it was 

 declared to be totally unauthorized by his Majesty's government, led 

 to a correspondence between our minister at London (John Quincy 

 Adams) and Lord Bathurst, in which the United States adhered to 

 the right and liberty of fishing, as secured by the treaty of 1783, on 

 the ground that those rights and liberties were not grants from the 

 King, but the permanent results of a partition of rights at the time 

 of the separation of the two countries and contended, therefore, that 

 they could not be impaired by a state of war. On the other side it 

 was asserted that while the right described in the treaty may not 

 have been impaired, the " liberties " were a concession dependent on 

 the treatv. and as the treatv was abrogated by the war, so also were 

 the " liberties." 



CONVENTION OF 1818. 



At the third conference held between the American and British 

 plenipotentiaries — Messrs. Gallatin and Rush on the part of the 

 United States, and Messrs. Robinson and Gouldburn on the part of 

 Great Britain — the former presented a proposition in regard to the 

 fisheries in almost the identical language of the 1st article of the 

 convention, afterwards adopted, with the understanding that the 

 liberty of fishing therein described should be considered as a perma- 

 nent right, and not to be abrogated by the mere fact of a war between 

 the two parties. 



At the fifth conference a counter project was submitted by the 

 British plenipotentiaries, not materially differing from the above, 

 except that the renunciatory clause was omitted, and the following 

 paragraph added: 



"And in order the more effectually to guard against smuggling, it 

 shall not be lawful for vessels of the United Stales engaged in the 

 said fishery to have on board any goods, wares or merchandise what- 

 ever, except such as may be necessary for (he prosecution of the 

 fishery, a support of the fisherman while engaged therein, or in the 

 prosecution of their voyages t<> and from the said fishing grounds. 

 And any vessel of the United States which shall contravene this regu- 

 lation may be seized, condemned) and confiscated, together with her 

 cargo." 



In regard to thi^ paragraph, and to another referring to fishing at 

 th<- mouths of river , Me r . Gallatin and Rush presented the follow- 

 ing remarfc : 



■• Wnatever extent of fishing ground may be secured to American 

 fishermen, the American plenipotentiaries are not prepared to accept, 

 it on a tenure, or on conditions different from those <>n which the 

 whole has been heretofore held. Their instructions did nol anticipate 

 that any new terms or restrictions should he annexed, as none were 

 suggested in the proposal made by Mr. Bagol to the American gov- 

 ernment. The clauses forbidding the spreading of nets, and malting 

 vessels Liable to confiscal ion, in ca se any arl icles nol wanted for carry 

 ing on the fishery Bhould be found on board, are of that description, 



and WOuld expo-e the fishermen to endless \exalions." 



