20 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



vessels fishing off the coast of British North American Provinces, 

 which had been ordered away by one of His Majesty's ships of war, 

 and warned by a notice endorsed on their papers not to return. This 

 he said was a violation of a clear right which the United States pos- 

 sessed under the Treaty of 1783, and which the American Govern- 

 ment conceived to be still in force, owing to the peculiar character of 

 that Treaty. 



In my answer I reminded him of the firm and decided language 

 which had been held by Great Britain throughout the negotiations at 

 Ghent with respect to the supposed continuance of the right of the 

 United States to catch and dry fish within His Majesty's jurisdiction 

 in North America ; that this privilege had been distinctly and repeat- 

 edly stated to the American Commissioners to have been purely -of a 

 conventional nature, to have therefore ceased on the war; and that as 

 it had not been renewed by the late Treaty of Peace, it could not be 

 considered at present in existence. I remarked that the doctrine 

 which had been advanced by the American Commissioners was 

 25 judged equally novel and extraordinary, and that no satisfac- 

 tory reasons had ever been adduced in support of it. 



Mr. Monroe did not press the subject further, and led me to expect 

 that he would make a written communication respecting it, ... 



I received this morning the note respecting the interruption to the 

 fishery, a copy of which is enclosed. It does not, it will be perceived 

 embrace the wide subject of the alleged right, as I had reason to 

 believe would have been the case from what had passed, but is con- 

 fined to much narrower ground. It states the instance of one vessel 

 fishing in longitude 65 20', latitude 42 41', and said to have been 

 distant about 45 miles from Cape Sable, which was ordered away by 

 His Majesty's brig Jaseur, as well as the other American vessels in 

 sight, and warned by an endorsement on her papers not to come 

 within sixty miles of the coast. Mr. Monroe states this measure to 

 be altogether incompatible with the rights of the United States, and 

 therefore presumes it has not been authorized by His Majesty ? s Gov- 

 ernment. Both the distances mentioned it will be observed, are 

 without His Majesty's maritime jurisdiction. 



The particular action of the " Jaseur " of which complaint was 

 made could not be justified. Great Britain did not claim to have 

 exclusive rights on the high seas. 



The matter was tho.n taken up by Mr. Adams in London, and in 

 his letter of the 25th September, 1815, to Lord Bathurst (British 

 Case, App., p. 66) he first set out the argument on which he relied to 

 establish the claim of the United States as of right, and in the con- 

 cluding paragraph advanced some considerations of another kind to 

 show the expediency of making a concession. 



Lord Bathurst, in reply (British Case, App., p. 69). rejected the 

 claim in most absolute terms so far as it w r as made as of right, but 

 stated, in a passage which has been cited in the United States Case 

 (p. 33), that Great Britain was willing to make some concession in 

 view of the considerations of hardship and expediency which had 

 been urged by Mr. Adams. 



