ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 105 



to such island and places — further characterization of the same 

 description of the grant of 1783. And, as my learned friend the 

 Attorney-General has argued so cogently here, the grant of 1818 was 

 a continuance or renewal of a portion of the same grant as that 



of 1783- 



Now I will come to another consideration, which is of primary 

 importance in the construction of this grant, and that is the quality 

 imported into it by the use of the word "forever" — the quality 

 of permanency. If you will remember, the United States insisted 

 that this quality existed in the grant of 1783, and Lord Bathurst, 

 in the letters which I have read, insisted that it did not exist in the 

 grant, but the right was liable to be terminated by war. 



You will remember the vehement assertion of John Adams in 

 1782 regarding the rights of the United States and his unwilHng- 

 ness to enter into any treaty except one which secured these 

 fishery rights. 



The New England States in 1783 and in 1818 were poor, their 

 soil was sterile, the great grain fields of the West had not been opened, 

 the manufacturing which has grown to such great extent was in 

 its infancy, and the fisheries were a matter of primary vital impor- 

 tance to the people of the United States, and especially to the people 

 of New England. 



Now, when the war of 181 2 was ended, a war waged over the 

 question of impressments and not affecting the fisheries or involv- 

 ing as a matter of controversy the fisheries in any degree — when 

 that war ended without settling the question of impressments, 

 without any particular credit to either side, the people of New 

 England awoke to the startling and shocking realization of the fact 

 that their fisheries, their great industry, were gone, provided Great 

 Britain could maintain that position, unanticipated, unexpected, 

 and a cause for chagrin. 



That is the explanation of the vehemence of John Quincy Adams 

 in conducting the controversy and the meaning of his deep feehng 

 and indignation. The proposition of Great Britain that the grant 

 of this right was not permanent was a blow at the vital interest 

 of the New England seaboard, and an absolute prerequisite and 

 sine qua non of the settlement of that controversy on the part of 

 the United States was that, while she was forced to give up, 



