CORRESPONDENCE 405 



to the rule that all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the same 

 parties." 



The undersigned explicitly disavows every pretense of claiming, for the diplo- 

 matic relations between the United States and Great Britain, a degree of permanency 

 different from that of the same relations between either of the parties and all other 

 Powers. He disclaims all pretense of assigning to any treaty between the two nations 

 any peculiarity not founded in the nature of the treaty itself. But he submits to 

 the candor of His Majesty's Government whether the treaty of 1783 was not, from the 

 very nature of its subject-matter, and from the relations previously existing between 

 the parties to it, peculiar ? whether it was a treaty which could have been made be- 

 tween Great Britain and any other nation ? and, if not, whether the whole scope and 

 objects of its stipulations were not expressly intended to constitute a new and perma- 

 nent state of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which would not, and 

 could not, be annulled by the mere fact of a subsequent war between them ? And 

 he makes this appeal with the more confidence, because another part of Lord Bathurst's 

 note admits that treaties often contain recognitions and acknowledgments in the 

 nature of perpetual obligation, and because it implicitly admits that the whole treaty 

 of 1783 is of this character, with the exception of the article concerning the naviga- 

 tion of the Mississippi, and a small part of the article concerning the fisheries. 



The position that " Great Britain knows of no exception to the rule that all treaties 

 are pitt an end to by a subsequent war between the same parties," appears to the 

 undersigned not only novel, but unwarranted by any of the received authorities upon 

 the laws of nations; unsanctioned by the practice and usages of sovereign States; 

 suited, in its tendency, to multiply the incitements to war, and to weaken the ties of 

 peace between independent nations; and not easily reconciled with the admission that 

 treaties not unusually contain, together with articles of a temporary character, liable 

 to revocation, recognitions and acknowledgments in the nature of perpetual obligation. 



A recognition or acknowledgment of title, stipulated by convention, is as much 

 a part of the treaty as any other article; and if all treaties are abrogated by war, 

 the recognitions and acknowledgments contained in them must necessarily be null 

 and void, as much as any other part of the treaty. 



If there be no exception to the rule that war puts an end to all treaties between 

 the parties to it, what can be the purpose or meaning of those articles which, in almost 

 all treaties of commerce, are provided expressly for the contingency of war, and which, 

 during the peace, are without operation? On this point, the undersigned would 

 refer Lord Castlereagh to the tenth article of the treaty of 1794 between the United 

 States and Great Britain, where it is thus stipulated: "Neither the debts due from 

 individuals of the one nation to the individuals of the other, nor shares, nor moneys, 

 which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever, 

 in any event of war, or national differences, be sequestered or confiscated." If war puts 

 an end to all treaties, what could the parties to this engagement intend by making it 

 formally an article of the treaty ? According to the principle laid down, excluding all ex- 

 ception, by Lord Bathurst's note, the moment a war broke out between the two countries 

 this stipulation became a dead letter, and either State might have sequestered or confis- 

 cated those specified properties, without any violation of compact between the nations. 



The undersigned believes that there are many exceptions to the rule by which 

 the treaties between nations are mutually considered as terminated by the inter-, 

 vention of a war; that these exceptions extend to all engagements contracted with 

 the understanding that they are to operate equally in war and peace, or exclusively 



