262 



Britisti Cro^vn, bpcrwsp it was onr bow and onr spoar that lielpnl to conquer tliom. 

 Then came the war of 1812, and wo had pnjoyod tlio lislK-rics tVooly. without j^co^ra- 

 phical limit, down to that time. Tlie war of 1812 certainly did not result in the ciMviucst 

 of America, eitlier maritime or upon the land. It was fonijht out in a manly way 

 between two strong:; people withont any very decided result ; hut after the war in 1814, 

 about (lie time we were makinu; the Treaty of Peace at (ilient, that iiienuirahle 

 cnrres]iondence took place between John Qtiiucy Adams and Karl Bathurst, in which 

 Earl IJatiuu'st look this extraordinary position, that a war terminates all Treaties. Me 

 took that position without limitation. Mr. .Adams said, "Then it puts an end to our 

 independence." " No," was F^arl Rat hurst's answer, " your independence does not rest 

 iipoi\ tlie Treaty. The Treaty acknowledired your independ.'uce as a tact, and that 

 fact continues. No Treaty now can take it from ymi ; no Treaty is needed to secure it 

 to you, but so far as it was a Treaty — I mean so far as any riiiht rested upon it as a 

 Treaty t^ift, or Treaty stipidation — the war \n\t an end to tiu' Treaty." Mr. Adams' 

 answer was twofold, first, he denied the position. He took the p-oimd, wliicii states- 

 men and jurists take to-day, that a war does not, ipso furto, terminate a Treaty. It 

 dep' .ids njion the results of tlie war; it depends npon the nature of the Treaty; it 

 depends upon its lan^uasje and terms. Each case is sui generis. Whether any war — 1 

 mean the enteriui;' into war, the fact that the two nations are at war — tt>rminates a 

 Treaty, depends upon these (picstions. The Treaty is put at hazard, like all other 

 thinirs. The termination of the war may terminate all Treaties by a new Treaty, or by 

 cou(|Ui!^t ; but the fact tiial there is war, which is the only proposition, does not 

 terminate any Treaty necessarily. Then Mr. Adams farther says, Onr rijjht does 

 not rest upon the Treaty. The Treaty of 178.3 did not f:ive us this riijht ; we always 

 had i'. We continued to enjoy these riglits without j;-eo<;raphical limitation, and it was 

 conceded iliat we did so by tlie Treaty of 1783, and we no more depend U])on a Treaty 

 jrift of 178.'H'or the riirht to these fisluM'ies than we depend upon it for tlie enjoyment 

 of our riijht to our territory or our independ(>nce. Of course the ij;entleinen of 

 the Commission are familiar with tliat correspondence, and I will ^ii no farther with it. 

 Tlie whole subject is followed up with a g^reat deal of ability in tliat remarkable hook 

 which has been lyiiiij upon the table. I mean .John Quincy Adams' book on '* The 

 Eisheries and the Mississippi," in connection with the Treaty of Glient, and his reply 

 to Mr. Jonathan Russell. 



Well, in 1814, the jiarties could not ap,ree, and it went on in that way until IBIS, 

 and then came a compromise, and nolliin^ hut a compromis(>. Tlie introduction to the 

 Treaty of ISlS says: " Whereas diti'ercne(>s have arisen respect in<r the liberty claimed 

 by the I'nited States and iuhabitaufs thereot to take, dry, and cure lish in certain coasts, 

 harbours, c-recks, and bays of His Majesty's dominions in America, it is asjreed between 

 the Hinli C'ontractiiisi Parties" — it is all based upon " ditierenc'S," and all " aijreed." 

 Now, tiie positi(m of the two parties was this: the ]ieople of the United States said, 

 '• We own t]ies(> fisheries just as n • ■h to-ilay as we did the day that we declared war." 

 iJreat Uritaiii did not declare war. ..or ilid she make a coiupiest. The declaration of 

 war was from Washington, from the Conuress of the United States, and it ended liy a 

 Treaty wliich said nothing; about tisheries, leavina^ us where wi> were. Tlie j^round 

 taken by the United Stat(\s was that tlie common ritjlii in the fislieries, irrespeelive of 

 the thn'e-mile limit, or anytliin'^ else, bejon^-ed tons still. (Jreat liriiain said, "No, 

 you lost them," not by war, because Karl Bathurst is careful to say that the w;ir 

 did not dejirive us of the tisheries. but the war ended the 'I'reaty, and llie tislicries 

 were a]ipen(led sol(>ly to tlie 'i'reaty, and when the Tn-aty was removed, away went 

 the fisheries. Now, it is a siiiijular thin^-, in examiiiiiifi this Treaty, to (iuvi tiiat there 

 is nothinu: said about our riu;lit N) take tish on the banks, in the (liilfof St. Lawrence, 

 and in lliedeep sea. The TrciMy of 1783 referred to that, anion;; other tiiiuijs, and it, 

 is wcll-kiKiwii that Cireat Britain claimed more than a Jurisdiction over three miles. 

 Slie claimed "icneral jurisdiction and authority over the hiy;h seas, to which slie 

 ajipended no partii'ular limit, and her claim admitted of no limit. Ycm were told by 

 my learne(l associate, .Iud;;e Foster, that in those days they arrested one of our vessels 

 at a distance of sixty miles from the shore, claiiniiii;- that we were within tlie Kind's 

 chambers. Nothiii;; is said in that Treaty upon the subject. It is an iin|)lii'd concession 

 th.it all those rights belons; to tl i' United States, with wiiieh Kni^land would not under- 

 take after that ever to interfere. And thi'U wo stood in this position — that wo had 

 used the fisheries, thou;ih we did not border upon the seas, t'rom l('>2() to 1818, in one 

 and the sam(> manner, umler one and tlie same rii;'lit, and if the ^:(>iieral dominion of 

 the seas was shifted, it was slid subject to the .American ri'j;ht and liberty to tish. 



1 shall say nolhinj; in this discussion about the right lo land on shores for the 



I 



i 



