108 Mr. the pretension can not be supported. But you will see that Mr. de Chateaubriand, in his letter of the 5th of April last, while evading or abandoning. the attempt of reply to Mr. Gallatin, with regard to the claim of exclusive fishery, says that he had some time since instructed the chargé d'affaires of France at this place. to enter upon explanations with the Government of the United States concerning this object, and that he was then writing to him again about it. With regard to the exercise of force within the British. jurisdiction the Viscount has given Mr. Gallatin no answer whatever; but Mr. Gallatin, in his letter to this department of 17th April, states that in a conversation with the Minister of Marine, to whom he knew the subject had been referred, that Minister "gave it as his opinion, in explicit terms, that France, being in possession of the exclusive right of fishing on the coast in question, inasmuch as she had not before the last occurrence been disturbed in it by the fishermen either of England or America, she had the right to retain such possession, and ought to continue to exercise that right by expelling any vessels that should attempt to participate in the fisheries." Gallatin had not ascertained whether the Viscount de Chateaubriand and the other Minister concurred in this opinion of the Minister of Marine, the candour and explicitness of which must be acknowledged, but the charge d'affaires of France here declares that he has received no instructions from his Government to give the explanations promised by the letter of Mr. Chateaubriand to Mr. Gallatin, and we should no longer be excusable for refraining from a representation of the whole case to the Government of Great Britain. The question concerning the jurisdiction belongs peculiarly to her. The documents cited by you, in your correspondence with Mr. Gallatin, show that the premises of the French Marine Minister, upon which he relies for the basis of his opinion, are as incorrect in point of fact as his conclusion is extraordinary in point of principle. The deliberate pretension to exercise force within purely British waters was unexpected on the part of France. We shall not, for the present, employ force to meet force, although that result was properly presented by Mr. Gallatin to the French Government as a consequence to be anticipated from the perseverence of their armed vessels in disturbing our fishermen. We respect the territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain in resorting to her for the effectual exercise of it to carry into execution her engagements with us. The President desires that, in your conferences with the British Secretary of State, you will give him information of the present state of this concern between us and France. You will be careful to present it in the aspect the most favourable and friendly towards France that can be compatible with the effective maintenance of our own rights. It is probable that there may be no such interruption to our fishermen during the present season; and the occasion appears to be highly favourable for an adjustment of it to our satisfaction. Perhaps a mutual explanation and understanding between the British and French Governments concerning it, at this time, may render any resort to other measures unnecessary. But if, on discussion of the subject between them, France should not explicitly desist from both the pretensions to the exclusive fishery and to the exercise of force within British waters to secure it, you will claim that which the British Government cannot fail to perceive is due, the unmolested execution of the treaty stipulation contained in the convention of October 20, 1818; and if the British Government admits the claim of France to exclusive fishery on the western coast of Newfoundland from Cape Bay [Ray] to the Quirpon Islands, they will necessarily see the obligation of indemnifying the United States by an equivalent for the loss of that portion of the fishery, expressly conceded to them by the convention, which, in the supposed hypothesis, must have been granted by Great Britain under an erroneous impression that it was yet in her power to grant. I am, with great respect, Sir, Your very humble and obedient servant, Hon. R. RUSH, Envoy Extraordinary and JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, London. No. 55.-1823, July 8: Extract from Diary of Mr. John Quincy Adams. The Count de Menou came to inquire where were the Quirpon Islands; I showed him upon Mitchell's map. We had much conversation upon the subject of the French claim to exclusive fishery from them to Cape Ray. He said he had received further instructions from the Viscount de Chateaubriand on this affair, but there were still two previous instructions which he had not received. He saw it was an affair of great delicacy, and he did not see how they and we could enjoy a concurrent right of fishery on the same coast. I told him the whole affair was a question between France and Great Britain, with which we had but a secondary concern. Great Britain was bound to maintain her own jurisdiction. And if she had conceded to us a right which she had already granted as an exclusive possession to France, she must indemnify us for it. The Count spoke also upon the subject of the maritime questions arisen from the war between France and Spain, upon which he said he should write to me. 109 No. 56.-1824, March 30: Letter from Messrs. Huskisson and Stratford Canning to Mr. G. Canning (British Secretary for Foreign Affairs). No. 5. BOARD OF TRADE, March 30. 1824. SIR, The American plenipotentiary in a conference which we held with him yesterday, communicated the enclosed papers in explanation of the circumstances concerning which he has received the instructions of his Government with reference to the Newfoundland fisheries. The general purport of this communication is that the French lay claim in virtue of treaties with Great Britain to an exclusive enjoy ment of the fisheries on the northern and western coasts of Newfoundland, and under this claim have taken upon themselves to exclude the citizens of the United States from that part of the fishery which is carried on between Cape Ray and the Quirpon Islands, along the whole western coast of Newfoundland, the enjoyment of which in common with His Majesty's subjects was conceded to the United States by the convention of October 1818. The American plenipotentiary appears to be of opinion that His Majesty's Government is bound either to make the rights which his country has obtained under that convention, in common with His Majesty's subjects, respected by the French, or in case of the French substantiating their exclusive claim, to make compensation to the United States for the loss of so large a portion of their fishing ground. It strikes us on a first view of the case as presented by Mr. Rush that the circumstances are not of a nature to be settled by negotiations between him and us; but we defer submitting any distinct opinion on this point, until we have made enquiry into the state of the regulations under which the fishery is practically carried on along the western coast of Newfoundland. We have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble. servants To The Right Honble GEORGE CANNING W. HUSKISSON &c &c &c No. 57.-Statement respecting Newfoundland Fishery, given in by Mr. Rush. By the 13th article of the treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the sovereignty of the Island of Newfoundland was ceded by France to Great Britain. France being allowed the right of fishing and of drying fish from Cape Bonavista, on the eastern coast, to the place called Point Riche, but on no other parts. The provision of this treaty were renewed and confirmed by that of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748, and also, as far as relates to New foundland and the French fisheries on its coast, by the treaty of Paris of 1763. By the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain of September 3rd 1783, article 3, it is stipulated 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 cure the same on that island. By the treaty of the same date between Great Britain and France, articles 4th and 5th, the right of Great Britain to this island was confirmed, (the small adjacent islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon being excepted), and the right of the French to fish on a certain part of the eastern coast as above recited, was exchanged for that of fishing on the remainder of the eastern, and on the whole of the western coast, as far down from the north as Cape Ray. See also the declaration and counter-declaration of the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments annexed to this treaty, which are material as respects fishing rights. By the treaty of Paris of 1814 between Great Britain and France, the former restores to the latter, the colonies, fisheries, factories, and establishments of every kind, which France possessed on the 1st of January 1792, in the seas or on the continents of America, Asia, and Africa, with the exception of Tobago, St. Lucia, and the Isle of France. By the 13th article of this treaty it is declared that the French right of fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, on the coasts of the island of that name, and the adjacent islands, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, everything shall be restored to the same footing as in 1792." 66 as to Finally by the convention of October 20, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, it is provided, article 1st, that "the inhabitants of the said United States shall have for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, and on the western and northern coast, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands." By the same convention, the United States are allowed to dry and cure fish on the southern part of the coast of this island, as above described, but not on the western coast. 110 From the preceding statement it follows, that the French have the right of taking and drying fish on the western coast of the Island of Newfoundland. The United States claim the right of taking fish on the same coast. But this the French deny, saying that the right both of taking and drying belongs to France exclusively. Their cruisers have accordingly in 1820 and 1821, ordered off the American fishing vessels, whilst within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the coast, threatening them with seizure in case of refusal. It may be that France will allege in support of her doctrine, that by her treaty of September 3, 1783, with Great Britain, which gave her the right of fishing and drying fish on the western coast of the island, it was intended that this right should be exclusive; that the words of the treaty, and, above all, those of the declaration annexed to it, show this to have been the meaning, as France obtained the western coast in exchange for a part of the eastern coast with a view to prevent quarrels between the French and British fishermen. To this end, as it may perhaps be also alleged, the words of the declaration provide that British subjects were not to "interrupt the French fishery on this coast by their competition in any manner; and further provide that the "fixed settlements" which had been formed there (by British subjects it is presumed) should be removed. The United States will insist on the other hand, that Great Britain never could have intended by her treaty of 1783 with France to grant a right of fishing and of curing fish on the western coast to French fishermen exclusively, but that the right of British subjects to resort there in common, must necessarily be implied. That a contrary construction of the instrument cannot be received, the sovereignty of the whole island having been fully vested in Great Britain, and even confirmed by this very treaty. That it can never be presumed that she intended so far to renounce, or in any wise to diminish this sovereignty as to exclude her own subjects from any part of the coast. That no positive grant to this effect is to be found in the treaty, and that the claim of France to an exclusive right, a claim so repugnant to the sovereign rights of Great Britain, can rest on noth 66 ing less strong than a positive grant. That all that the words contained in the declaration to the treaty can be construed to mean is that British subjects should never whilst exercising their right, improperly or injuriously " interrupt by their competition "the enjoyment of the French right. Furthermore the United States cannot suppose, that Great Britain by the convention of the October 20, 1818, above recited, would ever have agreed that the inhabitants of the United States should have (for a just equivalent contained in the convention) the right or the liberty to take fish on the very coast in question in common with British subjects, but under the natural conviction and belief that British subjects had the liberty of resorting there; and if they had, the claim of France to drive away the fishermen of the United States cannot stand. The above summary may serve to present the general nature of the question which has arisen between the United States and France respecting fishing rights, and which Great Britain will doubtless desire to see settled in a manner satisfactory to the United States. It is obvious that if Great Britain cannot make good the title which the United States hold under her to take fish on the western coast of Newfoundland, it will rest with her to indemnify them for the loss. Another question which it is supposed will also be for her consideration is, how far she will consider it just or proper that France should be allowed to drive or order away vessels of the United States from a coast which is clearly within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Great Britain. August, 1822. Since the foregoing summary was drawn up, and which, as will be seen, was in part hypothetical, a correspondence which has taken place beteween the Minister of the United States at Paris, and the French Government, will serve to show more distinctly the grounds upon which France claims to evict the United States from so essential a portion of their fishing rights on the coast of this island. The correspondence consists of four letters from Mr. Gallatin to Viscount Chateaubriand dated January the 22nd, March the 14th, April the 2nd, and 15th, 1823; and two from Viscount Chateaubriand to Mr. Gallatin dated February the 28th and April the 5th 1823. Copies of these letters are annexed. For the articles of the treaties (no longer however in force) between the United States and France to which Viscount Chateaubriand alludes, see volume 1. of the Laws of the United States, edition of 1815, pages 80 and 131. March, 1824. No. 58.-1824, May 3: Letter from Mr. Rush (United States Minister at London) to Mr. G. Canning. The undersigned Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, has received the instructions of his Government to lay before Mr. Canning, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the following case. By the first article of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at London on the twen 111 |