8 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



States, proclaimed their independence in 1778, and from that date 

 onwards exercised the powers of independent sovereigns over the 

 territories within their jurisdiction as then constituted. But they 

 had no rights of any kind over the territories of the other American 

 colonies which remained loyal to the British Crown, and within 

 whose territories were included the whole of the fisheries now in dis- 

 pute. By their assumption of independence in 1776, the inhabitants 

 of the thirteen colonies had given up any rights as British subjects in 

 other parts of the British Empire, and from that time onward the} 7 

 had no more rights in the other parts of British North America than 

 they had in England, or in the British possessions in the East Indies. 



Moreover, the ownership of the fisheries and of the shores adjoin- 

 ing them was, before the war, in the Crown of England, and not in 

 the various territories forming the British Empire, or in the inhab- 

 itants of those territories. It is impossible to contend that there were 

 any persons or bodies of persons entitled as co-owners with the King 

 of England before the Declaration of Independence, or after that 

 elate. 



In view, however, of the importance attached to this contention in 

 the Case of the United States, it is thought proper to examine it in 

 some detail, to point out the circumstances in which it originated, and 

 to call attention to the facts bearing on it. 



ORIGIN OF PARTITION ARGUMENT. 



The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the idea of par- 

 tition as has been said was first suggested by Mr. John Quincy 

 Adams at a meeting of the American Commission on the 1st Novem- 

 ber, 1814. His views are explained by the following extracts from 

 his language upon three occasions : 



" We contended that the whole treaty of 1783 must be considered 

 as one entire and permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary 

 treaties, to be abrogated by a subsequent war between the parties to 

 it; as an instrument recognising the rights and liberties enjoyed by 

 the people of the United States as an independent nation, and con- 

 taining the terms and conditions on which the two parts of one 

 10 empire had mutually agreed, thenceforth, to constitute two 

 distinct and separate nations. In consenting, by that treaty, 

 that a part of the North American continent should remain subject 

 to the British jurisdiction, the people of the United States had 

 reserved to themselves the liberty, which they had ever before en- 

 joyed, of fishing upon that part of its coasts, and of drying and cur- 

 ing fish upon the shores, and this reservation had been agreed to by 

 the other contracting party." (British Counter-Case, App., p. 150.) 



" It was obvious that the treaty of peace of 1783 was not one of 

 those ordinary treaties which, by the usages of nations, were held to 



