West India islands direct; and, thirdly, we asked that the duties on articles imported from the United States into the islands in American ships, should be no higher than on the same articles when imported in British ships from the United States, or from any other country, without saying foreign country. These three provisions, particularly the second and third, would form insurmountable obstacles to the conclusion of any convention which should purport to embrace them.

I contented myself with replies as general. The communications from the joint mission last year, as well as some separate ones from this legation after it was over, will have informed the President how fully the views of our Government, on the injustice of this system, in all its past effects upon us, have heretofore been stated. On this occasion I remarked, as to the first objection, that it was plain that, if the ports were not specially named, the privilege of admission to them would, at any time, be revocable whenever Great Britain thought fit to exclude from them any other foreign vessels. It would be, in short, a privilege with nothing positive or certain in its character. As to the second, I said that, should an indirect trade be opened with the islands in any greater extent than the direct trade, nothing was more clear than that the greater part, or the whole, would soon be made to flow in the channel of the former, to the mani

fest advantage of British bottoms. On the third objection, I 101 said that an explanatory remark or two was all that I should

add (it would be but repetition) to what had often been urged before. That we should deny to Great Britain the common right of protecting the industry of a part of her own dominions, by laying discriminating duties in its favour, might be thought, at first blush, to wear an appearance not defensible; but it would be found, on a moment's examination, to be strictly so. The system built up by Britain must be looked at altogether. It was in itself so inverted and artificial, that principles not disputed in the abstract ceased to be just when applied to it. Though one and all of these colonies were, indeed, of her dominion, yet were they made to stand, with respect to us, in the light of separate and independent countries. This was the keystone of the colonial doctrine. Why should we not, in turn, adopt and apply it to Great Britain? If we stipulated not to impose upon articles imported into the United States from the British West Indies any higher duties than upon the same articles coming from any other foreign country, a similar provision by Great Britain, to impose on articles exported from the United States to her islands no higher duties than on the same articles when brought from any other foreign country, would obviously be one of but nominal reciprocity; since, after her own dominions on the continent of America, there was no other place whence such exportations to her islands would ever be made. Thus it was that this third provision, combined with the two others, became necessary to enable the United States, whilst prosecuting a trade with the British West Indies, to place their navigation upon a footing, not of verbal merely, but of real equality. It was the latter alone that could lay the foundations of a compact between the two nations that could ever be satisfactory or lasting.

His lordship did not hold to such views, and the conversation was not prolonged. It is proper for me to add, that he requested it to be

understood that, whilst our proposals were declined. it was altogether in a friendly spirit, and that no complaint would be made, as had frequently been intimated, at our resorting to any just and rightful regulations of our own which we might deem necessary to meet theirs, in relation to these islands. I rejoined, that I thought it probable that some such regulations would, before long, in addition to those existing, be adopted.

Having earnestly endeavoured to fulfil all my instructions, in their full spirit of anxiety for a different result upon this subject, my duty appears now to have arrived at its close.

No. 45.-1820, May 27: Extract from Letter from Mr. Adams (Secretary of State) to Mr. Rush (Envoy, &c., at London).

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 27, 1820.

I have the honour of transmitting, herewith, a copy of the laws passed at the last session of Congress, which closed on the 15th instant, among which you will find one, page 116, entitled "An Act supplementary to an Act concerning Navigation," which has an important bearing upon our commercial relations with Great Britain. The subject to which that Act relates has so recently and so fully been discussed between the two Governments, that it may be superfluous, though it cannot be unseasonable, to assure the British Cabinet, as you are authorised to do, that it was adopted with a spirit in nowise unfriendly to Great Britain; and that, if at any time the disposition should be felt there to meet this country by arrangements founded on principles of reciprocity, it will be met, on the part of the United States, with an earnest wish to substitute a system of the most liberal intercourse, instead of that of counter-prohibitions, which this Act has only rendered complete.

No. 46.-1822, October 10: Extract from Reprint of Letter from Mr. Rush (at London) to Mr. Gallatin (at Paris).

I have said that it does not appear that England has ever yielded up any exclusive rights to any part of the island. Perhaps to this assertion there is an exception, and, as far as I have yet examined the treaties between England and France, but a single one. The exception will be found in the "treaty of peace, good correspondence, and neutrality in America," between the two nations, of November 16, 1686. By the 5th article of this treaty it is provided, "that both Kings shall enjoy all the rights &c they are now possessed of in America," France in point of fact holding settlements and possessions in Newfoundland at that time. By the 6th article it is stipulated" that the subjects of neither shall trade, fish &c within the

102

pre

cincts of the other, and if any ship be found so doing it shall be confiscated." Now, I deduce from this treaty an argument of some weight in favour of our position. It is seen that when

England intended to pass, and France to be put in possession of, an exclusive right, proper words are employed to that effect. The island, by the operation of the clauses cited, was placed in a certain state of division between the two countries, the right of each being made exclusive. Where shall we find any words of equivalent import and strength in the treaty or declaration of 1783 It may be proper to remark, that although this treaty of 1686 was binding upon England, it was complained of by English subjects as derogatory to the statute of 15. Charles 2nd, ch. 16, as that statute has prescribed several regulations relating to the mode of carrying on the fishery, to be observed in any of the harbours of Newfoundland. We may gather hence how jealous was the English feeling as to all positive grants of exclusive rights to any other nation, and how necessary express words must have been accounted to pass such rights.

*

*

*

*

[Rush quotes from a "Report of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for trade on the subject of the Newfoundland fishery," dated the 17th March, 1786, and then says:]

I think that the whole tenor of these extracts leads to the conclusion for which we contend. They show that however England may have been inclined, for her own purposes or as matter of accommodation to France, to withdraw her subjects from the western coast, she has never lost her right to resort there, in any manner that can bar us. The committee are decidedly of opinion, that by the words of the treaty, your Majesty continues to be sole Sovereign of the Island of Newfoundland. This is our argument. It is that upon which foreign nations will stand, and we in particular, under our convention with England of 1818.

[He refers to the statute 28 Geo. III, cap. 35: "An Act to enable His Majesty to make such regulations as may be necessary to prevent the inconvenience which might arise from the competition of His Majesty's subjects and those of the Most Christian King in carrying on the fishery on the coasts of the Island of Newfoundland."]

No. 47.-1823, January 22: Letter from Mr. Gallatin (United States Minister at Paris) to Viscount de Chateaubriand.

PARIS January 22. 1823.

SIR, Authentic information has been received by the Government of the United States that several of their fishing vessels were in the years 1820 and 1821, ordered away from their fishing stations on the western coast of Newfoundland, within the limits secured to them by the convention with Great Britain of October 20. 1818, by armed vessels of France, and upon the threat of seizure. I have not yet. been informed whether the same proceeding was repeated in the year

1822.

The President of the United States has no doubt that the commanders of those armed vessels did not correctly understand their orders, and has instructed me to make this representation to His

Majesty's Government, and to request that those orders may be rectified for the future. I beg leave to call your Excellency's early attention to that subject, and have the honour to enclose a copy of the article of the convention above mentioned which relates to the fisheries.

I request your Excellency to accept &c &c.

(Signed)

ALBERT GALLATIN.

No. 48.-1823, February 28: Letter from Viscount de Chateaubriand to Mr. Gallatin.

PARIS le 28. fevrier 1823.

MONSIEUR, Vous m'avez adressé avec la lettre que vous m'avez fait l'honneur de m'écrire le 22. janvier, le premier article d'une convention conclue le 20. octobre 1818, entre les États Unis et la Grande Bretagne. Cet article stipule que les habitants des États Unis auront, en commun avec les sujets de Sa Majesté britannique, le droit de prendre, sécher, et conserver le poisson sur une partie des côtes de Terre Neuve, et sur celles des Iles Madeleines et du Labrador.

L'objet de la communication que vous m'avez faite étant d'obtenir que les pêcheurs américains ne soient point troublés par les vaisseaux armés de la France, dans les limites que leur ont été garanties par cette convention, je crois devoir examiner avec vous, Monsieur, quelles ont été les conventions qui avaient été antérieurement faites entre la France et les États Unis, sur l'exercice du droit de pêche dans les mêmes parages.

Les États Unis s'étaient engagés par l'article 10 du traité conclu entre eux et la France le 6. février 1778, à ne jamais troubler les sujets du Roi Très Chrétien dans la jouissance et l'exercice due droit de pêche sur les bancs de Terre Neuve, non plus que dans la jouissance indéfinie et exclusive qui leur appartenait sur la partie des côtes de cette île désignée dans le traité d'Utrecht.

Une disposition analogue fut insérée dans la convention conclue le 30. septembre 1800 entre les deux Puissances, et l'article 27 déclare qu'aucune des deux nations ne viendra participer aux pêcheries de l'autre sur ses côtes, ni la troubler dans l'exercice des droits qu'elle a maintenant, ou qu'elle pourrait acquérir sur les côtes de Terre Neuve, dans le Golfe St. Laurent, où partout ailleurs sur les côtes d'Amérique au nord des États Unis.

Avant que ce dernier traité fût conclu entre la France et les États Unis, la France jouissait du droit de pêche et de sécherie sur les côtes septentrionales et occidentales de Terre Neuve, dans les limites successivement déterminées par ses traités avec l'Angleterre, savior: par l'article 13 due traité d'Utrecht de 1713, par l'article 5 du traité de 1763, et par l'article 5 du traité de 1783. Les États Unis apres avoir reconnu le droit de la France, et après avoir déclaré dans l'article 10 du traité conclu avec elle en 1778, qu'ils ne la troubleraient jamais dans sa jouissance indéfinie et exclusive, ne pouvait modifier que de concert avec elle leurs premiers engagements sur ce point. La convention qu'ils ont conclue en 1818 avec l'Angleterre n'a pas changé leurs rapports avec la France; et lorsqu'ils ont obtenu de

l'Angleterre la liberté de pêcher sur une partie des côtes de Terre Neuve, ils n'ont pu acquérir en effet, qu'une liberté nécessairement limitée par leurs propres engagements envers la France, et par la déclaration qu'ils avaient faite de ne pas la troubler dans l'exercice de ses droits, déclaration renouvelée dans la convention conclue en 1800 entre les États Unis et la France.

La durée de cette convention n'était, il est vrai, que de 8 années; et après ce terme elle a cessé d'être en vigueur. Mais les anciens droits qu'elle avait reconnus ne pourraient pas se trouver détruits, parceque le temps de son exécution était expiré; car ces droits existaient antérieurement: ils n'étaient pas l'effet d'une concession de la part des États Unis; et l'article 10 du traité de 1778, où ces droits avaient déjà été rappelés, ne faisait qu'en constater l'authenticité, puisqu'il reconnaissait que la jouissance indéfinie et exclusive de la pêche sur une partie des côtes de Terre Neuve appartenait à la France conformément au véritable sens des traités d'Utrecht et de Paris.

La question étant ramenée à ce point, je dois, Monsieur, considérer dans le nouvel article dont vous m'avez donné communication deux parties très distinctes.

La France n'a aucune observation à faire contre l'exercice du droit de pêche et de sécherie des Américains sur la côte méridionale de Terre Neuve. Elle même n'a jamais joui du droit de pêche sur ce point; et elle ne peut avoir rien à revendiquer.

Quant à la jouissance de la pêche sur la côte occidentale, les États Unis s'étaient engagés envers la France dès l'année 1778 à ne jamais la troubler dans l'exercice de ce droit. Ils avaient même déclaré à cette époque, qu'ils regarderaient la jouissance de la France comme indèfinie et exclusive. Tant que cet engagement subsiste, il doit être respecté; il doit être la base des instructions données par l'un et l'autre Gouvernement à leurs pêcheurs, et aux commandants de leurs stations maritimes; et un tel engagement ne pourrait être modifié que de concert entre les deux Puissances.

Je vous prie, Monsieur, de vouloir bien faire part à votre Gouvernement de la communication que j'ai l'honneur de vous faire en réponse à la note que vous m'avez adressée. Cette communication le portera sans doute à donner des ordres pour prévenir les difficultés auxquelles pourrait donner lieu quelque méprise sur l'application des traités. Agréez, Monsieur, les assurances &c &c

No. 49.-1823, March 14: Letter from Mr. Gallatin to Viscount de

Chateaubriand.

PARIS, March 14. 1823.

SIR, I had the honour to receive your Excellency's letter of the 28th of February in answer to mine of the 22nd of January, on the subject of the fisheries on the western coast of the Island of Newfoundland.

The right claimed by the United States on that part of the coast, does not embrace that of drying and curing fish on shore, which is there enjoyed by France to the exclusion of the Americans; but they