QUESTION ONE. 17 



Mr. Adams thought that the course of events had removed 



" all scruple of delicacy with regard to the propriety of stating the 

 case of the British Government, and calling upon them to maintain at 

 once the faith of their treaty with us and the efficacy of their own 

 territorial jurisdiction, violated by the exercise of force against the 

 fishing vessels of the United States engaged in their lawful occupa- 

 tions under its protection. 



" . . . . The question concerning the jurisdiction belongs pecu- 

 liarly to her We respect the territorial jurisdiction of Great 



Britain in restoring to her for the effectual exercise of it to carry 

 into execution her engagements with us But if, on discus- 

 sion of the subject between them, France should not explicitly desist 

 from both the pretensions to the exclusive fishery and to the exercise 

 of force within British waters to secure it you will claim that which 

 the British Government cannot fail to perceive is due, the unmo- 

 lested execution of the treaty stipulation contained in the convention 

 of October 20, 1818 ; and if the British Government admits the claim 

 of France to exclusive fishery on the western coast of Newfoundland 

 from Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, they will necessarily see the 

 obligation of indemnifying the United States by an equivalent for 

 the loss of that portion of the fishery, expressly conceded to them 

 by the convention, which, in the supposed hypothesis, must have been 

 granted by Great Britain under an erroneous impression that it was 

 yet in her power to grant." 



In his diary under date 8th July, 1823, Mr. Adams gives the fol- 

 lowing account of his conversation with the Comte de Menou: 



o 



" I told him the whole affair was a question between France and 

 Great Britain, with which we had but a secondary concern. Great 

 Britain was bound to maintain her own jurisdiction. And if she 

 had conceded to us a right which she had already granted as an ex- 

 clusive possession to France, she must indemnify us for it." (British 

 Case, App., p. 108.) 



These quotations show not only that the idea of suggesting the 

 existence of qualifications of British sovereignty is of later date 

 than 1823, but also that the position assumed by Mr. John Quincy 

 Adams is quite inconsistent with that now assumed by the United 

 States. 



In pursuance of Mr. Adams' instructions Mr. Rush handed to a 

 representative of the British Government a memorandum in which 

 he said 



20 " It is obvious that if Great Britain cannot make good the 

 title which the United States hold under her to take fish on 

 the western coast of Newfoundland, it will rest with her to indemnify 

 them for the loss." (British Case, App., p. 110.) 



All this is, of course, quite inconsistent with the theory that the 

 United States took its fishing liberties by way of partition between 

 joint-owners. Had that been the case and had the title of these 

 joint-owners been found to be defective, the result would not have 



