191 



Ii' admitted, it leaves the question, whether the treaty of 17S5- 

 was 0( was not abrogated by the late war ? a mere question of use- 

 less speculation, or q{ national pride. That British statesmen and 

 jurists should manifest some impatience, and seize upon any pretext 

 to cause that treaty to disappear from the archives of their national 

 muniments, is not at all surprising. That an American statesman 

 should partake of the same anxiety, is not so natural, thoui^h it 

 may be traced to the same system of public law, by which the com- 

 merce and fisheries of the colonies, before the Revolution, -.vere 

 supposed to be held at the mere pleasure of the British crown. 

 It is not necessary to deny that the treaty of 1783 was, as a national 

 compact, abrogated by the late war, so long as with the assertion 

 of its being so abrogated, is not coupled the assertion thatai)y one 

 right or liberty, acknowledged in it as belonging to the people of 

 the United States, was abrogated with it. But when the British 

 government or Mr. Russell assert that all the other rights and li- 

 berties acknowledged and secured to the United States by that 

 treaty, survived its abrogation, except one portion of the property 

 in the fisheries, stipulated in one half of one article, I say there is 

 nothing either in the nature of the liberty contested, or in the arti- 

 cle by which it is recognised, that will warrant their distinction ; 

 that the whole treaty was one compact of irrevocable acknowledg- 

 ments, consummated by the ratification ; and that the third article 

 in particular, adjusted the rights and liberties of the parties in and 

 to one common property, of which neither party could ever after- 

 wards divest the other without his consent. 



When, therefore, the British government and Mr. Russell assert^ 

 that war abrogates all treaties, and every article of every treaty, 

 they have yet proved nothing for their argument ; they must pro- 

 ceed to affirm, that with the abrogation of the treaty by war, all the 

 rights and liberties recognised in the treaty as belonging to either 

 party, are likewise abrogated. And herein lies the fallacy of their 

 argument. We ask them, v/as the acknowledgment of the Inde- 

 pendence of the United States, in the first article of the treaty of 

 1783, abrogated by the war of 1812 ? Yes, says Mr, Russell, but 

 the Independence of the United States rested upon their own de- 

 claration, and not upon the acknowledgment of Great Britain, With 

 regard to all other nations, undoubtedly our Independence rests 

 ?ipon our own Declaration, for they never contested it, But Great 

 Britain had waged a war of seven years against it, and it was by vii-" 

 tue of that article of the treaty alone, that she was bound to acknow- 

 ledge our Independence. And this constituted one of the peculiar^ 

 jties of the treaty of 1783. Our treaty with France, of 1778, con» 

 tained no article stipulating the acknowledgment of our Independ- 

 ence. No such article was necessary with any nation which never 

 had contested it. But with Great Britain » it was the whole object 

 of that treaty. All the other articles were merely arrangements ot 

 detail and adjustments of consequences liowing Iron, the recognition 

 of the first article. If the acknowledgment of our Independeoce^ 



