QUESTION ONE. 13 



made to do so. The same arguments (App., p. 102) were repeated 

 the next day, and again no suggestion was made of any claim as of 

 right. It is impossible to suppose that Mr. Adams would not have 

 put forward a claim on behalf of the United States as joint owners 

 on these occasions if he had regarded any such claim as sustainable. 



From an entry in Mr. Adams' journal (28th November) (App., p. 

 103) it appears that he drafted an article by which he distinguished 

 between the " right " to take fish (both on the high seas and on the 

 shores) and the " liberty " to dry and cure fish on the land. But on 

 the following day, he presented to the British negotiators a draft in 

 which he distinguished between the " right " to take fish on the high 

 seas and the " liberty " to take fish on the coasts, and to dry and cure 



fish on the land. 



17 The British Commissioners called attention to the distinc- 



tion thus suggested by Mr. Adams, and proposed that the word 

 " liberty " should be applied to the privileges both on the water and 

 on the land. Mr. Adams thereupon rose up and made a vehement 

 protest, as is recorded in his diary, against the suggestion that the 

 United States enjoyed the fishing on the banks of Newfoundland by 

 any other title than that of right, and the word " right " was retained 

 in the case of the high-seas fishery. The application of the word 

 " liberty " to the coast fisheries was left as Mr. Adams proposed. His 

 draft clause, without amendment, became a part of the treaty. 



The incident is of importance, since it shows that the difference be- 

 tween the two phrases was intentional. It shows further, that the 

 American negotiators recognized that fishing on the high seas was 

 in a different position from that in the coast waters, and that they 

 did not claim the coast fishery as of right. It is absolutely incon- 

 sistent with the suggestion that the American negotiators regarded 

 the United States as co-owners of the coast fisheries. 



ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF PARTITION. 



The papers printed in the appendix show that the idea, that the 

 treaty of 1783 was in the nature of a partition of joint property be- 

 tween two co-owners, was first conceived by John Quincy Adams 

 (App., p. 138) at a meeting of the American Commissioners at Ghent 

 on the 1st day of November, 1814, and that it had not occurred to his 

 colleagues as a possible line of argument before that date. 



The Commissioners, at their meeting on that day, were unable to 

 agree on a form of draft in respect of the navigation of the Mississippi 

 arid the fisheries. One party was in favour of sacrificing the fisheries 

 if the British representatives could be induced by that surrender to 

 give up their claim to the navigation of the Mississippi. The other 

 party desired the retention of the fisheries at all costs. Mr. Gallatin 

 proposed a draft providing for the renewal of both rights, but his 



