THE NORTHEAST COAST FISHERIES 495 



to be a dependence of the shores." Thus a distinction was 

 at that time made between the Bank and the shore fishery. 

 All expressions of Congress signifying a determination to 

 retain the fisheries, at all hazards, refer only to the open sea 

 fisheries ; for at that period of uncertainty it was feared that 

 England might even refuse to yield her pretended sovereignty 

 over the Banks. The spirit of John Adams' instructions in 

 1782, as gathered from congressional actions previously taken 

 upon the subject, was to insist as a right upon the freedom 

 of the high seas for American fishermen, and to secure for 

 them by negotiation the largest possible inshore privileges. 

 Finally, it will be noted that in the third article of the treaty 

 itself the word "right" is used in connection with the Bank 

 and deep sea fishery, and the word " liberty " with reference 

 to the shore fishery. '" . 



Failing to make good the doctrine that Canadian inshore 

 fisheries belonged to the United States, not by treaty stipu- 

 lation, concession or grant, but by natural and inherent 

 right, the second contention of our commissioners at Ghent 

 was equally bound to fail, namely, that the third article of 

 the treaty of Paris belonged to that class of treaty obliga- 

 tions which are exempt from abrogation by war. The second 

 proposition is in a measure a corollary to the first. It will 

 readily be seen that all treaty stipulations must belong to 

 one or the other of two classes. Those covering acknowl- 

 edgments of independence, cessions or partitions of territory, 

 delimitations of boundaries, acknowledgments of preexisting 

 rights and stipulations made in contemplation of war, all 

 of which may be regarded as executed stipulations, are not 

 subject to abrogation by war. All such as include mere 

 grants of privileges, or rights, may be regarded as executory 

 stipulations, and are necessarily terminated by war between 

 the parties. Mr. Adams and his colleagues at Ghent clung 

 persistently to the idea that the fishery clause of the Paris 

 treaty belonged to the first class of treaty stipulations men- 

 tioned, and therefore that this in the same manner as the 

 first article of that treaty (acknowledging the independence 

 of the United States), and in the same manner as the second 



