4IO APPENDIX 



and universal right of all nations; since the exclusion from them of France and Spain, 

 in whole or in part, had been expressly stipulated by those nations, and no other 

 nation had, in fact, participated in them. It was, with some exceptions, an exclusive 

 possession of the British nation; and in the treaty of separation it was agreed that 

 the rights and liberties in them should continue to be enjoyed by that part of the nation 

 which constituted the.United States; that it should not be a several, but, as between 

 Great Britain and the United States, a common fishery. It was necessary, for the 

 enjoyment of this fishery, to exercise it in conformity to the habits of the species of 

 game of which it consisted. The places frequented by the fish were those to which 

 the fishermen were obliged to resort, and these occasionally brought them to the borders 

 of the British territorial jurisdiction. It was also necessary, for the prosecution of 

 a part of this fishery, that the fish, when caught, should be immediately cured and 

 dried, which could only be done on the rocks or shores adjoining the places where 

 they were caught; the access to these rocks and shores, for those purposes, was secured 

 to the people of the United States, as incidental and necessary to the enjoyment of 

 the fishery; it was little more than an access to naked rocks and desolate sands; 

 but it was as permanently secured as the right to the fishery itself. No limitation 

 was assigned of time. Provision was made for the proprietary rights which might 

 at a distant and future period arise by the settlement of places then uninhabited; but 

 no other limitation was expressed or indicated by the terms of the treaty, and no 

 other can, either from the letter or spirit of the. article, be inferred. 



Far, then, from claiming the general rights and privileges belonging to British 

 subjects within the British dominions, as resulting from the treaty of peace of 1783, 

 while, at the same time, asserting their exemption from the duties of a British allegiance, 

 the article in question is itself a proof that the people of the United States have 

 renounced all such claims. Could they have pretended generally to the privileges of 

 British subjects, such an article as that relating to the fisheries would have been absurd. 

 There was in the treaty of 1783 no express renunciation of their rights to the pro- 

 tection of a British Sovereign. This renunciation they had made by their declara- 

 tion of independence on the 4th July, 1776; and it was implied in their acceptance 

 of the counter-renunciation of sovereignty in the treaty of 1783. It was precisely 

 because they might have lost their portion of this joint national property, to the 

 acquisition of which they had contributed more than their share, unless a formal 

 article of the treaty should secure it to them, that the article was introduced. By 

 the British municipal laws, which were the laws of both nations, the property of a 

 fishery is not necessarily in the proprietor of the soil where it is situated. The soil 

 may belong to one individual, and the fishery to another. The right to the soil may 

 be exclusive, while the fishery may be free, or held in common. And thus, while 

 in the partition of the national possessions in North America, stipulated by the treaty 

 of 1783, the jurisdiction over the shores washed by the waters where this fishery was 

 placed was reserved to Great Britain, the fisheries themselves, and the accommoda- 

 tions essential to their prosecution, were, by mutual compact, agreed to be continued 

 in common. 



In submitting these reflections to the consideration of His Majesty's Government, 

 the undersigned is duly sensible to the amicable and conciliatory sentiments and 

 dispositions towards the United States manifested at the conclusion of Lord Bathurst's 

 note, which will be met by reciprocal and corresponding sentiments and dispositions 

 on the part of the American Government. It will be highly satisfactory to them to 

 be assured that the conduciveness of the object to the national and individual pros- 



