DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 177 



contend for the liberty to take fish of every kind on the said coast 

 from Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, though not to the exclusion 

 of the French who have also the same right there. The United States 

 therefore only insist that the right thus enjoyed by France, that 

 of taking fish on the portion of the coast above mentioned, is not 

 exclusive. 



Your Excellency has appealed in support of the exclusive right 

 claimed by France to treaties and conventions between her and the 

 United States which are no longer in force, and seems to argue as 

 if the engagement contracted by one of those was nevertheless still 

 obligatory on America. It is at the same time asserted that this 

 exclusive right, being derived from prior treaties, existed before 

 those made between the two countries. This appears to me the true 

 and only question which can possibly be a subject of discussion. 

 But how it can be maintained that the United States are still bound 

 either by the 10th article of the treaty of 1778, or by the 

 104 27th article of the convention of 1800; that a treaty which is 

 no longer in force is still in part binding on one of the parties, 

 is not easily understood. 



It was agreed by the 10th article of the treaty of 1778, " that the 

 United States, their citizens, and inhabitants should never disturb 

 the subjects of the Most Christian King, in the enjoyment and exer- 

 cise of the right of fishing on the banks of Newfoundland, nor in the 

 indefinite and exclusive right which belonged to them on that part 

 of the coast of that island which is designated by the treaty of 

 Utrecht, nor in the rights relative to all and each of the isles belong- 

 ing to H.M.C. Majesty ; the whole conformable to the true sense of the 

 treaties of Utrecht and Paris." 



It must in the first place be observed that the part of the coast of 

 Newfoundland which was designated by the treaty of Utrecht, was 

 on the eastern and not on the western side of that island, that it 

 extended from Cape Bonavista to the Quirpon Islands, and that it 

 did not embrace any portion whatever of the western coast from the 

 Quirpon Islands to Cape Kay which is now in question. The article 

 having no reference to any right of fishing which might thereafter 

 be acquired on any other part of Newfoundland by France, either 

 by exchange or otherwise, the obligation then contracted by the 

 United States does not apply to the western coast. 



Supposing however, for the sake of argument, that the condition 

 might by implication be considered as having after the treaty of 

 Paris of 1783 become applicable to the coast in question, still the 

 engagement could have had no longer duration than the treaty of 

 1778, of which it made part. The United States and France had 

 not it in their power by that treatj r to alter the true sense and mean- 

 ing of that of Utrecht contracted between France and Great Britain. 

 All they could do was to agree that the United States should be bound 

 to give it the construction desired by France. Whether considered 

 as making an alteration in her favour, or what from the whole tenor 

 of the article is very doubtful, as declaratory of what, in the opinion 

 of both parties, was the true intention of antecedent treaties, the 

 obligation on the United States to abide by that engagement, or by 

 that opinion, ceased to be binding on them the moment that the treaty 

 of 1778 was abrogated. 



92909 c S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4 22 



