AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1797 



ftilentio. If the matter was being argued before a tribunal which had 

 then and there to decide on it, and the court were composed of lawyer*, 

 I would not ask to be heard, afnd would not insult the court by argu- 

 ment against so untenable a proposition. The observations I am now 

 making are for the purpose of refuting opinions, not in the minds of your 

 excellency or your honors, but in the minds of the public who have 

 not the same intelligence or means of information as your honors. The 

 Reciprocity act recites : 



Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, being specially desirous, with the Government 

 of the United States, to avoid further misunderstanding between their respective subjects 

 and citizens, in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North 

 America, secured to each by Article 1 of a convention between the United States aud Great 

 Britain, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, and being also desirous to 

 regulate the commerce and navigation between their respective territories and people, and 

 more especially between Her Majesty's possessions in North America and the Unites State*, 

 in such manner as to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory, have respect- 

 ively, &c. 



Your honors will see that the act commences by stating that both 

 governments are desirous of avoiding further misunderstandings be- 

 tween their respective subjects and citizens, with respect to the extent 

 of the right of fishing given by that article ; and after reciting the Con- 

 vention of 1818 and the particular article in question, goes on to say 

 that it was important that the right under the convention should be 

 settled. So far from showing any intention to repeal the Convention of 

 1818, the exact opposite was the fact. That is the preamble. Here is 

 the enacting part: 



It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty, Ac. 



Does it say in this treaty that it swept away the Treaty of 1818 and 

 enacted a new treaty in lieu thereof ? So far from that being the case, 

 ,it says: 



* * * In addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the above- 

 mentioned Convention of October 20, Iel8, of taking, curing, aud drying fish on certain 

 coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the I'uited 

 States shall have, &c. 



And yet it is seriously urged by one of the learned counsel on behalf 

 of the United States that the Treaty of 1854 abrogated the Convention 

 of 1818. I think I have satisfactorily refuted Mr. Trescot's argument 

 on this point, although that argument was not material to any question 

 arising under the Washington Treaty. I now turn your attention to 

 Twiss on " The Law of Nations." I am reading from the edition of 

 1859. At page 376 Sir Travers Twiss says : 



Treaties properly so called, the engagements of which imply a state of amity b. 

 contracting parties, cease to operate if war supervenes, unless there are exprrm tipal 

 to the contrary. It is usual, on the signature of a treaty of peace, for nations to renew 

 pressly their previous treaties if they intend that any of them should become 

 . operative. Great Britain, in practice, admits of no exception to the rule that all I 

 such, are put an end to by a subsequent war between the contracting part MM. 

 cordingly the practice of the European powers, before the French revolution of 1 

 conclusion of every war which supervened upon the Treaty of Utrecht, to renew 

 that treaty under which the distribution of territory among the principal t 

 had been settled with a view of securing an European equilibrium. 



This has a double bearing. Part of the argument which has be>i 

 used by Mr. Trescot is that we are remitted to the rights ac<] 



+ Vrv T^^ *ff 1 TOO rr^. nr-s^tiiAtitli* li^i'< AV***!'. fOT tllO IMirp<)S** O[ 



m Uj UL1 -L 1 Coi^Uu Jo tll<*l/ "*J c**v 



Treaty of 1783. He conveniently passes over, for the 

 his argument, the fact that a war occurred between the i 

 aud Great Britain in 1812, which was followed by a treaty o 

 signed in December 24, 18U, the Treaty of Ghent. There i 

 says Mr. Trescot, that in consequence of the repeal of the 



