ABGUMENT OF EMHU BOOT. 2011 



granted to the United States. Other nations might exercise privi- 

 leges at the discretion of Great Britain by acquiescence, subject always 

 to be withdrawn or modified. Other nations might exercise privi- 

 leges in the territory of Great Britain accorded by statute, always 

 in the discretion of Great Britain to alter, amend, or repeal, but that 

 an independent State shall occupy and use, at its discretion, any 

 portion of the territory of Great Britain without compensation or 

 corresponding indulgence cannot rest on any other foundation than 

 conventional stipulation. 



THE PRESIDENT : But then, must it not be expressed in the conven- 

 tional stipulation that this right is to be exercised at the discretion 

 of the party entitled? 



SENATOR ROOT: The conventional stipulation which he is describ- 

 ing contained no such stipulation. He is ascribing that quality to 

 the grant of 1783, which contained no such express stipulation. 



On the following page (276) Lord Bathurst argues that this grant 

 was temporary and experimental, and depending on the use that 

 might be made of it, and so on, and on the condition of the island 

 and the place where it was to be exercised, and on the general con- 

 venience and inconvenience, from a naval, military, or commercial 

 point of view, resulting from the access of an independent nation 

 to such island and places; further characterization of the same de- 

 scription of the grant of 1783. And, as my learned friend the 

 Attorney-General has argued so cogently here, the grant of 1818 

 was a continuance or renewal of a portion of the same grant as that 

 of 1783. 



Now I will come to another consideration, which is of primary 

 importance in the construction of this grant, and that is, the quality 

 imported into it by the use of the word "forever" the quality of 

 permanency. If you will remember, the United States insisted that 

 this quality existed in the grant of 1783, and Lord Bathurst, in the 

 letters which I have read, insisted that it did not exist in the grant, 

 but the right was liable to be terminated by war. 



You will remember the vehement assertion of John Adams in 

 1.782 regarding the rights of the United States, and his unwillingness 

 to enter into any treaty except one which secured these fishery rights. 



The New England States in 1783 and in 1818 were poor, their soil 

 was sterile, the great grain fields of the west had not been opened, the 

 manufacturing which has grown to such great extent was in its in- 

 fancy, and the fisheries were a matter of primary vital importance 

 to the people of the United States, and especially to the people of 

 New England. 



Xow. when the war of 1812 was ended, a war waged over the ques- 

 tion of impressments, and not affecting the fisheries or involving as 

 x matter of controversy the fisheries in any degree when that war 



