FRANCO-AMERICAN CONTROVERSY, 1822-1824. 113 



Not only the word " exclusive," is not to be found in the part of 

 the article which relates to Newfoundland ; but it is evident from the 

 tenor of the whole, that it was not intended by either party to recog- 

 nize any such exclusive right in that quarter. There is an express dis- 

 tinction made between the coasts of each country, and those of New- 

 foundland and elsewhere. When speaking of the first, both parties 

 respectively engage not to intermeddle with, not to participate in the 

 fisheries of the other. Instead of this, they only agree not to disturb 

 each other in their rights on the coast of Newfoundland, clearly in- 

 timating that to participate was not to disturb; since, had it been 

 otherwise, the expressions " not to intermeddle," " not to participate," 

 would have been preserved and made applicable to the fisheries on 

 that coast as well as to those on the coasts of each country. It would 

 indeed be preposterous to suppose that the United States by agreeing 

 not to disturb France in the exercise of the rights which she might 

 acquire any where on the coast of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. 

 Laurence or elsewhere on the American coast northward of the 

 United States, engaged not to participate in such fisheries, and to 

 consider as exclusive the rights which might be acquired by France ; 

 since this would have been tantamount to a renunciation on their part 

 of nearly the whole of the fisheries they then enjoyed and to which 

 they had an indisputable right. But the article makes no distinction 

 whatever between the rights then held and those which might be 

 thereafter acquired by France. If these therefore could not be ex- 

 clusive, neither those then held were recognized as such by the article. 



I have alluded to those stipulations only as connected with those 

 of 1778, to which they had been substituted. They have, as well as 

 the convention in which they were inserted, and all the preceding 

 treaties between France and the United States, ceased to be in force. 

 Nothing remains of the obligation formerly contracted by both coun- 

 tries on the subject of the fisheries: and the question recurs, which 

 is stated in part of Your Excellency's letter, whether, independent 

 of any such former stipulations, and by virtue of any treaty ante- 

 cedent to the right of the United States to take fish on the western 

 coast of Newfoundland, France had there an exclusive right. That 

 it was not viewed as such by either the United States or Great 

 Britain, is sufficiently evident from the article in the convention of 

 1818, of which I had the honor to enclose a copy to Your Excellency. 

 And, after a most attentive perusal of the treaties alluded to, I have 

 been unable to discover on what ground the presumed exclusive right 

 was founded. It would be premature to enter into that discussion 

 at this time, and until the special treaty-stipulations and arguments 

 by which the claim is intended to be supported shall have been com- 

 municated. Whenever it may suit Your Excellency's convenience to 

 make that communication, the considerations which may be urged 

 by France will receive all the attention to which they are so justly 

 entitled, and be discussed in the most amicable temper. But the 

 United States cannot, in the meanwhile and until the question shall 

 have been settled, order or advise their citizens to abstain from what 

 they must till then consider as their just right, the liberty to partici- 

 pate in common with France and without disturbing them, in the 

 fisheries on the western coast of Newfoundland, which, particularly 

 in their connection with those of the coast of Labrador, are of primary 



