The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1815-08-19
When The first American war had resulted

When the first American war had re suited
in the separation ns the two Countries the ne
gotators of the treaty Of l7S3. did not forget
hat the Cana,las and the FISHERIES were a
Joint conquest; and tho America yielded to
England al her interest in the Canadas, En-
gland did by the treaty guarantee TO Ameri-
ca an equal, common right TO the fishery, with
the liberty OF curing fish on the coast; Which
she enjoyed before The separation. America
did not purchase these priyil, ges of Engl and
by connecting To her any advantages what. q
ever, as an equivalent. EnglGntl herself then
tiic ught that America was Justly erutiStl 10
a share IN the fishery, on account Of the share
she had m max ny the cQrGutst, esl)t, tally as
al the Canadas were gwen up t. Eilsi. NJ !,
The same reason aud justice of the case.
which made 1t aH Exception from the laws #
nations, and which ttlen opera, ed upon the two
governments, the one TO demand, and the 9TH
CT TO acknowledge tile right, are as strong flclp
As they were in 1885.
If 1t be pretended that England & the Can
adas made conquest of this American right,
during the late Mar, will merely say thot
the pr etension is inadmssbls. But, even adj
mitt,ng such pretenoe, the late peace was
not concluded upon the principle of tie mi
foSSidefis, bat of the ante quo 6eltua,. Con
seQuently, all conquesis made on either side
are to be given zap.
Although Lord Castlereagh expressed
wish that tile House would not interfere with
the subject, but would leave it to tin, govern
ment yet ne declared that there remained
nothing iii force ct the treaty Of l783, with A
merica, but what had been expressly renew
ed" The Treaty of Client was merely Il
Treaty of Peace, which being on the principle
OF tn ante quo 6cLllt', left the respective rights
of the parties in stGtt quo. Castlereag's
assertion would hold good as to the treaty of
1875, which was commercial treaty. All the
s.ipuiations of that treaty were merely com
0iercidl and are, of course, at end, SUI
jet to be renewed or modified by the parties
The treaty of 1888 was not only 4 treaty of
peace, but it contained an acknowledgment of
the independence and sovereignty OF, the u
$, an acknOw ledgnent of their rights il, the
fishery, and definition of tho ir bourdaries-
1t Castereagh's declaration be correct, Anne
RIGA lost her boundaries, her independence,
and every other right, by the termination of
the treaty OF '83, unless they have heen er-
h1eSSly renewed by the treaty of Client. l.
his assertion be good in the least part, it IS
good in the zvhoie. If it be not correct
in the whole, it fails altogether. As 1t was
not thought necessary that the treaty of
Client should contain acknowledged
or, our independence, Scc--So, Meth r
Cat, it be reasonably pretended that We
have lost any other nationat rights. becausc
they ,were not reneqVed by that treaty. The
use OF thu fishery is one of the national rights
| acknowledged by the treaty of IS, and does
not stand upon tine footing of the s;ipulations
OF a commercial treaty, which may be favo-
| rable or not-Tnay oe rescihded, altered or
| renewed, as, the parties may agree. Not so
with respect to national rights.
1t any person wish to know how much mo-
| ney, men and blood the Colonies expended to
make that conquest for the crown Of England,
refer him to the history Of the iyarof 1886 /;
and also, to Gordon History of America by
which he will find that this country contrbu-
ted more than England to take the Canadas
and the Fisheries from the French S.