AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1727 



Mr. Gallatiu wrote to the Secretary of State ou the 25th of December 

 the day following the signature of tbe treaty, as follows (extract from 

 letter of Mr. Gallatin to Secretary of State, 25th December, 1814, n 



58): 



On the subject of tbe fisheries within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, we have certainly 

 done all that could be done. If, according to the construction of tbe Treaty of 1783, which 

 we assumed, the right was not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we most ex- 

 plicitly refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly. In that case it is only an unset- 

 tled subject of differences between the two countries. If the right must be considered as 

 abrogated by tbe war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none to give but 

 the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, and we offered it. On this lant 

 supposition, this right is also lost to them ; and in a general point of view, we have certainly 

 lost nothing. 



Mr. Russell, who gave rise to all this correspondence, wrote from 

 Paris on the llth of February, 1815, in the following terms to tbe Sec- 

 retary of State (extract from letter to Mr. Russell of the Secretary of 

 State, llth February, 1815, p. 66) : 



I could not believe that the independence of the United States was derived from the 

 Treaty of 1783; that the recognition of that independence by Great Britain gave to this 

 treaty any peculiar character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would necessarily 

 render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions, and make it one entire and indi- 

 visible whole, equally imperishable in all its parts, by any chance which might occur in the 

 relations between the contracting parties. 



The independence of the United States rests upon those fundamental principles set forth 

 and acted on by the American Congress, in the Declaration of July, 1776, and not on any 

 British grant in the Treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly. 



The Treaty of 1783 was merely a treaty of peace, and therefore subject to the same rules 

 of construction as other compacts of this nature. The recognition of the independence of 

 the United States could not well have given it a peculiar character, and excepted it from the 

 operation of these rules. Such a recognition, expressed or implied, is always indispensable 

 on the part of every nation with whom we form a treaty whatsoever. 



(Idem, p. 69:) 



It i< from this view of the subject that I have been constrained to believe that there was 

 nothing in the Treaty of 1783 which could not essentially distinguish it from ordinary trea- 

 ties, or rescue it on account of any peculiarity of character from the jura belli, or from the 

 operation of those events on which the continuance or termination of such treaties depends. 



I know not, indeed, any treaty nor any article of a treaty, whatever may have been the 

 subject to which it related, of the terms in which it was expressed, that has survived a war 

 between the parties, without being specially renewed, by reference or recital in the succeed- 

 ing treaty of peace. I cannot, indeed, conceive the possiblity of such a treaty, or of such 

 an article ; for, however clear and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might be, these 

 stipulations themselves would follow the fate of ordinary unexecuted engagements, and re- 

 quire, after a war, the declared assent of the parties for their revival. 



(Idem, p. 75 :) 



I have in this view of the subject been led to conclude that the treaty of 1783, in relation 

 to the fishing liberty, is abrogated by the war, and that this liberty is totally destitute of 

 support from prescription, and, consequently, that we are left without any title to it whatso- 

 ever. 



(Idem, p. 77 



was unnecessary or contrary to our instructions, but 1 objected specially tc 

 cause, by conceding in it to Great Britain tbe free navigation of the Mississippi, we not ( 

 directly violated our instructions, but we ofiered, in my estimation, a price much above it 

 value and which could not justly be given. 



(Idem, p. 87 :) 



I have always been willing to make any sacrif ce for the fishing privilege which its nature 

 or comparative importance could justify, but I conscientiously believe that t 

 tion of the Mississippi and the access to it, which we expressly offered, were pregni 

 too much mischief to be offered directly, rnder our construction of the treaty, or, in 

 -as they were in fact offered, as a new eqi ivalent for the liberty of taking a 

 within British jurisdiction. 



