2010 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



First let me say a word about the significance of the letter. 



As we all know, Great Britain claimed, after the end of the war 

 of 1812, that the right of the United States within her maritime 

 jurisdiction had been destroyed by the war. We all know that Mr. 

 Adams controverted this very vehemently, and this letter is the state- 

 ment of the British ground upon which it maintained that position 

 and refused to permit the United States to exercise the liberty which 

 it had held under the treaty of 1783. 



This is the formal authentic statement of the position of Great 

 Britain under which she justified herself was ready to justify her- 

 self to the world for the denial of the rights which she had solemnly 

 granted by the treaty of 1783 to the United States. It was the formal 

 statement of the position of Great Britain in that controversy. 



Mr. Adams, you will remember, had claimed that, because of this 



original right of the United States under the partition of Empire 



theory, the grant of the liberty or the right of 1783 was not ended by 



the war, but that it was an original right which continued, war or no 



war. That was Mr. Adams's position. 



1217 Lord Bathurst is here controverting that position and 



stating the contrary position on which Great Britain stood, 

 and he says in the first paragraph on p. 274 : 



" The minister of the United States appears, by his letter, to be 

 well aware that Great Britain has always considered the liberty 

 formerly enjoyed by the United States of fishing within British 

 limits, and using British territory, as derived from the third article 

 of the treaty of 1783, and from that alone; and that the claim of 

 an independent state to occupy and use at its discretion any portion 

 of the territory of another, without compensation or corresponding 

 indulgence, cannot rest on any other foundation than conventional 

 stipulation." 



That is the basis of Great Britain's position in ending the " liber- 

 ties " granted in 1783. 

 He proceeds : 



" It is unnecessary to inquire into the motives which might have 

 originally influenced Great Britain in conceding such liberties to the 

 United States, or whether other articles of the treaty wherein these 

 liberties are specified did, or did not, in fact afford an equivalent for 

 them, because all the stipulations profess to be founded on reciprocal 

 advantages and mutual convenience. If the United States derived 

 from that treaty privileges from which other independent nations, 

 not admitted by treaty were excluded, the duration of the privilege- 

 must depend on the duration of the instrument by which they were 

 granted; and if the war abrogated the treaty, it determined the 

 privileges." 



You will perceive how material and necessary to the argument 

 was this definition of the nature of the right that Great Britain had 



