373 



with which wc arc now deaHng— that the American contention is entirely incorrect, 

 savs : — 



He 



" At iiiiil iitici- the Treaty of (Jln'iil, which contaiiied iir. provisions respecting; the fisheries, it was 

 conlnndi'cl liy American ni'jjolintors, hut withuiil i/oud rca.mi, iliat the Article of the Pence of 1783, 

 relating to the lisherie.s, was in its nature purpetiuil, and thus not annulled by the war of 1812." 



I think that .statement i.s pretty conclusive. Now, here is the general law which 

 President Woolsey lays down. At page 259 he says : — 



" 'I'lie elfecl of a Treaty nn all grounds of eoiiiplaiiit for which a war wa.s undertaken, is to 

 aliandon tlieiii. Or. in utiaT words, all jieace iiuplie.9 amnesty or oblivion of past subjects of dispntc, 

 whether the saiiif is exprrssly mentioned in the terms of the Treaty, or not. They cannot in good 

 faitii, lie revived agiiiii, idthinigh n/iifitionnf the same acts may be a rightetms ground of a new war. 

 An abstra<!t or general righi. however, if passed over in a treaty, is not thereby waived. 



If nothing is saiil in the Treaty to alter the state in which the wai' actually leaves the parties. 

 the rule of uli jiossiilili.-i is tacitly accepted. Thus if a part of the national territory has passed into the 

 hands iif an enemy duiing a \va.', and lies under his control, at the peace or cessation of hostilities, it 

 remains his, unles- expressly ceded." 



That is quite clear. Il, at the end of this war, Washington had been in the possession 

 of the British, and if nothing had been said about it in the Treaty, it would have become 

 Hritish territory: hut with the exception of some unimportant islands in the Bay of 

 Fundy, no territory fell into the hands of the British ; and those islands, I believe, were 

 subse(|ucntly given up. If, however, tlie cities of Boston or New York had at that time 

 been actually in possession of the Briti.^h, unless there liad been a clause introduced into 

 tlie Treaty by which the tcrritoiv was to return to the slatun quo mite helium, it would 

 have been goveriieti by the nii iiDs-ycditis rule, and would have remained British territory. 

 I also refer your Uoiioiu's to 3 Phillimore, pp. 457, 45S, and 4;')9, to the same effect. 

 Nr)w, I aril not aware there is anything else in Mr. Trescot's speech which I need 

 specially take up, because some of the other points occur in the argiimenta of Mr. Danu 

 and Mr. Foster. 



Mr. Trrscol. — Perhaps you will allow mc to say that you are replying to an opinion, 

 and not to an argiiinent. 



Mr. 7/io/;i.vo«.— Where an opinion is put forward by Counsel, he must either be 

 Counsel olsueii eiiiiiiciicc that his opinion diil not require to lie sujiported by authorities, 

 or else authorities shotild hi! advanced at the time, i aihnit that Mr. Trescot possesses 

 great ability ; but 1 have undertaken to meet him by British and American authorities, 

 and, as 1 have shown, he is eampletcly refuted by both. I think it was Mr. Trescot's duty, 

 when he put forward such an extraordinary tloctrine, to have stated his authorities. 

 If he did not elioose to do so, I cannot help it ; but if he now wislies to retract it as not 

 being anythii g else than an o])inioii, well, of course, it makes the matter different. 



Mr. VVf.vro/. — N\) ; but I did not argue it. 



Mr. 'riidiiisdii. — It is put forward not as an oj)inioii, but as a proposition on behalf of 

 the United States: there is no opinion about it; and when the United States speak 

 through the nmutb of Counsel, 1 am bound to treat the matter seriously. If this were a 

 common ease between man and man, i would not treat it seriously : but when such a pro- 

 position is put lorwiU'd on the part of a great nation, through Counsel, it cannot he treatec' 

 liglitiv. but is cutitlid to be treated with respect ; and if there is nothing in it. I am bound 

 to show that such is the ease. 



I pass from Mr. Trescot to .Mr. Danu. I propose to take this course tor tiiis reason: 

 while 1 admit the great ability of Mr. Trescot and Mr. Dana, still f think your Honours 

 wdl agree witli me that whatever the case of the United States has in it, i-> to be found 

 ill the speech of Mr. Foster. No doubt it is also to be l<)und in the other speeches -, but I 

 am taking Mr. Trescot's speech and Mr. Dana's speecli out of their order because I only 

 want !o touch on those subjects contained in them which Mr. Foster ilid not put forward. 

 AnvthiiiiV submitted by Mr. Foster, altiiongh it is put forward by Air. Dana and 

 Mr. Trescot. I will treat as it appears in Mr. Foster's sjieeeb, in order to avoid going over 

 the ground twice. Besides, Mr. Fo.tcr, as Agent, put forward his case with great ability, 

 and iis he im this occasion is otiicialls the Representative of the United States, I shall treat 

 his argument as the nuist serious one of the three. 



Mr. Dana otatc d that all these fisheries belonged to the United States as a right — it 

 is very cm-imis language — because, said he, tlicy were won. 1 le gave a very good descrip- 

 tion, imlv a litli'. fancil'ul, of the whole of the contests for the last century, in respect to 

 the lishcries. It was a very pretty essay, and 1 had much pleasure in listening to it. It 

 was delivered, ;a one would expect anything emanating from liim would be (ielivercil, 

 [2ttO] ^ 3 D 



