CORRESPONDENCE 407 



are the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh. The undersigned refers particularly to the 

 fourth article, where the boundaries described are not adverted to without reference 

 to the title by which they were acquired; but where the stipulation of the treaty of 

 1783 is expressly assigned as the basis of the claims, both of the United States and 

 of Great Britain, to the islands mentioned in the article. 



The words with which the article begins are, "Whereas it was stipulated by the 

 second article in the treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three 

 between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, that the boundary 

 of the United States should comprehend all islands," etc. 



It proceeds to describe the boundaries as there stipulated; then alleges the claim 

 of the United States to certain islands, as founded upon one part of the stipulation, 

 and the claim of Great Britain as derived froni another part of the stipulation; and 

 agrees upon the appointment of two commissioners "to decide to which of the two 

 contracting parties the islands belong, in conformity with the true intent of the said 

 treaty of peace of 1783." The same expressions are" repeated in the fifth, sixth, and 

 seventh articles; and the undersigned is unable to conceive by what construction 

 of language one of the parties to those articles can allege that, at the time when they 

 were signed, the treaty of 1783 was, or could be, considered at an end. 



When, in the letter of the undersigned to Lord Bathurst, the treaty of 1783 was 

 stated to be a compact of a peculiar character, importing in its own nature a perma- 

 nence not liable to be annulled by the fact of a subsequent war between the parties, 

 the recognition of the sovereignty of the United States and the boundary line were 

 adduced as illustrations to support the principle; the language of the above mentioned 

 articles in the treaty of Ghent, and the claim brought forward by Great Britain, at 

 the negotiation of it, for the free navigation of the Mississippi, were alleged as proofs 

 that Great Britain herself so considered it, excepting with regard to a small part of 

 the single article relative to the fisheries; and the right of Great Britain was denied 

 thus to select one particular stipulation in such a treaty, and declare it to have been 

 abrogated by the war. The answer of Lord Bathurst denies that Great Britain has 

 made such a selection, and affirms that the whole treaty of 1783 was annulled by the 

 late war. It admits, however, that the recognition of independence and the boundaries 

 was in the nature of perpetual obligation; and that, with the single exception of the 

 liberties in and connected with the fisheries within British jurisdiction on the coasts 

 of North America, the United States are entitled to all the benefits of all the stipula- 

 tions in their favor contained in the treaty of 1783, although the stipulations them- 

 selves are supposed to be annulled. The fishing liberties within British jurisdiction 

 alone are considered as a temporary grant, liable not only to abrogation by war, but, 

 as it would seem from the tenor of the argument, revocable at the pleasure of Great 

 Britain, whenever she might consider the revocation suitable "to her interest. The 

 note affirms that "the liberty to fish within British limits, or to use British territory, 

 is essentially different from the right to independence in all that can reasonably be 

 supposed to regard its intended duration; that the grant of this liberty has all the 

 aspect of a policy, temporary and experimental, depending on the use that might be 

 made of it, on the condition of the islands and places where it was to be exercised, 

 and the more general conveniences or inconveniences, in a military, naval, or com- 

 mercial point of view, resulting from the access of an independent nation to such 

 islands and places." 



The imdersigned is induced, on this occasion, to repeat his Lordship's own words, 

 because, on a careful and deliberate review of the article in question, he is xuiable 



