Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1815-04-21
From N.c Dossop Daily .idrertissr.

deserving of attention. We will only re-
tmark, that it's much to be regretted,
THAT our government, By annuliing all the
treaty rights which we claimed OF Great
britain, haye.even left our claim to the
Fisheries matter Of question, or one
(which requires argument to settle it. We.
ihope that G. Britain may be disposed to
Iadmit our right as fully as il 1t had been
recognized BY the late treaty; but it
would at anyrate have been much better,
ibad the old treaty been expressly con-
Ifrlned, or the article relative to the hshe-
lries, re-inserted in the new one.
THE RIGHT TO THE FISHERIES
Not losteby the z. States.
In country where every citizen pos
scsses share of the sovereignty, each IS
1prone to believe himself competent to the
exercise of its high duties. Treaties be
tween states and nations he CONSTITUTES with
tequal facility and assurance with which
| he interprets ordinary compacts between
IF accustomed to scribe, he
loften publishes his ideas, without exanE-
lnation sufficient toascertain t'reircorrect-
ness, if his abilities are equal to the task.
Though such publications rarely efectuate
much good, they generally produce as lit
| tie harm. = Yet, as the case may be, M
calculable mischief may be the result. A
true construction of the recently promul-
igated treaty, between tie U. States and
10. Britain, rs of vast importance to the
former. If q false Interpretation be given
to that instrument, and become generally
current in the newspapers throughout this
country, such Interpretation may, by the
British government, be considered as re-
cognised by our own ;and claims founded
thereon be set up which viii otherwise
neyerb be made; and which will jeoPar-
disc t.. best interests OF the q. States, if
actually brought forward. Unfortunately
ever since the declaration of war in 1912,
newspaper assertions, that by the fact OF
war, we had lost our right to the fisheries
| in the Gulph OF St. Lawrence, &c. have
been very frequent and oftenrepeated. 1t
has been often suggested, that an express
concession, or at least q recognition, in
| the treaty of peace of our right, would be
necessary to our future enjoyment Of the
fisheries. These ideas have been eagerly
seized on the other side of tlle Atlantic.
Sc soon as the terms of the treaty were
there known, the English newspapers an
nouncing I'll. peace, declared that Great
Britain Fad obtained an exclusive right
Ito the fisheries. The right has, both here
and in England been coupled with that Of
trading to tie British possessions in the
East Indies. Between them, however,
there is not tie most distant analogy.
They are not only diversein their nature,
but sprung from originals entirely distinct.
Our right to that part>of the India trade,
MAS, while it existed, purely conventional;
land originated with the treaty of 1884.
which long since expired by It's own limi-
|tation. The right Of TIE fisheries is Of
date coeval with the settlement of New
England, dependent On no treaty for it's
|origin, inextirguishable by war While the
~. States maintain their independence,
or the New-England states their sove-
reignty, and has never been renowned by
treaty.
10 fern correct opinion OF our right
ito the fisheries, the state and condition of
|Great-Britain and Of her colonies, now
the q. States, anterior to, and at the
time of framing the treaty of 1885, as
we'll as The terms of that treaty, and OF
the treaty of 1914, must be rightly un-
|derstood. Before the treaty of 1885,
1.-THE country oomprehended within the IL
|mits of the United States, together with
|therest of the British dominions, consti-
|tuted one empire, one nation, possessed
Iequal and the same rights to the enjoy
|ment OF the fisheries in question. Our
declaration Of independence, and the war
Ito obtainit, in no wise varied the rights
|of the parties, until that war was termi-
mated by the treaty of 1885. Tie fish
|eries were the commo property of the
British empire, and always were until
that time held and used in common, by
the different parts of it. " There are
things which in their own nature cannot
|be possessed-there are others the pro-
|perty of which nobody can attribute to
himself, and that remain in common when
the nation takes possession of a country:
The Roman civilians called these things
res co,nnlunes, things common, such were
among them the air, running. ,cater, the
sea, the fish, and the wild beasts;" [a]
+ Every thing susceptible of property is
considered to belong to the nation that
possesses the country-those not divided