48 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



United States upon the dictum of a vice-admiralty court. Besides 

 this, we claim the rights in question not as acquired by the treaty of 

 1783; but as having always before enjoyed them, and as only recog- 

 nised as belonging to us by that treaty, and therefore never to be 

 divested from us but by our own consent. Judge Wallace, however, 

 explicitly says that he does not see how he can condemn these vessels 

 without an act of Parliament; and whoever knows any thing of the 

 English constitution must see that on this point he is unquestionably 

 right. He says, indeed, something about an order in council, but it 

 is very clear that would not answer. It is a question of forfeiture 

 for a violated territorial jurisdiction; which forfeiture can be in- 

 curred not by the law of nations, but only by the law of the land. 

 There is obviously no such law. 



The argument which has been so long and so ably maintained by 

 Mr. Keeves, that the rights of antenati Americans, as British sub- 

 jects, even within the Kingdom of Great Britain, have never been 

 divested from them, because there has been no act of Parliament to 

 declare it, applies in its fullest force to this case; and, connected with 

 the article in the treaty of 1783, by which this particular right was 

 recognised, confirmed and placed out of the reach of an act of Par- 

 liament, corroborates the argument in our favor. How far it may 

 be proper and advisable to use these suggestions in your negotiation, 

 must be left to your sound discretion ; but they are thrown out with 

 the hope that you will pursue the investigation of the important 

 question of British law involved in this interest, and that every pos- 

 sible advantage may be taken of them, preparatory for the trial 

 before the lords of appeals, if the case should ultimately come to 

 their decision. The British Government may be well assured that 

 not a particle of these rights will be finally yielded by the United 

 States without a struggle, which will cost Great Britain more than 

 the worth of the prize.** 



It was subsequently found to be unnecessary that the question pre- 

 sented by these seizures, with respect to the effect of the War of 1812 

 upon the fisheries article of the treaty of 1783, " should be solemnly 

 argued before the Lords of Appeals '', for, as stated by Mr. Kush in 

 his despatch of October 27, 1818, to Mr. Adams after the conclusion 

 of the negotiations for the treaty of 1818, Mr. Slade, the proctor 

 employed to represent the interests of the American fishermen, 

 reported that " no appeal has been entered by the captors from the 

 sentences of restitution; and that the time having now gone by 

 allowed by the practice of the admiralty for entering appeals, none 

 can be entered." ^ 



" Appendix, p. 305. ^ Appendix, p. 308. 



