66 ' [private.] 



I could not believe that the indepeniience of the United States 

 was derived from the treaty of 1783 ; that the recognition of that 

 independence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar 

 character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would ne- 

 cessarily render this treaty ab olutely inseparable in its provisions, 

 and make it one entire and indivisible whole, equally imperishable 

 in all its parts, by any change which might occur in the relations 

 between the contracting parties. 



The independence of the United States rests upon those funda- 

 mental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress, 

 in the declaration of July, 1776, and not on any British (12) grant 

 in the treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly. 



The treaty of 1783 was merely a (13) treaty of peace^ and there- 

 fore subject to the same rules of construction as all other compacts 

 of this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United 

 States could not (14) weir have given to it a peculiar character, and 

 excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition, 

 expressed or implied, is always indispensable on the part of every 

 nation with whom we form any treaty (15) whatsoever. France, in 

 the treaty of alliance, long before the year 1 783, not only expressly 

 recognised, but engaged (16) effectually to maintain, this independ- 

 ence ; and yet this treaty, so far from being considered as possess- 

 ing any mysterious peculiarity, by which its existence was perpe- 

 tuated, has, even without war, and although a part of it contained 

 words of U?) perpetuity, and was (18^ unexecuted, long (19) since en- 

 lirely terminated. 



Had the recognition of our independence by Great Britain given 

 to the treaty of 1783 any peculiar character, which it did not, (20) 

 still that character could have properly extended to those provi- 

 sions only (21) which affected that independence. All those general 

 rights, tor instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the Unit- 

 ed States, in their quality as a nation, might, so far as that treaty 

 was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) such pecu- 

 liarity, without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere 



(24) special commercial liberties and (25) privileges, or to provisions 



(26) long since executed, not indispensably connected v/ith national 

 sovereignty, (27) or necessarily resulting from it 



The liberty to take and cure fish, within the exclusive (28) juris- 

 diction of (29) Great Britain, vvas certainly not necessary to perfect 

 the (30) jurisdiction of the (31) United States ; and there is no reason 

 to believe that such a liberty was intended to be raised to an equa- 

 lity with the general right of fishing within the common jurisdic- 

 tion of all nations, which accrued to us as a member of the great 

 national family. On the contrary, the distinction between the spe- 

 cial liberty and the general right appears to have been well under- 

 stood by the American ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1783, 

 and to have been clearly marked by the very import of the terms 

 which they employed. It would evidently have been unwise in 

 them, however ingenious it may be in us, to exalt such a privilege 



