^- ----■' '^>gwf^r'--' '' - ■r^-"^" ^^'^--^'^^"^ ■"^^^^'■^'■' ^!lt<:''>>^il!l? w«?^wlg!!fHw^ippp■^iPM^ 



» 



372 



Yonr Honours will sec tliiit tlic Act commences by stating that i)otli Governments 

 are tk'sirous of avoiding fMrtlier inisunderstanciings between their respective subjects and 

 citizens, witli respect to the extent of the right of fishiag ;;iven l)y that article; and after 

 rocitiivj; the C'onvention of 1818, and the jiartieular article in (piestion, goes on to say that 

 it was important tliat tiie right under the Convention should he settled. So far from 

 .-howing iiuy intention to repeal the Convention of 1818, the exact opposite wus the fai;t. 

 That is tile [ireainhlc Here is the enacting part : — 



" It i.- ;i_L;rci'(l by llio lii,L;h coiitiwcUii,!^ imvlii's. that, in aiU'lioii to the lihcrly, ic." 



Docs it say in this Treaty that it swept away the Treaty of 1818 and enacted a new 

 Tr.'iily ii! lieu tiiercof? So far lioui that being tiie case, it says :— 



■• * * * In aiLlitimi to !h'.' liln'rly sociuvil to the I'liitrd Status' lishLTiiicii liy ilu' uhnvo- 

 iiit'iuioiioil Ccinvi'iiiion nl" Oi'inlirr L'OMi, 181S, nt" tukin^', cuviiii,', ;inil diyiiii^ tislum ci-rtiiin corislfl nftlu! 

 lUilish Xortli Aiiaric;!!! t'olDiiir:; th'iviii il"liui'il, iho iiili;iliit:«its nl' lliii I'liitocl Stall's sliiiU h:ivi\ i^'c." 



And yet it is seriously urged by one of the learned Counsel on beiialf of the United 

 States that the Treaty of 1S.")1 ahiogated the Convention of 1818. I think 1 have 

 satisfactorily refuted ^Ir. Trcscot's nrgunidnt on tiiis point, although that argument was 

 not material to any question arising uiicicr the Washington Treaty. 1 now turn your 

 attention to Twiss on "The Law of Nations.'' I am reading from tlie edition of IS.'J'J. 

 At paiie 37C Sir Travers Twiss says : — 



"Trc'iUios ])ro|ierly so ciilli\l, the cnu'iisi'iiio'it.^ nl' wliiuh imply a state of naiity li.'l\vi'i.'n tlii' cnn- 

 tractin^; parties, cfaso tn operate it' war supiwiMics, wilcss tliure are express stiiinlations to the 

 coulr.iry. It is iisual on the si;,'nittuiv of a 'I'.x'aty of IV.vo for niitions to ri'iiew expressly llioir 

 pri.;viuiis Trcalios if tlioy iiiteml that any of tlieui slionld become onee more opeiative. (ircat iiritain, 

 in ]ii-aetiee ailniils of no i'xcc]itinn t,i the rule that all Tieaties. as sneli, are ]>ut an end to liy a 

 snliseijuent war between the eoiar.ieuie,' iJ.ulies. h was aceonlingly the praetiee of tlie Kuro]ieiui 

 I'oweis before the l-'reneli Revolution of ITS'.* nu llie I'onclusion of every war wliieli snperveneil upon 

 llie Trenly of rtreelit to renew ami mnlirin lliil Treaty nnder wliieli the ilistrilmtion of territory 

 ,iui(inu-i the prineijKil Kuropean .'Stales had been settled willi a view of securing an KiU'oiK'au 

 oquiliiiiiiiui." 



'J'his has a <loubie bearing. Part of the argument which lias been used by 

 Mr. Trc.-cot is, tliat we are ivniilted t j the rights actiuired by the Treaty of 17S3. He 

 conveniently passes over, for the piir|)()S" of his argument, the fact that a war ocetirrccl 

 between the United States an! Great B.ilain in 181'J, which was followed by a Treaty of 

 Peace signed "Jlth Deceiubei', 1814, the Treaty of Ciheut. There is no doubt, says 

 Mr. Treseot. that in consecpicnce of the repeal of the Convention of 1818 by the 

 Jieciprocity Treaty of 18.">-I. the two nations are ivmitted back to the right each possessed 

 under the Treaty of Paris of 1783: and that the Triiaty of (jlient has nothing to do with 

 tiiis matter. 1 answer to that argument, that such is not the law of nations, liy the law 

 of nations, when war was declared in ISl'J by the Unite(' St .tes against (jreat Britain, 

 everv right s'.:e possessed under the Treaty of 178.'i was abrogated, and. except so I'ar as it 

 wiis agreed l>y the parties that tl.c status (inn aiitr helium should exist, it ceased to exist. 

 Tiie status, which is commonl;. called by writers uli possidetis, the position in whicii the 

 Treaty found them, alone existed alter the Treaty of 1814 was concluded. I have cited the 

 express authority of Sir Travers Twiss upon the suiijeet. 



l)Ut we do not stop with llriiish law. I will take Amciiean law on the subject, and 

 v,e will see where my learned fiieiids liiid themselves placed by Ameruiin writers. I now 

 cite liom " Inlrodiu^tion to the Study of International l^aw, designed as an aid in teaching, 

 and in historical studies, by Theodore 1). Woolsey, President of Yale College.'' .At page 8,'? 

 Prcsitlent Woolsey uses this language: — 



•■ Al and allei' the 'I'ri'aty dl' (Ihenl. whieli cniilinneil no ]iinvisiiiiis n^speetiii^ the lislu'ries, it was 

 lonteii'.ied I'V .\merieaii negniiators, luu viih.rnl iroml ivxsou, Ih.il the .Artii'le n|' Peaee nl' IT^^'i, iclalinir 

 1o the lisheries was in its natiiiv per]ieliMl, and thus not anmdleil liylhc w.ii' nl' ISlL'. I!y a ('(Hisen- 

 '.ion of 181.S the piivili'ge was again, ami in iJCipetaily, npeneil in I'iti/eU'j nl the Iniled .Stiiics. TIm'V 

 Tui'^hl now li^li us Well as cure and diy lisii, im the i.'ri'ater jiart <il' the ('oasl nl' Newrcamdlaml .jinl 

 Labrailor, raid nii the. Maijilalen Islands, -.n inng as the same should continue unsettled; while ihc 

 rnitecl States nu their part renouui .d bir ever any liberty ' to take or cure lish, on, oi' within three 

 niaviue miles nt any of llie enasts, ii,iys, I'teidvs, (ir harbours ol' His liiilaunie Afijrsiy's Itoniiuioii^ in 

 .\nierii a, not inelnded within the al)nve-iuentione<l limits.' 





It is there jiositively declared by one of their own writers on interiialional hi'v i:i -■■•> 

 many words — and he not only lays down the law generally, but takes up the speeitic case 



