[duplicate.] 67 



I could not believe that the independence 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 absolutely 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 {}2) grant 

 in the treaty of 1783 ; and its aera is dated accordingly. 



The treaty of 1783 was merely a (l3) treaty of peace, and there- 

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

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

 States could not (14) have well 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) whatever. France, in 

 the treaty of alliance, long before the year 1783, not only express- 

 ly recognised, but engaged (\&) effectually to uiaintain this indepen- 

 dence; 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 (17) perpetuity and was (18) unexecuted long (19) since termn 

 Dated. 



Had the recognition of our independence by Great Britain given 

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

 (2o) yet that character could have properly extended to those pro- 

 visions only (21) which affected that independence. All those gene- 

 ral rights, for instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the 

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

 was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) that peculi- 

 arity without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere (24) 

 specialZi6er/ies and (^^^) privileges^ or to provisions (2Q) long since ex- 

 ecuted,) not indispensably connected with national sovereignty, 

 (27) nor necessarily resulting from it. 



The liberty to take and cure fish within the exclusive (23) juris- 

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

 the (30) jurisdiction of the (3i) U?iited 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 tishing v»'ithin the common jurisdiction 

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

 tional family. On the contrary, the distinction between the special 

 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 



