1798 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



of 1818 by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, tbe two nations are remitted 

 back to the right each possessed under the Treaty of Paris of 1783 j and 

 that the Treaty of Ghent has nothing to do with this matter. I answer 

 to that argument, that sucb is not the law of nations. By the law of 

 nations, when war was declared in 1812 by the United States against 

 Great Britain, every right she possessed under the Treaty of 1783 was 

 abrogated, and, except so far as it was agreed by the parties that the 

 status quo ante belluin should exist, it ceased to exist. The status, which 

 is commonly called by writers uti possidetis, the position in which the 

 treaty found them, alone existed after the Treaty of 1814 was concluded, 

 I have cited the express authority of Sir Travers Twiss upon the subject. 

 But we do not stop with British law. I will take American law on 

 the subject, and we will see where my learned friends find themselves 

 placed by American writers. I now cite from " Introduction to the 

 Study of International Law, designed as an aid in teaching, and in his- 

 torical studies, by Theodore D. Woolsey, president of Yale College." 

 At page 83, President Woolsey uses this language : 



At and after the Treaty of Ghent, which contained no provisions respecting the fisheries, 

 it was contended by American negotiators, but without good reason, that the article of peace 

 of 1783, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, and thus not annulled by the 

 war of 1812. By a convention of 1818 the privilege was again, and in perpetuity, opened 

 to citizens of the United States. They might now fish as well as cure and dry fish, on the 

 greater part of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the Magdalen Islands, so 

 long as the same should continue unsettled ; while the United States on their part renounced 

 forever any liberty "to take or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the 

 coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not in- 

 cluded within the above-mentioned limits. 



It is there positively declared by one of their own writers on inter- 

 national lawviu so many words; and he not only lays down the law 

 generally, but takes up the specific case with which we are now dealing, 

 that the American contention is entirely incorrect. He says : 



peace of ]/?;{, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, 

 by the war of Icl'J. 



I think that statement is pretty conclusive. Now, here is the general 

 law which President Woolsey lays down. At page 259 he says: 



The effect of a treaty on all grounds of complaint for which a war was undertaken is to 



i them. Or, in other words, all peace implies amnesty or oblivion of past subjects 



pute, whether the same is expressly mentioned in the terms of the treaty or not. They 



lot, in good faith, be revived again, although repttition of the same acts may be a 



eons ground ol a new war. An abstract or general right, however, if passed over in 



a treaty, is not thereby waived. 



If nothing is said in the treaty to alter the state in which the war actually leaves the par- 

 le ol uli postuUtu is tacitly accepted. Thus, if a part of the national territory 

 nto tbe hands of an enemy during the war, and lies under his control at the 

 uttioD of hostilities, it remains his, unless expressly ceded. 



That is quite clear. If, at the end of this war, Washington had been* 

 possession of the British, and if nothing had been said about it 

 ' treaty, it would have become British territory; but with the ex- 

 n of some unimportant islands in the Bay of Fnndy, no territory 

 the hands of the British; and those' islands, I believe, were 

 BiviMi up. If, however, the cities of Boston or New York 



, 



time been actually in possession of the British, unless there 

 en a clause introduced into the treaty by which the territory was 

 irn to the status quo ante bdlum, it would have been governed by 

 tipossulctt* rule, and would have remained British territory. I 

 fer your honors to 3 Phillimore, pp. 457, 458, and 459, to the same 



