26 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The issue presented was whether or not the provisions of the second 

 clause of Article III of the treaty of 1783, reserving to the United 

 States certain fishing liberties on and within three marine miles 

 of land on the British coasts, survived the War of 1812. As will 

 appear from the correspondence by which this discussion was 

 carried on, Mr. Adams contended throughout the discussion that such 

 provisions had survived owing to the character of the treaty, and the 

 language used, and the nature of the liberties, and the relation of the 

 American Colonies to them before the Revolution, and that as these 

 liberties had never been renounced by the United States, either in the 

 treaty of Ghent or otherwise, they were still in force. As will appear 

 from Lord Bathurst's replj^, he seems to have rested the British conten- 

 tion almost wholly on the ground that no treaties survive subsequent 

 war between the parties; and, although he admits that treaties may 

 contain obligations of an irrevocable nature and does not claim that 

 any of the provisions of this treaty, except the one under considera- 

 tion, could be revoked without the consent of the United States, he 

 maintains that owing to the language used in respect to the inshore 

 fisheries, the enjoyment of them was intended to be temporary and 

 experimental, and being dependent upon the treaty provisions, ter- 

 minated with the termination of the treaty. A considerable portion 

 of his argument is devoted to showing that the right of the United 

 States to exercise these liberties was dependent upon the treaty, and 

 that, therefore, they would not survive the treatj^, all of which might 

 well be admitted without affecting the question at issue, which was, 

 'not whether such rights would continue independently of the treaty, 

 but whether or not the treaty obligations were revocable without the 

 consent of the United States. 



Lord Bathurst seems to have failed to recognize the distinction 

 between the extent of the American interest in these inshore fish- 

 eries and the title under which such interest was held. The interest 

 reserved therein by the United States was the right to the enjoyment 

 of certain liberties which were clearly defined, and the title of the 

 United States to such interest was complete and absolute upon the 

 signing of the treaty of 1783, and such title could not be destroyed 

 without the consent of the United States. 



The Tribunal is not called upon to decide the issue presented in 

 that controversy or to pass upon the merits of the arguments, the 

 questions involved having been laid at rest by the subsequent treaty 



