THE I'ISIIEHIKS. 23'} 



It may 1)0 ([uite ailmisslljlc for tlio British (lov- 

 crnniL'iit, as they arc accustomed to do, to throw 

 ulf all their resj)oiislb\lities on the "Law OtUccrs 

 of the Crown," when the question is one of mere 

 domestic I'dation ; but it is dangerous for that 

 Government to do so in matters alfectiug other Gov- 

 ermnents. 



Wc have already had occasion to comment on the 

 very extraordinary circumstances attending the fail- 

 lire of the Law OAleers of the Crown to report upon 

 the case of the ^'l/(^/'(//y^cr, and its disastrous iuilueucc 

 on the conduct of the Government. 



As to the opinion of the " Law OHlcers of the 

 Crown " in construction of the fishery clauses of the 

 treaty of 181S, it is diihcult to say which pro-luccd 

 the more amusement or amazement in the United 

 States, the fact that the "Law Ofllcers" should inter- 

 polate a phrase into the treaty in order to give to 

 their o])inion its sole foundation to stand upon, or 

 that the British Government should placidly accept 

 such fallacious and baseless reasoning without chal- 

 lenge, and proceed in obedience to it to enter into hos- 

 tile maritime operations, and hurry on to the vei'ge 

 of war a!]:ainst the United States. 



After much agitation and discussion, however, the 

 question was settled for the time being by articles 

 of the Treaty of Septendjer 0, 1854, commonly called 

 the lleciprocity Treaty, as follows : 



"Article I. It is agreed by tlic liigli contracting Parties tliat, 

 in addition to tlic liberty secured to the United States lislierni. n 

 by tlic above-mentioned Convention of October 20,1818, of 



/ 



