DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 595 



common with Great Britain while united with her, we still continue so, unless 

 by our own act we have relinquished our title. Had we parted with mutual con- 

 sent, we should doubletss have made partition of our common right by treaty. 

 But the oppressions of Great Britain forced us to a separation (which must be 

 admitted, or we have no right to be independent) ; and it cannot certainly be 

 contended that those oppressions abridged our rights or gave new ones to 

 Britain. Our rights, then, are not invalidated by this separation, more par- 

 ticularly as we have kept up our claim from the commencement of the war, 

 and assigned the attempt of Great Britain to exclude us from the fisheries, as 

 one of the causes of our recurring to arms. 



As I had occasion to show in my note to the British Minister in the 

 case of the Everett Steele, of which a copy is hereto annexed, this 

 " tenancy in common," held by citizens of the United States in the 

 fisheries, they were to "continue to enjoy" under the preliminary 

 articles of 1782, as well as under the treaty of peace of 1783; and 

 this right, as a right of entrance in those waters, was reserved to 

 them, though with certain limitations in its use, by the treaty of 

 1818. I might here content myself with noticing that the treaty of 

 1818, herein reciting a principle of the law of nations as well as 

 ratifying a right previously possessed by fishermen of the United 

 States, expressly recognizes the right of these fishermen to enter the 

 " bays or harbors " of Her Majesty's Canadian dominions " for the 

 purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein." The extent 

 of other recognitions of rights in the same clause need not here be 

 discussed. At present it is sufficient to say that the placing an 

 armed cruiser at the mouth of a harbor in which United States fish- 

 ing vessels are acustomed and are entitled to seek shelter on their 

 voyages, such cruiser being authorised to arrest and board our fishing 

 vessels seeking such shelter, is an infraction not merely of the law of 

 nations, but of a solemn treaty stipulation. That, so far as concerns 

 the fishermen so affected, its consequences are far-reaching and de- 

 structive, it is not necessary here to argue. Fishing vessels only 

 carry provisions enough for each particular voyage. If they are 

 detained several days on their way to the fishing banks the venture 

 is broken up. The arrest and detention of one or two operates upon 

 all. They cannot as a class, with their limited capital and resources, 

 afford to run risks so ruinous. Hence, rather than subject themselves 

 to even the chances of suffering the wrongs inflicted by Captain 

 Quigley, "of the Canadian cruiser Terror," on some of their asso- 

 ciates, they might prefer to abandon their just claim to the shelter 

 consecrated to them alike by humanity, ancient title, the law of 

 nations, and by treaty, and face the gravest peril and the wildest seas 

 in order to reach their fishing grounds. You will therefore represent 

 to Her Majesty's Government that the placing Captain Quigley in 

 the harbour of Shelburne to inflict wrongs and humiliation on United 

 States fishermen there seeking shelter is, in connection with other 

 methods of annoyance and injury, expelling United States' fishermen 

 from waters, access to which, of great importance in the pursuit of 

 their trade, is pledged to them by Great Britain, not merely as an 

 ancient right, but as part of a system of international settlement. 



It is impossible to consider such a state of things without grave 

 anxiety. You can scarcely represent this too strongly to Her Maj- 

 esty's Government. 



It must be remembered, in considering this system, so imperilled, 

 that the preliminaries to the article of 1782, afterwards adopted as 



