The Sun.
London, England, 1818-10-16 00:00:00

nation holding the laud cxe-Cise toe
rights Of sovereignty. When these important
points shall he submitted to the Court, in a way
which will render it incumbent on it to determine
them, it will not shrink from so arduous a task,
neither will it despair of placing them on grounds
which may find their support in the sound prin-
ciples of general and universal law ; principles
which flow from the reflections of enlightened
reason, corrected and confirmed by the usages
and customs of the civilized world. J It Will 1101,e,
that those contradictions which may have been
observed in the best writers are to be reconciled,
by an attention to the characteristic circumstances
of the different ages in which they thought and
wrote ; and by an allowance for the influence
which the fluctuating relations, the jarring- inte-
rests, and the various modifications of the claims
and pretensions of natiois, cannot fail to pro-
duce even npon the most reflecting wind. 11Iuelt
of that ditlerence found amongst writers of this
desciiption, may be traced to the prevailing public
sentiment, to national prejudices, and even to
the eccentricity of individual opinion. But what •
ever the difficulties are which those great toes-
might present, they do not meet the Court
in this case. It is only necessary, in order to see
the simplicity of this point, to read the article of
the Treaty on which the claim is founded, and to
determine whether that Treaty exists at the pre-
sent time. The words of the third article of the
Irt.a•y are
- - -

" It is agreed that the people of the United
States shall continue to enjoy, unmolested, the
tight to take fish of every kind on the Grand
Bank, :Ind on all the other Banks of Newfound-
land ; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at
.all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants
of both countries used at any time heretofore to
fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United
States shall have liberty to take fish, of every
kind, on such part of the coast of Newfoundland
as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or
core the same on that. island), and also on the
coasts, hays, and creeks of all other of his Bri-
tannic Majesty's dominions in America ; and that
the America❑ fishermen shall have liberty to thy
and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, har-
bours, and creeks of Nova Scotia, ;Magdalen
Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall
remain unsettled, but as soon as the same or tither
of them shall he settled, it shall not be lawful for
the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such set-
dement, without a previous agreement tor that
purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or pos-
j sessors of the ground."

Now it is impossible to imagine words more
clear than those. Two objects seem to have been
in view : the first was the fishery on the Grand
Bank, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and other
places in the sea ; and the second was the privi-
lege which was intended to be granted to the
people of the United States, to take and cure fish
on the coasts, and in the bays, creeks, and har-
bours of the British dominions in North America.
It would seem that the intention of the British
Government at the time, was to acknowledge an
absolute right in the people of America to fish
on the 'Grand Bank of Newfoundland, in the Gulf
of St. Lawrence, and other places in the sea ;
but the Court is not called 'won, in this case, to
determine that point. As respects the latter part
of this article, it would be confounding all ideas
of common sense, and throwing obscurity over
the endinary perspicuity of language, to contend
that the word " liberty," hoe used, can be con-
ceived to convey an absolute unqualified right.
That it was received as a privilege at the time,
and has been exercised as such until the late war,
cannot be doubted. By accepting such privilege,
that Government acknowledged the right to exist
in Great Britain ; and the only question left for
the slightest consideration is, whether that treaty
is now in force or not ?

It has been ingeniously argued on the part of
the claimant in this cause, that the treaty of 1783
is now in force, because the late war being for a
cause entirely new and distinct from the subjects
of contention, which were terminated by that
Treaty, the Declaration of War by the United
States was not a violation of any of its artiules.
And the words of sonic eminent ►writers would
seem to support such a doctrine : but a little at-
tention to this subject will explain the grounds
upon which the true and sound doctrine firmly
rests. Grotins, Book 3, cal►. 20, section 27, has
these words, "It is also a daily dispute when a
peace may be said to be broken, which the Greeks
call Paraspondema for it is not directly the same
thing to give a new occasion of war and to break
a peace. But there is a great difference between
them, as well in regard to the penalty which the
breaker incurs, as with respect to the liberty of
the injured party to disengage his word, in the
otl►er articles of the treaty." In a note, however,
to these words, the principles, as received in mo-
dern times, and the reason upon which they are
founded, are clearly laid down and explained.—
" When a new occasion of war is given in this
manner, the Treaty of Peace is thereby broken
indirectly; and with regard to the effect, if sa-
tisfaction for the offence be refused. For then the
offended having► a right to take arms in order to
do hitusell justice, and to treat the offender as an
enemy, against whom every thing is larvful; he
may also undoubtedly dispense with observing the
conditions of the peace, though the treaty has not
been formally broken with regard to its tenor."—
This distinction can scarce be of use in these days, 11
because Treaties of Peace are conceived it► such a
manner, that they include an engagement to live
in amity for the future in all respects, so that the
least occasion of war, how new soever it be, may
be deemed an infringement of the most important
articles of. the Treaty. It will be found that the
Treaty of 1783 contained an engagement that
there should be a firm and perpetual pence be-
tween the two countries; and that such engage-
ment was violated by the declaration of the late
war, no human being can be permitted to doubt.
I ant therefore bound to declare, that the Treaty
of 1783, and all the privileges depending thereon,
have ceased.
I have now fully considered the grounds of de-
fence in this case; and as I do not perceive either
truth in the distress, or strength in the right, set
up by the claimant, I feel myself compelled to pro-
nounce chili vessel, and the goods laden on board