THE FISHERIES, 235 
It may be quite admissible for the British Gov- 
ernment, as they are accustomed to do, to throw 
off all their responsibilities on the “Law Officers 
of the Crown,” when the question is one of mere 
domestic relation; but it is dangerous for that 
Government to do so in matters affecting other Govy- 
ernments. 
We have already had occasion to comment on the 
very extraordinary circumstances attending the fail- 
ure of the Law Officers of the Crown to report upon 
the case of the Alabama, and its disastrous influence 
on the conduct of the Government. 
As to the opinion of the “Law Officers of the 
Crown” in construction of the fishery clauses of the 
treaty of 1818, it is difficult to say which produced 
the more amusement or amazement in the United 
States, the fact that the “Law Officers” should inter- 
polate a phrase into the treaty in order to give to 
their opinion its sole foundation to stand upon, or 
that the British Government should placidly accept 
such fallacious and baseless reasoning without chal- 
lenge, and proceed in obedience to it to enter into hos- 
tile maritime operations, and hurry on to the verge 
of war against the United States. 
After much agitation and discussion, however, the 
question was settled for the time being by articles 
of the Treaty of September 9, 1854, commonly called 
the Reciprocity Treaty, as follows: 
“Article I. It is agreed by the high contracting Parties that, 
in addition to the liberty secured to thie United States fishermen 
by the above: mentioned Convention of October 20,1818, of 
