John Quincy Adams was the American Minister in Great Britain at this time, and it will be recalled that he had been one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent, and that he, therefore, was entirely familiar with the claims of the United States in regard to the North Atlantic fisheries.

The Secretary of State advised Mr. Adams of the incident, as will be seen in a note printed in the Appendix to the Case of the United States on p. 263; and after notifying him of this warning given by this British sloop-the "Jaseur "—which was promptly stated to be without any authority whatever the Secretary of State wrote to Mr. Adams:

"It is sufficient to observe here, that the right of the United States to take fish on the coat of Newfoundland, and on the coasts. bays and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, and to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen islands, and Labrador-in short, that every right appertaining to the fisheries, which were secured by the treaty of 1783, stands now as unshaken and perfect as it then did, constituting a vital part of our political existence, and resting on the same solid foundation as our independence itself."

And he added, as appears on p. 264 of the same Appendix:

"It can scarcely be presumed that the British Government, after the result of the late experiment, in the present state of Europe, and under its other engagements, can seriously contemplate a renewal of hostilities. But it often happens with nations, as well as with individuals, that a just estimate of its interest and duties is not an infallible criterion of its conduct. We ought to be prepared at every point to guard against such an event. You will be attentive to circumstances, and give us timely notice of any danger which may be menaced."

This observation, like many others of a similar nature, is only important at this late day for the reason that it furnishes a just measure of the importance attached to this fishery question by the people of the United States during the period under consideration. The North Atlantic fisheries were inseparably connected with the struggle for Independence, and were regarded, as stated by Mr. Monroe, as constituting a vital part of our political existence, and resting on the same solid foundation as our Independence itself.

These views, as I say, are only important as throwing light upon the construction of the renunciatory clause of the treaty of 1818. It is not, I submit, to be readily concluded that the United States would surrender vital liberties, or make a concession, as now construed by Great Britain, that gave up, without a struggle, important national rights, the surrender of which to the extent now contended had never been asked; nor is it to be easily believed that this surrender was made by Plenipotentiaries instructed by the President of

the United States "that the British Government may be well assured that not a particle of these rights will be finally yielded by the United States without a struggle, which will cost Great Britain more than the worth of the prize."

Upon the receipt of these instructions from the Secretary of State, Mr. Adams took up with the Foreign Office of Great Britain the matter of the fisheries left unadjusted by the Treaty of Ghent, and under date the 19th September, 1815, in a note printed on p. 164 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, he advised his Government of the results of an interview with Lord Bathurst, and stated at length what Lord Bathurst had stated to him. That portion of Mr. Adams's note to which I wish to refer is this:

"There were other objects which I deemed it necessary to present again to the consideration of this Government. In the first instance, it seemed advisable to open them by a verbal communication; and I requested of Lord Bathurst an interview, for which he appointed the 14th instant, when I called at his office in Downing Street. I said that, having lately received despatches from you respecting several objects of some importance to the relations between the two countries, my first object in asking to see him had been to inquire whether he had received from Mr. Baker a communication of the correspondence between you and him relative to the surrender of the Michili

mackinac; to the proceedings of Colonel Nichols in the south664 ern part of the United States; and to the warning given by the

captain of the British armed vessel "Jaseur" to certain American fishing vessels to withdraw from the fishing grounds to the distance of 60 miles from the coast. He answered, that he had received all these papers from Mr. Baker about 4 days ago; that an answer with regard to the warning of the fishing vessels had immediately been sent; but, on the other subjects, there had not been time to examine the papers and prepare the answers. I asked him if he could, without inconvenience, state the substance of the answer that had been sent. He said, certainly: it had been that as, on the one hand, Great Britain could not permit the vessels of the United States to fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of the British territories, so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to interrupt them in fishing anywhere in the open sea, or without the territorial jurisdiction, a marine league from the shore; and, therefore, that the warning given at the place stated, in the case referred to, was altogether unauthorized. I replied, that the particular act of the British commander in this instance, being disavowed, I trusted that the British Government, before adopting any final determination upon the subject, would estimate, in candor, and in that spirit of amity which my own Government was anxiously desirous of maintaining in our relations with this country, the considerations which I was instructed to present in support of the right of the people of the United States to fish on the whole coast of North America, which they have uniformly enjoyed from the first settlement of the country; that was my intention to address, in the course of a few days, a letter to him on the subject. He said that they would give due attention to the letter that I should send him, but that Great Britain had explic

itly manifested her intention concerning it; that this subject, as I doubless knew, had excited a great deal of feeling in this country, perhaps much more than its importance deserved; but their own fishermen considered it as an excessive hardship to be supplanted by American fishermen, even upon the very shores of the British dominions."

It does not appear reasonable, I respectfully submit, if Great Britain intended to claim exclusive jurisdiction in respect to the fisheries, as against the people of the United States, over the great outer bays, that the claim would be put forward in the statement made by Lord Bathurst in this interview.

On p. 268 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States is to be found a note from Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst which contains, on p. 269, the extract which I read yesterday embodying Mr. Adams's statement to Lord Bathurst of what Mr. Adams understood Lord Bathurst to have said in the interview that immediately preceded the letter. And I called the fact to the attention of the Tribunal when stating briefly the claim of Great Britain, that this letter from Mr. Adams was in pursuance of a formal notice to Lord Bathurst that Mr. Adams intended to incorporate in a note the substance of the interview between him and Lord Bathurst.

There is one paragraph on p. 269 in this note from Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst that I wish to read:

"But, in disavowing the particular act of the officer who had presumed to forbid American fishing vessels from approaching within sixty miles of the American coast, and in assuring me that it had been the intention of this Government, and the instructions given by your lordship, not even to deprive the American fishermen of any of their accustomed liberties during the present year, your lordship did also express it as the intention of the British Government to exclude the fishing vessels of the United States, hereafter, from the liberty of fishing within one marine league of the shores of all the British territories in North America, and from that of drying and curing their fish on the unsettled parts of those territories, and, with the consent of the inhabitants, on those parts which have become settled since the peace of 1783."

The contents of Lord Bathurst's answer to Mr. Adams' note is most important. The answer will be found on p. 273 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States. Lord Bathurst was writing under date the 30th October, 1815:—

"The undersigned, one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, had the honor of receiving the letter of the minister of the United States, dated the 25th ultimo, containing the grounds upon which the United States conceive themselves, at the present time, entitled to prosecute their fisheries within the limits of the British sovereignty, and to use British territories for purposes connected with the fisheries."

92909°-S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10- -14

If the Tribunal please, that note was a direct acknowledgment of Mr. Adams' note containing the statement, in precise language, of what Lord Bathurst had stated to him in the previous interview; and I submit that Lord Bathurst adopts and accepts the definition of the extent of the British sovereignty as expressed by Mr. Adams in his letter of the 25th September, 1815, which is found on p. 268 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States.

Lord Bathurst also stated in this note, on p. 278 of this Appendix:

665

"It was not of fair competition that His Majesty's Government had reason to complain, but of the preoccupation of British harbors and creeks, in North America, by the fishing vessels of the United States, and the forcible exclusion of British vessels from places where the fishery might be most advantageously conducted. They had, likewise, reason to complain of the clandestine introduction of prohibited goods into the British colonies by American vessels," etc.

The notes exchanged between Lord Bathurst and Mr. Adams were subsequently placed in the hands of the negotiators in 1818. I have stated that they were given to the Commissioners and were referred to as the measure of the respective admissions and contentions of the two Powers.

I now respectfully refer the Tribunal to the evidence supporting the statement. First on p. 304 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States will be found the instructions from Mr. Adams, who had returned from England to become Secretary of State of the United States, to Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, the negotiators of the treaty of 1818 in behalf of the United States.

In these instructions Mr. Adams stated, under sub-division 5 relating to the fisheries:

"The proceedings, deliberations and communications upon this subject, which took place at the negotiation of Ghent, will be fresh in the remembrance of Mr. Gallatin."

It will be recalled that Mr. Gallatin was one of the Commissioners at Ghent.

"Mr. Rush possesses

It will also be remembered that Mr. Rush had been acting Secretary of State of the United States and had conducted certain of the correspondence regarding this controversy prior to his being appointed Minister for the United States in Great Britain. So Mr. Adams states:

"Mr. Rush possesses copies of the correspondence with the British Government relating to it after the conclusion of the peace, and of that which has passed here between Mr. Bagot and this Government."

And the second reference is to the British Case Appendix, p. 85, where will be found an extract from the instructions from Lord Castlereagh, Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for Great Britain, to Messrs. Robinson and Goulburn who were the Commissioners in behalf of Great Britain in 1818. Lord Castlereagh stated in these instructions, under date the 24th August, 1818:

"The accompanying papers will bring the present state of the fishery question under your view. I refer you to the proceedings at Ghent for those arguments upon which the British plenipotentiaries maintained, as I conceive unanswerably, that the second branch of the IIIrd Article of the treaty of 1783 had expired with the war." Then in the next paragraph he said:

"The subsequent correspondence will show

which, of course was a part of the accompanying papers

"the nature of the claim put forward by the American Government soon after the peace." &c.

I submit that in this correspondence enclosed by Lord Castlereagh, Lord Bathurst had stated, in language characterised by great exactness, the extent of the claim of the Government of Great Britain. And I repeat, there was no broad claim of jurisdiction over large bays or large bodies of water adjacent to the shores.

The 3-marine-mile line was measured from the shore, and within that line were the waters denied to the vessels of the United States. The negotiations thereupon proceeded with a definite understanding that there was no controversy as to the extent of the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain in respect of these fisheries as against the inhabitants of the United States.

Surveying for a moment this correspondence between the two Governments relating to the arrangement of the details for a modification of the liberty previously recognised as belonging to American fishermen, and with the knowledge in mind that the extent of jurisdiction was not now a subject of controversy, the conclusion is irresistible that the negotiation did not involve any assumed claim to jurisdiction over the outer bays or the large bodies of water adjacent to the British possessions in North America.

666

After the notes had been exchanged between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst, Lord Bathurst, in a note on p. 278 of the Appendix to the United States Case, expressed a willingness"to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States for the modified renewal of the liberties in question; and they doubt not that an arrangement may be made satisfactory to both countries, and tending to confirm the amity now so happily subsisting between them."

Mr. Adams transmitted this note from Lord Bathurst to his Government under date the 8th November, 1815. The note is found on