130 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



States; that it should not be a several, but, as between Great Britain 

 and the United States, a common fishery. It was necessary, for the 

 enjoyment of this fishery, to exercise it in conformity to the habits 

 of the species of game of which it consisted. The places frequented 

 by the fish were those to which the fishermen were obliged to resort, 

 and these occasionally brought them to the borders of the British 

 territorial jurisdiction. It was also necessary, for the prosecution 

 of a part of this fishery, that the fish, when caught, should be im- 

 mediately cured and dried, which could only be done on the rocks 

 or shores adjoining the places where they were caught ; the access to 

 these rocks and shores, for those purposes, was secured to the people 

 of the United States, as incidental and necessary to the enjoyment 

 of the fishery; it was little more than an access to naked rocks and 

 desolate sands; but it was as permanently secured as the right to the 

 fishery itself. No limitation was assigned of time. Provision was 

 made for the proprietary rights which might at a distant and future 

 period- arise by the settlement of places then unhabited ; but no other 

 limitation was expressed or indicated by the terms of the treaty, and 

 no other can, either from the letter or spirit of the article, be inferred. 



Far. then, from claiming the general rights and privileges belong- 

 ing to British subjects within the British dominions, as resulting from 

 the treaty of peace of 1783, while, at the same time, asserting their 

 exemption from the duties of a British allegiance, the article in ques- 

 tion is itself a proof that the people of the United States have re- 

 nounced all such claims. Could they have pretended generally to the 

 privileges of British subjects, such an article as that relating to the 

 fisheries would have been absurd. There was in the treaty of 1783 no 

 express renunciation of their rights to the protection of a British 

 Sovereign. This renunciation they had made by their declaration 

 of independence on the 4th July, 1776; and it was implied in their 

 acceptance of the counter-renunciation of sovereignty in the treaty of 

 1783. It was precisely because they might have lost their portion of 

 this joint national property, to the acquisition of which they had con- 

 tributed more than their share, unless a formal article of the 

 76 treaty should secure it to them, that the article was introduced. 

 By the British municipal laws, which were the laws of both 

 nations, the property of a fishery is not necessarily in the proprietor 

 of the soil where it is situated. The soil may belong to one individual, 

 and the fishery to another. The right to the soil may be exclusive, 

 while the fishery may be free, or held in common. And thus, while in 

 the partition of the national possessions in North America, stipulated 

 by the treaty of 1783, the jurisdiction over the shores washed by the 

 waters where this fishery was placed was reserved to Great Britain, 

 the fisheries themselves, and the accommodations essential to their 

 prosecution, were, by mutual compact, agreed to be continued in 

 common. 



In submitting these reflections to the consideration of His Majesty's 

 Government, the undersigned is duly sensible to the amicable and 

 conciliatory sentiments and dispositions towards the United States 

 manifested at the conclusion of Lord Bathurst's note, which will be 

 met by reciprocal and corresponding sentiments and dispositions on 

 the part of the American Government. It will be highly satisfactory 

 to them to be assured that the conduciveness of the object to the 

 national and individual prosperity of the inhabitants of the United 



