APPENDIX 395 



the co-existing rights of other persons entitled to do the same 

 thing; and because these words admit them only as mem- 

 bers of a social community, subject to the ordinary duties 

 binding upon the citizens of that community, as to the 

 regulations made for the common benefit; thus avoiding 

 the "bellum omnium contra omnes" which would other- 

 wise arise in the exercise of this industry; 



(d) Because these words are such as would naturally 

 suggest themselves to the negotiators of 1818 if their in- 

 tention had been to express a common subjection to regula- 

 tions as well as a common right. 



In the course of the Argument it has also been alleged 

 by the United States: 



(5) That the Treaty of 1818 should be held to have 

 entailed a transfer or partition of sovereignty, 

 in that it must in respect to the liberties of fish- 

 ery be interpreted in its relation to the Treaty 

 of 1783; and that this latter Treaty was an act 

 of partition of sovereignty and of separation, and 

 as such was not annulled by the war of 1812. 



Although the Tribunal is not called upon to decide the 

 issue whether the treaty of 1783 was a treaty of partition 

 or not, the questions involved therein having been set at 

 rest by the subsequent Treaty of 1818, nevertheless the 

 Tribunal could not forbear to consider the contention on 

 account of the important bearing the controversy has upon 

 the true interpretation of the Treaty of 1818. In that re- 

 spect the Tribunal is of opinion: 



(a) That the right to take fish was accorded as a con- 

 dition of peace to a foreign people; wherefore the British 

 negotiators refused to place the right of British subjects 

 on the same footing with those of American inhabitants; 



