230 'f'"' TRKATY OF WASHINGTON. 



States, to the clVect tliat war does not, as an aljsolute, 

 universal rule, abrogate existing treaties, regardless 

 of tlieir tenor and ])articular contents; and it is the 

 only doctrine comi^atible witli reason, justice, common* 

 sense, and tlie diplomatic history of Europe. 



But the British Government, in the celebrated dis- 

 l>atch to ^Ir. Adams of October 30, IS 15, signed by 

 Lord 15athurst, and understood to be the composition 

 of ^Ir. Canning, declared the position of Great Britain 

 to be : " She knows no exception to the rule that all 

 treaties are p\it an end to by a subsequent war be- 

 tween the same parties." This proposition, in its nb- 

 soluteness of ex})ression, if it is intended as an .asser- 

 tion of any established practice of nations, jr any rec- 

 ognized doctrine of the law of nations, is unfounded 

 and unauthorized. Many treaties are made precisely 

 for the case of war, and only become cflicacious in 

 virtue of the existence of wai*. The assej'tion of Lord 

 I>athurst is altogether too broad, as Dr. Bluntschli 

 demonstrates. 



Xeverthcless,acting on such extreme premises, Great 

 Britain pretended that our riglits of fisliery had been 

 abrogated by the wai", and were not revived l)y peace; 

 and that this effect was the true interpretation of the 

 omission to mention the sul)ject in the Treaty of 

 Ghent. 



Tiie Conunissloners of the United States who ne- 

 gotiated the Treaty of Glient Avei'e men of unques- 

 tionable patriotism and of the highest character and 

 intelligence: it would be out of jdace hero to reopen 

 the dispute as to certain special causes of the failure 



