CORRESPONDENCE 413 



I. Fisheries. We succeeded in securing, besides the rights of taking and curing 

 fish within the limits designated by our instructions, as a sine qua non, the liberty 

 of fishing on the coasts of the Magdalen Islands, and of the western coast of Newfound- 

 land, and the privilege of entering for shelter, wood, and water, in all the British harbors 

 of North America. Both were suggested as important to our fishermen, in the com- 

 munications on that subject which were transmitted to us with our instructions. 

 To the exception of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company we did not 

 object, as it was virtually implied in the treaty of 1783, and we had never, any more 

 than the British subjects, enjoyed any right there; the charter of that company having 

 been granted in the year 1670. The exception applies only to the coasts and their har- 

 bors, and does not affect the right of fishing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from 

 the shores, a right which could not exclusively belong to, or be granted by, any nation. 



The most diificult part of the negotiation related to the permanence of the right. 

 To obtain the insertion in the body of the convention of a provision declaring expressly 

 that that right should not be abrogated by war, was impracticable. All that could be 

 done was to express the article in such manner as would not render the right liable 

 to be thua abrogated. The words "forever" were inserted for that purpose, and we 

 also made the declaration annexed to the protocol of the third conference, the princi- 

 pal object of which was to provide in any event for the revival of all our prior rights. 

 The insertion of the words "forever" was strenuously resisted. The British pleni- 

 potentiaries urged that, in case of war, the only effect of those words being omitted, 

 or of the article being considered as abrogated, would be the necessity of inserting 

 in the treaty of peace a new article renewing the present one; and that, after all that 

 had passed, it would certainly be deemed expedient to do it, in whatever manner the 

 condition was now expressed. We declared that we would not agree to any article 

 on the subject, unless the words were preserved, or in case they should enter on the 

 protocol a declaration impairing their effect. 



It will also be perceived that we insisted on the clause by which the United States 

 renounce their right to the fisheries relinquished by the convention, that clause 

 having been omitted in the first British counter-project. We insisted on it with the 

 view — ist. Of preventing any implication that the fisheries secured to us were a 

 new grant, and of placing the permanence of the rights secured and of those renounced 

 precisely on the same footing. 2d. Of its bemg expressly stated that our renuncia- 

 tion extended only to the distance of three miles from the coasts. This last point 

 was the more important, as, with the exception of the fishery in open boats within 

 certain harbors, it appeared, from the communications above mentioned, that the 

 fishing-ground, on the whole coast of Nova Scotia, is more than three miles from the 

 shores; whilst, on the contrary, it is almost universally close to the shore on the coasts 

 of Labrador. It is in that point of view that the privilege of entering the ports for 

 shelter is useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a. considerable portion 

 of the actual fisheries on that coast (of Noya Scotia) will, notwithstanding the renuncia- 

 tion, be preserved. 



SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF MR. GALLATIN TO SECRETARY OF 

 STATE ADAMS, NOVEMBER 6, 1818 1 

 No. 87. Paris, 6th November, 1818 



Sir: Anxious from public considerations to return to Paris as soon as possible, 

 I left London on the 2 2d ult. The convention had been signed on the 20th, and the 

 time left to write our joint dispatches was so short that, although I hope nothing 

 •' Appendix, U. S. Counter Case, p. 619; Appendix, British Case, p. 97. 



