/"- 





I 1 



il 



I i\ 







294 



the two nations arc the line of bayonets, and nothinp; more nor less. But when the war 



omls, if it is a couqiiost, the conqiicri'd party lias no territory to ])uund ; he (lejiends on 

 tlic will ot' the conciuuror. If tliere is no con(iui>t, and the Treaty is made npon the 

 principle of \d\ possidetis, then the line of bayonets, u hen the war closed, is the boundary. 

 If peace is made upon a special arranf-enient, or on the jjrinciple of in statu (juo ante 

 bclhnn, then tlie Powers are ristored to tlieir old rights, Tiie peace which followed our 

 rcvohition was upon the latter principle. There was no conquest — certainly none by 

 Great Britain over us, and peace was made upon tiie principle in statu (jun ante bullum, 

 except that we arranged for convenience the boundary line a little different from what 

 it was before the war. Everything- else stood as it stood before, on the principle in statu 

 q-uo ante brilum. And so stood the fisheries, which were just as nuich our possession, our 

 property, and always had been, as anylliinp; else that we h(dd. We held them under our 

 charters, and we held tliem by right' to the last, and the Treaty was careful to say so, 

 as pointed out by Lord Loughborough in tlie House of Lords, and by Lord Morth 

 in tlie House of Commons, who was tlie instrument in the hands of the King in 

 bringing about the iinhaitpy war (no one, I think, considers it was " uniiappy " now, on 

 either side). They said this Treaty does not ronrrde the right to the Americans to fish 

 within three miles ; it acknnvhdges it as an existing right, as one that they always had 

 and it makes the usage to fish by the Americans as the final proof, in all disputed ques- 

 tions of geography, political or natural. And so it rested, down to 1818. When the 

 Treaty of Ghent was made, in December, 1814, at the close of our war, the parties came 

 together. Tlie Americans utterly refused to hear a word calling in question their right 

 in common to the fisheries, or of geographical limits. Mr. Adams had his famous con- 

 troversy with Earl Hathurst, in which that cjucstion was so fully argued, summarized in 

 one portion of Mr. Wheaton's work on international law, wliicii has been the study of 

 statesmen ever since, and still more fully, perhaps, in Mr. Adams' book, which has 

 been alluded to. 



But, in 1818, when Gi-eat Britain was at peace with all tlie world, and when the 

 two nations stood face to face over this subject, Great Britain claiming largely, we did 

 not know what — fifty miles, sixty miles, unlimited King's chambers, when vessels were 

 arrested sixty miles from the shore, on the ground that tliey were in the King's chambers, 

 when they claimed that (he Gulf of St. Lawrence was the King's chand)er, where we 

 had no right to fish, wlien the three-mile line was a new thing in international law ; 

 when eacli nation found it could not compel the other, and botli were desirous of peace, 

 botli had seen enough of fighting to desire that tht^re should be no more fighting lietwcen 

 brethren, that they should not shed brothers' blood over any contestation in a mere 

 matter of money or interest, and not so much a matter of honour, of sentiment, as ic 

 might have been at any moment, if any blood had been shed ; tiun the two Great Powers 

 came to a compromise, and Great Britain agreed by implication that she would not 

 assert any claim of exclusion anywhere beyond the ordinary lines. Not a word was 

 said on that sidiject. Slie never surrendered those extreme claims in terms, any more 

 than she abandoned in terms the claim to board our ships, and take from them, at the 

 disereti(m of the commander, any man whom the officer thought .spoke the English 

 tongue as an Englishman, and not as an American. The latter claim was never abandoned 

 in terms, altliongli we fouglit a war upon il, but no one believed it would ever be attempted 

 again to be put in force. But, as to what was specifically done, it was a conqjromise. Great 

 Britain was not to exclude us from the Magdali'U Islands, within the three-mile line, or 

 any geograjihical limit of the ft?agdalen Islands, or from Labrador, from .Mount Joly 

 norlliward indefinitely, or fmm certain large portions of the coast of Newfoundland; 

 and, on tlie other hand, we agr;e(l that England might exclude us — it was a Treaty 

 agreement — during: tiie contiiuiance of the Treaty, from the rest of the Gidf of St. 

 Lawrence, witiiin three miles of the shore. Un<|uesti(inal)ly, as tln' lettersof Mr. Ciallatin 

 and Mr. Hiisli, wlm made the Treaty, show, we thought we had gained all tliat was of 

 value iit that time. It was not until about the year 1N3() thai this great change in the 

 fisheries themselves came in ; when they ceafied to be exclusively cod fislieiies, and 

 became mainly mackerel fisheries, 'i'hen the importance of landing upon the shores to 

 dry our nets and cure our fish was reduced to nothing — 1 mean, laactically nothing. 

 We jjut ic in the 'J'reaty of 1S7I, but il has never been proved liiat we made any use of 

 that liberty or power since tiie Treaty. 



The advent of the mackerel — one of those strange mutations which seem to govern 

 those mysterious creatures of the sea — the advent of the mackerel to this region, and to 

 Mnssachnseits Bay, jiul a new countenance upon all iliis matter. It imdtnditedly gave 

 i;ii advantage to the UritLsh side, and [lUt us at (Uicc to sonuwiiat of a disadvantage. 

 Then came the demand of the islanders, and of the jieople of the Dominion, and others, 



