2012 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ended without settling the question of impressments, without any 

 particular credit to either side, the people of New England awoke 

 to the startling and shocking realization of the fact that their fish- 

 eries, their great industry, were gone, provided Great Britain could 

 maintain that position, unanticipated, unexpected, and a cause for 



chagrin. 

 1218 That is the explanation of the vehemence of John Quincy 



Adams in conducting the controversy and the meaning of his 

 deep feeling and indignation. The proposition of Great Britain 

 that the grant of this right was not permanent was a blow at the vital 

 interest of the New England seaboard, and an absolute pre-reqmsite 

 and sine qua non of the settlement of that controversy on the part of 

 the United States was that, while she was forced to give up while, 

 under this argument of Lord Bathurst, she was out-faced, borne 

 down and compelled to give up the greater part of the rights she had 

 held under the treaty of 1783, the little remnant that she saved was 

 to be made permanent beyond any possibility of doubt. That is a 

 dominant feature in the article of the treaty of 1818, and it is one to 

 which no Court can fail to give effect. It must receive effect, and it 

 must receive the effect that all the conditions and circumstances show 

 it was intended to have. The American instructions to the negotia- 

 tors, which appear on p. 304 of the United States Appendix, are : 



" The President authorizes you to agree to an article whereby the 

 United States will desist from the liberty of fishing, and curing and 

 drying fish, within the British jurisdiction generally, upon condition 

 that it shall be secured as a permanent right; not liable to be im- 

 paired by any future war." 



THE PRESIDENT: What is the connection between the perpetuity 

 the permanent character of the right and its exemption from regu- 

 lation by the State in whose territory it is to be exercised ? 



SENATOR ROOT: The connection is this. I assume I may now ]>as> 

 from demonstrating the importance and pressing nature of the de- 

 mand for permanency and for the inclusion of the word " forever,*' 

 which, in numerous documents appearing here, is shown to have been 

 a consideration in the negotiation. For example, in the letter from 

 Mr. Robinson to Lord Castlereagh of the 10th October, 1818, the Brit- 

 ish negotiator reported, British Case Appendix, p. 92, that perma- 

 nency w r as an indispensable condition on the American part ; in the 

 letter of Messrs. Gallatin and Rush to Mr. Adams of the 20th Octo- 

 ber, 1818, United States Case Appendix, p. 307, Mr. Gallatin says the 

 insertion of the words "for ever" was strenuously resisted; in Mr. 

 Gallatin's letter of the 6th November, 1818, British Case Appendix, 

 p. 97, he says that they could have secured more territory at the ex- 

 pense of giving up the word " forever," and the report of Me r-. 

 Robinson and Goulburn of the 17th September, 1818, British Case 



