94 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



acts had occurred, without implicating Great Britain in the transac- 

 tion ; and that 



This course of proceeding was thought to be most consistent with 

 delicacy towards both those Governments, by avoiding towards 

 France the appearance of recurring upon a question between her and 

 us to the interposition of a third power, and by abstaining towards 

 Great Britain from calling for her interference with France in a 

 difference which might be adjusted without needing the aid of her 

 influence. 



The complaint to France, however, had 



hitherto proved ineffectual, excepting to demonstrate that the preten- 

 sions of France to an exclusive right of fishing at the place referred 

 to are without solid foundation, and that her intention of resorting 

 to force to maintain this inadmissible pretension, though not yet 

 unequivocally asserted, has been so far ascertained as to remove all 

 scruple of delicacy with regard to the propriety of stating the case 

 to the British Government, and calling upon them to maintain at 

 once the faith of their treaty with us. 



Mr. Rush was therefore instructed to present the case to the British 

 Government on the basis indicated in the final paragraph of Mr. 

 Adams' letter, which is, in part, as follows: 



It is probable that there may be no such interruption to our fisher- 

 men during the present season ; and the occasion appears to be highly 

 favorable for an adjustment of it to our satisfaction. Perhaps a 

 mutual explanation and understanding between the British and 

 French Governments concerning it, at this time, may render any 

 resort to other measures unnecessary. But if, on discussion of the 

 subject between them, France should not explicitly desist from both 

 the pretensions to the exclusive fishery and to the exercise of force 

 within British waters to secure it, you will claim that which the 

 British Government cannot fail to perceive is due, the unmolested 

 execution of the treaty stipulation contained in the convention of 

 October 20, 1818; and if the British Government admits the claim of 

 France to exclusive fishery on the western coast of Newfoundland 

 from Cape Bay to the Quirpon Islands, they will necessarily see the 

 obligation of indemnifying the United States by an equivalent for 

 the loss of that portion of the fishery, expressly conceded to them by 

 the convention, which, in the supposed hypothesis, must have been 

 granted by Great Britain under an erroneous impression that it was 

 yet in her power to grant. 6 



Negotiations having been undertaken not long afterwards, between 

 the United States and Great Britain, for a convention for the sup- 

 pression of the slave trade and for the adjustment of matters of 

 difference between the two Governments, Mr. Rush proposed the sub- 

 ject of the conflict of interests, which had arisen between France and 



U. S. Counter-Case Appendix, p. 118. 

 6 U. S. Counter-Case Appendix, p. 120. 



