THE FISHERIES. 229 
the impressment of real or pretended British subjects 
on board ships of the United States. And it left 
room, by its silence, for Great Britain to raise ques- 
tion of our right to participate in the coast fisheries, 
which question, although dealt with from time to time 
in successive treaties, has more than once seriously 
endangered the peace of the two Governments. 
Does war have the effect of annulling all existing 
treaties? A general answer to this question is given 
by one of the most authoritative of modern publicists 
[Calvo] as follows: 
“Tf the treaty of peace modifies anterior treaties, or express- 
ly declares the renewal of them, the dispositions of the treaty 
of peace are thereafter to constitute the law; but if no partic- 
ular mention is made in this respect, the anterior treaties must 
necessarily continue to have full force and effect. In order 
that they should be deemed definitively abrogated, it would 
be requisite that they shall not only be suspended by the war 
but annulled in fact, as in the case of treaties of alliance of 
which the raison détre ceases at the end of the war: it would 
be requisite, indeed, that their contents should be incompatible 
with the stipulations of the treaty of peace, which occurs, for 
example, in what regards ancient treaties relative to the de- 
limitation of frontiers between two States.” 
The Supreme Court of the United States lays down 
the law as follows: 
“We think that treaties stipulating for permanent rights and 
general arrangements, and professing to aim at perpetuity, and 
to deal with the case of war as well as of peace, do not cease 
on the occurrence of war, but are, at most, only suspended 
while it lasts; and unless they are waived by the parties, or 
new and repugnant stipulations are made, chey revive in their 
operations at the return of peace.” 
Such has been the received doctrine in the United 
