930 : THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
States, to the effect that war does not, as an absolute, 
universal rule, abrogate existing treaties, regardless 
of their tenor and particular contents; and it is the 
only doctrine compatible with reason, justice, common, 
sense, and the diplomatic history of Europe. 
But the British Government, in the celebrated dis- 
patch to Mr. Adams of October 30, 1815, signed by 
Lord Bathurst, and understood to be the composition 
of Mr. Canning, declared thie position of Great Britain 
to be: “She knows no exception to the rule that all 
treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war be- 
tween the same parties.” This proposition, in its ab- 
soluteness of expression, if it is intended as an asser- 
tion of any established practice of nations, or any rec- 
ognized doctrine of the law of nations, is unfounded 
and unauthorized. Many treaties are made precisely 
for the case of war, and only become efficacious in 
virtue of the existence of war. The assertion of Lord 
Bathurst is altogether too broad, as Dr. Bluntschli 
demonstrates. . 
Nevertheless, acting on such extreme premises, Great 
Britain pretended that our rights of fishery had been 
abrogated by the war, and were not revived by peace; 
and that this effect was the true interpretation of the 
omission to mention the subject in the Treaty of 
Ghent. 
The Commissioners of the United States who ne- 
gotiated the Treaty of Ghent were men of unques- 
tionable patriotism and of the highest character and 
intelligence: it would be out of place here to reopen 
the dispute as to certain special causes of the failure 
