"70 [PftlVATJi.^ 



With regard to the fishing privilege, we distinctly stated to you, 

 in our letter of the (43) 21st of December, that, (4*) "at the time of 

 the treaty of 1783, it was (45) no new grant, we having always before 

 that time enjoyed it," and thus endeavoured to derive our title to 

 it from (46) prescription. A title, derived from immemorial usage, 

 antecedent to 1783, could not well owe its origin or its validity 

 (47) to a compact concluded at that time, and we (48) could, therefore, 

 in this view of the subject, correctly say that this privilege (49) was no 

 new grant; that is, that our right to the exercise of it was totally 

 independent of such compact. If we were well-founded, however, 

 in the assertion of our prescriptive title, it was quite (50) unneces- 

 sary to attempt to give a kind of charmed existence to the treaty of 

 1783, and to extend its (51) undefinable influence to every article of 

 which it was composed, merely to preserve that title which we 

 declared to be in no way derived from it, and which had existed, 

 and, of course, could exist, without it. 



ft was rather unfortunate, too, for our argument against a seve- 

 rance of the provisions of that treaty, that we should have disco- 

 vered, ourselves, (52) a radical difference between them, making the 

 fishing (53) privilege depend on immemorial usage, and, of course, dis- 

 tinct in its nature (54) and origin from the rights resultiag from our 

 independence. 



We, indeed, throw some obscurity over this subject when we de- 

 clare to you that this privilege was always enjoyed by us before the 

 treaty of 1783, thence inferring that it was not granted by that trea- 

 ty, and in the same sentence and from the same fact, appear also to 

 infer, that it was not to be forfeited by war any more than (55) any 

 otlier of the rights of our independence, making it thus one of (56) these- 

 rights, and of course, according to our doctrine, dependant on that 

 treaty. 



There might have been nothing incomprehensible in this mode 

 of reasoning, had the treaty recognised this privilege to be derived 

 from prescription, and confirmed it on that ground. The treaty 

 has, however, not the slightest allusion to the past, in reference to 

 this privilege, but regards it only with a view to the future. The. 

 treaty, (57t therefore, cannot be construed as supporting a pre-exist- 

 ing title, but as containing a grant entirely new. If we claim, there- 

 fore, under the treaty, we must renounce preecription. and if we 

 claim from prescription, we can derive no aid from the treaty. It* 

 the treaty be imperishable in all its parts, the fishing privilege re- 

 mains unimpaired without a recurrence to immemorial usage ; and 

 if our title to it be well-founded on immemorial usage, the treaty 

 may perish without affecting it. To have endeavoured to support 

 it on both grounds, implies that we had not entire confidence in 

 either, and to have proposed a new article, indicates a distrust of 

 both. 



It is not, as I conceive, difficult to show that we (58) cannot, in- 

 deed, derive (59) a better title to this fishing privilege, from pre- 

 scription, than from any indestructible quahty of the treaty of 1783. 



