112 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., 



ing to His Most Christian 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 Ray, 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 conditions 

 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 treaty 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 con- 

 sidered as making an alteration in her favor, 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. 



It is not presumed that Your Excellency means to contend that that 

 treaty is itself yet in force. Without referring to antecedent facts 

 or to the subsequent uniform conduct of both Governments, the 2d 

 article of the Convention of 1800, and the modification inserted in its 

 ratification, by which the parties expressly renounced all pretensions 

 which might be derived from former treaties, are sufficient to remove 

 every doubt on that question. The 27th article of that convention 

 affords an additional proof, if any was wanting, that the parties con- 

 sidered the 10th article of the treaty of 1778 as making no exception, 

 and as being no more binding than any other part of that treaty; 

 since it would have been unnecessary, had it been still in force, to 

 insert that provision in the convention. And, relating to the same 

 subject, that 27th article has at all events superceded the 10th article 

 of the treaty of 1778, even supposing, what it is impossible to estab- 

 lish, that this had survived all the other conditions of that treaty. 



Recurring then, to the stipulations of 1800, it will be seen that the 

 United States were no longer willing to renew that by which they 

 had engaged in 1778, to consider as exclusive the right of France to 

 fish on any part of the coast of Newfoundland. The provisions of the 

 27th article are in the following words. 



" Neither party will intermeddle (in the French copy, ne viendra 

 participer) in the fisheries of the other on its coasts, nor disturb the 

 other in the exercise of the rights which it now holds or may acquire 

 on the coast of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Laurence, or else- 

 where on the American coast northward of the United States. But 

 the whale and seal fisheries shall be free to both in every quarter of 

 the world." 



