these the colonies pursued their fisheries, and in 1698 we find them petitioning parliament against the money bill of William and Mary, because it continued the duty on colonial fish in order to protect those of the mother country.* This petition was of course rejected, for even at that early day England had had forebodings that American enterprise and perseverance would drive her (as it has done) from the fisheries.

Of what intervened between this period and the Revolution little need be said, as the following estimate of the value and quantity of fish taken by Massachusetts alone, in 1765, will tell its own story:-Vessels engaged in the cod fishery, 300; whale, 180: mackerel, 90. Value of cod fishery, $366,796; mackerel, $310,893; total of all, including whale fishery, $1,214,830. In 1775, parliament passed the famous act driving us from the fisheries, where we had plied our labors, and in which, at this time, we had engaged in the cod fishery 665 vessels, taking 350 quintals of fish, valued at $1,071,000. It was on the passage of this bill that Burke ut· tered that glowing eulogy upon American fishermen, that will live so long as a single tongue can speak the language, and which, after the lapse of 78 years, possesses power enough to strengthen every American heart in defense of them and their rights: "As to the wealth which the colonies have drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter rehearsed at your bar. No sea (continued he) but what is vexed by their fisheries. Neither the perseverance of Holland, nor the activity of the French, nor the dexterous and firm sagacity of the English enterprise, ever carried this most perilous mode of hardy industry to the extent which it had been carried by this recent people."‡

In the course of the passage of this bill the following occurrences seem worthy of note. February 28, 1775, a petition from Deal, (from which place and Portsmouth there sailed 400 vessels for Newfoundland, the tonnage of which amounted to 30,000, beside 20,000 in shallops, and employing 20,000 men, raising 3,000 fresh seamen every year, and catching fish to the value of £500,000,) that the bill prohibiting fishing might pass, and stating that the value of the fishery carried on by residents in the mother country amounted to the sum given above. The Quakers opposed it, and cited Nantucket, as containing 5,000 inhabitants, nine-tenths Quakers, and engaged entirely in the fishery. David Barclay hoped the clause as to the fisheries would be stricken out, as, if it was not, the colonies could not pay their debts. Burke spoke in behalf of the colonies, while Lord Clare quoted from a writer (approvingly) the remark, that, “restrain their trade, and take away their fisheries, and you will soon bring them to their senses." Seth Jenkins gave his evidence that Nantucket had 140 vessels, and of this number 132 were engaged in the fisheries, producing £330,000. Others remarked, that New England fisheries increased and the mother country's decreased, and hence desired this bill to pass, to crush them if possible, alleging, also, that by the fisheries they carried on an illegal trade with the French. Suffice it to say, that the petitioners for the bill succeeded in their purpose, and the colonists were driven from the fisheries, that for near a century and a half had enriched their state and given employment to thousands of its citizens.

Chalmer's Revolt of the Colonies, 229. + American State Papers, vol. vii., p. 15. Burke's Works, vol. ii., 45, 46.

Parliamentary History, vol. xviii., 1774-1777.

Though the fisheries were, as a matter of course, destroyed by the war, still, as early as May, 1778, Congress, through the importunity of the eastern members, took up the consideration of the question, whether the right of fishing should be an ultimatum in the treaty of peace that might be made with the mother country. Without tiring the reader with a repetition of motions, made for the purpose of preserving the fisheries, even at the risk of continuing the war, and counter motions, making their possession depend on accident and contingencies, we will at once remark, that their positive concession from the mother country, as an ultimatum of peace, was not effected till October, 1789.* The thought may have suggested itself to the reader, as to the cause of this delay and long-continued debate, as regarded the necessity of their preservation, and we intend to give the reason, at the risk of introducing what some may consider a controversial question. Preferring the language of the men of those days to that of our own, we shall quote from the Virginia Debate, upon the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Mr. Monroe, in the course of these debates, said: "The northern States were willing to yield up the Mississippi to Spain, in order to prevent an augmentation of Southern power and influence. Mr. Grayson said, "It is well known that the Newfoundland Fisheries and the Mississippi are balances for one another, that the possession of one tends to the preservation of the other. This accounts for Eastern policy. They thought, that if the Mississippi was given up, the Southern States would give up the right of the fisheries, on which their very existence depended, and that while their preservation depended on the success of the war, they were for keeping the navigation of the Mississippi." Mr. Madison remarked, "I do suppose that the fisheries had its influence on those States. No doubt it was the case. For that and other reasons they still continue against the alienation, for it might lessen the security of retaining the fisheries." Patrick Henry remarked, "that after obtaining the fisheries we were willing to cede the Mississippi to Spain."

By these quotations the reader can see that the South would not consent to make the fisheries an ultimatum, unless the North would give them the opportunity of extension, by demanding of Spain the navigation of the Mississippi, and to this the North conceded, and thus escaped one danger that threatened the fisheries. But another was still in store for them; for France, like England, had suffered by our competition with her in this branch of trade, and desired to drive us from them, and the intercepted letter of Maraboist plainly showed that our ally was endeavoring to deprive us of them, and was encouraged in this purpose by his minister here.

We might, very properly, introduce here a part of Marabois' letter, but will only remark, that in it he tells the king that Samuel Adams is stirring up the Eastern States to continue the war unless the fisheries are ceded, and says that the prevailing toast in Massachusetts was, "No peace without the fisheries." He advises the king to express his surprise that we should lay any claim to them, and to promise us some other fishery in case we would relinquish our claim on those of Newfoundland. This letter produced great indignation; but, after all, the States were more to blame than the envoy, for, upon every occasion of addressing the king, they had expatiated largely on the value of the fisheries; and in their instructions to Franklin, and their

• The Secret Journal of Foreign Affairs, 1776-1781,

+ See Pitkin's Civil Hist. U. S. App.

plan for the reduction of Canada, (No. 4,) the fisheries and their value were the great inducement held out to the king to embark with us in a war against England. But this danger we also escaped, and the next difficulty was to wring their concession from England. Of the eloquence of the elder Adams upon this occasion, all are too familiar for us to think of copying here his remarks, so we close this notice of the dangers that surround the fisheries by remarking, that the treaty of peace, in 1783, gave us the "right to fish on the Grand Banks and in the sea, and the liberty, on the shore, and in all bays, creeks, and harbors." This treaty has since been superseded by the convention of 1818, and before discussing the point, as to whether this grant was perpetual or temporary in its character, we propose to give certain statistics of all our fisheries, remarking, in this place, that our whale fisheries commenced from the shore in 1713, and soon extended to the sea, and that immediately on the close of the war, in 1783, 35 licenses were asked for by Nantucket for the purpose of prosecuting this trade, and its success from that date can be judged of by the statistics we give.

Capital invested in 1852, estimated by increase of tonnage, viz.:-Tonnage engaged in all fisheries in 1840, 240,526; 1852, 369,012; increase, 128,486. Total value, $24,000,000.

TONNAGE OF THE DIFFERENT STATES EMPLOYED IN THE FISHERIES IN 1852.

These statistics exhibit some facts worthy of notice, and especially that one that exhibits such an increase in tonnage as compared with 1840. By observation it will be seen that the tonnage engaged in mackereling has doubled since 1830, that of the whale fishery increased fivefold, and that of the cod fishery more than half. Or, compared with 1840 it exhibits an aggregate increase as follows. The tonnage employed in the fisheries in 1840 was 240,526 tons, and in 1852 it was 369,012 tons, being an increase of more than half, or 128,485 tons.

Our exports of dry and pickled fish have largely decreased, but this results from increased home consumption, but on the other hand, our exports of the produce of the sea are as high as they were in 1833, and the aggregate produce of which for the last twelve years has been $35,489,952.

With these remarks upon the statistical tables we have given, we proceed to discuss, what ought to be to every American citizen an all-important question, viz.; by what title do we hold our right to the fisheries.

To discuss this point understandingly it will be necessary to examine the

* Estimated in proportion to the increase of tonnage since 1840.

two treaties of 1783 and 1818, and as the negotiators of 1818 have been severely censured for the conventions then made, we propose to discu-s first the character of the treaty of 1783. In the first place, by the treaty of 1783 we obtained the "right" to take fish on the Grand Bank, and on all other banks of Newfoundland, 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 then it gives them the "liberty" to take fish on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, but not to cure or dry the same on the island, and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks, of all other of his Britannic majesty's possessions in America. Such is the general language of the treaty, and the question arises, whether it contained a sure and fixed guaranty of our right to fisheries, or whether, in case of war or mutual misunderstanding, the stipulation or concession, might not be withdrawn. Men of the ablest character have argued at great length this very important question, and while it has never been our good fortune to see the arguments of those who contend the arrangement was temporary, still we have read very carefully the opinions of those who contend it was a right in perpetuity and not in limitation. Though John Quincy Adams, in his letters upon the "Mississippi and the Fisheries," brought to bear upon this subject that depth of learning and instructive wisdom which were so characteristic of him, still we cannot yield to his opinion that this third article was perpetual in its character and irrevocable in its grant, but on the contrary we do believe that this treaty and that article carried within themselves the seeds of their own destruction and the elements of a premature decay. Our reasons for this opinion are these. The reader will notice that the word "right" is used in this treaty when speaking of our taking fish on the banks and in the sea, while when speaking of our fishing in the bay, creeks, and harbors, the word “liberty" is substituted for "right." asserted, when contending for the indestructibility of this article, that "liberty" is synonymous with "right," and to support his assertion, quotes from Crabbe's English Synonymes, where that erudite scholar speaks of natural liberty as the same as an inalienable right. But this same author, when speaking of "liberty," as regards a concession, defines it to be a "a leave, a license, and permission," and on the other hand he declares "right" to be a thing independent of human laws and regulations, or, to use the language of Rutherford, that quality in a person or nation that makes it just to do an action. Webster also makes the same distinction between "right" and "liberty," defining the first to be a claim, a just demand and liberty, a license, and permission. Of this last character is the permission given to our fishermen by the treaty of 1783, for from the very nature of the grant, we could not have demanded as a right the privilege of the shore fishery, when every writer on international law expressly asserts that every nation has sole and exclusive possession a marine league from the shore, especially as regards the fisheries. Therefore, as this treaty guarantied only the fisheries of the open seas as a "right," those that were merely permissive in their character, were destroyed by the war of 1812.

Adams

In further support of the correctness of our opinion we here state three reasons for supposing that the grant was temporary, not perpetual. And, first, because it conceded to us the use of territory to which we had no claim, and was only obtained by a combination of circumstances against Great Britain, such as she never before saw. Second, it opened the way for contraband trade, which in the then growing state of the colonies, must