THE ADAMS-BATHURST CORRESPONDENCE. 27 



of 1818 ; nevertheless the respective positions of the two Governments 

 in the controversy have an important bearing upon the true inter- 

 pretation of the treaty of 1818. Out of that controversy grew the 

 negotiations which finally resulted in the treaty of 1818, and the 

 question as to whether or not the fisheries provisions under considera- 

 tion were terminated by the War of 1812, constituted the " differ- 

 ences " which are referred to in the first clause of the fisheries article 

 of that treaty and in consequence of which that article was nego- 

 tiated. The attention of the Tribunal is therefore directed to Mr. 

 Adams' notes of September 19, and 25, and to Lord Bathurst's answer 

 of October 30, 1815, and to Mr. Adams' reply of January 22, 1816, 

 which are too voluminous to quote here at length, but are printed in 

 full at pages 2G4 to 28T of the Appendix. 



Before passing from the subject, however, special reference must 

 be made to Lord Bathurst's statement in regard to the inshore fisheries 

 provisions of the treaty that — 



The grant of this liberty has all the aspect of a policy temporary 

 and experimental, depending on the use that might be made of it, 

 on the condition of the islands and places where it was to be exer- 

 cised, and the more general conveniences or inconveniences, in a mili- 

 tar}^, naval, or commercial point of view, resulting from the access 

 of an independent nation to such islands and places." 



As pointed out by Mr. Adams in his reply, this statement is wholly 

 erroneous and unsupported by the terms of the treaty, and it would 

 require no further attention were it not that Lord Bathurst makes 

 this erroneous assumption as to the terms of the treaty the basis for 

 the following argument: 



When, therefore. Great Britain, admitting the independence of the 

 United States, denies their right to the liberties for which they now 

 contend, it is not that she selects from the treaty, articles, or parts 

 of articles, and says, at her own will, this stipulation is liable to 

 forfeiture by war, and that is irrevocable; but the principle of her 

 reasoning is, that such distinctions arise out of the provisions them- 

 selves, and are founded on the very nature of the grants. But the 

 rights acknowledged by the treaty of 1783 are not only distinguish- 

 able from the liberties conceded by the same treaty, in the foundation 

 upon which they stand, but they are carefully distinguished in the 

 treaty of 1783 itself. The undersigned begs to call the attention of 

 the American minister to the wording of the first and third articles, 

 to which he has often referred, for the foundation of his arguments. 

 In the first article. Great Britain acknoTx'ledges an independence already 

 expressly recognised by the Powers of Europe, and by herself, in 

 her consent to enter into provisional articles, of November, 1782. 



"Appendix, p. 276. 



