FRANCO- AMERICAN CONTROVERSY, 1822-1824. HI 



disturb her in the exercise of this right. They even declared at that 

 time that they would regard the enjoyment of this right by France 

 as perpetual and exclusive. As long as this pledge continues in force, 

 it should be respected. It should be the basis of the instructions 

 given by either Government to their fishermen and to the commanders 

 of their naval stations, and such an agreement can not be modified 

 without the consent of both Powers. 



I beg of you. Sir, to kindly convey to your Government the com- 

 munication which I have the honor to make to you in reply to the 

 note which you addressed to me. This communication will doubtless 

 induce it to give orders for the purpose of preventing any trouble 

 which might arise from any mistake in the enforcement of the 

 treaties. 



Accept, Sir, the assurances, etc. 



Mr. Gallatin to Viscount de Chateaubriand. 



PARIS 14th March 1823. 



SIR: I had the honor to receive Your Excellency's letter of the 

 28th of February in answer to mine of the 22d of January, on the 

 subject of the fisheries on the western coast of the island of New- 

 foundland. 



The right claimed by the United States on that part of the coast 

 does not embrace that of drying and curing fish on shore, which is 

 there enjoyed by France to the exclusion of the Americans : but they 

 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 abovementioned, is not 

 exclusive. 



Your Excellency has appealed, in support of the exclusive right 

 claimed by France, to treaties and conventions 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 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 is no longer in force is still in part binding on one of the parties, is 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 exercise 

 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- 



