Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1815-04-21

! to itself Ill az ydutof5~. 'sstt~' :. S-eAA.
sdered as having taken possession OF, and
make profit of It in the pane manner as it
NAV possess the domains OF the land it
inhabits.v [d
tits unnecessary further to remark on
the passages above. than to say, that BY
the principles in them contained the fish
eriessin question having been taken POS
session ofby the British. nation at an ear
w period after the settlement OF this
country, were the common property OF
it, until the treaty Of 1888; ) all parts a.
like using them in common With equal
right. That treaty is without a prece-
dent. Itisvery unlike any othe, extanf,
in the records OF moderation. It is not
treaty of peace between two nations,
before independent soyereigns; but a
treaty Of partition, between the inhabi-
tants of two,parts of a great empire; be-
fore forming one nation. Ry that treaty
or compact, after the recognition OF the
independence Of the United States, and
describing their boundaries uron the land,
it was agreed that the United States should
continue to enjoy the right to take fish Of
every kind, on the Grand Bank, and all
other banks of Newfoundland, also in the
Gulph Of st. Lawrence, and at other pla-
ces in the sea, where the Inhabitants Of
both countries used at any time, there
fore to fish, and also 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 fisher
men shall use (hut not to dry or use the
same on that isiand)as also on the coasts,
bays and creeks, of all other of his Bri-
fannie Majesty's dominions in America;
and the American fishermen shall have
liberty to dry and cure fish, in any of the
unsettled bays, harbors and creeks, of
Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and La
brador, SO long as the same shall remain
unsettled, but 80 soon as the same or
either of them shall be settled, it shall not
be lawful for said fishermen to dry or cure
fish at such settlement, without previous
agreement for that purpose, With the In
habitants, proprietors or possessorsof the
ground.''
This article recognises an antecedent
and at the date of the treaty, an existing
right in the inhabitants of the United
States, to the fisheries on the banks of
Newfoundland, in the Gulph Of St. Law
renee, and all other places in the sea
where the inhabitants of both countries
used at any time heretofore to fish. The
continuanceto enjoy right, necessarily
implies its pre-existepce. If tfle~rigli
existed anteccdent to the formation of the
treaty, such right could not derive its ex-
istence from the treaty.
1.-THE right was not derived from the |
treaty, no violation or dissolution of it
can destroy that right. The right men-
toned in the treaty is the same for fishing |
in tire Gulph eff st. Lawrence as en- the
banks of Newfoundland, and ali other
places in the sea, where the inhabitants
of other countries used at any time to fish.
If the right to fish in the gulph Of st. |
Lawrence is derived from the treaty, SO |
must it be in the other places named, to |
wit, in al places in the sea, where the
of both countries use to fish.
which extends as well to open ocean, III
every quarter of the werld as to the coasts
Of North America, and must be alike for
feited by the fact ofwar. The residue of
the treaty relating to the fisheries though
expressed in terms little different from
the first member of the article, cannot va
~. limit, or restrict its plain leteral
meaning; all being founded en- pre-ex-
isting rights and the reason for intrCauc-
ing the same, being for the purpose of
making partition, and not for comforting
any new right, to declare the reservation
on the part of the United States, not &C.
knowledging cession on the part of Os
britain and to prevent the construction
which might otherwise be given to the 81
lence of the treaty on the subject, that the
owners of the coasts, after such partition
might claim an exclusive right to the fish
cries. Such are the ideas naturally sug-
gested by the phraseolegy and terms used
in the article. Though that treatyis no
vel in its kind, yet principles of public
law will be found sufficiently applicable
for its right Interpretation. Considering
it as treaty of partition, there can be
no difficulty in admitting the empire or
sovereignty Of the shores to belong too.
Britain, while a permanent and indefea-
sible usufructuary interests is reserved to
the q. States, in the waters, and also up
on the shores themselves. The people
(says vattel may even allow the superior
the domains of the. things he possesses
in common and reserve to themselves