280 



into consideration, and have the honor to report, that we are of opinion 

 that the treaty of 1783 was annulled by the war of 1812; and we are 

 also of opinion that the rights of fishery ot the citizens of the United 

 States must now be considered as defined and regulated by the conven- 

 tion of 1818; and with respect to the general question, ^ if so, what 

 right f we can only refer to the terms of the convention, as explained 

 and, elucidated by the observations which will occur in answering the 

 other specific queries." 



And so, as the words stand, the treaty of 1783 having been "an- 

 nulled" by the event spoken of, our independence as a nation was re- 

 voked also. This is something the American people had not thought 

 of. These gentlemen mean, possibly, that our rights of fishing only 

 were abrogated by the rupture in 1812, and we may consider their 

 opinion on this ground. 



Fortunately, the late President John Quincy Adams has pronounced 

 a judgment upon this very point. On the convention of 1818 he re- 

 marked: "The United States have renounced forever that part of the 

 fishing liberties which they had enjoyed, or claimed, in certain parts of 

 the exclusive jurisdiction of British provinces, and within three marine 

 miles of the shores. The first article of this convention afibrds a signal 

 testimonial of the correctness of the principle assumed by the Ameri- 

 can plenipotentiaries at Ghent; for as by accepting the express renun- 

 ciation by the United States of a small portion of the privilege in ques- 

 tion, and by confirming and enlarging all the remainder of the privilege 

 forever, the British government have implicitly acknowledged that the 

 liberties of the third article of the treaty of 1783 have not been abro- 

 gated by the war." 



It is true, as a general rule, that the obligations of treaties are dis- 

 solved by hostilities. But, says Chancellor Kent, '•'■where treaties con- 

 template a jpcrmaiwiit arrangement of national rights, or which, by their 

 terms, are meant to provide for the event ot" an intervening war, it 

 would be against every principle of just interpretation to hold them 

 extinguished by the event of war. Theij revive at peace, unless waived, 

 or new and repugnant stipulations be made.''' The treaty of 1783 is pre- 

 cisely within this rule. It "contemplated a permanent arrangement 

 of national rights." It "revived at the peace;" for our commissioners 

 at Ghent, instead of "waiving" the former stipulations, or admitting 

 "new and repugnant" ones, declined any discussions whatever on the 

 subject. In their communication to the Secretary of State, of Decem- 

 ber 25, 181-4, they say: 



"Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer our right to the fisheries 

 to be brought in discussion, and had not authorized us to make any dis- 

 tinction in tlie several provisions of the third article of the treaty of 

 1783, or between that article and any other of the same treaty. 



"We had no equivalent to offer for a new recognition of our right to 

 any part of the fisheries, and we had no power to grant any equivalent 

 which might be asked for it by the British government. We contended 

 that the whole treaty of 1783 must be considered as one entire perma- 

 nent compact, not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a 

 subsequent war between the parties to it; as an instrument recognising 

 tlie rights and liberties enjo^-ed by the people of the United States as 



