IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
•- 1.
I.I
1.25
1£
2.5
IIM
2.0
1.8
1.6
^^/
^
/a
Si
^;.
^
W
'•/a
w
O'^A
Hiotographic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WEST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, NY. 14.«
(716) 872-4503
X
'f^s>
6
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductinns / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.
n
Coloured covers/
Couverture do couieur
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^e
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul4le
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
Coloured maps/
Cartes g^ographiques an r?u' .ur
D
D
D
n
n
D
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre da couieur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur
Bound with other material/
Raiiii avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
Lareliure serree peut cauLer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge IntArieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas iti filmAes.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplimentaires;
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il iui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dant la m*thode normale de filmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.
r~~| Coloured pages/
Pages de uouleur
Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes
□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcoior^es, tachetdes ou piquees
□ Pages detached/
Pages ditachees
0Showthrough/
Transparence
E Quality of print varies/
Quality in^gale de I'Impression
□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du matiriel supplementaire
□ Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
n
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un fttuillet d'errata. une pelure.
etc., ont 4t6 filmies i nouveau de facon a
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
This ite.,! is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est filn-,* au taux de reduction indSquA ci-dessous.
^°X 1« 18X 22X
12X
26X
16X
30X
y
20X
24X
28X
32X
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
Yorit University
Toronto
Scott Library
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page v/ith a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illust; ated Impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
IMaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams Illustrate the
method:
L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce d la
g4n6rnsitA de:
York University
Toronto
Scott Library
Les images suivantes ont «t6 reprodultes avec ie
pluj grand soln, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de I'exemplaire film*, et en
conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de
fllmage.
Les exemplalres orlglnaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sont fllmts en commen9ant
par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlere page qui comporte une emprelnte
d'lmpress^on ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second
plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
origlnaux sont filmte en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une emprelnte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle
emprelnte.
Un des symboles suivants appara!tra sur la
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie
cas: Ie symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie
symbols V signifie "FIN".
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
fllm«s & des taux de reduction di^'ftrents.
Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fllmA A partir
de I'angle supArleur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivsnts
illustrent la mAthode.
1
2
3
4
5
6
'Tfl^W^B'*'"
THE
SDWSPILaiOiiVIB SiSB^^fSBSS
9
THX
FISHERIES AND THE MISSISSIPPI.
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS
AT
THE NEGOTIATION OF GHENT.
CoIlecUd and Publiibad
BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
ONE OP The commissioners op the united state?
AT THAI NEGOTIATION.
WASHINGTON:
PRINTED BY DAVIS AND FORCE, TfRANKUn's HEAD,)
I'ENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
••••■••• ••■•••(••
•••••■••■•«•«,«..
1822.
i\
mmam
wmmmm
■V'
a„
^n vertisemejvt.
To facilitate the comparison between the Original and DupU-
cate of Mr, RusseWs Letter of llth February^ ||i| to Mr.
Monroe, they are in this Collection printed in corresponding
pages, with the variations between them numbered and printed
in a brevier type. The passages in the Ghent Documents, par-
ticularly referred to in the subsequent, discussion, are enclosed
in brackets.
i
^
1^
\x
'•^'i'- ' 'ifj'jgp^Ti'y!'^
ti
INTRODUCTION.
During the progress, and aAer the conclusion, of the negotiatio*
«t Ghent, despatches were at three several periods received by the
executive government of the United States, from their plenipoten-
tiaries at that place. The documents relating to the negotiation,
transmitted by the first and second of these occasions, were commu-
nicated by messages from the President of the United States to Con-
gress, and thereby became generally known to the public. They
are to be found in the 9th volume of Wait's State Papers, and in the
7th volume of Niles' Register, and they contain the correspondence
of the American mission, as well with their own government as
with the British plenipotentiaries, from the commencement of the
negotiation till the SIst of October, 1814. The third messenger
brought the treaty of peace itself The correspondence subsequent
to the 31st of October, was of course communicated to the Senate
with the treaty, when it was submitted to that body for their advice
and consent to its ratification. But it was not communicated to
Congress or made public, nor was there at that time manifested
any desire to see it either by the House of Representatives or by
the nation.
In the course of the last summer, (of 1821,) I was apprised by a
friend, that rumours very unfavourable to my reputation, even for
integrity, were industriously circulated in the Western Country.
That it was said I had made a proposition at Ghent to grant to the
British the right to rmvigate the Mississippi in return for the New-
foundland fisheries, and that this was represented as, at least, a high
misdemeanor. I observed that a proposition to confirm both these
rights as they had stood before the war, and as stipulated by the
treaty of 1783, had been offered to the British plenipotentiaries,
not by me, but by the whole American mission, every one of
whom had subicribeil to it. That the propoiial (o make this of<
t'er had been made to the mission not by me, but by u citizen of
the Western Country : that it was warranted, and as 1 believed, ab-
solutely required by the instructions to the mission at the time
when the proposal was made to the British commissioners, and that
if I had felt and shown great solicitude at Ghent for the fisheries,
I did not expect it was to be imputed to me as an offence, ci*
ther in my character of a servant of the Union, or in that of a na-
tive citizen of IVIaisachuaetts. He said the proposal wns at all
events to be so represented, thnt it wan charged exclusively upoD
ne, and that I should hear more about it ere long.
On the 16th of January last, Mr. Floyd, a member of the House
of Representatives of the United States, submitted to the House a
resolution in the following words :
** Retolvtd, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to
be laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the treaty of
Ghent, which has not yet been made public, and which, in his opinion, it may
not be improper to disclose."
The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table
one day.
The proceedings of the House upon it the next day, are thus re-
ported in the National Intelligencer of ttie 18th of January.
Thursday, January I'.'tb, 1822.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
On motion of Mr. Floyd, the House proceeded to the considera-
tion of the resolution offered by him yesterday, requesting of the
President of the United States " all the correspondence which led
to the treaty ut Ghent, which has not yet beeki made public, and
which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose.*''
Mr. Floyd remarked that, as peace was now restored, there was
no reason why the whole of the correspondence which led to the
treaty of peace, should not be made public. He therefore modi-
fied his motion by striking out the excepting clause, in italic, and
inserting after the word "Ghent," the words, 'together with the
protocol." He would also observe, that the bill which he had this
day reported lo the House, contemplated a very considerable
change in our intercourse with the Indian tribes in the West, and
it appeared, by the report of the Secretary of War, made yester-
day, that 'i great influence was exercised over thnse tribes by our
Kuropeau neighbours in that quarter. The correspondence be-
tween the commissioners at Ghent em!)raced this subject, among
others, and he thought it was .lesirablc that the House should bf;
in possession of the whole of it.
mm
mmmm
Mn/^mrfMc-eiained the Howe would hare no objeciionto
obtiining the in'brmatiort alluded to, if it were prciper to make it
public ; but he thought it would be proper to leave the President
in the form of the request, the option of communicatina such of
the correspondence only at he might deem it not improper to di«.
close. 1 his was the usual form adopted by the JHTouse and il.
though peace had taken place, there might be some parts of*lhe
correspondence which it would be improper to oublish. An on!
limited call for nil the information in the possession of the eovern
ment onthe subject, might create some embarrassment, and be'
hoped the mover of the resolution would restore it to its original
Mr. Floyd was unwillir^, by any act of his, to embarrass the
executive ; but presumed there was nothing asked for in this reso
lution which would have that effect, and feeling anxious to obtain
all the information on his subject which could be furnished, be pre-
ferred the motion in its present form. If the motion would reach
any state secret-admitting there ought to be any state secret, in
this government-he wished not to be instrumental in disturbing
Jt ; but he anticipated no such consequence. *
Mr. Lowndes rejoined, in subsiance, that although five or six
years had elapsed since the restoration of peace, it did not follow
that all that passed in the negotiations was Jroper for publ cat^n
Some parts of the correspondence it might be incompatible with
the public interest to disclose to the worW ; at any raK wa^ p^o.
per to except such as the President might deem the pubhrgood
required him to withhold. Mr. L. therefore moved to amLnd ?he
resolution by restoring the words, - and which, in his ^Monit
may not be improper to disclose." opinion, n
Mr. poyd thought there was. in reality, no difference between
himself and the gentleman from South Carolina. If the gent Zn
was apprised of any thing which it was improper to cL^muS
to the fiouse. to be sure that would be a different matter bufff
his remarks were general, and had reference to no parEa, facts
.n the corrt^pondenc, there was no reason for the amendment '
The question being taken, the amendment was agreed o and
Thus amended, the resolution was adopted, and a commit^P^ nf
two appointed to carry it to the President. committee of
On this debate it was observable that the mover of the resolu-
tion had struck out the usual exception, which had been in hie
draft of ,t presented the day before, of such papers as in the Pre-
stent's opinion, it might be improper to disclose ; and had added
the words " together with the protocol - which had not been in the
original resolution. The words of exception were restored, after
debate upon the motion of Mr. Lowndes. The inferences natu.
rally drawn from these circomstances were, that in the day's inter-
vmI b«twc«n tb« offering of th« rosolutioa, ind the dobate upon it,
•uggtitioni hud been made to the movei, that there might he mo~
(ivei opemting upon the eiecutire, for withholding preciaely the
infbrmeUon that wac deaired, unleu the whole sliould be demand*
ed ; and that a requeat for the correspondtnct would be liable to
liiil in drawini forth the momentoua diacloaure, unleaa the protocol
•hould alao be required. Tbia special rererence to the protocol,
would more readily occur to o person who had been concerned in
the oeKOtiation, thnn to others, and the debute indicated at once
•ome eagerneaa to obtain very complete information, aome appre-
hensions that paina would be taken to auppreas it, and. some im>
preasion, that the evidence of the material fact to be elicited was
lodged in the protocol.*
It was in the protocol of *he conference of !«t December, 1814,
that the propeaal made to the British plenipotentiarie* relating to
the IVfitmin'Sippi and the fiaheriea waa contuined. But all the Ame-
rican plenipotentinriea had been preaent at that conference, and on
the face of the protocol it appeared that the proposal had been
made by them as a joint act of all. There waa a aubsequent letter
from them of 14th December, 1814^ to the Bntiah plenipotentia-
ries, signed by all, and referring to it aa an article to which they had
no ohjectionf considering it at merely declaratory. There waa nothing
in the documents showing at whose instance in the American mis-
sion, the proposal had been offered ; but in the joint letter of the
mission to the Secretary of State of 2&th December, 1814, it was
stated that a majority of the mission had determined to offer it, and
in a separate letter of the same date, Mr. Kutisell noticing this pas-
ei^ of the joint letter, acknowledged, in candour, that Ae had been
on that occasion in the minority ; and reserved to himself there*
ftAer, the power of assigning his reasons to vindicate his motives.
It will be seen in the course of the following papers, that the indi-
cation in the joint letter, that the offer had been made, upon a de-
terminatiou of a majority, had, by an alteration of the original drafl
been inserted, throut^h the agency of Mr. Russell, not (as he stated)
at his own desiire, but at that of Mr. Clay But neither Mr. Clay,
nor any other member of the mission, save Mr. Russell, had
thought it necessary at the time tfi inform the government how he
* Se« in the Appendix, Mr. Floyd's Letter, publiilied in tlie Richmond En>
quirer of 27th August, 1822, and the remarks upon it.
* i
1 1
IF
lad Toted on the qaeition, or to Tindicate hii motiret for hit vott.
When the documents called for by the resolution oi the Hoaaci
•f 17th January, 1822, wore on the 29d of February commuuicatad
by the memago from the fresident, they did indeed ahow that tbia
portentoui proposal had been mmle ; but that it was by the concar-
rent act of all the Americun |jlcni|iotentiari«s. They also showed
that upon the expediency of muking the proposal, there had pre<
viously been tuken a vote, on which occcsion Mr. Russell had beeik
in the minority. The documents were, by order of the House,
bid upon the table, and there reposed for the space of nearly two
months till the 18th uf April.
In the mean time the correspondence from Wnshin|;ton, and the
newspapers inrloctrinatcd by it, had not been equally inactive.
Through these channels, the public were assured that the proposal
of offering the navigation of the Missiuippi for the fisheries, had
been made by me ; that Mr. CIny had uniformly declared that he
would not sign the treaty, with such an article in it ; and that the
proposal had been finally set aside, by Mr. Bayard's having chang-
ed his mind, and come over to the opinion of the minority. Not one
of these three sttttements was true, though Mr. Russell has since
positively asserted the second, and gone still further than the
third, by alle^ng that the proposal was actually made by a wmori-
ty of the mission, against the will of Mr. Bayard, and without giv-
ing him notice after he had changed his mind.
Nnne of these allegations could derive any countenance from the
documents communicated to the House, under their resolution of
the 17th ot January. But Mr. RuBsell's letter from Paris was in
reserve. The following papers will show how it was finally brought
before the' House, together with a new edition of it in the form of
a duplicate ; and how a third exemplar, varying from both, was
presented to the public, in the National Gazette at Philadelphia.
The duplicate was the first of these paperti seen by me, and from
the moment of my perusing it, I could be no longer at a loss, for the
origin of the storm, which a friendly voice had warned me was to
burst upon me from the West. The letter was a tale wrought op
with the ingenuity of a novelist, representing the proposition made
to the British plenipotentiaries on the Ist of December, 1814, as
a deliberate and wanton sacrifice of the peace and security of the
whole Western ami Southern section of the Union, for the doubtful
If«^— ^
^"ir
'<
i;-
accommodatioD of a few Eastern tishermeu, annuaMy decreatiog in
number, entirely exempt from the danger, and unsupported by any
claim of right. To take away all excuse from this procedure, it
was represented as having been pursued by the majority, in wilful
and express violation of the instructions to the mission, as under-
stood by themselves, and in defiance of the remonstrances of the mi-
nority; Mr. Russell represented himself as having inflexibly opposed
it to the last, and ihe whole purport of the letter tended to the im-
pression that he bad, in the deliberations of the mission at Ghent,
opposed (he measure by urging against it nil the reasons which
were set forth in the letter itself. There was withal, a profession
of unfeigned respect for the integrity, talents, and judgment of the
majority, thus represented as having grossly violated their own sense
of their duties, and been prepared to lay open to British smugglers
and emissaries, and to all the horrors of Indian warfare, the unof-
fending citizens of the largest portion of the Union.
No one member of the majority was specially named in Mr.
Russell's letter, as peculiarly responsible for the obnoxious propo-
sal, but the joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, of
25th December, 1814, had been drawn up by me. Mr. Russell,
who had signed it without discussion, and without proposing any
alteration to it, excepting those noticed in these papers, had, as ap-
peared by this duplicate, taken it as the text for an adverse com-
mentary. The joint letter, written the day after the signature of
the treaty, to be despatched with it, had given to the Secretary of
State, a concise and sununary narrative of the proceedings of the
mission since the 31st of October, 1814, the date of their last pre-
ceding despatch. In this narrative were mentioned the circum-
stances under which the proposal to the British plenipotentiaries
of lat December, 1814, had been made ; the reasoning by which
it bad been discussed with them, the counter-proposition which they
had offered as a substitute for it, and their final acceptance, in its
stead, of the alternative which we had offered with it, of omitting
altogether the article by which they would have abandoned their
claim to the boundary line to the Mississippi. It was to the rea-
soning interwoven with this narrative, reasoning which had been
used by the American mission in debate with the British plenipo-
tentiaries, and as adversaries in argument to them, that I found Mr.
Russell's duplicate was a deeply-studied, counter-argument. He had
%
"Wifclten. after tbe c^i^d^* . of the treaty, to dMhat for the
enemy wh.ch they had not done for lhem.elv., ; but the glaring
fallacy of h.B letter w«,, that it represented that which had beea
urged on our part in discuMion ivith them, as if ii had been a nub-
ject of debate among ourselves. It undertook to prove that the
principles which we had asserted, and the arguments we had ur* -d
to the British commissioners, in support of our fishing liberties
contested by them, were entirely without foundation ; that we had
no nght to the fishing liberties, and no right even to advance a claim
to them ; and that these had been among his reasons for refusing
dipra'te."* *° '^' ^'"^°'"^ "^" '^'P"'"^'*^" '^^ ««<^"''»K 'hem. The
*• Tain ficti, pravique tenax, quam n-jncia veri,"
Wedded with these misrepreoentations, the objections which Mr.
May bad made, not only against the proposal wh. h was offered
but against an article which never had been offered, and alleged m
capping the climax of all Mr. Russell's reasons agai,.,t the propc
sals, that .t was in express violation of instructions wUch had been
ccncelled before the proposal was made.
Heterogeneous and incongruous as were these materials, they
had obviously been mixed up with the design of exciting the re-
sentment and indignation of the Western and Southern sections of
the Union against the offer made to the British plenipotentiaries
^nd against those by whom it had been proposed. When the ori-
ginal letter from Paris was found, a comparison of it with .he du-
plicate disclosed this design in still broader light. All the new pa-
ragraphs had a direct tendency either to aggravate the criminality
and injustice of the majority, or to make special claims for the
writer to Western favour and gratitude, or to deprecate by Oatterimr
compliments the resentments of the Eastern fishing interest To
any person unacquainted with the real transactions at the n-^gotia-
tion of Ghent, the composition was mingled with so much address
and plausibility, that it was eminently calculated to produce its ef-
fect. It was difficult to suppose that the Ghent documents, and this
letter in particular, bad been called forth from their slumbers of
seven years for any other purpose.
There were circumstances of a peculiar nature, imposing upon
me the obligation of meeting this accusation at once, and in the
most explicit mauner. The documents called for by the House in
1 •
-■)?*•
10
?
tbeir fi.st resolution of 27th January, were to be furnished Irom the
Department of State ; and some mistrust had been discovered, that
there would be a disposition there to withhold some of them. The
second call, was for a paper known not to be forth-co* ing from
thence, until it should be furnished by Mr. Russell himself; for
which he had taken care to be prepared. Mr. Russell, too, by ob-<
serving, when he delivered it at the Department, that he was in^
different whether it should be communicated or not, but if not, that
he wished it might be returned lo him, evidently disclosed a suppo-
sition on his part, that I should feel reluctant at the communication
of it to the House — that I should shrink from the exhibition of its
contents to the world. My official duty was to report it to the Pre-
sident for communication to the House, and if precluded from the
privilege of remarkinp upon it, I should have been reduced to the
singular predicamen of being made the silent reporter of my own
condemnation. A deceased, and an absent colleague, were impli-
cated in the charges of the letter, apparently as much as myself.
Could I in justice to myself, I could not in duty to them, be the
bearer of these imputations to the Legislative Assembly of the na-
tion, without declaring them to be unfounded. I did, therefore, in
reporting the paper to the President, request that in the communi-
cation of it to the House, it might be accompanied by my Remarks.
The following pages will show the sequel.
In the collection of these papers, however, the defence and jus-
tification of myself and my colleagues of the majority, forms but a
secondary purpose. Its primary intention is to prove —
1. That the principle assumed by the American mission at
Ghent, st the proposal of Mr. Clay, atfd in a paragraph drawn
up by him that the rights and liberties of the people of the
United States in the North American fisheries, were not abro-
gated by the war of 1812, was a just and sound prir.jiple, en-
tirely conformable to the law of nations.
2. That the article first offered by Mr. Gallatin, which was not
proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, and the amendment
to the 8th article of the project, also offered by Mr. Gallatin,
which was actually proposed to the British plenipotentiaries,
And by them rejected, was only a declaratory recognition of
that same principle, applied to the British right of navigating
the Mississippi, as well as to our fishery rights and liberties.
11
3. That, considered even on the narrow ground of conflicting
sectional interests, this article and amendment proposed to
place the East and the West in the same state as before the
war ; without gain to one or loss to the other,
4. That the objection, by the minority, against the article and
amendment, insisted, in principle, upon the sacrifice of ao
Eastern for the benefit of a Western interest.
5. That the Eastern interest to be sacrificed, was of very great
importance to the Union, and of vital magnitude to the State
of Massachusetts ; while the Wesfern interest, for which it
waa to be immolated, was altogether speculative and imagina-
ry. It was most truly denominated, b3r the member of the
mission now no more, bragging a million against a cent.
If, therefore, the letter of Mr. Russell, of lUh February, 1815,
from Faris, had been the real exposition of the motives of the mi-
nority, for objecting to the proposed article and amendment of Mr,
Gallatin, its whole foundation, both of law and of fact, failing, would
have left the minority without any justification for their votes what-
soever. With regard to the comparative value of the two interests
in quesUon, it was impossible for the minority with more sincere
and deep conviction to believe the views of the majority to be er-
roneous, than the majority thought those of the minority to be so.
But it never entered into my head, and never eould have entered
mto my heart, to treasure up these errors of opinion for after-use
against a colleague of the mission ; to " set in a note-book, con, and
learn by rote," opinions expressed in the mutual confidence of as-
sociates in a great national trust, in order to » ring them forth, after
many years, as engines to ruin a rival reputation.
But the letter from Paris was no exposition of the opinions which
had been manifested by the minority at Ghent. The principle,
that the fishing liberties had not been abrogated by the war. had
been asserted by the mission at Ghent, on the proposal of Mr. Clay
The refutation of it is the most heavily laboured part of the letter
from Paris. If individual opinions upon the expediency of particu-
lar measures adopted by the mis., n, are to be made the test of
merit or demerit for individual members of the mission, it is not a
little whimsical that Mr. Russell, for the minority, should now dis-
claim the principle adopted at the motion of one of them, and which
has been completely successful in nmintaioiiiir t!
the interest in dc
12* .
fence of which it was advanced, and pin all their claims of superior
service upon their ineffectual opposition to a proposal which they
did actually concur in making, and which failed, not in consequence
of their objections, but because the enemy disdained to accept it.
If by the sturdiness of their adherence to their opinions, they had
prevented the proposal from being made, there might have been
8ome semblance of a claim to credit from those who tremble at the
sight of an Englishman afloat upon the Mississippi. If the enemy
had eagerly snatched at the offer, and British emissaries, British
smu^Iers, and Indian wars, had swarmed upon us, in consequence,
the minority might have had some apology, for disengaging tl^eir re-
sponsibility to the act, and casting upon their colleagues of the ma.
jority all its evil report. But bo far as the proposal could possibly
have operated mischief, they are answerable for it by their con-
currence. So far as the immediate rejection of the proposal by a
clear-sighted enemy, can test its possible consequences, the event
affords as little cause for the minority to glory in their foresight, as
their assent to what they tfiought so pernicious, gives them reason
to be proud of their firmness. A loud call upon the nation to dis.
criminate between the profound wisdom and comprehensive pa-
triotism of the minority, and the dulness, absurdity, and contracted
spirit, or treachery, of the majority, could scarcely rest on weaker
grounds, than upon the aversion of the minority to principles which
they nevertheless did sanction ; and upon their arguments against
measures to which they did subscribe their names. The majority
have asked for no discrimination. As one of them, I have as little
desire to conceal, as to proclaim, my separate agency in the transact
tions of the mission, or my vote upon any measure discussed by
them. I ask, only, not to be misrepresented.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
21st September, 182'2'.
CORRESPONDENCE WHICH LED TO tHE TREATY OF
GHENT.
Etlracifr^ ^ Journal of the House of RepreHnlalivc of ihe United Statu.
JANUART 16, 1822,
Mr. Floyd submitted the following resolution vis •
Ghent, which has nm Jl^ "„ .td^pubrtXS 'i^ '"" ^^""^ °'
not be improper to disclose. ^ ' **"''"' "* *"■ opinion, it n^f
Th4 said resolution was read and ordered to lie on the table one day.
JTAWeART 17, 1822.
On motion of Mr. Floyd,
The House proceeded to consider the rcso'.ution submitted hv ».5™ - ^
and the same being again read, and modified to read aTfofloJ?-'"'" ^"""'^'^y*
Resolved, Tliat the President of the United States h« «„....'. ^
belaid before this House, all the corresponln fwhLh len th.V''"" '"
Ghent, together with the Protocol, which'has norye^b^Vma^e itlle'"*^ "*
?o^^te"n^J:ret^a:iSt^^etnS
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
suance of a resolution of the House of the 1 7th oTrnuirV 1 J
■ Washingtci, 21,t February, 1822. ^^^^ MO/rOE.*
Department of State,
rri. « - Washington, 21st Feb. 18M
ing the President of the United States to caLe lo be l.-'Ph' f"^''T
The President of the United States. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^MS.
It '
1
1
i
'£■-
■>,
i
f
I,
i^■
«
1
i
1 '
.
i
j^ .
M-
i'"^
1
'<
)
■
I
•
I '
14
CORRESPONDENCE, &c.
American Note No. 6, in amixer to British Note No. 6.
Ghent, November 10, 1814
The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of the note addressed to them by His Britannic Majesty's Plenipo-
tentiaries, on the 31st ultimo.
The undersigned had considered an interchange of the project
of a treaty aa the course best calculated to exclude useless and de-
sultory discussion, to confine the attention of both parties to the
precise object to be adjusted between the two nations, and to has-
ten the conclusion of the peace so desirable to both. Finding, in
the note of the British plenipotentiaries of the [21st} ultimo,, a mere
reference to the points proposed by them in the first conference,
with the offdr of assuming the basis ofuti possidetis, on which the
undersigned bad in substance already declined to treat ; they did
not consider it as the project of a treaty presented in compliance
with their request. They proposed, in their note of the 24th ulti-
mo, that the exchange of the two projects should be made at the
same time. And it is not without s6me surprise, that the under-
signed observe, in the note to which they now have the honour of
replying, that the British plenipotentiaries consider their note as
containing the project of a treaty, to which the undersigned are
supposed to be pledged to return a counter-project.
Believing that where both parties are sincerely desirous of bring-
ing a negotiation to a happy termination, the advantage of giving
or of receiving the first drafl is not of a magnitude to be made a
subject of controversy, and convinced that their government is too
sincerely desirous of that auspicious result to approve of its being
delayed for a moment upon any question of etiquette, the under-
signed have the honour to enclose herewith the project of a treaty,
accompanied th some observations upon several of the articles,
which may more fully elucidate their object in proposing them.
The British plenipotentiaries stated, in their last note, that
they had no other propositions to offer, nor other demands to make,
than those contained in their note of the 21st ultimo, which, with
the reference to their former declaration respecting the fisheries,
contains only two propositions, viz : that of fixing the boundary
from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi ; and that of adopt-
ing, with respect to the other boundaries, the basis oi uti possidetis,
*\\n answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten*
tiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what
passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state that they
are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the rights or li-
berties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed in relation
* Paragraph drawn by Mr. Clay, and inserted at hU proposal.
I
15
thereto. From their nature, and from the peculiar character of
the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no further
stipulation has been deemed necessary by the government of the
United States, to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them.]
The undersigned have aready, in their last note, explicitly de-
cMned treating on the basis of uti possidetis. They cannot agres
to any other principle than that of mutual restoration of territory,
and have accordingly prepared an article founded on that basp*
They are willing even to extend the same principle to the other
objects in dispute between the two nations ; and in proposing all
the other articles included in this project, they wish to be distinctly
understood, that they are ready to sign a treaty, placing the two
countries, in respect to all the subjects of difference between them,
in the same state they wevp: in at the commencement of the present
war ; reserving to each party all its rights, and leaving whatever
may remain of controversy between them, for future and pacific
negotiation.
The British plenipotentiaries haviijflr, in their note of the 4th of
September, communicated the disposition of their government to
receive favourably a proposition which should acknowledge the
boundary from the Lake ofthe Woods to the Mississippi, or to dis-
cuss any other line of boundary which might be submitted for con-
sideration, the undersigned answereil, that as soon as the proposi-
tion of Indian boundary should be disposed of, they would have no
objection, with the explanation given by the British plenipotentia-
ries, to discuss the subject.
The government of the United States had, prior to the acquisi-
tion of Louisiana, been disposed to agree to the boundary, from the
Lake ofthe Woods to the Mississippi, from a wish not only to ar-
range that subject, but also to settle, in a definitive manner, the
differences respecting the boundary and islands in the Bay of Pas-
samaquoddy : and its assent to the proposed stipulation of that
boundary was refused on account of the acquisition of Louisiana
the boundaries of which might haye been affected by it. The un*
dersigned cannot agree to fix the boundaries in that quarter, unless
that of Louisiana be also provided for in the arrangement Thev
accordingly submit for consideration the article on that subject
which appears to have been agreed on between the British and
American commissioners in the project of convention of the year
In respect to the intended review of the other boundaries be-
tween the British and American territories, with the view to pre
vent future uncertainty and dispute, the undersigned propose the
reference of the whole subject to commissioners ; and thev ore-
Bent accordingly five articles, drawn on the principles fonnerlv
ntf St. ^r'^x/'^'' ^°''^''" *'°' '""''"^ ^^^ ^"''*'°'' ^W^^^tiogthe
;- ^\^ f j""-^ already agreed on, respecting the Indian pacification
if wcluded m the project ofthe undersigned. In confSrmitJ with
?08imS*I„HT'"°"' *?iy °^*'* T^^'^'^ '''''''^''^ *« '•««t'-^'^™ the
nosti itiefl. and to prevent the employment, of the sayages in war
and one reciprocally granting a general amnesty. ^ ^ '
jp *; T ^ other subjects which have been presented by the un-
Keeping in viewr the declaration made by lord Castler-airh in
te"r rr/ilh r' ''.^"S'"*' ''''^ toMr.^iilllS n h?s I'e^
Propose onti,,r'°'^^'"' *''^' *^ ^'- ^«"^««' ^^^^ undersigned
SXor nrLn . P"?'^ f *'"^' *''^*^^'^«^' '^'^hout affecting%he
by means^pll E"'*°^ *'*^''" '°"''*''y' *° «"«•"?* ^o accomplish,
ha«Ser tohiln t *^ 1?"*'°"' ^^^ °*'J«« for '^hi'^h impressmen
Hed trpL. ?K*^°''«^* necessary by Great Britain. The pro-
i«ch dS[v ,^n"L K°^ T']y conditional, and limited in duraUon.
eacij party mil be bound only so far, and so long, as the other shall
fomUv w!Jh !h?'P''' -"f ^'""^l^"' " ^^"«^«^ t° be in perfect con-
LvToth nlttn, ^'r^r^l^l'^f '^^ '^'^ «f °«tion«. «« acknowledged
1801 hp?»? o Tb« 'Jf^^P't'on i« borrowed from the treaty of
S frTmTh. '"''.^"i"'" '"'' Russia, and the residue of^e
JrrJlf/*'''**'"^ *° indemnities, consists of two i.arts : the first for
iiregular seizu, es, captures, and condemnations of American pro
?rn.r,«?!:*'"^ *° ^^^ established laws and usages of ™at,ons pre.
rrregXui:^^^^^^^ ^'^ ' ^^^ the^econd t sim'i a"
Md eSilhpH " 'l"""^ ^''^ '^^^' ''"^ <^o"t^»''y to the known
MsesofthP fii ''^r *'^'^^''- ''«*'^«^" civilized nations. The
United Sute,h/PP'^ delusively to claims of the citizens of the
fi„»i K S. ' ?^?»"8e, the cat ses of such claims were then con-
fumed C^'hfR'vl'"^*" '^'''' P^^"««' *° -^ «'"-• It ^ pre
iW»if ®''''."** government will itsglf be sensible of the
in S^hI""' f °^- '"'^r""y f«^ '"J""«« •^^""'"itted by it officers
n violation of principles avowed and recognised by itself pS'
r\ '?ov^^ '^"*''' f™°^ 'ord Hawkesbury to Mr K „/of n?h
t'n ',m'"V.V*;V''°'" ^^- MerryfoMr wi ol'of 2th
of SrSoo *"h''' ^^•''" '" i^°""^"' °f November. 1807. and
beenTsnpSi undersigned will observe, that these hWinJ
Stei? S havtl";.. ' T""' "*" r'^"^"^" «g«'"«t France, anl
nieir oDject having altogether ceased, it is just to indemnify the
ini
17
citizens of the United States for losses experienced by the effect 6f
measures intended to operate against the enemy of Great Britain,
and wh.ch fell almost exclusively on a country, which was no party
to the war. The United States have never ceased, and at this timJ
contmue to demand, from France, indemnity for the losses thev
have experienced by the effect of the decrees of her government
ID Violation of the law of nations. verameni,
K J*lt ""i!" If •'^ ^^^ '^'^""'^ »'"•'* **^ '^'« ^''ticle apply equally to
both the belligerent parties. They have been, diring the war
subjects of criminiilion on both fides. The American government
can give no stronger and more signal proof of its disfmprobation of
every departure, under colour of its authority, from the established
usages of legitimate warfare between civilized nations, than by the
oiler of mutual reparation.
The article fixing a limitation for captures at sea, does not seem
to require any comment.
The undersjped present their entire project in this specific
form, with the full expectation of receiving from the British pleni-
potentiaries their explicit answer respecting all the articles embra-
ced in It, and a project also reduced to specific propositions, and
embracing all the objects which they intend to bring forward
ihe undersigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the as-
surance of their high consideraUon. s "le as
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
J. A. BAYAKD,
HENRY CLAY,
JONATHAN RUSSELL,
To .».» PI • . • . ALBERT GALLATIN.
To the Plenipotentiaries of His Britannic
Majesty, &c. &c. &c. Ghent.
^Vji7pr'*i'V''''^^y ^-^^^"^ s«6m»«ediy the A^nerican to the
British Plempotenttanes at Ghent, on the lOthday of Nov 1814.
Treaty of Peace and Amity between his Britannic Majesty and the
United States of America.
His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America desirous
of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between 7he
Z XlT' 'H\°^"^r'"^rP°" P'^^'P'^^ of perfecrrecipro'
tr'IT ' friendship and good understanding, between them, have
fsLtv P"^P°!f'«PP«"»ted their respective plenipotentiaries, that
hi ^ K. '/ ^"tf«'c Majesty on his part has appointed thr right
honourable James Lord Gambier, admiral of the White Squadron
l2l' f^W ^''*' """"^y Gon^^^vn, Esquire, a membe! of [he
i7mrL n'T"* f;?. V°?«>^ Secretary of State, and William
Adams, Esq. Doctor of Civil Laws ; and the President of the Uni"
.d
18
ed States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof,
has appointed John Q.mncy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay,
Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin, citizens of the United'State's.
who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full
powers, have agreed upon the following articles :
Article I. There shall be a firm and universal p?ace betw«>en
his Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
respective countries, territories, cjties, towns, and people of every
degree, ■viMiout exception of persons or places. All hostilities
both by sea and land shall immediately cease. All prisoners on both
sides shall be set at liberty. All territory, places, and possessions,
without exception, taken by either party from th other during the
war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall
be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or
carrying away any artillery or other puolic property, or any slaves
or other private property ; and all archives, records, deeds, and
papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons,
whichi in the course of the war, may have fallen intct Jie hands of
the officers of either party, shall he forthwith restored and deliver-
ed to the proper authorities and persons, to whom they respective-
ly belong.
Article II. Immediately after the respective ratifications of
this treaty, orders shall be sent to the armies, squadrons, officers,
subjects, and citiz*»n8 of the two powers, to cease from all hos-
tilities. And to prevent all causes of complaint which might
arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the
signing of this treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that the vessels and
effects which may be taken in the Channel and in the North Seas af.
ter the space of from that of the signature hereof, shall be
restored on each side : that the term shall be from the Chan-
nel and the North Seas to the Canary Islands, inclusively, whether
in the ocean or the Mediterranean : of from the said Canary
Islands to the equinoctial line or equator, and of in all other
parts of the world, without exception.
Article III. Whereas that portion of the boundary between the
dominions of his Britani.ic Majesty in North America, and those of
the United States, from the mouth of the river St. Croix, (as the
said mouth was ascertained by the commissioners appointed for
that purpose,) to the bay of Fundy, has not yet been regulated and
determined ; and, whereas, the respective rights and claims of hia
Britannic Majesty and of the United States, to the several islands in
the bay of Passamaquoddy, and to the island of Grand Menan, have
never been finally adjusted and determined, the said islands being
claimed on the part of the United States as lying within twenty
leagues of their shores, and south of aline drawn due east from the
mouth of the river St. Croix ; and on the part of his Britandic Ma-
jesty, as having been, at or before the former treaty of peace, be-
tween the two boundaries within the limits of the province of Nova
Scotia : Id order, therefore, finally to decide these •everal (jues«
19
tidns, it is agreed that they shall be referred to three commUsionei*,
to be appointed in the following manner, viz : one commissioner
shall be appomted by his Britannic Majesty, and one by the Presi-
dent of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate thereof, and the said two commissioners, shall have
power to choose a third ; and if they cannot agree, they shall each
propose one person, and of fhe two names so proposed, one shall
be drawn by lot, in the presence of the two original commissioner*,
and the three commissioners so appointed, shall be sworn impar-
tially to examine and decide the said questions according to such
evidence as shall respectively be laid before them, on the part of
the British government and the United States. The said commis-
missioners shall meet at and shall have power to adjourn to
such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said com-
missioners, or a majority of them, shall, by a declaration under
their hands and seals, determine the boundary aforesaid, from the
mouih of the river St. Croix to the bay of Fundy ; and decide to
which of the two contracting parties the several islands aforesaid
do respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
former treaty of peace. And both parties agree to consider such
decision as final and conclusive.
Article iV. Whereas^nfiither that point of the high- lands Ivine
due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in
the former treaty of peace between the two powers, as the north-
west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Con-
necticut river, has yet been ascertained : And whereas that part of
the boundary line between the dominions of the two powers which
extends from the source of the river St. Croix, directly north to
the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia ; thence, aloDR
the said high lands, which divide those rivers, that empty them-
selves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the
Atlantic ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river •
thence, down, along the middle of that river, to the forty-fifth de-
gree of north lattitude ; thence, by a line due west, on said latitude
until It strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraguy, has not yet been
surveyed ; It is agreed, that, for these several purposes, three
eonimissioners shall be appointed, sworn, (mutatis mutandis^ and
authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to
those mentioned in the next preceding article ; the said commis-
sioners shall meet at , and shall have power to adjourn to
such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said com-
missioners, or a majority of them, shall have power to ascertain and
determine the points above mentioned, in conformity with the provi-
sions of the said treaty of peace, and shall cause the boundary afore-
said trom the source of the river St Croix to the river Iroquois,
or Cataraguy, to he surveyed and marked according to the said
provisions. The said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall
make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration, un-
der their hands and seal?, certifying it to be the true map of th#
ronll? T'' of Nova Scot.a ; of the north westernmost head of
fhZl'T "'"'• ""^ '^^^"^'rther points of the said boundary a.
they may deem proper; and both parties ai;ree to consider such
ttwp and declaration as hnally and conclusively fixing the said boan-
lion7f?hfh^' ^''«''7'»'y the former treaty of peace, that por-
C^JILa "V^ ^^t *,'"'■'"'' ^-"'^^ '''■»'» t'»« P«i"t where the
&"„ t^fr i°[ "«'■**' '^•''*"*^" «'"•'«« ^h« riler Iroquois, or
Cataraguy, to the lake Superior, was declared to be along tht mid.
„♦•?■. ;^"Yk' '"''' ^'^^ ^"*'"*^' ''^'•""gh the middle of «aid Jake.
lake Erie ?h^n^p'T'""";f""°" nf ""T' ''^*^««" "'at lake and
Skp Fr ! ' f ^"^^' " «"8 '« ""'Jdle of said communication, into
lake Ene ; through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the
m£.T'"Ti'T'":' T "'" '"''" ""'•«" 5 thence, through the
middle of said lake, to the water communication between that lake
Sdl of »JrT '■ And fereas doubts have arisen what was he
middle of the said nyer, lakes, and water communications, and whe-
ther certain islands lying in the same were within the dominions of
JisBntannicMajesty or of the United States: In order there "ore
finally to decide these questions, they shall be referred to three
commissioners to be appointed, sworn, (mutatis mutandis) and au-
thor zed to act exactly m the manner directed with respec to those
iTZlt !° t' n ^'"''^'''^ ""'''''''■ T*'^ ''^^ corSmissioners!
shall meet, m the hrst instance, at , and shall have power to
adjourn to such other place, or places, as they shall think fit The
said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall, by a declaration
under their hands and seals, designate the boundary through he
said river, lakes, and w»t3r communications, and decide to which of
^!}Z\T A^ Pf ^'^' *^^ '^^^'•»' '^•^"ds lying within the said
mers, lakes and water communications, do respectively belone in
conformity with the true intent of the former treaty of pefce
dSsive ' ^^'^^ *° ''°°''''^'' '"'*' ''^*''''°" ^' ^"^' «°^ «oa.'
Article VI. It is further agreed, that the said last-mentioned
commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties assigned
to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they, or a major ty of
them, are hereby, authorized, upon their oaths,^'mpartiallyo fix
anddetermine, according to the true inteat of the said former trea-
ty of peace, tha part of the boundary betiveenthe dominions of the
two powers which extends from the water communication between
j£e d7>"f Z W^^^^rT^'i" '^' most northwestern point of
the Lake of the Woods ; to decide to which of the two parties the
lSl\tti^l°^ V^' 'f ^'' ""^'''^ co'nmunications.Ld risers!
forming Ihe sad boundary, do respectively belong, in conformitv
7ul wtl'oTthl'"* ?1*^' T' ^'^^"^^ '''^y °f peat , andTcTus J
m^rkpT^^hl •^'''^'""'^"''^^''^'l"'^^ ^t to be surveyed and
marked. . The said commissioners, or a majoritv of them shall hw
^ declaraUoB, under their hands and seals, id^nale th" bo^^^^^^^^^
I
21*
aforeaaid, state their daeision on the aoMfJnn- «k
them, and particularize the latitude and Jo.1? *r? '^^''''^'^ *<*
western point of the Lake of the Wool Sr ''' '1'^ '"^" "*»'"^'»-
of the said boundary as they mSj dl°™ iVo^t ''i'L'i tV 'T^
"'wr;if VLf« cleoision'as anal rnd?::;c.u.ivt'°^' P"^'"
th^s^:^dii':^;Si^;: ::^;^^^
CaratLsanidedlntc^The ftatemeirof thl'''"' '''P'^''^^ ^«'
the journal of their proceeding Th!l?h«?f- ^''«''; «"**""♦'• «»«' of
agents of his Brkanr iS3' f„d to fh'i''"'' . ^'Vl"'" ^« ^»»«
States, who may be res JSvin?^ agent, of the Utiited
ageth; busineT. in S'il of i^ei^TelttiVT' '"^^'"^'^ *« -"«"•
said commissioners shall be resoprnS^ governments. The
be agreed between the t^ronr't:' Ir^^^^^^^^
«ettledatthetimeoflhp*.v;hl V!? agreement bemg to be
And all other expense atten^^^^^^^^ of this treaty,
frayed, jointly! by "hrtvvop ties thr^^ commissions shall be de-
«eriLi,^edand alloVed b^a mSvo?t ^""S previously a«-
the cale of death. Sness 3n!liol ^^ commissioners. And ia
place of every soclt^^lIZTrTs^^^^^^^^^
;u the same manner as such commiss ion'er ;;i'^^, ^ ^'olnre?
thi is'Lurm^InSel l:'ZZlV''' 'T'^'^ ^''^*' '" -« -^ of
been adjudged to be wifhin tht I ' ^^ such decision or decisions, ^
such possession ^^"^ dominions of the party having had ♦
soutTarth'l'cJmtrrf^omTh: '"V ''T ''' "-'»> -
the Lake of the Woo^funt I itThJf f""'^ northwestern point of
allel of north latitude ^nd from hPn'!T^ 't- ^^'^y^'^^^h par-
west, along and -th tre^Xara''e «h'nl\Y"''T^:,'""'^^
between his majesty's territories anJfhJnP .u *?f dividing lina.
the westward of the said V«kp 1 ? !u ^* *^^ ^"''^^ States to
ritories extend ntha qua ter and thnV.h''' ^^/f^^P^^tive ter-
«tent. form the southern bou'ndatnJK' ''•'^ ''",^ '^«"'t« ^^at
ries. and the northern Sou dary'^flhe^Sr^'' V"' ''V''"
United States • ProviJpH fkoV *u- ■ . territories of the
be ™-.„'e'riV b' To E'cl'lTl"""'' "■»»
the territories belongine to or r »;ml!f k -.u -^"^'''ca, or to
■MM
■eia
u
AHTictK IX. The United Stetei of America engage to put nt
end, immediately after the ratification of the preient treaty, to
hofiilitiea with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they
nay be at war at the time of soch ratification, and forthwith to
restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the possessions,
rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been en-
titled to in 1811, previous to such hostilities. ^
Pro ^ed always, that such tribes or nations shall agree to de<
list from all hostilities against the United States of America, their
citixens and subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty
being notified ta such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accord*
And his Britannic majesty engages on his part, to put an end,
immediately aAer the ratification of the present treaty, to hostili-
ties with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be
at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to
^ such tribes, or nations, respectively, all the possessions, rights, &r<d
privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entiUed to in
J81], previous to such hostilities.
Provided always, that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist
from all hostilities against his Britannic majesty and his subjects,
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such
tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
Article X. Ilia Britannic majesty and the United States shall,
by all the means in their power, restram the Indians living within
their respective dominions from committing hostilities against the
territory, citizens, or subjects, of the other party : and both powers
also agree and mutually pledge themselves, if at any time war
should unhappily break out between them, not to employ any In-
dians, nor to admit of their aid and co-operation in the prosecU'
tion of the war against the other party.
Article XI. Each party shali effectually exclude from its naval
and commercial service all eeamen seafaring, or other persons,
* subjects or citizens of the other party, not naturalized by ihe re-
spective governments of the two parties, before the day of
; seamen or other persons, subjects of either party, who
shall desert from public or private ships or vessels, shall, when
found within the jurisdiction of the other party, be surrendered,
provided they be demanded within from the time of their
desertion.
No person whatever shall, upon the high seas, and vrithout thr
jurisdiction of either party, be demanded or taken out of ar ' '
or vessel, belonging to subjects or citizens of any of the parties,
by the public or private armed ships or vessels belonging to, or in
the service of, the other, unless such person be, at the time, in
the actual employment of an enemy of such other party. This
article shall continue in force for the term of years. Nothing
in this article contained shall be construed thereafter to affect or
impair the r';^'A^' *ii either party.
23
AuTicLt XII. ffeith«roftheeoirtnK!tiiigp*rtia.ihan hereafter b«
engaged in war aj^ainit a? ' third power, to whi-h *„^ .1.. „.k_^ ./.
(he parties shall remain neutral, it m agreed that erer^ veiil of the
neutral party, tailing for a port or place belonging to the e, emv
of the belligerent, without knowing that the same is bosieMd
bockaded, or invested, may be turned away frvm «uch porter
place, but shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband
be confiscated, unless, after such notice, she shall again attemot U
enter • but she hall be permitted to go to any other port or place
ihe may think per ; nor shall any vessel or goods of either
party, that may have entered into such port or place before the
same was bes'eged, blockaded, or invested by the other, and be
found therein alter the reduction or surrender of such piece be
liable tj conhscation, but shall be returned to the proprietors
thereof: «. d, m order t-^ determine what characterizes n blockaded
port, that denomination is given only to a port where there is. bv
ae disposition of the power which attacks it with ships, atationirv
or sufflciently near, en evident danger in entering. ^*
Article Xlli. It is agreed that indemnity shall be made bv hit
Bntannic majesty to the citizens of the United States, for all iJsses
•nd damages sustained by then during the late war between Great
Britain and F lance, and prior to the commencement of the present
war by reason of irregular or illegal captures, seizures, or con-
deranatiomi of vessels and other property, under colour of autho-
rity, contrary to the known and established rules of the Jaw of
" Tf *!. '! "."''** *«'*?**'' *'•'»* indemnity shall.be made by
Jht i* J^^^if/'^S parties, to the subjects or citizens of thj
other party, for all losses and damages sustained subsequent to the
commencement of the present ivar. by reason of th2 seizure or
condemnation of the vessels or cargoes, belonging to the subjecta
or cit^ens of the one party, which, in the ordinary course of S
merce, happened at the commencement of hostilities to be in the
ports of the other party ; and by reason of the destrucUon of un^
fortified towns, and the pillage or destruction of private proper"?
and the enticement and carrymg away of negroes, contrary to the
nS *'**'''"***^ '■"'®" *'»*^ «««««« of '^w between civilized
it is agreed, that, for the purpose of determining the indemnities
due by each contracting party, in conformity with the provisions
of this article, commissioners shall be appointed in the following
r \uaner, viz : one commissioner shall be named by his Britanni?
majesty, and one by the President of the United States, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and th/ said
two commissioners shall agree in the choice of a third • or if thev
cannot agree, they shall each propose one person, and of th» two
names so propos d. one sha!! be taken by lot. in the presence of
the two ongina commissioners, and the three commissioners thus
appointed shall be sworn, and authorized and empowered im-
partially, to examine into all such claims and complaints 4in I to
determine the indemnities which may be justly due for the' same
■(»'
24
The taid commiuionsrs shall meet at
and shall have
power to adjourn to such other plade, or pbces, as they shall
tbink fit ; they shall also have power to appoint a secretary, swear
and examine witneases, and have all asgistance and lac'MUes neces-
sary to effect the object of their appointment.
The award of the said commissioners, or a majority of them,
shall m all ca^es he final and conclusive, both as to the justice of
the claim, and as to the amount of the sum to be paid to the claim-
ant and claimants. And his Britannic majesty and the United States
agree and undertake to cause the sums 50 awarded to be due hr
them, respectively, to be paid in specie, to such claimant and
claimants without deduction, and at such place or places, time or
times, as shall be awarded by the commissioners.
Article XIV. It is also agreed, that no person or persons, re-
siding withm the dominions of one of the parties, who may have
taken part with the other party, in the war between Great Britain
ana the United States, shall, on that account, be prosecuted, mo-
lested, or annoyed, either in his person or property ; and that all
8uch persons disposed to remove into the dominions of the other
party, shall be allowed the term of months, freely to sell
their property, of every nature and description whatsoever, and
to remove acr -dingly.
Article . This treaty, when the same shall have been rati-
fied on both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually ex-
changed, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratification shall
be exchaiiged a^ in the space of mouths from this day,
or sooner, if possible.
In faith whereof, we, the re pective plenipotentia. ies, have
signed tins treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals,
t^one at Ghent, the day of -^ one thousand eight hun-
dred and fourteen.
British Note, No. 7.
The undersigned have had the honour to receive the note and
project of a treaty of peace presented by the American plenipo-
tentiaries on the lO^h instant.
The undersigned are of opinion that the most convenient course
for them to adopt will be to return this project with their marginal
alterations and suggestions on the several articles of which it is
composed. The existing difl'erences between the two governments
will thus be brought more immediately in view, and it is hoped
that, by confining the discussions to one project, the negotiations
may sooner be brought to a favourable conclusion. The first part
of the 10th article appears to be unnecessary, and the stipulation
contained in the whole of it altogether inadmissible. Though his
majesty's government sincerely hopes thai a renewal of the war
between his majesty and the United States may be far distant, yet
the undersigned cannot consent to enter into any engagement as to
what shall be the conduct of their government, if such a war should
unfortunatelv nrcur^
25
With respect to the Htb and 12th articles, his maiesty's^oyei-ii.
me.,t has strongly manifested it*, sincere disposiUoMo the 8i>e*^^^^
restoration of peace, by agreeing, under all the preLnt c Lum
t.) which these alleles relate. No advantage can arise from en-
te.ing into discussions, upon a successful result of which the Ame-
rican plenipotentiaries have stated, more than once, that they wUl
not make the conclusion of the peace at all to depend ^
With respect to the 13th arUcle, the indemni6cations prooosed
by It, as applied to the actual circumstances of the wa? aETSo
unprecedented and objectionable, that any further perseve'rance of
the American plenipotentiaries in requiring them. is^n^SSed
by the undersigned : if, however, contrary to expectation 3.^
mfications of this kind should be ;equired,^all hop^e of brL ng tJ^
Bogotiationstoa favourable issue must prove abortive: The un
dersigned are instructed explicitly to declare, that as their Z
vernment makes no claim on account of losses ;ustained by Britfsh
subjects arising out of a war declared by the UniJed iaiTt
neither can their government agree to make compensaUon forlolles
.ustained in such a war by the American people. '*"°° '^"^ '**""'
i he undersigned are, however, willing to agree to a stimilaHn*.
by which It shall be provided, that the courtfof jS^tlcefn S
country shall be open to the just demands of the respective peo
pie, and that no obstructioft be thrown in the way of their re7o?er;
CVI^'tmr"^' °r'^'^^' °''^"^^'°'^ -J'-^-^y ^- orX^
With respect to the lith article, the undersigned do not concur
tLZT^ ^Z 'tU r'^ «*'P"'«"o" «« i« there proposed
tiZj ""*^^7g"«d think proper to add. that, with respect o par-
ticular alterations suggested by them in various articles of th J
project, they are ready to enter into such explanations as mavb!
reouired of them, with the sincere desire of endeavouring to re
concilethe pretensions brought forward on the part of the r re-
fpective governments. ^ ^'^ '®
The undersigned have forborne to fnsist upon the basis nf ^.r
jom,?ert,, to the advantage of which thev cons'Se thefr countr^
fuily entuled. But should this negotiation terminals in ^
contrary to their hopes a.d just expecJ tls^Sri ? p J^^^
against any claim or demand beine- ur^eH h« tuL a ^ • P^^^^est
ment in /ny future negJu^r^n ^ote^ete^^^rt'h^^fS
which his majesty's government have now%hown ?hemse Ive w.I
hng to afford to the speedy restoratior. of peace '''^"'^'^"^ ""''
1 lie undersigned avail themselves of the present nnn«r*„„w *
GAMBIER,
HENRY GOULDBURN
Ghent, November 26th, 18,4. ^^I^LIAM ADAMS. '
Project tfa Treaty, as returned bv thf British to the American Pleni-
potentiarieSf 26{A JSfoiveifber, 1814.
, Trtatj of Peace and Amity, between his Britannic Majesty, and
the United States of America.
The fullowing marginal remarks
and alterations were made and
proposed by the British pleni-
potentiaries..
Note. It is proposed to omit
altogether the words that are
noderlined.
i \
AntlCLE L
(1) places or
(2) after the exchange of the ra-
tifications as herein after men-
tioned.
* It is thought more advisable
His Britannic majesty and the
United States of America, desi- ,
reus of terminating the war which
has unhappily sul^isted between
the two countries, and of restor-
ing, upon principles of perfect re-
ciprocity, peace, friendship, and
good understanding, between
them, have, for that purpose, ap-
pointed their respective plenipo-
tentiaries, that is to say, his Bri-
tannic majesty on his part has
appointed the right honourable
James lord Gambier, admiral
of the White Squadron, of his
majesty's fleet, Henry Goulburn,
esq. a member of the Imperial
Parliament, and under Secretary
of State, and William Adams,
esq. Doctor of Civil Laws ; and
the President of the United States,
by and%ith advice and consent of
the Senate thereof, has appomted
John Qjuincy Adams, James A.
Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan
Uu8sell,and Albert Gallatin, citi-
zens of the United States, who,
after a reciprocal communication
of their respective full powers,
have agreed upon the following
articles. '
Article I. There shall be a
firm and universal peace between
his Britannic majesty and the
United States and between their
respective countries, territories,
cities, towns, and people, of eve-
ry degree, without exception of
(l) ^Tsons or places. All hos-
tilities, both by sea and land,
shall immediately cease. (2) Ml
prisoners on both sides shall be set
at liberty.* All territory, pLicee,
and possessions, without excpp-
''».^rt-'-«l*
&7
lertcan Pleni'
that the prorision respecting pri-
80Der« of war, should be the sub-
ject of a separate article ; the
draft of an article od this f abject
is subjoined.
(1) belonging to
(2) and taken by
f3) of the
f 4) originaHy captured in the said
forts or places, and which shall
remain therein upon the ex-
change of the ratifications of this
treaty. '
(9) as far as may be practicable.
Article II.
(6) shall have been exchanged,
(7) exchange of the ratifications
(8) the period of the exchange
of the ratifications,
(f>) the same term of- for
all parts of the Mediterranean.
Jon, taken ^ (1) either ptrty
from (1) the other during tli«
'wr, or which may be taken
•fterthe signiug of this treaty,
shall be restored without delay
and without causing any destrac-
tion, or carrying away any' (3)
artillery or other public proper-
ty. Or any slaves or other pri-
vate property, (4) and «|| ar-
chives, records, deeds, and pa-
pers, either of a public nature
or belonging to private persooc
which, in the course of the war*
may have fallen into the hands of
the officers of either party, shall
be (6) forthwith restored, and de-
hvsred to the proper authoritiee
and persons to whom they re-
spectively belong.
Article II. Immediately af-
ter the respective ratiCcations of
this treaty, (6) orders shall be
sent to the armies, squadrons,
officers, subjects, and citizens,
ol the two powers, to cease
trom all hostilities : and to pre-
''*'!*«" causes of complaint.
Which might arise on account of
the pnzes which may be taken
at sea, after the (7) signing of
this treaty, it is reciproSuir
agreed, that the vessels and J-
Jects which may be taken in the
Uiannel, and in the North Seas.
after the space of fron
Wthat of the Signature hereof,
shall be restored on each side ;
that the term shall be *
from the Channel and the North
Seas to the Canary islands inclu-
«'^;'y' (9) whether in the ocean
or .he Mediterranean : of —
from th^ said Canary Islands to
the eqnu )ctial line or equator.
^"V^. inallothe;
parts of ne world without ex-
ception.
•■pum
I
2t
Article III. JThereas it was
stipulated by the second article
in the treaty of peace of 1 783,
between big Britannic majesty
and the United States of Ameri-
ca, that the boundary of the
Unitj^d States should compre-
hend "all islands <yithin twenty
leagues of any part of the shores
of th^ United States, and lying
between lines to be drawn due
east from the points where the
aforesaid boundaries between
No?a Scotia on the one part, and
East Florida on the other, shall,
respectively, touch the Bay of
Fandy, and the Atlantic ocean,
excepting auch islands ae now
are, or heretofore have been,
withia the limits of Nova Sco-
tia :" And whereas claims have
been made by the government
of the United States totcertain
islands in the Bay of Fundy,
which said islands are claimed
as belonging, to his Britannic
niajesty, as having been at the
time of, and previous to, the
aforesaid treaty of 1783, within
the limits of the province of No-
va Scotia : in order, therefore,
finally to decide upon these
claims, it is agreed that they
shall be referred to two com-
missioners, to be appointed in
the following manner, viz. one
commissioner shall be appointed
by his Britannic majesty, and
one by the President of the
United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate
thereof, and the said two com-
missioners, so appointed, shall
be sworn impartially to examine
and decide upon the said claims,
according to such evidence as
shall be laid before them on the
part of his Britannic majesty and
of the United States respective-
Article hi. Whereas, that
portion of the boundary between,
the dommions of his Britannic
inajesty in Aorth Jmerita, and
those of the United States, from
the mouth of the river St. Croix
{as the said mouth was ascertain-
ed by the coinmissioners appoint- ""
«dfor that purpose) to the Bay of
Fundy, has not yet been regulated
and determiued : And whereas,
the resper/Ave rights and claims
of his Britannic Majesty and of
the United States, to the several
^islands in the Bay of Passama-
quoddy, and to the island of
Grand Menan, have never been
finally adjusted and determined,
the said islands being claimf.d o»
the part of the United States as
lying within twenty leagues of
their shores, and south of a line
drawn due east from the mouth of
the river St. Croix, and on the
part of his Britannic majesty, as
having been, at or before the for-
mer treaty of peace, between the
two countries, within the limits
of the province of JVbate Scotia :
hi order, therefore, finally to de-
cide these several questions, it is
agreed that they shall be referred
to three commissioners, to be ap-
pointed in the following manner,
viz. one commissioner shall be ap-
pointed by his Britannic majesty,
and one by the President of the
United States, by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate
thereof, and the said two commis-
sioners shall have power to choqse
a third, and if they cannot agree
they shall each propose one person,
and of the two names, so proposed,
one shall be drawn by lot, in the
presence of the two original com-
missioners, and the three commis-
sioners, So appointed, shall be
sworn in^artially to examine and
ly. The said commissioners
shall meet at • a^j
— " ' — 3nfl
shall have power to adjou'rn to
fh °?n'' F'^'^*' ^'^ place's, as
they shall think fit. The said
commissioners shall, by a decla-
ration or report, under their
Hands and seals, decide to which
ot the two contracting parties
the sereral islands aforesaid do
ly^Tl^y^^^'^'^S^m conform.
ity with the true intent of the
said treaty of peace of 1783:
and ,f the said commissioners
Joth parties shall consider such
decision as final and conclusive.
It IS further agreed, that, in
the event of the two commis-
sioners differing upon all, or any,
ot the matters so referred to
l^fl!°'**rlu*''®^^^"*o^botb,or
either of the said commissioners
iy omitting, o act as such, they
shall make jointly or sepirate^
to the government of his Britan-
mc majesty as to that of the
United States, stating. i„ detau!
the points on which they differ
and the grounds upon which
their respective opinions have
been formed ; or the grounds
upon which they, or eK of
them, have so refused, declined
^r omitted to act. And his Bri-
tannic majesty, and the eovern-
mentofthe United States* he^e.
by agree to refer the report, or
reports of the said commissi^n!^
ers, to some friendly sovereiirD
or state, to be then DameS f?r
that purpose, and who shall be
requested to decide on the dif-
ferences which may be stated m
the said report, or reports, or
upon the report of one coZ
nussioner, together with th«
2»
decide thisaid qu^tt-ons, accord.
ZVr 7^\^«'''«»e* as 'shall re,
'pectively be laid before them on
^* part of the British goverZ
ment, and of the Unite f States,
J hesatdcom .mssioners ,hall me^
~ 7 ■' *""' shall have potb^
er to adjourn to such other pHaZ,
Z^placej, as they shall thUjit*
I fie said commisaioners, or a *««.
jortty of them, shall, by a declt
ratton under their hands and
seats, determine the boundary
aforesaid from the mouth of tkt
^J^^rStCroixtotheBayo/pZ
dy, and decide to which of th*
two contracting parties the seierZ
islands aforesaid do respective^
belong in conformity with t&
true tntentofthe foLer trel
of peace ^nd both parties agri^ '
30
girouD<)9 upon which the oth«r
commissioner ihnll have no re-
fused, declined, or omitted to
act, as the case may be- And if
the commissioner "o refusing^
declining, or omitting to act,
•hall also wilfully omit to sttite
the grounds upon which he has
•o done in soch manner that the
•■id statement may be referred
to such friendly sovereign or
itnte, together with the report
of such other commissioner,
tl.fn such sovereign, or state,
•hall decide, ex parte, upon the
•aid report alone. And his Bri-
tannic majesty, and the govern-
ment of the United States, en-
gage lO consider the decision oi
, auch friendly sovereign or state,
to be final and conclusive on all
the matters so referred.
Article IV.
Articlk IV. Whereas, nei-
ther that pointof the Highlands
lying due north from the source
of the river St. Croix, and de-
signated in the former treaty of
peace between the two powers
as the northwest angle of Novar
Scotia, nor the northwestern-
most head of Connecticut river,
has yet been ascertained ; and
whereas that part of the bound-
ary line between the dominions
of the two powers, which ex-
tendi) from the source of the ri-
ver St. Croix directly north to
the above mentioned northwest
angle of Nova Scotia ; thence,
along the said Highlands, which
divide those rivers that empty
themselves into the river St.
Lawrence, from those which
fall into the Atlantic ocean, to
the nortbwestemmoat head of
Connecticut river ; thence, down
along the middle of that river to>
the forty -fifth degree of north
Vititude ^ thence, by a line due
''•':?!tfP!T-i
i\) two.
(2) unless otherwise specified
m the present article.
P) of 178a
(4) And, in the evient of the
said two commissioners differing
or both or either of them refus-'
ing, declining, or wilfully omit-
ting to act, such reports, decla-
rations, or statements, shall be
made by them, or either of them:
and such reference to a friendly
sovereign or state shall be made,
in all -espects. as in the latter
part of the third article is con-
tamed, and in as full a manner as
M the same was herein repeated.
Article V.
31
'^est, on said latitade, ontil it
•trikes the river IroqaoiM. or
Lataraguy, has not yet been sur-
veyed. It is agreed that, for
these several purposes three (I)
commissioners shall be appoint-
ed, sworn, (mutatis .rmtandit)
and authorized to act exactly in
thr manner directed with re-
spect to those mentioned in the
next preceding article.(2) Th«
said commissioners shall meet
** » and shall have pow-
er to adjourn to such other place
or places as they shall think fit.
The said commissioners, or a
majority of them, shall have
power to asceftain and deter-
nMue the points abovementioned,
«n conformity with the provi-
sions of the said treaty of peace,
(3) and shall cause the boundary
aforesaid, from the source of the
river St. Croix to the river Iro*
quois, or Cataraguy, to be sur-
veyed and marked according to
the said provisions.
The said commissioners, or a
majority of them, shall make a
map of the said boundary, and
annex to it a declaration, under
their hands and seals, certifying
It to be the true map of the said
boundary, and particularizing
the latitude and longitude of the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia,
oj. th« northwesternmost head
of Connecticut river, and of such
other points of the said boundary
as they may deem proper ; and
both parties agree to consider
such map and declarati' n ai
finally and conclusively fixing
the said boundary.(4)
Article V. Whereas, by the
former treaty of peace, that por-
tion of the boundary of the
United States, from the point
where the forty-fifth degree of
32
north latitude strikes the river
Irbquoiii, or CBtaragiiy, to the
Lake Superior, was declared tu
be along the middle of said river
into Luke Ontario, through the
middle ot'suid lake until it strikes
the communicatioii by water be- .
tween that lake and Lake Erie ;
thence, along the middle of said
communication, into Lake Kric,
through the middle of said lake
until it arrives at the Hater com>
munication into the Lake Huron;
thence, through the middle of
said lake, to the water communi'
cation between that lake and
lake Superior : And whereas
doubts have arisen what was the
middle of the said river, lakes,
and water communications, and
whether certain islands, lying
in the same, were within the do-
minions of his Britannic majes-
ty, or of the United States : In
order, therefore, finally to de-
cide these questions,{ 1 ) they shall
he referred to (2) three commis-
sioners, to be appointed, sworn,
(mutatis mutandis) and authoriz-
ed to act exactly in the manner
directed with respect to those
mentioned in the next preceding
(3) unless otherwise specified article.(3) The said commis-
(2)
doubts,
two.
ID this present article.
sioners shall
instance, at •
meet,
in the first
and shall
(4) report or
have power to adjourn to such
other place or places as they
shall think fit. The said com-
missioners, or a majority oftiiem,
shall, by « (4) declaration, under
their handj and seals, designate
the boundary through the said
river, lakes, and water commu-
nications, and decide to which of
the two contracting parties the
several islands lying within the
said rivers, lakes, and water
communications, do respectively
belong, in conformity with the
(J) *aid treaty of nsd.
(i') designation and
(3) And in the event of the
SHiiUwo coinniiwJoners diflerinjr
«r both or either of them refu!:
ing. ticchmng, or wilfully omit-
!!'« *" «<^t. "»ch reports, declara-
JJons, or statements, shall be
;n»de by them, or' either of
»iem ; and such reference to a
Jnendly sovereign or state shall
be.na.le. .nail respects, as in
the latter part of the third arti.
cle IS contained, and in as f»|| a
"eieS''''^^-"^'^--^--
Article VI,
(4) two.
M
true intent of tht, fi\ r
i-^y'/.^«l.tdi'i.if^;rr:
t e«. agree to consider such 7«i
deasion «. ,,«, ^, ^ M«)
(6) of na^s.
(6) of i78S.
{^) report or.
Article VI. I# j. r .
««reed. that the sJVlrS
;nent.oned commissio^^^/"'*
they shall haveexecuted, bed-
fe«ass,gned to them in the or-'
<»ed.ngartlcle, shall be, and tbeT
l*-^ "majority of them, aVeheS
authorized, linon *k1;Z . ^
ine said >rmcr treaty of peace
r>) that part of the boundart k^
^^veen the dominions of thTit;
powers which extends frJm tZ
water communication beLen
and rivers A. '""'""'<=«"«"».
boundarv do """"^ ^^^ ««•<»
loog!t?onfi mi^P^tr^^^^
parorthiixi:^^^^^^^^^
quireu.tobesurveyed;/dmar.
eu. The said commissioners
^ramajcnty of them, shall, by I'
I
94
(I) potnti.
{%) parU of.
(3) (lotignntion nnd.
(4) Aiul in the cvont of the
•aid >wo cummi»iiiun«r« difl'cring,
or both or either of them refui*
ing, ileclir iiig, or wilfully omit-
ting to not, mirh, rp.pnrti, doclu-
rations, or atutemcntt , nhidl be
mitde by them, or t>it!>er of
them ; and «<\ch rcfercince to it
fi>iendlv novoreign or ttute shall
be made in nil respects as in the
litter part of the third article is
contained, and in as full a man-
ner as if the same wa« herein
repeated.
ARTKiLK VII.
(5) two.
(6) all. (7) reports.
h) statemsnw.
(9) and.
and lealst deiignate the bound<
•ry aforetaid^ state their decU
ainn on the (i) ffutid'oni thus re*
furred to them, and pMrliculnvixe
the latitude and longitude of the
must northwestern point of the
Luke of the Woods, and of such
other (2) pninin on the said
boundary, as thny may deem
proper ; and both parlies agree
tn consider such (H) decision m
iinul and conclu«ive.(4)
(10) cdnU«»cliu'$.
Artici.k Vtl. The several
boards uff5)commiHt4ioners men-
tioned in the four preceding ar-
ticles, shall ruspectively havo
power to appoint n secretary,
and to employ such tiurvcyors,
or other persons, as they shall
judge necessary. Duplicates of
(6) their respective (7) declara-
tions (8) and decisions of the
statemmt (9) of their accounts,
and of the Journal of their pro-
ceedings, shall be delivered by
them to the agents of his Britan-
nic mnjestv, and to the agents of
the United States, who may be
respectively appointed and au-
thorized to manage the business
in behalf of their respective go-
Ternments. The said commis-
sioners shall be respectively
paid in such manner as shall be
agreed between the two (10) par*
ties, such agreement being to be
'»■
(I) oqiiKlly.
(a) contTBCtinij.
(3) orof 4hQ lovoreign or iMr.
•0 referred to, un in many ol'iho
preceding articles contained.
Articir VIII, It is agreed
that a linj, drawn due west, from
the Lake of the Woods, along
the 49th jarallel of north lati-
tude, Bhal, be the line of demar-
cation between his Britannic
majestv's territories and those
01 the United States, to the west-
J'ard of the said Lake, so far as
the territories of the United
ft?tes extend in that qnart<»r:
3d
•JttUd if th« timt of th« •!.
«haiig.of<ht ratiticntiont of<hJs
«r««'y; and all other eapenses
attend.ng the «,ud commiisiona,
t».e two pnrtli,.. ,^/.i^ ^; J
pr»vu,u,ty a»r,rtain,d and allot!.
death, sicknesa, resignation, or
nrcesinry absenc«, the place of
«vary such commissioner, ra.
"Poclively, shall be supplied ia
the siime manner ns such com-
miM.oner was first appointed i
and the new commissioner shall
take the same oath, or affirmt-
tion, and do the same duties.
, It i" lurthcr agreed betweto
iie two (2) parties, that, in cas«
any of the inlnnds mentioned in
any of i\xQ preceding articlea,
which were in the possession of
one of the parties, prior to th«
commencftiient of the present
war between the two countries,
iliould by the decision of any
oj tlie boards of co/nmissionera
aforesaid, (4) f«U „ithm the do-
minions of the other party, all
grants of lands made previous to
that time, by the party having
had such possession, shall be m
valid, as ifsuch island or islands
had, by such decision or deci-
"ions beon adjudged to be within
the dominions of the party hav.
ing had such possession.
Art/cle yill. h i, J
that a t,„e, drawn due north or
»outh, (a, the can may be) from
the matt northwestern point of the
Lak' of the mod,, until it ,hall
intersect the fortyninth parallel
of north latitude, and from th*
point (f such intersection due
west, along and mth, the said
parallel, shall be the dividing
hpe between hi$ majesty', ter-
S0
wmI the Kftiii iiii« hImM. to that «x
lent, form the ioutherti bouiititiry
•r hi* Britannic Mtij«tty*s ttrri-
|ori«i. and the oortheni bountin*
ry of tbo tcrritorios of tho I'nitnd
CTtntei. It b«inK alMraya diiitinctijr
undentuod, that nothini^ in the
preattnt nrticlr Hhnll \m construed
to extend to (he Northwcat
Goa*t of America, or to territo-
ries belonKing tu, or cbiiined by,
either party, on the continent of
America, westward of the Stony
Mountains. [And it is further
•grcoil, the Ntibjects of his Bri-
tannic majesty ohail, at ail times,
have uccoHs from his Uritannic
majtiity's territories, bv htnd or
inland i<uviKRtion, into the afore-
said territories of tho United
Sttitcs to the river Mississippi,
with their goods, effects, ami
merchandise, and that his .Britan-
nic majesty's subjects shall have
•nd enjoy the free nattigntion of
the said river.]
Article IX.
Approved.
ritoriti and thnte of the Unittil
State; to th« wttfward of tht taid
iMkt, ai/ar a$ their latd reipee-
tive terriloriet itrttnd in that
quarter; and that the laid line
ihatt, to that extent, form the
xoulhern boundary of hia Britau'
nic innjcily'e taid territories, and
the northern boundary of the $aid
territories of the United States :
J'nyuiufd, that nothing in the pre-
sent article shall he construed to
extend to the M'orthwest Coast of
America, or to the. territories be-
longing to, or claimed by, eithef
party, on the continent of America,
to the westward of the Stonjf
Mountains.
Artici-j: IX. The United
States of Anjeric.R engage to pot
an end, imnicdintoly after the
ratification of the present treaty,
to hoHlilitios with all the tribes
ornations of Indiana with whom
they may be at war, at the time
of such ratification, and forth-
with to restore to such tribes or
nations, respectively, all the
(loflsessions, riglits, and privi-
leges, which they may have en-
joyed, or been entitled to, in
1811, previous to such hostili-
ties : Provided always, that such
tribes or nations shall agree to
desist from all hostilities against
the United States of America,
their citizens, and subjects, upon
the ratification of the present
treaty being notified to such
tribes or nations, and shall so
desist accordingly. And hit Bri-
*%
Article X,
(nudtnjisible.
AarrcLE XF.
Inadmissible.
37
tannic majflaty «ngtg«t, on bit
after the f tUfic.tlon of tin. pr«.
•ent treaty, to hoitilitiei with til
the tribe, or nation, of Indiuii
with whom he may be at war, at
the time of .uch raUficatloo, and
forthwith to reitore to ^ch
all, the poMe«.ioni, righto, and
pnvilegei, which they may hava
«njoyed or been entitled to in
18II, previoui to «uch hoitiii^
ties : Provided always, that such
tribes or nations shall agree ttf
desist from all hostilities agajoat
hi« Bntannic majesty and hia
"ubjecto, upon the ratification of
the present treaty being notified
Ik f"*^'»^*"^««' or natfons, and
«nall so desist accordingly
Article X. Hig Britannic
majesty and the United SUtea
«hall, by all the mean, in thS
power, restrain the Indians livimr
within their respective domin-
ions from committing hoftilj.
ties against the territory, citi-
zens, or subjects, of the other
party. And both power, also
agree and mutually pledge them,
aeives, if at any time war should
unhappily break out between
them, not to employ any Indiana,
nor to admit of their aid and co*
operation in the prosecution of
the war against the other party.
*ff» r',?*^ X'- Each party shil
efl^ectually exclude from it. na-
val and commercial service, all
•eamen, seafaring, or other per-
sons, subjects or citizens of the
other party, not naturaUzed by
the respective governments of
the two parties before the
day of-—..
Seamen, or other persona,
subjects of either party, who shall
aewrt from public or priratft
m
11
Article XU.
InadouSBible.
ships or vessels, shall, whea
found v^ithin the jurisdiction of
the other party, be surrendered,
provided they be demanded with-
in from the time of their
desertion.
No person whatever shall,
upon the high seas, and witboXit
the jurisdictioM of either party,
be demanded, or taken out of any
ship or vessel belonging to sub-
jects or citizens of any of the
"•»'1;ies, by the public or private
i:>. :; id ships or vessels belonging
■" . r in the service of, the other,
c.css such person be, at the
time, in the actual employment
of an enemy of such other party.
This article shall continue in
force for the term of years.
Nothing in this article contained
r^-all be construed thereafter to
effect or impair the rights of ei-
ther party.
Article XII. lifcitherof the
contracting parties shall hereaf-
ter be engaged in a war against
any third power, to which war
the other of the ^ <rtie9 shall re-
main neutral, it is agreed that
every vessel of the neutral par-
ty sailing for a port or place be-
longing to the enemy of the
belligerent, without knowing that
the same is besieged, blockaded,
or invested, may be turned away
from siich port or place, but
shall not be detained, nor her
cargo, if not contraband, be con-
fiscated, unless, after such no-
tice, she shall again attempt to
enter ; but she shall be permitted
to go to any other port or place
she may think proper. Nor
flhall iny vessel or goods of either
party, that may have entered
into such port or place befoi-e
the same was besieged, block-
aded, or in vested J by ihe otber^
39
AUTICIB XIII.
Inadnissible.
and be found therein after th»
reduction or surrender of auch
place, be liable to confiscation,
but shall be restored to the pro-
prietors thereof : and, in order
to determine what characterize*
a blockaded port, that denomina-
tion IS given only to a port where
there is, by the disposition of the
power which attacks it with
ships stationary or sufficientlj
near, an evident danger in en-
tering.
ARTicLe XIIL It is agreed that
indemnity shall be made by his
Britannic majesty to the citizen!
of the United States, for all losses
and damages sustained by them
during the late war between
threat Britain and France, and pri-
or to the commencement of the
present war, by reason of irregu-
lar or illegal captures, seizures,
or condemnations of vessels and
other property, under colour of
authority, contrary to the known
and established rules of the law
of nations. And it is also agreed,
that indemnity shall be made, by
each of the contracting parties,
to the subjects or citizens of the
other party, for all losses and
damage sustaiaed subsequent to
the commencement of the pre-
sent war, by reason of the sei-
zure or condemnation of the
vessels or cargoes, belonging to
the subjects or citizens of the
other party, which, in the ordi-
nary course of commerce hap-
Eenec;, at the commencement of
ostilities, to be in the ports of
the other party ; and by reason
ot the destruction of unfortified
towns, and the pillage or destruc-
tion of private property, and the
enticement and carrying away of
negroes, contrary to the known
and established rules anA ...
iQanpAtfi
m
of war, betvreeD civiliaed na-
tions.
It is agreed that, for the pur-
pose of determining the indem-
nities due by each contracting
party, in conformity with the
provisions of this article, com-
missioners shall be appointed,
in the following manner, viz :
one commissioner shall be named
by his Britannic majesty, and one
by the President of the United
States, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate there-
of; and the &aid two commission-
ers shall agree in the choice of
a third ; or, if they cannot agree,
they shall each propose one
person, and of the two names so
proposed, one shall be taken by
lot, in the presence of the two
original commissioners, nd the
three commissioners, thus ap>
pointed, shaJl be sworn and au* '
thorized and empowered, impar-
tially, to examine into all such
claims and complaints, and to
determine the indemnities which
may be justly due for the same.
The said commissioners shall
meet at — , and shall have pow.-
er to adjourn to such other place
or places as they shall think fit ;
they shall also have power to ap-
point a secretary, swear and ex-
amine "witnesses, and have all as-
sistance and facilities necessary
to effect the object of their ap-
pointment.
The award of the said com-
missioners, oramajorityof them,
shall, in all cases, be final and
conclusive, both as to the justice
of the cidm and as to the amount
of the sum to be paid to the
claimant and claimants ; and his
Britannic majesty and the Unit-
ed States agree and undeiiake
to cause the sums ao awarded tjt,
#•
)r thepur-
the indem-
contracting
r with the
icle, com-
appoJDted,
aner, viz :
I be named
ty, and one
he United
the advice
late there-
>mmi88ion-
! choice of
mot agree,
•po«e one
> names so
I taken by
f the two
I, md the
thus ap>
n and au« '
ed, impar-
> all such
i, and to
ties which
the same,
aers shall
lave pow.-
her place
think fit ;
ver to ap-
r and ex«
ive all as-
lecessary
their ap-
aid com-
' of them,
Snal and
e justice
3 amount
i to the
and his
le Unit-
ideiiake
arded tji,
ARTICtE XIV.
Inadmissible.
41
be due hy them, respectively, to
be paid in specie, to such claim-
ant and claimants, without de-
duction, and at such place or
places, time or times, as shall be
awarded by the commissioners.
Article XIV. It is also agreed,
that no person or persons, re-
siding within the dominions of
one of the parties, who may have
taken part with the other party
in the war between GreatBritain
and the United States, shall, on
that account, be prosecuted, mo-
lested, or annoyed, either in his
person or property ; and that all
such persons disposed to remove
into the dominions of the other
party, shall be allowed the term
^[ — months, freely to sell
their property, of every nature
and description whatsoever, and
to remove accordingly.
Article XV. This treaty,
when the same shall have been
ratified on both sides, and the
respective ratifications mutually
exchanged, shall be binding on
both parties, and the ratifica-
tions shall be exchanged at (1)
in the space of- month*
t jrom this day, or sooner if po*.
tible. (2) ^
in faith whereof, we, the re-
ipeclive plenipotentiaries, have
Bigned this treaty, and have
thereunto affixed our seals.
Done at Ghent, the day
of- — one thousand eight hun-
nred and fourteen.
remarks, mad^ by the lair onTetS gthT^^^^^^^^ '''
ncan minister' note, communicaUng sai§ projecrof 1 i^^^^^^^ ^""
C. HUGHES, Jr.
Secretary American Mission extraordinaiy.
Article XV.
(1) Wasihington, with ajl practi
cable despatch.
(2) practicable.
4%
Draft of arHcle to be inserted immediatelu after article td of the
•Ir/wrican project,*
All priionera of war tHkcn on cither side, an well by land m tr
■ea, shall b« restored as soon u» practicable, nfter the ratiticationi
ofths treaty shall have been exchanged, on their paying the debts
which they may have contracted .luring their captivity. The two
contracting parlies r«s,>erUvely engage to discharge, in apecif.. the>
advances which may have been made by the othSr, for the .iste
Bancc and mnii(eiianc< ot such prisoners.
Jtmerican Ao. 7, f» reply to British JVo. 7. ^
OiiBUT, 3oth Nov. 1814.
*!. \^« ;.""'«"'P"««^ have had the honour to receive the note of
the British plenipotentiaries of the 2Glh instant, together with their
man^inal alterations and suggestions, on the several articles of the
project of H treaty of peace, projiosed by the undersigned
rhc undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of ralifi-
cations be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty, as the
time for the cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the periods
after which prizes at s6a shall be restored : it being understood
that measures s.iall be adopted for a speedy exchange of rutifica-
irons, and that the periods in the second article shall be lixed ia a
manner corresponding with this alteration.
The nndersignod will also agree to the new article renpectina
prisoners, and to the mode of reference proposed by the British
plenipotent^iaries in »he third, fourth, Hfth, sixth, and seventh arti-
cjes, instead of that which had been proposed by the undersigned
But, in order to prevent delay, they will suggest that a time be
hxed, within which the commissioners shall make their decisions
and reports.
The undersigned will decline insisting upon the 10th, 12th, and
14th articles, and upon so much of the 13th article as relates to
indemnities tor losses and damages sustained subsequent to the
commencement of Uie present war. They wish to discuss the cases
of vess^ils and property, in port when war was declared or known •
and have the honour to enclose a copy of the provision made in
that respect by the United States. They will also waive the resi-
due of that (the 13th) article, and the Uth article, it being under,
stood that the rights of both powers on the subject of seamen, and
the claims of the citizens and subjects of the two contracting par-
ties, to indemnities for losses and damages sustained prior to the
commencement of the war, shall not be affected, or impaired by
the omission 10 the treaty of any specific provision with respect to
.those two subjects. '
• Proposed by the British ministers.
and
43
lo forhcBring to Jniiit upon the diicuiiion of lubiect. d.*«i.
involving intereMn important to tbeircountrv «,.l •"*^^*"" ^l^tff
un,ler«iKue.I view the propom.U off"rerbTfheii IVrnV .''** •''"
«H rounded on principled tie, mo«t «oder«tV«n,Wirtn:''';r"
give the «tronKo«t evidence ofthe anxious wi«h of H.-i^' ^^
thnl the negotiation nhould be bronchi to aT.ppI'l;:"^*'''^^"'"^"*
Smcerclj. pHrticipatinK in the de«ire expre^Jd by 'the Brill«h
f lempotentiarieB, of endeavouring to reconcile the preten. ionl If
loth Kovernnjents on the few .ul.j.ct^ remaining for £cSn he
underH.g..ed have al«o ««,ent«d to mo«t of the alteration- popoeS
by the Bnt.8h plen.potent.nrieMo those parts of the project which
they have not entirely rejected. 0^ [tJ name of these ,UerS„.
the undersigned are compelled by their duty to object. ThJv CI
already stated, and now repeat, that, whilst requiring of Gre!J
Britain no sacrifice whatever, the government of he uJited Stetea
bas not authorized the undersigned to agree to any stipSon n!
, volv.ng any cession of the territory, or the .lerelictfon of any of th«
essential rights of the people of the United States. ^ ®
The objections of the undersigned are to one of the alteration*
suggested by the British plenipotentiaries in -the first mTTo
some parts of the preamble of the third article ; and to the eLhth
article ; and they have also some other verl,«Ulte ,dion to 1^1
r!\uu\'TT " ««"^«''«"^<'> «t such time and p^cj t 2r
suit the British p enipotentinries. for the purpose of disclS
hose points and of agreeing on the places and Le« lefrfnbS
in several of the articles. '*"'*
The undersigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the as
Mrance of their high oonsideration. '"unea me a»-
JOim QUINCY ADAM.S,
J. A. BAyARD,
HENRY CLAY,
JONATHAN RUSSELL,
To the PUnipotenliarie. oF hi. Bn.a„„i« ^^^^^^ GALLATIN.
inaj«My, &G. tee. 6lc.
E*lrlut«fal<m0flheUniUdS(alapa„tdMyeih 1813
Britith Note JVo. 9.
The undersigned have the honour to arlfni>»io-i— tu
44
■nd in compHancc with their request for a conference, shall be
happy to recrive them at the Chartreux to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
Ttie undersigned request the American plenipoteutiariea to ac-
cept the assurance of their high consideration.
GAMBIER,
KENRY GOULBURN,
WILLIAM ADAMS.
Ghent, Nov. .loth, 181*. .
Protocol of a conference^ held the 1st December, 1814, a< Ghent.
.'enipotentiaries
^s amended by
At a conference held this day, the Americ ■■.
proposed the following alterations in their proje
the British plenipotentiaries.
1. In article 1st, strike out the alteration consisting of the words
*' belonging to, and taken by," and preserve the original reading,
viz. '• taken by either party from the other."
This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries,
and after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration
of their government.
2. Transpose alteration consisting of the words *' originally cap-
tured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein
upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty," after the
words " public property."
Agreed to by the British plenipotentiaries.
3. Article 2d. The term to be fifteen days in the Channel, in
the North Seas, in all parts of the Atlantic ocean to the equinoctial
line or equator, and in all parts of the Mediterranean. Two months
in the Atlantic ocean, to the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope,
and three months in all other parts of the w6rld.
In lieu of this alteration, the British plenipotentiaries proposed
the following, viz. " That all vessels and effects which may be taken
after the space of twelve days from the period of the exchange of
the said ratifications, upon all parts of the coasts of North America,
from the latitude of 23 deg. north, to the latitude of 47 deg. north
and as far eastward in the Atlantic ocean as the 65 deg. of west
longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on
each side. That the term shall be thirty days in all other parts of
the Atlantic ocean, as tar eastward as the entrance of the British^
Channel, and southward as far as the equinoctial line or equator,
and the same time for the Gulf of Mexico and all parts of the West
Indies. Forty days for the British Channel and the North Seas,
The same time for all parts of the Mediterranean, and one hun-
dred and fifty days for all other parts of the world, without excep-
tion." Which was reserved by the American plenipotentiaries
for consideration.
4; Article 3d. After the words " all island? within twenty leagues
45
I substitute
of,'* insert " any part of"
ter the words " to be draw., uue easi irom the " ' ' '
.Vee.Uo by the BritUb plenipotenitaries
5. Articl'i 3d. Strike out the words «' »!»>..«„. i • .^
made by .he government of the Unhed sTates to cir' *'T ^/^
the Bay of Fundy." and insert «' wherpTJhl ^'"? i"^"** »»
Agreed to b, ,e British plenipotentiaries.
article, contredj-'tl^^t'te "'aV" .r.-'lr^."' "" '"-'«■«
Mitll-e' '."h^rrdT-i tt ttfo'ex^^Z'tr""''' "?""«»» '° "''■
of the." ^ ^^"^ ^^^ marginal words " many
-SE^S^)^^^-^ Of tBe
^Ar fi m'rf «\^"^'^^ plenipotentiaries
the -safd^lt^ sTfar'at ' r;;;t Il^^h:-^^'^-; *^ ^* ^-*--<» o^
ries," instead of the w;rds ' the ttr tlr" " ^^Al'^ff*"*^^* *«^"t«-
^reedtobytheBSpre^irj^^^^^^^^
of tr^olell?""^'' plenipotentiaries for the consideration
States shall continue tr^niov' th J rt '^''^'''**"^ °^ *•»« United
fish, ,n places wi hin th^ /.T^ • ^ ' •''^•''^y *° *«''«' '^'•7. and cure
secured^y th^ brlr treat!"nr'-'""'^''=''.°V^ Great Britain, a»
river Mississ|ppr!^ahL the eL^J'"'^ ' ""^ ^^^ ""'^'S^^'^" °^ *»>«
States, shall rema n fre^and ooen ^o'^h J^T*^'''""? °^ ^'^^ U""***
in the manner secured bvth/-^'?. ^ «"l>Jf?ts of Great Britain,
that the subjects of his Britanni' ""'• *^.' 'l'^ '* " f"'^'^" agreed
access, from such plaTe as irvh.'"'^'/^/.'''" '^^ all timeT have
Britannic majesty's aforesrifterrf"'''^ ^'' ^'^•* P"^P°««' ^^^ his
hundred miles of the La^e of i/ w f ' .'^*?' '"''^ ^'^hin three
ries of the United States to tLr- ^«^^^'" the aforesaid territo-
the benefit of the nlv's^^^^^^^^^^ '" order to^njoy
and merchandise. XTelnoHa"''^' w.th their goods, effects,
be entirely prohibited on '"Jf «t'°" "^^o the said States shall not
be payable'^oHe mportaUon 7tZ°* "''^' f ""! *^"^'«« «« -«"«
ofthe said States and on .In" P^ ^a^e into the Atlantic por^
regulations. '' "'^ """ ^«"^o'''"'«g with the usual custom-house
JsktS'"'"' "" '''' ^'^^ t^"^ '^""^h plenipotentiaries for
46
The American plenipotentiaries also intimnled their willingness
to omit Article 8th altogether, if that course should appear more
adviaable to the British plenipotentiaries.]
The American plenipotentiaries further proposed, in conformity
with their note of November 30th, indemnitications for ships de-
tained in British ports on the breaking out of the \var, and after-
wards condemned ; which was resisted by the liritish plenipoten-
tiaries.
After much discussion on this point, the conference was ad'
jouraed.
Protocol of Conference on December 10th, 1814.- Ghent.
The Protocol of the preceding conference, held on the Ist
instant, was settled.
The British plenipotentiaries stated that their government could
not consent to omit the words in article 1st, " belonging to either
party and taken by the other," unless some modiiication should be
introduced, cither by excepting from mutual restitution all those
territories which are made by any articles of the treaty the subject
of reference to commissioners, or by excepting the Passamaquoddy
Islands atone.
Received by the Amorican plenipotentiaries for consideration.
0:^[The British plenipotentiaries then stated, that with respect
(q the 8th article, their government offered, in lieu of the Americau
proposals, to retain the amended article as far as the words " Stony
Mountains," and to insert the following stipulation :
" His Britannic majesty agrees to enter into negotiation with the
United States of America respecting the terms, conditions, and re-
gulations, under which the inhabitants of the said United Slates
shall have the liberty of taking fish on certain parts of the coast of
Newfoundland, and other his Britannic majesty's dominions in North
America, and of drying and curing fish in the unsettled bays, har-
bours, and creeks, of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador,*
as stipulated in the latter part of the 3d article of the treaty of 1783,
in consideration of a fair equivalent, to be agreed upon between his
majesty and the said United States, and granted by the said United
States for such liberty aforesaid.
" The United States of America agree to enter into negotiation
with his Britannic majesty respecting the terms, conditions, and re-
gulations, under which the navigation of the river Mississippi, from
its source to the ocean, as stipulated in the 8th article of the treaty
of 1783, shall remain free and open to the subjects of Great Bri-
tain, in consideration of a fair equivalent, to be agreed upon be-
tween his majesty and the United States, and granted by his ma-
jesty."]
Received by the American plenipotiaries for consideration.
In the 7th article the British plenipotentiaries proposed, aftei-
the words *' all grants of laud made pr<. vious to," to omit the word»
47
« to tiiat time "jnd insert "previous to the commencement of the
war ;' so that the %ne would read " all grants of land m«de pre^
nous to the comme jcement of the war." ^
Agreed to.
The British plenipotentiaries proposed th« inierUoa of the fol-
lowing article relative to the slave trade. • "«» oi me loi-
" Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the orin
ciples of humanity and justice, and whereas both his majesty wd
the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to prom^e
Its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contraS
parties shall exert every means in their power to accompUsh tf
desirable an object." —f "«u lo
Received for consideration.
<TmK®,''iu'^ plenipotentiaries proposed the following provision •
That the citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties
may reciprocally sue in the courts of the other, and shaU m«ftt
with no impediment to the recovery of all such estates, rights orl.
perties. or securities, as may be due to them by the laSs of th«
country in whose courts they shall sue." '
Received for consideration.
„ J''*^?!'*' P'^^'Pf*^"*'?:'^^ P»'°P°«ed in the preamble to the
pro. . of the treaty to omit the words "Admiral of the White
XlTeV' t Ef'li^'^'"'^^^ ''' ''' ^^'^^^ "- ^^
Agreed to.
The American plenipotentiaries stated that possibly doubta
might arise as to the geographical accuracy of the words at the be-
ginning of the 8th article-" a line drawn due west from the Ldie
ot the Woods along the 49th parallel of north latitu ' ''
It was agreed that an alteration should be made to guard against
3uch possible inaccuracy. * «»*u«^5ainBi
The American plenipotentiaries proposed the followinir altera-
tion in the draft delivered to them by the British plenipo eSt^ri"
?fiTh 1, 1™ ^/}^ "^^^^ ^^ 60 degrees norlh latitude, and to the
36th west longitude ; include the British and Irish channels in the
term of 30 days; inc ude the Baltic in the term of 40 dTy" instlaj
"Trcor;:^TSe^r^^^^-^
I
Protocolof Conference on Decemhcr 12th, 1814
.taTt'^rstred?' ''' ^""''"^ ^°"'^^^"^^' '^^'^ - '^'^ '^^^ i'^-
(p=[Aftermuch discussion relative to the Istand 8th articles, the
conference ended by the American plenipotentiaries undertak ng
to return an answer, in writing, to the propositions brought forward
l>y the British plenipotentiaries, at the last conferenre f
4f^
Atnerican NoU, No. 8, tvritteu after the Conference of \ 2th oJBe-
cember, 1814.
Ghent, December l4U), 1814.
The undersigned, haring considered the propositions offered, in
the conference of the 10th instant, by the British plenipotentiaries,
OB the few subjects which remain to bQ adjusted, now have the ho'
noar of making th^ communication which they promised.
The first of them relates to the mutual restoration of the territo-
ry taken by either party from the other, during the war. In ad-
■litting this principle, which the undersigned had repeatedly de-"
dared to be the only one upon which they were authorized to treat,
the British plenipotentiaries h<id, at first, proposed an alteration in v
the article offered by the undersigned, limiting the stipulation of re-
storing territory taken during the war, to territory belonging to the
party from which it was taken. The objection of the ondertigned
to this alteration was, that a part of the territory thus taken being
claimed by both parties, and made a subject of conference by the.
treaty, the alteration would leave it in the power of one party to
judge whether any portion of territory taken by him during the war,
did or did not belong to the other party, laying thereby, in the very
instrument of pacification, the foundation of an immediate misun-
derstanding, the mothent that instrument should be carried into ex-
ecution.
The British plenipotentiaries have now proposed to omit the
words originally offered by them, provided, that the Passamaquod-
dy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual restitution of
territory.
The consent of the undersigned to this solitary e:^ception, if
founded on the alleged right of Great Britain to those islands, might
he construed as an implied admission of a better title on her part,
than on that of the United States, and would necessarily affect their
claim. The only ground for the exception consists in the allega-
tion of the British plenipotentiaries that Great Britain had, daring
some period subsequent to the treaty of peace of 1783, exercised
jurisdiction over those islands, and that the United States had sub-
sequently occupied them, contrary to the remonstrances of the
British government, and before the question of title had been ad-
justed.
Under these considerations, the undersigned, unwilling to pre-
vent the conclusion of the treaty of peace, will take upon them-
selves the responsibility of agreeing to the exception proposed,
with a provision, that the claim of the United States shall not,
thereby, be in any manner affected. The undersigned have ac-
cordingly prepared a clause to that effect, and which provides, also,
that the temporary possession may not be converted into perma-
nent occupancy. They had agreed to the alteration proposed by
the British plenipotentiaries in the mode of reference of the several
boundaries and territory in dispute, under the expectation that the
4#
propoitd exception to « general restoraUon V^rould not be insisted
on, and they wjll add, that the objection to the temporary posses-
flion by Great Britain of the Passamaquoddy IslHnds, would be con-
sideraMy lessened by adopting a mode of reference which would
insure a speedy and certain decision.
[To the stipulation now proposed by the British plenipotentia-
nes 88 a substitute for the last paragraph of the 8th article, the un-
dersigned cannot accede.
The proposition made, respecting the navigation of the Missis-
sippi, in the alteration tirst proposed by the British plenipotentia- i
ries to that article, was unexpected. In their note of the 31st of *
October, they had stated, that they had brought forward in their
note of the 21st of the same month, all the propositions which they
had to offer ; and that subject was not mentioned either in this last
mentioned note, or in the first conference to which it referred. In '
order to obviate any difficulty arising from a presumed connectioft
between that subject and that of the boundary proposed by the 8th
article, the undersigned expressed their willingness to omit the ar-
ticle altogether. For the purpose of meeting what they believed
to be the wishes of the British government, they proposed the in-
sertion of an article which should recognise the right of Great Bri-
tain to the navigation of that river, and that of the United States to
a liberty in certain fisheries, which the British government consi-
ucied as abrogated by the war. To such an article, which they
viewed as merely declaratory, the undersigned had no objection,
and have offered to accede. They do not, however, want any
new article on either of those subjects : they have offered to be
suenl with regard to both. To the stipulation now proposed, or to
any other, abandoning, or implying the abandonment of, any richt
m the fisheries claimed by the United States, they cannot subscribe
As a stipulation merely, that the parties will hereafter negotiate
concernmg the subjects in question, it appears also unnecessary.
Yet, to an engagement couched in general terms, so as to embrace
all the subjects of difference not yet adjusted, or so expressed as to
imply in no manner whatever an abandonment of any right claimed
by the United States, the undersigned are ready to agree.]
Since neither of the two additional articles proposed by the Bri-
tish plenipotentiaries was included amongst, or is connected with
the subjects previously brought forward by them, it is presumed
they are offered only for consideration, as embracing objects of
common and equal interest to both parties. The undersigned will
accede to the substance of the article to promote the abolition of
the slave trade. They cannot admit the other article, which to
them, appears unnecessary. The couns of the United States will
without It, be equally open to the claims of British subjects ; and
they rely that, without it, the British courts will be equally open t«
the cliiims of the citizens of the United States.
Th« undesigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the m^
iurance of their high coniideraUoo. ««"«rid9 me m-
wSL**^*^'^^ ADAMS,
To thfl Plenipotentiaries of hit Britaii'^ic
majesty, &c. &c. fcc.
JAMES A. bayard;
HENRV CLAV,
JONATHAN RUSSELL.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
Such of he islands in the Bay of Passanaquoddy as are claimed
by both parlies, shall remain in the possession of the party in whwe
occupation they may beat Ihe time of the exchange of the raTifica!
ions of this treaty until the decision respecti,.>g the title to the safd
slands shall have been made, in conformity with the 4th artkle if
this treaty. But if such decision shall not have taken place wth'n
Zr~;^T'u* f u**** exchange of the ratifications of this treaty
such islands shall be restored to, and until such decision mav 'ake
place, shall be retained by, the party who had possession 'of the
.ame at the commencement of the war. No disposition made by
this treaty of the intermediate possession of the islands and territ^^
nes, claimed by bo^h parties, shall, in any manner whatever be
construed to affect the right of either. ^ wnatever. be
British Note JVo. 10, in answer to American JVo. 8.
The undersigned have had the honour to receive the note of the
American plenipotentiaries, dated on the 14th instant, statng their
consent to except the Passamaquoddy Islands from the mutuVl re'
ZTnif^ ^fT'l T""'!*^ ^"""'"S 'he war. provided the clal of
h! iTf ^*^' 'if \°* ^^ *" «"y '"»""«'• «ff«<=ted thereby. To
he art cle proposed by the American plenipotentiaries, so fSrasit
L'vlfi ° ^'"t°^J«^^ th« undersigned are willing to'agree ; bu
they object as before intimated by them, to that p^rt of the pro.
posed article which would make it imperative on the commfs^on-
th7« hP^luil'/''' •?""'''? ''''^''' «"y ^^^^'l *•'"«' trusting that on
this head the American plenipotentiaries will be satisfied with their
dec aration that it is the intention of his majesty's government to do
all that belongs to them to obtain a decisiin without losTof Ume
ilten J.7rf ' f '^' '''f' '"•'J^'"^^' '^•" ^« ^«""^ to omit the c W
ntended to enforce a decision within some limited time, and to con-
tain a slight alteration in the third clause, by substituting in th°e
. i^^.K° ';'*'' «V^g«''ds the substitution proposed by the undersien-
ed for the last clause of the 8th article, a's it was offered solely ^th
TJrr °^«««'"'"g the object of the amendment tendered by the
American plenipotentiaries at the conference of the 1st instant, no
6i
diflSculty wHI be made id witbdrawins it THa „uA.^- t
ferring to the declaration a,ade by the'm'tt tl'l"„te"«?«j.' f^
«th of August, that th« privileges of fishinc within'Hifr f V u
B.it.,h sovereignty, and of uBing the Britidf teSor^'/?'** ""^^^^
connected with the fisheries, were what Great fc^^^^^
tendtograntwitho.it equivalent, are not des 100^0/ in*^ T^
any article upon the subject. With the view of ron.'*^"''!."^
jhey consider as the only'objcction ioZZZelt7ZX\l^l\'
the treaty, the undersigned agree to adon* fh« ^.rT ^ , '^'""o" ot
The undersigned avail themselves of this oooortuniiv ♦« . «,
z^v^lss^''- "^"•" '•■""»'' «'•'- "■eCSf.fts::;
GAWBIER,
HENKY GOULDBURN.
Oheut, December 22. I814. WILLIAM ADAMS.
Accompanying British Mete JVo. 10
No disposition made by this treatv n<* tn «./.», ^^
Ulandsand territories cJmed J; b1[h pa LsshaTir'" '^ "'"
whatever, be construed to affect the rigCfeithe"' ^^ '"•'*^""
Protoco/ 0/ Conference.
At a conference held this day. the proltoJofThr"""';' '''*'
ference was settled. ^ protocol of the preceding cpn-
The Am^ican plenipotentiaries intimated their rea.lin.« *
cede o the propositions contained i„ the note of the Rr.tf . ? ^t
potcntiaries, of the 22d instant. ^"^'^'^ P'*""'"
?„^l^''l!°T'"^ alterations were then agreed to :
IV''®^'''^^''^'^'«'«fte»- the word'' cease ''ornJt^h. -^
'' ^ K^fi^^f «^ "^^^^ ratifications," anH^s^r" as sZ ' ,?'^-
treaty shall have been ratified by both part es " IZ?^ f L'*
the words .. belo^n^XteX^^ Ja^S"^^' ^^'i^^ ''irV'
words " 8 gn ne of this trpafv " Jno^ . *u . ^J'* ■^"<^'' the
12
belong," insert, ferbatim, the words of the amendment inclosed in
4he note of the British plenipotentiaries of the 22d instant, 6IIing up
the blank with the word " fourth,"
2d article. The second article was altered so as to read as fol-
low* :
Ar+icle II. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by
both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
armies, squadrons, odicers, subjects, and citizens, of the two pow-
ers, to cease from all hostilities; and to prevent all causes of com-
plaint, which might arise on account of the prizes which may be
taken at sea after the said ratifications of this treaty, it is recipro-
cally agreed, that all vessels and effects which may be taken after
the space of twelve days from the said ratifications, upon all parts
of the coast of North America, from the latitude of twenty-three
degrees north to the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far east-
ward in the Atlantic ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west longi-
tude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each
side ; that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the
Atlantic ocean north of the equinoctial line or equator ; and the
same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico,
and all parts of the West Indies ; forty days for the North Seas,
for the Baltic, and for all other parts of the Mediterranean ; sixty
days for the Atl^i^tic ocean, south of the equator, as far as the
latitude of the Cape of Good Hope ; ninety days for eveiy other
part of the world south of the equator, and one hundred and twenty
days for all other parts of the World without exception.
It was agreed that the article respecting prisoners of war should
be the third article, and that the words " as hereinafter mention-
ed," should be substituted for the words, " shall have been ex-
changed." .
The articles numbered in the original project 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, to be
Respectively numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
In the 4th article, it was agreed that the blank should be filled
up with the words " St. Andrews, in the province of New-Bruns-
wick."
In the 5th article, it was agreed that the blank should be filled
up with the words "St Andrews, in the province of New-Bruns-
»/ick."
Ndar the end of the 5th article, substitute the word •• fourth"
for " third."
In the 6th article, it was agreed to fill up the blank with the
words " Albany, in the State of New-York," and to substitute the
word '* fourth" for «' third," in the concluding paragraph.
In the 7th article, substitute the word " fourth" for '• third," in
the last paragraph.
It was agreed that the article respecting the African slave trade
should be the 10th article, and that the words " use their best en-
deavours," should be substituted for the words "exert every
means in their power."
sad as fol-
treaty by
entto the
two pow-
B8 of com-
h may be
s recipro*
tkeD after
D all parts
!Dty-three
} far east-
rest longi-
1 OD each
rts of the
; and the
>fMexico,
>rth Seas,
an ; sixty
ar as the
jiy other
nd twenty
ar should
mention-
been ex-
i, 7, to be
be filled
iv-Bruns-
be filled
ir>Bruns-
' fourth"
with the
ilute the
lird," in
ve trade
best en-
:t every
53
The 15th article of the proiect tn >.« ^
agreed to insert in it, after thrwords « n^ ^".^''^1'^ ^^ ' *» ^^^^
- without alteration by either ofXrn„r r**"' ''^^'' **"« '^o^ds
Omit the words " ii?h all orarftl? !f ^""S P^''"^^-"
blank with the word " foSr " '^Insertl^L fr*'''-:.' ^'" "P *»»«
words " in triplicate." The bS ^f ^ ''?'** " '*°°«'" ^he
article formerly proposed by them t to 2T.'"'' "^'S«^ »»>«
cuted by the citizens or subject" of^onp"? °^ ^'^ l^ ^^ P''o««-
justice of the other. ResS bv *h? a " '°'' '° ^^^ ^«"rts of
ries. resisted by the American plenipolentia-
The conference wis adjourned to the 24th ina* e .^
of signing the treaty. ® ^^^** ^°^*' ^'^^ ^^e purpose
3%e American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State.
Sm-W«l, «, u Ghewt. 25th December, 1814.
thrJe'copTe ^TtlettZT:!^^^^^^^^ <>- ^^ the
United States^ig^ed LrevruTn. bv ^'^^'"^ ^"^«'° a°d the
Britannic majest/and by us ^ ^ ^ Plenipotentiaries of his
The papers, of which copies are likPwU «« r
exhibit to you 80 fully the progress nfthi "ow forwarded, will
departure hf the Chauncey that fewliv "^P^'^^'"" ^^nce the
will be necessary. It mav bp LST ^'i^'^'^^^l, '•emarks from us
thatinth^interi«^^etn^hnr;l' "^' ''"T^'^^r, to state.
, treaty Was senTtoibeBritrsh pfen 2. 7 *" °" f"*'* P'^^**^* ^^ '^
communicated to us the aLer^o ^^ /"^"^^^^
had sent by Mr Dallas nnnT. ? '^^^ despatches which we
published fnThe S S ates Cre ^^^^^^^^^^ T- ".^''^'^ ^«^ "^^^^
In declining to insist on the S/^''''-^'' '" ^"^land.
indemnities, ^e -adTa formal dSaSThS^P'T^^^^ '^"^
parties, on the subject of seamen anTfhL I '^^ "Sbts of both
losses and damages sustained pLrti.h.''"' '° '"demnities for
war, should not be aWcted or mp^red^ ^^ »*>«
F?omlrr''^p^T'°" on S7wo'/ui^:tr'"""' '" '^^
rrom the time when the oroiPrt nf^K^ """jccis.
was returned, with the pr^Ce^L^^ols^i •';'^''^'°*^^ "^^ "«'
unless new pretensions on the part of ftrp?.^R v "' •'♦PPa'-eut, that
vanced, the only important SifiJrf ^'^eat Britain should be ad-
were those rela^ir^ he ^Ifr^ be discussed,
during the «'ar ; t^o he navrati Tf ^p T
'.ubjects, and to the right of £0600?/ Irth r "''PP* *^> '^"'^'^b
»' sheries within the British urisSn In . ^Tl-^ ^'^'^' *« '^^
titutiou of captured territorf whtrw; h T ""^ of a general res-
governoient, It fir*t, wished^t; confinnt to tfl?"'''.'^' '^' ^"^'»^
d.d not belong to tL ^»>e^^a2f li::^:^^'^ ^1;^^^
d4
they acknowledged it to be tbeir object, tbat each party should,
until a decision had taken place with respect to the title, retain
possession of all the territory claimed by both parties, which might
have been taken by such party during the war. They proposed,
however, to limit the exception from mutual restitution, to the is-
lands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy . As it had been, on both sides,
admitted, that the title to these islands was disputed, and as the
method of settling amicably those disputes was provided for in the
treaty, we had not expected that the British government would ad:
here to the demand of retaining the temporary possession of those
isla^ids. We insisted, therefore, on their being included in the
general restoration, until we had reason to believe that our further
perseverance would have hazarded the conclusion of the peace
itself; we finally consented, as an alternative preferable to the
continuance of the war, to this exception, upon condition that it
should not be understood as impairing, in any manner, the right of
the United States to these islands. We also urged for a stipulation,^
requiring an ultimate decision upon the title within a limited time ;
but to this we also found opposed an insuperable objection, and we
were finally induced to accept, in its stead, a declaration of the
British plenipotentiaries that no unnecessary delay of jthe decision
should be interpo<jed on the part of Great Britain.
At the first conference on the 8th of August, the British pleni-
potentiaries had notified to us, that the British government did not
intend, henceforth, to allow to the people of the United States,
without an equivalent, the liberties to fish, and to dry and cure
fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulated in their
favour, by the latter part of the third article of the treaty of peace
of 1J83. And, in their note of tfie 19th of August, the British
plenipotentiaries had demanded a new stipulation to secure to
British subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi : a demand,
which, unless warranted by another article of that same treaty of
1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any colourable
pretence for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer
ou"* right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not
authorized us to make any distinction in the several provisions of
the third article of the treaty of 1783, or between that article and
any other of the same treaty. We had no equivalent to offer for a
new recognition of our right to any part of the fisberies, and we
had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it
hy the British government. We contended that the whole treaty
of 1783, must be considered as one entire and permanent compact,
not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a subsequent
war between the parties to it ; as an instrument recognising the
rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United States as
an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on
which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed thence«
forth to constitute two distinct and separate nations. In consent-
ing, by that treaty, that a part of the North American continent
5A
shoald remain aubiect to the Britiali i«^.A: *•
United States had-'reserved to th"msii?^^^^^^^^
haderer before enjoyed, of HsbrnTu^n J^Jt '^^^^^^^^
and of drying and '^ urine fish nnnn ♦hiTi. ^^^ ^^ thfrcoalts,
tion had beeS agr dio bv theThP^ .« ^''?'' ""^^ <»»" r^^n^a-
not why thin iZ. ly^hen^no new erLt h„T^ ^'''^' ^^ »«''
» prior right, always enjoTed shoufd b^ fllT? f'^^^^S-'^o^ of
more than any other of thrrLhl-«? "^^ '°^(«'te«' by a ^ar, anj
or why we shLuZel ane^t^u^^^^^^^ jndependencei
than we needed a new aS in H«.i /o'/ts enjoyment more
Britain treated with «s aslree overe?^' Inl'^/ ^'J'^ ^'^^'
We siated this principle, in gt^erlf ter^'« ? /k** 0^^".^^ * «*"*««•
fentiaries. in the^ote which^we seit'tr/h *^!^^"t•«h plenipo-
the treaty ; and we alleged it J! ?k *''T '^'''» our project of
stipulation was dleVed by onrlv^' ^''''?*^ "P*^" ^^icf no new
the people of the U^hed StatI/ n rr'"l"^"^«««'^ ^ secure to
lated in'their favour bj'th'ifr'iUns"!^ "b^ aes stip,,
oi our note was given bv ihp Rr;*; u 1 • ^° ''^P'y to that part
turning our project "fa tre%^" L V ^;;P;^«'';'«"«« ; »>"». in^-e-
articles, stipulating a right for Br tlh «!*'' '^ *° °"^ ""^ **^«
"saippi. Without adveSn-?o the ^L,^^'f *? "«^'8«*« the Mis-
usage, if the principle were ust th!tT f ^^"'^7"'* immemorial
peculiar character, remained "n force in «n f*^ °^ '^^^' ^'''^ "«
ing the war. no ne^ stipXuoi was nerP«J '\ P"'^'' "otwithstand-
jects of Great Britain the S ofJ^^^^T^^t'' '.'/"'"« *<> *»•« «"«>.
as, that right was secured bf the "^ertfSip'. *^*^^"''PP*' «« ^"
hand, no stipulation was necessarvfn 5l ^P V"'' **" the other
United States the liberty tXh JL tn H ""'V^ ^'^^ P^*'?'* of the
exclusive jurisdiction of Great BHtan W '"'I ^'.^' ^'*'^'» ^^e
tion of the Mississippi as a nlw .L' .i^^^^ '^^^'^ the naviga-
fhould grant it withZ an equtaS"' if't^ev'^"? 1°*. I'P^*^* ^«
had been granted in 1783, thev must * r/l ^ .t^ '*. ***'=''"'^ 't
peop eof the United States to theTibertv to Si'^ '}^ .''"™ °f *'^«
fish, m question. To place both ««* 7 u ^'** ^"'^ to dry and cure
versy, a majority of us dete^^fned^to nl^?°"f "" ^'""'^ ^^'^tro-
firming both^ights : or wr^ffJrpH °Sf'*° ^'^'"'t an article con-
in the treaty u^on boJh.'and to wlt «.r'"!K*''"^L *° »^« ^"^"t
finmg the boundary from the Lake of the Wo!f^^' ?"' "l"^'^' ^^^
finally agreed to this last prdposal b„t nn* ^^.' I'^^tward. They
an article stipulating for aHrri'ego iatlT' '^'^ ^'^ ^''^'''^
given by Great Britain for the navi?aS o?o an equivalent to be
the United States for the liberty S^h.J k'^ M'ss'ssippi. and by
'sh jurisdiction. This article w?«? ^^^^"^' ^'thin the Bri-
•ts professed object, s nee bo h ^aZZ^^^'T'^^'y^ ^'^'^ '-'«Pect ta
without it, to negotiate upon thfrs^bwtrfJ^ '"J'^^*' P°^«^
rejected it. although its adontinf ^".''i^t^ *^ they pleased. We
d-y of the 49th dlg^.^^ of iffde we f ofT ^ '"'^ ^«"«-
because .t .ould have been a Sa7:Lt!;;i;;t-a^^ ^^^
66
our claim to the liberty as to the fisheries, recognised by the trea-
ty of 1783.
You will perceive by the correspondence that the 9th article
was offered us as a sine qua non and an ultimatum. We accepted
it, not without much hesitation, as the only alternative to a rup*
ture of the negotiation, and with a perfect understanding that our
government was free to reject it, as we were not authorized to sub-
scribe to it.
To guard against any accident which might happen in the trans-
mission of a single copy of the treaty to the United States, the Bri-
tish plenipotentiaries have consented (o execute it in triplicate :
and as the treaty with the British ratification may be exposed to the
same danger, the times for the cessation of hostilities, the restora-
tion of capture? at sea, and the release of prisoners, have b^en fixed,
not from the exchange of ratifications, but from the ratification on
both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting parties.
We consented to the introduction of this latter provision, at the
desire of the British plenipotentiaries, who were willing to takea
full, but were unwilling to incur the risk of a partial ratification, as
the period from which the peace should be considered as concluded.
We are informed by them that Mr. Baker, their secretary, is to
go out to America with the British ratification.
We have the hoiiyur to be, very respectfully, sir, your most
humble and obedient servants,
JOHN QUiNCY ADAMS.
J. A. BAYARD,
, HENRY CLAY,
JONATHAN RUSSELL,
ALBERT GALLATIN.
Extract of a letter from Jonathan Russell, esq. lo the Secretary of
State, dated Ghent, 25th December, 1814.
" My necessary occupation, at this moment, in aiding my col-
leagues to prepare our joint despatches^ puts it out of my power to
furnish you with any details or observations exclusively my own.
" As, however, you will perceive by our despatch to you of this
date, that a majority only of the mission was in favour of offftri"ng
to the British plenipotentiaries, an article confirming the British
right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and ours to the liberty as
to the fisheries, it becomes me, in candour, to acknowledge, that I
was in the minority on that question. I must reserve to myself
the power of communicating to you, hereafter, the reasons which
influenced me to differ from a majority of my colleagues m that
occasion ; and if they be insufficient to support my opinion, I per-
suade myself they will, at least, vindicate my motives."
57
Mr. Oallatin to the Secretary of State.
ancea in some of the neiffhbnnrinir s*.*-,.. u j ' „ appear-
*.«•»/.* nr »L iT "5'g""0""ng btates, had a most unfavourablft
effect Of the probable result of the Congress at Vienna w/w
no correct informat on. The views of ah thl r ' ® """
were precisely known, from dartT dfy to the bS" ^"7"
From neither ofthem did we in anv sS*. J • ^"^'^^ '".'""try.
of their intentions, of ?he general orosner; nf ?-"'* '"^ "•*'%""°»
interest they took 'in our cE litrS BrSr^'n'' "^ '^"^
reason to believe that all ofthem wire deTrouMh it L^hUcTnu!
of our ability to resist alonp JL „ aAorded, by its eventi,
power of En'glLdTaid ouTh'avfng bTe^ Z? 'Zttf' 7'""^
assistance, and after she had made^uch an eC^*'^;* ?^''''^
on equal terms, will raise our character and Vnn-l °*'*^">.P««*^«
on our o„„ ^'/HS^^l^tr ^S^^^^^^^
you will find two, hougrneXr i«a^n^^ to precedent.
article of the treafv of UtrpX ? l^^^'" P°'"^' ^'^- ^^"^
article of our treatv wkh S ' v** *^ '"""" P"^* °^ "'^
no alternative betwVerbreak^n^ offTh ^°"^°'^' that there was
the article ; and thaf^e ac'e ° J^^ " negotiations, and accepting
ject to you^approbatiL oTrtSon' °"'^ " P''^"^'''"^'' -<^ «"b-
terlitj^rfcnt IT^^^^ ^^« ^^--^ restoration of
have obtained an afteraSnirt 'a '^ P°««'»>>« that we might
to it. The BriS"nlvernm;;t Tn''' "«^^^^^ ^"^ our opposition
of peace : a wfbTe'roTnt t'^^^^^^^ ^ ^« f^^'""
success in the Gulf of MeirJrn Ir. ?l ' ■■ ""^P*""* «^ sou?«
duce a change in he r dlnn!'. I "^^^^ '"*^'^^"*» "^ight pro-
question had^ been referred he"^'" 1^7 ^'f' t^^'^^y^ ^"^^ the
consent to a .elin^^Tn? ^f "^i^'ZJt^^ ^ ^
1
aardoui to risk the peac« on the qoestion of the temporary possei.
flioa of that amall islapd, since the question of tiUe was Yullv re-
served ; and it was, therefore, no cewion of territory.
- On the subject of the Bsheries. within the jurisdiction of Great
Britain, we have certainly done all that could be done. If, accord-
ing to the construction of the treaty of 1783, which we assumed
the right *w not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we
most exphcitly refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly.
In that case, It IS onlv an unsettled subject of difference between
the two countries. If the right must be considered as abroirated bv
the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none
to give but the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi,
and we offered it. On this last supposition, this right is also lost
to them ; and, in a general point of view, we have certainly lost
nothing. But we have done all that was practicable in support of
the right to those fisheries-lst, by the ground we assumed, re-
specting the construction of the treaty of 1783— 3d, by the offer to
recognise the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi—
MIy, by refusing to accept from Great Britain both her implied re-
nunciation of the right of that navigation, and the convenient bounds
ary of 49 degrees, for the whole extent of our and her territories,
west of the Lake of the Woods, rather than to make an implied
KSe°' °° °"'^**'^*' *° ^^^ "8^* °^ America to those particu-
n niil'^"^''^ *^"* ^r«at Britain is very desirous of obtaining the
northern part of Maine, say from about 47 degrees north latitude.
to the northern extremity of that district, as claimed by us. Thev
ihFV^ r «/r''' ^^^i^^^eraptie* into the Bay des Chaleurs, ij
the Unit of St. Lawrence, has its source so far west as to intervene
between the head waters of the river St. John's, and those of the
streams emptying into the river St. Lawrence ; so that the line north
from the source of the river St. Croix will first strike the heights
of land which divide the waters emptying into the AtlanUc Ocean
(river bt. John s) from those emptying into the Gulf of St. Law-
rence, (river des Chaleurs,) and afterwards the heights of land
which divide the waters emptying into the Gulf of StfLawrence,
(river des Chaleurs,) from those emptying into the river St. Law-
rence ; but, that the said line never can, in the words of the treatv..
strike any spot of land actually dividing the waters emptying into
the AtlanUc ocean, from those which fa-ll into the riz-er St. Law-
iTSf; ?u ^? the foundation of their disputing our claim
IhcXrof P ""^ " 'A^'f '^'* **l*y ^'^ ^^ '^•^P^^^d to offer the
whole of Passamu^uddy bay, and the disputed fisheries as an
equivalent for the portion of northern territory, which thev want
w order to connect ilew-Brunswick and Quebec. This may ac-
count for their tenacity with respect to the temporary possession
ot Moose Island, and for their refusing to accept the recognition of
their right to the navigation of the Mississippi, provided they ,e
cognise ours to the fisheries. ^ '
curriDg to her charters/ ^ '^ ^°"'^"*" y^»"««* of, by re-
I have the honour to be, with respect, &c.
The Hon. the Secretary of Stat.i ALBERT GALLATINJ .
of the United States, Washington.
APRIL 18, 1822.
Mr. Floyd submitted the following resolution, viz •
Resolved, That the President of the United fit«t«. k
be communicated to this House, if not inTurTous S th- '!?"'""' *° ""»* *•
or communication which may have bieTrlSed iroJf\^'^^A''''y ^•^""
JWre, one ol the Ministers of the United Stat« l/ Jonathan Russell, Es-
Ghent after the signature of that Catv and wh"^ ""''"'^'^ *^« treaty of
«y to the indications contained in sa d Mini ?«1 '» ""*! *""" '" <=°nform.
December, 1814. '" '*"" Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 26Ui
• The said resolution was read and ordered to ,i. on «.. table one day.
APRn 19, 1822.
j lie resolution submitted by Mr FtnvA «„ . ,
«ad agreed to by the House. ^ ' **" ^"^"day, was taken up, read^
fton 0/ 19<A ^pril 1822. ^' ' * ''"'""'' '<» '*"'' ^"o/w-
To the House of Representatives of the United State, •
oftNT9f^:r4t%7^Sir/t'he^
eommunicated to the kouse ?f ^n. -^ President "to cause to be
any letter which «% Cve beeS lecS"? '' '^' ^"'''^ '"»«r««t
one of the Ministers wirconcTuV/fK I f''°" Jonathan Russell
ity with the indicationstnTab "din i^^
1814," I have to 8tat«» ih^t u • ,"®' o* ''^^t'^ of December
Secreury of Su.e t/?,' VpelriLt!™' "" r"'"""" '» ^«
•ucb document had been deSdfit^^''"'' - ^ '''"• """ ""
partmenl, I eiamined and fS amonsthe archives of (he De-
of 'ha' -escripdoT^rTed rji^r^rr'^" 'r '' " '^''"
fatt^Kntet^trpSHv-^^^^^^^
60
delirered there " a paper purporting to be the duplicate of a letter
written bj^ him from Paris, on the 11th of February, 1816, to the
then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House as the
letter called for by the resolution." '
On the perusal of the document called for, I find that it commu-
nicates a difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majoritv
of his colleagues, m certain transactions which occurred in the ne-
gotiations at Ghent, touching interests which have been since satis-
factorily adjusted by treaty between the United States and Great
Britain. The view which Mr. Russell presents of his own con-
duct, and that of his colleagues, in those transactions, will it is
presumed, call from the two surviving members of that mission
who differed from him, a reply, containing their view of those
transactions, and of the conduct of the parties in them, and who
should his letter be communicated to the House of Representatives'
will also claim that their reply should be communicated in like man-
ner by the Executive— a claim which, on the principle of equal
justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of the
Ministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Rus-
sell's letter should be communicated, and that 1 would transmit, at
the same time, a communication from him respecting it.
On full consideration of the subject, I have thought it would be
improper for the Executive to communicate the letter called for
unless the House, on a knowledge of these circumstances should
desire it ; in which case the document called for shall be commu-
nicated, accompanied by a report from the Secretary of State as
above suggested. 1 have directed a copy to be delivered to Mr
Russell, to be disposed of as he may think proper, and have caused
the original to be deposited in the Department of State, with in-
struction to deliver a copy to any person who m ,y be interested
tv u- ^r . .a. JAMES MONROE.*
Washington, May 4tb, 1822, '
Department of State,
Washington, May 3, 1822.
The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of
the House of Representatives of the 19th ultimo, requesting the
President " to cause to be communicated to the House, if not inju-
rious to the public good, any letter or communication which may
have been received from Jonathan Russell, Esquire, one of the
Ministers of the United States who concluded the treaty of Ghent
after the signature of that treaty, and which was written in con-
formity to the indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated
at Ghent, 26th of December, 1814," has the honour of reporting
to the President, that, until after the adoption of the said resolution
by the House, there was upon the files of the Department of State
no letter from Mr. Russell, of the description mentioned thereia •
t it comma-
a majority
I in the ne-
since aatia-
HDd Great
s own con-
wili, it is
it mission,
V of those
, and who,
sentatives,
I like mau-
e of equal
ane of the
; Mr. Rus-
ansmit, at
kui lb«t Mr. Rnnell himaeir b» .;.,. ^ .■
rnent,. communication parportLrL,t,"'y*|.»' *« Depot-
Extract from the Journal of the House of n.
nicate to this House the le.te, „/ ''' ^"'""^ States ba requested .„
message of the 4th of vr,i ! '^'"'a'l'an Russell. esauir« ! / ? ""mu-
and ordered to li, on the table o'Sda;. """'""""' ^«°«»^t "^ the House, re.d,
TimW . MAT 7th, 1822.
,,,. CWGRESSIONAl
friend, who attended to what na..« J i. i^" **"• •»» Mi. Fuller's m«.- *
following sketch of the pr^ceedK th'at ^""•'""^ "«' ^om ™ "o.^; S .h^
to be substantially correct.] ^ °" *"" °'=«=''««n. It is brief, but^ SltreJ
Mr. FuIIer^rTorudoTr'r"^"^''^**^^' »«2^.
ing the PresidVnTJotmi^LThr^^^^^ -quest,
esq. relating to the treaty of Ghent iJT' °^- ^"'''^•an ^usse
.Tfh'"' ?,^d been received fSRt!' ^Z''^.^"^'* ^°»«u« -
either of them, in explanation of Xl^t^n ?t"'P°*«"t'aries, or
%? Fr.*''" Tl'^'' °^'ts adoXll"'' "^ ^'- ^' ^as called
GhS rX^i cV"^^^^^^^^^^^ resolution for th.
before the House proposing an esShlL ^*. "^«'' and the bi»
«ident, however, had not thoughrpront^^^^ '^^'^: ^« ^he Pr^^
in question, when specially cfllelfor he .Mr»^"? '-'*-^' "'^ ^'""^
S '^^"VO had moved to
hiiv« the m««iiAg« committed to • eommitt#t of which he nu «
m«mbtr, but th« motion h»(l not prcvNil^d M« hnd, howavtr,
hop«(!, ninc« h« hitil <(Miilf«() fVom nK«in r(>(]UMtin|| the letter, thMt
no, other gontlemnn would heve Mro|ioMeii it. it wm menifett thel
it hm) been withbcM to prevent tne etcitement ami ill bluotl which
the content! mip^t produce. He hoped the reiutution would not
be Adopted.
Mr. Fuller oMid, he wnn hnpny to hear fVom the Kenllemnn fVom
Vir|inin. thnt he hud been induced to nltntHin from h I'urther, cell
fbr Mr. k'l letter to orevent the PKcitement of" ill blood/* end ho
would by no meMnii be behind him, (Mr. I'lo^d,^ in nuch « liiud-
iible intent ; l)ut, in bin opinion, the communicntion of the letter,
dod of the explnnntion of the other comminwiunrre, to Congrew
end to the uublic, would hnve n far Kfenter tendencjr to rIInj^ the
ill blood, if eny etiited, thiin the auppreifiion of the txplanatinn,
while the letter wm in effect nrnde public. The PreKident^n met-
nege informed ui, Mr. Fuller oeid, thnt he hnd tmnimilttui the letter
to the l)ep«rtment of State, and directed copioi of it to be delivered
to peraonn who nbouKI apply ; conwiMpinitly, it woubi loon reach
the new«p«per«, while the commentR or explanationii which outbt
to accompany it would bo dVectually f«nppre*«ed. Nothing, in hi»
opinion, could be more unfair than thuw to Rtitle all reply. It re>
minded him, he »aid^ of what ho had of late frequently witnessed
in this lloune. %vhen »ome bill was tionding, and, before it was un-
derstood, one of its opposecs would make a speech agniniit it, and
conclude with a motion to hy it en tkr tabh^ which ^trecluded nil
debate, aud, consequently, all explanation. The indignation pro
duced by such a course every itentlcman must have observed and
sometimes have felt. There was notbiuK so safe and honourable
as a full disclosure of the statements of both sides. He reKretled.
he said, that bis colleague, the writer of ibo letter, was not in his
seet, M he was sure be could not object to the call, more especially
as it appeared from the moss!»gt>, that \\w gentloninn himself had
furniabed to the Department a duplii ate or copy ol' that letter tu
he communicated to CeORcess before the original biul boon found.
As to the suiasjiextion that tbo Hbont correspomlence or the letter
in question could tbn>w a single niy ot light on the subject v>f the
occupation of Columbia river, it was* too iniprol»aMc, M r. Fuller said,
to have ever entered bis mind ; but if the gtMitleman from Virginia
(Mr. Floyd) had expected it at (ii-st, ho could see no reason for
his giving over the pursuit. He hoped the House would see the
obvious justice of Adopting the resolution.
Mr. Cocke said, be coidd see no reason tor calling for the letter:
the **resident had declined conuuunicating it, and, tbcrcibre, he
thought it not proper in the House to persist in the call.
Mr. Sergeant said, be rojie to correct the error into which the.
gentlenfHin from Tennessee (Mr. Cocke) i>ad fallen, in snpj>osing
the President had " declined*' conunnnicating Mr UusseU's letter.
It appeared, on recurring to the mcssi^c, (a part of which Mr. if
Ma.].) tlint h« m«rely diwlinc.l mncilitK th« l«u«r. withotit nl.<>
..onen. «. .„ n„g..ti«(.d th« Umiy, or h,,^ ortr,«m:.|,«ulU ;«Z .
twon.c, « both t«|Hh.ri«n.l M,-. H.Mi.l. I.« coulK.J^K
tlon wl,«t«v«r to Uh, re.olutlu,,. which .eemeU. uX «K
circum, .,„«M. to ,mk .,o ,uor« th».. w... .h.« to th« .uiviveri o'Z
to brKr"""' ' " ""'"'""* *"'" ""?'*«•'•"'• «•"' ♦*»'» »'«d « liih"
!.«'!!.';■/ r'^\*'' ?'''"'' '.""*.•''"« •''" '"""""«• ••«'"'• »••" »«'•»»• t»f which.
tr/op;I;Jai«'r' ""' *'"'■" •" I.«Hi.ul«Wy Hitead«d to. wahdr.';;
• "^^ ' ;' ^V><« '«•• the .•.mah.tior.. ,m i. wouhl .how thu w^.tirn ue"!
' fh!.? "•""<"'■ "'""' ""*'•""«« ♦*ero di.rogurd«d or iHciared •
liMinpi to upciire tho lUhoiieM of thu »wn.
the ueglire"''''" *"*' "'*"* '*''"*""'* *"'"' ""'^ °"^ ^^ **"" ^"''^*" '»
than lin^rlt, htl, om „/ thr hn,mlnntuirin oriZunird!£^^^
Tcitlie iluuia of H«|irfiNeiilativoi:
Incomphunco with the re-ohition of the House of HnproBenta-
!lll «n V°„j:""'7»'*^«l« '" t»'"l Ho«»« (ho lettrr of Jon.thM., Ku«.
ivl ; I2t ^ "^ '" '" *"" ""'"'"«*• °'" "'« -*«'' """""t, together
to tW,m n?'"!".'.'""" l""" "" '.'*' "'"^ '"'^^ •'«'^«*^«"' 'Htttive there-
to.lromHny ot th« othor mmigler* of the United Stales who ne-
Ko^iHted the treaty of Ghent." i herewith tr mit a report from
e Secretary ot State, with the docuuienU callml for hy that re.i"
DppnrtmentofSmto,
rJ«Ulent'on?yrr ;^?!f. !"".""' '^'^"""'' of trunsmittioK to the
«ife^ at l^n T .""' ^ ^''l'" '^"' '■^"""•''*'' "l>o» the paper depo-
Jon thl 1 ;?'!?•''"' '•^.^l!'*" "" '^'^ '-^^'l "*'»»^' '"onth, by
Statpl n r • ''! ^""•' " ^^^^ plenipotentiaries ot the United
lWofltn/'''^'''r''^" "' ^!''^'"'' '" ''♦^ communicated to the
■t ofthJI mrTl'r"' ": *'■" |«^««'-«»"«^d »"•• l>y <heir resolu.
AUIv reX« n T!l'""'^l ' ""^ '^"^ ^«' ••'^'"'•^ "'State respect^
£e7e « ;.^^^^^^^^ the President wonhl transmit to the JlouJe of
on m, n r Ia^ »f;m««kH, together with the above mentioned
uy the House. jouN qUlNCY ADAMS.
u
I'ttil*, 1 1 til IVluHiiiy, laiA, V
r.HMi«n, ulurh mdi.r^d ,„„ to .lUVor fro,., « ..mjoniy ohJI "
ivul, our m,«onm„ to provrit- almolu.il 'inutility. aSST.
th . m,.ouiUK .u. nmv M.,uil,.tion u,,. „r,y more hecr.aurv o« tl
o»th« »ov«r«.gnty ««d indrpoudoncc oftl,« lluUtuI Stutus *
TliP nrtiolc pr»)po(ie«l ..ppenroil nUo to l.p incunsiiitent with our
M m'^oI''!!"; ? ^'^ '?"^''''""' I •^" ""• ^^'"'^»' ''«»*'»'' "• t" "unW (Ij urn
h„I fi 7'"'' •" ^'^ '"*""»«''* ""« .li-icus>io» ; for, it ooul, , ot bo
bohovea that wr wrro Mi Ken to ((») ..l,n.i«,e 'on » .uh^ct 'vhich
nc Horo rr«trniuo,l fron, (7) dl.ruMing, ,uul th«t .u, 0) IZS,
r«^^on. ^ ' • completely rofrainml from (he interdicted di^
V « m iorifv of 1 ""'' '"':°'"I»««' '•« .>\^th the principle, iorled
,L" '"'''^'"'r «f «'"> nn-sion, nnd with the construction which
Tr ?H i lei In » • r"'"- ."^ r *^ '""f'^y ^""^ '^"'•^'^t in thew
Kv v«;.. n r *'"' ^^o'^truo .on, .tt>ecatne u, to «ct accordingly ! .
««cy to errSr ^ ""' '"""' '"" '' ^"' »«»«<^«"«ry to «dd inconlJt!
I freely confow, however, that I did not accord tvith (he inaiori-
V. either m heir view of the treaty of 1783, whence hey Sod
be,r principles, or of our instructions ; ami h«l ^^Kreut oSon
to prop.>„„g the article did not arise iVom «n unxfefy to rocoS
our conduct with our i asoning and declaration.. ^ "' '*
60
* loVfUtAT*..]
Br-t'-h right lotbi„«vSon of uS^^ "f '"''^.''" ^onfirmlni X
h« Amohcan people ,otke«,u^^j^^^^^ ""'' »^« 4l c^'
.*'l« (•'') proposal of. iicli .n «.«! I
terJiclcJ.li,o„.,i„„."'"'"' '^"'•"■"Pletcly rowUd fromlhe in
■neir pnnciplej, „„, ofoor iiuir ,,, r ''^' "bencc Ihiiv d«r/K.,l
^.on ,,„p„„„, ,h, J° e'S i'-^j »»V «.<l tha, ,„,, g™""^
66
[PRIVATB.]
I could not believe that the independence of the United States
was derived from the treaty of 1783 ; that the recognition of that
independence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar
character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would ne>
cesaariiy render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions,
and make it one entire and indivisible whole, equally imperishable
in all its parts, by any change which might occur in the relations
between the contracting parties.
The independence of the United States rests upon those funda*
mental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress,
irji the declaration of July, 1776, and not on any British (12) graat
io the treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly.
The treaty of 1783 was merely a (13) treaty of peace, and there-
fore subject to the same rules of construction as all other compacts
of this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United
States could not (14) well have given to it a peculiar character, and
excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition,
expressed or implied, is always indispensable on the pari of every
nation with whom we form any treaty (15) whatsoever. France, in
the treaty of alliance, long before the year 1783, not only expressly
recognised, but engaged (16) effectually to maintain, this independ^
ence ; and yet this treaty, so far from being considered as possess-
ing any mysterious peculiarity, by which its existence was perpe-
tuated, has, even without war, and although a part of it contained
words of (17) perpetuity, and was (18j unexecuted, long (19) since en-
tirely terminated.
Had the recognition of our independence by Great Britain given
to the treaty of 1783 any peculiar character, which it did not, (20)
still that character could have properly extended to those, provi-
sions only (21) which affected that independence. All those general
rights, tor instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the Unit-
ed States, in their quality as a nation, might, so far as that treaty
was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) such pecu-
liarity, without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere
(24) special commercial liberties and {%S) privileges, or to provisions
(26) long since executed, not indispensably connected with national
sovereignty, (27) or necessarily resulting from it
The liberty to take and cure fish, within the exclusive (28) juris-
diction of (29) Great Britain, vvas certainly not necessary to perfect
the (30) jurisdiction of the (31) United States; and there is no reason
to believe that such a liberty wa« intended to be raised to an equa-
lity with the general right of fishing within the common jurisdic-
tion of all nations, which accrued to us as a member of the great
national family. On the contrary, the distinction between the spe-
cial liberty and the general right appears to have been well under-
stood by the American ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1783,
and to have been clearly marked by the very import of the terms
which they employed. It would evidently have been unwise in
them, however ingenious it may be in us, to exalt such a privilege
[ovrucxTt.']
^7
I could not beliere that the .odependenc* of th« Unfted State*
was derived from the treaty of 1V83 ; that the recogn^tlSo of th!!
mdependence, by Great Britain, gave to thia trentl^nv J i
character, or that such characte;, supposing teSlJirM'''*'
ce..nly render this treaty absoIulelyTnsepfrl:'^: U 'T^^^^^^^
and make it one entire and indivisible whole eouallv imVll J t u, '
jn all its parts, by any change which might ;ccr J Ku'w
between the contracting parties. relation*
The independence of the United States rests nnon fl.Ao« f j
«ental principles set forth and acted on by t^e ISan Co„Z**"
.n the dechnrtion of July, 1776, and notU any S (?K
.n «ie treaty of 1 783 ; and its jera is dated accordingly ^ *^
r« J K•''^^7 •*[ "^^ ""^^ '"^'■^'y « C^) treatifofpeaci and there-
fore subject to «ie same rules of construction aa all othercomS
o th.a nature. The recognition of the independence of he S
States could not (14) have well given to it a peculiar character and
excepted ,t from the operation of these rules. Such a rXni«^^^^^
expressed or .mplied, is always indispensable on the part Xve'v
nation with whom we form any treaty (15) ^hatcver.*^ France iJ
the treaty of alhance. long before the year 1783. not on. e"prU"
ly recognised, but engaged (i6) effecluaUy lo maintain this inde^n
dence; and yet this treaty, so far from being considered as ooss^s^
ing any mysterious peculiarity by which ite existence wa/peril:
tuated, has even without war, and although a part of it ronf«.S
words of (17) perpetuin, and was (18) unese^te, Lg (19) .2^^
Had Ihe recognition of our independence by Great Britain friv^r,
Sof ^ h'fV^ 'J'' any peculii characte?, whfch fdK
(20) yet that Character could have properly extended to those pro
visions only (2 ) u,kirh affecud that independence. All thosel^„^'
ral rights, for instance, of jurisdiction which apperta ned tf Sfj
United States in their quality as a nation, might, soTr ^' that re^v
was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) that pe47
arity without (23) nec«,m/y extending its influence io m^vrm
special Wer/,« and {^o) privilege,, or to provisions (i^)lmsZcfl
Tiltl "''* '»'J'«P«"««b ly connected with national sovfrZX
(27) nor necessarily resulting from it. "^^eigniy,
Ser V »';:!l^;h ^" '^^'^''^'y' the distinction between the specia
t„.A M ^"l^ ««"*''•■'' right, appears to Save beenwelunde"
stood by the American ministers who negotiated thrtre^v ofnaT
to the rank of a sovereign right, and thereby to have assume,) tu^
ty to be an indispensable condition of our national e»i«fpJo a
thus rendering that existence as precarious tt?e.Sertv1;s'.^
They could not have considered a privileee whJrh fhJl ^ .
made to depend, to a very considerkb reltPnr f.. f ^ expressly
Won eveSs and private^nterestri parta^^^^^^^^
and entitled to the duration of the inh«ppn7 n, t- '^''f «cter
reignty The settlement of the shor s S KnTtTj/ T'^
been effected by the nolicv of thp Rriti«h^ ' ^ *""®' ***^«
have made the LentKiti h s„bjec f Sndrr*^ '^' ''°""
that policy, necessary to the continuance of a Lrv '"^Jr^^l?*
portion of that (33) iibe,.y. Thev could Lf\ ^ considerable
place, within the^ control of a foreign (S) got^t'"'^ f*""' i**
from the operation of those events on which the^si? . '*' ^'^
or termination of such treaties depends Vas in iLr """"
compelled tc believe, if any such peculiarity bebneed ToT''
provisions, m that treaty, which had an immediate conniionw^S
our independence, that it did not necessarily affLf /L ? ^'*^
the whole treaty, (37) or attdch to a SeKe^wh?^^^^ ""*"'"^"*
gy to such provisio^ns orany rdation^toSnL^^^^^^^^^^
I know riot, indeed, any treats, or any article of «Trpof ' i. *
ever may have been the subject to which kretted orT"^' '"''**'
which t was expressed, that has survived a wa between h^ "*
ties, without being specially renewed, by reference ^rredtafTn'
^ISt^ r"^*K'^^'^P"''^^^- ' cannot, indeed, (^) co„ce?v " hie
po sibihtyofsuch a treaty or such an article ; fori how^vTr dear
and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might bL th^L stinulf
tions themselves would follow the fate oLrdi^nary unexec„ ed "n
fKrlrr'lvS^^' ^"^^^'^^^^ ''^ declaredLento^rprr--
rest exclus vely on its peculiar character our tiSe to a^v o7thP
rights mentioned in it, and much less our title to the fi«,hL rloNr*,
m question. If hostihties could not affecUhat trLt^ 4^^^^^^^^^
gate Its provisions, why did we permit the boundar e^ asslned bv
It to be brought into discission, or stipulate for a (4l)res2o„ IfaS
StTecur^S tT' '"'"^ '^' Present war? If iuch (42;^,!:"
was secured by the mere operation of the treaty of 1783, why did
we discover any solicitude for the statv. ante bellum, and kot 7esi t
the principle of uh possidetis on that ground ? ' " ""^ ™sisc
ioVtUCATE.]
69
erty to be an indispensable condiUon rour 2- 1""^ '"'^ * *^''-
thus rendering that existence as prewriL n^*!!^ ^f'.!''"*^^' «°d
They could not have considered »nl?i ** *^« ^'^^^ 't««If.
presslyrnade to depend, Ta very eoL^^^^^^ T**'*^ '^^y *"'
tinuance, (32) o„ miie ev;at. and/rivate tnSrl»t!*^''^ ^'' '*» ^^n-
he character, and entitled to theduM^^^^^ pat taking of
ties of aovere gnty. The settl Jml«* !/ *L . * 'nhereot proper-
time, have beef ekt^ V^hl^ojt^ft 1?'?' u^'**"*' "^^J
and would have made ihe LetofiZ^i l-^"!^^ a^^^ernment.
ence of that policy, necessarv to Ik- ^•'"'^J'*'^^ "°'*«»' the infla-
derable portfon o?C S Slge '^ ?Jl7,r,5 ^^ ? je.y co°n.^
thus to place within tie control of a ?L? z^* ^«^e 'n^int
subjects, an (35) integral part, as we noUf f P (^ P***" "d it.
vilege, of our national rights "^*'^* ^° *^*"'«<^er thiaprf.
It IS from this view of the subipr-t tu„, i i.
to beheye that there was nShingTn 1 tre«,^^r'.Sr <^°°^t«ined
essentially distinguish it fromllVnnrvtyj^ ^ ^^^^^
account of any peculiarity of character frlm.h?'- "^ ^^^^ **' <»»
the operation of those events on which tT/^V"'*'' *'"*' °'fro«
mination of such treaties depends * ^^ cominuanc, or ter-
* was, in like manner, coraoejipd tn h-i- •/•
arity belonged to those provTsio" sin that r'/ '^'!!? f"'^'^ ?«<="«-
mediate connection with our indrDendpnL tu^^''^?'*''' **«** «° •«-
riJy aflect the nature of the whole trea^?37?'* ''f''^ ''°* °«<^«««a.
e.e{r;E::;^Ki;:'q-f--ny^
, in which It was expressed, hat Ls'vlL'*^*'' ^ **>« terms
parties, without being spec ally reJlw^Jh ^''^'' '^^^^^^n the
in the succeedingtreaty of peace I .1 '.^ reference or recital
possibility of suet a ireJ/^7VsTlTn'^^^^^^^
clear and strong the stipi ations for 1 T^"^^ ' ^*""' »'«'^ever
stipulations themselves wSawthrff*";*^."''^''^ ^^> these
ed engagements, and require, aS a wlrtSl^;*^'?'"'^ ""««<=«*.
the parties for their revival. ' *°* declared assent of
^on2:ZTiP\[Ttr^^^^^^^^ confidence in our
exclusively on its peculiar character our ^.r.*"^^" ''^^'^S to rest
mentioned in it ; and much less our it^e to hV« T-^ ^fi''* "«»•*-
m question. '^ ""® to the fishing (39) priviLg,
Ifhostilities could not affect that treaty /'40^„ u
vision*, why did we uermiMho 1 T'A^ ""' abrogate its pro-
brcught int'discus^on'^orTt puttera /in' ^^'«"«*' ^^ '*' ^^ b«
taken from us during the prt'enf^ir /l s ^^^^^^^^^^ ^?" ^''''^
secured by the mere operation of the trLtv o/J^fl/"?*':".''"*
discover any solicitude /b»the statu] IZUi ^?' *^''^ *^"* "^^
principle o/«rt>a„,Ve/,> on that ground *'"""•' ""'^ "°^ *•«•'•» the
70
[raiVATE.f
With regard it the fishing privilege, we distinctly stated to you,
in our letter of the (43) 2l8t of December, that, (44) «♦ at the time of
the treaty of 1783, it was (45) no new grant, we having always before
that time enjoyed it," and thus endeavoured to derive our title to
it from (46) prescription. A title, derived from immemorial usage,
antecedent to 1783, could not well owe its origin or its validity
(47) to a cofiipact concluded at that time, and we (48) could, therefore,
in this view of the s^ibject, correctly say that this privilege (49) was «o
new grant ; that is, that our right to the exercise of it was totally
independent of such compact. If we were well-founded, however,
in the assertion of our prescriptive title, it was quite (50) unnece^-
sarj to attempt to give a kind of charmed existence to the treaty of
1783, and to extend its (si) undefinable infiuence to every article of
which it was composed, merely io preserve that title which we
declared to be in no way derived from it, and which had existed,
and, of course, could exist, without it,
it was' rather unfortunate, too, for our argument against a seve-
rance of the provisions of that treaty, that we should have disco-
vered, ourselves, (52) a radical difference between them, making the
fishing (53) privilege depend on immemorial usage, and, of course, dis-
tinct in its nature (54) and origin, from the rights resulting from our
independence.
We,indeed* throw pome obscurity over this subject when we de-
clare to you that this privilege was always enjoyed by us before the
treaty of 1783, *,'aence inferring that it was not granted by that trea-
ty, and in the same sentence and from the same fact, appear also to
infer, that it was not to be forfeited by war .any more than (55) any'
other of the rights of our independence, making it thus one of (56) these
rights, and of course, according to our doctrine, dependant on that
treaty.
There might have been nothing incomprehensible in this mode
of reasoning, had the treaty recognised this privilege to be derived
from prescription, and confirmed it on that ground. The treaty
has, however, not the slightest allusion to the past, in reference to
this privilege, but regards it only with a view to the future. The
treaty, (67 1 therefore, cannot be construed as supporting a pre-exist-
ing title, but as containing a grant entirely new. If we claim, there^
fore, under the treaty, we must renounce prescription, and if we
claim from prescription, we can derive no aid from the treaty. If
the treaty be imperishable in all its parts, the fishing privilege re-
mains unimpaired without a recurrence to immemorial usage ; and
if our title to it be well-founded on immemorial usage, the treaty
may perish without affecting it. To have endeavoured to support
it on both grounds, implies that we had not entire confidence in
either, and to have proposed a new article, indicates a distrust of
both.
It is not, as I conceive, difficult to show that we (58) cannot, in-
deed, derive (59) « better title to this fishing privilege, from pre -
5cription,4han from any indestructible (jutlity of the treaty of 1783.
[©tTFLrCATE-]
With regard to the fishing ]
7J
m our ietter of the (43) 25tf o^f DecS 7,t,^"*'J«"j « *? JOI,
the treaty of 1783, it was (45) noneu,grar^''ru ^ ^ V ""* *''"*^ ^^
that time enjoyed it, and thus endeavoured Lh^'"^ *''^"^ '**^°'«
from (46) prescHpiion; a title derived from 1^J*^•'^^°"'' *'"^ *** ''
cedent to ^783, could not well owe iuZ,lTTr''\^!.'^' «"*«■
any coH,pact, concluded at that time ; andl"' ?i ^S**!*/' ^V *'
in this view of the subject, correctly savtr»f i-^ * ' therefore,
, Jhen no new grant ; that is/that oSrStoi P"" "«" (**^ ""
totally independent of such compact If ^ *''^'*^"^ "*'•* '^
Wever, in the assertion of ouC'escrind! "".^fi^ '^*" ^°""^««»'
(50) unnecessary for U8 to a»o«,r.**-?P*'^® *'*'e. »t was quite
to the treaty of 17J3 ^IdTexteTd'it: ^t?? .^^^ ^^'^^^^d existS
n^akingthe fishing (5^) '^Jlll^/.o^^ f^^^^^^^ them.
and of course, distinct, in it? nature (SiT.ni '°""«™o"al usage,
rights resulting from our independence '" '" '"''"' ^^°™ *he
We indeed throw some obscurity over this snhi... ^
Clare to you that this privilege was a^tVvJ 1 • "^ > "^^^^ ^e de-
the treaty of 1783 ; thence inferZ thrt i^U?°^f^ ^>^ "« before
treaty, and, in the same sentence and frl.^ " ^"""^^^ ^^ **>»'
also to infer that it was not to h!^!? l Tu*^® ^^'"^ ^^ct, abpear
CSS) any other »/ /A.^S/-?.X^i^^r/'^ t^ ^'T' ^"3^ -"oreTha^
»ho,e rights, and. of course. aSdlnT/o'n 5 "^ '^ ^^"» °°e of f^)
hat treaty. There might have beenlt J ''"""' '^^^^"dant on
this mode of reasoning, had the tr.!? "^'''"'S .«»'=o™Prehen8ibh in
be derived from preSriotinn a ^ ''f ogn'sed this privilege o
The treaty, how^evrrZtou'hlluStra^^ °° *'«* «--i
reference to this privilege, but re/ardJ k In "°"u*^ ^^^ P««*' '"«
ialure. The treaty (57jc;„„o , ehSre Ip J^ ""/"^ ? "'^"^ "> ^^e
inga pre-existing title, bit as cinta ntl' *'°"«*^"«d as support-
we claim, therefore, under he treSv w^.' ^T' ""^'''^'^ "*^^- Jf
tion ; and if we claim from prescrtptfon t^"'* ''!"°""^« P'-e^crip.
the treaty. If the treaty be S hablTin 'JJi'^f"'* °** ^'^ ^^^^^
«ng privilege remains uniipaire*? Sout « r^ '*" P^''^^'^'^^ ^'h"
monal usage ; and if our title to it be weHfonnn'"""*^* *° '«"»«-
voured to support it on both grounds it.^r fu ^** ^'^ve endea-
confidence in* 'either, and to have pr^Sra n'* ^" ^«'' "°^ «»^'^«
a distrust of both. proposed a new article indicates
(Jeriv^ ("?; :: blr;S'to'tt"fi H- ^'"^ *^«^ -« ^^«) «-. -deed
7fi
[^RfVATR.]
?!*■!" "^Ji.^ ^ ^ '"**'" " "• *° "• inapplicable to the (61) partle.
trid to the (62) «ubj.ct, and to be defective both in (68) fact and effect.
^fK:?n 1*1" •!rJ*'* •"""•"""•iai enjoyment of a privilege
RiwaK? • •*"""**M*'°"' ^y ^^*^'^ "'»'j«<^t«' tfa* inhabitants of
British colonies, could not well be considered as evidence of a title
to that pmUege claimed (M)byth.cit«en. of an independent repub-
^iT ;X''}t ? "^?««'»»'^e jurisdiction of that republic. ^The
people of the United State., a. such, could have claimed no special
E-il!Sl T^ ^?«, domiBions of any foreign power from iLimemo-
ria^ usage, n 1 783 when the longest duration of their own existence
la that quality washtUe more, atthe utmost, than the brief period
of seven years, wh.ch ,s surely not beyond the memory of man,
{ultra "^rt'itn homtnts.) The people of the United States had
never, n fact, during that period, enjoyed the fishing privilege a
rr f L5?r? ^^^^^JS?""^ prevented therefrom by the existing
state of hosti, ties. Nor could the inhabitants of the colonies, ori?
ginally con.Utut.ng the United. States, even in their colonial cind -
tion. acquire against their sovereign any right from lone uZe
(65) 0, n«« lapse of time, (M) („«u«m f mpL 4 occur) The bT
tish .overeign was always competent to regulate («7) and retrain W.
It-?? i°i *' '^^T^'^^e '•««' intercoune with each other, when-
suhwt i fr^'*'' *?' ™«]'* ^'''"'^ P«>P«r' ""d had he forbid his
JSI « k'° *.k^ r'''"^^ °^ ^"*> Massachu«t„. to fish (69) anJ dry and
SL „ K i frJ^y"* harbours, and creeks of Labrador, which, by
S« ir V ^^^''k ^i*''* conceived themselves discharged from
the obligaUon of submitting, on account of any pretended right from
immemonal usage. The fishing privilege, Zrefore! enfoyed by
British subjects w.thia British jurisdiction, could give no perma-
nent and independent right to those subjects themsekes and
(71) a fortiori no such right to the citizens of the Suited States
Claiminp under a (72) different estate and in «\lJ«L..^„f -f *
Gre., BriUio .nigh.. i„'de,d. a, „ell prliUo^S °p" erSS
can establish a prescriptive right m thJ people of New-Orleans
uTJe ^17 ^«'^,f "^"f'^ ^? '^^^ that presc/ption i. (74^ iaappS?;:
ble .0 the part.es. it is also. 1 conceive, inapplicable to the subject.
Had the United States, as aq independent nation, enjoyed from
Efen estlbli hed"' a'hZ VTu'^'''^ "«^^ ^''^ ^^^^' »>«-« thence
been established. A right to fish, or to trade, or to do (76) anTrti,.,
act or thing within the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign s ate -. a
(77) «a,ple power, a right (78)of mere ability, (y«,«er«/SJS iC
UvrucAn.}
Yd
Preicrtption («o) «pp««rf to be Jn«.»..r i .
As to the parties :~ihe immi^! vS*^ '" C«3)/««-< and ,jr«/
within Britiab^risd ctioS! b? BrS"^ l^J'^y-^nt of a pri^ W«
BriUsh colonies, couJd not well bl!o •?''-^*f**' *''« '"' S»itSf
to that privilege. (64) clatd b" cZlTf/''^ «« evidence of a tiu/
lie, rcHiding within the excluJv^l^I- ^^ *" '"^'eP dent reilub
people of the United States '« "^u"''''""" °^ ^h«t repub ic Tk:
privilege wthin the doLtC ITtTfJ.' ""''' ^'"''" '" ^^V^^^
monal asage, ,n 1783, when theloZltA '«" P^'^*'- ^rotn imme-
istence in that quality was little Jl^'f duration of their own et
period of seven yeal^, which fsS"* ''!\"^'»o»^ than the brief
man, (ultra me,mrium\ornSiis) Thi^ "^^^ ^J^^^ ^^^ memory of
had never, in fact, during that periL ^''P'! V^^ ^""^^ StJtes
a moment, being effectuallv nf Mn/ fJ^^^d the fishing privi/eee
state of hostilities. Nor coumR, '\°'f therefrom by the e,i2
ally constituting the Unit rSt?t::t'"'?"^f ^^^^'^ oJl^,^^
acquire against their sovereiSv ri.h? f" '''*."' ^°'»°'«' '^'""'itSn,
mere apse of time, (66) («w£K fl^^'•°'n 'ong usage. (65) „ tJi
vere,gn was always competent" 7eX??S*^•^ ^''^ «''^"h so.
their commerce and intercourse w^^hir.^ 1°' '** '^'^''»'« «»""» in
however he might think prope? And h-'. "*?"•' ^^'^''^^e^ ^nd
in the province of (68) Ma8.fchu'.et« Si^"*'' «*>'**«'' »"« subjects; ^
cure fish, in the bays harbonrr f ^' *** ^'h, (69) „d ,0 drV and
|>1*!>« -7.had (7Vn?.ltr;X^^^
imagined that they would have cnZJ- V^J '^""' '* 's not to bi^
from the obligationVsubmX:;;;ra:^^^^^^ d.charged
from immemorial usage. ^ accc unt of any pretended right
withi'yrUi"h%Sc^^^^^^ by British subjecte
ent right to those subjects themSL P«/"a«ent and independ-*
nght to the citizens of the Vnitedl^S 'f ^ ^''^ "^"''"^'^ noCch
fcrent esiate, and in a different caDaci/v r ''^' """«' "^^er a (72) cS
as well prescribe for the p"SS; S-T *''"«''' «"'«ht, indeed
as we for any of the priviS whi!^t ^'^f sovereignty over ue
I do not think it neLssarftoTnaSL''? ^V^'^ asfe? subject
people of Massachusetts wJi{°J^^'''^ how far the practice K
wHoie original thirteen'S^it'^S^Sate^^^^^^^^ i?> ^'^ P«' l^« oft
including Louisiana ; or how far <h!^' °^ **'* '^"'ted States now
of Boston can establish a pTescri^^^^^
Orleans. I trust 1 have -a'JZl^ ^ '^"1 m the people of n/JT
(74W«.a*fc .oMept^r'^ *°°"fi^ '^ «how that prescrit^r"
UnitJd'^^e;.lsr?nt;e;^^^^^^^^^ to the subject. Had the
morial, the fishing privS i„ „ ''?' *"J°>e*'> ^om time ,mmf
74
[rRivjiTe'.)
'pjending oa tjiie will of such state, (79) and is consequently impreicripti*
We. An indcpfindent (^O*) title can be derived only from treaty.
I conceive, therefore, that (80) our claim to the tinhing privilege^
from immemorial usage, is not only unsupported by the (8l)facit
but cannot, in (82) effect, result from such usage.
I have, (^) from this view of the subject, been led to conclude,
that the treaty of 1783, in relation to the fishing liberty, is abrogat-
ed by the war ; that this liberty is totally destitute of support from
prescription ; (8*) and that we are, consequently, hft without any title
to it whatsoever. For, I cannot prevail upon myself to seek for
such a title in the relative situation of the parties, at the time of ne-
gotiating the treaty of 1783, and contend, according to the insinqa*
tion contained in our letter to you of the (85) Slst of Pecemt^er, that
the jurisdiction of Great Britain over the colonies, assigned to hep
in America, was a grant (86) from the United States, and that the
United States, in making tlis grant, (87) reserved to themselves the
privilege in question. Such a pretensiop, however lofty, is so in-
consistent with (88) the circumstances of the case, and with any sober
construction which can be given to that treaty, that I shall, I trust,
be excused from seriously examining its validity.
Having thus stated some of the reasons which induced me to differ
in opinion from a majority of my colleagues, relative to the cha-
racter of ihe treaty of 1783, as well as with regard tq every other
foundation on which they were (89) disposed to rest our title to the
fishing privilege, I shall now proceed to explain the (90) causes
which influenced me to dissent from them in the interpretation of
•ur (91) instructions.
These instructions forbid us to permit our (9?) rights to the trad»
beyond the (93) Cape of Good Hope, to the fisheries, and to Louisiana, tO
be brought into discussion. I conceived that this prohibition ex-
tended to the general rights only, which affected our sovereignty,
and resulted from it, and not (94) to mere special liberties and privi-
leges which had no relation to that sovereignty, either as to its na-
ture or extent.
The right (95) relating to the trade Ueyond the Cape of Good
Hope, was the right which belonged to us as an independent (96) na-
tion, incomipon with all other independent nations, and not the peripission of
trading to those parts of the East Indies which were within the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. In like '^•iianner, the right to
the fisheries, contemplated by our instructions, was, (97) 1 con9eived,
the right, common to all nations, to use the open sea for fishing as well
as for navigation, and (98) not to the liberty to fish (99) and cure fish
within the territorial limits of ^ny foreign state. The right to
Louisiana, (loo) which was not to be brought into discussion, was the
right to the empire and domain of that region, and (lOi) not to the
right of excluding Great Britain from (102) the navigation of the Mis-
sisflippi.
How far we conformed to this instruction, with regard to thegC'
neral right to Louisiana, it is not necessary foi me here to inquire ;
(OwpiicateJ
75
independent (80») right can be derived only IVoin trcaCv
I conceive, therefore, that (80) a claim to the fisbini uriviicge
from •mmemonal usage, is not only unsupported by the (SjJ^^
but cannot, in f82) ejTect, result froih fucb usage
I have, (03) in this view of the subjpct, been led to conclude thnf
he treaty of 1783 in relation to theihing liberty, rabrogaledt
the war and that th.s liberty is totally destitute of support from
prescnption (84) and consequently, .hat we are lefj without «ny Utle
o ,t whatsoever For I cannot prevail upon myself to seek for
such a title in the relative situation of the parties at the titZ Je
negotiating the treaty of ,783, and contend, ac'co';S!;^Vthe 1"^,!
ion contained i our letter to you, of the m 25th of Decemb*^
last that the jurisdiction of Great Britain over the colonies assign-
fhA n •r/ST'''''"' «g'-»nt(86>°Mhe United States, and
that the United States, in making this grant,, (87) rtservedlo ihtmselte*
he privilege •" q«'estion. Such a pretension, however lofty, is sA
inconsistent with (88) the real circumstance, of the case, and with any
jober construction which can be given to that treaty, that I shall,
1 trust, be excused from seriously examining its validity.
tf avmg thus stated some of the reasons which induced me to dif-
rer ID opiDjon from a majority of my colleagues, relative to the
character of the treaty of 1 783. as well as with regard to every
other foundation on which they were (89) disposed, inconsistently, to rest
our title to the fishing privilege, I shall ndw proceed to explain the
(TO) reasons which influenced me to dissent from them in the intei--
pretation of our (91) instructions relative to that privilege.
These instructions forbid us to permit our (92) rights to the
trade beyond the (93) Cape of Good Hope, to theJUheriei.andto Lmuiana,
to be brought into discussion. I conceived that this prohibition ex-
tended to the general rights only, which aflected our sovereignty
and resulted from it, and not (94) the special liberties and privilege's
which had no relation to that sovereignty, either as to its nature 6r
extent.
The right. (95) relative to the trade beyond the Cape of Gootl
S^r\ '^''^ t*»e "gJ^t w*>»ch belonged to us as an independent
(96) nation, and not to the permission of trading to those parts of the
^ast Indies which were within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great
Britain. In like manner, the right to the fisheries, contemplated
by our instructions, was, (97) i conceive, the right to use the open setf
/oo> J"^ ^* "^f^l "' ^•"' navigation, and (98) not the liberty to fish
(99) and to cure fish, within the territorial limits of any foreign state!
^ He right to Louisiana, (lOO) which, by those instructions, were not to be
brought into discussion, was the right to the empire and domain of
nW) thfr* ''"'^ ^'"*^ " ri^" ^if^y^"^. excluding Great Britain frpm
(iwz; the free navigatiou of the Mississippi.
JtTJZ !^%^°"^?'''»«'? to this instruction, with regard to the ge-
nerai i jght to Lumsiaaa, it u aot i»ecessary for me h«-e to inquire :
w
[fritatb.]
1»ut certainly the majority beJieved (lOs) themielves permitted to atfnt
a rery explicit proposition with regard to the navigation of its prin-
cipal (104) river. I believed, with them, that »« were »o permitted, and that
w« were likewise permitted to offer a propoiition relative to the fishing liberty,
and had the occasion required it, to make proposals concerning the trade to the
British East Indies. I was persuaded, that tr<)ating relative to these privileges,
or dbcussing the obligation or e^ .?\vr: of ;. > .anting or witholding them, re-
spectively, violated in no wav .> . it •suo.'iorij, or affected the general rights '
wUch we were forbidden to b. . g into diiic«t.sijion.
Considering, therefore, the fitibing liberty to be entirely at at»
end, without a new stipulation for its revival, and believing that we
were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such »
stipulation, I did not object to the article proposed by us because
any article on the subject was unnecessary, or contrary to our in*
structions, but I objected specially to that article, because, by con-
ceding (105) in it the free navigation of the Mississippi, (106) we offered,
in my estimation, for the fifhing privilege, a price much above its value.
In no view of the subject could I discover any (107) analogy between
the two objects, and the only reason for connecting them and mak-
ing them mutual equivalents for each other, appeared to be because
they were both found in the treaty of 1783.
If that treaty was abrogated by the war, as I consider it to liave
been, any connexion between its parts must have ceased, and the
liberty of navigating the Mississippi by British subjects must, at
least, be completely at an end ; for it will not, I trust, be attempted
to continue it by a (108) prescriptive titls, or to consider it as a
(109) reservation, made by the United States, from any grant of sove-
reignty which, at the treaty of peace, they, accorded to Great Bri-
tain. , If, indeed, it was such a reservation, it must have been in-
tended for (llO) our benefit, and, of (Hi) course, could be no equivalent
for the fishing (U^) privilege. If it is considered as a reservation
made by Great Britain, it will reverse (113) the facts assumed by us
in relation to that privilege.
Th'rf (114) third article of the treaty of 1783, respecting the fish-
eries, and the (115) eighth article of that treaty, respecting the Missis-
sippi, had not the slightest reference to each other, and were placed
as remote, the one from the other, as the limits of that treaty could
well admit. Whatever, therefore, (116) was the cause of inserting
the fishing liberty, whether it was a voluntary and gratuitouis grant
on the part of Great Britain, or extorted from her as a condition
on which the peace depended, it could have had no relation (H?) to
the free navigation of the Mississippi. Besides, the article relative
[nvrucm,]
11
cit proposition, with rpTgrd to th^l nt^r'i- ^ '*''«''>' "pK-
(iO^frivJ;; now/chi. offer VS.t;f^frS"?u/ '"^ »'""^'P«»
be . V.0 atioa of the .n.troctions i„ que. L but I con.i'r '."««''*••''' "« «•
the.e .„«ruction, we were explicitly a.id implicitlv dt^^^^P'"» ^•'>- %
•tipulatioii wi,ich might restrain the United T«.Af '"'"»«''" «o •void an*
yador. from the naviSati.n of the lake. "nd r W. eS!^'^'*'* »"« B"«i*
JurudkHon." This in.tn.ction applied wiJhtheTeateS? "L^^^ "«'■ •«*•
While I believed, therefore, that we ^»JZrmUu,dil% "^P'''
lative to the fishing liberty ; and that Tn triT.j? " * P''Opo.ition, rt-
discussing our claiLo it/weTn no w^^'o XT?nr:?t?o ^ ''"'"^' «''»
the general right, which we were forbidden tS brine into Z'"" "^•^•"•d
lieve, and do still believe, that we were exnil^lv «*„! '^'".""'O" i » did b«.
;o offe. or to renew a stimulation foT he Te^a C l"'L^rR "^ ^''l'"'"
M.ss,ss.pp,, a river within our exclusive jurisdiction ' ^ ° ^"""'' "^ »"•
t^onsideriDg, therefore, ttie lishirie liberty to Ha »,.♦• .
•nd, Without a new stipd.tion tor it ZiZ and bJ '^'^ *'."'»
y were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditio '«!?« 'l^^
«t.pulat.oo, I did not object to the article proposed bin, .'""*' *
aay article on the subject was unnecessary or contr^^r/o*'""'*
8troct.on., but I objected specially to thataHHe bSJ k '''"*
ceaing (105) m it, to Great Britain, tjfrte uavi/ation nf?h T' ^^ <=*'»-
(106) we not only directly violated our instructfnn? h ? ?® ^"Sissipp,-
nation, a price ^uch abL iU ««/i^, an? whiS coJw n-r^" 't'' '" "^ "«-
In no view of the subject, Uld I diseo^^^^^^^^^^^
relation beetween the two obiects • «r>rl th^ , ^ i ^ analogy og
them and -akin Jhl'muCeqd ^^^^^
be, because they were both f2und Tthe treatf of nSs'T.^*^
treaty was abrogated bv the war <>« i ^^ -a -7. , *'^* "that
connection betw'ee^^t^^Srts mu'sVa^rcf^^^^^^ ^^'^^
navigating the Mississippi, by Briti8h7ubS'r, / V'.''*'^y °^
completely at an end- for it will IT i*-*.!' '""^*' ** »e«8t be
tinue it by a oS);;«;'4l'iS^^' ";''/;"«* be attempted to ,,on,
tion made by the United StL«fr!: consider m aa a (108) restrv,.
at the treaty of^P^Mhl;^^^^^^^^^^^
ieX:d^^sr::-^St--5S^^^^
likewise for our benefit. If Jt isTl' S* ^"^ *^® ^'*'»"8 ^"*> P"^"«Se.
Great Britain, it will reverse (li3 aj^bf ,f ." reservation made by
lation to that privilege '^''"' *'''""«'^ ^y "« « ri
The (114) /Atrrf article of the treatv of i la-i
eries, and the dis) eigfuh of ha, trttK 783, respecting the fish-
had nottbe-slightesfreLInce to«-H'?KP^*'"«. ^^"^ Mississippi,
remote, the onl from the Xr as the limiJ: ""^^ P'"*^"^ "
well admit; whatever. therS (lie n.S? ^^^.^bat treaty could
inserting the fishing liberty wSerk ZT. \ "^T '^^ ^«"»« ^
tous grant on the part of Gr^at Brhl Tr L^'^i^F ^"'^S^'tui-
condition, on which the peacrdeoenS Tf ,?l*^ ^'■'"" "^^^ " «
lation an, wuh the f.e '^atM^^^^^^^^^
n
[¥tt^kftt.,\
(« (hi* rU#r muni, iVnm U)« i*v(«l«iil v(«wt nf (h«« pnHii>t «( (ht
(im<*« t^'^Hu 0'^) *)**''' Kviuiuutil tviniioit* (it eufh utliMr» mid iVom (ItMlr
lUl«r*»d i»i' ituiiunl rtutl P'ntrtl whrtntH)j»». «iul niriil*lii*il m pulijwel
thr cnm|»««n»«w(i<m or ni\ju«(m«Mi( (» ««y »(lu»r pruviniiMi iif (Imt Iri'uly.
Wo(h |»nrti0« hpUi'Vtil (luit U»i« rlv«»r (mi(li«»il ihi» (offitiulpn of
bo(h, und (hm, oC «'o«««r. both hiul « il«l»l ii» H^ iinviy;«»iMii. Al
8pHi« iHwu^Mpd both bunk* of thin vif«t, (n n oiiii^bbMiililn (liMttncv
lV«tm i(* moii(b, mul otto uC Km Inittk* iipitily llniMiKlntiit \in wboln
<i«t«»n(, bo(h imiltr* bitti lUt iiitiM-otil in (iititiiiK U\ iinvpiit tbii( power
Y^H>m olvndtiiMinit it< tinviKuiion. Itiul not lbi« iu'Ut'b> b(>i<it iiitPiiiiiHl
tt> pn^Ap* tbp pni(i«»i> in n'btUon (o M|min, (bi'V ^1 '«0 w.kiIiI, iirntmliljr,
h«v» tmiilwJ •» t«» (bi> MrtviKiUlon o('(bo rivn- (l"*t)nMhint. (bnir own
tvnltoi ipii pm»>n»UMl on it. \m\ not biwn MipnluliHl I\m (bin nnvittu
W«n to (bp o«'i»u«, wbiob ftp«M>»muily oin liiMl ii tbioiigb lbi> exuliiilvt
t«nitoi-i«i* o( 8p»un.
ir (h« oiiYumnlnnrrit biul b(«pn, it) (itot, «nch mm tbo |>«u*(i((*n nt thw
lim« boli«»v«d (bi»m to bo, inni with « vunv to wbiob (lioy m>(t>il \ ov
h««t (bpup rin'un»»t«noi>» unlmomirntlv «»ii|nMle«i>p«l no imlic«l
fbiintt<* ; (Jit>Mt lUitiiin woub) biut> ituinpil now no mum (bun *b«
wmiM hrtvn urnntPtl by (bo (»W) if*v(vnt ol'lbi' uHirlo in I'obUion io
Otji)ih« M(»«ii>»t)>)«l, Mnd wonbl not, nny n)oi*« (bini in (7lt,1, biivc m^
lkw«m|p«\gi'il i»ny tm«ivul»»nt to bo oonU'vroil by il Ibi* our liiierty
vdrttiv** to tb«» (UbvMfB. Tbe riivmn^tunrpi*, bowovpr, nfwnniiMl
hx (h<> pMHi«>!>, lU tbo (in\<«, in robtlion to Ufml Hiitiiin, »nil iVuiti
Wnioh her rigbtK wniv tlmbn'wl, hnve not only, in port, bPfii ibuco-
veitHl mUto htno Pitintod, bultbosi* wbioh did pxlc* »i«vp biu<n rn-
tiihciy chrtnni»»l by »nlM»t>qnon( rvcntn. It bun (»< ) hr"" nii.i»it«innrt
that (h« torritoripi rtMignvd to U\ii[\i HHlinn. no whpio, in Irtct,
it»«rh«»d tbi» MiMJMippi ; «nd tbp n<«|oi«i(ion oC l.ooinimin l»y the
tnit«d St»«t<>» (IW)I»«!< Ibrcvpr rpnmvnd tbo .Sp«nii»h juii«dictiott
lh*t nvor.
Tb0 wbol»> oon«idorution. tborolon*, on tbo purt n'Tlrmt Hrlbiin,
whothov dorix od (Kint hor toiiiloi ial uinbtn. or \hm\ bor purl of lb«
rvoiprv>ortl obUpc«tion« robaivo to Hpnin, bwvinn ontiroly lailod, ouv
enK««g«m«nt», ontorod into on »rr,ount of lbrttoonBider«tion,in»y b«
t«irly V on«trued to bntro tonninntoti with it.
In thin viow of the )»«l>ioct, Gre.it Brilttinoould huvo hnd no title
to th« n«vim»tiiM» of tbo Miwiiinippi, oven if a wwr hnd not tflkon
Since botwoen tbo prtrtio!«. To I'onow, tboroforo, tbo otnimii of
IroAt Hritrtin, under Hmt urticlo, nubjort to thin ronntruction, wonid
be grunting her nothing ; wnd to rojiow tbnt urlicle, indopomlent of
this constiuftion, nnd without Hny roforenoo to the ciroum«t«ncoi
th*t «tt«ndod itK origin, in t78,i, or to the ovonts which havonincA
occurred in relation to it, wooM bo grnnting her ndvuntiigon not
• ©nlv entirely (•W\«ttt.inter»t, m it rolatos to tne urticle iturlf, but,
(lffr)»tt b«U«v«f ot much grentcr importnnce thtin nny which wr
cOKkH derive flrotn the liberty relative to the tiisherie*.
^p^Wi
[ovrilOATl.)
7t
MH HI or iHynmiiimil in niiy ,,{Uov i ,„i,i/ /-n 7"' ''"' «""»PP»I-
I'oU.. m„l .1,,,, of !..,«« II , .V ?' ' T.'r' /»''' /•''^"•"'«- ^f
pM«M.JlHMl,h«,,k,o.i|,i,;v;\' 7''\V"«/". A,Hj,„|„
limll«.| I, ,0 u.. ,„.vl«..ion .V i V^^ '^ -""" h«7
whirl, tlipy „d«„|, or h«,l tl.^.ri Z1.„L • ".'' *"*"' • *'«'* '0
»»«co„lWr.i.l by U. for our iLVey rdX « o ^^^^ »«
'•••Ion to Uvm rirlSiTom wirh d?i" "'' ''""'• '» r-
'"r« ""' •'"'^ '"^v;!' ir^ltt ;j/^^^^^ «'««^"'^«i.
but tlioNu wliiili dill i.k,.t !..„« I ' , •"" t« imve «« ile4,
Ort»»i JlritHln, no wlinro. in furl rn«r !1. .i «• * "f'*^"' "•••Uned U>
qui-ili«nofho;.i.i.nuj;Vl^'Sffi^^^^^^^
1 1« S|Mni.h j'.ri«d.ctlo,; from th .rrivr q W^^^ t"'*"". r""'*««^
Oierolbrc, on tho p«rt of Ureu tri 2 Ji. .. "i'" P'":*''*"*"""!!.
territori.,! ri«l,t., oV from I «r « r 5 ?' ^i'"/*'"'" '^rt"^ ^•"'"n her
t«live to H|*in;i.,,vin/« t" r fild'rr'P'"'*"' •''''««t»OM. r..
Into, on «ccoont of tl.Ht c nI,"lL i„?. 'Il /'"KWeni,. .„ter«d
hnv« tmn.in..t«.J with jt/^""""""^""""' •"«> »>o l«,rly conitruadto
In ttiifl view of the Huliinrt Hfnnt n..:* i <• •
to the n«vigntioM of 'he Ei.S "vl; ?" *"*.'" '""' °* »'^'»
pince hetwwn tho ui.rt e« Tn' '* ^ l! " '?'"' *"«' "»» ♦•ken
Or.«l Hrituin. undor fh Scl« lET' r ''''^'•" *''« ^'«''"- «f
b« Kr«ntin« h^r nothing ^^^ t « C'thVt nr^I^-r'^T"^
Ihii ronstruction, md without anv rZrlr.1 ? .. ' "'.•'«P«'"'«nt of
thut attended it. Origin In 1 7X3 or [oTlu! „ *? "'? '^''■^"'"••ance.
occurred in r«luti«,?to it/ Wuirbo , LI rh.r'''.'"' ^"^* •'"^«
could derive fro^lTbtn:!:^;:^^^^ -»»-»» -
#
80
[PRIVATB ^
lUl
III!
:;!J!
!ill!l
ff the artiele which we (l28)ofifered merely intended to rescue the
third and eighth articles of the treaty of 1783, from the operation
of the present war, and to continue them precisely as they ivere
immediately prior lo this war, the third article being then in full
force, and the eighth article being no lorger (129) obligatory, we
ehouh have attempted to exchange, like General Drummond, the
dead for the living.
It is not surprising, therefore, that- the British government
should, in suspecting such an intention, (130) have rejected our pro-
position. ! was opposed, however, to making the proposition, not
only because I was convinced that it was (131) offered with ho such
intention, but because I believed it would give to Great Britain
the free navigation of the Mississippi, under circumstances, and
evidently for an object, which would place it on very distinct
grounds from those on which it was placed by the treaty of 1783.
The whole of the Mississippi being now exclusively within the
acknowledged jurisdiction of the United States, a sinorple renewal
of the British right to navigate it would place that right beyond
the reach of the war, and of every other previous circumstance
which might have impaired or terminated it ; and the (l32) power
to grant, on our part, being now complete, the right to enjoy,
(133) on heis, under our grant, must be complete also.
It would be absurd to suppose that any thing impossible was in-
tended, and that Great Britain was to be allowed to navigate the
Mississippi (134) precisely as she (13i>) could have navigated it imme-
diately after the treaty of 1 783 ; as if her territories extended to
it, and as if Spain was (136) in entire possession of one of its banks
and of a considerable portion of the other. The (13?) revival of the
British right to navigate the Mississippi would be, (138) under exist-
ing circumstances, a new and complete grant to her, measured by
these circumstances, and thence embracing not only (he entire free-
dom of the whole extent of (139; that river, but the unrestrained access
to it across our territories. If we did not intend (1*0) this, we intended
nothing which Great Britain could accept; and, whatever else
(l4l) might have been intended, if not at once rejected by her, would hereafter
have been the subject of new and endless controversy. When, how-
ever, we connected the icvival of the navigation of the Mississippi
with the revival of the (144) liberty of taking and curing fish within
the British jurisdiction, two things, which never before had any re-
lation to each other, we evidently meant, if we acted (143) in good
faith, not only to concede, as well as to obtain something, but also
to be understood as conceding an equivalent for what we obtained.
In thus offering the navigation of the Mississippi, and the access
to it through our territories, as an equivalent for the fishing liberty,
we not only placed both on ground entirely different from that
(144) in which they respectively stood in the treaty of 1783, and
acted somewhat inconsistently with our own reasoaing relative (9
11
m
[DUPLICATE ]
81
If the article which we (125) offered was merely intended to rescue
the third and eighth articles of the treaty of 1783, from the opera-
tion of the present war, and to continue them precisely as they
were immediately prior to this war, the third article being then in
full force, and the eighth article being no longer (129) operative, we
should have attempted to exchange, like General Drummond' the
dead for the living. It is not surprising, therefore, that the British
government, in suspecting such an intention, (130) should have re-
jected our proposition.
I was opposed, however, to making the proposition, not only be-
cause I was convinced that it was (131) made with no such inten-
tion, but because I believed it would give to Great Britain the free
navigation of the Mississippi, under circumstance^^, and evidently
for an object, which would place it on very distinct grodnds from
those on which it was placed by the treaty of 1783.
The whole of the Mississippi being now exclusively within the
acknowledged jurisdiction of the United States, a simple renewal
of the British right to navigate it would place that ri<>ht beyond the
reach of the war ; and every other previous circumstance which
might have impaired or terminated it, and the (132) right to grant
on our purt, bemg now complete, the right to enjoy, (133) on the part
of Great Britain, must be complete also. It would be absurd to sup-
pose that any thing impossible was intended, and that Great Britain
was to be allowed to navigate the Mississippi (134) only as she
(135) would have navigated it immediately after the treaty of 1783,
as if her territories extended to it, and as if Spain was (ls6) in tho'
entire possession of one of its banks, and of a considerable portion
of the other. The (137) recognition of the British right to navigate
the Mississippi, would be, (I38) under existing circumstances, a new and
complete grant to her, meabured by these circumstances, and,
thence, embracing not only the entire freedom of the whole extent
of (l39) the river and its tributary waters, but unrestrained a' oess tO it
across our territories. If we did not intend (J40) to offer jhis, we in-
tended to offer nothing which Great Britain could accept ; and what-
ever else (1*1) we might have inte .<ded to offer, if not at once rejected by her,
would at least have been, hereafter, the subject of new and endless con-
troversy.
When, however, we connecteo the revival of the navigation of
the Mississippi with the revival of the r'42) privilega of taking and
curing fish within the British jurisdiction, two things which never
before had any relation to each othef, we evidently meant, if we
acted (143) with good faith, not only to concede, at "ell as to ob-
tain nmething, but also to be understood as conceding an equiva-
lent lor what we obtained.
In thus offering the nav • ;ion of the Mississippi, and the access
to it through our territorie_, as an equivalent for the fishing liberty,
we not only placed both on ground entirely different from that
(14*) on which they respectively stood in the treaty of 1 783, and
acted somewhat inconsistently witb our own reasoning, relatiTC to
8a
[PRIVATB.]
Il«p nriR^n nuA lmmort«Uty of lli« laUpr. Imt w« nltiTPd to ronoptle
<I4:.) ntu.h morf tlii«n Wo , nultl «»0|>P to |B;»hi (Hrt) l.y «|ia anBiiHmimi.i.
mi\U whitlitvi^r vipw uk ii^mpnrmlvf ei(«>fU mlitlil lift rslhimictl.
ri'om il\o ypnr 178a, lo tlir oomiMPitrPitiPttt «»f Ihp prpupnt wnr,
the Motuiil mlv«ntaat»s ili^iivptl tVoin tliPlifihinK ttnvilpg(> |»y {\\p u^o-
nle ot' thp I'nitPil Suups, wpip, arooitling to llio Ix^ni iiiformntion
thitt ^Uf)! ci»« ohtni<i on tltp pubjpr.t. very inconsidprfthle, and m»'
nuidly evupi'ionring » volnnlnry diminutioti.
It w«B di»rovriT(i lluit lltp olVm-ity mid liumidily (»f tltp ntmoB-
pliPiT, owing \o nimop* iiupMunt tbgn. in tlip high noiihpin lntitUv>ei»
tvljcro Ihid privilege ««« , hiplly lorntpd, |»rpvpnipd thp ptrprtunl
euriitg of iisi) in lliopio ipjrioni, Hud. conspquonllv. Ip!«!«pnpd very
mucli (hp vidiip of the (14!0 iihurty of Inking them there. Hy ftr
the giprtleM purl ot tl>p lish takon hy our lUhpimpn l»r»forp the pre-
Bent war, wn* (U9)fB(.Rtii in il,p opp„ „p,, or (l:>«)u|inn our own
cuHstH, Hml onrpd on (Ifli) out own iihon>f.. 'piijs lunnrh of the Unh-
crips Imr k»ppn found to Iw i!H<xhrtnHtil»|p, and hiui b^m purNUed
nith »o mnrh more corttnnly «n«l do-pnit h tluui the privilc od por-
tion (l:.«) within th» HiiUiii juri-dirtion. IhiK it \u\n not only l.prn ge-
nerally prrfi.rrrd In- our lUliprnion. hut would prohiddv,on longer
esperipnoo. Iwuo lipon tdmont univ.M^dly usod hy thorn. It wiw
to t>e holioved, thorrloro, th«t n disoontinnnnop of the prlvllegp of
taking «nd on nng tish, wijhin the Hrilish jurindirtion, would not,
nt all. diminish ll»p asiffrpguto <puu»ti(y taken hy the ppopip of the
Initod StatPS or (1X1) viry imuennlly vn.y th<> dptniU of the hURinCBfl.
That part of tho tijhoriofi whiclj would (1.^4) Mill h«\«. hi-lon^r,! to un
««ttnaiion. lu'iog .'xhauf^MpM, would allbrd an ample field for all
the capitid and imlostry hitherto omplovod in thp general hiuineit
of lishmg, or mproh;uidiM»» of lixh, and on that tield iqight the few
fisherman, who had hhUorto used tho lil>erty of taking and ruring
f»«h wuhin thp jurisdirtion of (I'roat Hritain, pxort thpir nkill and
lahour without «ny ?priou«« luconrpnionco. (' W) 'I"l''''lil»prtv, liu-
We^l5(0'" a very considerahlodegroe hy the torms in which'itwas
granlt>d. to he curtailed hy thpji^ovprnmpnf andsuhjects ofa fo eign
PtatP ; alrpu«ly growing into voluntary dij»uspl)y our own citizens on
account of th^ dittio.ulties insonarahic from' it', and ahsolutoly inca-
pable of oxtPn»ion ; was totally nnnoressary to us for »uh8l«tence
or ocrupation. and athmlod, (t67)in nn wny, any conunercial facility
or political advantage. This privilege, too, while it wan thuA of
little (J5R)or no utility to us, cost Great Britain literally (159) nothing.
The free naviiration of the Mississippi, with the necessary accesi
to it, is a grant oT a very different character. If it was not hereto-
fore used by Ureal Hritain, it was, perhaps, becmse she did not
consider herself entitled to it, or because tite circumstances of the
moment suspended its practical utdity. The trpxty of 1783 stipu-
lated for her the navigation of this river, under the presumption
that her territories extended to it, and, of course, could not intend
to give her an access to it through our territories. 'J'he British
pofwssions to the westward of Lake Krie, being altnyt entirely
l»trptitcAtii.j
»d
(he origin nnd immorJrtliJy of tlio InUer, but wo ofToml to o«f.c.i,i»-
(145) «u.A «,o,« ,htt,. »ve could hope lo gain (I *fl) bi IL tXr-m.^
a»K nn.M,;, ly .>tpr,r e„ci„« « ,„|u„t„ry diminolio.K ""'""«'^'«"''^'«
It WHS .l.«r.,vorc,l il,„t the obnrurifv iin.l humidity uHUi^ ,.i.n«.
phore, ow.Mg to al.noM inco^MOt tog, n, tl.n high norther lull /Z
much lh« VHlur of t .,. (Mh) ,rivii««« of i„kinK tliom thZ ,v Ju-
th« 8iotttfl.l part or 11,0 ii«h token by our IwhoroZ hifo,?. «
c«H«l«, nn.l cured o,. i',i)our.h..re. 'Tbi« br«r.cJM,f l^ ZJZ
iii.«Jk.i...«,i I... .)"""<"'«'"", tlint It boM not only been irt-nerully^
K re ti'i' ;""' ^""^'•'»«". ''"t would, probuldy! on lon^r r« T
nc noe, have been nlmo«t univormdiy UHe.l by tliem. It war to I <.
e leve, I, tbereb,n, tb.,t n di«con(inu,u,ro ofUie p"vilel of.iki !
ini I I'; ""'•';" ^'•*' "'■'""' J''''i«^'i«ti«n.lvoold1fo? t HIL
iUmUy Inlbcrto employed in tbuKenerAl bi.«irl!«nf <• ' '""
cb««dueot(w.;„,^o;;tb„;ntK^b :^n^^^
h.lberto. u.ed the Uberty of taking .,nd curb.^i'h w u,,n u'e ?«'
riHd.ct.on ol Ureat llrituin, exert their skill «nd lubouTw hout aC
con.i;bM.:r"r"""^''';' r'^ '''••"' "''^'-^^ nabie, /.o^r^t^jj
consider, blu degree, by the terms in which it w.ii granted to K
curtailed by the Kovernment and subjects of a fovZn2ir nti i
Z? mnl "^""*»K«- '^his privilcg, . too, while it wa I u if
little (158) ttiKl procariouB ul htv ''• iih r.rt«f h * u •. .. "*
(V>njnomng. ^ '" "*»<^^»t Great Britain literally
litfed, for her, the r„„,™" , ,► Ivi,., ," T"''/' ""' ''"l'»-
04
[fRIVATS.]
utiROttled, rendored, perhaps, the free naTij^tion of the MiHsisfiippi,
for the moment, of little adv<intafl[e to her, ptirticularly as her right
to reach it tvus at least equivocal ; and as, by another treaty, she
could curry on trade >vith our Indians.
This naviKHtion might, indeed, for a lonn time to come, be of lit-
tle use to her for all the ! 160) legitimate purposes of transit und in-
tercourse ; but every chaiuce that could take place in this respect
must increase its importance to her; while every chnnge in the
fMihin;!? liberty (161) would be to tho disadvantage of the United
States.
The freedom (l<?2)of the Mississippi, however, is not to be esti-
niated by the mere legitimate wne^ tiiat would be :na,le of it. The
unrestrained and undeHned access which would have been inferred
from tlie article which we proposed, (163) would bave placed in the
hands of Great Britain and her subject!! all the facilities of commu-
nication with our own citizens, and with the Indians inhabiting the
immense regions of our western territory. It is not in the nature
of things that these facilities should net have been abused for un-
righteous purposes. A vast field for contraband (lU*) and inirigua
would have been laid open, and our western territories would have
swarmed with British smugglers and British emissaries. The re-
venue would have been defrauded by the illicit introduction of
English merchandibo, rod the lives of ourciti/.ens, and the security
of a valuable portion of our (1<»5) country oxposed to Indian hostilities,
excited by an uncontrolled British influence. (166) if our iii-
BtruGtions to guard against such an influence forbid us to renew the British li-
berty to trade with our Indians, we certainly violated the spiiit of those instruct
tions in oflfering tho means of exercising that influence with still gr&ater facility
and effect than could resuli front that liberty.
What was there in tho fishing liberty, either of gain to us, or loss
to Great Britain, to warrant, in consideration of it, a grant to her of
such means of fraud and annoyance ? What justice or equality was
there in exposing to all the horrors of savage warfare the unoffend-
ing citizens of an immense tract of territory, (167) not at all benefited
by the lishing privilege, merely to providfe for the doub:'ul accom-
modation of a (168) few Afihernien, iti a remote quarter, entirely ex-
empt from the danger ?
Such have been the reasons which induced me to differ from a
majority of my colleagues with regard to the article in question,
and 4liich 1 trust will l>e (169) thought sulticient, at least, to vindicate
my motives.
The unfeigned res|)ect which I feellbr the integrity, talents, and
judgment of those gentlemen, would restrain me from opposing
them on slight grounds, and a deference for their opinions aiaketi
me almost fear that 1 have ' rred in dissenting from them on thd
present occasion. I can but rejoice, however, that the afticle, as
(DUPLICATE.]
85
tied, rendered, pvlinpu, Che free Davi«ition nfth. ut ■ ■ . -
he momrnt. ofliuie advantage to hrr; parti. ?i'^^'''*?
to re«ch ,t «.H8. nt least, enui?ocHl ; and K J ' ^ " ^'' "«''*
coul. narry on tr«de with onr IndLn ' ^^ ••">ther tr«ty, .he
^^^'^:^t:r^lCti>^^ be or
n..in, hhert, (^oL . ,« L ^^^ ^:^ :tz isiji:^
The freedom (162) of navigating the MisfiiMinn: u
to be estimated by the mere lecitimatp ..ll *W ' ^°'^«^er. " not
ie. The u„re.t.Led anT.InT i'^ ^ cce^t^^^^^^^
been inferred from the article whirh wl .?f * ^""ch would have
placed in the bands of Gre t BrTtaif amU^erTh^^ """' ^^^^
t.e8 of communication with our owrcilLpn/"*''^,"'^^^^^^ ^«'='«-
inhabiting the immense regio^of our wSnTe„ho^^^
•n the nature of things thf.t these facili.i!. «? . . . "^^l '* " no*
abused for unrighteous purposes A ^a'fi'L?^^'^ "^* l"^* ''««•»
and for intrigue would h.ve lleen laid open lift '°"*:«''«»'* ('«*)
nes would have swarmed with BritSh , . *"■ *^*''^''" ^^''^^O'
issaries. The revenrwm d h .vp it "f*!'".'"*^ ^"^'«b em-
introduction of ^^..li.:;lrn:;;:ll;!n; ;:^tiihetr,':f '' *'*^ '"'^'*
nnd he sec- , valuahle por ion of our ne^/ "'" ''^•^*"»'
have been exp lian l.o«tiii.. ''""; ^'"r (165) country, would
tish influrnce JZ^uTV f ^^ "" ""'^^"troHed Br.
of I7y+, " allowing the North \vt!t(T '''«"«"re, .o renew the ueaiy
trade, whh the In.ilan tnb'ttl^ l^^S'at ';"'^''. ''""''' ^'^ '^»-y«'-
of which have been most .unsib/., /,« e or'el *'"' "'* ''*"»'"«"« eAfect.
the 8pin, of those i„«tru.Mions in on^!;! ' I, P^ea ' "If '' "^ • ■ ""^'"'^ ^'"'■"•«'
with still greater facility and effec tl a,f r uiri rn I, f ''''"u""^ """ '"""«"«
What was there in the tishirg her v SL^l"'"/''".*'^^^^^^^
to Great Britain, to warrar.t, ^S;^' Jf^/.f '" *« "« «>- ^oss
of such moans of fraud and an mvTnceTwh f "l-^ «'*«"* '° h*''
was (here, in exposing to all hrhorrors If ''"''"* ''^^T'^'^y
«nonondingci.ixe;,s of an imn,er,7e trTt of tpLw ''^^,7,'^'"'^"'' '^^
or but fair„ly, benefited by the ishLnr 1 ''^' ^^'^ "**'"' '"•
for the doubtful a.co.nm'o .tion of a aeswf '«?"'''''^ '' ^'^^^'^^^
zz:r^^'^- remote SJ^i:.^^'!^;^;^:^^^::
The iinfHia;n"d respet-t whi^h 7 :',..! /u„ tt • .
and,i,„l,na„,, of ,„„„!' ,„„u,t;„, .iuldtsf^'i^'r^ •"'■"'■
86
iFniVAT&.l
proposed by us, was rejected by Great Britaip ; whatever were
her reasons for rejecting it ; whether, as above suggested, O^o) ihe
•uipected some tacit reservation, or want of faith on our part, or sup-
posed, from the price w« at once bid for the fishing privilege, that
we overrated its value, and might concede for it even more than
(171) the navigation of the Mississippi, with all its accessary advan-
tages. . . '
(172) We are still at liberty to negotiate for that privilege in a treaty of com-
meVce, should it be found expedient, and to offer for it an equivalent, fair in ir«
comparative value, and just in its relative effects. lu any other way, I trust,
we shall not consent to purchase its renewal.
I have tlie honour to be, with profound respect,
Sir, your laithful and obedie»it servant,
JONA. RUSSELL.'
M7 areument to demonstrate the abrogation of the treaty of 1783, by the pre-
sent war, and the consequent discontinuance of the fishing privilege, will, I trust,
not be ascribed to any hostility to those who were interested m that privilege. I
have been always ready, and an. still ready, to make every sacrifice fo't'" Pre-
servation of that privilege which its nature and utility can justify ; but I have
conscientiously believed that the free navigation of the Mississippi wa? pregnant
with too much mischief to be offered indirectly jnder our construction of the
treaty, or directly, as a new equivalent for Uie liberty of taking and curuig fish
within th« British jurisdiction.
We had three other ways of proceeding : .
First To contend for the indestructibility of the treaty of 1783, thence mfer-
ing the continuance of the fishing privilege, without saying any thing about the
navigation of the Mississippi, which would have reserved our right of contesting
this navigation on the grounds I have mentioned, specially applicable to it.
Seeondli/. To have considered the treaty at an end, and offered a reasonable
equivalent, wherever it might be found, for the fishing privilege.
Tldrdly. To have made this liberty a siK qaa non of peace, as embraced by
the principle of status ante helium. . , ,o .
To either of these propositions I woald tame Mwnted, aut I could not consent
to grant to revive the Biitish right to the »^is»w»n of the Missisiippi, m Older
to procure or prcferve the fishing liberty.
[duplicate.]
87
proposed by us, was rejected bv Grant WrU,:- i. .
reasons for rejecting it ! whelhe^r, ^^tl^.TT^^Z^^^^^^^^ ""V.
Iiave suspected some tacit reservation or want S f !?' ^ ^ ™**'*
or supposed, from the price we at once T^ L thp'^K'^'P'''''
lege, that we overrated its vi1„p »n\ li^u. 'or the fishing prm-
morethan(17l)ti/^rn Jiof thlw^ '— ''^' ^°'' '* ^^^^
cesiary advantages. °^ '''^ Mississippi, with all its ac-
.udSot",eTurei;VSfe;^e"a^:S\rr^^^ '' ">isu„der.tood. !„
mterests on any of.he constituent 0^^ No 1« ''"'"'' *" ""''«"*1"« tht
than I do, a branch of imlustry wE „ot onlv Lh"",'""'''''**'^ "PP''"^'"*
seems to create it. Nor nan any one nor. Z^ , J° "*"*""'' *«'»''*'. >>"*
•patriotism of those citizens who'are";" dTuTt "^an'f 'h' ','' usefulness, and
to deserve well of the republic In ti.n^f J ', '' '^^° '"^*'« "«'" «as«d
flicting elements, the treasures of te deep o'e^ u?. '""^ '''""•'' "™''" ^°»-
of war they contribute, by their skill IZi^i^ f- "'*" country; and in timet
«ut, in our country, wheJ. a are equaf h "f"'"^'/" *"" ^''^'"''' *»d «'»'/•
the many must be ^refor.ed ti e S; i ^1:71"'=""'^ ""' prosperityif
In giving this preference, I will fianklv rm f ,1 ""T" '"'"e"" of »»>« ftw.
.ions and locarpredilections, a d t„ S^teu o "h co'.' 'V"'."" *"'^ P"^"
patriotism; and to this patriotism I dare BnnP.i f ""^' °^ * '""'* ""'''^S*"*
with those to whom I am officially responsib fh . '"^ /indication, not -.nl,
more immediat«lv r«nn<..,„^ ;„ "L- 'P"""'''''' f'"' '^"1' those with whom I am
more immediately connected in socie y and whn, '"! '*""" *'"^ ^''°™ ' «"»
to have been unfavourably affected by \l'e vi'ws whicH? ""'',''' T"''""^
my duty to adopt. I have always bep Im , ' ^'^'"' ''""""* '» «° '>«
fishing privilege which its na ^efor co ,na alL """l' ""^ '""''*" ^"^ '"•
I conscientiously believe that the' free a^%" io„ 7^"^ ^""l"* J^'^'j^' ^-'
access to it which we exprenslu offered n!^ ^" Mississippi, and the
to be offered, indirectly ^3 our 7' , P'"^R'"°t «^i'h too much mischief
tney were in fact offo.S, IT/ ew ^SStr l^v^'TV ""' '"'^''^^ "
ing fish within the Vrh\l ,....:.^:„.:.:?"""''*'"' ^""^ »'»« ''berty of taking and dr».
ing fish Within the L»ritishjuri?diction.
I will frankly avow. hoivpv»r tho»\_ •
Great B.i,Hin,'calcuh:ti ^ :rti;e ^ cS '2lT'"' 77"' ""'' «''" "«' «»>«
has sent against New-Orleans confiZn PO^'crful expedition Vhich .h«
the mistrefsof Louisiana and Cirut^t'rs"';^^^^ •"»- ^-'"«'
uaend to abandon her conquest undertf^^^rVf'reta'y ^^^henf '' '""
lier ministers had. almost fir.m ii.„ ireaiy ot lihent.
«nly affected to considr our aliliUon 7^?'''"""' "' ''" "^'gotiation, not
agrandizement, but nisinuate^a'S ""u our t^^^^^^^^^ T"^"'=« «^ "^ 'P'"* «f
to obtain the free navigation of the Ms ^^0^ ° .' '• ^'''f«'^^i"g. 'herefore,
sent to part even with the lisliin.r liiVo!!' P^ ' "othing, she would not con-
pointed L her views on Lo;.tia;^a a 7l . u*;;' i.ro:^'""'; '' ^'? ^« '^-P"
uwct .i.a» »K„ ....II .... , , .. » """ * '"'St In Cod and the valour of the
west that she will be, I shaH ..i^b; ^ , ^d if i^ .J^f *T ^^'""' "^ '^
and just in its r.la.ive eriect. ; a.t to'n lo S brVt'^r^h"'"''"'^'"'' ^'*'""'
.uo.e wise than to demand it as a .onrf.So peace o ' ''^J^ >^«^"l«"tIy
beyond its worth, and which, hovvevor excessive rm'-^h ? "'^"/"V' * P''c«
fused, merely by the operation of thosl nl ' " '"'*'*''^ °'^ '"'*"g «'
meviiably eiiei.dered Ly a rtefifwar. ""•"^'^"'"■"«'l'""'g l">««o..s which are
I have the honour to be, with liie iiinst r>rr>f„. i
and obedie'.t servant, " profound respect, sir, your faithful
To the llon'ble Jamks Monroe, JONA. KUSSELL.
iicc^VoJ tHauZflhe United StaUs, ice. &c. &c
^,,l*!:!!f .^Py^'^-rP^P^^ '«''' ^v Jonathan Russell, esn. .t <K. n„.
House of Kepre.se;tativef Sfthe Unttelrstate"'"""'''^'' '^ '^'
J. Q. ADAMS, Secretary of State.
88
p>
Mill' I
REMARKS
On a Paper delivered bu Mr. Jonathan Russell, at the Department of Slate, on
the 22d of jipril^ 1822, to be communicated to the House of Rtpresenlativesj
as the duplicate of • Letter written by him at Paris, the Uth of Februarj/,
1815, to the ihen Secretary of Slate, and as the Letter called for by the Resolw
iumofthe House, qfldth April, 1822.
The first remark that presents itself upon this duplicate, is, thct
it is not a copy of the letter really written by Mr. Russell, at Paris,
on the 11th of February, 1815, to the Secretary of State, and re-
ceived by him. The latter was marked "private,^* and, as such,
was not upon the files of the Department of State ; and, although
of the same general purport and tenor with the so-called duplicate,
differed from it in several highly significant passages, of which the
following parallel, extracted from the two papers, presents one
example :
ORIOINAL. DUPLICATE. *
*• How far we conformed to ** How far we conformed to
this instruction, with regard to this instruction, with regard to
the general right to Louisiana, it the general right to Louisiana, it
is Dot necessary for me here to
inquire ; but certainly the majo-
rity believed (103) themselves per-
mitted to offer a very explicit pro-
position with regard to the navi-
gation of its principal (104) river.
/ believed, with them, that we were so
permitted, and that we were, likewise,
permitted to offer a proposition relative
to the fishing liberty, and, had the oc-
casion required it, to make proposals
concerning the trade to the British
East Indies. I was persuaded, that
treating relative to these privileges, or
discussing the obligation or expediency
of granting or withholding them, re-
spectively, violated, in no way, our
instructions, or affected the general
rights which we were forbidden to
bring into discussion."
is not necessary for me here to
inquire ; but certainly the majo-
rity believed (103) themselves to be
permitted, their own construction to the
contrary notwithstanding, to offer a
very explicit proposition with
regard to the nnvigiition of its
principal (10*1) river; now, this of-
fer. 1 considered, for the reasons just
suggested j not to be a violHtion of the
instructions in question, but I consi-
dered it to be against both tiie letter
and the spirit of our other instructions
of the 15th of April, 1813. By these
instructions, we were explicitly and
implicitly directed ' to avoid any sti-
pulation which might restrain the Unit-
ed States from excluding the British
traders from the navigation of the lakes
and rivers exclusively within our oum
jurisdiction.^ This instruction applied
with the greater force to ihe Missis-
sippi, because, as it i> believed, it was
the only river to which it could apply.
** While I believed, therefore, that
we were permitted to offer a proposi-
tion relative to the lishing liberty, and
that in treating concerning this liberty,
or in discussing our claim to it, we in
no way violated our instructions, nor
affected the general rights which wc
were forbidden to bring into discussion,
I did believe, and do stitl believe, thai
89
DOPLICATK.
w« were exprewly and unequivocally
forbidden to offer, or to renew, a stipu-
lationfor the free navigation, by the
Br.t.sh,of the Mi«,,.:ippi, 'a rivet
*"""" °"f exclusive jurisdiction.''
It 18 here seen that, while in the oricinal letter Mr r.,» n jj
mth tl,„ .najorhy of hi, colleag„e., oeifeJe /ha "e^ere pel fiS
had been discussed at the meetiniya nfiuli ^?<=eroDer, I8I4. It
preceding mh ,„d ^.h ofToSer On S^zThTr';' °" '^
Ihe American plenipolentiaries hadreceiv ed a leutr 5 "■' '"°?"''
" lum, you will understand fh.?v!! ^ f *° the«ta/„*an<e 6c/.
" basi^ of a treaty '' ^°" '''■^^ authorized to make it the
Now, the status ante helium unon wh.vk *.,«
and unequivocally pero^.ttedircl" e^^rettr^rdtdTort
the recognition of the entire treaty of peacrof^TSi hw.Th ^
vival of the tirst ten artirlps nf tui * \ f '^'^' "^^ ^"^ re-
freedom to the BritisMona^^^^^^^^^ "? '^"'^ the
into our territories, and frelfrade with o.r?^'' ''"' ^?^ '^S''^^'
tTW^V't '''' ^' the"rn:f;;':ti:nf o T5 r a"-.i is r '"■
cited by Mr. Russell, considered by the Pre"dpn. L, ^*^'^',?r
that It was omitted from that couv whirh LT cancelled,
to Congress, of "so much .ft hF' V .• «^ ^^en communicated
terms L whidi w^wr:!! t X"; reV:ee^'''"'VV%^^'
several printed ouiea were ihuTfl """^^ PP«ce, and of which
90
19th October, 1814, tVesh from Washington ; nor at all poesible
that he should have considered us as then bound by the instruction
«f 15th April, 1813, to which, :a his duplicate, he now so emphati-
cally refers. The 11th of February, 1816, was yet so recent to
the date of the conclusion of the treaty, that, in writing the original
of his letter, the recollection of the new instructions of October,
1814, had doubtless not escaped him. But when the duplicate w»«
written, other views had arisen ; and their aspects are discovered
in the aggravation of charges against the memory of a dead, and the
character of living colleagues.
But whether the real sentiments of ,VIr. Russell, at Paris, on the
llthof February, 1816, with regard to the transactions to which
this passage relates, are to be taken as indicated m the original, or
in the duplicate, certain it is that the vjjhement objections to the
proposed article, which, in the duplicate, appear to have made 80
deep an impression on his mind, had as little been made known to
his colleagues at the time of the discussions at Ghent, as they ap-
pear to have been to himself, wjien writing the original of the same
letter.
The proposal, to which the whole of Mr. Russell's letter, in both
its various readings, relates, was made to the British plenipotentia-
ries, not by a majority, but by the whole of the American mission,
including Mr. Russell, as may be seen by the protocol of the confer-
ence of the 1st December, 1814, and by the letter from the Ameri-
can to the British plenipotentiaries, of 14th December, 1814. In
that letter, already communicated to the House, the American ple-
nipotentiaries, referring to the article in question, expressly say :
"* To such an article, which they viewed as merely declaratory, the
undersigned had no objection, and have offered to accede :" and to
thfit letter the name of Mr. Russell is subscribed.
At the time when the letter from Paris was written, or within a
few days thereafter, all the colleagues, whose coprluctit so severe-
ly censures, in relation to measures, to which Mr. ilussell's sanction
and signature stood equally pledged with their own, were at Paris,
and in habits of almost daily intercourse with him. They little sus-
pected the colouring which he was privately giving, without com-
munication of it to them, of their conduct and opinions, to the heads
of the government, by whom he and they had been jointly employ-
ed in a public trust of transcendent importance ; or the uses to
which this denunciation of them was afterwards to be turned.
Had the existence of this letter from Paris been, at the time when
it was written, known to the majority of the mission, at whose pro-
posal this offer had been made ; to that majority, who believed that
the article was perfectly compatible with their instructions, con-
sistent with the argument maintained by the mission, important for
securing a very essential portion of the right to the fisheries, and in
nowise affecting unfavourably the interest of any section of the
Union, they would doubtless have felt that its contents called much
more forcibly upon them, to justify to their own government them-
91 *
•elvea and their motives for making that oroDOisI than Mr R...
.ell conld be called upon to justify fum,eH^forme;eyhav?ng^ee;
Jdveie n.rtv h A r/h"'"^.^'""!: '" P'«l'"«i°g. and which the
Mverae jiarty had notthouRht worth accej.'iug.
i he writer of these remarks is not authorized to .ppak for hi«
rP rhfr ''^'''* ""T"'^ ' ""■'' "'''^*^°'" '« "^'^ alike^eyond the
reach of censure and panejiyr.ck; and the oth., , well able when
he shall meet th.s d..clo.«re, to defend himself But he beireveJ
of them what he affirms of him.cif, tiK.t had they entertained oHhe
projected article, and of the argument maintained by the mis ion
he sentiments avowed in either of the vuriatious of Mr. RusselTs
letter from Pans, no coi. i.leration wo.iid have induced them to con-
In JiK\''n*'P°r7 '^' V '"•''"'■'''« ^''^•'- "^^e" to . paper declar-
*ng that tJiey hud no objection to it.
wifh'l'hi^''.' '/ r'n ^'*'' ''''"''^ *''^^ ^•'''^ t^'o^ght it reconcileable
mth their cluty to their country, had they entertained those senti-
ment . to have subscribed, on the 25th of December, 1814, the
«T„ r«T;."^r^' ""''■'" '', '^"^ f'^'^'^^y °^ S»«te, already com.
»unicated to Congress, and on the s -ne day to have written the
separate and secret letter, fore-announ ..g that of 11th TfcVuI
ry, I a 16, Irom Pans,
Besides the memorable variation I .tween the original and du-
p hcate of the letter of 1 1th February, 1816, which has been e/ht
bited m parallel passages extracted from them, there are others not
less remarkable. In the course of the duplicate, the total and un
Son ?!^ «^andonment of the rights of the poor tishermen is com-
coun?Iv thi"- \" ^^'l"7^P«"^'p>:'c upon their usefulness to the
country, their hardy industry, their magnanimous enterprise and
their patriotic self-devotion. Uttle of lifis appears in the^rTginal
and that l.ttle, m the after-thouglu of a posircript. Towarrthe
wrTe;' 'bv hfs'M ^' 'r T^ ''r^'^y takes'possession of Ihe
writer. By his " trust in God, and in the ralour of the West," he
foresees the victory of General Jackson at New-Orleans. He fore-
sees the convention between the United States and Great Britain
of October 1818. In the original there isnu prophecy-nV.' trS
in God, and in the valour of the West." ^ '^ ^ ""*'
borlte^nl! T'^i '""'rf! '4^.-*''" "'P'"' «^^^^ ^«"«r f<^™ inela-
borate and deeply meditated dissertation to prove •
of 1 tV^'^Ik'"?*^ ^^T'I! ^**^ ^"'^'.'^ ^^''^^' ""d Great Britain,
JJl \ V^t^l which upon Its face is a treaty of independ-
ence, a treaty ot boundaries, a treaty of partition, as well asa
r S ? r^'^^T'^^'' '" ^'l^^t'^n^tion, all his signatures at
Ghent to the contrary notwithstanding, a mere treaty of peace,
totally abrogated by the war of 1812. ^
'* Jn n ^l"^ '""'^ ^^''K' ""^ ^ ^'^""^y *'«■ ^^»«'-»»' consisting of
two parts ; one, of rights appertaining to sovereignty and in-
«?'».!! rr V""'^ ^^" "'*'"'"• "'' ''P"*^'''' g^«"t« and privileges;
ot which the former were permanent, and the latter abrogateU
M
<b,
^.
<>%. ^
i>'^^
X^.:^.^'^
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
2.8
1^
IL25 i 1.4
2.5
2.2
2.0
m
1.6
Hiotographic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WEST MAIN STREET
W BSTER,N.Y. M580
{/16) -72-4503
<>
"^^ .
o
m
^^ ^^1^
^
<^
a
mmmmmmmm
92
3. That the principle<i nsiiided, and the argameDt maintained,
by the majority of the Ghent Mission, and to which he had
subscribed his name in all the joint communications of the
Mission, as well to the British plenipotentiaries as to his own
government, were a mass of errors, inconsistencies, and absur-
dities.
4. That the offer to the British plenipotentiaries of a right to the
British to navigate the Mississippi, was, in the opinion of the
majority, and also in his own opinion, permitted by our in-
structions, and in no ways violat'^d them.
5. That the same offer was directly contrary to thu construction
given by the majority to their instructions, and, as he bad
always thought, and still thought, contrary to explicit and
implicit, express and unqualified prohibitions, in those instmc-
tions.
6. That the offer of the right to navigate the Mississippi, as an
equivalent for the fisheries, was the offer of an excessive price*
for a privilege worth little or nothing.
7. That, extravagant as that offer (to which he signed a letter .
declaring that he had no objection) was, it was rejected by
the adverse party ; because they thought it an offer of the
dead for the living ; or because, they hoped to get still more
for the worthless privilege ;; or, because, they expected ta
. take and keep Louisiana, and thus get the navigation of the
Mississippi for nothing; or, because, they were blinded by the
unhappy passions incident to war ; but that he foresaw: that '
they would hereafter grant all the valuable part of the same
worthless privilege for nothing.
8. That there was no sort of relation whatsoever between a
privilege for the British to navigate in waters within our ju-
risdic^.ion, and a privilege for us to fish in waters vnthin Bri-
tish jurisdiction ; becaaf^e one of these privileges had been
stipulated in the third, and the other in the eighth article, of
the treaty of 1783 ; and therefore, that it was absurd to offer
one as an equivalent for the other.
9. Lastly, that the offer to the British of the right to navigate
the Mississippi, was pregnant with mischiefs to the western
country — to " the unbending citizens of an immense tract of
" territory, not at all, or but faintly benefited by the fishing
" privilege, merely to provide for the doubtful accommodation
" of a few fishermen, annually decreasing in number, in a re-
" mote quarter, and entirely exempt from the danger."
Upon most of these points, so far as argument is concerned, it
might, upon the mere statement of Mr. Rasseirs positions, be left
to his ingenuity to refute itself. His first and second points, with
regard to the character of the treaty of 1783, considered ae> doc-
trines, are evidently inconsistent with each other. T^he variation
between the original and duplicate of bis letter upon the fourth and
fifth points, is something more than inconsistency ; something more
03 *
'«ven than self-contradiction. The wl.ftin.i-« i. » *.
*ue of misrepresentation of e.erfprrt of it V" f J«borio« Ji..
duct and sentiments of his colleagues whl . "^^'^^ ' °^ *^ co"'
of the mission ; and of h L own S.T f "^^^t.^ted the majority
tion to them. U substantia^cwis th-''"!^ '° ''^^''^'
wanton violation, in the face of hisSmn "'■^^ deliberate an^
and unequivocal' instructiW faeTr ,^^^^^^ PO-itivS
sacrificing the interest, the peace, the coSSL*' ^°^*^« ««ke of
whole western country, to the douhtfi.i ® */'"^*"*^« o^'tbe
eastern fishermen, and{;*rupporfof flirtrrh'^'^l^^^ 'i « ^^'^
the shadow of a right *'*' " °* a claim to which they had not
in cpposition to them ^""^agues, and of his own conduct
grantingloTetthThe'!?r^^^^^^ ^'i-^- o^an article,
equivalent for the irant of rfi-hf "^'^^ !"« '^^ Mississippi, a« m
«2n,as if ithad bfenl/ep^JjtJir^^^^ British TurisdiS
grants, in a distinct article, wC reLen " /nlh*''?^ ^l '^ »•''
gotiation at the time when it was made tnT *''^'**** ""^^^^ "«-
It was made, and to the consideralTor 1 h!° .^ u'''''^" "P«° '^Wch
Mr. Russell reprLLtrthc Side - -^ ''J' '^^"' •°*^""^-
stances, when it was bvbothD«r^i« f'^ ffifred under circum-
had no claim to ter^it^ t Zmlst^TJ^t' ''** ^ ^"^"^
. ™*^- .Kussell represents the offer of a ri^ht f« „ '^ . ... ,
«i8s,pp,,and of access to it from the Britifhtlr^r'^*^ *''* ""'
and unqualified ; asgivins access trR.?fK. ^r"*^'''*^ ^s general
issaries to everi paftTf the wp« pr *" ^^^^^ ^""^ ^"^ish em-
with all ourlndi^s ^ Thtpro^talCS'l-/.' •''*^^*^^»"«
a single spot of the British t'errftory, 7o the r^ei^'foj Z"'' '^^^
warfare upon the weslern countrr^'ntelt :n?erT °^/"^'"*
proposal, not that which was made but fh!?^^/ u^°f®? ^^""^ *
torted by his misrepresentationr ' *^«t into which iti,di,.
^ Of the conduct and sentiments of his colleairues
spirit of their most explicitTd imX?t .v "^ the letter and the
instructions from their own goveZment "XV"^ unequivocal,
with having violated the?r ow^ncSuction of the?^''/'''?' *^'^'
. ? '^ ^T ^^^'' •" «°other reading o??hrsamerPtl?*'"'*'°!f-
to have been written on the same dav Hp !T-,1^^' purporting
all violation of their iJtrilrtiTnT 7a . ^^•l"'*^ ^^^^ entirely rf
of that opinion. ""*'"^*'°°«' »°d declare, he had always be^
18
Mr. Russell ascribes to his coUengues opinions which they nev^
<ntertaineil, arguments which they never advanced, and doctrines
tvhich they not only would discfaim with indignatioD, but diametri-
cally o|»po9ite to those which they did maintain. He imputes to
them the opinion that the Independence of the United States was
derived only from the treaty of peace of 1783, and that all the
rights stipulated by it, in favourof the people of the United States,
Were mere grunts from the crown of Kugland. This was the
British doctrine, whirh Mr. Russell well knew his colleagues re-
jected with disdain, hut which he himself countenances! by main-
taining the British side of the argument, that the fishing liberty,
stipulated in the treaty of 1783, was abrogated ipso facto by the
war of 1812.
.He imputes to them, as an inconsistency with their other imput-
eti opipioir, that they rested their claim to the fishing privih'gc,
Upon preuription ; and this notwithstanding all the light of learn-
ing with which he had irradiated them, from the lucid sources of
**jux mcntfacuUulh ," of" nitrn memoriatn /i<wiinw ;" of'*nullnm
tempus orcurril rcgi ;^' and of the imprescriptible character of fish-
eries. Of all this not one word was said at Ghent. The majori-
ty never asserted the right of the fishing privilege, as resting upon
the right of prescription ; nor had they ever the benefit of Mr.
Russell's learned labours to prove that it was not applicable to the
strbjecf.
3. Of his own conduct and sentiments, in opposition to those of
ihe majority of his colleagues.
The parallel passages from the original and duplicate of his let-
ter remove aW necessity for fur. her proof of this. But that is not
all. Throughout the letter, Mr. Russell holds himself forth as
having been the intrepid and inflexible asserter and supporter of
the rights of the West, against the majority of his colleagues ; as
having, by a painful struggle, obtained a conquest over his early
prejudices and local partialities, and enlarged his intellectual facul-
ties and patriotism, to become the champion ami vindicator of the
interests of the West. Of all this, nothing was made known to his
colleagues of the majority at Ghent. The article to which his
letter conjures up such formidable objections was drawn up and
proposed lo the mission by a distinguished citizen of the western
country. It was opposed by anotner citizen from the same section
of the Union Of the five members of the mission Mr. Russell
was the person who took the least part in the discussion. He nei-
ther objected that it was contrary to our instructions, nor depre-
ciated the value of the fisheries ; nor painted the dangers of British
smugglers and emissaries, or the horrors of Indian warfare, as im-
pending over the umf ending inhabitants of the western country
from the measure. He gave, it may be, a silent vote against pro-
posing tbe article ; and, when it was determined by the majority
to propose it, concurred in proi'osing it ; was present at the con-
ferences with the British plenipotentiaries when it was proposed
95
those which he ha^iT'.e ' rel^fn k^bl ''' "«' ^'"''^^^ «"« <5*
them; |,„t, plainly and simply beca^i'' «'», t^ jevise for
wUh coadition« which maRVnorXo/^^^^^ '' ^"^ <^'°«g'^d
Rvalue to induce them to concede th»m-r"^"''.'i'"' "* ''''''**"^*
Br,t,«h jorisdiction, should conlinuV i^ Z "'""« 'l'^*-'''^'"' »^i""«
and bis country, that he ever assented t ^ '' '.? ^''\ '^^'^^'^i^nce
under the slightest obligation to assent! h a ' ""' "*^ »^''« "^^^
Jon y, .t would have been equa7v v .1 ?! './' 'I." "'^ °^*'^*^ »».
or signature as with ii. More £ n '^^?"' '*'' concurrence
and on more than one occas o,. sLniZVh''^^'" ""^ '^^ '°'«'io^
Jhne signing the treaty, if pa HirX '1 " *^^'^'™'»-''ti^n to de.
Bnt.sh plenipotentiaries sho'il be a eSto'T' T^''''"^ ^-' ^^^^
refusal by any one member to concurTn .nv ^ ^^"^ '""J''^''^ A
a majority were agreed, won d Z\Zi ^ '"!"*"''<^ "?«" ^hich
Jo re-consider their vot^ and „ .11 nr, rr^ '"'*'!'"'' '^^ '"'yority
In a case of such transcendent ?,^ Probability to have cancelled it
generous policy, hZTeZ tXrTnrtt"' °""^'' '"^^'^^^
saciihced. in defiance of the mosrevMrT ' ?' ' '^""''^"'j^ 'o be
tiOQs.to the paltry purnose ofT ' ?' ''"'^ ""q^aJified instruc-
titute of all c'laimVrrh ho'w oStT '""Z ^^'^^^"^^"' ^"-
conference with the British uL^^ 1 * • • ^""® ' "^ patiently i„
of it^to them ? HowcoSd he suSll h''"'"'' ""^ J°'" '" »»>« ^^er
ing he had no objection to ii' £ « ' « ' "'m T*^ *» '^"^'' ^^clar-
measure of the majority and'thevha!i;t 1'"''"'^'''?^^"^ ^'^'^ th'«
doubtless have reported his own P^'"'*'^^ '" '*• he would
dissent ; his colleagues of the m^ government the reasons of his
reported theirs ; Z^e XSZZ"^' 'l "'^^ '"''""^'' ^^^'^ .
rested, as ,t ought, upon their re pecZ «L T P*"'^ '"^"''^ ^^^^^
ally in the measure ; to sign aH tCn. '' ^° 'i^"*^"^ individu-
secretly io write to he gofornmen? fMT "Pf^^'^S '^' «"^ ^he^*
and misrepresentation, fSTt nnH.L '''' f '^^"'"''«' reproach,
indeed, a shorter and oVS^^L^ e,s ''''''' "'''° ^''^'''''^ '^^^^^
Mr. Russell, therefore rtiA .\
the opinion. di^loT^lrii," tae" frorp;:- '" '7r' »' «'•'»'.
for u„.ie i„ the represe>,latir„f i i ?"/""''/"'' '"^ been as un.
^ered. ,f ,t„e were an, force in hi, ..^™en; ^^IJ^tret
96
•urti. or nny corractnexs in his itntoments nijninit hit coUenguof,
it is propflr thoy i«ho«l<> be wiOtMl nnil fixiuniiiod |
L«t, un, tliorol'on», exumino tl»o proposoil article in both iti
p»rt» :— -rtrst, nK rolmcii to (b« li»l»iiiK lil»«M'ty for ii« ; and seromlly,
to the nnvii^iition of ihv M\n<*mw\)i l>y tho Biitiih. And, in order
to Rdfiortun tho propriety of tho principlo« unnumpd, nnd of the
msimuron udoptm! by tha Amerioim couuniasionorn, ns now in
quoHtion, let ii« prfimiiO tlie iituto of thinn« iw they oxinted, and the
circmmtunreii under which thin proponid wus olTered.
By the third article of the troatv of 17«3, it wu« agreed, that the
people of the United States shouhl continue to enjoy the fishorioi
of Newfoundland and the Bay of St. liuwrencc, and at all other
plucea in the »ea. where the inhabitants of both countricn used at
any tiiM theretofore to fish : and, also, that they nbould hnve certain
fiihing libertieii, on all the fishing coa»t within the Hriti»li mrisdic.
tion of Neva Scotia, MuRdalcn Inlands, and 1-iibrndor. The title
by which the United States held those fishing rights and libortiei
WM the same. It was tho pos«fl«sory use of the right, or, in Mr.
Runxeir* more learned pliraso, of the '' jus meufJrtfuUatiB,'' at
any time theretofo'-o as British subjects, and the acknowledgment
by Great Britain of its eonlinmnre in ihc people of the United
States after the treaty of separation. It was a national right ; and,
therefore, as much a right, though not so immcidiato an interest, to
the people of Ohio and Kentucky, aye and to the people of Loui»
■iana, after they became a part of the people of the United States,
M it was to tho people of Massachusetts and Maine, The latter
had always used it, since they had been British colonists, and the
coasts had been in British dominions. But, as the settlement of the
colonies themselves had not been of time immemorial, it was not,
and never wus protentled to be, a title by prescription.
Such was the title of the United States to the fiaheriea— prior
possession, and acknowledgment by the treaty of 1783.
The commissioners at Ghent had received from the Secretary of
State a letter of instruction, dated 525th of June, 1014, containing
tho following passage i , . r *
♦' Information has been received from a quarter deserving o at-
« tention, that the late events in France have produced su an
"effect on the British government, a* to make it probable u.at a
*• demand will be made at Gothenburg, to surrpntler our right to the
** fisheries, to abandon all trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope,
" and to cede Louisiana to Spain. We cannot believe that such a
« demand will be made -, should it be, vou will of course, treat it
f* as it deserves. These rights must not be brought into discussion.
" If insisted on, your negotiations will cense."
Now, it is very true that n majority of tl-e commissioners did
construe these instructions to mean, that the right to the fisheries
was not to be turrendercd. They did not subtilize, nnd refine, and
inquire, whether they could not surrender a part, and yetnot hnng
the right into discussion, wheUicr we might not give up a liberty,
9t
I yet rfstain n right ; or whether it who an arpnm0f,f n* «« ^
and
tnent,
not to be nurrtndttrr.d,
thnt the right had been {'orfci?., bV^ ':^„ra:rhj tVC^'f J
American r.HnnuM.onc,.,, «, thoy .li;i at the flpHt conferonre .Mhat
th* BntH . ^ovcrnn,..nt did not intend to ^^rnn^ to the United
fh r' f;'^".''""'''^. !''^' l"'^''''«"^ Tunnerly granted by trcntv ^o
them, of iHhuiK *vilh.M thu limilH of the BrilfMh «ovoroi(rtUv «lJ
•' neri^^'S it (• I "• •"''"i''"' ^'"•""^••'- ^«"p«'nHS cS
murh n Tl L r » ''.'*'""''.?; Novr; to „|,lai„ the »urren,hr of th.ii
much of the nahencB, nil tluU tht, Bntinh nlcnipotonliarien ro,M
po«Mh!y denrc, was, that the An„.rican co nnn^Hion" houM «i
qiiiOHce .« the principle, that the treaty of 1 783 Z «l roS bv
me ig hi. Mr. Kus^ell, iif we can mako any thine of his nnr.im«r,/
ine rcuection, that, m the rn,'ht hul not been brouffht into di.r...
«on, the .nRtrnclionn would not have been violated. """
But, however clearly he expresses thi» opinion in hii letter nnil
however pmnfully he endeavours to fortify it by argnm ont hi ^
vor did disclose it to the same extent at Ghi .f TI,I i ' "?"
which it wa« possible to .„.ot thlttitatio^oVthe BHttrZ^^
potenUanen. without .urrcnd.rin. the rights wli h i jeoptd^ed
w«« by denying the principle „,,on which it wa« fouiided S
enco ot 783 was of tbat class ot treat es, and the riht in nuirljAh
of he character, which are not abrogai;d by a slbseVueSt war*
hat the notification of the intention of the British ffovernmenTnni
to ren... the grant, could not atfect the right of tL^UnUedStlti- "
which had not been forfeited bv the w«r -ISth^ • . • .'
^ .Un ij. 0.rce. ...e "..Ue^tlZ^'tLrd Uto^^tSZmS
Bnt™ to revive, nor ,m, new article lo confirm it. '"
J-U, i„d«oe„«W, „eo.,.„ry ,.l?et^;TSo„ ?o™?„'^'^^^^^^
the British demand of surrender had been ont forth k?.*? j •
itself, and maintainable on the m^t eXreed hnl.i !°""*' '"
ous principles of international kw ?t wTasi a„rm^inf«r'^^
by the American plenipotentiaries at GhnT nni?r Tl."*"'".*^
ment of Mr. Russet, i'sutlSThrfi^htriib tV ;,'b to'"t
»nto d.scu.ss.on, at least it did ml surrender the rigS ^
a was not acceded to by the British plenipotentiaries Each
party adhered to its asserteJ principle ; and the treaty was onrf,7
ed without settluig the interest iivolved 171 fe thrtimp'
and aker the original of Mr. Russell's letter oAhe Hth Februa^'
1816 was written, the principle asserted by the American nS*
tCTonr''."* ?'^'"*' '^'^ ''•^^" ^*'" «««"*«^ »"^ mafnSd through
two long and arduous negotiations with Great Britain, and haa passid
98
the ordeal of minds of no inferior ability. It has terminated in u
new and satisfactory arrangement of the great interest connected
with it, and in a substantial admission o( the principle asserted by
the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent; by that convention of
20th October, 1818, which, according to the duplicate of Mr. Rus-
sell's letter, ha foresaw in February, 1813, even while writing his
learned dissertation against the right which he had been instructed
nottosurrenfjer, and the only principle by which it could be de-
fended.
At this time, and after all the controversy through which tha
American principle was destined to pass, and has passed, I, with-
out hesitUioo, reassert, in the face of my country, the principle,
which, in defence of the fishing liberties of this nation, was, at my
suggestion, asserted by the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent.
I deeri! this reassertion of it the more important, because, by the
publication at this time of Mr. Russell's letter, that plenipotentiary
has not only disclaimed all his share in the first assertion of it, but
has brought to bear all the faculties of his mind against it, while the
American side of the argument, and the reasons by which it has
been supported against arguments coinciding much with those of
his letter, but advanced by British reasoners, are not before the
public. The principle is yet important to great interests, and to
the future welfare of this country.
When first suggested, it obtained the unanimous assent of the
American mission. In their note of 10th November, 1814, to the
British plenipotentiaries, which accompanied their first projet of a
treaty, they said, " in answer to the declaration made by the Bri-
" tish plenipotentiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned,
•• referring to what passed in the conference of the 9th August, can
" only sfate, that they are not authorized to bring into discussion
" any of the rights or liberties which the United States have here-
•' tofore enjoyed in relation thereto. From their nature, and from
•' the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, by which they were
"recognised, no further stipulation has been deemed necessary by
*' the government of the United States, to entitle them to the full
" enjoyment of all of them." This paragraph was drawn up, and
proposed to the mission by the member with whom Mr. Russel!
coocurre(i in objecting to the proposal of an article confirmative of
the fishing liberties and navigation of the Mississippi, and as a sub-
stitute foi: it. The mission unanimously accepted it : and the fish-
ing liberties being thus secured from surrender, no article relating
to them c»r to the Mississippi was inserted in the projet sent to the
British mission.
But one of the objects of the negotiation was to settle the bound-
ary between the United States and the British dominions, from the
northweist corner of the Lake of the Woods westward. That
boundary, by the treaty of 1783, had been stipulated to be, " from
•' the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods on a due
•♦ west course to the river Mississippi ; and thence, down the mid-
fl9
die of the Missigsippi, to the thirty-first desree of north ]»tih.AM »
while, by the .'ghth article of the same treatrirhad hpVn ./• ^ C
3d that '* tha navigation of the river Mi«sS^ ?^^^^^^
;; the ocean should forever remain free and o^n o7he subS of
" Great Britain and the citizens of the United States '» ^
The right of Great Britain and of the United States, at the tim*.
of the reaty of 1783, to make this stipulation with regard to th!
ZSr^' '^' Mississippi, might be.\.nd afterwards^va,,'' e'.
tioned by Spsin, then a oossessor also of territories nnrn7hl^
nver, and indeed of both its banks. IromrmoTth oTb^LrTa"
t. ude than hat thus stipulated as the boundary of Jhe Un ted
States. But, as. between Great Britain and the United St^tl,
there could, at the time of the conclusion of the trLtv ot^i7ft'f S
no possible question of the right of both to make IVs ipufata
the boundary line .tself being in substance a concession of t^erri torr
to the river, and down its middle to latitude 31, which Great ErtS
was undoubtedly competent to make, and the United Satestor^
ceive. Now, the United States having received the cession Ld ihl
boundary with the right to navigate the riverwrtheeles^
condition that the navigation of the river should forever remafn
fo'tLT '^n" '' ""'^"^ '"^J^^*^' «"^^ ^'"^'"g expressly as'enteS
to that condition, without considering it as infringing upon anv rtbl
of Spam ; they could not, consistently wita good faith Cacaumnl
afterwards the right of Spain, allege thut this acquis tbnabUved
tat™ tTp 5' «»^''f^°"«^ the prior engagemen? with Sreat Bri
tain. Ihere is, indeed, in Mr Russell's letter a hi.«ifntmJ^.»
ment to that effect; the odious character of whic\' S^^^^^^
ve, ed by its subtlety. The United States had alwavs iHsh<tprn«
rjJhlf ^ c 1783, and had obtained the acknowledgment of that
r f.n ^["'"SP«.n herself, many years before they acquired her ter
ntorial right by the purchase of Louisiana. With what front then
could an American negotiator have said, after the latter period ?o
a British minister :-You have no right to the LvS'^n nf ih
Mississippi ; for although, on receiving fro,^ you a part'o the river"
we expressly stipulated that you should forever eK Tr ght o it5
navigation yet that engagement was a fraud upon the rights of
Spam ; and although, long before we had acquired these S of
Spam she had acknowledged our right to navigate the r ver^founl
ed upon this very stipulation of which you now claim the benefit
yet I will now not acknowledge your right founded ontlTS
stipulation. Spam, no party to the compact between you and me
after controverting it as infringing upon her rights, finally acceded
Bu't w;"t""' TP k''''"" *" "'' ^' ^^^V'^^^^e with thSe rights.
But we, who made the compact with you, having now acouirpd Ihl
adverse rightsof Spain, wilf not allow^u the bLeficiTuse of mir
own compact. We first swindled and then bullied Sp^fn out of her
rights, by this eighth article of the treaty of 1783 : and now hav
ing acquired ourselves those rights, we Jlead the^ for hoSgour
engagement with you for a dead letter, "w'uing our
100
Thin, and nothing more or less than this, is the nubstance of Mr.
Rosseirs argument to show, that perhaps the Uniied States were,
by the acquisition of Louisiana, absolved from the obligation of the
eighth article of the treaty of 1783, even before the war of 1812.
But, says Mr. Russell, the treaty of 17R3 was made, under a be-
Iief of both pitrties, that it would leave Great Britain with a portion
of territory upon the Mississippi, and i/icrc/'ore entitled to claim the
right of navigating the river. But the boundary hne of the treaty
of 1783, was a line from the north westernmost point of the Lake of
4he Woods, due west <o the Mississippi. And after the treaty of
!l783, but before the war of 1812, it had been found that a line due
,'Hre|t,from the northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods, did not
•trike the Mississippi. Therefore, continues Mr. Russell, Great
^Britain coulri claim no territorial right to the navigation of the ri-
ver ; and therefore had no longer any claim to the benetit of the
jeighth article of the treaty of 1783,
To this it may be replied : First, that the British claim of right
to navigate the Mississippi, was not founded solely on the territory
which it was believed they would retain upon that river, by the
boundary west from the Lake of the Woods. The eighth article
of the treaty of 1783, was a separate and distinct article, stipulat-
ing the rig.it of both nations to navigate the river, without any re-
ference to boundary or to territory. But the boundary, the ter-
jritory,and the right to navigate the river, were ail, in that treaty,
cessions from Great Britain to the United States. And, had it even
been the intention of both parties, that Britain should cede the whole
of her territories on the Mississippi, it was yet competent to her to
reserve the right of navigating the river for her subjects, in common
with the people of the United States, and competent for the United
States to accept the cession, subject to that reserviition. They did
80, by the eighth article of the treaty. And in tins point of view,
the British right of navigating the river, within the American ter-
ritory, was precisely similar to the American liberty of fishing
within the British territorial jurisdiction, reserved by the third ar-
ticle of the same treaty.
But, secondly, the discovery that a line due west, from the north-
westernmost corner of the Lake of the Woods, would not strike
the Mississippi, had not deprived Great Britain of all claim to terri-
tory upon that river, at the time of the negotiation at Ghent. The
line described in the treaty was, from the northwesternmost point
of the Lake of the Woods, " on a due west course to the river JMts-
sissippi." When it was found that the line due west did not touch
the Mississij pi, this boundary was annulled by the fact. It re-
mained an unsettled boundary, to be adjusted by anew agreement.
For this adjustment, the moral obligation of the parties was to adopt
such aline as should appro>:iraate as near as possible to the inten-
tions of both parties in agreeing upon the line for which it was to
be substituted. For ascertaining this line, if the United States
were entitled to the benetit of the words " on a due west course,"
«
101
Britain wa» «qunlly enUtled to the benefit «f *i.
Before the ,v.r of 181«, three aboruVe ««emn» 57?"* «^°"«d,.
he part.8, to adjust this boundaW Th« & ^"^ ***" "'"'e by
1 794, Khen it was already coStored £^/ ? ''^ *"« ^-^^^^ of
the line due west from the lakriouM nn. ^ . ""^ ««certained, that
By the fourth article of the treaUon i?l "l'*"*'* **•* M»«wippi
■urvey should be made to ^certain \Zf '\"'^ "«''**^ ^»>«t • Joint
result of that survey it sho„M o. "'? ^'"'^ ' *"*' *»'•*. if, on the
imersec. the river ^theoSa TZ'' '''"' *»«« "^^^ line woul3 not
•• tiation,to regulate thrboinHr'^ P'^'f**' " by amicable nej^'
;; justice and Sll co„ve„Te„c7 an^d' 'i"„ !,'lV""^-' -ccordin/S
•• of the treaty of 1783/' ThTs ""v^v '^''^°''""*y *<» the intl t
•econd attempt to adjust the linT w^. k ^.k'" "*^«'' "'"J*- Th«
the 12th of May, ms hv Mr Ki^' ^^ i^f convention signed o*
fifth article of ih ch^^^f^- reci.i^. tL'"'' '""^ ««'^'^e«bufy ; thS
nhne drawn due wes from the Lake of ^w"'?''*''''^*^' ''^''^^'
""»>;>.•. This coCenUrn oorC LTT ^''"T /'^* "^''- ^--
tempt at adjustment had been madSh^ "i-"^*^' ^^^ ^^ird rt-
»nd Mr. Piikney, of J 806 and 1807 ». "I^e^*'''"'^" o^ Mr. Monroe
proposed and "greedT X the l'-"" ^^ -"-""'''^ ''*** ''*«'^
northwestern point of the Lake of ^f-^*^ ' ^ ^^'^ ™°''
of latitude, and from that point dJelprt' ^° ^^! '^^'^ ?«"*"«'
parallel, ^./ar as therTspectivl ZJ ' *'*'"^5°'^ ^^''^^ ^^e said
And with tllat article Z^^U^ZZr TfolCJ'^* ^"-^'-•
"goods and effects of his Sstv'ssL ''t- **'«« ««'PP'. with the
" the benefit of the naviluon of th» r^ "^•'*'''' '° °'"*^«'' <« «»Joy
" the treaty ofpeacerbSween h s m./ 7'''^?''*''^ ^° ^hem by
;; and also ly iSe thi;d aS^of'rheTeS^f att''""^' '^^*''
" and navigation, of 1794 AnH if i. 7 fu^ ^"'^y* commerce,
;; jesty's «ubjects%hali;L ike ma Ver and'a";:!.'!''' '""'l ""'' °"''
•' access to all the waters and rrrpraSi^ • ! ^' ^""^'' ^ave free
« the river Mississippi "nd 1 /nr " "^^ " ''*''^'*" ''*'* °''
This negotiation W.S sn«nini ^ navigation of the said river."
ni«try. andVSrtarrStsl'jd'^ ' teh^V^ ^""^^^ "'^
vations upon the two articles ronf«S" • .' ^^'^ fo"owing obser-
;on to Messrs. MonJoeldPinkn^v of aotb '^^^'" ^'' «'
J 3 ■,
102
M liuippi, i< not to be itllowcd to Fritiah Bnbjects, with their goorii
*' or t«nert«, unleM micli nrticles shall hHve piii^l hII tUv diitifi, and
" be within all the cimtom hoiDte regulatiunit, ap()licable to goods
'• and effocis of citi/enii of the United Statee. An nccen throirgh
•| the territory of the United States to the waters ^nnnin3^ into the
'• western lide of the Missisjiippi, is under no modi ticationw hater-
** er to be stipulated to British subjects."
SiKTh then tVHS the stiite of ihinKS in relntion to this interest m
question, at the time when the war of lOIit 'orokc out j and at the
oegotiation of Uhent, the same question of boundary ngain occurred
for iKljintment. The right of the British to ii 1,'ne from the Lake
ftf the Woods to the Missi$$ippi had never been renounced : and,
•t the last negotiation between the parties, four years after the
United 8tate«i had acquired Louisiana, and with it all the Spanish
rights upon the MisxiMsippi, the British government, in assenting
to take the 49th parallel of latitude, as a substitute for the line to
the Mi$timppi, had expressly re-stipulated for the free navigation
of the river, and free access, to it from our territories ; to both of
which Messrs. Monroe and Pinkuey had been explicitly authorized
(o Jiccede.
Under this state of things, it had never been admitted by the Bri-
tish, nor could we maintain against them by argument, even that
the Mississippi river was witbia our exclusive jurisdiction : for so
long ati they had a right by treaty to a line of boundary to that ri-
ver, and consequently to territory upon it, they also had jurisdic-
tion upon it ; nor, consequently, could the instructions of 16th
April, 1813, hud they even been still in full force, have restricted
the American commissioners from making or receiving a proposi-
tion, for continuing to the British the right of navigating the river,
which they had enjoyed, without ever using it, from the time of
the treaty of 1783, when the United Slates had received, by cession
from them, the right of enjoying it jointly with them.
Bearing in mind this state of things, we are also to remember,
that, in the conference of 19th August, 1814, and in the letter of
that d»te, from the British to the American plenipotentiaries, (iS«e
WaWs State Papers, vol. IX. pp. 334 and 338,) they bad claimed a
new northwestern boundary Ihie from Lake Superior to the Missis-
eippi, and the free navigation of that river. 1 o this the American
commiHsioners had answered on the 24th of August, 1814: The
undersigned perceive that the British goveriment " propose, wlth-
" out purpose specilically allen;ed, to draw the boundary line west-
" ward, not from the Lake of the Woods, fl» it now m, but from
*• Lake Superior:" and they objected to it, as demanding a cessiOD
of territory.
The British plenipotentiaries, on the 4th September, 1814, re-
plied :
" As the necessity for fixing some boundary fi/r the northwestern
** frontier has been mutually acknowledged, a proposal for a discus-
' sion on that subject cannot be considered a& « demand for a ces>
103
' tjon of Urritory, unlfM the Unitad r,tatei
thiit tfiero m no limit to th^-r te
■M preparej to iw(«rt
nut ilirection, Hod that.
itories .
•• P»n of tli« treaty of 1783 wasfm.nZl Vk '.'"" '^"'«^'> «»>«»
;; no boundary w.u%verjhc„ . ntst'olbk^ """ "'^''"°»^''-^da«
" Araerico |.leui™a.„li„rk'.f~3°° ,„ '"""''«";»"'' "'•'tile
" «ry Iron, the Jke of e W™^)^ " ?i*'°J'''""."''''K« >h« bound.
recur to the treaty of 1783 w th r rn?-!. " correspondence
fii" f9rce. a. an appeal for either in Ln .onT^r / * ' •* '^ *^»'' J'^*'"
predion in the above Ameri an „ite M^iil n '^l^'l"""- ''^^ «•
»tnow i,r the referete oThetriU-lI^ .0^^^^^^^
error in the treaty of 1783 and thlil u- *'^® g«ograuh cal
rangement of 1 80r( he nh^rtest line frf'T'? I' ^T''*' '^^ ^r'
to the Mi«.i„ippi,)Voth acCtt tt'e ;: of' m'^t^.'^r'?'
of all proposition and all aru'uinenr Vn!f „ F '^^ *" **"« ''»«"'
-r, .../, „,.,, „.„„„ xr.i;e™irp^:"ffi;^„ tr„::
J.. heir .0.. of 2,.c October, ,8.4, .he Britiah com„Usi.„o„
te eipect, from .he di"c„s,"oalhkh ^hi. "!"''"'^''> "" leJ
Jergone, .h„. .he nor.hrrrotl','','; "''r.'he'Lt""'/ T
NiX°;s,ttrtVrrc^.:';i:^';,::;^-™
note which accompanied it, to meet the nnh^ /^^^ '"''•' "' *''''
the part of the British government that h T. tw.ce given oo
grant, without equivalenl the 1 b" Iv of H hF ^'^,"°» J°^«»d to
iu.sdiction. the^unte^U J;l;Xer;S^^
t«
((
lOfi
lid, itifAnniDf; them that the American go? ernment did not contider
the firihiug liberties as forfeited by the war, and that they would re-
main in full force without needing any new grant to confirm them.
At tbis stage of the negotiation, therefore, the American plenipo-
tentir'ries did actually pursue the first of those three other ways of
yrocesding, which Mr. Russell, in the postscript to ^he original of
bis letter of 11th February, 1815, says they might uave taken, and
to which he adds that he would have assented, namely, to contend
for the continuance of the fishing privilege, notwithstanding the
^ar, without saying any thing about the navigation of the Missise
sippi. It cannot but be surprising to find Mr. Russell, within three
Dkonths afler these events, writing privately to the Secretary of
State, stating thi9 as a course other than that which we had pur-
sued, and that he would have assented toitif we had ; when it was
the very course that we did pursue, and he had assented to it. We
^d contend, not for the indestructibiliiy, as Mr. Russell terms it, of
the treaty of 1783, but that, from its peculiar character, it was not
•brogated by the mere occurrence of war. We never maintained
that the treaty C/f 1783 was indestructible, or imperishable, but that
the rights, libe t.es, and boundaries, acknowledged by it as belong-
ing to us, were not abrogated by mere war. We never doubted,
fi>r example, that we might be, compelled to stipulate a new bound-
ary ; but that would have been, not as a consequence of mere war,
but the effect of conquest, resulting from war. The difference be-
tween our principle and that of the British was, that they, consider-
ing the rights acknowledged as belonging to us by the treaty, as
mere grants, held them as annulled by wa? alone ; while we, vie\^-
ing them as rights existing before the treaty, and only acknowledg-
ed by it, could not admit them to be forfeited without our own as*
gent. Britain might have recovered them by conquest ; but that
could not be consummated without cur acquiescence, tacit or ex-
pressed. Mr. Russell, who absented to our principle, and asserted
it with us, now says he always thought the British principle was the
true one. If the American mission, at that trying time, had acted
tipon it, be never would have prophesied the convention of October,
1818.
The eighth article of the projet of a treaty, sent by the Ameri-
can commissioners on the 1 0th of November, offered the bounda-
1^ which had been proposed in 1807, a line north or south to lati-
tude 49, and westward, on that parallel, as far as the territories of
the two countries extended ; and said nothing about the Mississip-
pi. But when, on the 26th of November, the British plenipoten-
tiaries returned the projet, vvith their proposed amendments, they
accepted the 49th parallel, westward, from the Lalce of the Woods,
for the boundary, but with the following addition to the article :
** And it is further agreed, the subjects of his Britannic majesty
«* shall at ail times h.ive access, from his Britannic majesty'? terri-
*' tories, by land or inland navigation, into the aforesaid territories
" of the United States to the river Mississippi, with their go9<^.
" atS^h "!** T'^^'^i'*'/"'* *^* *»» BritMBJc majesty's subieck
flha^J haveand enjoy the free navigation of the Jaid^er »'
Jr r A "'^' **"'. ^"'"'"'^ **'^*' «"he conference ofutD««««
ber the American plenipotentiariefl proposed to strike nnJ ii. *k
words, and to substitute the amendment Stained a1^he^*t^,^Jr!J
tha conference, already communicated to Conn-iss H- ^^^^
that^the .elation which Mr. RusselJ, within th^e month. I?"
wards, so singularly professes not to perceve between tte«l-^'*
but'for; J'. '' r ""'^""'PP' "^^'««^'°' ' "ot oiSy X fit arc's?
but forced itseif upon the American plenipotentiar:e8 tUvK J
cidlly instructed to do. by asserting that the treatv of 1 783 h«/S!l
been abrogated ipso/acta by the war. Two day before Je't^
this counter projet, they had received from W^hinln a fre hk
Jtrucfon, expressly authorizing them to conclude a tre^v on a."
ine treaty ot 1783 is yet in force, you have the rjght of naviMtii*
ta^f; T''';r»' "' have the fishing rights and' lilirtTel S
FkI • K. ; "' ■yP^^'^y' the treaty is nbrogated, how can vou cS
Jtipulated admission of both, o^ llUZ^ln^rZT WeMT
you ,n app .cation the choice of our principle or of your own'
The Biitish commissioners took the proposal for referrc'e to
tbe,r government, by whom it was immediately rejected But t
«how how anxious they were to obtain from us {he Turret der of « r
fn. h! M •"'' '"*' ^^^^ ^''^^P'y *»»«y ^^ ^'^d the righUf navi^N
ing the Mississippi, as one of the last eipedients of negotiation £ J
tZff'^T ^'•"^'^ «g''««'ng that, after the peacf, Se "L del
would further negotiate "respecting the terms, condi ions a^nd re!
« gulations, under which the inhabitants of he UnS sJate?-'
'ZLThTK ^'^^^^''-g^^rties. ^^inconsideraToLffZr
« I?rri J.\ ^ W^^ "P^" '^^tween his majesty and tbeS
fir?*! ? foresaid ; and a reciprocal stipulation with regard to the
British nght of navigating the Mississippi. As the partiS .ftir h!
peace would have been just as < .mpeLnt further rnejott^^^
these poin 8, if so disposed, without this article as with if s oolv
IJ tL i • ^- ''f'^'-t.es, andon the British side, of the right to nlvil
gate the Mississippi ; with thii^ difference, that we should have sw-
Mnacred, in direct vioInUon of oar inatructions, u reul, ezlritiiic.
practical liberty, which, even in the warof our Independence, had
wen deemed of the higheat importance, and atita close had been,
with infinite difficulty, secured ; a liberty, of which that portion of
Ifte Union, whom it immediately concerns, hud been, from the time
01 the treaty of 1783, in the constant, real, and useful pouession :
While the British would have surrendered absolutely nothing—ji
right which, by inferenco from their own principle, was abroaated
by the war ; a right which, under the treaty of 1783, they had en-
joyed for thirty years, without ever using it, and which, in all human
probability, never would have been of more beneficial use to the
British nation, than would be to the people of the United Stales the
ttght^of navigating the Bridgewater canal, or the Danube.
There was certainly an inconsistency on the part of the British
tovernment, la claiming a right to navijjate the Mississippi, while
•Merting that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war : and
when pressed by us U say on what princiide they claimed it without
offering for it an equivalent, they said the equivalent was, their ac-
ceptance of the 49th parallel of latitude for the northwestern boun-
f^^o!!" L , ''"®' ^^ "^^^^'^ ^''*'y *^*^''« entitled by the treaty
ot 1783, ifo the Mmtssippi As they gave up the line to the river,
tBey 4aid they had a right to reserve its navigation, and access to
It lor that purpose. They hiid said the same thing to Messrs. Mon-
roe and Piokneyin 1807; and the principle had been assented
S-M^L *"?• r"^ '**® subsequent sanction of President Jefferson,
sun the whole argument leaned upon the continuing validity of the
treaty ol 1783; lor the boundary line, as well as the Mississippi na-
vigation, was null and void, if that treaty Wiis abrogated. We re-
plied to them, that, although we were willing lo agree to the 49th
parallel of atitude for the boundary, and thought it of mutual in.
terest that the line should be tixe*!, we were yet not tenacious of
It ; we could not agree to their article of mutual surrender, with u
pledge of future negotiation ; b^t we would consent to omit the
boundary article itself, and leave the whole subject for future ad-
justment. And to this they finally agreed.
The advantage of this to iis was, that we carae^out of the war.
without having surrendered the fishing liberties, as they had been
emoyed before, and stipulated at the treaty of 1783. We were
still tree to maintain, and ^ve did, after the conclusion of the peace,
effectively maintain, the existence of the right, no^withstandinK the
intervening war. The British government still insisted that the
treaty ol 1733 was abrogated by the war ; but when called upon to
show, why then iney treated the United States m an independent
nation, and why in the treaty of Ghent they had agreed to four
■everal commissions to ascertain the boundaries, ♦'according to tlie
true intent and meaning of that same treaty of J 783," they finally
answered, that they considered our Independe.ice, and the boun' ■
daries. as existing facts, like those of other nations, without refer-
ence to their origin. This left nothing but a dispute about words ;
-<).
107
Mr «re applied the
" "...^-. which the"coEd?d 'wil'h ItrS't'n^"'*!''" ?^;*^
«ent of Independence nnd to the boundSS ThVv ^r^^i'^S
the whole treaty of 1783 as n British erant W. ''•y 5,«""?«r«l
. d British acknoiledgement. They never .iLTh! "^'•«'^«''«<^ * aa
attempted by Mr Russell HpIwoL t.^. ® "'<^« '*'«<'"C»ion.
part of the treatv, or Sted M'-^ "," /"'"^ ""^ impcrmhabli
could not. «nd SVr vlTstK he?ln I . "'^ "eht- ^ hich they
consent. By theif pr SleThPvS.l ' '^ ''**'""^ *^'"'°"* ««'
ami when thiy notifiK'^nt'i r^h? f lu"''*.''*''"'"*^ *•»« '^hole :
grant.. ^.J^^^^^ttnJ^^^^^^^ -ntend to
Hon, but that they meant to oaJe us he riJ^rnf Z*^^
...r./«.«/,a«,-,. a'nd theSlp"! .>t?^^^^^^ T^* •'"~
what that writer verv P«nii,.:»i, ' .' ^^^"^ *° ^a^e ■«•»
which could nofbeacLS^ "**' .!^"* }^'y ^"« ri«»»f
not be lost by non useT He ouih? T'^f '^^ "«''''' ''^'''^ «^°"W
•o less clearly iTvs down thar.thn ? *° '"''^^ '"*"' ''*'«» Vattel
to itself a (ish^r/upon i J own c Xtd wth"" T^ «PP.''opHaf
tion, yet, "if it has once arkr>wredL ?h. Jl *" '^ °\" J""'"^'«-
« nations to come and fish thprpf? *'''."""**° "K*** "<' other
' - from it ; it his eft th t tiZrl * ""^ '""?*^'' "^'"*'« t^em
" least with respect to thol^whn^ k*' f*^""'''^* ^'"^^'^O". «t
And he cites trhtn^Hr ' :n'';h: c^t "f KT °k''^'*
common to them with other nations bec.ri thpv ? !f'^' f '*®"''f
.pnntedittothemselves,/romM/w^^^^^^^ they had not appro-
blender thread by which the nibunrh- *° *^!'''^"'«"oe upon the-
were in fact suspLded at he Negotiation JfTh""/*^ '^^ ^'^'"^
precise as our instruction werf in ?n J' ^'•'"^* «"«»
Kussell had disclosed at GhpnrtK*^ -^ *"'"'•«"''«'• them, if Mr.
8ion of his letter if he h-.d n h,/ « P'"'""' ?°^^^ '» either yer-
.yn..intainedt^;:!;:irrof^;L:rrr^^^^^^^^^
ways enjoyed Sout sT withlfl ''r?,^'V^*^'"'^ ^''^y »'^'l «'-
ioL; iii had so t :;iirdt^^^^^^^^^
1783 was totally and aSet X^^^^^ the treaty of
sothoroushly inverted the rpnl ,h»1 fr vl ^ *"* '^'"' ' •^*'« ^ad
it in such glowing colom TI Jl^Z '^f .'^""''•'^"' ""'^ P»'"ted
the West foa « 'allot r..-^^:^^^^^
that perseverance which i. ihe l..,t „f .: , °. ."" ' ''• "'
M<l g'ven Ihem nolice that he^ho'l iTrTnSri,?. ,"'"*"''■
th. ».nd,o.,i„„ „f M™ei.„.d hi, ->,o;iV"rdiff:„'" f,;";;::c!
•ad, . -Of •ill, if another mind could have I>e«n found in (lie mitv
Mon, capable of concurring with him in thone views, it would at
IsMt hu equircd of the majority an inflexibility of fortitude,
beyond isiat of any trial by which they w ere visited, to hare per-
•eyered in their proposal. Hud they concurred with him in his
opinion of the total abrogation of the treaty of 1783, by the mora
Act of the war, the lishories in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the
coaiit of Labrador, and to an Indefmite extent from the Island of
Newfoundland, were lost to the United Btates forever, or at least
(ill the indif^ant energy of the nation should hove recovered br
conquest, the rights thus surrendered to usurpation. In notifying
to OS that the British government intended not to renew the grant
of the fisheries within British jurisdiction, th^y had not said what
extent they meant to give to these terms. They had said they did
not mean to extend it to the right of the fisheries, generally ori»
the open seat, eiyoyed by all other nationfj. {See Letter of tht Amt^
riean Ommmioners to the Secretary of State of t2lhJlvimt 18l4
WaU's State Papers, vol. 9, p. .321.) But there was not wantina hisi
torlcal ex^ition of what Great Britain undeistood by her exclu-
sive jurisdiction as applied to these fisheries. In the 12th article
of the treaty of Utrecht, by which Nova Scotia or Acadia had been
ceded by France to Great Britain, the cession had been made •• in
•^inch ample manner and form, that the subjects of the most
"Christian King shall hereaftci* be excluded from all kind of fish-
" ing in the said seas, bays, and other places on the coasts of Nove
•♦ Scotia ; that is to say, on those which lie towards the east, within
•♦ THIRTY LEAGUES, beginning from the island commonly called
" Sable, inclusively, and iience along towards the southwest."
By the thirteenth article of the same treiity, French subjects
were excluded from fishing on any other part of the coast of the
Island of Newfoundland, then from Ca[)e Bonavista northward and
then westward to Point Riche. By the fifteenth article of the treaty
of Utrecht, between Great Britain and Spain, certain rights offish'
ing at the Island of Newfoundlaml, had been reserved to the Gui-
puscoans, and other subjects of Spain ; but in the eighteenth article
of the treaty of peace between Great Britain and Spain, of 1733
his Catholic majesty had desisted, "as well for himself as for hij
successors, fro ill pretension which he might have formed in fa-
vour of the Guipuscoans and other his subjects, to the right of
fishing IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD of the Island of Newfoundland."
In these several cases, it is apparent that Great Britain had assert-
ed and maintained an exclusive and proprietary jurisdiction over
the whole fishing grounds of the Grand Bank, as well as on the
coast of North America, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Nor
are we without subsequent indications of what she would have
considered as her exclusive jurisdiction, if a majority of the Ame-
rican commission at Ghent had been uh ready as Mr. Russell de-
clares himself to have been, to subscribe to her doctrine, that all
our fishing liberties bad lost, by the war, every vestige of right.
^f» Id the aaiBmer of
109
rvr, ID the •QBomer of is i a tu
nXni '^!'»"»ciation of the United St^tT ' r ' ' ''J' •ccepting thi
i he second article nFthu =
and tbe valour ol the We-* " • "^ ««Mell, m mv *^tr,Z -.^ -r. *
connected
' jeaioufliea, but to tbe «f,n„i*^*^ "*"**'»<> the pre
**^ithoat yielding at JirMr Rn'' 'if- «°''«' J"S
e valour ol' the West " r k ^""ell, in my "truftin n^
♦I,* • T ^^'" '•'"St in
the;m^,f« of the We.t.
' ^ave the
no
peirf«cl aod nodoabtinftreUaoce, tbat to the ctear-sigbted iotelligiince
of the western county, the gorgons, and hydras, and chimeras dire,
«f Mr. Russell's itniigination, raised by incantation from the waten
« of the Mississippi, will sink as they rose, and be seen no more.
Without professing to sacrifice any of those ties of duty and alle-
^aoce, which bind me to the interests of my native State, I cannot
illow Mr. Russeirs claim to a special ardour for the welfare of tho
West, to be superior to my own, or to that of the deceased, or of
ti>0 living colleague, with whom I concurred, without mental re*
•orvation, in the measure subscribed to, and denounced by, Mr.
JAiisseHl We were all the ministers of the whole Union ; and
Mre I am, that every member of the majority would have spurned
with equal disdain the idea of sacrificing the interest of any one
l^art of the Union to tbat of any other, and the uncandid purpose
of awakening suspicions at the source of their common autbori->
fy here, against the patriotism and integrity of any one of his col-
leagues.
I shall conclude with a pass'ng notice of the three alternatives,
vrluch in the postscript to the original of his letter of 1 1th Februa*
ry, 18ld, he says, we might have taken, instead of that which, a«
tie alleges, we, against his will, did do. We had, says he, three
oUl«r ways of proceeding :
*> First. To contend for the indestructibility of the treaty of 178S,
** thence inferring the continuance of the fishing privilege, without
*( seyiog any thing about the navigation of the Mississippi, which
** would have reserved our right of contesting this navigation, on
**the grounds I have mentioned, specially applicable to it. Se-
<* condly. To have considered the treaty at an end, and offered a
** reasonable equivalent, wherever it might be found, for the fishing
" privilege." Thirdly, To have made this liberty a sine qua non
** of peace, as embraced by the principle of status ante helium.
** To either of these propositions" (he adds,) " I would have as-
" aented. But I could not consent to grant or revive the British
'< right to the navigation of the Mississippi."
He could not consent ! He did consent : see his name subscribed
to the letter from the American to the British plenipotentiaries of
13th December, J814— ^p. 44 of the message of 25th February
last.
It is, indeed, painful to remark here, and throughout this letter
of Mr. Russell, how little solicitude there is discoverable, to pre-
serve even the appearance of any coincidence between bis rea&
sentiments and bis professions : half his letter is an argument in
form to prove, that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war ;
yet, be says, he would have assented to contend for its indestruc-
itbitittf, so long as it applied only to the defence of the fisheries,
reserving his special grounds of objection to its being applied to
the navigation of the Mississippi. I have shown, that the inde-
structibility of the treaty of 1783 never was asserted by any of the
American commissioners ; but, that the principle tbat it bad not
ill
States. coJlld ^l "bri^d but Chei tn'^^^^^^ "' *•*'*' ^"•»«»
first assumed in defence of the fisheS o^?v ^^H^'M^^"' ""^ **
any thing of the Mississippi. When LreL^ i^'*'?'"* ">•"<
the navigatioD of the Misslioni r«m. ? fu®' X^f '^^^^^^ <<>»
teotiarietrMr. Russell^. peJfUjSnrt^hL P'^^'P^
pnnciple, in favour of ou? demand Sf u *''l''PP''=«.on of oar
what were these spedal obJectTon, J 7ti V ^""^ "''S^'*- B«»«
' our oiro wrone-tVaud anK^r ''«^e «''°*'"' **"»* **»ey wew
to Great BrUaln. Mr. rIL , ' ^e^'di^ T'"' It^'*'*^''^ ^^f
at Ghent, and. if he bad. a Sity ^f [ul'^l'^*' *»••»• objectioi
-«red.,.haveheena.hamed^oX^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and offer forThe S hinrp^.vLTi'^n!.'" *u "'^ °^ "^ ^» «"' «»^
.V might be founl^Z Kr^wn^M ^^"k'''' ^^^'^^^^n*. ^herevei
not affirm that we bad auThorUv t^^'lJl''''^^ ^'^T^ " ' "« ^"*
we had been speciaUy instructed ««f7^ equivalent whateyer-
he would have^urre'Hdered S rurcSThem ft'^'"' "^ S'
price again. purcnaaed tbem at a reasooaU*
i. .1' «'™1e™'?f'"r • 'Hetv.''h''/»TtHlf ''»""'^« "-■««'■
Bon of peace, a, embraced bX»ri„ 1 *"V ""^ " ' »"• T»
A sine ,„; „„„ for tte stahiltram f'/'l™ f^" """"^
contradicted by the letter reaHv wrSn h V "u ^ »va8 d.^tinctly
rreu-'e^'cTeS-'frfeHSrH^^^^^^
?re5t:b^e-ri;?£-:;Stl%S'^^^^^^^^
tbe duplicate. The professions if 3SL.H ™ fKravations ,b
rity^ talent, and J«Jgmerof ,1 e^tt" '^It^docuf
IB the same letter, represented as .o weak a£i.rJ .„jf,f i ' "'
1 can, for u,y „wo part, „.i.h„ «ce7»« l;:2.'?;«tT'"t°K
113
b«m eompe1:«a to speak u in these remarks I have done, of a per-
jon dwtintiuisl.ecl by the favour of his country, and with whom I
had tieen Hssoriated m a service ofijigh interest to this Union, bra
been nmong the most painful incidents of my life. In the defence
ot myself and my colleagues, against impututions so groundless in
themselves at first so secretly set forth and now so wantonly pro-
mulgaled before the legislative assembly of the nation, it has beeD
impossible entirely to separate the language of self- vindication from
that of reproach. With Mr. Russell 1 can also rejoice that the
propwa! offered on the 1st of December, 1814, was rejected by
the BriUsh government, not because 1 believe it now, more than I
did theti, liable to any of the dangers and mischiefs so glarinff in
the vaticinaUons of Mr. Russell, but because uoth the interests to
which It relates have since been adjusted in a manner still more
aati!.factory to the United States. I rejoice, too, that this adjust-
ment has taken place before the pubiication of Mr. Russell's letter
could have any possible influence in defeating or retarding it. The
convention of aoth October, 1818, is the refutation of all the doc-
trines of .Mr. Russell's letter, to which there can be no replk It
bas adjusted the fishing interest upon the principle asserted by the
American mission at Ghent, but disclaimed by Mr. Russell. It has
given us the boundary of laUtude 49, from the Lake of the Woods
westward, and it has proved the total indifference of the British
government to the right of navigating the Mississippi, by their
abandonment of their last claim to it, without asking an equivalent
for Its renunciation.
With regard to the magnitude of the fishing interest which was at
stake during the negotiation at Ghent, I believe the views disclosed
in Mr. Kussell s letter as incorrect as the principles upon which he
would have surrendered it. The notification of exclusion was from
all fisheries within exclusive British jurisdiction. I have shown
that, historically, Great Britain 4iad asserted and maintained exclu-
sive proprietary jurisdiction over the whole. Had we tamely ac
quiesced in her principle of forfeiture, without renunciation, we
•hould soon have found that her principle of exclusion embraced
the whole. That a citizen of Massachuoeltu, acquainted with its
colonial hrstory, with the share that his countrymen had had in the
conquest of a great part of these fisheries, with the deep and
anxious interest in them taken by France, by Spain, by Great Bri-
tain, for centuries before the American revolution ; acquainted
with the negotiations of which they had been the knot, and the wars
ot which they had been the prize, between the three most powerful
maritime nations of modern Europe ; acquainted with the profound
esnsibihty of the whole American Union, during the revolutionary
war, to this interest, and with the inflexible energies by which it
had been secured at its close ; acquainted with the indissoluble
links of attachment between it and the navigation, the navy, the ma-
ntime defence, the national spirit and hardy enterprise of this great
republic ; that such a citiz'^n, stimulated to the discharge of duty by
113
a freah inatrocUon from hi* •«-*-
the part of Great Britain, to demJnd7i ^^^ "l, °^ "° intention. o5
tt, sooner to break off the neSion th *"^*''' "^ '« 'urfe^er
; annual? ^eclLill^^^,^^^^^^^^ of a feHaKS
o me H. that he ahould deliberately si. 3 '^''""«' "°^ unaccountable
treaty was concluded, and S* to hul^'""' *^° "^"t*^* "ft" the
d.88ertat.on to Prove that there whs „oZ''T?^ " cold-blooded
the pnncple upon which he andhis rnll> absolutely nothing, in
defence, and that be considered the fi.f"*.'\" ^'"^ '•««*•*' ^ts future
••at an end, without a new Sl«»fn J'"?''^^'''y "^ he entirely
. Such were not the 8ent7mer^f • "■ ''" ''*'''^«'-"
21'jiouen, atGhent ; su h ^^IV^p^^S^^^ '
of he wwter of theU remarks ^He rS''^ "?* *^« -entimenta
faction, upon that deep and ea ^esf rP^nJfr'' ^^'^ "^'•«'»e satis-
ft«ted at that t<me. by theexecSLlfn^ ^*"' '"^'^ •°t«'*e«t mani-
States. ,„ the positive and uoqSlZ»Zt!r't '^ '^^ ^^^^
to the comm 88 oners on n« J!! -^ • "*^"°" of 26th June lfti4
theMerie,. He rejoic^" th«t?h '^^?*'°° ^^^^^ver ro C^ Lit*
«d ; that the nation iS,'';^t'; ^^^ '•^Jjr.r ippHcitroJ^;:
ties unimpaired, preserved as weH from .f "' •' * ^'Shts and liber-
aa from the force of preponder^dl.. ^* *'*''"'*^« of diplomacy
•eas ; and he trusts that the hi o "^^.^f/ "P°" ^''^'r eleiJent. t?e
tails, from the instruction nottos7rrentrT^^^^^^^ '" «" '^s Je!
elusion of the convention cf 20th nM "">**«»•'". to the con-
warning to the statesmrn of 'SL^Untn ^nT'' "'" «-« «oC„
-r-ed by any^r-i- li^n :- J^t^i^^
May3,i8S5. "'^^^ QUINCY ADAMS,
114
I
THE TRIPLICATE.
In the Nutionul firtzrUo, of 10th Mny, 1022, printed nt Philadel-
phia, thero win puliliMhotl, liomlt'd "Fur l,fie Niitiuniil Qnxtitto," ■
*' Letter of JoiiRthun KuMell, Kit|. to the Moo. tho Secretary of
State, in relation to tho nt Kotiiitionii iit Ghcint." It whm dated Parii,
11th Fohruiiry, IUir», not marked "/ormifo," and in the lanH' im»
"^•r WAi aoconipuniod \>y the following article, under the editorial
•ad :
NEG0Tr\T!0N9 AT (JIIFNT.
The call made in Congrcm for a piirtiruhir letter of Jonathan
KuRNell, V.in\. on the lubiHcl of tho noj(oti«tion« lit (Jhont, Iho mip-
|>o8od object of that calf, and tho cxtiaordisiiir^ tcnour of the Pre*
•ident*« ronlv to it, have excitud a jjencral curioftlty rcKpecting the
contents of the document, about which an air of myntery and preg.
nant importance wiiii thua thrown. Tho Pr^aident Mtated iii hii
mesxnge, ai our rcadcri will recolluct, that ho had found the loiter
•nion« hix private pancm, marked "private," by tht; writer, who«e
view of hin own conduct and that of hist collKtiguos waa such ai
would demand from tho two atirvivinft membura of the Ghent mis-
sion, a reply containing their view of tho trimaactiona in (pioHtiun ;
which r«ply, tipon the principloi* of equal juaticq, ought to be com-
municated at the same time to Con»:rcHs. The President stated,
•lao, that he had depoaitcd the original of tho letter in the Depart-
ment of State, with inatrnctions to dolivcr a copy to any person who
might be interested. 0:^[A copy has come into our hands, for the
exnctnoas of which we can vouch, and which wo publish entire,
(his afternoon \] and us the House oJ' lloprosentatives has repeated
the call fer the document, in terms that have empowered the Prc-
■ident to submit with it whatever ho pleiiNcd of a relevant purport,
we may expert to be soon able to lay before our readers, the com-
munication, in the nature of an answer, which the Secretary of
State had expressed a desire to be permitted to oQ'er.
Most persons will, we apprehend, lind that the ideas respecting
the character of the letter, which they had been led from what has
passed, to form, are in a degree erroneous. Mr. Ku^scll has not
arraigned the conduct or questioned iho motives of his colleagues,
who composed the majority oo the point discussed — on the contra-
ry, he has, we observe, empbiitically borne testimony, towards the
end of the letter, to their integrity, talents, and judgment ; and his
purpose seems to have been, not to prove that they erred, so mtich
tts to furnish a satisfactory apology for his b.aving ditrered with them
in opinion. If he marked the letter " private," it is not thence to
be inferred that he meant it to remain scvret for them, or absolute-
ly ; but merely that it shouhl not be considered as a part of the
public and official record of the negotiations, or otherwise than his
116
of Ghent. w„. not mndr«rth«rS"o« nf M 'M *" *''* '^''••'r
conwm,«n.c of romm.,nlrnti«r, Ul I r„„dfhH,"^ '"»«' '«
he h«.f no Hh,.rc in ,ho cnll for the p v t^ loflrrl ' Vl'''' """'"«'•'
paimge of,, ,hort CKtrnct of 11 In IV Vnm m T, ' ''X *•" <o»o»viiig
'l«"t .uhnntic, ,„ Congro,, r'tlSJ WXh Jy'''^' ^''^ '*^«•'•
lirli(!lB connriM im ihn lUi.i.i. .1 . . . """"K 'o »"• Brltlih n nn nn»»«.i..i-- _1
port -y opinion, I por.uxlo my««lf iLeywi" ,;,?«„, "r." '"•"Sclent ,0 .up-
roluloi 10 the article mf, one, ' '■. '""}' '"" "'"». »l"cli
«mh December. ■"nT.S'rr „„i'Tl,e''r,l™ '" "'""' «•"»••
tongrcM. "°"S "•** l''»I'o«« comniunicoted to
K«ti„g the Ml.,i«|ppi 5 « doin^n I, Vh^ro„,„"''''''' ""'^''•'" 'f"" '«£ 0? S
of timt Name ireaty of l7ti'L «,„ iJ ' "'"' *«'f'.i.ted by anoihnr « .? ,
colourable prc.o.te (br , nVktr O?"? T r"'^'' "•"' "'««t^St k.H ''''
right to thn fl.l,„He. ,0 ;. S,,//;/J"« '"'^"""^ "-'I rorbidden u fo .JjioZ
the B'itiiih government. Wu rontendeil th»f .1 *"'^''. ""«''« bo asked for it h»
coneldero,! m one entire and perma" t cJmnn.r ""'°'n '"•"^ "^ l^"^, mu bj
wh K .K »"'lepend.«nt nation, and rontalninV.l ^. P''°P'''°'">o t^nited
which the two pHrtHofono cmplrl had ,„.S"V !"'"""' ""'^ ^ndltio ". on
«ut« two, diitinct and .eparato nation, '""'"""J' ««'•?•'', thenceforth to con,!
pan oHhe North American coVthlT ho, Id rc2 •'"'"!!. "^ •"-« treatrtha?."
die .on. the people of the United Stat.« ll, "'"»'» '""ject to theBriti.h iur «
Which they had 'ever before enj^yoj 'oVi J'siTr';"^, «« '"'""e've. .j" hb"r
to hT« "f •='''''"8«"hupo„\he ,ho eV. nnVihi. .^" P"» °f «ho coa««, "nj
to by the other cnntra.-ting p„rfy. We .kin. , '""fr"""" '""' •"^«n a^cJd
grant, hut u .r,ere .ec„gn|,ro , of a prior^i^r LTL^^ "''* "^""3', thnn no^„ow
^.^ « -r, .„y „„,, „„„ „„^ „.. p^ -^'^c::r;:^sz::£^
'..j?.,.,-,t .
116
W why wt khnnhl n«t«l n n«w iii|Miliitlon Air lit •n|o*nwnt, mere than *« mM^
r«m«ln«i In fore In .11 K. p.,,,, no.wl.h«.„,lt„; ih. war/o^nVw ,lu7S
wa. «.r...«ry to -cur. .o .h« .ubjrc. of .lr«M Bru.lo, .hJ gl ' J «IiJS
i^c.irrf r».;:;;:'" -- '- "'^ - «•" ^'-' -g rc.:r r-t
.h.d b..n«r«„.eH U. 178.1, tlwy ,„u.. «. ,i„|„ .h. o «l, , oV.h. lonl. of Z
UnUid 8...... to th. Ub«rly .o ft.h, ami to dry and rur. flth. la oCt T«
pl«« both p.,|„u b.y«nd aU fur.h.r c«n,ro»«My. a nrnjo.'; i?.^" . . li.lj
o olfer adml an a,.i«l« confirming bo.b rl«hi., or, w« o.r.nml .. |" .amJ
.lm^ to b« .U«n. In .b. .raa.y «pj,„ bo.b, and .o l.av« ou. al.o«n.h.r U a arllSI
tl.flMltiK. ha boundary fro... tha Lak. of ili. Wood* w.itwartl. Th.» S.
•«»•(< .0 thi. laMpr..p«.al bu.no. until .hry had propo.ad an artlcia iiSt'
ing for a fu.uva nB»o«la.lon for an miUlvnl«ni to Im Riven by (JraatKafn ft.V
tho nnviRa.lon of tb« Ml«Ulpp|. «n,l by .hn Unlt.d Stat-./for ." hbJ.v « t,.
the fi. erle. wl.bln UrI.l.b Jurl.dlc.lon. ThI. ar.lalo wa. mu^c ! 1 J;"^.; ri-
■pact tolt.profti.»a.lob|rct, ilncaboth novernmnntu had U In tb.lr ik WV, wlJhl
out I., W neRo.la.a upi,n th.i« .ubjec. If ,h.y p|«.,„d. We reUtfld l? al-
though It. adoption would have wr.aed the bou.ulary of the 4Utb d.trae of at .
tud., wa., of the Lake of ,he Wnod^ be. a«,e I. would have been « fb ^ aia I
2;;i;rt'i:.;7nS" ""''•""• '"""• '"-'•^ •• '^ »»"• «•»»•""' "^i"'""
For th(» more complet-^ comprehension of t!ie foreiroinir «»trnct
nnd Mr. Kuanell a letter, wo copy the urticic, and two extract! rrom
the instructions of the Americm commissioners.
Arlick nffkrtibi, the ^mritmtojh, Driti,\ Plmipotmtiariu at Ghrnl, on /Aa
Ul of Ueffttifter, 1814.
«« The inhabitintu of the United 8.ntc8 nhnll continue to enjoy Iht Ubtrly .«
lake, dry, an.l cure f.Kli in places within the txrlmtve furiidiclion of Great Rr
tain, a» Mcui-ed by .he former treaty of iKiace ; and the navigation of th. rlv.r
Ml»«twlppt, w.tUiu .he excIu.ivo jurl^liciion of tlie United 8tate», .hall r.main
tH« and op..a to /A« «,A,rW» .j/' Ortat HnMn, in the manner lecur.d ' W
treaty ! and it is further agreed jhnt Ike *ui,jeH» of hit linlmnic mqim^j,,ui
aiallhmcihait accmjromtitrh fiiaceatmof^ 4,r wfcr/erf fo, that mrr^^ i
hflirttanni'^ maJcttf,U afortsaid UrrUoriN, ivftnmainnd wilhin thm ," "i
mUft V the IM-*' or the »r<W.«, in the a/onmid territones of the United Stalt^
(0 the rtwr Musui!>$i*pt, in ordtr lo mm IhrbmffU of l.;e naviitation of that
ntrr, mtkthw good^, rffeet*, atid mcrehatuti^e, whose' importntv^ into the Mid
Ms,»hnll mt Ite mtirel), pr,>hthtte,l, on the payment of the $me dvtiet «
v^Hld be pttyahte on the tn^rlation q/" the tame into theAtlnntte portt ot th*
Hid ittates, ttitdon amfomint mth the mml cuttom-houie regulation* "
lit ^
wHhlh ih« limit. 01 ,h. UnSK;/"r/'U'V'"''" '"'i'*- ' '•»•" "iSl
E«ir.ct of • |«„r f,o« ih« ,.m, ,„ ,h, ,«m. a«t^ Jun. UU
»ur r.^AMo ih« n.h.. !,. -to .b.„r„ TuXJI' " """!,"»""i, «« ■««•«(
b. mndt. Should iri,;: T«ru" wiiro/roTl'"""'"'''" •'"" *"''-*' • "i*™
b«H.v. ;,hh him b„,b fh°X ' rtty S'A^'Vr' IT"" ™^^
'nir..n(J iluit much miKbi.f mi,K?i, "»» "«• »l>rog.tec| bjt tb«
predicted or desired thin roLlt J^li hi .U.' • ^I'T T^^ '»»^«
mitted even an error of J...i!m i. ^® '^.•""Ppointed. If he com-
country, and whosi^rVaXjardlv'^'''* '*"'* '^^'P '*>^« ^^
tion ari so f«r acknow e7J^ nil*! -J ""'^ »'/"'*" "' J'»t '•«fle«^-
tical parties of the S .h»? S '"'^ ^ ^''^ °*''«'' ''^ ^^e poU-
admit'ted. AVwhenTe^n,e B »>« ^""X
.tancesanddetuihof rlnn,' t w II Drlh"!?^" '"• '»• ^ircum-
kno^Iedged by candid mi^^'e raMo'J^i""'-^^^^^ '"
piir»Ufidl)ythemaioii(vof»hAV««,J^^ • . "'^" *"* coune
Inconsistent wit^ hTlfe-t dro^irrh"?""^^ ^''^««'»«'«
rican „egoii..tors. We hlldr^' e . o^'b^Se tS"' ^'"••
•lonera of the article offered to tbem lo hL f ? ^''* .<^«T'"-
but at the same time we think j/o!?!'! i . " ^°''*""ate incident,
question of the P^meSt'wti^':^ t^^^^^^^ '" ^
be pronouL -ed on the proposal." "'^^ ^'^^ ^'"*' *•
Jertion ?roin'!«*^/' '?r''"' ^f '^« "«'^»"«" °f *»»« copy~th#
wsertion from f^ood antkorUy, that Mr. Russell had had no •hJrJ
tL^*^'" f *!l« calls of the House of Representatives of 17 Jm^
1822, for the Ghent documents, or of 19 April, 1822. for his own
letter, and above all, the extract from the instructions of 16 April
1813, which had never before been published, but of which Mr'
Russell had recently obtained, from the records of the Depart
ment of State, two copies, were undoubted indications that the
pubhcation rame from Mr. Russell. The editor of the Gazette
jiasmdeed s. ace stated, that the editorial article was written by
himself; but it was evidently written upon representations directly
or indirectly from x\Ir. Russell. The opinions expressed in the
editorial article were his own, but the facts for which he vouched
and the extract from the cancelled instructions, could have been
furnished him only by, or at the instance of, Mr. Russell.
The copy of the letter was not exact, as will be seen by the fol-
lowing extracts from a subsiquent editorial article in the Natioaal
Gazette of 26 May, 1822. «»"w««i
" We insert, to-day, the reply of the hon. John Q, A^Jams, Se-
cretary of State, to Mr. Russell's communications to the govern-
ment respecting the negotiations at Ghent."
•' Upon the merits of the main argnment, we do not intend, and
indeetf have not room, :o express an opinion to-day ; but we may
remark at c -e, that so far as regards the proposal to allow the
Britiah the ^e navigation of the Mississippi, Mr. Adams has plac-
ed his conauct and views Deyond the reach of calumny and misap-
prehension for the future. It will be seen that Mr; Jefferson in
1807, then President of the United States, expressly authorized
Messrs. Monroe and Pmkney, who were negotiating in London to
accede to astipulation proposed '^y the British government for the
navigation of that river, and access to it from our territories on
submitting to the duties and custom-house regulations applicable
to goods and effects of citizens of the United States.
" The pamphlet of documents prihted for Congress embrace*
not only the original letter of Mr. Russell, as received by Mr. Mon^
roe, but the paper which Mr. Russell on the 22d April last left at
the Department of State, as the duplicate of that, letter, and which
contains passages not to be found in the original. In publishing the
letter of Mr. Russell, we undertook to vouch for its exactness as a
copy, circumstances having led us fully to believe this to be the
case.^ On comparing it, however, with the printed original, we
lound the tollowmg variations in the text.
" Quotation from our publication : ' From the year 1783 to the
* commencement of the present war, the actual advantages derived
trom the hshmg privMege by the people of the United States
* were according to the best information that we could obtain on
the subject, &c The text of the original is-/ can obtain on the
subject. Again, our printed text is, ' because by concedinc in tt
* (the proposed article) to Great Britain vhe navigation of the Mis-
«8iS8ippi,we directly violated our instrucUons, and we offered'
&c. 1 be phrase, we directly violated our imtructims, is not in thL
110
tyiu' '° *• Po»t»cript of the letter io our text it in said * w«
had three wavs of proceedinir •' the tov* iniAuc V * ^
-k- u ^®!^® • *** '*** variations between the text of th^ lot^..^
State*' duplicate, deposited in the Department of
tbe^jtLTb tbrN^'fr "'"'*""'^''»***°*^'"8 *»>'» publication of
purDosranH th. . ? f ^"^*'"^' '^^'"^ ^^^^ t'«« selected for the
with the evc/nL^nr ^^Z^^^^' ,. The letter in the (JaJette was.
stored b„Tn"^,?^^^ ''""'' ^'^^ original letter entirely
Srucdons''^^^^^^ ''"^* ^«« " we directly violated ouf
Sio'„^7the cife^ ^\' necessarily cnpecte^ with the
panTn/edifonTaS ^'''^'fj"' publiahe/as part of the accom-
to hCe been vk,lli .'^J' **"''" ^^'"^ ^^e instructions alleged
sell a„d heLdreal a ^P A ^^ wasa/ier I had shown te Mr. Rns-
wiu, arparenfalsoTl^t \r R *""? i:^^"'^*'^ ^^°«^ instructions. Jt
prlSwrnsi f fo'^'/u i'- ^r" ''"'^' ''^^^'^^ he left Washington,
wh?nTom the PrtiSentrmll'*'^ Philadelphia, and at /time
House of the ISth nf A i f "^^ •" """'^^^ *° **>« <=«» from the
b^c'mmV'iLle^^^^^^^^^ '«^^^^ -"W npt
f^rom the Boston Stafesmm of 27 June, 1822,
MR. RUSSEtL'S REPLY TO MR. ADAMS.
mu^'iTairlT/hV^^^"^^ ^'S*'^^* * received a copy of the com.
rSesenTadvP* „ l"\r'^f' ^^ ^^^ Presidenf,7o the House
ISs of f ? ter V ' tV;'/ *'f/ T^*'- J^^ communication
February 38li w ^ • ^'*. '^'''""° ^o"" Pa*"" <>« ^he 16th of
la?t,^and of ti remark' oi CTh"* ""^ ^'"l'' ^ T ^''' °^^P"»
for nn*«,ith=#V J- Vu ? ^'^' Adams o» both. 1 say on both—
peaks o2 of hu^ '^'' *^ ^•^P*''-^ «'' ^r. A<lams to the President,
DenartnS 1 ^^%'^^™"^'^« P" the paper deposited by me at the
SSrapVv /^^ yet acioside/able portion of those
The messJ^e "* ^'^^^ Department in 1815.
conLTrs t£ coLimn. f'j''^^"^ ^'^^ ^'^^ '^''^ ""• '"^^e^J' evidently
that Mter on^v 7/?^ ^''"^ 'T''^ °' ^'' ^^^-ns to be coplined to
tba the lettelwh rh V";!'*'""™ '^^ ^'^'^'^ t^"^'' ^^'^^at message.
w^s s^Drise 1 Jh.!?'' ""^^ ^° ^" communicated to the House. I
S LTp fh^r T'.r receiy.ng the printed documents, to
£L elrt pJh '" 'l!"^ ^^^"^ *^«"«^^^"'- °» the 6th, or. without
af Mav .h»n t i^^ '""'* '«"' ^"^ been communicated oq the 7tl|
•f May, ^w had been signjtied by that messa-e.
iM
ISO
wom^eft if^hT!!?^"*^" "° f**. ^**'' »'*"'« beJief that, at so late •
be m!3i L -r T"' ^° *^"*'» '" reference to that message, wo^ald
S from Pari. '"'l'\u^** •' '"*^"**' P'«^"*^« *»»« '«««r onlv rece v-
It^ M^^luJ^ ^^'^ corresponding report of the Secretary of
wwks of L iT'^ Ta''''^ <l.m.nisbed nhen. on reading theV
Kce inJ^rn T' / <'"*^<>^«>'«*J that they mainly owed their ex^
Sethe ^«i. ""15 ■^'' r° * PT"' ""^'^^ •'^^ *>««» considered not to
Honi S^' '^"'l^*' ^'"''«°** ^*''<^*' h«d »'een obtruded on the
narhliJ^f """'w° S^ ^^'^ °^ ^''J^' the very next day after my de-
Eui'°"' ^'"^"'gto'^' ^ ^"t to the House of RepresenStives
Sr^mo^aT'teltk^^ ^t' publicaUonof
least he hnH u^^ua' • t^ member from Massachusetts, at
inJhf hi r'^"'** seem that the evidence furnished by these facts
othts of ^.1?'!" '"®'''"/' «* '^««*' t'* d«ter him from accusTng
of the naUon r"*°° Promulgation before the legislative asse^^
for^makbt C'?' ''"!' '^'^^^^^' ""'Sht have been the motive
made t^e^ cal, on Z"?7r'P;'!''''''- T''^ '^' S«"tleman who
Xhledto hPtriif *!.th of January, for the correspondence
not thp lil? ®*/y °' ^.^^"*» "°t already made public, I had
accord ngly to the DeDnrtm^nt^f ^A '**^1"'^^?ed, and I repaired
mentioned, should, with thi approbation of mJ L 'k^"'*"^ ^"'^
moated. Mr. Adams at th^t timT^t ^ ' ^oame, be commu-
I had written such a ettir tor .^.hP'''''^ "'^ dissatisfaction that
This is all thrpartidpat in ihThVL'T'^'f/ °" ''' ^^"^«"^»-
with the call of the ntho/wy had, directly or indirectly.
1«1
. IsI^^ATrll' tl^tr^ti'lt ^« -« 0^ the
extract of m, Jetler of the 25th !f A' *''''^'r'''y occasioned by the
tioned. which the fir. SS h,d blflf ^ ^l''* above iel
had never communica ed^XnS ^ ^^ ^hat »»«Dber I
of my letter written at PariV fo? »h tS.'"' °*S^»''^»e. the contents
other, any account or copy jfc^A^ ^^ *^»"«^: \^^ refused to
to me, as I believed, for puWirSn a ' ^°'" "'^'''^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ «PP"ed
I uniformly asaigned^te recessi v in t "''"?° *""' thus refusing,
consent and approbation oTthe cltthnS ^'P'"'^"'.^^ Jh« PrevioS
lar publication of a letter written • authorities for the regu-
vice, to one of those authorit" ^^"^ T'*'''^ '» ^^e public sir.
All the participatforwhich rhrj"^ "I.'"'"*',"" t° that service. .
DepartmeSTof S^a e in con^seauli". '^f' '"" ^«^' ^^ '««^« «t<he
Z?*/>ar^,«e„^ the paper whSff«K«° «iy/*cflrto« from ^to
cate. The simpfe facts aJehes^ ^""^^'^^^ «« « ^upli-
April, a gentleman emplored in The d1 ! ^^^^^S «^' ^he 20th of
.meat my lodgings and SrTd if 1^1?^°* '^'^ ^^^^e called on
the letter which LdbLnTanedli'^"'^ ^"P''*^«te of
communicating any thinras a dun,?'; I 'nt.mated a reluctance to
i»ot be presented ae sucli L the^Hn ' ^u °^«*'^^«*'' ^^at it need
presented to the Department Thf^i^-' ^"l^^^ed to ha^e it so
on that occasion. *'"""*'"*• This.s, m substance, what wassaid
wa?°niuhe'relL?\'tfnhe%,^^^^^^^^^^ ''^'^-^- Adam,
applied to me for it The woTf J'^'l>*'^ P""«"«" ^^o had
written on it, in consequence of h^^^. ^up hcate" had indeed been
I gave no further intimation much 1?" " "* '^°^^ "^^'-^^ ' ^ut
so. He made no inquiry andlmlT '"^ «««"'•«•'<=«. that it was
merely, that I left it IbiThe exami„a?bn o? M ""??** ' °^«^''^«<»
was indiiferent whether it wof^nl • °^ ^^- ^^ams ; and that I
House, or not, as the let! ^cXT"^^^^^^^^ *^« ^«» "^^^^e
I expressed the expectation that if »«' i5 k *^ "'*' '"^ communicated,
received it accordingly ' "^^"'^ ^^ '^^urned to me. He
A few d.vs afterwards I again visited the Department of State.
observations exclusivtly my own. " '" """"* *"« «'«'A any details o,
12fc
*iid was again so unfortanale as not to find Mr. Adams there. I
•aw, however, the gentleman with whom I had left the paper, and
Sri, ?r'?9 ?' l^*f r.'* '•"u **?? •''**''^' " **' supposed, by mis-
WKe m 1822, be had taken the liberty to correct it, by inserting
•» k iJ " "° objection, but repeated my expectation, that if
II sboald not be d emed proper to use it for the purpose for which
u had been delivered, it wbuld be returned to me.
I made a third visit to the Department of State, on the 3d of May,
It I remember correctly. Mr. Adams was then in his office, and
in passing thither, I learned from the gentleman who had received
the paper delivered by me on the 22d, that it had undergone ano-
• ther alteration m its date, and that 1816 had been made to give
place to 18 16. This last alteration was, it seems, found necessary
to make the paper agree in date with the letter received from Pa-
ns, which had at last been found ; and thus to be able to use that
paper, with a better grace, as a duplicate, and to abuse it with the
more confidence for its variation from that letter. The corrective
power, assumed, appears to have been limited acccordingly.
Mi. Adams soon spoke of the paper which I hati left, on the 22d.
and had not proceeded far without complaining of its difference
from the original which had been found. This circumstance he
!k**^*u iV"'"^*'' P'*''*'''"''"''^ offensive. In vain I represented
that the difference between the two was not material ; that neither
was personal or accusatory; that both were merely defensive:
and that I was willing that either or neither should be communicat!
ed, as he might judge proper. I soon perceived that it was too
late to offer explanation with a prospect of success. He was not in
a humour to listen to me, even with civility ; the manner in which
lie treated the business, destroyed, in me. even a wish to conciliate
or appeasa hira.
1 J *IT ^i^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^''^' principally to show, that the paper was
left a the Department of State, not on my own proper motion, but
that It was left there on the application, and marked duplicate at
the suggestion of a person belonging to thaf Department, and pos-
nUoX ' '""^'^'r^ ^^ ^'- ^^'""'' ^^'^ «°' application was
altogether unexpected by me, and was made without any previous
inljmation, suggestion, or encouragement on my part ; and had it
not been made, that paper would never have been left at the De-
partment of State, nor in any other manner presented to the pub-
lic. Having twice failed in my attempts to see Mr. Adams, 1 had
^L^Jr. '^^''^ °^^.7"S those explanations which the case ap-
peared to require, until it was too late to offer them.
I considered it an act of frankness to place the paper, when thus
applied for, whatever might be its merits or defects; in the po^er
of the person who might consider himself the most liable to be af- -
tected by its publication. In thi^ act there was certainly neither
secrecy nor concealment to offend him. He had the sole power to
pubhsh.t or not, as he might j.,dffe proper, and to consult his own
teelings and interests, m forming fcis decision. When a private let.
1^3
never been intended, and to which if „» k ?' ^'"' ""^'^^ '» had
rented without my cU«en I cer inlv'S d"hJ" ^''' '««» ?'«'
permitted to make those correct '0^ ^1 *^-' **'''* ' '^«•'
which appeared to me to be proper "0 elbfh!/"^^ '° Possession,
tageously before that tribunal Thl ^ T «»«« most advan'
this opinion, as the papTr wa 'no to be Th? '=°°'l*!f "^'^ «"t«rt«n^d
previous examination Snd ^0^^^ of fhVJf * "*''^'*'^^ '^'^''««* 'he
the views with which it «,n. the adverse i>arty. Such w«rt
But he communrca 5 «;" "vrreTtfr'^ '°?r'' *^^'- ^'^^^
Hnd with it, he c>isingenuVus;1:m;tn?caT^^^^^^^ '''''' «^''
to him, not as the paper called for E- P'P®''' entrusted
pHssionate invective and intemnl'.^ ^ convenient vehicle for
if justice, or even decency 1Z;dfm*'r'""' '^^^^^ «»«•
»«iU, 1 sboulo have believed tZn . \ jPresented no obstacle,
of the people of the Um,ed 's^t" ZlT, ^''' '^^ Representative.
cent to have deterred him from ;7udt^ and' "' ^T ^^*" «"«"
proceeding. ™ "^^ ^"°« and ^regular a course of
;>«r;>0H ««c/ /enor, with the so callnH , ?^ °^ *?* •'*°'" /^««'-°^
several highly significant pLsam '' H. ** '**^' ^'^''^ ^'''^ it *«*
a parallel extracted from t^he two DaDp!^ ^u'^Tl '^ «" «"»PK
parallel, the contradiction th«/XE "^ .1^"*=" <'r«'« thij
that lUid not believe, in thl her paper that' w^ '"' ^^P^'' ^^'^
hy our instructions, at Ghent to off!?! '»• ^® "^^^^ permitted,
t.on by the British, of the Mi sisslDi^'s^^^^'r ^'' "^^ °«^*««-
parallel passages exhibiting such TV„ * a- *'°'^e^e^ from th«
the 2511, of Drcember^f ,he",m, „„ ''•'"'''i'^,' '" i"" ''«P»<«'' of
'aid, •■ our iostruclions h ,<l forh ^i "■■•. '"'"'i "'"'• "•■«» 'key
" Informahon hat been reccivp,) fVr.^ »«c, »oi».
/«/« «i'e«y* in Fra9u:e have produced L,^, „ ^^'"i"' *'"«'^''"^ aUention, that t/,e
10 make it^probable that a JmaZtint Zfll 7^ f ^"^"'^ government, 1
riglu to thejisheries, to abandon Jltaal SX, ^f'^^Jg^ tomrren^cr our
cede Louisiana to Upain. h e caZnii ,P'"^*'''^ ^"Pe of Oood Hope, and to
trough, into cIisc««ion. If lU'xll] on vo„r „!"" -'• • ^''"' "^^'' *""« "»» *>«
led on, yoltr negotiations will cTase.'*
124
.The duplicate aho refert to the same instrnctioni, and perfectly
agrees, so far as it does refer to them, with the ioteruretatioa «f
them ID the origiDal letter.
Tfu original letter says, The duplicate says,
•♦The majority believed them- •The majority beliered them-
selves to be permitted to offer a selves to be permitted, their own
very explicit proposition, with construrtion to the contrary not-
re^rd to the navigation of its ithstanding, to offer a very ex-
pnncipal river. I believed mitk plicit proposition with regard to
then* that we were so permitted, the navigation of its principal ri-
and that we were likewise per- ver ; now this offer I considered,
mitted to offer a proposition re- for the reasons just suggested,
lative to the fishing liberty," &c. not to be a violation of the instruc-
tions, in question," &c.
Instead of any contradiction or inconsistency, there is here a
perfect accordance in the sense of the two papers, in relation to
the instruction of the 25th of June.
I will here observe that my letter, written at Paris, in 1815, wat
as may be readily ascertained, confined to a discussion of the
grounds which the majority assigned or suggested, in the despatch
of the 26th of December, for the offer of the navigation of the
Mississippi for the fishing privilege. To justify my own conduct
to my government, in opposing that effer, I believed that it would
be sufficient, at the time, to show why the reasons of the majority
had not satisfied me. In preparing the paper which I left at the
Department of State, I believed it to be proper, for the causes
already suggested, to assign, for my justification, an additional reason
which had influenced me in the course which 1 pursued, at the
time. The paper therefore, says, in speaking of the offer, " but
I considered it to be against the letter and the spirit of our instruc-
tion of the 15th of April, 1813." (6.)
Mr. Adams, in his remarks, admits, at least by implication, that
" the letter and the spirit" of this instruction was, indeed, against
that offer, when he resorts for a release trora the obligation of ob-
serving it, to other instructions, of the 19th of October, 1814,
which, he says, were received on the 24th of the following Nor*
authorizing the status ante bellum, as a basis of neg(rtiation. He
(ft) Exlrdct of a letter of imtrwtions from the Secretary or Stat», totheAmeri'
can Commissioners, dated 15th April, l8l3.
«' The article in the Treaty of 1794, which allows British traders from Cana-
da, and the fiTorth West Company, to carry on trade with tfie Indian tribes, with-
in th'. limits of the United States, must not be renewed. The pernicious effects of
tills privilege have been most sensibly felt in the present war, by the influence
which it gave to the traders over the Indians, whose whole force has been
wielded, by means thereof, against the Inhabitants of our western States and
territories. You will avoid also any slipulatim, that might restrain the United
Slates from increasing their naval force, to any extent they may thinkproper, on
the Lakes, held in common; or excluding the British traders from the naviga-
tion of tlie lakes and rivers exclusively within our own jurisdiction.''
says,
••If
!<hall m
123
evidently means to Insinuate if not to assert tl,„f •
the basis, thus authorized, the Americ«„ mi ' *" T'''^^'*^' "^
proposition, relating to the navi^aM^n of Jhf m°". ^"*="*««d ^^^
fishing privilege, on the 28th and 29th of Nnv ^T''W «nd the
^^^^^hl^^^ J4« -- of the mission .a. „ot
this proposition, nor did ani ^trity at tSZ^'' '" ""^^^''^n to
niater. and repeld?re"'esT;, Z^^ -,^'- British .,
'vpuld communicate all the other sneHfi.n '° •'^^"' *''''l they
"•nary article proposed by ZlSh7or.T''''T^ ^'^'^ P^e"^
been accepted by us) ofrefinTa s im tn^ '""^"^ ''"^'"S "^ready
by both parties. ^Th^e B^ '„ LSr'bv' .h'''''""^^ '^^ P''«J«<^'«
of that month, declined complyTg S thi '' "*''" *^^ ^'^^ ^Ist
they bad already by their note of tl,e^> st olT^'k ^'''^•"g *»>«'
cated to us all the points upon which the! u p « T"'*'' communi-
After he receipt of this note w^ mitT .? '"^^ructed to insist.
I'eve, in order, lirst. to decide' if wp Th \F^^^'' ^"^'V '^«y. I be-
complete project to the B^i t i L'ltrs wifhTr^ «" ""^ P'-t. a
multaneous one. ou theirs, and then Spm"* T'^^'^S «» « si-
to prepare and digest thi proiecr'un^M /l "'^InfJ^^'i*^*'^ *« ^o«o.
when it »vas presented. DuS' this nl f ? °^ November
question, after having been rrc^ted Iv fndth '^' Pr^Po^i^ion in
was carried, a, a ;,a?^ of the »7S in / 1 ^^-^'^"^'''^ discussed,
•n^'jonty Mr. Cla/ ancliy.elf SJ" ' tr'JI'™"'''"' *'^ « ^arj
. After the majority had thus TZlxT }^ "PPo^ed it.
just mentioned ^n article of the co emollT'''"? '''^ Proposition
faction of the minoiity at this decSn 7 • .^'^J^*' '*^« '"««'««8-
declared that he vvotdd ign nT tr'l'^^^^^
should make a part, induced thrmo'fvn.r;''? '^V" «'*'^'«
raan who .s now no more, to nl ,x ftf pI^ iTJ'^"''"-ly the gentle-
consent ta^resent our projert V- Z^^^ adherence to it, and to
such an JKle in the project or -.s Mr A \ "" ''•l'^'*^' '"^^ead of
a substitute for it, the mi.^.-! V ■ . ^''^'"' biinself avows as
Clay was i^.rt^d in h' 'o f ithe'To Jl 7t'' '^ ^'^ "^"
That this proposition had been X .ded on h'r'^'j
November, i. not only to be inferrpd f- ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ "^ '
Ad.. -,s, just mentioned! that a J.^vl /'TK^fu '^**"'«' ^^ ^r.
our note of that day, but is evorti v *^ ' t"'' ^^^» •"^^^''ted in
tracts of two letterJWlnch I Xes eVarthl i^ '^' folio. inge^?
can minister at Paris. ^^'oressed, at the time, to the Ameri-
The liist is dated at Ghent thp AiU e xt
says, '^"^"*' 'he 4th of November. 18 14, and
jg y«ct non. iha question
«
126
llhicbmost perplexes us is the fisheries, and we bare not yet de<
cided on the mode of proceeding, in relation to it. They have told
us that the libeily of taking, drying, and curing fish within the ex«
elusive juricdiction of Great Britain, will not be continued to us
without an equivalent ; we cannot relinquish this liberty, and we
cannot offer territory ^s an equivalent. Shall we then offer the
free navigation of the Mississippi, which they apparently suggested
with this view. I think this will be carried in the affirmative, al-
though I have yery serious objections to the measure."
The other letter was dated the 20th of November, 1814, and say*
as follows : —
" Without having been deceived relative io the di. position of the
inajorit^, on the subject of the free navigation of the Mississippi, I
*m happy to inform you that this disposition was not inflexible, and
we finally transtnitted our project without the article that had at
first been carried" This article was as follows : —
" The right and liberty of the people and inhabitants of the Unit-
ed States to take, dry, and cure fish in places within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Great Britain as recognised (and secured) by the
former treaty of peace ; and the privilege of the navigation of the
Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,
(as secured to the subjecis of<}reat Britain by the same treaty) are
hereby recognised and confirmed."
" Besides the objection to such an article ivhich had occurred to
you, and which had not escaped us, the blending of the two points
together and making them mutually dependent on each other, which
was not done in the treaty of 1783, made this article the more ob-
jectionable."
From these facts it is manifest that the solution afforded by Mr.
Adams for " the difference in my mind between the writing of the
original and the duplicate" is not correct. A despatch, received
on the 24th of November, could not well have bad any infiuence on
my reasons for opposing a measu^-e, previous to the 10th of that
month.
I have accused no one of acting against instructions, but surely
I ought not to ofi'end if I discovered a disposition to aH^ as far at
least as might ht expedient, in conformity to my own constructioa
of them.
Mr. Adams, when I last saw him at the Department of State,
showed me on record, an instruction to the American ministers at
Ghent, dated the fourth of October, K'l4, apparently with a view
to freshen my memory in relation to our dispensation from the obli-
gation of observing the instructions, which 1 had alleged as a cause
for opposing the proposition, with respect to the Mississippi. I
had not proceeded far, however, in its perusal, before Mr. Adaaisr
interrupted me by saying that he believed it had not been received
at the time, adding, after a momentary pause, that he did not know
if it had ever been received. The instructions of the 4th of Octo-
ber, which had never been received, had just as much in£ueace pa.
r«7
ceived on the 24lh o<\Noveaiber TSnri! !\^ *"" '"struction re.
although highly s«tisfao.or;7it VrglJed 2^ f.^'' *'''«-•
considering what had already been^nn! h ^u\ *'°"''' "«* "'e".
•ffect on the future negott&r On the m^^^^^^^ P'^'^^'^^^'
had, in substance if not in namPfliriL *0(h of hat month w«
position to that of the « "«oS-/ ^ proposed that basis in op.
our note to ti.em of tL dSe wf '^"'^f ^ ^ ""'' ^^versaries. [„
the statu, ante T.^ whl?;n,°fth^^^ Thf ' ? ''^'^"!,P''^'='«-^
agree to any other principle than i.r ""'^^''^'S'^ed •' cannot
territory. Jd have accSn^ly'^^Jeia L an\r?^r '"/°r*'«" *>^
bas.8. They ore willing even to exK th« "'^ ^''""^'''' °" *»>«*
other objectH in dispuJe between thpS f- *""** ^^"*">^^ '« ^he
all the other articles ncluTdln !k ^ ""^'°"' ' ""^^ '» proposing
tinctly understood hat he! «: *re:dv";r,''' '""'J "'^^ '° '»' ^'-
two countries, in respect^LT/ /A^ ^a • /'^ V ^'^''^y P'a^ing the
them in the same sSey ZJilli t*h^"* "-^ ^^'"^"" *^«^^«en
.ent war, reserving to Sp a;: /t'Sra^T
British right to nal^rthe' M ss.?^p'^^^^^^^^^ o^ fhe
circumstances, a new and com^/e^e g^a^ntTo her Ir a /•''"*'"«
fishing liberty, we not onlv nL.!!^* .r'' ''' ^" equivalent for the
from fhat on Xch they L^^^ '"''"'"''^ ^^^^^«'
&c. y respectively stood in the treaty of 1783 "
NoTemberleTe "no/in'.*"'"'"™ °'''™" ^ ""^ ^S* "^ «»* If
ters on our project which fhpv Kol V ^ *"® British minis-
witl».anexplLafory„oteoft£e^26th 'whT'' '' «« on the 27th,
said at the^se meetings n Jelatfon to ih^^ ^''' ^'^''^ ''^^^ ^««"
the alteration, resnectinlif ml^V Mississippi, on account of
«.a..aeMha, offer „„;TcL':;;'s:?^::/^1:::^':l~«
?J-
<tHtyoflh« mi^MrtM. Mr. Urtyunl, iit ri^tMrniiiR liomn Ihtm fh«»
mi«o olMho Hrltiwh initiiiit^r*, whr«ir IIm' I'liiiUMi'iirit ol' ll»o t«l nl
l)n('«M»l)f»«' hml Ikmmi liohh'n, voiy ptijiliiMHy ilctlnn'il «n Mr. (^Iwy
niitl (It im>, lH«<li«!4rtlii>lnrli(m Ihnl (Iti* olVc^r' hnti lirtMi iiiiiilu n>Uhmn
lolhnpi^ liM't*. to ii|i)u>ul lulUe recollvoUoii ol' Mr. f Inv itt cotuirm.
•lion ol' mv own, »' '
'\\\« rxpluHHiion whirh ! h.«¥rt rIv#»m, ivill, f fni«t. I.r ■tifHrlfiii |.i
•htuvUmi tltort> ooiild hitvo Imwi iiu (mprn|trji<lv in '(Idling, nt itnv
tlnm, tlio iiiMnirlimm ol' lh»» imh of April, ini.i, n^ ruihlihiMff nii
ol\j*otlMH, n( Inwt tlili-intt <l»o 1111.1 tl\\n of N.m , fo u prnnnMilinii
to rovivooriuniiiHio In {\vpi\{ linliiin'ini«ht ti.flir Tito miviiriUioti
of (ho jMiMiMipni- H rivor witliin our lutt'luniv*' jiiHiiilii'iioii. An
thi« \xM tlo> onl.v topic, in iho pnpor IrH itt ll»V I>opiufoi*nnt ol"
Slttlo. whicli u«« not in llio Icttor roooivoij IVoin Turiv which roiiM
bv tho most sirklik itnngiotUion, l>«« utrfliood into mmtiurk upon othont
I n\u\\] (iiko hot liltlo otMioo oCiho rcumUn olMr. Ailnnw In rplnlloii
to (ho romrtimlor olihiU piipor.
The opinion which I (horo «n>nto»to«t, ron.omiiiK Iho rmm of
tho rojorUon of our |n-opo-i(i,)n l»v thn lirllinh ininiMfrn. wm m
opoMon (onn«Ml noon nfior (hut ovont, lunl I iiiontionoil it In novflral
IH«r«on8, purticulurly to tho Auioriivni minii«t<*r nt Purln, nt orRhonl
tho (imo my lo(tor w«» 01 Kton i«t (liii( pliico. A " trn«t in Oo.l noiI
(ho vulonr of tho WoM." for (ho ili«tippointmont of our onomion
wn* nrttoriUly mijw:oMo«l, n( (ho timo. hy n ploiiH imd pntriotlr rorn
flilonco in (hoso who ooro uhlo imd mlfiht he willing to «lofonH ui,
«mi cortwinly htnl nothiiiR in It of pivphooy. It wnn ovidontly more
i''(y l»> tho iWt oftho Knul,
wino to pim n tniM thoro (hitn ittudnrlhrfv ..■ mr mn m uio r.m,
which woro swImnnnR in HriliNh wtitor-. Nor wtiN (hero nny wm-
bhmcn o( pnMlicliont.f (ho troiity of IJilH. in n holiof timttho nNhinif
I>rivilom' miKht (hoiv.iftor ho t>h(nlnofl, hy nojatotitidon, " without
miv rxmninymitr<fuivaff»(, whntovor,'* iit (hut holiof wi\« not only
»u«.-«t»s(o.l by (ho niitnro of tho oio<o, hut nu(hori»!o(l by tho explicit
ortornm.lo hy (luMUHish mihl«(or«<, on (ho loth of noromber
nui. (bus to nojrotiHto suul to «;inn( (ha( privllojjo in roiwiilorHdoii
ol i\j,iir tnihfllcnt. Hy (bo mo-Hoiv of I\rr. A»l»m», mo extrava-
^tC«Hf f!i»ivah»( in prorijioly o<]UhI to no rifuivrtlrnt nt nil.
As 10 (ho somiinoni which I oxproo^iod in frtvour «»f (ho fnhormon
imnuvlirttolv intoroMod in thiit pvi\ iloijo, ii ih .•» fiontimont Hlwnyn
«n>l ovorv where foK hy mo, luid oouM not be oxpronsed out of
timo or pluro.
Thus much for (ho intportiint iliflVirncc*. hrlwoon tho privnto
letter rocoivoil from INuis .uul (ho paper Id) nt (he Depiirtmont of
St.ile, which have alVonhHl niich nn luoplo (iold (o Mr. Adnms for
thedisplny of (ho oiiviahio iittcihutes of his bend nnd bonrt.
1 shall now mukoa leu brief obiierviKions on tho principal cbnr;rcf»
which he exhibits ajunst mo, of inconsistency tmd misrepresent-
ation.
The principle, thut the treaty of 1783 w«9 not, on nccount of itii
'vh^-'"
130
rm\y l.«.«t. «,.«». „v..n (V„m tim ..v.m.'l ..r Mr A.I, ,n« l.iftllf ih,
h«pjr««n.,,h. uflm..! I,y Mr, (•Ih.v. „,l,„iuing IhM II ;. ill"
•t/'i<<<«/# t.Mi |uu|u,«il|„„ wl.irl, Urn ,„i„„,if. |,„,|„,, ,'1', tJ
M n t fim ly |„. coi.n,|,.,,,,I ... ..ii ........io...... nckr.owlfl.lgmm.t I.vTo
lu ion oMIk, llnifMl HuHvh w.i«. ..vmnllv, t|„. ,,,; ,lt \ZZurn
en a .i Mi. A.l..«i.» in. (he;.. ,,«. ii.it vurm.U I <lo not rrrolliirt
M..U«| „l,„ ,„ h,« «,,,„„,,l„ lottor of tho amh of n«ci.mb(»r ini4
^i«nt , nly to prcvt-i.t tl.o propositi.,,., nlrcn.ly .|od.l»..l or. hv t mi
far iKMwmo tho minority willi,.«t« go io Jlo.; i„i* (h t I"! '
l).it w HM».v,M- . W..H propoMMl to m„„;tio„ tho lrnf,h riithth/nav :
gnto tho JVl.M.«Hippi, th.,y .ioiforo.ly r..«i«t,.,| it. ^ " ^'
..i»M ; 1"'"* "'"" '•"""'"',»»»" "'« proponMl cor.nr.i.i..K !».« Hriti^h
rif^li to the ..nv.K.,i,o.. of tho MiMiKMippi ,„„I o...., to tho hinJ
l»t o( Dcocn b.3r, ..t which that proi.os,,! mn, at lei.Kth, ma<l« «„,!
iniMioo whK.h SHt.i that " to «.i.;h an article, Jiich thru vimed a,
;2Je?to ::S7' '" "•""•"'«""' '""' "" «''j-^'-"' "nVrvc jf!
(r) 1>/.«W o/« kU^r fron. Athrr, aatlnHn, K,u. to th.: Sr.cntary of Slair,
diitrii 'Itiik DrnmOfr, J (1 1 4. '
«• On Mr «<//,>W of thr. Ji,hrri>:», wHhm th, /vrisdirtion of Cheat nritiiin
•y me I, cat!/ nj 1711.), w/ur/t we imnmrrl, thr ritiht wtm iwt al,rnin,hd iJiU,
tmmht two rounlrus. U tho ,1^1.. ,n.,H. ho ro„Hh!nrn,| n, nhroSTJ .1 n
war, H-r vanmt regain it whlum a.. c.|„ivnl«,„. /f> /,arf Jlrt^lhe hZ !
••comber, IHM, (d) hn would thcro h.ivo .etMi tlnit. in f^cl, awa-
«o;Jli*.'M 'S^r'/i'/r'!' r '*' ""^ •'^ •:'"*""' "•* "•'•'"* p/'" v'«"e»./.«r.>* /.«rf
l^'iJ^ '^«'W.VM/«. ,viU,oui .u. •,,Mlv«l.n.,, ,4. MfrlmloJUH, aJtl
.^.r A, ,/u/jj.,,.^,, „,,,,,, ,^,,,,v, ;-^-,^^ -
to ««> l.r«u«h. In.., .Il,r,.„ ,M,, „„rf A.rf „„, null.,, 1 -,.,| ,m /,. ,„L a^HiZ^m
n Kr«nt any ruulvnlmt, whivfi rnt^h, br ,ukrd fof U hu ih' Hr 7^*^ L IZ./
J2".«/ ,r«r Ar*.wH /A* ,..rtr*,« ,„ ,/^, «« ,;,„n/m.„ r<r„;nM.U»V M^rK/n ,rf
wn/«.«mff fAr /rrm* and conU.Moru o» .rAi./, M« /ir,, ..or/* ../• ow tmuin Airf
rr-miS//^ / '«' *7 '!'"■ " "r' "' "'" ^"'"' '^'"""•^"" co..tln«nt,AoMW
A?i. /w ^^"r" "" ""^ «"""' *"' " '"'«•'« re. OKnUil,., of n prior rU ".
l?J^»ZSn Zf 1' "^Ay~«H</ .rr «/%erf ,/ c» the gfvund upon which m
^iTXiiTL 'i *"';,"' ,'-'-'«'""V "«r ;»ro/Vr/ «/' « /rrfl/.v, /Af^ addrd a dame
IZ •' '*'.'"^""/«' *tipulatmfrfor a ,if(hl for liniMsJjtcttio navigate Ihl
reJil i ;'i'"'"'^r/''''' """'•««'.V«/-178.% iVom it. peculiar ch.u..ri«r
wo* nrr^««rv/oifriirf to hembjects of Grraf IhHatn the ri^ht of n« ./c'Wi«ir
fLTofrlt'^ ,^*'' "l^f.i" '^''^rj* '•"">''' mthmth'eAlJrejurJ^'
ttoH Of Gmi/ tintatn. If ihei, „,ked Ih, lumKaliou „f the MissUsimn n. •
/Aey aj4fd U became, had been granird m 17();J, the,y mml recogi»u the rlaZ
Tip/flfc both points bfyond all future conirovi.rsy, a majority or vade-
termiMd to otter to «dmit an article rnnr.,mi.,g botif rights.
Sl»t».««oo(S7Jui:«. lirwuicl. Key.as. but ii u h.,e, », ^ „bU,|,ed ui lh« Boilat^
131
,fnritif only, unci not tho
,,.'.. .y only, unci not tho whole of thn mi.iini. ^--' i i . . .
propo«!. The word, of th., X.rt.h in J! ' *" ""f ''^ *^*
I-Hl,.r., .. to place both r«in Itim MltS^ ? "'"' »'^"-
Mr. Aciiiinii munot that ilntixiiri. .....i «i """•^""i K "oth right*."
f..ot WJ.H. ho',.0. ptuivcirSi::' *""'• "' '*"** '••»•• »"«•••«' -^
1 ho proioool wa» n moro r«ronl of the fiirt. «,l.;..k i. i
thoro n..ul« h.«l or h I not i "L P^oof thut n propo.ition
Doci'tiihor Htiitcd that th<. .. 1- " "«',>'>^o ocol of thi- J^t of
t»,c A.neHca.. .n!l"i L" ,' Ifr :Xo"' ^Ih'o^' th ? ""^^^ »'>
ply roc»g„i««,| that fact. Neither thutLVirolnr. ?"""' •'"-
nuitiu that IhiM pron.ual h..<l . . 1^^'"^"' o«* <•>»» rioto Inti.
lOth of Novo.nb«r. to uS o o m?ki. 'T'!"''"' '^•'''"'•« "'•
"Hually competent o make 11^ ho uTof lf/*'"V''''''"'"'' '^«'-«
or. tho 14th of timt month UmtZl .. i '^f *=""''"""• ""d to lay.
they had no «l'iection"rS'h it%,^"o^;jite »' th """• ** '^ '^
in not oxproM nir their iimetit Ht ii ,;» ">'^«"e' -The mmority,
ing 10 ,ii. that "oto! caZt b^ V:;; s '^ '"' '•'^"•-
ently Riven thoir uHnent. Thov h I ,.»/ T . ^° *""'*' 'nconiUt-
and whoro only their opnojl ^coll i '"'.'' ''"^. »"*•'»"'''"' »*'•«»
«nd produced no ovil *'tJ ha « d .^bed !'"'' "^»«'''^'»' ''««ct.
British mi„i,torH by protc*"., lllt,^^^^^^^^^^^ th»
hnvo refused to i.W, « ZT?-. fm ^ V^' ^'*® '""J^^'v, or to
Imvn produced ev ''o dv J .uM T *T*'"" *^ *'^"^ »^^ '^ouM
party di.,entior. in ou c^ouncilT and !''' '^"''"^^^f '' »» ^^e «dver»3
trous effect on tho ZZTelol^^^^^^ '^''^ *•""" '""^ » «*"«- '
ifolf. ,uch » diHcove y " S m v .;r n ••*'''""^».'" »''« Propo,«I
!«r proposal, wa, cli. lldt'enlfe UrvE' fl/V' ^''^'^-
.n their estimation, and to induce them o'ccent it 1'" ^'^P"""''
matmg the very evil which wo deSuecl T L ' /'';!!,^'^«»""'-
nty was, in roHpcct to the othei ., h„ ? . r ' '^^ °^ "*« 'n"Jo-
Mr Adam, hmllf acknow/dgen h t^'' i^ woUlv Y'^'^ ' «•"*
tahd without my concurrence « g„a uTe w i h if'" 'f.!'-^
opinion therefore, it would have been leTiH nn7i • > '*'•
reasons junt stated, it would havt bee St Ini^ /" ""'"*' ^°'' ^''^
"otor.o,.ly .-efused my acquiescc^^rin^ffi^, "^^'^^^^^^^^^^^
J or what IS called assem, cmcurrcu^ ., -^ ■ " "' V'® '""Jority.
merely an acquiescence in that w 1 ' 'o Ch"*'" *''«.°«'*"-. »va.
Have long sii^ce accounted to my o„sc ', Le Id" "^'^'r^^'"'^ '
account to my country. Bv the , r li. i '«• '^ "''*^ cheerfully
minority. thoJ.h tVee'to dZ , o " 'l^^^Jr"'"'"'"'^ ''^
bound to submit to them. If Mr \.\1L i *^'' majority, are
i» Huh view of the ri«l ts and du "tcTf ""* "^i:^" ^'"' "*•
present another in.tan^fin whi w. JiflW 7'"''^' *7 ^^'l' ""'j'
opinion. ^ '^'' •''""'^ ''«»« each uther ia
■V'
tn
a ./„*'*•! °®i 8'?'® ** *'^«"^ '^o^*' which Mr. Adams sata " it mt
did, &uer having said that I concurred with Mr. Clay in on
it. "I did entertain, and express at Ghent, the opinions dig
; may be !
1 opposing
in «„ i^f. » J i. f-V. f ''P''«f8 at Ghent, the opinions disclosed
I did state them with sufficient precision and perspicuity to entitle
M A consideration which they might deserve.
Mr. Adams charges me with ascribing to mv colleagues opinions
ivhich they never entertained, arguments which they never ad-
vanced, and doctrines which they not only would disclaim with in-
dignation, but diametrically opposed to those which they did main*
tain. Let it be remember, i here that my letter received from
raris was con/ led, in justifi - of my conduct, to combatinc the
opimons, arguments, and d i»m., f the majority, which, in the
despatch of the 25th of DC ^. - 1814 (d) were stated b; them!
or at least by Mr. Adams, f. a«. ..^spatch was drawn up by him.
Mr. traHatin, indeed, in his separate letter of the same date (c)
does not go to the same extent. He merely states the asmmptton
of the peculiarity of the treaty of 1783. ^
To support this charge, Mr. Adams says I impute to my col-
leagues an opinion that the Independence of the United States was
derived from the treaty of 1 783.
In what part of my 'letter he iinds such an imputation I am at a
loss to discover. In contending against any peculiarity of that treaty.
1 simply said " I could not believe that the Independence of the
United btates was derived from the treaty of 1783." Without admit-
ting such a derivation of our Independence, I could not perceive
indeed, any ground for tl-e peculiarity ascribed to that treaty ; for a
mere recognition of a prior right furnished none no other treaty
containing such recognition having been considered as possessing it
In denying such a derivation, although fairJy inferrable from the
doctnne ot 3Ir. Adams, I charged no one with believing in it but
I removed the only foundation, as I conceived, on which the doc-
trine of Mr. Adams could be supported ; and now, in disclaimin*'
that foundation, unless he can show a belter, he virtually renounces
that doctrine.
He savs, also, that I impute to my colleagues " that they rested
their claim to the fishing privilege on prescription ;" but he adds
that, " as the settlement of the colonies themselves had not been
of time immemorial, it was not, and never was pretended to be a
title by prescription." This appears to have been a recent dis-
covery. In the letter of the 25th of December, above mentioned
It is said, " this liberty, then," (1783) " no nsw grant, but a mere
recognition of a prior right always enjoyed." And again, in the
same letter, " without adverting to thi ground of prior {..id imme-
morial usage," &c. If I erroneously inferred from these passages
that a titb was claimed from prescription, my error, I trust, will
be considered a venial one. Mr. Adams can undoubtedly explain
what he meant by '' a prior right, always enjoyed," and by *• the
ground of prior and immemorial usage." He did not mean, it
J33
seenis, way thing like prescription. Is he quite sure thn* 5„ Ai^
cussing th.s privilege, while'in England, rjeTo 18 S t;
never ^t up a prescriptive tiUe, or a title from imrnemorial usa^e ?
Mr. Adams likewise asserts that I represent «' X Sr/ > *^
tide, granting to the British the righl o'f nan^ati^g^^^^^^^^^
as an equivalent for the fishing privilege in Britkh ,^,S5' ? '^^ J
certainlybelieved that itmigftLve^fen^ol^^^^^^^^^^^^
Its original form ; and that, if so interpreted, it could hprnS^ I
r^r anTo^r r°"". '^ ""'1'^ «' ^P'^ combua^c^Tf' ^t^t
right, and of that privilege, as they stood, independentlv nf ^a^u
other, m the treaty of 1783. That the nLrrgXn of t Missis
sippi was, at last, offered, not under the princinle of Mr aj
or the .^«^«, ante helium, which thus far were the stn^hlft t^n''
.9«.W.„/, sufficiently appears from the documents; no^^^^^^^^
.ng the 5«6,ey«e„r intimation that -we considered "haTofferas
77^1 iZtTS'' .^"''^'^' ^^' ^'^''^t'"' i° his sepa^te letted
ot the 26th of December, says, "if the rio-hf m„«« *'"*"^*= '«"«r
^ as abrogated by the war, ^e iof reg^i^tliZ t a^^^e'f
We had none to offer but the recognition of the r g£^t toTSe
the Mississippi, and we offered it:' ^ navigate
Ja ^tr T' • *'"'*' ^'^tisfactorily explained the inconsistencies
and tissue oj murepresentations with which Mr. Adams has w th
so much dignity and propriety, charged me. To whom i^c W
'^:s^:^n:^^-'' -- '^ ^-'^ ^-^^^^^ - ^-S
With regard to what is considered so serious an offence, mv Hot
having shown my letter, written at Paris, to my colleagues aUhe
time, will njerely observe that the majority had dreldv in he
de.putch of the 26th of December, (c/) 'given their reS for he
affirmative, without taking any noticed? the reasons on which he
minority supported the negative. I believed it just, therefore to
account for my conduct, by stating my objections to the reasons'al!
S Y mLrrr V"' ''■ *»»«- objections my letter waTcot
?! 1 I ""P" /" the majority nothing which they Lad not
alleged for themselves. Their case was before the Kovernment on
tfaeir own showing and 1 did not believe that there^was a^v ob^
gation to consult them on the case of the minority. To the only
Tl f 1 . • ""''.r". ^r^'" ^""^ " ^'•■^^* •"*«'•««* i« that case, I d d
show, at the time, the letter written at Paris. I certainly wLs nit
aware ot the proprienty or etinuette of communicaVing aTr va^^
or separate letter to my colleagues, particularly as their priVWor
separate letters had not been communicated to me. ThTthe^
did occasionally write such letters is not only probable, but the let-
ter of Mr.^Gallatin, of the 26th of Decembef, furnishes Vroonn
point. That letter of Mr. Galiatin was uever'shown to mrand
certainlN aever felt myself aggrieved because it was not, although
he stated in it the grounds iu which he had acted as one of the ma
joiity.
1 here most solemnly protest, as Mr. Adams appears to believe
17 ^
J3f
haClTrLl!' *''' "*S- '""^ ^^^ P'""** ''•"^^^'^3^' "'»» nothing which (
weakn.^- "i ^'!i.f"'«^*'y «•• "-rotely intended to impute either
we«kne.g, absurdity, or treachery, to the majority, ami to infer
distorted by passion and a "jealousy that discolours every ^h^L -
oD.^.onlJ'^ ** difference, and I believe, an honest diff/rence^f
3 if I fel Tm'T ''"i'?'"f °^ ""^ colleague,, on certain points
and It I felt it to be my duty to act accord nj? to my own. I certainlJ
?1I, L'm*«i-'* 1'"*' **•' «r "'.' '' '"^ «>?--" '- those to wC
I was immediately accountable for my conduct. In doina this I
accused no one-and if in endeavouring to prove that mv^oJJi i,
was correct, I implied that the opinion of those who dlSed'^from
me was incorrect, I did no more towards them, than what!from the
defen.W?Kf-^ ^''^•'?'^' ^"' inJi«Pe'»«We. or than wh.t they in
Mr aZ • /Pi"'''"' ""'''* necessarily have done toward/me"
Mr. Adams indeed, goes much further. He appears to believe
ientls'diir'"" ''r'- ^««?'«-«ted from r^Zach. In a co„'
scientious difference of opinion between fallible men. who reason
J ut to err, there can be no just cause for reproach ; bufa pretend-
«d difference of opinion between infallible men must Decessarilv
mply wilfu error somewhere. 1 do not pretend to iSiriitv
and sincerely pily tl. se who dow It may be less difficuU Tsome
nmds to abuse the man. than to refute the argument "Lensre
process •"'"^Presentation is. indeed, t shorter and eaS
]7j^'"hv''5*''"'*'r?''- ^f."'"' ^"'•'« doctrine that the treaty of
I :; S^Jff"'°" f !*? PecuJ'unty, could not be abrogated by war
J^V\^^\7'^^' ^"^ concerning the relative value of thTnavi.'
gation of the Mississippi and the lishing privilege.
I still difler with him, in respect to the consistency of his nrin
cip^ w, h the proposal which was tirst decided on, imd after an^
nod of hi-ee weeks, actually offered by a majority. ^^
I shall probably continue to differ with him on thes. points un-
ess he can produce other and better reasons for my JoTvereb,
than those contained in his remarks. ^ conversion
knoZ'!" ''".^t'-ine, he appeals to a class of treaties which are not
known to exist, and to the ordeal of minds with Which ht. IZ no
made us acquainted. He relies on instinct when he says " Isto,
here for a moment to observe how imtinctively both parties recur
to the treaty of 1783. with a consciousness iL it wLyetTZt
ZthJl *^ *'!^*"« privilege, granted by that treaty, would
to betu a'n enS ' "'"''""' "^ '^"'^'''*^"'' '^"« considering th'aUreaty
Express renunciation or conquest, that is, consent on our nart
or force on the part of Great Britain, might, according to Mr
Adams himself, abrogate our rights under the treaty of J 703- and
ofmlT r"^f ^ '^^ ''•'""' '^"'^ ^y ^^''''''> "« c'n l>e deprived
of our rights under any treaty. The peculiarity, therefore, for
136
Mr 'i2Im."^fn "" '?"*'"/^'' V^^ °" • ^ery equivocal foundation.
uTcontliTt^'Tu) ''"« ."*!'°*'« to >»*»« 'J'h«t convention doe.
arisen on .h 1^ "" / ^*^' ^"* '^"*''« ^'^^ differences which had
R ♦h '"'y*^*^' ^y »» grant entirely new.
nnS^» **'''^' . "". *^/"*«" renunciation was necessary, on our
wh?ch wrT.'"^"" ^^"^ ^'*^'"« »''"'^"«S«. the m;,/ia-« renunciation
cieif .« « T" 'f^' was made by the British, cannot be auffi-
^rto Vfr a7" * !,'^^"-/'ght to navigate the Missigsippi-accord-
«ng to Air. AdMms, therefore, that right i^ unimpaired.
' nrJvfl! 1" ^ *""* "°' "''"'"S ^° renounce (,r to eurrendcF the fishing
Eh f K *!• '? '>''<;Onq"e«t, but i was willing to adopt a doctrine
.Ti iir ?'''' r^^[" *'*'''*'^«' t° ^^ the true one ; and which,
at t Jr. * "' *^ ^''' ^*""'^* °^t^'« *^^»>"'8 privilege, released us
the Lrr^t *''°™ "r. r'« "»'the Bntish right to navigate
the M,fl9„8.pp., because I believed those cvilb outweighed that be-
All ♦horlf "^^^ "° ''""'^ *'"^« to change this opinion.
l»riv elp i, u ;i, ?'""' W' '" ^'^ *'^'"'"'''« concerning Ide tinhing
beiZy' A "^ "'^ ^'''^ renounced certain part«, which mfhoui
toThP RrT'h «*^i« «""'''^«; l^'d been found very inconvenient
the fiJhin ^ ' "1'' l^'^l y '"^'^'' ^'th regard to the magnitude of
on whfoTl '""^^'u^^ ^"^ '^"''^^"^ *° ^^ ^ '"correct as my principles
of S flV '"""'^ ^"^' surrendered it. If I erred in my estiu ate
Adamt f^r^ ''"r'^'"' ^^^'^ '' "°^*>'"S •" these remarks of Mr!
which ThJr?;?*''?^ '"^ T""'-. ' «^ted on the best inlbrm.t.on
which I had at the time. And, if I erred, my error could not de-
serve reproach. I believe, however, that the views, disclosed in
ray letter, did notjiinderrate or depreciate that privilege. The most
authentic information which I have until now been a\.le to obTZ >
i.n!„?" ;'*';' •^"'*'^' "''^ °P'"'0» '^hich I then entertained in re-
« h tin !!.• : *"" '?!"1;"?^^ ^y respectable citizens well acquainted
♦Ti rIv J — ^- ''"^ ^^"^ ""' "o tish are now dried or cured within
the British jurisdiction, and that most, if not all that are taken
here are taken by the few fishermen who have not suffident capT
tal to procure vessels of adequate size and strength to fish on the
grand banks or in the open sea ; and that even those few fishermen
are annually decreasing in number.
With regard to the British right to navigate the Mississippi, Mr.
Adams says that it was a mere phantom-that they had ;.;W it fo.^
JOyears without using it-thatin all human probability it uever would
have been of more beneficial use to the British nation than would
be to the people of the United States the right of navigating the
Bndgewater (!;anal or the Danube ; and that, in surrerrderinVu! "
the British would have surrendered absolutely nothing. AUhough
all this was not said at Ghent to the same extent, yet Mr^ AdH.ns cer-
tainly did express there his great contempt of the British right to
«^f. r1 ir^''^'' *''"' '''^^'' ' *'»^« goo'^ 'e^^o" to believe, how-
ever, that there was not another member of the mission who en-
t|
IKtlrll!.?'"? .JPi"'-'"i: ^"*''' "'•'"''«f ••"«««»«•« "lifforently
mprS„r all hlr''^''S"?.'"^ '" '"' "^^" •nfonn.uion J
?aT„ Fr"*?""? worth obnolutfll)- nothing. Mr. (ialhitin Hi>nflari
Llil I ';;"^''' ^,* «qu«l,«l!..«t. to tho ?»hin«nrivieg^ •n;
Mparate listur, nireudy montioned, (c) ho mivi •« f tho risrht'' /-rh*
fi-Hmg privilege) .. mu«. be ro.,«id«Vi.l «. Xog ted ,y? 1 war
•ipp right, w«,fnined ni much ng wo loit by nhroirutinir the lUhil
Pr...lege--«„d Hn», in n gfn.ral point «/ v,L3«v f li.t nS. nJ
by nbrogatmg both; thu« making the twoofeuua v«| ,i *
I certamly d.flero.l very much from Mr. A^al in hi. estimate
lenJitoZtr »t;'r^';--"-^-' with.rc::«;:'u"or
unaer nn proposal. I did not appreciate it by the mere benenlint
or logitima e uses that might ba mode of it. I(h ilorncri ro«
•idered to be derived from its evils-from tho «b isHf it «ml (V^m
the permdoai facility which it would aHor I to ^{^1 iZlifl^
Indians. If our instructions, af tho 1 6th of Anril h I'l k.. i
themhnbuant, of our «■<,,<„.« simcs and TciZZ ^ *
of .vidence, consi.tmg ,,ri„cip,.llj, of ll,o corro^pll™. If IS
inAmenoR. <«lal)li,lw,, Wyond nil nilionnl doubt lb. dhV.
Indians from commencing hostilities. It Jas only bv . t irtLm
^^z^ ::c^^''' --^« "-" «-^ bVh tii
Here was surely evidence to prove the danger of giving to Bri.
V
*«n a«ei, prHcticnIly derived JVom tSi .• k'I^""' '° ""^ grout «.
n«vig«te the Mi,,i„Lr, yoY,h 1^ i.*''* ^'^ «PProacn nnd to
">««"• or ttccew, woull „niub,« ilvl. . • 'T'"* ''?='''"« tl.o only
' »»|ould hone 10 find chnHtv for Lv L.i! ''"*' 'a *''''. ?»'*"'«"• »* U
"Hchu«ett«, 1 bPlievod thui,,lMr.?^„ T'"^"", '^.^ " ^'ti^'O" of Mn«.
7 should troHt f«i.Vw £,;;;'•"'' ^f'y ''^'^"••••'^ »h«t
f ion, mid to do Hi,/nZ.H h*/ T^ *'"'®'" "««»•«" o'' thft
'^"itod Stale., it wnl my du v t„ ?. *^"' ^^•. .^" « '"'""tcr of the
whole. "" "'^ ""'J' ^« «ct impurtially toward, the great
^^o:';:riz^j^^';^^ -t». ^u cond«ct. m
»v««, n- he nlleged, iLmZu^Cl '"»«"<"">". If that liberty
'tte thorn, by ofleH «r „C"r ■ , "* the genoral right, why .epa-
our inHfniction., Include I in S.i . ? ^ "'" ''''•rty wa., by
;tn,ction« forbid u. toting Lt*ilh^■^*''^*^•"" '^' ""«''«"« '"-
I'berty w„, an attribute 7ou I„?ln L? *'""r"'" ' ^'^ *»>•"
continuance on the rcrii/LS of „?!/'*'""*'; '"^'^ •"^'^ «"" "i
offer to .uMke it an arSS Ll i "^'' ""*' °* *''« "«'9o time
no iuch pecuIiaJayt' ,..;'[ ''f/hZlT ^^'^ ^^"'''^«
an attribute of our Ind n,J,lZ« i '\ <''«t.I«b«rty wn« indeed
treaty, but on tho.e S.J "I'/iJ, '"^ '^^ •'* '^«P''"^<'^> on no
Glared pr«viou. to any S^^J^^ on wh.ch it ha.J been de-
energy which dictated m d iTolli. cd'ih^'^ «•«"••*'""
«verth«t Independence, ortT,7,h« j '' l*'!^'"'"''''"- ^^'^«n-
-overeignty, wllioh r^cce'Z^^f^^^^^^^^ f the
queitioned, I tni.t in (Jod , u\ ulTi "' ' .'"" ^"^ denied or
»'ut of nil, thHt wo .h..li 1 ♦ *- ^^l'*'"''' ""t of the Wc.f onlv
to the dead leuer of „ trSr':r' *° '^ *''''".'"'' <''' " vinionarj!?;
the nation, of the worlll ^' " """"'^ °"'' '*'«''''" ""^^ rank Btmml
Hpt'rlttrrtrtting it't" m "'"t "" ""P^^-'^^^ ^^^ ""PHn.
'il/erality of my ?e K' j.it^rif Ttdt"' ""'' '•'^^ J"-^''^* «!•"'
e<i with the r/mark. of m; Adam 1 hoT ''rr'«"«'y «ntru.t-
P«per which hu. mainly .eon tr.nl • ^'^'r'"'^ ^"" »^'th the
^'•J «n opportunityT«inSntu v-'oirlr- "T ' ' "''''"'•> ^'-ve
nnd been .pared the unpleZnt nTi^ f "J"^. ""'"*' '''fP'n»«tion.,
public. If 1 have no? rS or 1 of "^.^ "' •'•"" "I'Pcaling (o the
Adam., it i. becaSr l^no /bIt'lher:V"'^ "cri„,on/ofM,*
respect which I owe to v'elf and to L "fr'""/'^' ^^ ''"•'get the
jvth Mr. Admn., the nor^ hv wlih U i''"'''"* ' '"S''«t' «q""lly
the virulent character 7ll^reirk.bu^r?1 ^' <'*'«t for
rea.on to reioice if m JiL^!- !? •.' '"^ '"'"'" ''nve abundmif
-.they.i!:ri;:i;'trrv'et^d'tm':r^^
n»Bht hav« been Uinastrou* to the conn fry. "'"" '" "''"^''' "'^^
^ JONATHAN RUSSELL.
iim
#V«Hi thf. J^ntUmnl tnttHigtnefr' «/ Jufy 17, UfS,
MH. ADAMS' KFJOINDI-JK TO Mli. KUSSELL.
Mr. Jotirtth«n Htm^ell linving thought piopor to tr«t»«fer the iceno
of hM ftttuok \i\m\ t\w oliainrtpi- hikI cohdiicl of Ium .:n|lt»nK««P), thn
m»\ioi'ily of lh« Into miBMofi to UluuiJ uihl n!>|ioi;iiilly iipoii mine,
from the IIoiihh oI' Reproptnututiveii ol'tho Uniteil States, whorp he
flr»t volcntroretl tobiinK i( rorwurtl, to lltn nn\V!»|m|iorii, it bccomen
nrooMiiry for \»y Mnuv, .uul that of mv colleiigiieK, iignitiHt thii
aiMtiU. »o «|)|»l^ to hilt iittW MutoiiKMtU no , . ;>ror.'i»tiitumii ii Ipw of
thoao " rorr*c<Mm»" whioh, ttt (hp mil ok u ioiint; of Upprpient-
ntive?. I «liil Ai*\Ay (o the original utid d»,j»,xut« of hU Irtter of
11th Febru«i,y, 1815.
Thi» \w\m' \m\AMwi\ hy Mr. l{(isHr|| io Hk^ Ho^ton Stutoniimii, of
thn a7tl. ol .lmn» luM, l»«mr» the muiu. i«lu(ioii to troth that hid orl-
Rinal lotlora tiewr to their ilu|>lioul«», Htiii hin Bunliincutr* to hin
KIglltltltrCM.
Nrurly twoeolmnnsof ihepBpurpMhliRhfMl in tho Honlon S|»te«.
WHO, Hro occupied with u nurrHtive of rirroinntiuireii which proood-
od. Httinded, mul followerf,, 4h« dojlvorv, hy Mr Ko«h»^|I, at tho
Dfinirtttient oi Stute, on the nA of April hwt, of lh« pnper pur
MortioR to ho H diipli«:Hte of hie letter ol I Ith Fehrunry, 1U15. from
rorw, to the then Serretitry of .st,uc. I,, the oourne of this rinrrw-
tive. iMr. Kussoll innkex the followinu; tulminnion ; how relot;ltuitlv,
the very Btrnoture of the sentence in which it it containod, will
show ; Hnd it in prooer that it should he «'xhlhited in his own words :
" I certainly did believe that I wan poinnitted to make thone cor-
" rectioiw ot the copy in po«8CSNion. which appeared to rne to be
" proper to cxhiltit my v^ase moM advantngeously before thattribu
•• rial"— (the tribunal of the public]
The reuMMiN of iMr. H unwell for believing thtit he was permitted,
in l8i!«, to make corrections which happened to suit his own pur-
EoscB. tn« paper fornixhed by himself to be cotnmunicated to the
louse ol Hepre«entHlives ol the I'nited Stales, as aspeciJic letter
written by him in Paris, in the year l«|f>, are as singular und sur.
prising as the belief itself. They consist of insinuations and infer-
ences that he had furnished the paper at m« solicitation ; that tho
word '« c/M|./irai«,"' writlen upon it, with his own hand, gave no
fuHher intimation or assurance that it was so ; that I hnd tho sole
power to puljhsh it or not. as I might judge proper, and to consult
my own teehugs and interests in forming my decision ; and that the
jmper was not to be cxhibite.l to the public without the previous
exaouuation and consent of the aovkksr rAuTv. And with these
ingenious principles, he has interwoven a statement of facts, with
which he has believed himself permittad to take the same liberty
that he had taken with his own letter ; making in them tho«e cor-
rections which appeared to him necessary to exhibit his case most
■idvanttigeously betore the tribunal of the public
of
139
mcnt of ilu' rciil I'mt, i. „.„.,T !,"'''' '° "'J'' "'"• !•> « mnre 111111
Tl." r.„. ,1,,.. r;,!':;" I" "•''"" •""■'■"ly r™. uXlt
<o be commummv,] in theil , 3 n rl» i ' *'' '^J;'"'* ♦''« P«P««»
P»P«ri, I /«.mc?Hmon«HM.m , '. ornl '''J ^^"U;'''! '"''"« for tho««
;y.cr.ury of S(„t.,,,„I;„, ^^ jr ,Tf w m/' "'""«" »« '^e
^•" »i«n«t»,., of t|,„ t,.o,„v. I njr, f?« T'"'.'" '*' "'««'«y «fter
'"feci pilnripnily (o Mr. l(u«r||W Irt' ^"'' ^l'*'''"*''' ^'''^ '» •"«•
'vhich It hut been «tii»#i«l »i.../« • • -'" *'' f^«cemb«.r I814 in
'0 tho British r: y ^ « S'S ?''^. '""♦ "«t«r'nin«,I t" oC
'" tho minority on that or nLn " ' J"' ^'^''' ""'"'^"♦) «"»•
"' communicating imZ\TrT:T '"'"7*"' »" »"m«filt the poJrJJ
With Mr.R„S;wZ,^! ^ot^^^^^^^ "- '"'""%!
not now troublo the publi" ItV«l Vn r^i.?"^ "^ !^' "'"«• ^ «^""
'«''tho .M.rpo«e of ..niworinir the T^J of L ir"*"'"!" '^^"'" «'««
'ovorrd th«nxi«t«nce oftlT« «tto? «„,/ *'"""''• that r f|,.«trh'«.
b '. l«u»n ornot. It w«. not rS Zthilll \? ''"C"ment« to
'or «t wng not n ntirt of fh« JL. '' . """ '''" '*'"«»' »f the cnll
no bearing upon thf inform. fionwhh S^ ^"Migncd. .It had
Houdo «« the motive foiMhe.^..;*u '*""' """W'ff'I to thi*
ny ti«tion which it co^^ni t ;l^'.tutor* ''^'"""^ '« "'«
'»" « been taken in the joint miwion ZimI ^^" '■"" ^"'^ ^^''•c*'
vote upon « ,,„e«tion whether ,n feh 'nT'"'^'""' «"d th«t
»vhen made, bad b«en rejectrd Mr u .T"' ^' '"'"^«. «"'ich.
•'or.ly,nndre«orver|«,Lrolf;i.« r *"^i' '"'•' ''«''" *» the n^.
thereafter, for Ibe purpo ?of viiljl^r^^ "*^'«"'»« ^i. re.'on ,
All whether it would be 1 ono, n . ^ ''•« motivei. It was doubt-
••""! Mr. HussolP, «oH X\L"tt S ''r "'^T'^^^'^^'^P'''^
"«H«nBtn rejected offer whirl. U.V- '"« motives for v,Minc
t'- other lid, tbir,:/J ' i If^iZT^ '" '"'*'''"*^- B"^ ^
oogo .at on. the moHt d:;.in,!:;Vo„f o h^!^^^^^^^ 7'»^"'ff to th«
' »»' bad been made. The rail rnlJl?/ 1 '"'?"'•«' ^o"* »vbich the
^Pocnd intention of eliciting thettero'';r r'? '""''^ ^'t'' th«
wb.ch ,t a.te.frd. To Unll wlafeir !f, ";?'^^«:'r''. "'' the fact
P Irtlry nii^},| ],.^^,
<? "!VI'?S
140
riae to surmises of special motives for veiiing from the eye of Con-
gress, and of the nation, the discovery of that fact. As Mr. Rus-
sell was upon the spot, and a member of the House, I determined
to mention the letter to him, and place it ai his option whether it
should be communicated to the House or not. 1 did so, at my
house, as he has stated ; and it was on the 26th of January. But
Mr. Russell did not say that he had no distinct recollection of the
letter, to which 1 alluded, ajd that he wished to see it before he
gave his consent to its publication. I had not asked his consent to
its publication. I had told him there was such n letter ; and left
it at his option whether it should be communicated in the answer
to the call of the House of Representatives, or not. His first re-
ply was, that he thought it was a private letter, which it would be
improper to communicate to the House ; but, after a pause, as if
recollecting himself, he said he wished to sec the letter, before giv-
ing a definitive answer. To this I immediately assented. Mr.
Russell accordingly repaired to the office, and saw his letter ; not
m my presence, or in the room occupied by me, but in that of Mr.
Bailey, the clerk who has charge of the diplomatic documents.
Mr. Russell then desired to examine the whole of the correspond*
ence relating to the Ghent negotiation, and afterwards twice in suc-
cession requested to be furnished with copies of one paragraph of
the instructions to the commissioners, of 15tb April, 1813. That
paragraph is the one which, iti the duplicate, is cited so emphatic-
ally, and with so many cumulative epithets, in support of the charge
against the majority of the mission, of having violated both the let-
ter and the spirit of their explicit and implicit instructions. After
all these examinations, and after a request to be furnished with a
copy of this most pregnant paragraph, in all of which he was in-
dulged to the extent of his wishes, he told me that he saw no ob-
jection to the communication to the House of his separate letter
of 36th December, 1^14 ; with the exception of a part of it, not
relating to the negotiation. He was informed that the pail only in-
dicated by himself would be communicated ; and accordingly that
part only was communicated. Mr. Russell then added, that there
was another letter, wt'itten at Paris, conformably to the indication
in that of 26th December, 1814, and containing his reasons therein
alluded to ; and- which he wished might also be commMnicated with
the rest of the documents, to the House. This was the first intima-
tion I had ever received of the existence of the letter of 1 1th Fe-
bruary, 1815; and i told Mr. Russell that, if it could be found up-
on the files of the Department, it should be communicated with
the rest. I directed, accordingly, that search should be made, and
afterwards that it should be repeated, among all the files of the
Department, for this letter. It was not to be found. After a delay
of several days, for repeating these ineflfectual searches, I deemed
it necessary to report, in answei lo the cM of the House ; and the
documents were all s^nt, including that portion of his letter of 25th
December, 1814,whivhhe himself had marked for communication.
141
It WM not alone to me that Mr. Russell
had
*♦
Februarv'iaTr'J'tl^uP''*"®^*'^*'^"'*
♦.'iJh the other documents to the House' h! k 5® communicated
the statement of Mr. Bailey, repeatedly manifested th/'*''*"^ ^l
to him. He had even gone so lar a<i tn Jnr«l I- *°* ^""n* ♦^"h
copy of itatMe„don^'nd:o^dr1irh^^ ^-^l -
from himself would be received at the Dllrtmlr/ ^'^P^ ^^ it
eat.on to the House. He did not. indeed, make EL^' • °'"?""''-
jne nor was { then informed that he hadCde ^U^ «jj^« «"q"iry t
I had been, I should have immediately answ^rL #k i •*®*"'7- '^
received and communicated I knPU. „n. J^ * ^^""^ '* "'O"" be
of the letter : but I knew that. Xever Thty S 't T^^"**
have no objection to their bein^ conimnnLf !^ 1^^ ,•*«' ' <^o«ld
Russell hiiself; and for frorsuspeSi timV^
himself permitted to make any X^rat on! f^heTon' ^^''«!'«^'»«
sent purposes, I should havethoueht th« b»l ^■^' *° ""'^P'"*-
upon his honour. ^ ^^ ^''''^ suspicion an outrago
But 1 had no desire of my own that thp loffn« L ij *
Bleated. I regretted even tC Mrfil '?i t !''?''^ ^« co"""""-
part of his letti of 26trDecembe; 18 4 wh\'^°'''' *'''' '^^
d sagreement with the majority of th'e mi si'on sh ^r^""^*' *»"
nicated. I regretted that he had ev^^ fh Y*^""^** *»* ^^o"™"'
the Secretary 'of State wL^d leen his 50"'!^^^^^^^ '' '"f"""
and I was perfectly assured, that there neve^LKstp'd '''^*°'' ''
when there could have been any neces, Tv rL klf . ^®. * moment
motives for that vote. I was assured thJ^. n J-,k"" .u '''*'*''^*t« ^ia
If he had not been so over-earnest in his sc ifudl \l ^f^M^^*
And I was equally convinced, that after he harl tnuV **" *^®'°*
not ultimately redound to his credit I h»5 *°'*^ />«•". it ^ouia
towards Mr. Lssell. ot'^W^atelnte ct 'rsrh^^^^^^^^^^ '' ^-^y
than ten years, that of friendshio which in n« • . ' '°'' ""^^e
had been, in word. deed, or thSughTvi^^^^
ciate .n a trustof great importance, the general resuU nft?\T°;
been satisfactory to the country, h^ had Si h-3 li • "^
to me, to my peculiar recard With tLu^^ :f ? ^'^""«' sacked
ties of that^rLt truslWd mi^g^eVt &^^ f
aggrandizement by the • debasement pf any of mrcoilpl '^"^
had sown no aeed of future accusation agafnst a b^rothir '"''• ■ ^
sioner, m the shell of a pretended vindicairbf myse f I'h T?;
up no roo of rancorous excitement, to be planted aftpr L^i^^^
of years, in the soil of sectional prejudice, or partV^^^^^^^^^ ^'P'^
I lamented to discover that Mr RusJli hoi ^^ Prepossession,
colleagues of the majorityj anJ'l wi morttfipT '** *^'f ^"^ *"'»
Bess with which he appear^rdetermlnTd '^f ^bUrf:^^
agreement of opinion, and the part that hp LS S • • ^^'^ *^'^"
world. I felt that it neither bpr»mp m? ♦ t-^*° '" '^' to the
.ication of either of his 1 «er^^^^^^^^^ Hol°'ffl!? '\' 'u'T""
n.r Officiously to offer him fjcilitiestr^hTcomttS^^^^^^^^^
♦ 142
be had not suggested to me himseir I, therefore, did not aak him
to furnish, himself, a copy of his letter from Paris, to be communi<
cated to the House ; but, on the Slat of February, reported to the
President, for communication to the House, all the other docu*
ments, embraced by their call of the 17th January preceding.
The message from the President ^o the House, communicating
(be documents, was delivered on the 23d of February, and was or-
dered tu be laid on the table.
On the 19tb of April, the following resolution was adopted by the
House, having been first moved the day before :
'^Retohedf That the President of the United States be requested to cauie to
be commur'oated to this House, if not injurious to the public good, anj tetter,
or communication, which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, Esq.
one of the Minister* of the United States who concluded the Treaty of Ghent,
after the signature of that Treaty, and which was written in conformity to the
indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 25tb December,
1814."
It will be observed, that nearly two months had intervened be-
tween the report of the Ghent treaty documents to the House, and
this second call, which Mr. Russell has admitted was made at his
suggestion.
On Saturday, the 20th of Apfil, the day after the adoption of the
resolution of the House, and even before it had been officially re-
ferred to the Department for an answer, Mr. Daniel Brent, the
chief clerk of the Department, without consulting me, but knowing
the anxious desire that I should feel, of being enabled to report
the paper called Lr by the House, knowing also that it was not
tipon the files of the Department, called upon Mr. Russell, at his
lodgings, and inquired of him whether he could furnish the letter
desired ; and was told by Mr. Russell that he could, and would de-
liver it to the President. Mr. Brent, it seems, su^ested that it
would be better that it should be delivered as a duplicate than as
a copy, to which Mr. Russell assented. This distinction, whic'.i has
reference chiefly to the forms of office, would not have occun id to
me. Between a copy, marked as such by the writer, signed by him,
and all in bis own hand-writing, and a duplicate, furnished as such
also by the writer. I can perceive no difference of substance,
though, as evidence in a court of Justice, or as a document in the
public archives, one might bear the character of an original paper,
and the other only of a copy. Mr. Brent had too much respect for
Mr. Russell, to imagine it possible, whether he gave the paper as
a copy or as a duplicate, that he should give it other than as the let-
ter originally written, and called for by the resolution of the
House.
Mr. Russell, however, did assent to the suggestion of Mr. Brent,
and, with his own hand, wrote the word " duplicate" on the paper,
which he had already prepared to deliver, to be reported in answer
to the call of the House. He did more : he erased with a scraper
(lie word "copy," which he had previously written in its steady
and the traces of which, are sitU discernible on the paper.
14S
^ ^'*?*; *!i!"l* ^^^* Mr. Ruisell meao. wh«n, hi the BortoA Sfatw.
!J?Jn \ ^''"''J'® '"'^''' **^* '"'**" »»« delivered the paper
[duphcate] had indeed been written on it, in conJeqafioce of hit
OTucA le$$ any atiurance that U nas so.'' The«e are Mr Rum.
jell .own words ; and what can they mean ? They haye beVn, at
least by .ome portion of the public, understood to mean, that h«
paper had been styled a duplicate, not by Mr. RuNell, but by mt
O no 'the word was written with Mr Russell's own hand ; and
when I received the paper I knew not that there ever had pLs'sed
a word between Mr. Brent and hiro whether it «hould be delivered
5! ' ^°PJ'^?** *"'.* *^"Py- '^^^ ^°"°" Statesman, of the same daj
m which his reply is published, says "Mr. Russell, without much
reflection, consented" (to give it as a duplicate.) I should think b«
had time enough for reflection, while at work with the scraper, to
efface the word " copy," for which it was substituted. Mr Ru».
Bell s meaning is, therefore, that, although he wrote the word du-
plicate with his own hand, yet he did not intend it should be re-
eeived as an intimation, much less as an assurance, " that it
*VA 9 SO •
Mr. Russell had been explicitly told by Mr. Brent, that his call
to inquire whether he could furnish the paper called tor by the re-
solution of the House, bad not been at my desire, or with my know-
ledge, but of his own motion. But it seems Mr, Russell did not be-
neve him ; and instead of delivering the letter, as he had said be
would, to the President, he brought it to the Department, and de-
livered It to Mr. Brent himself; observing that he was indifferent
Whether it was coirmunicated to the House or not ; but, if it should
'vu • ^^^^^^ '* '"'.gh' •»« returned to him.
The singularity of this observation is not among the least extra-
ordinary incidents of this transaction. Mr. Russell, who, while the
farst resohition of the 17th of January, calling for the Ghent treaty
document*, was to be reported upon by the Deoartment of State,
had expressed to me, rjid repeatedly to Mr. Bailey, the wuh that his
letter trom Pans should be communicated.— Mr. Russell, at whose
Buggestion the specific call from the House of the 19th of April,
lor that letter, had been rooved^-Mr. Russell, who in the interval
had written to Mendon for the original draft of his letter, had re-
ceived it from Mendon, and on the morning after the resolution of
the House calling for it, was already prepared with a •• copy" of it
to deliver to the President, a copy consisting of seven folio sheets
ot paper^transforms this copy, at the suggestion of Mr. Brent,
^wto a duplicate, and after having again on Saturday declared to Mr.
Brent his wish that it might be communicated to the House, brincR
It on Monday morning to the Department, and in delivering it to
Mr. Brent, says he is indifferent wbe"ier it should be communicat-
ed to the House pr not ; but, if not, wishes it may be returned to
fciro. *
Hi
rfiZinl'^ [h« WMning of this Urdy heiilaUoo and new-born io-
Jfference whether , -hould be communicated or not ? Why does
he say that the appl.cation from the Uepartment of StaVe L S
letter wa. made wi hout any previous intimation, suggestion or
encouragement on h« part; and that, had it not been^ade. that
Kv nT'*" "'"*'■ *"^" ''**'" '*'"' "» ^'•^ Department of Stale nor
jnany other manner presented to the pubhc ? Why did he brinirit
t°to the pTT"! • "5 '"r' i^'d^Mr^Brent that h^e Jouhl deTvVr
Droved W^v H ' r^ ""^ '*'"' ^'"'P"'"'' "*' **• ^'•- «'•«"» h«d «P-
KeJartm.!^ o^f tV ^ r '•"P'«"!°», '» »» «» 'J«'»«nd "Pon him from the
iTr ? M 1 f '"^^ of B private letter, never intended for the pub-
K •/»?.*!'■ °°'' "".^ P*"°" ** *^« Departmi^nt of State, knew
that the letter was private. Mr. Russell knew it, ahhough he had
cembeJ itT^T ""'""""'^ ^ 'i'™ *''«* '^'^ "^oTt letter of D^
cember 25 1814, was among the documents of th« negotiation at
the Department, and asked him whether he cbo.e ft should be
commun.n«ted to the House; he had then at firs? told me that he
thought that was a private letter, which it would be impriper to
commun.cate ; but when, after having examined it, heSed tha^
part of .t should be communicated, he had told me there was an^
ther letter written from Paris, which he wished migbtX be com-
municated. He had not spoken of it as a private letter, nor didTe
deliver the A.;,/«:a^* as such to the Department. He om.tLd tVom
It the word oma/e which had been written by himself upon the
onginal. Tli.s omission was doubtless one of those cor Jections
before the trthunal of the public. Its tendency certainly was to
excite asuspicion in the public mind, that the original Ker walo?
had been upon the files of the Department, and L n the answej
^rm J""' ' "^ '^" """'" ""^'"'^ J«*nuaryr.V hadV^Tup.
Mr. Russell's delivery of his duplicate at the Pepartment of State
^I'Tu J ^"^^i'f ""'""'y '^^'''^ M'-- Brent had made of him
whe her he could furnish a duplicate of the letter called forby Te
iZTT of the House, if applicaUon should be made to him 4r it
Mr Rr«.j;rJ7* "^^ f^^'^l'^r ' «"^ ^'•- ^'•^^t had tow Wm VJ
/^L Zl « ? r'"- ^'^''«/' i^«^* «t the Department as a public
/««er, and as if the origwal itself had been also public. What then
SfhH^h it „5 * f ''*'' f ^ "l?'. ^^ ««^'«« ^^"^ ' had the sole power to
pub uh It or not, as I might judge proper, and to consult my own
feelings and interests informing my decision? There was « a reso-
utiOD of he House of Representatives," calling^pon the President*
Id'Th. w^.'°°"?"rf*f'' *" *^r « ^«««^ Specifically designa?-
«d. The writer of that letter, after repeated expressions mora
h!rir.'°°°^Kf k"^""^ *' ?*" ""'^ *° ^' Bailey, that he 13
that letter might be cominun^cated to tl^eHouse.niw brought tqthj
#•
149
Deptftment ndupUeate of it. and «ays I iras ^t J »
or not. a« it might suit my feeling, and ,Wrt '^'^iT ^'^ P"*»'"h it
f/**"" •«"»••«"» or the dutL of a Scretarv of S?; '^''- ""«««" '•
that, m the unm\ course of buginesH ^h«^ ?*" ® "" ""^ «<> know
was referred by the Preeiden to (hi L?""/"*'"" "'' "'« «<»«•
report, and that when once his etr^'h!ii'"''"'r"* «^ ^t«t« Tor «
ot the Department, it vJaTmv n^f "** f^^nd'^'ivered by himself
of it to thS President* ^oo^^m ^ S t 'thl^H^ '' ''^''^ "' 7
rectly charged me with treason to my countrt T .""^ '* ^^
little ess, my only and inflexible duh^as S..^; " 'V!"''''-ectly did
report it to the President for commnni. ♦• "''?''^ °'^<«*e was, to
terms of the resolution of the iZre 1?^ ^ % the
have withheld it from the House if Tn hit a""^""^ ''"'««'* "night
cation would be injuriout to /aJ Ia/v •'-«'"*'''* ^^e communi.
President, and notlwas the jX'^"*tn ''"'•■ »»"' of that, the
dent, in forming his judgmen. £ thoTi'ht ?"""*'"•* ^^e Presi!
opinion upon it, with what face could I fS '^'"Pf '' *° ^°"»"'t my
withheld? If the letter was not a tissue nr'"' *''«^ it-houldbj .
Secretary of State, and the Min ste 'o?Z Frn'r?J""'*"'«''«-' »h«
were men unfit to hold any station whatlv.y^'f.^ ^'"'^^ '» *>«^'ce,
country ; and that was the in.pres«il "v^ ? *^« ««"'«« of thei;
duced by the letter, at least tbrZhout h^l"^ '"**"'^"' '^ be pro-
>ng section of the Union. uZ Xt nr!^ "'«"" «"^ '°°«t g^w-
ed the President to withholdTe commu'l"" '°"''' ^ '"'^^ «dvi,.
public interest ? If there was ruthTnthe 1^*7 "'. "'J""°"» *<> th«
not be too soon known to C^ngrerand to i " .'^ contents could
that the conspirators against the neacef. I a ""''"J"* " ^«» fi«in«
ants of the Western cJuntrv should hi "*^ ""offending inhabit!
J«c, and that the world of thTwest Jodd h'""'''"^ ''^^'"•^ *he pub.
ext.t of their obligations to ^'^!^::^\:^^:^
coS'o'St'tteXt t^et^r^ r'^'*^"*^-' to-Port'a
ewer to their call. On XZl777tVV^' "°"««. '« «n-
such as not unfrequentlv hannpno ..„ "PP"?«d it an inadvertencv
than the current yVr KTtU hS'of ^'^."^ °' ''^^^ S
unconsciously for the date of the or1rina7 i L^^tS l' '^^^tUt^ted
«.at he word copy had been written dot at tf^A *''^" P^'^^^^^
/«;)/»c«.'«, and scraped out. The er™ h 5V"^* **^*he word
•cautious and deiicat^e hand ; its atteSion of'.J •"."*? ""*'« ^'*h «
per, was not perceptible to an „nli f- °' ^'^^ texture of the oa-
ness of the in^k whe^n ^Urmed Zt^h^^ '^' ' '""^ '^ ^hefreS
Pjete. In the progresfof bSnh^! • -T^ ^^P^^''*'*' *<> he com-
heen some dayUfitt^n upon pa^^^^^^^^ 'V"^ «fterit b^
Natne pe.eptible, and aJe'i?^- al^St^^^;^ -jd.ooa
146
words, the date, and the whole letter, are in the hand-writing of
Mr Russell. ^ . .. j i. :i
On reading the letter through, I found it had been composed
with a view to be received and understood as if all written at Paris,
in February, 1815. Yet 1 was confident it had not all been so
written. I was particularly struck with the following passages.
«• I will frankly avow, however, that my impressions were, and atiU
" are, that Great Britain, calculating on the success of the power-
"ful expedition which she has sent against New-Orleans, confi-
" dently expected that she would have become the mistress of
" Louisiana, and all its waters ; and that she did not, in this event,
" intend to abandon her conquest under the terms of the treaty of
«• Ghent."
♦' If she be disappointed in her views on Louisiana, and 1 trust
«« in God and the valour of the West that s*c will be, I shall not be
" surprised, if, hereafter, she grants us the fishing privilege, which
•♦ costs her absolutely nothing, without any extravagant equivalent
<« whatever."
" At any rate, we are still at liberty to negotiate for that privuege,
•< and to offer for it an equivalent, fair in its comparative value, and
«« just in its relative effects."
" I trust in God she Will be"— in a letter dated Pans, 1 1 Febru-
ary, 1822 — signed Jonathan Russell— addressed to the Hon; James
Monroe, Secretary of State— and delivered by Mr. Russell to be
communicated to the House of Representatives, in answer to a call
suggested by hiuiself for a letter written by him in 1815! And
Mr. Russell charges me with disingetiuousness, for communicating
this paper to the House ! And Mr. Russell talks of respect for the
Represetitatives of the people of the United States ! 1 am in the
judgment of my country, upon this state of facts. But as for Mr.
Russell, when he wrote that—" I trust in God, she will be"— and
came to the narne of Goo- -did not the pen drop from his hand ?
I took the letter to the President, and expressing to him my sus-
picion, that the above passage particularly had never been written
at Paris, requested him to cause search to be made among his pri-
vate papers for the original letter, if there ever had been one.
The search was accordingly made, and the letter was found. On
comparing them together, 1 immediately perceived that the original
was marked private ; which the duplicate was not. I turned im-
mediately to the prophesies of the duplicate : in the original they
were not. I looked to the passage in the duplicate, which repre*
ietitsthe fishingprivilege, not only as utterly insignificant, and trifling
in value, but as having been proved to be so by the best informa-
tion " we (the plenipotentiaries at Ghent) could obtain on the sub-*
iect," There was a whole system of misrepresentation in these
words we could obtain: for they represented the incorrect estimate
bf the value of the fishing privilege which they introduced, as the
result of information obtained by the whole mission at Ghent, as
having been there diacuBsed, and as aggravating the wrong of th«
147
knt 'Jp^n th!nJri„?ui;iS^^^ ^- -hat they
as I did, that the infoSon il^ all lu? r"'" ""'"«• ^oowing,
formation concerning the S*.T.f ™« "formation ; that no in '
have been, obtai^eTby th/ Llt^L^^^^^^^^ »*««»' «>r coZ
doubts as to its value, ixpS,^ "y Mr £ J?.'T "'^'"^
been even a subject of conversitJnn iLu ^"?«®"' '* bad never
the real letter from Part to . p. i ^ ""fsion-I turned to
himself there, and Yound he h^^'X„ ^^^^..^'^^ -Pre«^
information that /can obtain on thriubip;* ,*'?''^'"g »<> the b^t
that all tnat tale about the obscuphv3 k •i.'"'' '""nediaWy
phere, in the high northern iS,h1^, and hum.d.ty of the atmos-
Librador fishery wrnoMn f K -^ to degrade the value of the
been informati^'/Lo'^ht : 'oVt jneTttp "" r '^"^^^ '« ^-^
d^scovery which it discloses wS„ot /rlVJ^Sl'^r^" ' ^^^^ the
made known to the mission Jharthp'^l ^^^"^ ^° ''^^^ ''^^^ «^er
curing of the fish, were in 'the orLinaf feCr '^r?°"^ *° ^^e
vapours of Mr. Russell's imaginotlon aMpl ' '^ "°* "'^'"^^y ^^e
suk of the best informatio^S t couiJTm"" ""T.**^"" ^^e re-
«aw too, the motives for tL subs tution nf /?°' ^9 ^ '"«t«°%
«n the duplicate, for the Mords / can ' tbi^ " '"^'f''' T ^""'^ '"
ginal had been written the bill nfS ? ! °' '^'°«'- ^^ the ori-
tained against the Sritv o^hp '^'°^''5^
say, in their defencr^C Jthl! h ^^"'''°'^' '^^^ ^''«™ «t liberty to
jng liberty, it had been af^t^ Zl^' ''^^ ^'"^ ^
liberty to inquire, why Mr. Ru, sell inthJ7"' '* *"''* ^^^^ «t
fishery question, had not revS to the- r^^^ "?*>» tl'e
obscurity and humidity andTnces' ant fo^«^h f f '""* '^•'^^^^''J' ^^'
the value of the fishiL libertv ThT' ^^"^ ::,^^«sened so mich
took from them all suci mean/ of defenTe "f r '' ''^ '"P""'^
«s navmg wilfully sinned a^ain^t their HpHp^ 1 '^P^«f««ted them
!ng sought information of the value of thp f . "7 '^^^ ' as bav-
ing obtained proof of its worthlessne,/ f"^?^ hberly-as hav-
Hi offering fol^it an equivTuent wWcrwrtl'ttli^-r^^^^ P^^^'^*^'^
British emmissaries. and all the horZ. J i ^.^''*'*'' '™"gSlers,
the «»#n^%inhJbitantrofthe Wesrwrf^ warfare, upon
corrections which Mr. l^jsseil brlipl^ k- ,1 '"' *'"« «^ those
'vhich appeared to him Xe" to exll,?/ h?'^^'™'"^^ '' ^^^^'
ously before the tribunal ofS public v ^'' '^^ ""ost advantage-
r^^^^^72^^:^ ^- papers, .hen ,
absolute surrender and S^r sacr^rP nrl^'^^^^^
cheering cup of consolatS doled ou' *° ^^^^
for he extinguishment, as far as Mr Russen^ hhn7'''",f ^""8
of their means of subsistence *^thJ\h^ f- . °"" ^^""I'l a^afl,
Perity of the many, muarfie ^^rLrf 'o thT c'„' ''''"''*^ «"^ P'''^^'
nor interests of the few •'' tn tt 7 ?y convenience and mi-
for early P-posse::io:rsile ^.^l J^^^^^^^^^^
'^'1 -bstuuted in the duplicate, ft tt^^^^^^S^^^^^^^
148
origfinah that his argument to demonslrale. the abroji^Htion of the
treaty of 1 783, by the war, and the conse(\\ient discontinuance of the
fishing privilegCj would not be ascribed to any hostitity to those in-
terested in it — the mingled emotions at the bottom of the soul of
the writer, betrayed by these self-accusing and self-extolling varia-
tions from his letter aa it had been originally written, excited in
my mind a sentiment too much cheered with merriment, and too much
mitigated by compassion, for anger to have in it any part. But when,
in place of a paragraph in the original letter, expressly declaring
that he had believed with the majority that the propositions relat*
ing to the navigation of Ihe Mississippi and to the fisheries ^* violated
in no way our instructions " I found foisted into the duplicate a pa-
ragraph, accusing the majority not only of the violation of their
instructions, but of a wilful and wanton violation of them, as un-
derstood by themselves ; and to support this interpolated charge, a
cancelled paragraph of instructions solemnly cited, of which he
had, within two months^ obtained from the archives of the Depart-
ment two successive copies — let me candidly confess that the senti-
ment uppermost in my mind was indignation. Mr. Russell com-
ments upon the infirmities of my temper, and says, that when
aflerwards i pointed out to him, face to face, these palterings of
his own hand-writing, and gave him proof, from the records of the
Department, that the instructions cited by him in support of his
charge against his colleagues, hud been cancelled at the time to
which the charge applied, I was not in a humour to listen to him
even with civility. This I deny. I did listen to him with civility.
The reason that he assigned to me for the variance between his ori-
ginal and his duplicate was, that the whole of the original draft,
for which he had sent to Mendon, had not been found, and that he
. had been obliged to make up the two last leaves from memory.
He said, too, that there was no material variation o^' facts, as re-
presented in the two papers. He said, as he says in the Boston
Statesman, that he bad felt himself at liberty to alter the paper to
make his case better for the public eye. He said he had never
written against me anonymously in the ncwspopers, and intimated
that, in the year 1816, when I wiis in Europe, there had appeared
in the Boston Centinel a paragraph, charging him with having
been willing, at Ghent, to give up the fisheries — a thing of which I
had never before heard. He assured me that, in bringing his letter
before the public, his motive had not been to combine with my
enemies to ruin my reputation. To all this I did listen with per-
fect civility and composure ; and the last words with which I parted
from him> however painful to him and myself, were not wanting in
civility. They are clearly impressed upon my memory, and I
trust they are upon his. He is at liberty to publish them if he
thinks fit, as they were spoken. I should not have alluded to them
here but for his charge of incivility, which is as groundless as ail
the other charges of which he has been the willing bearer against
ine.
*
But
149
duplicate of the letter called forbyTheH™.; co«ld f«™.h the
1822 drat in 1 air 7:1 ^^^^^ Department of the date from
too near at handTad^it of it, h • " ''^'^"^'r *'^^. '"^"^"*'«° ''^
As to his giving eXDhn^Hnn . "^ ''V^ ^* ^^«* *'"« «"** P'««^«-
give ? What exnIanSrh J ° •™^' '^''"^ explanation could he
nished a paper as a ToIiS PjPer written by him e had fur-
had been detectS "/"P''^"^« ^^ '*• "> h« own hand-writing. It
ont, Lt it wafsusceDt.T;^^^^ '"""'; ''^*.^«'"^' «"d yet so liffer-
deaine- and tL!.^^."^ °° *''P'«"''*'0" consistent with fair
attempting to accounr?or"^° '"'''"J^ Mr. Russell is reduced 1
proofKhHasforitnolnT' ""^^^ '^^ ■""«* unanswerable
rately^oeksLa^otgyfoHt^r^^ «« '^-P-
him, by the alterition of ihl' 7/ ^r ?."^ *° ""^ ^ '^"^'g^ *» entrap
1818, and then to fa^rl^ ff^ «( h's duplicate, frJm 19m to
to MnB uTy^Kco^p^^^^^^^^ ' «-« th« 'J^P'icate
President, for clmuSion to th. H^'*^'' 'l,^\'^.P^'^^^ ^o the
be copied to Mr Thomn, tk * °"^^- ^^'' ^«''«y ««ve it to
a youSg man of a HvTr^l h "'*m' ' ^'"^'^ '" *»»« Department,
of the leuer to be ''Paris uZlf^^ '"'tlo f.^'-^^'ving the dat«
Mr. Russell had been tTr'oiifhr'F'. ^^f I '"^ '^°°'^'"g t*'^'
Congress in this citv nnf ^ ^^ '^^*''® °^ ^''^^ "^o^th attending
had^be^n dei^'aLurjf '°J ^'r a moment that .his datf
Brent, who. -crulgTirhtm'Z''ih?d^^^^ ^^•
inadvertency, authorized him to rect.Tv ^1n J^ ^.S"" ^^ *°
ton thought that he mieht eS^L ?hl/l- ^ ^^^ ''°^^' ^^- ^*'''«-
ther, bv makinff theTamP nh ^^^[^"^^^^^^ to Mr. Russell fur-
fiispWthTrSelrrghttTur Lr^^^^^^^^^ "« P--d
1816, thinking that was thHeiTnlhlkV"? '^''°** over them
This change was not only IKultlt' *-' ^«l '''•'««•'.
made known to me was LTn mvln k ^ ^^^^^S^ ? but when
that all would be serXh i^' u-^ ""y '"®- ^'•- ^rent supposed
Russell rimself and oSiJ^k""'"'"^ ''"°''" '^^ alteration to Mr.
date of the ;2; He ir "o^.*^" rr^R^ ^'l? rectification of the
of the chan'ge. but bJotghrhrorigtal^^^^^^ ^T^^^^
and showed the date of it to Mr hifnt Jofa .u ^«P«''''nent.
rection. I onlv <i»lr !,« J ;„? V *° confirm the second cor-
only ask, how intense must be the pressure of that con-
IfiO
tcjoatnesf, which attempts (o palliate the variations in Mr. Riis-
fleil s two papers, by represeMing incidents like these, as crafty
Wiles of mine to ensnare his innocence ?
Mr. Russell complains that, after the original of his letter had
been found, the duplicate should have been communicated to the
House at all. He complains that I should hare presumed to make
remarks upon both of them. He complains that 1 wenj to the
House of Representatives on the 6th of May, and there in person
sought for a member who would consent to make the call which
was necessary for the qlJicial publication of my personal remarks.
As usual, part of these statements is true, and part is not — my call
at the House of Representatives on the 6th of May, was accidental ;
being on my return from witnessing the experin>ent of Commodore
Rodgers's noble invention at the Navy- Yard. I did not there seek
for a member who would consent to make the call. I never asked
any menjber to make the call ; though I told several members who
«j)ioke to me on the subject there, and elsewhere, that it was my
wish the documents should be communicated to the House. The
President's message to the House of the 4th of May, which Mr.
Russell had seen before he left the city, had informed the House
of my desire that the letter should be"communicated, together with
a communication from me respecting it.
The truth is, that my desire for the communication of Mr. Rus-
iell's letter to the House had commenced on the same day that his
own had ceased. Mr. Russell, from the 26th of January to the
22d of April, had been indefatigable in his exertions to bring this
letter before Congress and the public. He had procured the ori-
ginal draught of it from Mendon ,• he had procured the call for it
from the House ; he had endured the toil of re-writing, with his
Own hand, at least once, a letter of seven folio sheets of paper ;
he had brought, and delivered it with his own hand, at the Depart-
ment. At the moment of fruition his appetite fails him. Doubts
of consequences to himself, as well as to others, seem to flash across
his mind. He leaves the paper — For what ? For communication
to the House, in answer to their call ? No [ " To put it in the
powef of the person who might consider himself the most liable to be
(ffficted by its publication" — for the " previous examination and
Consent of the adverse partv." He seems to invite objection to
ijs being communicated. He is quite indifferent whether it be
communicated or not, and, it not communicated, he desires that it
may be returned to him. But to make its terrors irresistible, he
has double and treble charged it with crimination of violated in-
structions ; and to vouch his charges, has twice armed himself
with official copies from the Department, of the cancelled part of
the instructions of 15th April, 1813.
I had never wished for the communication to the House or to the
public of the letter, until I had seen it. The effect of its perusal
upon my mind was certainly different from what Mr. Russell ap-
pears to have anticipated. I saw at once what it was and what it
\
151
tneant. ! also saw, ,n a great measure, what jls writer was whicn
had ..ever seen before, and the discovery of the oS'let e?
two days after, disclosed him to me in aH liis irlorv Crf k ■ ♦ '
wtlTh?dt*^^". Z' ' ---^^--i -faulty lee^;
and before the nation. In the original he had be^n a secrel ae*
?ar:;rre'rhf;S\2' «f -•"•^f ^'-- '« the Tplica'^hi Zi
Ipect andt T h' "«^ ?"' *^ professions of unfeigned re-
spect and to all the secret discolourings of the conduct and oni-
wonsofhisco eagues.hadadded the nfw Ld direct charee of a
h^Tn K K ^"''^ '*''^"°'' ^''*''° these charge/would, in my es.
timation, have been equivalent to an admission of their t uth To
hZ: 7ZZ6 to'™' 1^*^ '''' P^-g-riosi!;: whickt^^ lo?g
Deen stimulated, o see this mysterious and fearful letter would
o?meer.r''""'' ^^ ^^-o^^^^^^- course was left me buTthat
tiZTAf^ u^ ^'''"'''^ ''^^'''^ *"» **»« «ce«e "'hich he himself had
recessatv'fL^^ operations ; and I knew that little more wouW be
necessary for my own vmdication, and that of mv colleagues in th^
Mr. Kussell h mself, to expose to the House at once the charac t»V
of the accusation and of the accuser. I did. therefore desire that
hfcomm :"rif/\' ^r*^"' 'I' -"y '•^'"-'^^ upoTthem hould
steadTaXf Vff' "°"'\' ^"'^^"» "'«"♦ 'f Mr. Russell, in-
fetead oi affecting indifference, had fairly acknowledged bis error
ravJE ht'"' fur^'^ "*^'^ "^^ '^^ communSJed, I Sd
R ^u?u ?"" '" t*"^* ''^l"®^^ to the President.
>trS?i *h^,. !«"f « "'ere communicated to the House ; both were
Swhlh.;? '^u ^«"**^th«''- resolution, which w'as foj^^anj
formitv withTh^ ;' ^r '•^"^^^.''^rom Jonathan Russell, in con^-
ceX^r iRii^' indications contained in his letIerM)f the 25th De-
amoSffi. r * ^''T^'"^*.? "P°° ^""^^i and if that has proved
ft nnnn I °'!r'' f' ^T'l' ''^ ^^^^'^^ '•«««"«ct that he brought
upon himself It was Ji.s fault there was any difference between
l?n«U. ''"T:;\"P«°- He should also remember, that if the orT
gnal alone had been communicated, he would have been deprived
*A fil* ^"f" ^." " •"•! !!'''«° '» supposing that I attach any importance
Lit \''' t^^^Sf^^ihentMon to his professions, or proy!
of^ S. •?.'^- ^*'? ^'^"'""'" -^^^ th^'-e b« between the word
« L.S ' ""'^ .''!; '^•thDut protest, who, after writing the word du-
ZlT. ^'*° If^"?*" '^""^° ^"'^ ^'S"^** hy himself, to be communi-
TThT ** P"hl.c document to a legislative body, tells the public
imi be gave no further intimation, mnrh lo.... «„ „«e Ti-. ^.
41
152
*«» SO, and avows that it was not so ? M the name of God, under
Mr. Kusseli s pen, could not deter him from converting the past
into the future, that he might enjoy the honours of prophecy, and
couple with his trust in the Deity, his confidence in the valour of
f HT ®n' '"^^'^ ®''*^"*'^ *^°°''^ * ^^"^ ^*"" considering the declaration
ot Mr. Russell as either more or less sincere for beine backed by
hw protest ? ^
'' To add a perfume to the violet
" Is wasteful and ridiculous excess."
But if Mr. Russell, after delivering on the 22d of April his du-
plicate at the Department of State, and especially after he knew
that the ongnal had been found, was no longer solicitous that either
of them should be communicated to the House, he had neither
given up the inclination, nor the intention of appearing before the
public as the accuser of his colleagues of the majority at Ghent.
He left the City of Washington on the 6th of May, the day after
the House of Representatives had received the President's answer
to the call of the 19th of April— with that answer the President
communicated to the House my report to him, which had been
accompanied by a copy of the duplicate left by Mr. Russell at the
Department for communication. But the President did not com-
municate the copy of the duplicate itself. He informed the House
that the original had also been found^that it had been marked as
a private letter, by the writer himself^that it disclosed differences
of opmton which would naturally call for answers from those im-
plicated by it ; and that I, as one of them, had already requested
that it might be communicated, together with mv remarks upon it.
Under those circumstances the President declined communicating
the letter called for, unless the House, upon a knowledge of them,
should desire it~in which case he informed them that it would be
communicated, together with my report upon it.
All this was known to Mr. Russell when he left the city ; and it
IS presumed that he also knew that the call for the Setter would not
be renewed by the mover of the resolution of the 1 9th of April •
yet Mr. Russell went to Philadelphia, and there caused to be print-
ed in the National Gazette of the 10th of May. another variety of
Tuf^""^^ ^i^h February, 1815, from Paris/to Mr. Monroe-
still differing from the original— differing also from the duplicate,
which he had delivered at the Department, but satisfactorily prov-
ing with what '--ronuity he had told me that the two last leaves of
his original di ad not been found at Mendon, and that he had
beenobliged to supply their contents in the duplicate from memo-
ry—thetripheate of the National Gazette was accompanied by an
editorial article, vouching for its authenticity as a copy—vouchine
from good authority th^l Mr. Russell had had no share in the call
(of the House of the 19th of April) for the private letter— and
commenting m a style, the apologetical character of which indicates
Its origin, upon the privacy, which it urged was not secrecy, of the
letter; upon the professions of Mr. Russell's respect for his col-
153
face of it, came directiv nr ?nH °\,'*'Pj«'nacy-all tl.is, upon the
The lette'r, as pubtheJ^irthe NTti^u"'" ^'^ ^"««^" h'-nselt!
private, «s the oriil had been u hth ""'""' r' ''°* '""'•'^ed
^President's message. Jt had S.^^'h^k'' "°'^ '^"°"'» '''•«'» the
franchised fishermen -he tel f p" i ^''^ P«««gync upon the dis-
and -bdued predii:U'%rJX'srsit ''llT''^^^ ^k^'^'^^'^-
spirations, and the trust in ftnH T!i lu '^"^ prophetic in-
which were in the duTcate and n'," ?. ^^e valour of the West,
off all the cumulative eph^^ '*:* ^g'""'' ^' had stripped
of a wilful violation oTin^t^ct on '" ^^.^^P'^^'^'^to the ch'arge
charge of havine vioI.tPH hi;. ^ ^ '^^^ *^^" dismissed the
ea:p/ic,Y and implicit ca^ZZ^' ^. ^ emphatic citation of the
But it had rJine6tle:^r^^^^^^ V^ ^P"'- ^813.
that lummous exposition nf „*r^^ I ■ , " '"'^ ^ can," in
fogs which had bC rscovered To r' '^'''f '"^ '"^^^^^^^^
value of the Labrador fiherV and »Hh k^*.^"''*'"'^ '''""""^'^ t»>e
tions were no longer cited .'nf'h.? /^r"^.'' *^ cancelled instruc-
the remnant of infer^Lt "ctrfe'^ h1 l^^ev^S!;' T ^ *^ ^"r ^*
they were expressly subjoined ptfn'o !. ^ *'''*^ ^^^'^ violated,
with an abundance of Sised worn/P'"'?'^" *" '^^ publication
of this violation ; and tb w^^^ S'm P?"^ °"t *'^« heinonsness
shown to Mr. Russell a t^e n^*^ . interview in which I had
the letter of 4thSbfrr8H'?:XT' ''''''''''' ""^ ^'^ "^
not, but that of the letter of the i 'J h n , .'*'"°)''""""'"^' "'^ich had
received before the pronosll „I k^u^u' ^^^'*' "'^'^h had been
rested, had been irrtfaVSi,? ,f '^^ '^"'^' ^^ ^'«'»"o"
plicate of the NationalGaietl h d i^o^^^^^^^ • ^^'" "'"
original, which haj been dismissed fZ'T. i^^P"«<«^'•ipt of the
tlife three hopeful other waTs of 1-°^^ duplicate, containing
sell's resources of ne-otratToTtwn !^'^'"/ ^^^''^^ hy Mr. Rus?
over, instead of the ''course '^^ iTt '^''' '^' '^^S^^'^^'on was
only being omitted. The trTpl cL % i^^xr""' '^^ '^'''^ '^^^r
short, proved that the orijnal drift / ^^t ^^''^''«' G«^««e, in
plete ; and that all Us oZ^ il'!'"? * ^ ^'"^°" ^^^ *'««" ^im-
duplicate, and its on ssS h 'd £ "'' "' *'"" '' '^""'^ «f the
memory, but to superfluities of 1'::,^^"^' "' *' ''^^*^"^'^« °*'
belr:^;Vli::srof ^:7.^^^^^^^^^^^^^ «,^- R-seH, in bringing
ment of his colleagues. 'rS I L'lh'rK"'*'""' ^'^ '""P^^^h!
was such of me. is fulll admTtid b^^ ,?^^"f ™''^'«°~t^^^^ it
man by styling' me th^ W^er ^ ^^T^^^ States-
sufhciently indicates his disposition n^/h*^ '" ^^'^ publication he
to concentrate his charges aSt 1 1^ ^'"^^''' "^'''^ operations
marks upo„ the oridn.r nnf^ r^ ''^""^- ^« 't so. In rav i
•tyled ita/aTow3?l:!:^t^'^''^«^« of his accusatory l^tfer I
— "-^ ""'^"^'Preseniaiions. He complains of
. 154
tbifl a« of virulenee and acrimonj/, which he bortsls of not having re-
turned. If virulence and acrimony hjul no otlier vehicle than hiii ^h
Iringuage, if they could be disguitted under professions of unfeigned
respect, however cautiously Mr. Russell had abstained from them
in bis original letter from Puris, he had l)een much less observant of
that decorum in the duplicate, prepared with new relishes of crimi*
nation to suit the appetite of political hatred ; and (he publication in
the Boston Statesman is by no means sparing either of virulence or
acrimony against me. The whole tenour of his argument in the
original letter, against his colleagues, was sneering and sarcastic.
In the Boston Statesman, besides direct charges against me, of disin-
genuomness. of having matle an unprincipled mi\ unprovoked attack
upon him, of disrespect to the House of Itepre.sontativcs, of Infirm-
ities of temper and taste, and of being a dreaming visionary, ho tries
even the temper of bis wit to assail me, and l)y a heavy joke upon
an expression used in my remarki*, indulges ]m own instinct of mis-
qnoling my words to make them appear ridiculous. If this bo Mr.
Russeirs mildness and moderation, it looks very much like the viru-
Jence and acrimony of others. In the transactions of human socie-
ty, there are deeds of which no adequate idea can be conveyed in
the terms of courtesy and urbanity ; yet I admit the obligation of a
public man to meet with coolness and self-command the vilest arti-
fices, even of frawd and malignity, to rob him of the most precious
of human possessions, his good name— '» thrice happy they who
miwter so their blood." If in my former remarks upon Mr. Kus-
Bell's Janus-faced letter, or in this refutation of his new and direct
personal attack upon my reputation, I have, even in word, trans-
gressed the rule of decency, which, under every provocation, it is
still the duty of my stition and of my character to observe, though,
unconscious, myself, of the offence, I submit to the impartial judg-
ment of others, and throw myself upon the candour of my country
for its forgiveness. This paper has been confmed to a demonstra-
tion of the frailty or the pliability of Mr. Russell's memory, in r^<
tton to facts altogether recent. As, upon an issue' of focts, I do not
even now ask that my word alone should pass for conclusive, state-
ments of Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, relative to the production of
Mr. Rus-ielPs letter before the House of Representatives, and to
the incidents from which Mr. Russell has attempted ta extort a
charge of disingenuousness against me, are subjoined. My only
wish is, that they should be attentively compared with Mr. Rug-
sell's narrative.
In another paper I shall prove that Mr. Russell's reminiscences
of the proceedings at Ghent, bear the same character of imagina-
tion substituted for memory ; and that what he calls " the real his-
tory of the transaction," [the fishery and Mississippi navigation pro-
posal,] contradictory to the statement which I had made in my re-
marks, is utterly destitute of foundation.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
Washington, I3th July, 1832.
U5
Mr. Brtnt", Sfatement,
J)ep-rtment of State with i copy of hT, "uor from i^ ""'' ^'^''''^ '""'"''^ ««»•
btate, « hich wa» rtforrod to i„ « re olu io„ l[l .!^"'' !° ""' ^"'>""y «f
raNsURe (but which had actually pa Jd ,r . a? b forfw. '"u"" """' °" «»•
noproscntu.ives, upon the motion of D„clor F fvS ?. '"^ '":'«'' ""' "«"»« «f
J.ould be adopted by th'n House, and rrelL ulic^r" •''" ""'*' '"«'"'»«''
for .. ; obsorvioK to hi.„ di«tincti; u,k| pIrUcu la 'J'^hoJ ""V T"'*« "» ^m
«l>"r.ty to make such an appncatio.rmS anj ^ha. r'"' "'"' .' *•"" "» •-
««<;(<rtiini the facts iust .tHiJ,! i '"J""^"* «"<> 'nat my entire objert waa tn
- that his .i/^Iuei^raS'Je" ntiy'-l^aZutlVfi^t'ir' .""V "r*^'" ^^"-^
•l-esiio., ; that he had it thereby inZ 021,, „"' "'" ''"" "' "•• '«"« ia
set about making one imm/2elv J.rh ^ «'""//''""<'"ip' «f U, ami w„uS
•ho President. 'up„„ wh^h I rfnarkd Vat Th "''''"'' ,'" '^°"''* «««'-«, a
course, the original haviuR been a7d"c2 to h ., "t,"""^, *" ^ ""' P'^P""
ry of State. I then obse.^ed to Mr. TulS thnl ,' 'ri'''''"' '"'"'" »«"«'*-
di.plicate than as a copy ; that he kn^w ,h '• • . ''* '"'^ *""'" ''«''''«" «« M •
to all .uch communication.. He seemed lZ.i '^1'^""" ''*'"" ^*''' "'S""'
11.at he would conform to it, riTouTJvh,/ „.rb/'^ ^^'^ "'R8e«tion, and Lid
, trould prelcr Rivinga copy.'a.suci" or hf., h' fl't'"'' ""'""'•ion that be
«i..plicH,e of the idetuicl^ieuer 4keo o andTf ^T"^' ""^ «•»"" »''«» •
Mansmitted by him from Paris to trthenSer?., Tc •"' *"''='' »"•<« »>««
by a double n.o.ive to this injuirylfirrby a„ hlL;*;..' "'^k f "" P'"'"'P»«'*
wient to which I bolon^d should alwav. hi '">'";""' wish that the Depart-
renuired of i. by the fl^use o7ltj ^at /e^'^a '" J't" t'"" '"''^'' ^
hons.on that, if it were not so prepared in his na ?' "'="'""y' '»> an appr.-
t.ons might bo made aRainst the Head of tha nr/n . ' "?? ""Ju«t imput.-
^us of obviating. In This interview, m/ Russe^lfniH ""''.''''''='' ' *" *'««'-
mce Doctor Floyd had eubmitied hi« I«t . • "'^ *''■' '* ^'"> «« '"«in-
^cntatives , that he was inC^^ tf^/ b^'thi"''"": 'I "f ."*'"«° «^ ^^P^-
connmunicated to Coneress for hl^^ iVSi'.- ^ ""''' """ '"» J«»" "hould b«
.he negotiation of the Sy o/cherwl? *?a!f '"^ /.-'.''« ''"'^ »»'^<'" ^
8ame gentleman's first motion uuon h^ ,»Inf . V '''' ^'''''"'''' ' but that th,
knowledge or advice. On the 2^iJ,l "''J""' ^^' '"*''<' without hia
...e, in Jy room at "he 5epa men of Stat'e % T""',' "*''• *'""*'" '""'"«'' « '
«ith a request that I would delTve" it over ,„h ^^ "'''""'" "^ "'« Secretary,
plicate," a copy of .vhich wa Imlrated Tv' f" T" *"*"' "f "'^^ ••^"'
Representatives, on the 7th of MayTaJ ^bservi'^.i J I''*'".' l** ""' """'''' "^
no particular solicitude about it, J„5 reout. ■^^'IV "" •": '"'* '°' ""»' ''« ^'I*
him, if not used by the Depar ment A 31! "'"." '"'«»'' ''« '•««"fn^'<l to
put into the hands of Mr^Thoma, Thr...?^ " ""^ afterwards this pa,H,r wa.
to be copied. Perceiving haT i? bore 5;!e at 'P„"r °' "l" S'^''' '^'^ ''^« ''^'^e'
1822, when Mr. Russell was known .A f .''"' °" "'® ""> *" *ebruarT.
this city, as a member of the Hous; of Renre^r^ri*'^ "T''' "^ ^ongrew?^
asked my advice whether he shouW inserMhat H« ''!'. """ ^°""« S^'tJem"" '
told him, without hesitation/to insetlSlfi^.? '.",«i* ""^y " "°» ' »"»d I
evidently, from inadvertence naSe In fs.ak '!.^ ''i ^*^^' " *^'-- «""«» "^ad
it that date accordingly and Zl.il « " '"/'"' ^"^"^ ^r. Thruston gave
self, which he was ran cr.blnrundl'rr"''''"' "'V""'*"" '" »»'« P^P"^ ^^
thorized to do so, and tha it wouW nevl . '^'^"""".'hat he was likewise au-
Mr. Adams came to be app 1^6^ of Zll ^ °'^"'=« ""•<^"'" of any sort. When
teration in the date of tff"«du„nLS» '"';^*"''''' P^'-^ularly of the al-
much surprise and displeasure unlnth" ''"P"' ^'^ '"""''""ted and expressed
-.w immediately aft r tLJ hLpCd andrwh"' ,^"' **" ?""^"' '^"o'" '
"«y nappenert, and to whom I communicated what had
136
been (ton*, expreised hii full and entire approbation of it ; and the next day li«
brought to the office the draught from which he atated the " duplicate" wai pre-
pared by him, bearing date Paris, llth February, 1815, which he particularly
■{lowed to me, aa a corroborative justification to the Department of State for
the alteration that had been made in the date of his paper. It was then, 1
think, that I informed him of the substitution which had been made in the offico
copy of the year 1815 for tliat of 18l6, to correct our own mistake ; aud he au-
thorized and requested me to have a like alteration made in his "duplicate,*'
which was accordingly done. Mr. Russell, upon this occasion, again expressed
bis indifference as to the determination of the Executive with regard to this
"duplicate,'* aud repeated his request that it should bo returned to him if not
used.
Ih one of our conversations I aBkcd him why he had delivered that paper to
ne, and not to the President, to whom he had said he would deliver it ? His
reply was, that he had done so because he deemed that course most respectful
to the Department of State, being under the impression, notwithstanding my de-
claration toiha contrary, that 1 had sounded him upon the subject of the paper
in question by authority, (meaning, I presumed, by direction of the Secretary
of State,) and that it was actually required at the Department of State.
In a conversation between Mr. Russell and myself, on the 1st May, in Mr.
Bailey's room, at the Department of State, in the presence and hearing of that
gentleman, he fully and expressly admitted and confirmed the correctness of the
statement given in this paper of the conversation iK-tween us of the iiOth of
April, at his lodgings, with regard to the facts that the call of Doctor Floyd for
litB letter had been made at his suggestion, and that I mentioned to him I had
no authority to make an applicaliomto him for a copy of that letter, and that I*
made none.
,., , DANIEL BRENT.
:yashinglon, lOthJuly, 1822.
Mr. Bailey's Statement.
Several days after the passage of the resolution of the House of Represent-
atives of the United States, of 17th January, 1822, moved by Mr. Floyd, and
calling on the President for copies of certain papers relative to the negotiations
at Ghent, but before the copies had oeen communicated to the House, Mr. Rus-
sell, of the House, called at my room in the Department of State, and expressed
a wish to see a letter addressed by himself, separately, at Ghent, to the then Se-
cretary of State. He stated that the present Secretary of State had mentioned the
letter to him, and had desired to know whether it was his (Mr. Russell's) wish
that this letter should be communicated to the House with ot^ier papers embraced
by the above call, or not. This letter, (a short one, dated "Ghent, 25th De-
cember, 1814,") was accordingly shown to Mr. Russell by me, in a volume con-
taining the original communications from our Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, which
had been bound and lettered in the Department several years before. Mr. Rus-
sell, on reading the letter, said that he saw no objection to the communication
of it, and asked me if I saw any. The reply was, that none was seen. Ho
tiaid that the concluding paragraph, as it related to his return to Sweden, and
not at all to the negotiations at Ghent, did not require to be communicated to
the H'use. 1 requested him to mark such part as he wished communicated.
This he did ; and, conformably to this, the copy was made, by subsequent di-
rection of the Secretary of State, and thus it appears in the printed copy, p. 50.
At the same time, or very soon after, (1 do not remember which,) Mr. Rus-
sell expressed a wish that the letter might be found and communicated, whicfa^
in his letter of 25th December, 1814, he intimated his intention of writing.
The wish was repeated at subeequent times, both at my room and elsewhere ;
and much desire was manifested by him on the subJRct. 'Mr. Russell and my-
self together, as well as myself separately, examined at diffexeit titnes tte
167
Irf r, """ •"•="* '«'- h«d b;;„ J «'„•":'"'? informed m. th., W.'C
•«ion to him .ince the call of 17,h Jai.uarv • . 'h^k 'T ^'- ""«•«»'« d.elM.
Rumll', le„er of 25th December isT/U.. J ''' "'"•"" •»•<' of Mr
'>ome, (in Ma««achu8ett.,) and that ».» T ' ''"P^ "^ '« ''•'•. but had .t
<'aughter there; but .uppisXm iou drtl?' V""^^ ^^ w'ri.^ T^'
(flr.t) call. He «,ked me if I supposed 1 co'. ^' " '°"P"''"'=" ^*«b tS.
•nd communicated to the House S The^.h'. """' ""V '^*""«' be received
not know sufficiently what was ubuTi 1 . k ' '"P*"' ^ "PUed «hat I did
the .'duplicate" at'the Ca^S ^^'o'l/me" k""' k^^'" "^"•'^ d" v«"d
w'l? S' "If •^''PJ^' ""-^ 'h- she had B^^' l""" *''« •" "ad written ,o hii
While Mr. Russell, at his firKf „■,,:*
office he noticed a paragraph in the 1,17 ""•»'"'"« varioua record, of the
of 15th April, mi respectU filtZ-H "*^
^i"ch was omitted in the copy^e„ 1 r ' ' '^-"'"L" "V ''""«• ' « paraSran!
8«ge of 13,h October, ISlT^see W„^, T"' ''^ ^'- ^'"'^••"n with bl^^
^hich,i,i, believed, ^aHneUrouSM-n^ ''"P""' ^"'^ »» P- 3S7 )T„d
^ette of loth May, hn Of hi Mfan, '",',' "PP"*""' '" «he Nation^ Ga^
direction of the Secretarv r m,,i «••• Kussell requested of me a codv n„
w«k, after, (, .1-*^:^ f i. ^^ A^hirrr "w"'™ "" "^^p^ = ";d?i;v,?."
-;..or„otfou..d,a„dLki„g^iiK;r:^iSwr^^^^^^^
(whXs,S;^:lSi;r.;f;^^^^^^^^^^^ was at my room, and , aid
'";Wy without his knowledge, or wit Ztron. Z *"? ."""'"" ^°' "^bat call «,.
effect. He also said he did' not kn^w Mr f1 ,? '"*"! ''*"'» """"". to tZ
tnonon (for the call of 17th Ja".uarr) ^^"^ " """'"" '"'" """'i^g bi. fir"
tered from 1822 to ,816, TnlV6\%^''ZTnt\J'^ ''"" •"•''"« "•«««'-
alteration, expressed distinctly his displeasure afthl- ^^"'""V' °» «e«ing the
Russell next came to the Department Mr R'-"! «='«'»"'"a''ce. When Mr.
h.m the incident of the alte.ation from 1822 t„ 1816 "'^ ^JT"!'* mentioned to
impression, scarcely leaving a rioubrtho.f.-. m »' ""^ ^■"'' " «™"«>y my
this intimation happened at 5,is or li,! ^ ^': ^'^"' " uncertain whether
that 1816 was put Z Met IsT ZthTlnL'''- i^""""') '"«•»•«"
the copy lor the House, if such was Mr «■ J^n' . *'°"" *'*' **'* '*'**^'"R o^ ^
only assented to the altUation, (To ISlsS h.T ' '"'*?''•'• **'' R"8«ll „ot
•bus, in a manner more emphaic and formal M;*"*"*""'' *''" " ™«bt be read
porting, that he wished this d clara. o„ o hts to bP "".""'""^^ "*»""*' P""
alteration. And, at his next r^li hi k u ? ^^ ^^^^° «» authority for the
he made the duplicate, anXaSr^xhibrfhs'f. "'"' i.!!' '^'^-S'-t from wh ch
brought it to me, to show that " IsS* wasl Z . t" '° ^" ^''*'"*' '" »'" "om,
was plainly "1815." ^ was a mistake in copying. The draught
.ho?d7oir/itrsrpi:ret\,!;eT:' ;t^ '•'"^^"^ -« -^^-^ that it
sel, with the sole exception of he da el'° *''« P^^' '^'P""'""' ^y Mr. Ru
Mr. Russell's special request ' "" ''^ ^"'''^^ ""'''•fi«d according ,«
Bre^nt recVifurate'^S ctVet^J^'l tit'; "j^"' r". '" "^ -- -^ Mr.
20th April,,whe„ Mr. BrenrSe certab Tnn^r"'^"'* ^'- ""«"'"» O" «be
^e«er. The recapitulation in su^^^S'reX tS ^SZ i^lSrS^
158
RiiiUll, that hit inqwlrhi* were wholly without ihe mithofUy of any other per-
son ! that his objert wattoknow whether Mr. Rumell could aiid would futniih
th« letter, If It should be wonted, and if he ihould be apjJI^d to for it ; and
that Mr. Rumll told Mr. Brent that he could and wouU furniih it to the Pre-
•ident I and that he ftirther told Mr. Brent, (on Mr. Bmnt'i intiuiry,) that Mr.
Floyd had made hit (lecond) motion on hie (Mr. RuMelli) euggeition. Mr.
Ruijell nitenled to the correctnew of thii recapitulation, explaining the last ob-
•ervatlon by taying, thai Mr. Floyd, before he nioTed the eecond call, ailwd
him If he could give him (Mr. Floyd) a copy of the letter, and that he (Mr.
Ruiaell) declined, %pd told Mr. Floyd that If he wlehed a copy ho muit roova a
'•*"^''** JOHN BAILEY.
Woihinglm, loth Jttly, nVl.
From the Ifalional InleUigmrer of A»gusl 7, 1822.
TO THE EDITORS.
In the reply printed in the National Intelligencer of the 1 7th
ultimo, to a publication by Mr. Jonathan Russell in the Boston
Statesman, of the 27th of June preceding, it was stated that the
subject would be resumed in another paper. That paper, »vitU
others elucidating all the topics of general interest discussed in Mr.
Russell's letter, has been prepared, but will be presented to the
public in another form. Mr. Russell's letter from Pans, of 11th
February, 1816, was ostensibly a vindication of himself and' his mo-
tives against an accusation instituted by himself— ^elf-defence
against self-impeachment ! The substance was, a secret impeach-
ment of the majority of his colleagues before their common supe-
rior authority. That accusation he saw fit, during the late session
of Congress, to bring before the Legislative Assembly of which he
was a member, and shortly afterwards to produce before the pub-
lic, in newspapers, nt Philadelphia and at Boston. If, in meeting
this accusation wherever it has appeared visible and tangible, I have
been compelled to present myself more than once to the public at-
tention, it has been under circumstances deeply mortifying to me,
and assuredly not of my own choosing. I h?ve been called to re-
pel a succession of charges, supported by the name of a man high
in the confidence of the country ; an associate in the trust which
he substantially accuses me of having betrayed, and implicating the
character, conduct, and memory of other citizens employed on the
same service. It has, indeed, recently been suggested that this is
a mere personal controversy between Mr. Russell and me, with
which the public have no concern. And why was it brought before
the public ? So long as the purport of Mr. Russell's letter was
merely propagated in whispers— just hinted in anonymous para-
graphs of newspapers, and hoped not to be true in charitable letters
from Washington, however infamous the imputations with which it
was occasionally bound up and circulated, a man conscious of his
ianocence, and secure ia the uprightness of his intentions, might
1A9
overlook and deipi»« it. Bat, when made the object of two «ic.
ce«ive legislative c« In for obiolete and forgotten tl ocumpntr t..Vm
peted l,eforeh.,nd throushout the Union. ^,f;;:h^ut;S■
«ure, wh.ch w«re to b!^t a reputation worthies, iftbrestimaUon
of it^oMCMor, if not unsullied ; when pertinaciousfvTbtnidM
upon rongre^ „u.l upon the nation, by a cSllea«ue?„ fte tA„,a^^
•on denounced, by a part.c.pator in the act reprobated by hhZTf
pr nc,p,e, a„d dut.e, of a higher order than those of mer7„ero„d
dehcacy commanded me to solicit the attention, first, .f the Housa
of Representat.veH. and, secondly, of the natio^. to my defen" "J
hat ofmy CO leagues, arraigned before them. Th7defence ha^
to whirh r'" •''' ''T'^y ?t''^ '^"^^^ ^"'"^ limits rLattaet
o which It IS opposed ; and if, in the course of it, the attack Je If
has necessarily been made to recoil upon the accuser it w 1 becausL
nothing could more forcibly tend to show the futility of The charm
than an exposition of the conduct of him who produced them Tp!
mo then be permitted to say, that this is not a mere persoTaJ con
troversy between Mr. Russell and me, with which the DubHrhT;
tronTrh"- /'^''^-^- begin, nor can it so end Xi^^^^^^^^^
tion at Ghent was an event of great importance in the hi3 of
tbw Union. It was conducted by five Co.timissionem rl/itf^? r
different sections of the country.^ One of tKreat^bS^^^^ tl
the entrusbng of critical negotiations to CommZlSXlw •^.
catise. Of these dissentjons I believe there were as few at Ghent
as in any negotiation, by Commissioners of equal number uDonhif
torical record. Until the last winter, I had flatte^ed^^Vsdf 51;
Ho?,! /*r'' 'f ''''''''' *^^^P'"'°» ^'^ b««" of a charaXwhth
It would have been ever necessary to disclose to the world l„
making the diausht of th« inin» uL^ .*• o^ u f.! '"f '^'^'J^: '"
place ^i:v^::;r^::::^7:^^^:i:j^:^^:^j^
enes.) 1 he draught having been passed round to all the members nf
Oi^e mission for revisal, was brought back to me by MTuussen
with an alteration, ,vhich he said was desired, not by h.mbutbv
Mr. Clay, to say. instead of "«,e ojeredr "a majoritv of us d^
ermined to offer." Now, although the ^xpressSs S used h ?d
been strictly correct, and the offer had beJn actual v made hv f'^t
whole mission, I readily assented to the ..IteSn^rLl 5'
that Mr. Russell's purpose was to lay it as a corner-stone TfZr^
fabrics, either of self-accusation and' defence, or of social dfS
thatTrrh^' "" ""^' "^''^S^" '' *« « «elf.contradicUon of mine
that I say the proposition was made by the whole mission -.m^ 11*
»n the joint letter of 25th December, it was said TmZku Z^^
tTA ':" '^'' \'- «"^ "'« contradiction i^oft; ownSinf^""
0?thtthT Mr7u^^;n"'^^'r^ 'rheofler^rtde .
yy in^ wuoje. JVlr. Russell proposed another amendment, for which
160
he neither mentioned, nor did I then suspect his motive. The let-
ter says, "We contended that the whole treaty of 1783 must be
considered as one entire and permanent compact, not hable, hke
ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a subsequent war between the
parties to it." Mr. Russell's proposal was to change tli|kword
must for might— to read " we contended that the wholi^treaty
might be considered," &c. But to this alteration I objected that it
would not state the facts as they were— that we had actually con-
tended that it must, and not that it might be so considered ; and Mr.
Russell immediately yielded to this objection, which he could not
dispute. He assented to this passage of the letter, as it was first
written, and as it now stands. The use which he even then pro-
posed to make of the alteration, if it had been admitted, I now per-
ceive, but had thru t6o sincere a regard for Mr. Russell to surmise.
Tliere were, in the course of the negotiation, many difierences
of opinion, and many votes taken ; but, excepting this solitary case,
no one member of the mission thought it necessary to record the'
fact, or to make it known even to the Aitierican government. As
all the members of the mission had finally concurred in the pro-
position upon which the vote was taken, and had signed their nan' ^g
to it in the communications to the British plenipotentiaries ; and ..s
there was then no allegation by any one that it was not fully war-
ranted by our instructions, 1 certainly thought there was as little
necessity for announcing to our government that a vote had been
taken upon this proposition, as upon any other question which had
occurred— yet, when it was desired by any member of the mission,
that the proposition to which all had pledged their names and sig-
natures to the adverse party and the world, should be recorded, as
having been previously determined by a majority only, I could
have no objection to its being so stated. Mr. Clay did not think it
necessary either to accuse or to defend himself for having been iu
the minority. The course pursued by Mr. Russell was neither
candid towards his colleagues, nor friendly to the liberties of his
country. Under the guise of accusing himself, h% became the se-
cret delator of his colleagues. But his letter from Paris was not
confined to its professed object of vindicating himself for his vote
upon the Mississippi proposition. He travelled out of the record,
and racked his ingenuity and his learning to refute the principle
assumed at the proposal of Mr. Clay himself— the principle upon
which no vote had been taken in the mission ; but which had been
adopted and inserted in the note of 10th November, 1814, by una-
nimous consent ; the principle that, from the nature of the fishing
liberties, smd the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, they
were not abrogated by the war. And now, seven years afterwards,
when, by the mainienance of that very principle, we had, in a sub*
sequent negotiation with Great Britain, secured in a new compro-
raise, without abandoning the piinciple, the whole essential interest
m the fishing liberties ; when, by the same negotiation, we had ob-
tamed the abandonment by Great Britain of her own ground o{
161
a cali from the House of RpnMof * ? entirely drawn up by me •
the Ghent document^ Mr Tus dl LT 'T^^ ^'' *^« ^^^'duTof
t.on whether his old dentaS' f ^^.^f./^P ^^^^^ «- op-
witb the majonty, shall or shall not beTmm„n- ri**^'''*^*^'"*"*
deliberately decides that it shallTJ^d lZ?^Tff '''i^^ «°"«'
repose, till he has brought before CnJZ ?'u'^ ^"'^ '^'^'ers no
of attainder against his ell eague^ new vam„Tf / ' "^''T^ ^^' •»•»
passions of the day : it is now tnn f T ? ^^^^ ° '"'* *•»« PoMtical
personal controve^y between MrRt'^.H 'V^'' '^'' " » "^re
public have no concern: ^'^" ""*" •"« '^'th ^Wch the
^-^^^:Z^^ ^-is, that .e ..e ./,
degree pernicious to oneTf the m^f ' ^ '^'' '" ^ ^'g^est
Union. *Tbe pretension that tr on v'tS?l'"''^u^^^^ °^ this
. temporary grant of the Brhish kin^ rivll M ^^T.^^^ *'^«'' »
was equally unfounded in Ewand fn ?act Th. *"' P''^^"'"^'
for the averment of its extinction thJ P^ ''^^°° assigned
and all articles bf every trea'v~W "' "^'i'S^' ^ «" ^''eatieT
tions ; and if it were^'wou,/-' warrnTTh:' '^ ^ '^" °^»«-
from It. The character and vaL of ?hi conclusion drawn
the Mississippi, are in the Tetter from Paris Sv"'" '^''''"^ ^^
and perverted by exaeeeration tk [ t^"^ m'srepresented
is eq'ually misreJrS? rpervert^^^^^^^^^ fi^hinV liberty
possession of this liberty has twiclbeen tL P"''^^^?''^- ' ^^«
which wars with Great Britain hnv! h ^."'''""S hmge upon
ther of those occasTons ZlrtZtT ^°°f '"^^^d- If Spon^ei"
letter had prevailed wTth theTme £ ZlT^ '" ^'' «"«««"'»
the Newfoundland, Gulf of St EeTeTn^T^^^^ "7 "^^'* i°
would have been lost. The same nirnn' ^^^rador fishery,
«gai„. I undertake to proretLrrr"'^''''^P''"'*»'^'y«"«e
calls it. of his letter, is in all L ''r^^^^^ ZfZT/' ''• ^'' ^"«««»
pitious to the cause of his country ""^^""^^'^ ^ 't wx- unpro-
the?;;^rn::::;i^^^^^^^^ this controversy fn.
ihe Ghent documLfs called Kj the reso^tL'" ^.H '"S'"'^'^*
Representatives ; the message of^thTprSn 7"! ^ » '^""^^ «*'
Mr. Russell's letters and my Remarks hifn„M ? **>« ««"se, with
in the Boston Statesman LH^Tn'''P"^''c«t'«n of 27th June
tional Intelligence ! with'other naoVr'; '"Tf- ^''^'"^^^ '» ^^e S
tations of Mf. Ru^eliral'^Sis^ g^^J '^^^f^^th^
treaties and treaty stipulations ; the vaL of tlJ^- ^ """• "Po*-*
gation to the British, and of the fishinTliL^f ? Mississippi navi-
by which we have hdd andlti I tWem %lrthr' ''' "^'^^
any difference of opinion betwPPn f hi a • ' ^here ever was
at Ghent upon rneasC n S"hev alSl^ P'«"'P«t-^n"«nes
never have been made known to the oubifl'"^ concurred, would
an e,ual share of re.poi.sibiirt/rforJilTchX ha^tot' ct'
WW
tented auJ grateful for the aatisfactioD of our common country widb
the general result of our services, I had no private interests or
feelings to indulge, at the expense of others, and my earnest desire
would have been, to have seen in every member of the mission,
for the rest of my days, no other than a friend and a brother. Disap*
pointed in this wish, my next hope is, thiii. even the discords of Ghent
may be turned to the promotion of fiiture harmony in the Union.
From the nature of our federative constitution, it is probable that
hereafter, as heretofore, the most important negotiations with for>
eign powers will be committed to joint missions of several mem-
bers. To every such mission nnd to all its mtsmbers the Ghent
negotiation will uflbrd instructive lessons, as well by its union as
by Its divisions. The conduct of Mr. Russell will aflord a negative
instruction of deep import. It will teach them to beware of leaguing
invidious and imaginary sectional or party feelings with the pur<
poses of the enemy, against our rights — of assuming the argument
of the enemy against ourselves — of proclaiming, without necessity,
differences of opinion upon rejected propositions — of secret de-
nunciations in the shape uf self-vindication — of crude and shallow
dissertations against essential interests and just cl&ims, and of in-
terpolating public papers to adapt tbem to the purposes of the mo-
ment. It »vill tench them to have n higher sense of the rights and
liberties of this nation, than to believe them to lis held nt the will
of H British king ; and it will warn them to turn their talents
to better uses than that of sacrificing the essential interests of their
country. These are public concerns of great moment, and n just
understanding of them in every part of the Union is indissohibly
connected with a just estimate of the conduct of the majority of
the Ghent mission, hold forth to public censure by one of their col-
leagues. For a view of the whole ground it will be indispensable
to compare the documents of the negotiation with the references of
both parties to them in the discussion, and to that end it will be ne-
cessary that they should all be included in one publication. I ask
of the candour of my countrymen to be assured, that this publica-
tion will be addressed to no temporary purposes^ to no party feel-
ing, to no sectional passions, but to the whole nation and to pos-
terity, upon objects which, although implicating immediately only
the conduct of the negotiators at Ghent, are of deep and perma-
nent interest to themselves.
JOHN qUiNCY ADAMS,
August 5, 18S2. .
«»i
163
FURTHER STRICTURES
ON MR, RUSSELL'S REPRESENTATIONS AND ESTIMATES.
/. Jyavigatiim of the Mississippi^Worthless to the British.
Inthe ioint despatch of the 25th of December, 1814 to th« S*.
cretary of State, signed by all the members of the American mis'
wJi.h »h?*"'' ' TJl^r ""'' '^•^^^ '^^ *•>« circumstanceruDder"
which the proposal had been made to the British plenipotenUaries
md rejected by them, of a stipulation, confirming the pJovS of
he treaty of 1783, in regard to the fishing rights and SeS o'
the people of the United States, and to thi right ortheBrhUK *
navigate the Mississippi. It was there stated fhataj„ the W
ncan mission, in answer to the notification from the British that
he.r government did not intend to grant anew the fishing 1 berties
had asserted Ihe principle, that from the peculiar chraderof the
reaty of 1783, and ihe nature of those rights and liberties no fur
ther stipulation had been deemed necessaFv by the eoveJnCl ^
the United States, to entitle them to tbeVulf enfovment oTall ff
10th of November, 1814, a project of a treaty containing no arU-
cle or stipulation on the subject ; after the BriS^h plenipSfeStiaries
had. on the 20th of November, returned that project with alteraS
proposed by them one of which was a stipulation that bS S
.lects should, at all times, have access to the river Mississippi and
the free navigation of the river— to meet this demand, and to olare
both points beyond all future controversy, a majority of the mission
determmed to offer to admit an article confirming both rights
_ Nothing can be more clear and explicit than this statiment that
the determination of the majority was taken after the 26^ of Jvl
remfcer, 1814. Yet directly in the face of it, Mr. Russell.ln the
Boston Statesman of 11 June, affirms that at the mission meetiZ
of the 28th and 29th of November, •• whatever might ha?e been
"■aid in relation to the Mississippi, on account of the alteration
respecting it, made in the 8(h article of our project, by the Bri
" tish plenipotentiaries, no new resolution was there taken by the
♦' Jimencan mtsston to offer the navigation of that river for the f-hino-
l[privilese This offer was ma<(e on the 1st of December.'in ^-i,?
tue of the vote taken before the 10th of November, and which
'a °'^'?°"Sn suspended, had not been reconsidered or cancelled '♦
And he adds, " I am the more confident in this statement as I di*
" tinctly remember that when that offer was actually made it was
" unexpected by a majoritv of thk mission. Mr. Bayard, in re-
turning home from the house of the British ministers, where tL
" conference of the Istof December had been holden, very exoli
!! <^U.'y Jeclared to Mr. Clay and to me, his dissatiafacUon that this
^^ otter had been made without his having been recently consulted iu
relation to %t. I dare, in regard to these facts, to appeal to the
recollection of Mr. Clay, in confirmation of my own ''
164
Marvellous indeed I Ho then this wonder-working and terrible
pronoMl, this portentouR •acrifice of the peace, comfort, and Hafety
of the western world, wax actually made in full conference with
t.sc Bntjsh pl«nipoteiitiuiie8, not by n miyority, but l>y a MinoniTV,
of the American mission. And Mr. Bayard, who had chKnged bia
tnmd, stood bv, and saw the proposal made, heard it discussed,
•aw It entered on the protocol m the proposal ot the American
plenipotentiaries, and afterwnnis signed a letter declaring he had
A** J ^J?*^*'<'" '0 '' ; while all the time he was not for, but against it.
And Mr. Clay and Mr. Uussell, who from before the 10th of No-
vember had known the change of Mr. Bayard's mind, they too.
witno5is«d this insolent usurpation, by the minority, of the mm%
and rights of the whole mission, without daring to avow an objec-
tion to it either in the presence of, or in correspondence with, the
British pinnipotentiiiries, or in the meetings of the mission itself.
Mr. Bayard contents himself with whispering his dissatisfaction to
Mr Clay and Mr. Russell ; and they, instead of vindicating the in-
aulted rights ot the miijority, rosorvo it as a secret, which Mr. Rui-
soll, seven years after the death of Mr. Bayard, divulges to the
world.
The anecdote is an outrage on the memory of Mr. Bayard. Mr
Clay will not respond alfirmatively to the appeal of Mr. Russell.'
I have no occasion tor appealing in this case to the recollection of
any one. I speak not only from the express and positive testimony
of the joint desmtch of 26 December, 1814, but from the record
of a private diary, kopt by me at the time, in which are minuted
from day to day, with all the accuracy and detail in my power, the
proceedings as well of the mission, as of both missions in their con-
ferences : and I now affirm, that on the 20th of November, 1814
after a discussion of more than five liours, in which every member
of the mission, except Mr. Russell, took part, a vott was taken
upon thR proposal of Mr. Gallatin, to accept the proposed altera-
tion o( the 8th article of the project, prssented by the British
plenipotentiaries, relating to the navigation of the Mississippi ad-
ding to It a counter stipulation for securing the fishing liberties
within exclusive British jurisdiction ; that a majority of the mis-
sion voted for this proposal, and that Mr. Gallatin should prepare
for consideration the next day, an amendment to tha 8th article con-
formably ;— that on the aiUh of November Mr. Gallatin did pro-
duce this amendment, which, after another long discussion was
agreed to, and was the same ottered to the British plenipotentiaries
as appears by the protocol of the 1st of December, 1814 It was
to this vote ot the majority, and to this alone, that the joint des-
patch of 25 December, 1814, referred ; and it was to this rote
thus stated upon the lace of the despatch, that Mr. Russell referred
in his separate letter of the same date, when he said that he had
been oti that occasion in the minority. Yet it was not without rea-
son that III my tonner remarks upon his letters I said, he gave it.
ttHiy be, u silent vole against the proposal . for. from the minutp«
160
member; „nd Mr it.lnU ^^ '"* ^n- ^^^ '"'*« «'' the fifth
theae op^rnit^ei Z^^^^ not unmlhng to avail himself of
' K I rep<.at tC 5'« ♦"! * "o'vever that fact may
pr-JMed in Mr R ;liv nrJ ^""'•""''' ""Pres-ion, which he ex-
Ei., that he%^r.f 1;^^^^^^^^^^^ -tradicted hy
lOth of November Th„^^^i^^^ taken before the
not one worj of the vl ?r'"*; i^'^''\''^ »^' ~^^^^ December, say.
had Mr. R cuJ :p^^^^^^^ of November \ nl
to it whatever. X^ sXn l^t iL^f December, any reference
confound them together X^lhl J "''''" ^T '"'*^^'' attempted to
position wlS iTm^d; th. nV"'^"!" °^"''««"S«R«in«tthe pro-
Ised by Mr Clay aeni? ; Ut wf T"*"' *"'"" ""^ ""^^^^ »'«'' »>«««
t«e of the vote Men e^L'Tl.rLrm:!!:." ^"°™"" """"»"■ "-^ "'•
«. fonl^""^ "^ '"^ ""' *» ''/"" ">« >Oth of November i.
the article d ed by ^'r UusseTin^hlT f''Sf ^^ ^'' ^«"«*'" ^««
last. As it was finally set lie t °''°° ^'"'"T " °^27th June
01
166
The ailicle was diecussed further, chiefly bchvcen Mr. Gallatin
and Mr. Clay, at meetings of the mission op the 31st of October,
•no an the Ist, 2d, and 3d of November.
I bad till then taken no part in the discussion. The following
«re extracts from my diary of subsequent dates, when, at meeting?
of the miraion, all the articles of the draught were discussed.
4 November, 1814. " The great difficulty was with regard to
** the tisberies. Mr. Gallatin's draught proposed the rent ival of the
*' right of fishing and drying fish within the British jurisdiction, to-
" gether with the right of the British to navigate the Missiosippi,
*• both taken from the peace of 1 783. I was in favour of this. Mr.
*' Clay has an insuperable objection to the renewal of the right lo
*' the British of navigating the Mississippi. I then declared myself
*• prepared either to propose Mr. Gallatin's article, or to take the
" ground* that the whole right to the fisheries was recognised as a
" part of our national independence ; that it could not be abrogated
" by the war. and needed no stipulation ^br its renewiU. Mr. Clay
" was averse to either of the courses proposed, and said that after
♦' all if the British plenipotentaries should insist upon this point, we
" should all finally sign the treaty without the provision respect-
" ing the fishery. Mr. Russell expressed some doubt whether he
*• would sign without it ; and Isexplicitly declared that I would not,
♦' without further instructions — I could not say that I would, with
♦' them."
6 November, 1814. " The article concerning the fisheries and
" the navigation of the Mississippi as drawn by Mr. Gallatin was
*' further debated, and the vote taken upon it. Mr. Clay and Mr.
« Russell voted against it— Mr. Bayard, Mr. Gallatin, and myself
«' for proposing it. After the vote was taken, Mr. Clay said that
*' he should not sign the communication by which the proposal
♦' would be made."
7 November, 1814. "Mr. Clay proposed a paragraph for th«
♦« note to be sent to the British plenipotentiiines, as a substitute in-
" stead of the article respecting the fisheries and the navigation of
«* the Mississippi, which had passed by vote on Saturday. Mr.
« Clay said, that in declaring at that time that he should not sign
«' the note accompanying the project, if it included Mr. Gallatin's
" article, he had not intended that it should in any manner affect
" the minds of any of ua. If the article should be proposed and
" accepted, and a treaty otherwise not exceptionable should be
«' obtainable he might perhaps ultimately accede to it ; but the
«« object was in his view so important, that he could not reconcile
«« it to himself to agree in making the proposal. His proposed pa-
" ragraph took the ground which I had originally suggested that all
«* the fishery rights formed a part of the recogiution of our Inde-
«« pendence, and as such, were by our instructions excludfu from
" discussion. I said I should have preferred the proposal of Mr.
" Gallatm'a article, as placing the subject out of controversy ; but
" that as we could not be unanimous for that, I was willi>;.a: to take
167
"5 r ?f' paragraph, by which we should rc-orre all our riehti
and at the same time execute our instniriinna m » °"^5 « -f*
Mr. Russell has taken infinite oains to faatr « i • .
ci K, and Its consequences. He has represenlc.i it as on the oart
ed it wftrhot'c:f In" '^',f ^''" °^"'y ^^""'•'y' fo"- having assert!
;m..;7- ^ ^^""y colleagues who are yet willine to bear the
imputation, not as a preteo:t, but with sincerity of heart! and a, very
zealous believers in it. But were every other Hying member of
ini\Tl 'V V '^'"'"''T^' ^hat they assumed this principle only
?de ed it onlv .r.7'.""'''' f"^ ^^ « P^'''^'^ *>"* ^^at th'ey col
^P? At ^ •' ^^^ '^''^"'" °^ a visionary, I would answer—the
dream of the visionary was an honest dream He believed what he
;t"fith:l"'Norfh- f/f'» ™Jsht confidently add •rh^tl'ed
t^ons with Greit R^i? "? ^ °'l^ ""^^^^ P^"''^' ^^^^ ^^e negotia-
tions with Great Britain since the peace, and the convention of
ibi J^""'*?/"'^^!" °^'^.''''^' ^'^^t '^ t^« P'-i^ciple was assu- J by
tZr;?nifest^d r;l «''--P-™-e:that spirit was much mor^
strongly manifested by the majo ity, and particularly by me in ac- '
Br ti'sh nIPn inof"^''^ -^ never deny, that from the time when the
Kntish plenipotentiaries notified to us, that their government did
no intend to grant the fishing liberties without an equivaTont I
felt an inexpressible solicitude for their preservation^ I have al-
ready remarked thatthis notification was made intermsso indefinite,
168
that its object apparently was to exclucle us from the whole of the
Wewtoundland, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador lisheries. Mr.
Kussell has not ventured to contest this position ; nor could he
have contested it with success. The notification, us entered upon
the protocol of conference of 8th August, 1814, made up jointiv
l»7 both parties, was as follows : » J J
m/k^II® ^f'*'^^ commissioners requested information, whether
^^ the American commissioners were instructed to enter into nego-
i. l!f ''°r °^}^^ "^"^*' P°*"^ ^ ^"* before they desired any answer,
^^ they felt it right to communicate the intentions of their govern-
'ment as to the ATorth American fisheries, \'v/.. That the British
''government did not intend to grant to the United States, gratu-
•'itously, the privileges formerly granted by treaty to them, of
Jishtng wtthtn (he limits of the British sovereignly, and of using
' the shores of the British territories for purposes connected with
the lishenes." Wait's State Papers, vol. 9, p. 330.
The remark upon it, made by the American mission, in their
letter to the Secretary of State of 12th August, 1814, was this :
\( V "y^?,*^*^^"* o*" what was considered by them as waters pecu-
^ harly British, was not stated. From the manner in which they
'^ brought this subject into view, they seemed to wish us to under-
« *"":*"** ^"®y ^^^^ "ot anxious that it should be discussed, and
hat they only intended to give us notice, that these privileges
Jiad ceased to exist, and would not be again granted without an
equivalent, nor unless we thought proper to provide expressly in
the treaty ol peace for their renewal." Ibid, p. 321.
And what were the limits of British sovereignty, as to the North
American Ijsheries ? Ask the Abbe Raynal.
"According to natural right, the fishery upon the great bank
ought to have been common to all mankind ; notwithstandine
which the two powers that had formed colonies in North Ame-
nca, have made very tittle difficulty of appropriating it to them-
selves. Spam who alone could have any claim to it, and who
romi the number of her monks, might have pleaded the necessi
ty of asserting it, entirely gave up the matter at the last peace,
since which time the English and French are the only nationi
that frequent these latitudes." RaynaVs History, book 17.
Ask the commentator on the marine ordinance of Louis XIV
V aim. Alter assigning soundings, as the e* .;nt of sovereign juris'
diction, upon the sea, in regard to fisheries, he says :
.« /hot" f° ^}^ right of fishing upon the Eank of Newfoundland, aa
hat island, which is, as it were, the seat of this fishery, then be-
" 3 ? 7.""^ u T' '^ ^^^"^ ^y ^^''' ^^••^"^^ that other nations
could naturally hsh there only by virtue of the treaties. This
^^ has since changed, by means of the cession of the Island of New-
''Lm,ux"iv'"?'^f *?.">« ^>g'isb. by ti.e treaty of Utrecht; but
1.0UI3 AlV, at the time of that cession, made an express reservn-
16t
w ^?1h■:f.elrK^'.'•v!;:^ «^ '^-'"""'■■•■■'>
ra
A J . 1 «. ' ""' ''"'"n, vol. !J, n. C93.
.0^°ml? h^fS"' '" "" «'P°" °» "■• •'"teri. Jf ,., Feb™.
" .ng was approprialid („ tCnSo " °''J<'"')"'« n|!l'toffi,h-
pei.ce enlirdy. * '' ■""" '"'"''«'' "« «»"• " »«" (be
NoUu;.',!;u'':*!.'u,t!,ir,,ve7b"^h t"""''«=''"''« f" "•«»•
mure 4,„gerou*, .h„„ ,he BnS'u'^v'er^ IZ^'"^'""" ^
leot, the recogniUon of the rS • T.'."' """"'"S' "' "w «quiva.
co„t,h,ed i„ the Ze treatfof 78? ' ? TTl'^^^'^^Wi,
mpotentiarie, had demandedlbe rl'ewa? ""'"' "' ^"'"'' P''"
Mr. Gallatin was a citizen of the W<>a>o..» r .
pable a. any other member of the mS „f ° ■7' ""'' " '""•
tial interest of one quarter of the uS ,„' ?""""°S »" "sen-
ther. I was, therefore ..roVoSLV ' .'1 ",°""°'' '"'«™" »f «»»•
jected to on a priS; of ZS"""'?,''' 'V ''"'"«'='« "fc-
more so, to hearTr Ksse ,T& ^wT' """"'v''"^ ««»
disclosed by his vote thai t » fiVi,.' ' " *"' "I""'"" had been
/«,c^ part i;fte"c?J„\;'1t'sTfari'M't"'',l'S' *•'■/■
legKrtblnllsXTe, trsTrZ*""^^^^^
rence. tbatit siCen'ed U >oS ^' ^jT^ZtSTLZZl
170
pofled that both interests should be placed on the same footing on
which they had stood before the war. The first and piuamonot
dutv of the government was to bring the nation out of the war.
with all Its great interests preserved, it was not to gain m advan-
tage for one section, by the loss of an advantage to another The
principle of Mr. Gallatin's arfirle was, that neither section should
gam or lose by the iss. : >' .!n . r. The principle of the objec-
tion to It was, that tha VV,>st shoM gain, by the sacrijtce of the in-
terest of the East ; ,iii(l Uie luain motive assigned for it was that
the East was a dixajfected part of the country. '
Much, too, was said of the comparative value of the two liber-
ties ; not by Mr. Russell, who had not then made, or at least did
not disclose, his notable discovery of incessant fogs, and their dele-
terious effects upon the fisheries. But .'juhN .ore expressed on
one side, whether the fisheries were of much value : and opinions
were very conlidently expressed, on the other, that the navigation
of the Mississippi would be to the British of no value. Neither
evidence nor argument was adduced to show the small value of the
fisheries. But that the navigation of the Mississippi would be to
the British of no value, and of no injury to us, was proved first
by the experience of thirty years, from the peace of 1783 to the
war of 1812, during which they had possessed it without inconve-
nience to us or benefit to themselves ; secondly, by the apparent
tact, that alter abandoning their claim to a boundary line to the
Mississippi, and consequently the power of ever forming any settle-
ment upon Its banks, there was neither present nor prospective
tnteresl, which could make the mere right of navigating it down-
wards to the ocean, of any value to them. It was absolutely noth-
ing more than a right of travelling upon a highway ; and all rational
Foresight, as well as all past experience, led to the conclusion, that
the privilege would remain as it had been, merely nominal. The
objections against this reasoning were all speculation against fact •
all surmises of what might be in future, against the uniform tenour
of whiif had been before. When, afterwiirds, the proposition of the
first of December was actually made to the British plenipotentia-
ries, the immediate rejection of it by their goyemment, and the
reasons which they assigned for rejecting it, demonstrated that they
considered it at least no equivalent for the part of the fisheries of
which they intended to deprive us : and their final abandonment
without any equivalent, of all claim to it, in negotiating the conven-
tion of 1818, completed the proof that they had always considered
If as a mere name, the only use they ever could make of which was
to obtain, if they could, something for renouncing it.*
* I take this opportunity to rectify an inaccuracy in the statement of ray re-
marks upon Mr. Russell's letter, that at the negotiation of that Convention the
navigation of the Mississippi was not even aiked by the British. On recurrin*
to the documents of that negotiation, I find that it was asked, but easily aban-
doned. Our NejotiatOTs were instructed not to accede to it.
171
right, otherwise than by ma nil 'rnt k' f^^?.' '''' ""'''^"7'^ ^^ 'hi.
must and would be as it h^.l hlT ^' *V" '''^ °»'"''e ofthinKs it
value to the.„, and'o'n^d !«;:";: ^.f 'Wir''""^ "^'^ ' «' -
sons are now before the public^ and if a LZ °P'"'"" ""^ ''«»•
be given, I shall be ready to -.cknnwlJ ?k I •l"'"'^'" ^° ^^^em '^«'»
in entertaining it. But I sha I noH kS ^'' ^^""' '^^^^ '""^''en
that was said at Ghent and m..I i '^'' 'V^'^ «"«^*'''. any thing
Mr.Russe... I shX^tTatXVn ^^Ter^'i^f ^^^ «"«^^^^ '^^
ance to us of the Mississinni l?i •. ^ ^he immense import-
deeper sense of it th^ri Se .\'\ !rh;'"^"ll''"- • ^° "»» ^^as «
tion. The navigation of tho miine il nf "** ^^"''"S °" ^^^ n^^^'
people of Germany and of Fn,nc. " PpV'"'"""^^ "nportance to the
the right to this navigation b^th ,s'cend '""" T. ^''^''''' ^y ^^^ich
lated for all mankind?* The peouTe of JPn ^^^^«"di„g, is stipu-
as much as the people of Fran^ce or «/r ^"'*"*^ ?'«^^« «"J°/"
lue to us ? Is !t of ravv inj, ry to i^'TT^, '« '^ «'' «"y va-
ansvver Mr. Russell's pcrSlmiri' '^'^""not take for an
his perpetual confoundi^rS^ thin cle fir.T"'' ""^ '^l ^"^^^'''" »
latm, which was never propo ed o ie r/'' '^^'''^ ^ *^''" ®'''
mentto the 8th article whi.h .„! .'^"''' ^'th the amend-
his perpetual conSng "f'b Tb P^rr/^^^^^ *'.^'? ''".' ^^^^^^^ ^
*»f 1794. Mr. Ru.sell .-.va h^T *"'^"*^ ^d article of the treaty
another memberof thVXion 3". 'Tk^" '" '^''«^«' '^at ndt
The best possible proof Tu Mr T.ln'V^^^ T '" *»»'« «Pi"ion.
found in th'e straits'^ o which te fs r due J?'' ''^'-^'^--^ it, is
against it. His ingenuity clord vLe a phulroh " f^T"^'
proposal as it was made • so be snhlluJJ^-u "''Jection to the
the article first proposed by Mr rl.r' '" i''^'**' '* **"^ '''"^
another, the third ar'^^ic.e oHh^treatv on7q4 T^l^^^'"'^ ; at
jectural inferences of abuse wbirhU..? ' «*» third, his con-
lege, as if the United States woj Id h^f'h ^T '"^^'^ °^ ^^e privi-
them. His argument is neTeSttih "** P"*^*^ *° control
ime : and at the future Congress a ttemfn' T mk " '^" ''^ interdicted to na
of the principles, accordinglo wLic the d , ^t ^"'^ '"*''« establishment
dering on the Rhine, may be regua ej tnZ " \' 'T'^ ^^ »''« ^^'''^^ bor-
172
' the MwsiMippi precigely as she could hare navixated it imme-
•' diately after the treaty of 1783; as if her territories extended
to It, and as it Spam was in entire poMession of one of its banks
and of a considerable portion of the otiier. The revival of the
^' British right to navigate the Miasinsippi, wonid be, under exist-
• mgcircumstiinces, a new and complete grnnl to her, measured by
• these circumHta; es, and thence embracing not only the entire
freedom of the whole extent of the river, but the unreslruined
access to tl across our territories. W we did not intend this, we
• intended nothing which Great Britain could accept."
Now observe the amendment to the Rfh article of the projected
treaty, as it was proposed on the Ist of December, 1814 and re-
jected :
" The inhabitants of the United Slates shall continue to enjoy the
;; !'^«''iy '?> t'^''^ •''-y. «"'• c"re fish, in places within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Great F3ritain, as secured by the former treaty of
peace; and the navigation of the river Mississippi, within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall remain free and
• open to the subjects of Great Britain, hi the manner secured by the
satd treaty; and it is further aj^reed that the subjecU of hisBri-
♦' tannic majesty shall at all times have access, from such place as
may be selected for that purpose, in his Britannic majesty's afore-
said territories, west, and within 300 miles of the Lake of the
Woods in the ftforesaid territories of the United States, to the
river Mississippi in order to enjoy the benefit of the navig^.tion
Of that river, with their goods, etfects, an.; merchandise, whose
importation into the said States shall not be entirely prohibited
» on the payment of the same duties as would be payable on the'
importation of the same into the Atlantic ports of the said States
' and on conforming with the usual custom-house regulations." '
After reading this, if you inquire how it was nossible for Mr Rus-
sell to say, in the passage of his letter immediately preceding it, that
we oflered the navigation of the Mississippi to the British otherwise
than as it had been secured to them by the treaty of 1783, and that
we offered them unrestrained access to it acro'ss our territories •
the only possible answer to the question will be, that it was necea-'
sary for his argument to say so ; for the very proposition which he
says was nothing which Great Britain could accept, was the identi-
cal proposition which we did make, and which she did not accept.
We did offer, in express terms, and in no others, the navigation in
the manner secured by the treaty of 1783. We offered the access
to It, restrained to a single point of departure, 300 miles west of
the Lake of the Woods ; restrained to the admission only of goods
not prohibited, to the payment of duties on merchandise admitted
and to compliance with all the custom-house regulations. Mr Rus-
sell says that It embraced the entire freedom of the whole extent
of the river. And so it did at the peace of 1783 : for it was then
secured to Great Britain, not only by the treaty with the United
173
Stat»i, bat by her treaties with Spain ; »tcnr»A l«j„„i •
farniore unreatniined than in ouT DroDn.»i r 1^^
with Spain, she wa. entided to the CJLb^^^^^ *'^*''* *»*»««
moath of the river, and thatnonW^T/e^els V" m''.°"' °'^ *•""
v...ted. or subjected to the par.... . ■ < . «„„ Zv If' *" '^''PEf'**
r;gbt, therefore, which ,ha Uo.d ' ve S^W uid^5"thT'*''- ^'r
l«t December, 1814, wonla u r^ b',n 8of«r „.. •*P'^P°"' "^
ry e«tendid, precisely the . .. „' Ser L »"* ?u«'""' *«'•"*<'-
and so far a, related ti th/ien • Ihf.Vi "il'^'^'^ "' °^ ''83 J
m ^83, infinitely more re.tricL uJi ua^u ''*'°°«*'' **> Spain
tie- with Spain/ Yelund r '!* adv« » '? "J"**' '^"•- '^««-
cured to her by her treaJiel J ol /'«*' °'^^''* "«•>* «" "C"
u«e to her ; fof the s mple Jeason that?A. aT" '''"' ''*^" °^ ««y
river. Now, her bounj^^r/i^ihu^ /"".'*"'""'"' ^" ^»>«
tion of Ghent, precisely S'slel It h J r*""^* °* *''« "«««««-
pence of 1783.^ She had formed no phi *"'° "«'"*"^ "P«° «* ^he
«he w«8 entitled by that trea^v^o a Hn. fri '"J^^ ^" **"* "^«'" ' »>ut
to it. We proposed ?o her a Li^Tnl k*'!'^"''* ""^^^ ^"^^^
from it ; which'she offered to aSwi I h'^/k'' ''°"'*^ ^"* *>" ^^^
Fight to navigate the river All t hi' .h *''* /e'ervation of the
Ithe right which Grea Br'tairf hai eniov^n'' *5""'?''*' ^«*'^«««
1 783, and that which she would have in Jl 7^*; *''* ^••««*'«'' *>*•
of 1814, was to the disadvltage of SreXlh^^'^'"'" P^^^T'
annulment of the value to her even rnn«„ I "i '"'^ '^^"^ *« the
right. ^' ^^'^^'^ contingent and eventual, of the
w.'''^®.^o•'thlessnes8 to the British of thiQ r:«K» r • .
Mississippi, had been very disf-nctlv pLceLi' 5 |^«v.«ating the
out in the debates, in the bSp^m **''*"*' *''®"'''j' PO'oted
articles of peace of November 1782 r„7h'r '^^. P'^^^^^^^^ry
of Carlisle said, in the House of Lords • * °"'*'°°' ^^^ E"'^
" treaty in the hands of he sZZT T'" »I^*^*•• '' ^^ '^^
"standings is this fallacy addrSnr f ^^''^^ «''''* ^^ ""Jer-
•• tional beings is this delusion Slated ."''^ ''''"^''''^ '' "-
•• ttr:^^:;^^^^^ ^^ -^-^^ - to stipulate
" cation with it. Wi,a was me ;n7b^?.";' ^^^ cut off all communi-
'• ^ as agreed on in the trTa";;: ^^ ^OTi::::^:^!^
" nication by which we could tran^nLr^ ^""^^^ '" "° '^o""**"-
•• short, the'artic J^f^the uavS^^^^^^^ '"-'^et. In
;' suit on our undeTstandin^, ad^^d to aU the^nTrK '''' "" '"•
" property by the present peace '' •'""^* ''*'"'^' ^^ '^'"-
174
i<
Viscoont SackviUfc :— <« All the forts were on the American side 5
*' the immense diwrict of country which supplied us with masts was
" gone ; the Indian nations were abandoned ; and we were insult-
ed with the navigation of the Mississippi, when all its benefits
" were taken away."
To all this, the only reply of the minister, the Earl of Shel-
burne, was ;
" The navigation of the Mississippi has been reprohftted as an
" useless acquisition. Could men seriously assert this ? Was a
*• navigation of so many hundred miles up a country where there
" is a call for our manufactures, an useless thing ? Surely not."
i^aiuard^s Parliamenlary History, vol. 23.
In the House of Commons, lord North said :
" There seems to be a peculiar mockery in the article which
** grants us an eternal and free navigation of the Mississippi, frrm
" its source to the ocean, in participation with the United Staies.
*' Such is the freedom of the navigation, that where we were not
•' locally excluded, we have effected it by treaty We were ex-
•♦ eluded by the northern boundary. The east is possessed by the
*' Americans. The w^sl had been ceded by the peace of Paris to
" the French, who had since granted it to the Spaniards ; and each
*• shore, at its mouth, is ceded by the present treaty to Spain.—-
♦* Where is then tuis navigation, so free and open, to be' commenced ?
" All the possession, I believe, that we shall ever have, will be iis
" nomination in this treaty. We must be content with the grant,
" without the possession." p. 451.
Mr. Fox : — " By the boundaries which have been so carelessly
" prescribed, we have excluded ourselves from the Mississippi ;
" so that we only retain the name, without being able to enjoy its
*• possession." p. 635,
To these objections, no reply was made in the House of Com-
mons. They were all grounded on the very obvious principle that
the mere right of navigating a river from its source to the oceaUj
can be of no use to a nation, having no settlement on the river •
yet, at that time, as Great Britain retained a boundary line to the
river, she might have subsequently formed a settlement upon it
which would have given value to the right. At the time of the
treaty of Ghent, thirty years of experience had proved the corr
rectness of those views by which the right of navigating the Mis-
sissippi, reserved to the British by the treaties of 1783, had been
represented as merely nominal and worthless ; and by the propos-
ed 8th .-vrticle of the treaty. Great Britain was to abandon her claim
even of ever coming in territorial contact with the river.
. Until a better answer, therefore, than this can be given to the
opinion that the proposal offered to the British would have been
if accepted, of no value to Ihem, and of no injury tc ns, I shall take'
the liberty to consider it as demonstrated. Nortviil it be sufficient
175
for Mr. Russell to say. that he «it"'l riiffi»«» • • .
Will probabl, continue t'Sifferln^';^ o" TvufrV'S '"^' '''''
for I have proved from his own worA. %I k™ ' °" ^^^^ PO»°t •
, differ from mme. as to the pronoJart.li 1' '^P*"*"" *^»d ao«
differ with me now, it -s odj iaTlcit L'^i'J" ' '"*' '^ ^^ ^«e«
^ As to the value/the comparatTveva^ ^"'' '''"•««'^-
this admission of a mere naC nVhf in f ^ ^'^^'"'^^ ^o us, wia»
of our high-ways, cSulnaHvlcLrlTr^r'/ *** '''''* °" o°«
the citizens of every StateTnZf^^ i ^^ ^'''^''^^ ^'^^ ^ all
my surprize that it should be demedhv v'*""°'. '««'" ^'^^hold
if a citizen of GeorgU sllld ' ^h/k,'' It? "^ ^a««achusett8.
prove that the right oVcultivaUng'^o'tot or a Sen 'ofT^* *^
should maintain that the right ot' raisin" «n„ '^'"^^" J?*^ Louisiana
the people of the United St^ates isTt to 1.1""' "''' ^^^'^^^'"e to
nation of his countrv th.^ h ! r • ® derision or to the indie-
effectual prporfF\*„^d'':f' ,.,t'«''t«t'«» "'ould prove the mofi
not as an Tdle am sement to how'wi?h'T'"' ^'"u"'' ""^ '^""«"
wildestabsurdities might be maintained hSr ""''' '"g^nuity th^
addressed to the supreme authority of th^^ ^ ^'"^-^ «tate-paper,
not at the mere IheLtTcal rtht bn^ 1 ^ ^T°".' ''"'''"g ^'"^^tly
the citizens of GeorgTa or of Loi^^^ ^^
currence with a fJ^n power coSi and directly tending, i„ con-
forever-what wouIdThr pTople of Slo^r ' ^° 1'?""" ^^^'^ ^^ ^^
tvouJd the people of the Sd Sta?«« f' ?^ ^°"'«iana, what
Should it fUl appear, t^Trhls ve^r^ i^^n^VtThe^ •-.
his composing the work was i mpmhil r ' • ^®'")' *"»'' of
charged and Instructed trdefendnJ °^. ^^'""i^^on specially
formidable of nationarenemitfrh'e at eTh^^hr h* ^'*^ T^
defence of this fight while Urcon^tl' r"'""'°^ '^^ '^-"^ «°^ «»'/
himself was yet charged^tN ts suoToft Z' T' £'"''•"«' «"d ^e
own signature, exhaust hiding ut/ to prove thl -'?'''' *''»
destitute of foundation, aDd ftyle it tbe*^ dream of""'"'''" '"''">^
ridicule one of his coJIeae^ies fJr believL if « ,1 '"''*»»«''3^' <»
nation of incidents would doubtless D^^2f/ ' '^'' •"*'* *^*^"'>'-
character to the conterpl 'on of the^^Z ' ?"""' '"^ P«"t'<=«»
rested in his conduct and Tthl \ ,^^*«^«« "'o«t 'mmedsately inte.
obliterated from the^'r mfmoVy "' "''"'*' ^^^''^ °°* ««"" h.
That which a native citizen of Georgia of nf r
have done, under the cin^n,a.t^nl\ .^°^8'* °' °* Louisiana wou d
cultivating cotton Jfsug^rL been Jit ^''^''i '^ '^^ "^^^ "*'
of Massachusetts, has d^e in rrhonr n^H WH, a native
The xVewlbundlakd, NovTs^oti^ G.Tof sf'r' '" ^^' ^'^'^'y-
brador fisheries, ar^ n nature and i.K ' ^"T'^"*^*' ^'^'^ ^•
their value and of th/ "h to share in ^^ ^""^t^"''''" ''otb .f
176
cultivate cotton or sugar. To be cut off even froni that portion of
it which was within the exclusive British jurisdiction in the strict-
est sense, within the Gulf of St, Lawrence, and on the coast of La-
brador, would have been like an interdict upon the people of
Georgia or Louisiana to cultivate with cotton or sugar three-fourthi
of the lands of those respective States. The fisheries of Massa-
chusetts are her cotton plants and her sugar canes. She is not blest
with the genial skies, nor gifted with the prolific soil, of southero '
climes ; but that which nature has denied to her shores, she has
bestowed upon her neighbouring seas, and to thera she is indebted
for copious sources of nourishment and subsistence, if not of opu-
lence and splendour, to thousands of her sons.
Of the value of these fisharies, none but general information was
possessed by the American negotiators at Ghent. Their instruc-
tions were, not to inquire into their value, but not to surrender any
part of them. After the peace was made, while Mr. Russell was
intent upon his discovery that they were worthless by reason of
incessant fogs and humidities of atmosphere, and straining his dia-
lectic powers and his diplomatic erudition, to prove tiiat the right
to them was irretrievably lost, I was impelled by my sense of
duty to seek more particular information of the value both of that
fishery, generally, and of that portion of it, which, by the most re-
stricted construction of the notification which we had received,
would be denied us if that notification should be carried into effect!
I obtained it from various sources ; but principally from one of the
most distinguished merchants and statesmen of this Union : and a«
It concerns an object of great national interest, I shall publish it,
with some additional observations of my own. It will have the ef-
fect of sunshine upon ai! Mr. Russell's fogs.
Immensely valuable as it will prove these fisheries to be, yet if the
question involved in the article first proposed by Mr. Gallatin bad
been such, that while securing to the people of New England the
continued enjoyment of them, it would in any the slightest degree
have impaired the enjoyment, by the people of the Western
Country, of tUir right to navigate the Mississippi, the objection to
it would have been serious and great. Could it bave affe*cted mo-
ierially their enjoyment of that right, the objection would have
been insuperable, and. Mi-. Gallatin never would have thought of
making the proposal. But no such consequence could flow from it.
The people of the West are left by it in the tull enjoyment of all
their rights. Nothing was taken from them. But British subjects
from Canada would have been entitled to travel by land or water to
the river, and to descend in boats to its mouth. They now enjoy
the right as much as they would have enjoyed it if the article had
been proposed and accepted. The only difference is, that they now
enjoy it, as not prohibited by law, while by the proposed article it
would have been secured to them by treaty.
The objection to Mr. Gallatin's proposed article, therefore, was
an objection to securing to New England the continued enjoyment
of the fisheries, because the orice of u. «. u
jn.t British subjects to travel^a Kwav^^^^^^?, ^""'^ ^« <« ?•«-
It was impossible to make of it a fv thfni „^^ ^'''*«''" ^''^^^n-
cernedas I felt for the fate of tbl filh* ^ ■' ""'^ deeply con-
that the objection was made tot Not fc?' ' ^''''^y •'^g^««e^
accepted by the British plenipotemLr J- f ?''''^ '^ ^«»W be
value which they set upon the fishe/ra;^ h'"" ^'l' ''"^^ the
which they must estimate the naked St TnJ^ ^^'hlessness at
Mississippi, to consider it as probable fhl/^.,"' °^ navigating the
proposaf. But our duty a. £1Tp' V^*t '^«)' ."'^"'d accept the
the defence of all its ZhL 27 ih! f *''«.U"i«n. charged w" h
and specially instructed t? Tut^X^l^t "^*^" '^'^-nmll
everi, fair exertion to preserve them a 5 J''^^"^"' ""^^ to use
«a^one of the only two possible m^de/n"r ^Z' ^'""''"'^ P'-^Po^a"
Nevertheless, as a 8troL«n.nff°^^'^'''=ting it. ^
article wa, made, av^e^dV l^ S?^^^^^^^^^
«?*re/y sectional ; after a discus.ior conT. r.^"f'P"'^««' interest
«'ve days, at the last of which only i^d "J ''"'""^'^ ^'' «"'=*^*'«-
vote was taken, I did, on the 4th of mI l^" P"'*' ""^ before the
pared either to propose Mr Gaiat^n^a*'"^''' ^^^''^''^ myself pre^
that all the rights and liber iesi" he S"''' "''^"'^'^^ the ground
a part of our national indepeXfe tht'^^^ ^^re recognledTn
gated by the war, and needed no st!;..!?- ^7 '*'"''' "«t be abro-
aBjert this principle in th: note" tt^r^^^^^^^ renewal^to
tentiaries, with the project of the treaf! ^ ^ ^''"''•' P»«n'PO>
altogether. r J ^ "' me treaty, and to omit the article
Mr. Russell, in the acuteness of h.'. ,,-
consistency between these Uvoopi?io,r«'?P\'°°1' *''«^''^«''« '"•" in-
he charged it aa an inconsis ency^ o^ L l'"^^,^"^'- ^'^"^ Par.;.
In the Boston Statesman ho return 'o it ns„r-^""'^°^^^« '"'^^'O"
According tc his doctrine, the asso tion Lf » r" Tf ""«'?tency ofmine.
suent with the offer of ^ stipul .t ion Jbr if/?^* "^ '">"'''^ '« ««^«"-
t"ht H °f -^^ P^«'''"inaries. of November mr"'""" ^^« ^--^t
th.8 doctrine, iWo«m/«„f with the Dpri' ^l^^' T^^^^<^ovdiDgto
Why stipulate for a right, Sh vo.f S h'""'^ ^''^"P^""^^'^^^^
declaration ? 1 cannot^aste word« n ,?f..i^ '"'^"! *^^ ^«'"- "'^n
these. So of the pretended iro„I/l'^'r''^«''«h positions as
berty, leaving the r^A, to theXr 2 tn^. '[ • -'puJating for the /]!
in the treaty of 17*3. T^^e stinnLfi Z- "P''" the recognition
w.th the portion of right clL^rttb/^r'' '''' -°-«xSns he
was no motive (or asking a ;r S on fnr!h /'i:'^P•'"•^^ Tj.cre
Uuestion. If the Britifh V^ >,Xn£ri^1''^''^ *''^^ ^^'"^ no'
iha% considered our Jm/X/o/-Tf '''^•'"'* notified «o us
thought of askioit u n' «tipulat on «n!„ ' 'u"*'"'*^'' «''""'d have -
trme and Mr. Rut^el .I*^" ht "hat tlTl ;''''"• '^ th./r doc
abrogated by the k , and .^t o r i/ fl"'' treaty of 1 78.1 wL
b. the mere existence u war, was 3;^^^^^;;^^.
J78
MOifbr uo necessity whatever to irtvc us thiit notitication. Thoy
might have concluded the treaty without SKving a word about the
jHhories, and then hiivfi told ii8 thut they hmf been forfeittd by the
war. But they knew better. They knew that not only war, but
conqucit, was necesssry to wrest from us any right or liberty recog-
nised by them as belonjijing to us by the treaty of 1783. To accom-
plish this conquest, dnspniring to obtain from us an express renun-
ciation by treaty, as they had obtained it from Spain in 1703, they
tried to obtain it by means of our acquiescence in this notitication ;
and they made it in indefinite terms, seeming to strike only at the
portion of tiie fisheries within their most restricted territorial ju-
risdiction, but susceptible, if once acquiesced in by us, of a con-
struction sanctioned by the who!e history and public law relative
to those fisheries, which would deprive us of them all, including
those of the Grand Bank.
The article proposed by Mr. Gallatin covered the »vhole ground
disputed by the adversary ; and the advantage of it to us, 'if pro-
posed and accepted, would have been, that we should hare issued
from the war, with all the fishing rights and liberties, as enjoyed
before it, uncontested. When, therefore, during the discussion,
and before the vote had been taken, 1 offered to abandon this ad-
vantage, and to rest the future defence of the fishing rights and
liberties upon the distinct assertion that they had not been forfeited
or abrogated by the war, by thus resting it, I knew that it would
be necessary to defertd them, after the conclusion of the peace
to defend them against the power, and the policy, and the intel-
lect of Great Britain. It was placing them all at the hazard of
future negotiation and another war: and I thought I ofi'ered a
signal concession, of deference to the mere sectional feelings of
one western meririher of the mission, by offering to accept the aK
temative. But I felt the most entire confidence in the soundness
of the principle which I asserted. I knew that it was sufficient to
preserve the fishing rights and liberties from surrender. I was
content with it as a fulfilment of our express instructions ; and 1
relied upon the determined spirit and active energy of my country
10 maintain it aftc* the peace. I had no doubt of the ultimate re-
sult, so long as our assent to the British doctrine and notification
was neither expressed nor implied.
My proposal was not however accepted, until, upon taking the
vote on the question whether the article ju-oposed by Mr. Gallatin
should be offered lo the British plenipotentiaries, it appeared there
was a majority of the mission in favour of it. This vote W}»8 taken
as has been stated, on the 5th of November ; and on the 7th the
substitute, being the proposition which I had suggested on the 4th,
was offered by Mr. Clay, and unanimously accepted. The article
\^m not proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, nor was the con-
sideration of it ever after resumed.
This transaction, therefore, was totally distinct f row that of the
^8th and 21?th of November : and as it tenuinafod m uo act of th»
179
of 26th December ! i'truc th«^ -» ^'^-^ *^'"*"'"'^ °^^'»^«*
the vo.e upon Mr. Ga atin'H Sli e I '. 'f ''^ ''''November, when
tion« of 1 9th October preSinfoti': T '"^'"^ '^'^ '"«*^"^-
8 ructions of iGth AprU, 1 8 iTcit^^v li?^ i *" PrS'^P'' «** "'« '"-
although writtc:. and on therZTJI I'i " m '" '" '»« ''»P''<^«tc.
«t « equally true, that thro' ^h*^ I oTho e Vile ^ '''''' '^ ' I'"*
vote of Jith November, «lthou«| ovo v ob roT'"'! P'r'^'"^« the
profound, and vieorous ml.wi ^ 1 1 ^ o»>J<"ction which un ardent
adduced, yet noTent o„ T J mat' ''''"'V «''''^'« ^
Wonsof J5th April IRn ItlT " I'-Tagraph of the iristruc-
violate those tfsrutbn, and ifTh"' 'l"*'"' "'"' *''« "•''*<^'« ^^ou'd
would have been obirus' thai Ll^'^^'^f^'' "Ueged the answer
« claim to the boundary "L„ the mL"' •^''"' '"•'^'"" ••^'•''"^d
-.mc for granted thnt tiu r v^ wts w r 'T'.^^ '=°"''^. '''' "«'
tion, nor consequently that the i.Jr, ^ ".""' f^clusive jurisdic-
bHd us from HKreeine to a St ' '^'h April, j«i3,for.
•ubjects to its navi^on m' R "m r/Z'^K ^ ^'«''^ "''»'•*''«»»
admit, at least by miplication th . ?. . ?'' *^''' '" "'^ ''emarks I
slruction of I5th AprH J^^^^^^^^ letter and spirit of fhe in-
no such thing; but tL^ I hfvV^ZeiT,!^ '^''' . ' ^'^'"'^
never, either in the discussion. nrrp!.T. V, ''"""'^''y- » say that
ber, 18ia - in those 0^7^X1 N"«^''t'^'' ""^ ^^^ ^-^^^m-
tions 6ti. .nril ifi] •T '11^ , ^'^ November, were the instruc-
to M. :«. /S';heDefrr;;Ts^^^^^^ nor did , sW
•rtructit ,. 4th and 19th OrtX, ll u '}l' '"^'^"'''^ "' the in-
from the obligation of observing ,f I' *° f''°?^ '^'»* ^« '^«''e released
I -bowed them to hi to prov^^ ?. Mn r*'""'''^'*'^ ^P'*'' ^«'3.
cate, fabricated at Washir X in 820 f " ''f "^'""^ "'^ h'« '^'^P"-
at Paris in 1816, he b7S? ol L^?"'" "' '''"' 'ctter written
gravated crimination "Is 1 « c'l r. "''^ ' ""'^ '^^''g^ *>''«S-
express words of his rea^et e but th fh!'; T^'i'''''^ by the
this charge, an instructionr v lich at ti l^.W 'h''''\'" P"'""'' "^
was taken, against which he now ,1 *""«. "-hen the question
in contradiction to tXt " Ind'r?? ^^'"^J**. '^ '" J 8 16, averred,
voted, because he tl g t it 1^^^^^^^ he had
had been cancelled. I shoved them 1 b /"'^'"^^^^^ '^'^ '^"^^
now alleged as his main moTi ve Ibr vol. ''??' ^'"'* ^^^^ ^^^^
had not been and could nit h?v. been h?, "^T^ ^^^ proposition,
an invention of 182i. held for ha .n 'r""^ Tl'^*^ •" *''«t it was
I trust I have now^hown bevond r l'^'^^'"*' '" ^^'^-
same character belongsTo ^vS he caUsir. 'Vt^'^' ''^^^ '*"
offer made to the British ^leni J^ emi/rS^ ""^ ^^'^
m^t contradictioft <„ th- AZZTl]^ ^ " '«°f December,,
given in my remarks on hT- ;tters ^ "* ""^ '^ ''^'''^ ' '•"^
^tatlfn!''2;'ir;,:;fh;;«^^ i- the Boston
^ word to .a, «nd sii^s rsr:,;^^^- Tll^'^i/^
l,**^^
180
r«pW. He tayc tie shall have abundant reason to rejoice, if in dU
reeling the inhrinities of my temper against him, they thall have
been diverted J rom a course in which they might have beeA di$astrou!>
to the country, U in the history of my life, or in that of the coun-
try, Mr. Kussell could nllege a single incident, in which the infir-
mities of my temper over have taken a course disastrous to the
country, I should have felt this Parthian shaft to boas deeply tinited
with venom to me, as witli bitterness from the heart whence it sped
But It has fallen short of its mark ; equally harmless to me and
useless to the profossad pntriotic wolf-devotion of the archer.
And how standH the account of Mr. Russell l At the ne^rotiation
•t'Ubent, he had, as a member of the mission, been irstructed in
terms the most positivp and unquulilied, not to surrender the fish-
eries. In that instruction, no sophistical distinction between a
nght III the hsheries held by virtue of our independence, and a
liberty in the hshsries held by grant from Great Britain, wjts war-
ranted or alio wed. No part of them was to be surrendered. \nd
the instruction was pointed and precise, to break otf the negotiation
•ocner than surrender them. The British plenipotentiaries had
presented the demand o( surrender in such form, that there were
only two possibJe modes of saving them ; one, to agree to a new
stipulation recognising them ; the other, to maintain that thev hod
not been abrogated by tiie war. A stipulation fbr a new recomi.
hon IS oftered. Mr. Uussell votes apdnst it, because, as he alleses
« would deprave the western country of ,,n advantage, which thev
would othenvise derive from the war. He prefers that the East
ahould lose, so that the West may ^ain. by the result of the war.
He rejects the proposal which would place both interests on the
.ame ioeting as before the war. The East is his native section of
the Union. But it i» a disafecte>d part of the couiiKry : and then—
" VVestwdrtl the star of en
I tokri its caurae.'^
Well—the other alternative i» pimented ; to auiintain that the
liberties in question acre not akmgmted by the war. Mr. Russell
^ubBcnbes to this : but he now sa«« it wm " in the spirit of com-
promtse as a pretext to preserve :be fishing privilege, and to get
rid of the other proposition. Sol»«quently, Mr. Russell assents
to the other proposition itself, and subscribes his name to a letter
declaring that he iiad no objection to it. But this loo be now says
was only in deference to the majority, and for fear that if be did
not subscribe, the enemy would accept it. The enemv, however,
despise this equivalent, .o extravagant in the eyes of Mr. Rus»ell :
and no sooner is U oflered to them than they reject it. The peace
18 concluded, i he Mississippi navigation is not conceded to the
Kritish ; and the preservation oftiic tishing liberties to this aatioD.
depends exclusively upon their maintaining the principle, that
they had not been abrogated by the m.r. Six weeks after sigwng
this treaty, Mr. Russell, still commissioned as a member ol the
mission tn negotiate a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, lia-
IftI
tie., deliberately sits *Jow„ IT-S "/fr^L'^*^" ""'' «»hin« Hber-
were irrefrtevnbly logt ; that there w«. „n « ^ I'"*"'"? "^«rtiei
hem rem«ini.« /that the prinanleTln II'k^^^ '<^
eaguos h«.l staked them at Ghent'^ ta T. 1«^ *V* *"'' *"• «°^
that our c; 'v title to them IZu ^ *''^®''" °^ • ▼«»«oiiBrv :
perfient for u» to recover thefn wm bv ofltr' r^^ll ''°"''''« «"
anient, "foir in it. comnurS v«h.7 «^«"»« ^^ ben, on eq«i.
feet.;" and, as the proCde.t o/ all hS J"'* '" "-«•«'«« veV
Jhe„.th„t thisequivSent n.rb:^tat^.'';S-^^^^^^^
the^„!:tb^hol!S"h:^tC|.'"J^^^ 'tto
way, to be intercepted by the enemv ' i ^T'^* '^ '" ^""O"*
«Je«tinatlon, after the ratification of Z' " '""'''"''• ''°'^«''«''. *»•
time when BruishcruiZ sttJofed onT^'r h''''j"'* '^''' **»«
an American fishing vessels not ^ In J 1 ''"'!!''8 K'-ound., ,v«rn
the shores. Such f. the nrartica exE ' '^'^'" *'"^ "»»'" <»f
government of Omr meon'^rg i^the SlT ^'^J ^^ ^^^^ «"«•»»
intended to exclude us from fshint «?*'*! "?.t"'c«tion that they
*-.>„^y .. and that eipoZntZum^^^ f ^^'"^ ''■
public Inw applicable trthe case andTt? '^ "" ' '^ ''''^°"«»
upon the law of nations. Thrr;,lLiit "'o^- T?"'"*"* '^"*«"
men, thus interrupted in their honiT- J *»• American fisher-
from theexerciseof it ftnd/h» 'ndusti^. and interdicted
consequent discontinuance of th^fi-l; °.^l^^ by war, and the
must have been received about tLt "5 r^'^F' T *"" *""" '0
State. If the argument had h!« "*!•' ''^ *''® Secretary oi
boriously wrouglft wha a 1^""" "* ""C'^^^*'"'' «« it had been"^la-
forMr.Lnroeto\Ltm,tinLnr'« !! ^""'"^ '^"^^ "'^PP'-^^l
s>i2:i':rL"nr :ar ^^^^^^^^^^ ^'^^^^^^^^^^^ Sef -'vt
ruption of the fishermpr fS to remonstrate against the inter-
A Correspondence rtKBHtiTh'"'"'" '^' '''«^*«°*" »^« "«''°o-
the question as to thf abrogftrof'tr^^^^ '" '^''/^''
roughly discussed. The orderTo ^L ii«?l ^ ^' *'®^ ""^ "*<»-
disavowed, and partly rouSrmanVed Thl „T'!' r ^'""^ P'^''^'^
tinued until that ot xL canveS of 1 8 1 « "'''5°*'^''?" ^»» '^O""
ed in it. The Bnf.Bh „-«! ^ ^^ commenced, and nwrg-
•-.y of .783. A. „„,. didTgr/rlii':? fhl ifS^l"
182
rcOooBcc the doctrine, that all their right* and libertiea, recognised
by the treaty ol 1783, were in full force as if the war of 1812 had
never occurred. The conflict of opinion was adjusted by a new
article, as little liable to be abrogated by h future war, as the treaty
of Independence. By this article, we have expressly renounced
a snaall portion of the liberties within the exclusive and limited
territorial jurisdiction of part of the British provinces, and have
received in equivalent an enlargement of those liberties on the
coast and shores of Newfoundland. The substance of the contest
has been conceded to us ; and each party has adhered to its doc-
trine. Now, if Mr. Russell had been charged with this negotiation
on the part of the United States, as, at the time when he wrote
his letter of 11th February, 1816, there was a probabiJity that he
might be, what would have been his situation, and how would this
great interest of bis country have stood, if when first ordered to
remonstrate against the interruption of the American fishermen by
British cruisers in 1815, the British government had answered
him by a copy of his own letter, written but six months before at
Pans ? To his own situation, perhaps, his memory may furnish
him a parallel, from the feelings with which on the 29th of April
last, he leamt that the otiginal of his letter had been found. But
for the interest of his country, what had his letter left him the power
to say to the British government, in the case supposed ? For the
maintenance of the liberties of his country , he had disabled his own
pen, and sealed his own lips. He had come forth as the champion
of the cause of their adversary. The fisheries on the banks of
Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the coast of
Labrador, would have been lost to this Union ; lost, by the pre-
varications (to use no harsher term) of a native of Massachu-
setts, Is this, the man who charges me with infirmities of
temper, which might have taken a course disastrous to my country?
n.Tiight of the People of the United States to the f'ishing Liberties—
Effect of War upon Treaties, and Treaty Stipulations— Peculiar
character of the Treaty of 1783.
When at the negotiations of Ghent, under an express instruction
Irom the government of the United States, sooner to break off the
negotiation than to surrender the fisheries ; after a noUficatiou from
the British plenipotentiaries that their government "did not intend
•' to grant to the United States, gratuitously, the privileges formerly
^'granted to them by treaty, of fishing within the limits of the Bri-
"lish sovereignty, and of using the shores of the British territories,
" for purposes connected with the fisheries"— I suggested to my
colleagues, as an answer to be given to that notification, that all the
rights and liberties, in the fisheries, having been recogniitd by
183
the peace, without an article concerning them m w th ort™- aS
nl«Sl°;r°"'T"' "»«°™o"«>y> «o far M their siCures ^ouW
pledge their sentiments, united with me in asserting that nrinc^nS.
U certainly did not enter into my dreams, that seJen trar&
befor/r f^f'lT""'"" colleagues would traduce thrdoctnne
cr^eofttlTfrA'''"'^''^^ '^^y country, as equivalenuH
crime ol state, and denounce me in the face of the nation «. o
visionary di-eamer for believing it. ' "' "
1 first suggested it as an alternative, for an article nroooseH K«
another member of the mission, to be Offered fr^nersS^^^
recognising agam those liberties, fo. an equivalent recStionn;-
tfie same pnnciple-.I had no objection to that article because k
offered notlnng but what I considered as necessarHv flowinrfrnm
he principle itself, and because, if accepTed.Tt wou^d^not 3y W
secured the interest, and the liberties in question, but have Dre
ttem Itt" controversy with the ad'verse partj coSn "
them. But as one member of the mission had raised very earnest
objections against the article, and as I was anxiously desirouT of
e"?; iTo'the'^u'"^' '? "^" as of protecting th'e t'e L oJ
L^irgre^f^ltij! -^--^^^-'^^ future firmn<::stdt
..'\t['e soundness of the principle itself I firmly believed and
still believe :--I had proposed the assertion of it btforeihTZe
upon the question whether Mr. Gallatin's projected article fihn.^H
be offered to the British plenipotentiaries Ld' been taken lit w^^
«ot then accepted, but after the vote had been taken, and a maT
^S l^'^te^oTce'd-^br^^^^^^^ -"^ ^^-^-
Lsubstitut^ea for the ^arUcVe whfch U l'a\r SL^^^^^^^^^
The paragraph as it appears in the note of 10th November
1814 from the American to the British plenipotentiaries! sTgned
by all the members of the American mission, i/as follows
' In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten-
tianes respecting the hnheries. the unde™ic..ed, rcferrinKto wC
passed in the conference of the 9th of Augo t. can only rtatJ
that they are not authorized to bring into dfscussion a^y of 4e
'yghtsor ftfcm,e. which the United States have heretofore «!
joyed .n relation thereto. From their nature, and TZZ pe
cuhar charac.r of the treat) of 1783, by whieh they were rl
cognised, no lurther stipulation has beei de^^med oe^celsaTy^
\
m
-j5-rp-n-
184
*' the goreniment of the United State*, to entitle them to the full
" enjoj^ment of all of them."
Ab the treaty of Gh.-nf. was concluded without any article rnlat.
ing to the fishenee, the only grounds upon which our rights and
liberties in them could be maintained against Great Britain after
tlie peace, were contained in the principle asserted by this para-
grapli. They rested, therefore, upon the nature of the righU arid
liberties of the people of this Union, in and to those fisheries, and
upon the peculiar character of the treaty recognising them. What
was the nature of those rights and liberties ? And what was the
peculiar character of that treaty ?
The nature of the righis and liberties, consisted in the free par-
ticipation in a ^Acry. That fishery covering the bottom of the
?° V "^ rI*'^ ""fo""'' the island of Newfoundland, the coasts
of New-England Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St. Lawr^pce, and
Labrador, furnishes the richest treasure and the most benefi-
cent tribute that ocean pays to earth on this terraqueous globe—
By the pleasure ol the Creator of earth and seas, it had been con-
itituted m Its physical nature one fishery, extending in the open seas
around that island, to little less than five degrees of latitude from
ihe coast, spreading along the whole northern coast of this conti-
nent, and insinuating itself into all the bays, creeks, and harbours
to the very borders of the shores. For the full enjoyment of an
«qual share in this fishery, it was necessary to have a nearly ae-
neral access to every part of it. The habits of the game which it
pureues being so far migratory that they were found at different
periods most abundant in different places, sometimes populating
the banks and at others swarming close upon the shores. Tht
latter portion of the fishery had, however, always been considered
as tf.e most valuable, inasmuch as it afforded the means of drying
and curing the fish immediately after they ivere caught, which
could not be eflected upon the banks.
By the law of nature this fishery belongP'l to the inhabitants of
the regions in the neighbourhood of which u was situated. P.v the
conventional law of Europe, it belonged to the European nations
which had formed settlements in those regions. France, as the
first principal settler in them, had long claimed the exclusive right
to It. Great Britain, moved in no small degree by the value of the
hshery itselt, had made the conquest of all those regions upon
France, and had limited by treaty, within a narrow compass, the
right of France to any share in the fishery. Spain, upon some
claim of prior discovery had for some time enjoyed a share of the
fishery on the hanks ; but at the last treaty of peace, prior to the
American revolution, had expressly renounced it.
At the commencement of the American revolution, therefore,
this fishery belonged exclusively to the British nation, subject to a
cerUin limited participation in it reserved by treaty stipulations
186
granted, with mciLZr.^Zs'ofle^^^^^^^ ^^ been
iisberiesto «wW^.A ,„6/ecr ViL rlh.* .°' sharing ,„ these i
"the trade of fishing upon the coa«t,?f VVi ""^ exercise
" the 8eas thereunto adioimnl- nn ^ewEngland, in any of
"salt water rivern wSe th?v' iLX'"'""' '^ '^' ^^'^ «e«»%r
with the power to use the /ho/e for uurnor"' '' ^^'''" ''^^'^'^
fisheries, was expressly granted m.rh'^rf ^""'f ^ted w.th the
of Massachuflclts Pay as it hi h ^^ '"Z'^^' '" ^^^ last charter
There was a gross mist Vp ,, ^r'" '"• ^^''''' '^''^ P'-eceded it
kingofG.oatBSnmI;fh\ eint^.r\'^'^ ^hat the
fisheries to the people of tfc'ovt;r'r''^i''*^ «r,jo^,nent of these
was their birth.ri^ht^,Ltt/;S it wrth'"""^ ^7' ''
38 secured to them by charter and VhoRv*^''' 'P^^'^' ^'g»'t
Belf could deprive them of ^^ ?hfv M '/"'l P''"-''«'"«"t it-
acts which provoked and ju fi^ft.T . ff ^"^^ °"'^ ^^^ ""« o^ those
InMarch 1775, the British narl, " '^f^'^'"''*'?" of Independence.
" the trade and commerce onh .' "' '"^"'"^ V "" «^^ *« '«««'•«*»
" and New Hampshi^ and rnl •''*'^'P'^'' '^ Massachusetts Bay
"Inland, and Provrde^'ce "piant HiT •''^ f ''"^ *•«"* and Rhode-
" Britain, Ireland, and the BriJ^ih isi;;H Vu '^"'^'''''' »« ^'''^-l
"to prohibit such provinces and rS' "" ^^ ^^'««* '"^'«« ^ «nd
" fishery on,the Banks ofNeuSndtnT 'J'^" ^""^'"fe on any
"i::t::^r^-ts ^--^^t^ ^^^-^ ^^^ ^'^^^'"
" his motioS by dociarl th^;" '""l T' '""^ ^'^^^'^ " «"PPorted
"trade with thfs k.wE^i *^'' .?., ' ^'r'^»"« had reused to
" them to trade with any other n«l "^"l '^'* ''^^ '^"""^^ "«* ^"ffe''
♦' the fishery on the Banks of Ni V J" P^''^'^" "■-"•. he said that
'« and all thl other! .n America w'sTh".'"'"' ""J !.'^- ^'^'^^ ^-'^''
" Britain, tlierefore we mi/htdl«nll ^^.^ ""'^^"hted right of Great
'' although the two houTef had nCdX *T f/ T ^'^'''^''- '^^^^
" in rebellion, they had declared th-T^'^ '^ ^ Massachusetts Bay
"province. It Jas jttMrlt i '• "' ! •'"^""'*'° '" that
">Aen«." HansJd'sZl^Zn^^^^^^^^^^ that province of its
In the debates upon this b H « I,? , r^' ''"^- *^' P' ^^^' '
quence of both parUes in the RHH h ^ r ^''""' '"""^ «" ^he elc
On this bill Mr. Ch aries Fox sa d ^K'r\"\r^^« called forth,
"calculated to put an end to «n ' fh ? ' K" must have been
" authority of Great BrUain n.l t^ '^'"""'t^ *^^ ^^^ legislative
" tended to show to the colonTes tlTtr'* ^'^'^ '^ """^^ be in-
" supreme authority which parhampn^''''"L'''' no one branch of
" manner, as to render it rin.n/ a'^^^ "°^ "^"^^ '" «"ch a
" sist it." Then afteren LT n *u ^^"^' ''"^ necessary to re-
«ion. he added^' but the SSi !^^''-Pf«'^'«"« acts of oppres-
' ^ Americans that th!/^^^ttS;J:- J^--^ Je
"I
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST Ti«^R3ET (MT-3)
y
^
A
/
■^
■4
#
1.0
I.I
2.2
y6 |12
11:25 ■ 1.4
20
1.6
%
/^
^/
-J
> >
M
">>
W
u/%
Photographic
Sciences
Corporation
33 WEST MAIN STREET
WSSSTER.N.Y. 14580
(716) 872-4503
L1>^
iV
n\
V
%^\ <>''''^- '^r;\
^>. ^
•^
^
186
« most oppressive, and worse than any of those they h»d hitherto
.. ?K- 1 ^^''"* •*"'** '''*"^^'^' *''''* ^''^ •»'" was meant for no-
"rebflHon." «««Perate the colonies into open and direct
*« JJ""- Bl'-ke pursuing the same idea, and enlarging upon it, appried
Mwbeth'"" br«"g»»tfo'-'vard the bill, the passage from
.. ^ "I am in blood '
Stept in so far, that should I wade no more,
" Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
He said " that the scheme w».s new, and unheard of ih any civil-
ized nation ; to preserve your authority by destroying yourdomi-
*Jn.ons. It was rather the idea of hostility between independent
states, where one not ueing able to conquer another, thinks to re-
"fte^'resources^ ^^ ^^ *^' ''•'' '^^'^''^^'^S '^ ^^^^^^ and cutting off
On the passage of the bill through the house of lords there
was a protest against it, signed by sixteen peers, among whom are
the names of Rockmgham, Camden, and FitzwiUiam. Among the
reas. ns of this protest are the following : *
"Because the people of New England, besides the natural claim
of mankmd to the gifts of Providence on their own coast, are
specially entitled to the fishery by their charters, which have
" never been declared forfeited"—
« l.'ri?!?K"'* T ^°"<=«'''« that the attempt which has been made to
bribe the nation into an acquiescence in this arbitrary act bv
holding out to them (by evidence at the bar,) the sp^^s of 'thj
" ^^L?ff ^'*'"'^' ^^'^ "Pwardsof three hundred thousand
pounds sterling a year, to be a scheme full of weakness and in-
« 1m?ii of '"decency, because it may be suspected that thede-
sire ot the confiscation has created the guilt : weak ber aii«.P it
.opposes that whatever is taken from th.^olonil L ^f Se to
♦ be transferred to ourselves. We may trample on the rules of
justice, but we cannot alter the nature of things We cannot
eonvey to Great Britain the advantages of situatk,; which New
i^ngland possesses for the fishery."
But reason and eloquence were vain : the bill, styled by Mr
" anlMln S"-^"*^ Pr^' ''^''^''^ ^""''^ sentenced theCe
and sustenance of America," was sanctioned by the then usual
mT^Z "^ ''''''' J^T' °'' P«'-''«'»«»t; and itl tho ' pecia^ly
ment aned among the charges against George the third, in the De-
" 2?» ,"f '"^«P«"^«"*^«/ " H« has combLd with oiherstosub-
ject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknow-
edged by our laws ; giving his assent to their acts of TeicX
;; ;^eg;;'at.on_/or cutting off' our trade M all paTof'he
Had Mr Russell been awemher of the Congress of 1776 with
what admiration would that illustuous body have listened to hi's doc-
187
♦him fffT'* ?'° •"' r«™ °^»«"«"» 'm;,«,;c^^,'^;.*°^rcut
«ad Mr. Russell been prime minister of Great Britain in I77i;
with how much easier and speedier a process than hto /^
of l. A • P"''^™'"' .Mntinued Id force duringthe whole var
the prehminary artic es of Novembpr 1 7Po *« k- u^u ™:"**^
Se KpWNe°„'F" rr?^' "'/'"'«<"' "'"« '«- »f-turl to
.uuuu, inai irom the 17th of February to the 14tb of Aa»ii«f 1770
t shoald or should not be made » sinequa „on for wa^e «, ho»
they should secure the cmlinuam^: of that portion SfThe fish/™
rX't' "^ouM 'fKt'J ir '""'''■.""^ "fii^S/co'n'clud'ed'S
tteT^rn^i't^rrBVtrptrr^^^^^
1 I 1 *°'^*^ "^''*^'® °^ *•*« preliminaries of Novemher 1 782 anH
also by he corresponding article of the defiStive"reaVof i^^^^^^^
the lyhole of the fishing rights and Hbertierwerrsecur Jd and rf*
Srs~th:;S"' r^r^r' Pre-existingra'd^^Tt ^o'^y
orants-the variation of the terms iq the article, seeuring the ri^ht
mmmmm
188
ieiish on the banks of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
and at all other places lo the sea. ard the liberty to fish on the coasts'
of Newfoaodlaod and the other British provinces, arose onlt from
the circumstance, that by the same act which recognised these li-
l»ertie3, (the ireaty of peace,) the territorial jurisdiction of those
provinces, which had until ♦hen been the same with that of the o*her
British colonies, became to the United States a/om;^ jurisdiction,
-he continuance of the fishing liberty was the great object of the'
article ; and the language of the article was accommodated to the
severance of the jurisdictions, which was consummated by the
same instrument. It was co-instantaneous with the severance of the
jurisdiction itself; ^nd was no more a grant from Greet Britain
than the right acknowledged in the other part of the article ; or than
the Independence of the United States, acknowledged in the first
article. It was a continuance of possessions enjoyed before • and
at the same moment, and by the same aci, under which the United
States acknowladged those coasts and shore.8 as being under a fo-
reign jmiadictioa, Great Britain recognised the liberty of the peo-
ple of the United States to use them for purposes connected with
the fisheries.
This also was the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, in
which our title was recognised to the rights and liberties in the
fisheries. They had all thfe' qualities mentioned by the authors on
the laws of nations, as appropriate to periaanent and irrevocable
acknowledgments : '
" Who can dou! ;," says Vattel, « that the pearl fishery of Bah-
"rem and Ceylon, may not lawfully be enjoyed as property ' And
«• Uiough a fishery for food appears more inexhaustible, if a nation
has a fishery on its coasts that is particularly advantageous, and
"of which It may become master, shall it not be permitted to ap-
"propnate this natural advantage to itself, as a dependence on the
«♦ country it possesses ; and if there are a sufficient number of fish
" to furnish the neighbouring nations, of reserving to itself the great
" advantage it may receive from them by commerce ? But if, so
« far from taking possession of it, it has once acknowledged the com-
" mon right of other nations to come and fish there, it can no longer
« exclude them from it ; it has left that fishery in its primitive free-
** rn?' S '®^^^ "^''^ respect to those who have been inpossessim of it.
** The English not having taken the advantage/rom the beginning,
*' of the herring fishery on iheir coast, it is become common to them
"with other nations." Vattel, b. I, ch. 23, § 287.
In the third article of the tteaty of 1783, the liberties of the peo-
pie of the United States in the fisheries within the British xNorth
American colonial jurisdiction were, in the most rigorous sense of
the words, acknowledged/rom the beginning— .for it was by the very
same act. which constituted it, as to the United States, a foreign
jurisdiction. '' *
(I
189
Tliat this was the understanding of the Art:^!^ k .l « .
vernment as »vdJ as by the WiLn n!? f T *'^ *« ^"t*'** go-
demp„.tratioo, by the debates'rSre^rutn'J' ^^Pr^^^^
articles. It was made in both Houtes rmt Iffu ^^^ P'^^ehmirary
to the treaty. la the House of SmisiordNtr'/. "'j^^^'""^
as minister in 1775, had brought inand rarZi .u '''.^''^'"^Q'^ho
depriving us of the fishery bufwh^ had now L * °"«? *'i* ^'' «>'
opposition, said : - By the third artSjplf- " '^^^^'" "^^'^e
reci,,oeay, given tL AmerTcan 'atunrmfei^^^^^^
of every lc,ud on the Great Rant oil . ■ "§"* *° ^a^e figfa
;; Newfoundland. But thi^l "o 'siirnt^'we^h"''^^ ^^' ''
" them the right of fjshioe in the Gnlf nf Qf i ® ^'*''® ^'^° S'^^-n
;; other place! in the sea'^heSe fhey t'e t^LT' '"^^ «"
i^rou^A u*, the privilege of fishing Sv h^^^'J".* ^"J*'^'^^'
poM^er of even pSrtakinl of the fifher^wLh'we'tHr"'/-'"
We have not been content with rp<iioT.in„ .k. ^^ still retain.
" even share what we have l^t T S J^ir^'c^ P°««««sed, but
" to fi8h on that part of the coL ofN^^^^f,^'^^' ^^^^ liberty
;; fishermen shalf use. AU thel Llels fhafth "' ^'"'^ ^""^^
" or cure the same on the islanrf rJ?i,- ' * . ^ ^^« "ot to dry
•• to take our property for which we^h.vl ^'''?' '^7 ^''^ «* "^erty
;; of the islan J: Thils cerTainly HtrikinVrn .'"^ ^'^} r ^^»«'°^
" equity which we find is the basis of nr •^''*'^. °^^^^^ "^eral
" where shall 1 find an instance o?,h,f ' P'^«'^»^.onal treaty ! But
" forth in the ineamWe ? We ha4 iivenThTA^^*^'^^ '« «'«° ««
;; mited privilege of fishing on a U th'e coa ts ^avf^T *''^"""-
our American dominions! But where have fhi *"'' ''?^^'' °^
" principle of recip.ocitv. given uflTh/t • • i ^H^' "°^«'" this
" of their coasts, bays, o;^creeks' I oS'^^'u^ '^^'^^^"^ ««y
;; could be found, were it only 'o giVe J coTour ^t'^'u^ "" '''''^'^
" procity. The advantage we shonr:i h^p' / *•"' ^""^^^^ '"eci-
" cannof be a consideradon ; for every rer-^^" 'v ^^ '" "■''"'"'
" to Grent Britain seems to have ble7enthl?v f P'?'^''^^ advantage
"and meaning of this peace in ^InV^'l^'S" *° t^« '"tent
"should have'thoughtit'^uld haveb/enT'"'''V''^5^™« *
•• tion not to have given without thllen Jl f ^ °^ administra-
" 8ion which they could never demand « T'^.^^^K^^^^ ?«'"'»•«-
- at a loss to consider ho^^e couTd "/"'t nr"h^ '"'^^f'''' ' «"»
" as a right, when they assumed an if h!' 7 ^''^^ ^""''^ ^^'^i™ it.
'• rated the^ from our^soTerignty " ^'"^'"'^ ""^'""^ ^«« ««Pa-
In this speech, fhe whole article is conoi^Ar^J -„ •
concession of British property nor U^hll ^ ^"^ "nprovidenfe
est distinction in the natureonhP^r»nM f ^ suggested the slight-
on^he banks, -d thV^r^^^ote^^^^^^^^^^^
" by Britain, is in the nex aSo Z a / v '^' '''"''" '•'''«'««^
" right inhe;ent in the Amerl ans Xh'tt ' \^' 'V^"^'^ ^ « '
'* subjects, they arc . c.«.Sr;^t:::S^;^ ^
190
*'' other hand being reserved to British subjects to approach theiiT
" shores, for the purpose of 6shing, in this reciprocal treaty."
In the replies of the ministerial members to these objections,
there is not a word attempting to contradict them, or hinting at a
distinction in the tenure of the title between the right and the li-
berty.
Sncli was the nature of the rights and liberties of the people of
(he United States in the fisheries, and such the peculiar character
of the treaty of 1783, by which they bad been recognised. The
princfple asserted by the Anrerican plenipotentiaries at Ghent ; dis-
avowed and combated by Mr. Russell, in his letter of Uth Febru-
ary, 1815, aifd now treated by him as the dream of a visionary,
was, that these rights and liberties, thus recognised, could not be
forfeited by a! war, and that no new stipulation was necessary to
secure them. The vrhoie fishery, as well without as within the
special territorial jurisdiction, had been the common property of
the British empire : so had been the whole territory to which it
had been incidental. By the treaty of separation, the territory
was divided, and two separate sovereign jurisdictions arose. The
fishery bordered upon both. The jurisdictions were marked out
by the boundary line agreed upon by the second article of the
treaty. The fishery was disposed of in the third artrcle. As com*
mon property, it was still to be held in coonnon. A^ a ^ essession,
it was to ber heli! ty the people of the United States, as it had beea
held before. It was not like the lands partitioned out by the same
treaty, & corporeal possession, but in the technical language of the
English law, an incorporeal hereditament, and in that of the civil
law, a right of mere faculty, consisting in the power and l-berty of
exercising a trade, the places in which it is exercised being occu-
pied only for the purposes of the trade. Now the right or liberty
to enjoy this possession, or to exercise this trad^, could no more be
affected or impaired by a declaration of war. than the right to the
territorj' of the nation. The interruption to the exercise of it dur-
hig the war, could no more affect the right or liberty, than the oc-
cupation by the enemy of territory could a^iect ♦'*e right to that.
The right to territory could be lost only by abant' nient or renun-
ciation in the treaty of peace ; i»y agreement to a new boundary
line, or by acciuiescence in the occupation of the territory by the
enemy. The fishery liberties could be lost, only by express re-
nunciation of them in the treaty, or by acciuiescence in the princi-
ple that they were forfeited, which would have been a tacit rcnun«
ciation.
I hope it will not be deemed an assertion of infallibility, when I
say, that I present this argument to my country, both as to the na-
ture of our rights and liberties in the tisheries, and as to the pecu-
liar character of the treaty by which they were recognised, with a
perfect conviction that it cannot be answered. But if I am mistaken
in that, sure I am, that it never has been answered, either by, the
British government or by Mr. Russell.
191
If admitted, it leaves the question, whether the treaty of 1 783
J^as or wag not abrogated by the late war ? a mere question of uaf
lesg speculation, or of national pride. That fiW/irsSesmPn nn!!
J.ar.8t8 should manifest some impatience, andset^e p^^^^^^^^^
to cause /«.Mreaty to disappear from the archives oTtheir nat^na
mun,ment« .s not at all surprising. That an ^».'r,W state m" a
should partake of the same anxiety, is not so natural thm, Jh J?
may be traced to the same system of public law^^S tS'
oerce ""d lighenes of the colonies, before th^ Revolution were
supposed to be held at the mere pleasure of the Brit h crown
■ It IS not necessary to deny that the treaty of 1 783 was as a mSi
compact, abrogated by the late war, so^long as wTth^e asse Zn
of Its being so abrogated, is not coupled the assertion thatTnv one
rght or liberty, acknowledged in it as belonging to the people of
tl.e United States,- was abrogated with it. But wLn the Br tish
government or Mr. Russell assert that all the other right' and ,^
bertie* acknowledged and secured to the United sEbvthi^
SfiT"'^ f l^r-^'^"' «^^^P^ °- portion of I L prosper?
in tne fisheries, sUpglated ,n one half of one article, I say there '"s
nothing either in the nature of the liberty contested/or in^he Irt
ilfZ "'•rf'^." recognised, that will Iwarrant their 4ist net on
that the whole treaty was one compact of irrevocable acknowledV
ments consummated by the ratification ; and that the thfrSTrUcfe
»n particular, adjusted the rights and liberties of the parlies in and
to one common property, of which neither party could ever X-
wai^s divest the other without his consent. '
When, therefore, the British government and Mr. Russell assert
hat war abrogates all treaties, and every article of everv treatv
they have yet proved nothing for ^heir argument ; they must pro!
ceed to affirm, that with the abrogation of the treaty by war all the
rights and liberties recognise^ in the treaty as befong^ng to* ei heJ
party, are likewise abrogated. And herein lies the fjlacy of heir
argument. We ask them, was the acknowledgment of the InZ
pendence of the United States, in the first artfcle of the treaty o?
1783 abrogated by the war of 1812 ? Yes, says Mr, Russell but
the Independence of the United States resledlpon their own Se-
claration, and not upon the acknowledgment of Great Britain V/ith
regard to all other nations, undoubtedly our Independence rests
upon our own Declaration, for they never contested it But Great
tui^^?fui ""^^f^ a.^ar of seven years against it, and it was by vir-
tue of that article of the treaty aloi,e, that she was bound to acknow-
ledge oyr Independence. And this constituted one of the peculiar.
Ities of the treaty of 1 783. Our treaty with France, of 1 7^78 con,
in?!^ "m ^'' '1^ 8t»P»'«iing the acknowledgment of our Independ,
hlT: . /'J*'^ '*''^!f '^ ^^^, necessary with any nation which never
cfthlu V \J.u^ ""f ^'''^ ^"^«'"''t ^«« the whole object
Pf that treaty. All tl»e other articles were merely arrangements oi
te^uJ^f f''j"8traent8 of consequences flowing from the recognition
•f the Arst jm:Up1?, If the acknowledgment of our Indepfnd^Jcf
mwmmm'^'i'
1921
b the fiTBt arUcle of the treaty of 1783, wrs abrognted by (he war
Of 1812, from the firrt hour of its declaration by CoiigrcM, Grent
Bntain might bnye treated us as rebels nn she had done tliroiiali the
whole war of the Revolution.
Waa the boundary line of the treaty of 1783 abrogated by the
war of 1812 ? The Ainericnn plenipotentiaries certainly did ool
10 consider it, when they spoke of it in one of their notes, as tho
line " as it now is." Nor did the British plenipotentinries so consi.
der it, when they demiuided the express stipulntion of another line,
by tho treaty then to be concluded. They claimed it, not because
the boundary of the treaty of 1783 was abrogated, but by the right
of conouest, as a cession of our territory ; and the demand was
resisted on that ground. The articles in tho treaty of Ghent,
which refer to the boundary line, do not rnnew or confirm the arti-
cles of the treaty of 1703, which they recite. They refer to
them, as reference is ilways made to treaties in full force, and
merely add new stipulatioos for ascertaining the line described by
then^, according to the true intent and meaning of that treaty.
If, then, none of the rights, liberties, or possessions, rccognissd
by the first and second articles of the treaty of 1783, as belonging
to the United States, were abrogated by the war of 1812, by what
light, and upon what principle, could Mr. Russell consider tho
fishmg liberty, recognised as belonging to them by the third article,
to be entirely at an end^ without a new stipulation for its revival.
The whole of the third article, concerning the fisheries, was aa
much a recognition of pre-existing rights, liberties, and posses-
sions, as the hrst and second articles. With regard to that identi-
cal portion of the article, which Mr. Russell considers entirely at
an end, the words of lord Loughborough, which I have cited, prove
that It was universally considered, at the time when the treaty of
1783 was made, as a recognition of existing rights, as mqch as all
the rest. Mr. Russell says that the fiabing liberty, within exclusive
British jurisdiction, was not necessary to perfect the jurisdiction of
the United States. What then ? It was not a perfection of jurist
dictions, but ^ division of common property. The whole fishery
had been the joint property ol both parties. When the separation
was to be consuumated, it was agreed that that property should
$till be held in common ; that the people of the United Siatea
thould continue to enjoy the right of exercising the faculty upon
the banks and open seas, and should have the liberty of exercising
It m the unsettled bays, creeks, and harbours, where they had be-
fore exercised it as British subjects, but which were thenceforth to
be Within a foreign jurisdiction. There is nothing in the import of
the term liberty, nothing in the limitations expressed in the article,
fiolhing mthe principles of English law, or of the laws of nations
applicable to fisheries, which can warrant the pretension that this,
more than the rest of the article, or than any other article in the
Ureaty, was a grant of privilege, revocable at the pleasure of Great
BntaiD, or forf(pitab|e by w^r. ft|r. Russell, i^ his letter, frcqqept-
193
of we«k„e.. in hi, Zument An «!^ "r^" '*"'^ "" indication
the diMlncHon be wee* K.ea^i",/oTr' ^''«"!;'' r^"^^'' "'"^k*
iog manner : "'•""""« ^^ ^^"^ '*<"'d«, in the folloir-
•' elam, for it is set above oil niZ.lnr. "^ i i **?"•' = '* '" "*»» «
' ;; « /'n:.>.V.^.. for it CHnnot l^^^ eT^^ i v" urltBr/''*''" I "^'^ *' '*
•• unconditionally be taken «wny IwrnrlC.' ' ' ''""«• "*"*
Such i« the purport of thc'"wonMif'"t *^."""*^""--''"< "'""t.
and by theap^icK of ilt Thrtltt;" /^.If r^' 'f"'? '
power which the Americans were to o j^v wiJhin h J *? '^*
diction, to carry on the tieherv it i« „»?^* **'*' "ritinh juris-
•negotiators of the treaty mi.took .IT i " ^'^P'e«"n'ed that the
in any manner ayn^'mlTwllh a pivS " ""' "'^^ "'^'^ '^ -
treS:wuttiTc:v;:o^..^^
diMolved by the war of 1 hi" i "^^ "'''"'J!' «<^ "A^ was totally
liberty wit J„ BriS iLdicti ,n7ti. 1 .7S ' '"^r ^''"^ "'« ««'''"J
the treaty, was abrogate wht' Tlflf^ '''' «!"rd article of
yr the right to it cfuld not be forf^ted iy 'wVr '"th"/ ''^°'' '^"^
of Its exercise during the war coud nn «^Lo ^ / ^ 'I'^Peni'ion
beea very soleL.ly .f/cy S^he &.l's,'',°' ""•'if '> , " •■»•
" which Ibey are proWdoJ td d„ri„ „T' L' Rf^'^'j" ''«' f"
cond vaa the soveraim ivi h »hnl i. ' ""''/'■«<'«ri-l' Ihe <e.
contrndici, (he doSeThnl »»r Hi.lr" "S*"""'?""- " "ot only
for the purpo'e 0? dS?.,Z or ^f IIP,-"" "'"'"^ ■•""■•'='' '•
faith. "^ "Wgumng or of palhatlng a violation of good
thauX?o7tt"b:i;!;rl:eriL'n''r- " """' «""-«"' «f
.ne.ie» and tba, nVc'X^rd'e 't^tbirto';"' 'tT "'*
*nn tvnter. „p,„ .he W. of „.,io„.. ha^i'e^'JaT.i.i.IjL"."'
194
and expressly luid it down, that all articles of a treaty made during
war, or having in contemplation the state of war, as that in which
they are to take etfect, remain in full force, and are not abrogated
by war. This, therefore, cohstitiites a large class of artitiles of
treaties which are not ahrogatod by war. Another class of arti-
cles, equally privileged from such abrogation, are nil executed ttipu-
lations — Cessions of territory, demarcations of boundary, acknow-
ledgments of pre-existing riplits and liberties, belong to this class—
and in it are included the first, second, and tbird articles of the
treaty of 1783.
All articles which have been cxecutrd, mny indeed be said to be
abrogated by the execution itself. The transaction between the
parties is consummated. In the case nf a cession of territory when
the possession of it has been delivered, the article of the treaty is
no longer « compact between the parlies, nor can a subsequent war
between them operate in any manner upon it.
So of all articles the purport of which is the acknowledgment by"
one party of a pre-existing right belonging to another. The en-
gagement of the acknowledging party is consummated by the ratifi-
chtion of the treaty. It is no longer an executory contract , but a.
perfect right united with a vested possession, is thenceforih in one
party, and the acknowledgment, of the other is in its own nature irre-
vocable. As a bargain, the article is extinct ; but the right of the
party in whose favour it was made, is complete, and cannot be af-
fected by a subsequent war.
A grant of a facultative right, or incorporeal hereditament, and
specifically of a right of fishery, from one sovereign to another, is
an article of the same description. It is analogous to a cession of
territory, and is in fact a partial and quaJifled cession. The right
is consummated by the ratification of the treaty. The possession
is vested by the exercise of the faculty. Mere war between the
parties, can neither impair the right of one party nor effect the re-
vocation of the grant by the other.
So that whether the third article of the treaty of 1783 be consi-
dered ae an acknowledgment of pre-existing liberties, or as a grant
of them, to be exercised within British jurisdiction, it was in its
nature permanent and irrevocable, liable, under no circumstances
whatever, to be annulled by the wifl of Great Britain, and capable
•f being lost to the United States in no other manner than by their
own express renunciation or tacit abandonment.
I have already cited a passage from Vattel, to show, that when a
iDation has once acknowledged the right of other nations to share iii
M Jiahery vfithin its territorial jurisdiction, it can never afterwards
exclude them from it without their consent. What says he of grants
by treaty ?
«* Treaties, which do not relate to objects of reiterated occur-
" rence, but to transitory, single acts, immediately consummated,
" conventions, compacts, which are accomplished once for all, and
" not by successive acts, as soon as they have received their e5(e-
*
" ejition, arfithing. consummated anu finished. If thev are ralirf
hey have .n the.r nature an effect perpetual andTrreZcabU^
In hke manner, as coon m a right ie transferred hvIirTf
•' vention, it no longer belongs to the sti^ S h ^ T/"* ""T
" affair is linished and concluded?" Va 1 6 2 .J I'.T.oo '*'*
"But we m«t not here confound treaties or ani.^^ ^ '^l'- u
;' bearing the obligation of reciproc^ engat^eVcaT^^^^^^^
■ l>y ho concinued existence ot' the contJafrg power" wi ^ . ^
ce. ved them, should afterwards be conquered or Za in «1 »k
. ' «te~C<,..«.„terj, «» Burlama,ui, Pan 4, c* 9,Tl6h
cognised in it, as belonging to the United Stal' tliT Z T
abrog t d ,h it, and con'sequently^l'fh' t'S.f co^ u^ oH V^^
twf •/!«*'°'''^\"''Sument,that the fishing liberty soured td
the United States, by the third article, was enLlyatan^,TM
rrncinl?of£7''"-^r''^'-^'"^^"^«'' ^^^ - unw^arranld by any
principle of the laws of nations, as it was Dernicion.. tn tuJ^it^
ny which it was secured, as was expresslv assprfp.1 h.,\iZ a^
can plenipotentiaries ; and the ^ame'^pSpts l^id^iatLn^^^^
to a new stipulation then, and do appL to h^ew " fnuTatfon^,'^^'*''*
made, as djd apply to the third article of tS^tS 7 m?
When Mr. Russell says thai I appeal to a class of treaties whth
are not known to exist, he only proves that it would hllllir
him to revise his studies of diplomatic Ld inte nTonaHar ' '"'
The doctrme that all treaties and all rights acknnwlpnll^ u
artjcles of treaties, are dissolved by war, hTn^l always bet he'j
to be sound even by the British government. In the debatesin
parhament on the peace of Amiens, lord Auckland said-
" Iw^ ^'^ '^°^i '"^^^ ^^^ '^'"'^^ °f ''^ the first publicists on these
ubjects, and had corrected himself in a mistake, stil prevalent
n the minds oi many, who state, in an unqualified sense that aH
-treaties between nations are annulled by lar, and S be ««
'• daily renewed if meant to be in force on the return 7p«ce%
• V.
^, 190
J, f"i9 true, that treaties in the nature of compact* or concessioni,
^ '^ -» •• the enjoyment of which has been interrupted by the war, and
** has not been renewed at the pacitication, are rendered null by
' •• the war. But compacts not interrupted by the course and effect
*' of hostilities, such as the regttlated exercise of a fishery on the re-
" $pective coasts of the belligerent powers, the stipulated right of cut*
" ting wood in u piirticular district, or possessing rights of territory.
'• heretofore ceded by treaty, are certainly not destroyed or injured by
" war."
And again : <* It is not true that our non-renewal of the Dutch
** treaties will liberate the ships and vessels of that republic from
" the ancient practice of itriking their flag to British ships of war,
'* in the British seas. That practice did not depend on the treaty
"of 1784, nor even on the treaty of Breda, in 1667. Those treo'
*• <!>« were only recognitions of an existing right. And the treaty of
*' 1667 expressly stated that the Dutch tliig shall be struck in such
*• manner as the same hath been formerly observed in any time
" whatsoever. The same remark would be found applicable to the
"sixth article of the treaty of 1784, by which the States General
" promised not to obstruct the navigation of the British jbjects i„
*• the eastern seas. That article waa no compact or grant ; it was
" only an acknowledgment of 'a pre-existing and undoubted right ;
*• and was merely meant as a notice to our merchants that they
" wojld not be disturbed in the exercise of that right."
Lastly : " He had already slated the incontrovertible principle,
" that treaties or compacts, the exercise of which is not interrupt-
" ed by the course of the war, remain in full effect on the return
*' of peace. Our privileges in the Bay of Honduras had been given
" in lieu of ancient and acknowledged I'ights in the Bay of Cam-
'* peachv. Those privileges having been enjoyed without disturb-
** ance during the war, are confirmed and established.
The earl of Carnarvon — a member of the opposition, said in the
same debate :
" It has been nearly admitted by ministers, that former treaties,
by the omission of renewal, are abrogated : tny noble relation
(lord Grenvillo) does not go that length, but he thinks we have
lost our title deeds in most cases, and has affirmed, that we have
thereby totally lost the gum trade. I am far from thinking any
of these conseqi.ence8 follow simply from the tacit omission of
the renewals. War does not abrogate any right, or interfere
with the right, though it does with the exercise, but such as it
professes to litigate by war. All the writers on the law of nations
distinctly affirm, that peace has only relation to the war which it
terminates, leaving all the former relative situations of the two
countries as before the war; and that former treaties, though not
expressly renewed, remain in full elfect, if noi expresply abro-
gated in the treaty of peace, or by private consent and acknow-
ledgment."
((
«
((
t<
<(
(t
<(
it
«
Mm
W7
** the lord^ icellor (EMod) laid that if by the oci^iiion of thVi
« men .on ol former treaties they were .11 to VcoJiide S a! ab^
had no difficulty in wying that en addre.. .hould be voteS to hi!
«^«je.ty praying that he would diiwi.. his preaent miniate™ from
his councils forever. But he trusted that the fact wa, fw othT
;; w.,e. and that the conduct of mini«te« de.er.edr,uch ce„^
« llfj 'V^^ ''*? L" "'"''• *'''*' "ooduraa became the rightful pro-
-Sn»? ^^^k'""/ ^"^T t^y ^^o^que-t. end was never%ede! to
« Ch Tr "". ''tj'r^'dgmcnt, on the part of the ourt of
"fsth^H^Tr^'^^^'''' "^^''' cut logwood. In proportion
.. ;l k- L* w .* ^°?1"«t '^a^ paramount to the effect of treati.-s
' our^iliht n"' \t' ''''r' specifically abandoned and reJ^ed;
Deen mentioned in the definitive i/eaty."
And in the debate in the House tf Commons, speakine of thi«
•ame right of cutting logwood in the B.y of Honduras, lord Hawke!
bury (the present earl of Live rpoc 1) said, "
<i i^J,**® ^""^ '"' 'r"* "^^^ "^^^ '^e^'e*' *o "« ^y the Spaniards ia
quito Shore; therefore it is a settlement which we possess of
^ light, and to which the Spaniards were as much bound to refer
8ion. Hansard s Parliamentary Hutory, vol. StJ, A. D. 1802.
The doctrine of the non-abrogation even of commercio/ treaties, by
war has been ma.nta.ned by British statesmen and lawyers oj
tTo^P JnT"'' /^^l ^"""^ sometimes carried it furih^r thau
hZ ffu ""'"'^J' *•''''*' ^««" ^^'"^y to «dmit. Thus in the de-
1?^ K .* '^ °^CoT°"' ''" *''« '''>»^'"* treaty of peace of
S; if r*" *^'''"1'^ ^P'*'"' ""^ •«'•««» B"tain. Mr. Fox. al
uding to the renewal in that treaty of the treaty of Utrecht ; and
to the period of two years from the Ist of January, 1784, fired for
the negotiation of a treaty of conunerce, said : " /ending 'the negt
"Inl^^"' T? ••^««o?«hle to suppose the tLree nations would, in
commercial transactions, be bound by the treaty of Utrecht : and
^^ this he imagined was the sense of the British ministers. But sup-
« ^rrZ^ two years should expire before the new commercial
«« wh»?^ M*' ''lu"'^ ^'"''^ P'**^^' « l^^'tion would naturally arise.
^^ What would, in this case, become of the treaty of Utrecht ? For
« TJrn '"'"'* "/ "^'T" '^"' ^^^ ''■^"'y e/" Utrecht would, in such
- thnTfK- f ranamin full force ; but he knew, on the other hand.
'« V-u *u "''*• •'^^" ^^? *'P'"'°" 0^ the courts of Madrid and
rt Hon! i ';, ?'"'l^"' ""^ '^^'^^ contended, that if the negotia-
' tions should end ,v,tho„t producing any new rommercial anrange- "
a
. i.
i9$
''*ent«, the treaty of Utrecht would, in that case, be completely
annulled." HanawdU Parliamentary Hi$tory, vol. 23, p. 1 147.
In the year 1686, a treaty was concluded between Louis the 14th
and James the second, regulating the commercial intercourse be-
^een the respective subjects and possr sions of France and Great
Britam in Americc. It w«8 known by the denomination of the
Treaty of Neutrality. Two years after its conclusion, occurred the
revolution by which James was expelled from the British throne,
and a war between the two nations, which terminated in 1695, by
the peace of Ryswick. At the commencement of the next cen-
tury, broke o t the war of the Spanish succession, which, after
raging twelve yeara, closed in 1714, by the treaty of Utrecht. The
trea^ of neutrality had not been specifically renewed or named,
cither by the treaty of Ryswick or by that of Utrecht : yet on the
3d of June, 1728, the attorney and solicitor general, Yorke and
TMot, gave their official <^inion that the treaty of neutrality was
still in force, and instructions, founded upon its validity, were "iven
to the governors of the British colonies in America.
! * 1741, commenced the war of the Pragmatic Sanction, or for the
Austrian succession, which finished in 1748, by the peace of Aix
la Chapelle — five years after which, the attorney and solicitor gen-
eral, sir Dudley Ryder, and Murray, afterwards lord Mansfield,
gave It as their official opinion that the treaty of neutrality of 1686,
was then yet in force.
The same question occurred in 1765, after the close of the se-
ven years' war, when the attorney and solicitor general, Norton and
De Grey, gave it as their opinion that the treaty of neutrality was
«o<then m force; but the advocate general, sir James Marriott,
gave it as his opinion that it was, and supported his opinion by an
elaborate, ingenious, and forcible argument.
These opinions are all to be found in the Second volume of Chal-
mers's Collectiori of Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, pp. 339—366 ;
and as the result of the whole, Chitty, in his Treatise on the Laws
of Commerce and Manufactures, a work published in 1820, says ;
" It has been considered that a general commercial treaty, not lim'
" ited by its terms to a particular time, is only suspended by a v/ar,
" and, that upon the return of peace, it will tacitly revive, by
*« implication, unless there be an express declaration to the con-
"trary." Chitty, p. 46.*
By the concurrent testimony, therefore of the writers upon the
laws of uations, and of the most eminent British statesmen and
lawyers of the present age, the genera! position that war abrogates
all treaties, autl the particular inference from it, that by the abro-
gation of treaties, the rights or liberties stipulated in them are con-
* Foi the references to these British authorities, relative to the effect of war,
upon treaties, and. treaty stipulations, I liave to acknowledge my obligations
to a learned and ingeaious friend, a nitmber of the Senate of the United
States.
199
^equently discontinued, are both utterly destitute of founijatioo. I
have been the more anxiously earnest in the developement of this
deinoo8trat:on, because the error of Mr. Russell, both as to the
principle and its consequence, is by uo means confined to him. In
the above extracts it will appear, that it was entertained by lord
Auckland himself, until called upon in the deliberations upon the
peace of Amiens, to examine thoroughly the doctrines of the wri-
ters on the laws of nations relating to the subject Be the opinion
of Mr. Russell what it may, the portica of the fisheries to which
we are entitled, even within the British territorial jurisdiction, is
of great importance to this Union. To New-England it is among
f ?°D valuable of earthly possessions. But the whole fishery
of the Bankd, and in the adjoining seas, is at stake, upon the prin-
ciples of Mr. Russell : by his doctrine we now hold it at the breath
of Great Britain ; for, by a declaration of war, she can extinguish
It forever. The foundations of the Union itself are shaken by
this opinion, if the fisheries of New-England are held at the
pleasure of Great Britain, one of the main purposes of the Union
to the people of New-England is taken away. So long as Great
Britain holds a preponderating power upon the ocean, whenever
a war between her and the United States may occur, this great
interest of New-England will be the first to suffer, and in the most
distressing manner. If, besides the endurance of this peculiar hard-
ship which is unavoidable. New England is to be told that her liber-
ties^ in the fisheries themselves, are nothing but voluntary donations
oi Lrreat Britain, which she has a right to resume, on the first firing
of a gun, the. vital interests of New-England are not on the same foot-
ing of protection, by the Union, as those of its other portions. In the
relative proportions of power and influence between the different
sections of the country, New-England will behold, without envy
and without regret, her sisters of the South and of the West, rising
to preeminence in wealth, population, and resources over herselt^
But never ag-ain let her be told, and least of all by one of her own
sons, that her rights, her libr ties, or her possessions, are of trifling
or insignificant value to the nation, and that at the first sound of a
hostile trumpet they will be abandoned to the mercy of the com-
mon enemy ; or surrendered to the desperate chance of a repur-
chase for an equivalent wherever it may be found. -
In my remarks on Mr. Russell's letter, 1 expressed the hope,
that from the whole history of this transaction, the statesmen of this
Union would take warning through all future time, in their conflicts
with foreign powers never to consider any of the liberties of this
nation as abrogated by a war, or capable of being extinguished by
any other agency than our own cxpreas renunciation. Mr. Russell
takes alarm at this lest the implicit renunciation by the British of
the right to navigate the Mississippi should not be sufficient— and
he says, that according to me, that right is unimpaired. Mr. Rus-
sell's conclusion, as usual, is broader than his premises. He might
have seen that the object of my remark was to give warning to the
'^pt '
m
2oa
«tote«meDo< this Union, never to permit or abet the extinguwb-
ment of ^y of our liberties, by abandmment or surrender, which
woud be tacit renunciation. It was no purpose of mioe to say that
our liberties could not be so extinguished. On the contrary, it wai
precisely because after the notification of the British plenipoten-
tiaries on the 9th of August, 1814, our fishing liberties would have
oeen tacitly renounced, had we quietly acquiesced in it, that I deem-
ed the counter notification in the note of 10th November, or a new
stipulation in the treaty indispensable to save those liberties from
extinction. It was precisely because Mr. Russell had not only
Deen prepared to surrender them, but so eager to prove them al-
ready extinct, that I thought it necessary to give this warning to the
statesmen of my country, never hereafter to follow his example.
n was that counter notification, which saved our liberties (and our
nghls too) in the fisheries. Had the negotiation with Great Bri-
tain since the peace, been for the repurchase of liberties acknoir-
ledged by ourselves to be extinct, a very different equivalent must
have been given for them.from the naked right oftiavigating the Mis-
sissippi. 1 he liberties of this Union will never becapable of beine
extinguished otherwise than by express renunciation, so long as the
public servants to whom the defence and protection of them may
be committed are duly determined never to surrender them by im,
- plication. The incapacity of surrender is not in the liberty itself
but in the soul of its defenders. ^ '
ih^^V"" *^* right of the British to the navigation of the Mississippi,
ttiey have not only renounced it, by their concurrence with Mr
Russell that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war, but by
stipulating anew boundary line, which cuts them off from all claim
sat on R,"T *^^ ^^^' '^'J'?^"^ reserving the right to its navi-
gallon. 1 hey have abandoned both the grounds of their claim to
i.rnJ'"" •"?• *^°"t'g"'*y «fld ti-esty stipulation ; end an effectual
guard against it, more effectual indeed than any renunciation, is that
wane they have no territory upon its borders, they never can have
any interest in reviving it. Their very advancing any claim to it
Via^ ' ^^ ®° inconsistency with their doctrine4hat the treaty of
lltrK"^** abrogated by the war, and as they really had no interest
worth a straw in the claim, they finally abandoned it, to redeem
their consistency. They, like Mr. Russell, were willing enough to
adopt one principle tor operation upon their own claims and its on-
posite principle, to affect the claims of their adversary ; but as the
obje-tof their claim was of no real value, they finally preferred to
abandon their claim, rather than tbrmally to renounce their doc-
But there is one object which to Mr. Russell, ae a member of
Congress, seems to present matter for very serious consideration
Jf the navigation downwards of the Mississippi, by British subjects'
with merchandise on which the duties have been paid, and subject
to all the custom-house regulations, is a power of such tremendous'
consequence to the Union, and especially to the unojinding infaa^
H,f
2ei
«?S;1'^ ••""»"" beTrfb-teJ Mt°" How halt"" "•
« the T nion been palsied » Whv h»a ^i.^ j- *^ "^ ^'^^ arm
nothing proposed to be stinulatpd hv thf^A- ! * ^°®*'« ^m
plenipotentCiea on the fiTXc/mber IsL^^^^^^^ V' i^^^J'^^^^
jects do not at this hour possess and h!vl' ^"'^ ^"*'** ^ub-
without any stipulation wCeJwLihp "f 7?.""*^^ *° «W.
the State ofLo!ii8ianaintrthTunLkL?-IS°°«[*''*'^"^
« taken as a condition upon which ?hl ^flVl^^-^ ^^""^ '* ^^^a" be
" the Union, that the river MTssssioD. »L ,!*^*' ".'"'^orporated in
'• waters leading intrtheLmr«nF; ^?u *^^5«^'gable rivers and
" conmon A.^Jay, and Gulf of Mexico, shall be
" said State Is to ?he inLbS of o^L' T." *° **!f i°'^«»'»t«°t« of
"of the United States, WitCanv tax dut • '' ""? ^^ *""'*°"««
" for. imposed by the said State " Th^fw^K?^"'*' °' *""' *•»««-
way. free to all the citizens of the Unt^ Z^i"^ u ^ ^°°"°°» ^'gh-
the constitution of the State of Lo?.S ■^^'' ^^ ^^'^ «<^^' and V
free to all foreigners at peace ^th?;!' n '."f T* <>*'fa<^t equally
quently toBritish sub^cr It^aL be DrS!h>'^/'''.''l^"^ '«»««-
no such law is in existence t»e prohibited only bylaw, and
source to the Jcean. It d7not tin^ ^^n'^rt^. the river, frim its
ascending the riv«r frL It °** "^ ^'^ '*^'"'* *^em to a right of
above thlttTo^rot^^'L^S^^ifer^"^'^ ^^^'^ vessels to^pLt
wifi;:srtS;L:/t:ffrLt;?rf ^* ^^- ^--"^
h.s opinions with regard ^It UUe tf trr^rcorer^"^' ^*
20*2
///. Fishing Liheriien — their Value.
Or all the errors in Mr. RustelFs letter of 11th February, 1815,
to the Secretary of State, there is none more extraordinary in its
character, or more pernicious in its tendency, than the disparaging
' estimate which he holds forth of the vaiue of the liberties in the
fisheries, secured by the treaty of 1783, and, as he would maintain,
extinguished, by the war of 1812. Not satisfied with maintaining
in the face of his own signatures at Ghent, the doctrine that all right
to them had been irredeemably extinguished by the war ;' not con-
tented with the devotion of all his learning and alt his ingenuity, to
take from his country the last and only support of right upon which
this great interest had, by himself and his colleagues, been left at
the conclusion of the peace to depend ; not ashamed of urging the
total abandonment of a claim, at that very time in litigation, and of
which he was himself one of the official defenders, he has exhausted
his powers, active and meditative, in the effort to depreciate the
value of those possessions, Which, while committed to bis charge,
he was so surprisingly Tntent upon relinquishing forever.
His first attempt in this patriotic career, is to represent this in-
terest as a merely sectional and very trifling concern, brought in
conflict at Ghent with another but a much greater and deeper inte-
rest of a different section of the Union.
His next enfleavour is to represent it as an exclusive interest of a
few iudividualti, the mere accommodation of a few fishermen, annu-
ally decreasing in number.
And, finally, he degrades the value of the object itself, by affirm*
ing that the fogs in the high northern latitudes prevented the effectual
curing of the fish, and that this liberty was totally unnecessary to us
for subsistence or occupation, and afforded in no way, (iu the du-
plicate he says in no AoKcsf way,) any commercial facility or political
advantage.
It is scarcely possible to render a greater disservice to the peo-
fV of ihis Union, than in their controversies with foreign powers,
tu array the interests of one section of the Union against those of
another. On no occasion can this be so dangerons as when the
power, with whom the negotiation is held, has the purpose of wrest-
ing from us the enjoyment of such a possession, the immedifitR in-
terest of which is confined to one section ; and I confidently aihrm,
that never since the existence of the United States -as an independ-
ent nation, has there been an emergency upon which there was less
reason for flinging into the discussion this torch of dissension, than
at the negotiation of Ghent. The aim of the enemy w;i3 at the fish-
eries. His object was to deprive us of them. The American ple-
nipotentiaries were instructed not to surrender them. What more
could the enemy defeire, than to excite within the American mission
itself, a sectional interest adverse to that of the fisheries ? He did
so ; and so far as Mr. Russell dared to indulge his disposition, moft
* 203
Jd a more aealou- and acceptobie service T^^u""' ^"""^ P«'^<'«'m.
doctnne. of hi. letter of llTFebruaT'lBlS ^'^^''''''iH the
at luue, It was their aivument that h«?.'J J * /' *<* ^he object
•«cited, it w«« their interest hi w!! ^''*'' -*' *^ **>« spirit he
would have been the account to^bKl;"*- ^^ "«»* inrfeJS
heir nght of navigating the fiiljpi?/,^^^^^^^ have turned
hey disclaimed it, they could haTobtl'i^ir*'-^ "^"^''t '^hile
bat of the.e United StJtes to their fishtTlihiif- "' '«""n<^«tion.
immense d^proportion of what 'bey w3 i***"*'"'' *««*• the
change, they would have plan ed in thoh ^''r «"'"*«* »»y the «»-
of bitterness which neve? S Ll i*'*'''^ ''^ *''« ^"ion. a roi
Its blood Ffndthe fiSs bee^su^^^^^^^^^^^ «P »>"* i?S^
of New.England came to inqulr" TheZ '^Z^^'' ^^e people
them, and how they had been & ZhJ ^f f^^'^^i' liberties in
been to be told~thev were ll! I\ ^ "T^^'d their feelings have
bidding British suK f^*''itl Z'' ""l^^ »«'" ^^e righf of for!
boats? With what Can'ru^a'n'c'e^rufd tt I'^^V^P' ^^-^
We have lost nothing, upon the whni? v *^ *'.*''^ ^'^^''d i* said,
yo«rfisheries--buti;haCacquired be rl2 'f'^^ ^«^« '««*
Enghshmen from travelling a hiEv i„^^'«'^ ""^ '"terdicting all
It was notin the power of man 7^^^^ ^''^ Western Country —
t. detach the affeVns ofT iL'ToT^Ti'"''! betterX
»r^K:rb;s^^i^^^^ .
pose that the article WnoTrfthantE ' "" ^'^^^ ^° -^
ed to mean , and then he infers tZftZoMh ^'^f*''*''^ P'^-P^^t*
to mean the same thing as tLtSlZifpT ''^^n ""derstood
and as the free access both of ill ""'^ ""^ *^« '''eaty of 1794 .
dians within our tSrt^, whi^h [hThTd "" '' *^«*'« ^'^^ ^^e ll'
caused inconveniences to usrwhich h«5 h ^"'" '^ "'« »'''*'«'>. had
structioiis of I5th April laiT K^ ''.''^^^««? mentioned in the in-
rJU '''' ^^'^^^ ^om Ve'contin^ait^^^^^^ ^" ^ «'-« -^
he Mississippi. No such inference S/h"'J''«'^^ *° "«^'g«te
the article. The article was precTselv whl l^ ^'*" *''''"^° f^°«»
no more; a.id if, under colour ofT^RvV* P'"P'^''*^d to be, and
tempted to g.ye it a greater extension . '^ ^^^^^""^^ ^"'d ever at-
on .rely in the power of the rm:;;;;;''':^''^ ''"'"^^ ^^^« »>«««
. It IS the first common-ulacrnf?? ^?^"'^°'^«"trolthem
«)«, to mis-state the ouSn ?n Hi. '-'^ ^'^'^ sophistical reason-
«»akingthis.withoutSnorLce^^^^^^^^ ""^^''' «"«««"' «^"r
jnterest against another, chan.rthelf.'tnri-'r "^""^ ^^^^'"""J
901
f-
ing the Eastern interest, which he has brought in conflict wtt^ mch
other.
I have shown that the proposal acta ally made to the British pie*
nipotentiaries, was, by the admission of Mr. Ruasell himself, sd
worthless, that it was nothing that they could accept ; as in fact it
was not accepted by them. Let us now see what was the value of
this fishery ; this '* doubtful accommodation of a few fishermen,
annually decreasing in number."
From the tables in Dr. Seybert's Statistical Annals, it will be
seenllflit in the year 1807, there were upwards of seventy thou-
sand tons of shipping employed in the cod fishery alone ; and thut
ii. that and the four preceding years, the exports from the United
States of the proceeds of the fisheries, averaged three millions of
dollars a year. There was indeed a great diminution during the
years subsequent to 1807, till the close of the war — certainly not
voluntary, but occasioaed by the state of our maritime relations'
with Europe, by tfur own restrictive system> and finally by the
war. But no sooner was that terminated, than the fisheries reviv-
ed, and in the year 1816, the year after Mr. Russell's letter was
written, there were again upwards of sixty-eight thousand tons,
employed in the cod fishery alone. From Dr. Seybert's state-
ments, it appears further, that in this occupation the average of sea-
men employed is of about one man to every seven tons of shipping,
so that these vessels were navigated by ten thousand, of the har-
diest, most skilful, soberest, and best mariners in th^ world. —
*' Every person (says Dr. Seybert,) on board our fishing vessels,
** has an interest in common with his associates ; their reward de-
'* pends upon their industry and enterprise. Much caution is ob-
" served in tiie selection of the crews of our fishing vessels ; it often
*' happens that every individual is connected by blood, and the
" strongest ties of friendship. Our fishermen are remarkable for
*< their sobriety and good conduct, and they rank with the most
'* skilful navigators."
Of these ten thousand men, and of their wives and children, the
cod fisheries, if I may be allowed the expression, were the daily
bread — their property — their subsistence. To how many thou-
sands more were the labours and the dangers of their lives subser-
vient ? Their game was not only food and raiment to themselves,
but to millions of other human beings.
There is something in the very occupation of fishernen, not
only beneficent in itself but noble and exalted in the qualities of
which it requires the habitual exercise. In common with the cul-'
tivators of the soil, th^r labours contribute to the subsistence of
mankind, and they have the merit of continual exposure to danger,
superadded to that of unceasing toil. Industry, frugality, patience,
perseverance, fortitude, intrepidity, souls inured to perpetual con-
flict with the elements, and bodies steeled with unremitting action,
ever grappling with danger, and familiar -with death : these are
the properties to which the fisherman of the ocean is formed by
I
'-4 "
•W
/.4t'«v
205
W« first, and found hi, m™?^? °;i,f . T°"' ">' ">inkind, tmgbl
of nations wars, the examnlA. r^full^ . deadliest rancours
of exempting. b/thecoStnsenfS^^ ^'''^ ^''^^^^'
mie,, fishermen from thToper.tion of ll f .v°'' exasperated ene-
with Prussia, they are expSf"",^^^ '» <>"«• treaties
••Wio,c occ,i«« J«, areiTor .?; ^^^ among the classes of meji
the parties Xevsh.n h» n' ^* "^^^^ event of war betweei
with?ut'Se?t:fiot"No: tel de^^^^^^^^^^ t^^ ^'"'"^y"-"
conspicuous than their usefu ness their k?nd wL'TK^ '""
man^of the ocean, far from his native land frnrnK^V''-. **"''^-
his fire-side, pursues at the consfan haS of S V ^"°''^' "°^
the bosom of the deep, the desire of hUhf 1 ■ I ^'l S^""® "P°n
his situation ever intently turned toward- K-k'' ^^ ^^-^ °"^"« <
and his country. To be lost to th«r-^^^^ '"""*' ' *'''"^''^'''
fears ; to return with the fn, 11 n A- .*^ J^' *''^"' ^^^"««t edge to his
all his hopes By no men u^^^^^^^^^ *° '^^"^ '« ^he object of
tions bee'n mor^ c^s^tF;:::^^^^^^^^^^^
New.England. From the Dror3 If 1 ■ ^ . * fishermen of
our national arm did it not impart firmness and ener^J" w7 °^
told they were ^'ammally decreasing in numLr •" vFt *k u*"!
lost their occupation by the war »f hIk Y®* ' ^^^^ ^^^^^
ermen of New-England. in the tu^ of w^^fnl i a^^ ^^"^ ^^^ ^'^'
peal to the heroes%t « / our nav^al wai-asi'th?'"^'"'!' ^P*
Algiers and Tripoli-ask the rXme^s o?!.^ the vanquishers of
chains of servitude, and of your „S frJ^^ "ih '^T "' r^^^
annual tribute to the barbarifnrof ASa~c"ll o^hrf'''" '^
of our last struggles with Britain-Lnsk H.^ on the champions
Stewart,Porter,?ndMaclnXr;:i;^^^^^^^^^^
hshermen were the companions of Jheir victories arfd sea ?dTh1:
proudest of our triumphs with their blood • and /aIh J! r ^ '
t»l.e„ l„ „„r &ho™e„ before tL prcenf ".nrlrtu: *! '
2o
trpen sea, or upon oar own coasts, and cured on our own shoiea."
1 his assertion is, like the rest, erroneous.
The shore fishery is carried on in vessels of leas than twenty ton*
burthen, the proportion of which, as appears by Seybert's Statisti-
cal Annals, is about one seventh of the whole. With regard to
the comparative value of the Bank, and Labrador fisheries, I sub-
join hereto, inrormation collected from several persons, acquainted
with them, as their statements themselves will show in their mi-
nutest details.
♦i.^d""*u'''^ P«"*><^ of t'^e negotiation, I had been satisfied, that
.he British plenipotentiaries would not accept the renewal of the
8th article of the treaty of 1783, (the Mississippi navigation) as an
equivalent for the Renewal of the third, (the fisheries.) In the
correspondence which followed their notification at the first con-
ference, that their government did not intend to grant the former
fishing liberties without an equivalent, they had even dropped
their claim for an article renewing their right of navigating the
Mississippi, until we met their pretension that the fisheries had
t»eeo forfeited by the war, which we first did in our note of the 10th
of November, 1814. The principle upon which I had always re-
lied, was, that the rights and liberties recognised in the 3d article
of the treaty of 1783, had not been abrogated by tbe war, and
would remain in full force after the peace, unless we should re-
nounce them expressly by an article in the treaty, or tacitly by
acquiescing in the principle asserted by the British plenipotentia-
ries. 1 here was a period during the negotiations, when it was
probable they might be suspended, until the American commis-
IT^^u*""" '*^*^^"'® "^'^ instructions from their government.
Alter the peace was signed I was aware that the question relating
to the fisheries, must become a subject of discussion with the Bri-
tish governrnent ; and I had been previously informed by the Se-
cretary of State, that if the negotiation should result in the con-
clusion of peace, it was the President's intention to nominate me
lor the subsequent mission to Great Britain. I felt it, therefore,
to be peculiarly my duty to seek the best information that i could
obtain, m relation both to the rigiits and liberties in the fisheries.
as recognised in the treaty of 1783, and to their value. The fol-
lowing are extracts of two letters written by me from Ghent, to one
ot the negotiators of the treaty of 1783. By attending to the dates
It will be seen, that the first of them was written three days before
the first, proposal by Mr. Gallatin, of the article relatinl^ to the
Mississippi and the fisheries, and the second, two days after the
signature of the peace.
Ghent, 27th October, 1814.
« My dear sir : The situation in which I am placed, often brings
to my mind that in which you were situated in the yearl7H2, and
I will not describe the feelings with which the compari.c,„, or I
might rather say, the contrast affects me. 1 am called to support
207
iUj ""« '°*««*»;i' and in many respects the same ideutical points
and quwtionji. The causes in which the present war origiMted
and tor which it was on our part waged, will scarcely form the mont
insignihcant it^m in the negotiation for peace. It is not imDrnt..
mentand unalienable allegiance, blockades and orderrincound
colon.Hl trane and maritime rights, or belligerent and neutral collliM
91008 01 any kind that form the subjects of our discussion It is the
boundary, the fisheries, and the Indian savages.
•• It IS nothing extraordinary but a strong evidence of the real
character of the contest in which we are engaged, that the noit
offensive and inadmissible of the British demands are pointed
against the State of Massachusetts. It is a part of her territory
of which they require the cession, and it is the fisheries of her
citizens which they declare themselves determined no lonier to
allow. 1 18 not the general right to the fisheries which they con-
tes , but the liberty of fashing and of drying fish within their juris-
diction, stipulated m the 3d article of (he pence of 1783 For mv
own part, I consider the whole article as containing parts of the
general acknowledgment of our Independence, and therefore As
needing no renewal by any future treaty. But as the subiect will
certainly come under the consideration of the government of the
United States, they will have time to give instructions founded upon
their view of it, before any peace can be concluded. There is no
doubt, whenever the negotiation is resumed, that this point will be-
come again a subject for discussion. If there is among your papers
relating to the negotiations of peace in 1782 and 1783, any infer-
ination tending to elucidate the third article of those treaties which
you can communicate to me, it may perhaps serve a valuable pur-
pose to the public. And as this letter contains more than i should
at this moment think myself warranted to communicate even to
you, but for the particular motive which occasions it, I must re-
quest of you to consider it as entirely confidential.
« Ghent, 26th December, 1814.
" My dear sir : I transmited by Mr. Hughes a duplicate of my last
letter to you, dated 27th October, which I still entreat you to an-
swer, if lam destined to a longer continuance in Europe, and upon
which I ask all the advice and information which it may be in your
power to bestow. It relates principally to the subject of the great-
est difficulty we have had in the negotiation, and that, which of all
others, IS left in the state the most unsatisfactory to us and particn-
larly to me. It has been now for a full month ascertained, that
unless new pretensions on the part of Great Britain were advanced
a treaty of peace would be signed ; but it was not until last Thurs-
day that I ceased to doubt whether it would receive my sigillure.
The British plenipotentiaries had declared to us at the outset of
the negotiation, that it was not the intention of the British govern-
ment to grant to the people of the United States in future the li-
berties of fishing, and drying, and curing fish within the exclusive
4^
2oa
Biiti&li jurisdiction ymhout an eauivahnt 'ri.«.,„ •
lemember. ia the U.i.d article orthe treaty if ITB^'-'lir" ^'c
kfSn°"^ ''^'''^ "•« general fisS t he Lntr^^^^^^^^
knOHrledKed as our right, but these fishing privifeKes wUhTn the
British jurisdiction, are termed Siherties Thln^fil
«nent.con,ider the latter «, frl kine Jojfeited ipt''(l1',oTvTi;::
rSt t'o nav?«te tie i'*''"^""''P'' *'''?^' '«'^' ^«^ ''o'-feited thdr
17M VhJl "^^ ^ Mississippi, recognised in the same treaty of
brought rnrruT-r^rUdt^rhortraS
ing on the same Footing : both as he'continZ t . f Y^ k '*""t
risdiction had been that of our owniovSn hv »t^ special ju-
term. them.el,e, and »otCt "hVartic e o^irfh 7"",°«™ **'
tha. one, more than L oLer^hmWbe liabte^r^^^^^^
.ub,eqo«.t war. On the m.ta,e7delibeS„ .tfnto S « ■''^ "
gament to he sound, and it is to mv m^ .Lf ( . ""' "''■
ourcJaim to the fisheries witW„ B?i,T,h''i'ri!r,-^ ""' ^^ "*'"'>
lained. Bot after the declarS made bv Jhe r1'° h °™ •"= "'''»-
«was not to be enpecled Zt IhTv „„„u k "'"'' «°"'"'"""'"''
opinion without Stscul,!, SLicrii LbM^'f'' '° *'l
the result of this must ha,e heei "e Jy drXfol J^^° '■° j"'' '"?,
.noes inclined, and at this time most ?ec£w' S'eTal'r' ",'„'
the gilund upon which ourJ::e'rnmtt*de '^e J ^"r'rpS:;;
r„xrheVier'-?h^^^ir/orarirlL?p^:;¥""^^^«^^^^
^hcn the, c«ne to -/a-UpuStS^feli ^^8^^^^^^^^^
209
anart^!6reco«^j,„g;,f/J«^-^^^^ W*. offered'
thMioffer met. l.o»vever. with verv Jl *'''" •"» *^*" "ide. ;
;je navigation of the Ms^Lip EmL?^.;"« '*' ""^^ '^''° though;
the contested part of thefi^he/L S'^T'^"^'^ '"°*"« valuable thnn
nient think ; for thev ,n«to«.l «f ^*^^ '° ^''^ ^''^ BriiiBh Jvern
stipulating t'o negotfa^t^Tereaftet fr^''"« '^ ''«'«^«'* "• «« artidj
Great Britain for the riX nf n . "" equivalent to be given hi
r^nited State, f^r the 1 fertifs^ff Sh'^^- ^''TPP'' ««* by thl
f'c .on. This was merely to obtalS fl^""" T^^"" ^^'t"** J»S!
hat both the right, were aCognte 'hv^r„"' '^'l^T^ •«»«'"-^»
I was determined not to subscribi^ th^'V .^^ t'»«t admission
last Thursday by the British niT * • ® "***"='« ^«» withdraw*
pro4,os„, to siy nothing 'n he' rtJC^^ ^^'^^ accepted ou?
Hrt^cle by which they had agreeTtLfn"^*'^^^^^^ to omit the
^ake of the Woods should be the 49 h ^°""''«ry ^^st from the
iL^7K"^'^" ««'"« time referred Itn to fh'"""' ° ""'•*'' '«titude!
that the fisheries within British iS-^-^^"" ^"^"""^ declaration
granted without an eqVvSent It if pv^" 7 "J*^ °^^
subject of a future neg^otiatTon The onk th"* '^'' I """"^ »>« 'he
now, was to preserve our who e clai'm „„^ii.^'"^ ^T'^^^ *« he done
consented to sign the treaty -!_ """"P^'^ed, and with that I
" As a citizen of Massachusetts I Mt :♦ # u
4uty not to abandon any one of £«; riSts i?f """Jr^^^Jiarly my
sign the treaty had any one of thp£ k ' ^"1' '^°"''' h«ve re/bsed
.mpossibJe to fo/ce a sti/ul^tL^ i ';avot\^^^^^^^^^^^ ^"* 't^J
a temporary possession of Moose IshnJ L . ^^heries ; and for
certamed whether it belong rhetJC'J^ """.'.'^ ">«" »>e ^!
continumg the war. — ^ " "°*» ^e could not think ol*
^riri!;^^?^^^^^^^ f"?r "*°"' "■« 6". or
great «a.i,f»clion i„ saline Iha onr Lf "l"" "' »'«<• Ihivi
pondeDl and » „„„ p„b|i,hed mth Mr SJ''- "> "V ™'C
»as wrillen ig conseqaence of ik, J!'!: .J"" ? PeTOission. It
•bove leuer from me, Id" ^^ „j| be 7.TrTT '" W™ «f the
""" •«" «- of «r. Rosso.i.lelrer.'oVt Mo'ltVl^L'-^.t.'
210
« iiif
" " BMton, Btii Mtareh. ISI^.
bir : In a former nqte, returning the tetter with which y<jM
had io obligingly fHVOured me, I had the honour to offer you my
congrittulation^ on the termination of the war, without waiting to
know what were the grounds of the treaty which concluded it ;
because, from the tenor of the previous correspondence, and^T
personal knowledge of nearly all the commissionerff, I felt a reli-
•oce that the arrangement would not be a dishonourable, although
? acknowledge my rejoicing was mingled with fear least it should
be, at least in some points, h disadvantageous, one ; and thit expres-
sion of feeling I volunteered with the more readiness, aa th« intelli-
gence was received nt a moment when the national character had
been splendidly illuntrated by the recent achievement ut New-
Orleans.
" But I greeted the occurrence with smiles, principally not be-
cause I expected it would bring or restore to us ali the benefits we
fiossessed under former treaties, but because I saw no chance, but
rem this source, of happier proppects for the future. It was not,
however, the storm that howled along the lakes, or upon the sea-
board, that created the apprehension of an instant for the fate of the
contest, but it was the hidden fire that was rumbling within our own
bosoms, and which, under the continuance of the war, would, I be-
lieve, have made our country the theatre of domestic convulsions,
as well as of foreign warfare, and perhaps from its effects have of-
fered up some parts of it aa no very diflicult prey to the mercy of
the enemy.
** On this head, I know, sir, you had better hopes, and thought
differently from me ; and I have now only to say, I am glad the ex-
periment hui* never come to issue.
'^ As the price of the purchase of an escape from evils portentous
a? these, I considered it as probable that the English government
might claim from us the contested eastern islands, and interdict all
trade between us and her colonial possessions ; and possibly still
further, that she would endeavour to extort from us the coast fishe-
ries around her own shores ; for, on the magnanimity or friendship
of Great Britain, or of any other nation, in matters of interest, I
confass I never had the ability to lash my imagination into any sort
of dependence ; but I did also cherish the belief that none of our
esisential or important rights or liberties would be u. i vsisaljed or sur-
rendered. Of the latter, the one of the greatest :;o!i "re nee in
reference to its intrinsic value, and as derived f . • c . s'cov.ry aru
possession, and confirmed by a formal treaty stipulation, is unquds-
tionably that to which you have referred — the coast fisheries on the
shores of the British possessions in North America.
" These fisheries, as most advantageously secured to the United
States by the treaty of 1783, and made at the time, as 1 have always
vsa Jerstood, a sine qua non of that treaty, offer an invaluable fund
of iiv«>?,Uh and power to our country ; one which has never been
diily attended to, nor justly appreciated, but which, if continued
an
reached, io « *ery -muH deirei 1 11^' """' *'«*' ""doubilny
wn« capable of attaining X unltuled T?" ?'' i'^Portance ft
^orld for the p«.t tweSty yrr. "nd tJ« "'"' '' . ^^« commercial
mercantile enterprise whicl^^; ;«TtJtl^%T,r """''"« "''>«'» of
•" pomt cf immediate con,iden ion « Id «. « ?*" '''"'''**'• '««'»•«».
"heriea into the back iriound h T r i ""«""on, to throw theic
•ystem of embargoes «Sd".t;irt?n "' "."^'' ""' «»»«cked by the
c W|,„ ,f war.'they were S^^^^ «'°PP-1 by a da!
reaching an importance which thof/.h ^"^0^' P'OKres.ing, and
country and ita«tate.men; lad become Cn""^ ""''"°*^'' *« "ur
vernmenta and more wealthy merch it' ./ "''"*'"'"« *° "'« go-
beginning to attract the attention • /''^ P''°*''nce8. and wnt
Graat Britain toward, them °" ""^ J^'*'""»> ^^ »«•« c;binet J
ofChalLta'nVtt'S'^^^^^^^
and the CoaJt of LabrX appea';":!"^^' ^ «'^«'^- «' ««l7
God of Nature as the great ovTum If h^r ^f" designed by he
Po».tory of this species of food nZl ? 'Z^^^ i^exbnmml re.
r.can but of the^^Kuropean con^Lnt^ Mi"^ ^"PP'^ °'"''^« Ame.
catch them m endless abundance iS'm, *''®P'*oper season, to
to bait the hook and pull the S in i "^ *'^°''* " "*«'l«d than
necessary. I„ clear leather ne^riT"'""""^ «^«" »*>•« i» no"
Al this was gradually making hllr^L'^ ""''' '''«'"•
and vigilance of the NevvLuK- 1 ''"''"'" ^^ the enternrisc
prior to the year ms tLtTot'^^^^^ T' ''' « few .eTsonH
cod, the New-England fishermen I am ^nJ/^'^^'o^^^^^atching the
#
212
are much better able to conceive than I am to degcribe ; but I witiv
pleasure point them anew for your consideration, an on many ac-
counts presenting one of the most interesting public objects to which
it can be directed.
Lucrative, however, and imposing in its individual and national
b< mugs, as this fishery was and was to become, it was IKtIe known
to the leading men of our country, and little spoken of by others,
even in Massachusetts, or among those who were actually engaged
in it, and a knowledge of its existence ,in any thing like its real
extent, or future capability, was perhaps confined to not more than
half a dozeo heads, (if so many,) in the whole of the Southern and
Western, and even Middle divisions of the Union.
'* The causes e,f its value and importance not being a matter of
great notoriety here, are obvious ; it was an employment not only
in the fishery, but in many instances undoubtedly in trade^ with
the British inhabitants ; those who were engaged in it made no un-
necessary promulgations of their employment, while the poorer in-
habitants of the provinces, tasting equally its sweets and advan-
tages, were alike disposed to keep silence with regard to it ; but not
BO situated were the provincial governments, and the more wealthy
of ♦he merchants of the sea-port towns. They had become highly
aF' ^ed at the expansion ol this fishery and trade ; jealous of its
f egress and clamorous at its endurance; they, therefore, of late
years, have repeatedly memorialized the government in England,
respecting the fisheries carried on by the Americans, while the
whole body of Scottish adventurers, whose trade both in import»
and exports, and control over the inhabitants it cartailed, have
turned out in full cry jnd joined the chorus of the colonial govern-
ments in a crusade against the encroachments of the infidels, the
disbelievers in the divine authority of kings, or the rights of the
provinces, and have pursued their objects so assiduously tbat'at
their own expense, as I am informed from a respectable source, in
the year 1807 or 8, they stationed a watchman in some favourable
positior. near the Straits of Canso, to count the number of American,
vessels which passed those straits on this empbyment ; who re-
turned nine hundred and thirty-eight as the number actually ascer-
tained by him to have passed, and doubtless many others, during
the night or in stormy or thick weather, escaped his observation ;
and some of these addressers have distinctly looked forward with
gratification to a state of war, as a desirable occurrence, which
would, by its existence, annul existing treaty stipulations, so inju-
rious, as they contend, to their interests and those of the nation.
With what degree of correctness this expectation has been enter-
tain€id, the future must determine ; but unfortunately these mur-
murs and complaints reached England, and were industriously cir-
culated about the time that our restrictive measures awakened an
unusual and critical attention to the commercial connection between .
the two countries, and probably the value and importance of this
branch of it is now at least as fully understood and appreciated on
the eastern as on the western side of the Atlatilic.
213
en.,rt»taed them. F^m a^^ar?rf„.!''.°K° V"".""" ""> •"»"
an ««enerallv I „I^S i"""?" """"'""e '*«"■». 't lia> been,
considerable expense, and lake with them from the UniLd Sta^f
l.Lf! "'ft'"? t^'- '"''"" '^^ fi^h bite uell, which is not alwav;
the case, and haul the.r cod in a depth of water from 45 to SiT
hemb t^e hnlf ''"^' '""'^ ""^'^ '"'^ °P«» theTh! aid place
in „ nlnr i! '• u- '" ""*^"''^^' «°«^ ^consequently, in some degree
freir'l^ ''^''•'k'"^ '*?'"' «"^ after having ol^^tained a So^
freight, re urn with .t to the United States, to he cured or dr e^'and
arl '.'t'^^'^f^'^"' '^"^ ^^^«^^ ii"^ i« «^one, or they can bo
er a^d' p«;':f i'l^^ ■"-!• ^ '-« deteriorated. becoLs^on
er, ano part of ,t make, an inferior quality of fish, called Jamaica
214
tish, and the proportion of this Jamaica fish is much greater than it
would have been had the fish been dried and cured shortly after
having been taken, as is the case with the Coast and Bayf isbery ;
in addition to which, these vessels employed in ihe Bank Fishery
are unavoidably obliged to prosecute this business with a great
comparative expense, as to the wear and tear of their vessels, and
loss of time, and with an increased degree of hazard, both as to
safety and success.
" The Coast and Labrador Fisheries are prosecuted in vessels of
from 40 to 120 tons burthen, carrying a number of men, according
to their respective sizes, in about the same proportion as the ves •
sels on the Bank Fishery. They commence their voyages in May,
and get on the fishing ground about the 1st of June, before which
time bait cannot be obtained. This bait is furnished by a small
species of fish called capling, which strike in shore at that time,
r.nd are followed by immense shoals of cod fish, which feed. upon
them. Each vessel selects its own fishing ground, along the coasts
of the Bay o( Chaleurs, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of
Bellisle, the Coast of Labrador, even as far as Cumberland Island,
and the entrance of Hudson's Bay, lliiis improving a fishing ground
reaching in extent from the 45th to the 68th degree of north latitude.
" In choosing their situation, the fishermen generally seek some
sheltered and safe harbour, or cove, where they anchor id about
six or seven fathoms water, unbend their sails, stow them below, and
literally making themselves at home, dismantle and convert their ves-
sels into habitations at least as durable as those of the ancient Scy-
thians. They then cast a net over the stern of the vessel, m which
a sufficient number of capling are soon caught to supply them with
bait from day to day. Each vessel is furnished with four or five
light boats, according to their size and number ot mert, each boat
requiring two men. They leave the vessel early in the morning,
and seek the best or sufficiently good spot for fishing, which is fre-
quently found within a few rods of their vessels, and very rarely
more than one or two miles distant from them, where they haul thp
fish as fast as they can pull their lines, and sometimes it is said thai
the fish have been so abundant, as to be gaft or scooped into the
boajs, without even a hook or hne ; and the fishermen also say that
the cod fish have been known to pursue the capling in such quan-
tities, and with such voracity, as to run in large numbers quite out
of water <m to the shores. The boats return to the vessels about
nine o'clock in the morning, at breakfast, put their fiph on board,
salt and split them ; and after having fished several days, by which
time the salt has been sufliciently struck in the fish first caught, they
carry them on shore and spread and dry them on the rocks or tem-
porary flakes. This routine is followed every day, with the addi-
tion of attending to such as have been spread, and carrying on board
and stowing awhy those that have become sufficiently cured, until
the vessel is filled with dried fish, fit for an immediate market,
which is generally the case by the middle or last of Augiist, an*'.
^^
213
^Vilh which she then proceeds immediately to Europe, or returns '
w the United States ; and this fish, thus caught and cured, is es'-
teemed the best that is brought to market, and for several years pre-
vious to that of 1808, was computed to furnish three fourth parU of
all the dried fish exported trom the United States. This fishery
was also about that time taking a new form, which would have had
a double advantage, both in point of profit and extension ; for some
ot our merchants were beginning to send their large vessels to the
Labrador Coast, and its vicinity, to receive therejvom small fishing
boats they employed or purchased from, cured fish, to load their
vessels with immediately for Europe, thus saving so great an ex-
pense m gettmgthe fish to market abroad, as would in a short time
have given ouF merchants a command of the European markets
and would have also afforded an encouragement to a small but verv
^ numerous boat fishery, which, from receiving the pay for their la^
hour on the spot, could not fail to have been greatly excited and in-
creased, and enabling the persons concerned in the exportation
trom the coast, to receive at home the proceed, of their adventures
trom abroad, about as early as the bank fish could have been put
into a state fit to be exported from the United States : in addition to
which we were prosecuting a very productive salmon and macka-
rel fishery, in the same vicinity, as most of the pickled fish we had
s'horel-^ ^"""^ ^^^^^ ^"'''" *"* ^^^ ^^"^ ^^'^ ''""Sht on those
" J^j^P"*' Fnhery, then, most highly important and invaluable
as I think it must be admitted to be, even from the foregoing hastv and
imperfect sketch of it, merits every possible degree of attention and
effort for its preservation on the part of the government of the
United States. The refusal of the British commissioners to re-
new or recognise the stipulation of the treaty of 1783 respectinc
It, and the notification, I hope not formally given, that it would not
hereafter be permitted without an equivalent, are alarming indica-
tions m reference to the future peaceable prosecution of this fish-
ery, and of the dispositions of the British government with regard
" The difference of expression used in the third article of the
treaty of peace of 1783, as to the right of fishing on the Banks of
T^cwfoundland, and the liberty of fishing on tlie coasts of the Bri-
tish provinces m North America, however it might have originated
affords a diversity of expression which, in the present instance*
will be seized, and b- made to give the partizans of Great Britain
and of the provinces a popular colour of justice in support of their
arguments, when they contend, as I think they probably will do
that in so important a con .act the variance of language could not
have been a matter of a ;ident ; that if precision in the use of
terms m their most literal iense is any where to be expected it is
certainly to be looked /or in an instrument which is to form the
paramount law between two nations, whose clashing interests have
brought them into collision, and wiiich is generally framed bv men
216
of the most distiogoished talents of each party, the acuteness of
whose conceptions is always kept in full play by the contending
. pretensions they have respectively to consult and sustain ; and that
therefore a distinction was nnade, and was intended to be made, at
the time of the negotiation between a right derived from the <3rod
of nature, and to be exercised on the common field of his bounty, the
great high- way of nations; and the liberty, permission, or indulgence,
as they will term it, to continue the exercise of an employment on
the coast at the very doors, and within the peculiar and especial
jurisdiction, of another nation : the one according to this doctrine
being a right inherent and not to be drawn in question, the other
a sufferance open to modification or denial altogether subsequently
to a war, according to the will or the interests of the party origin- .
ally acceding to it.
•' The liberty, for the expression of the treaty in the discussion
between the two nations must be admitted, whether it operate ad-
versely or favourably to us, rests for its own continuance either as
we assert on the ground of right as an anterior possession apd a
perpetual franchise, or as the British will contend on the existence
of the treaty of 1783. The first ground to be 8U{)ported on the
view taken of it in your own letter and in that which you had the
goodness to communicate to me, and even on the second, admitting
pro forma that a declaration of war does ipso facto abrogate all
previous treaty stipulations brought into contest by it, unless tacitly
or expressly renewed by a new treaty to be an acknowledged prin-
ciple of international law, still the right in question could, I be-
lieve, rest untouched and unaffected, although I know not with
what degree of decision or determination the negation of a future
use of the coast fisheries was brought forward in the negotiations
at Ghent by the British commissioners^ But while on the one
hand the coupling the offer to treat for a renewal of the liberty of
the coast fisheries for an equivalent with a proposition to treat for
a renewal of the right of the free navigation of the Mississippi,
also for an equivalent, unless, as has been suspected, they were
made with the insidious purpose of obtaining an 'admission that both
had already ceased to exist, shows the confidence they would wish
to appear to entertain in the soundness of their position, that the
war had extinguished both the right and the liberty ; for the former,
the free navigation of the Mississippi, if force of language and repe-
tition are to have any weight, could not well have been placed on a
stronger basis, it being very expressly and explicitly contracted for
m the treaty of 1783, recognised in that of 1794, and again men-
tioned m a provisional article in 1796, still on the other hand, the
omission in the new treaty to state that the treaty of 1783 had ex-
pired or been annulled, and a reference having been made to it in
several instances, is a yet stronger evidence that they did consider
that treaty as remaining in existence and of consequence, entitled
to respect and observance in all such of its provisions as had not
been specially contravened in the new treaty.
217
of Britil N.Hh A *"'^' *° prosecute the fineries on the coasts
of British North America, With the exception of the island o£
i^rtt"::, 'hi' "k^ ^^'J^^^ere the parties h'ad been accustomed to
use them, but where Bntish fishermen not only did but miJit
thereafter (that .s subsequently to the date of th^e freatyT p^Se
cute them, and th.s right, for it had now bccomra S} UbeX
b^ 7: tZf"' '^ Tr' ?f *y "-^^ "^-"'"^d and a^knlledge?
cou d fhl ! I ' ""^'"i: T^**"*^' "'"''« «« t^ it« duration, !nd
could then only cease or the limitation take effect on the happening
of one of hree events, that is, the surrender of the party Zsess^
ing the nght and the annulment of the treaty wh.ch^coltted i ,
or by an usurped and unjustifiable exercise if power on the one
part .n dehance of the rights of the other, and insolation of those
common pnnc.ples of good faith which can alone regulate the in-
tercourse between nations ; but the surrender of the righ' ha^ i^t
been made by the United States, and the treaty of 1783 ha? not
hL'2„Tnt''^^^''V'''^'l"^^^^*'•«^«^• because the parties
tjl > <>"b' not agreed to abrogate it, but have expressly refer-
red to It, and in the treaty of Ghent made a provision to carry the
stipulations a, to boundaries of the treaty of 1783, more fX and
Tittl^ '?'° f''' '' r" i' •'^'"g anLcontroveTted pSiJJ?
of the law ol evidence, that the whole must be admitted if a part
Ihrr'onrrlv" T '"""^ '^<'IP'o^^^ a°d mutual agreement existe to
the contrary, and as no such stipulation does exist in the present
i^^o illTVl '''"' "•" ' '^'-'^^ contend, even by the show-
w.>h ii^i! u? commissioners themselves, still in existence,
with all the rightsvand liberties incident to it, with the full and fre#
ose to the inhabitants of the United States ;f the fisherL,^^^^^^^^^
merly recognised and secured to the United States by that treaty,
ihis IS the construction, whether to be supported on this
wiirl?nV'"^ °^'' ^^^'t ^ ^'"P^ '^^ go^rnment of our country
TprL? ^'"'^ 'V'. ' r^^' "^""'^ ^'^^^y i"^?onmt to the easier J
ZtTnAi' '?? '!^'/c ^^^ P'^'^"^ «"'^ future naval and commercial
power of the United States ; and should the British ministry or the
colonia authorities attempt to interdict this fishery, as I think they
now will to the inhabitants of the United Statesf he government
t'o Stafn"' V'"r "'•'' '"''' '*^^.'^°^* P'-'^^P^ «"^ «ff-<=tufl measures
to obtain and enforce a renewal or recognition of this right as it has
heretofore existed. It is a gem which should never be surrendered,
nor can It ever be abandoned by any statesman, alive to the inter-
nf nr!^""!'^''^^*^^'"?*''^^ '" ''" consequences with afree right
of navigating the Mississippi, it is even a much more unequal stfke
" '^y. ^'ght of navigating the Mississippi, since the acquisition
Vnit^T^T^ ^^^ possession of both sides of the rivei! by the
United States, and when the difficulties of the ascending naviea-
tion 9re considered, and the jealousy and inconvenience which the
218
VntTufh^Tv,?/'^"^? must experience from artempting to ava.l
ail on ?h^\? "* '^?'"' ^°>''"' ""'^^P* «« •'^ '^^ higher branches
ti^de Th:; /''r"l'* ™^^ **'''"^*^ ^^^ prosecution of the fur
trade. 1 hig trade, however, although it employs a lawje number
fLrtlT' "'^r '^'!.*'^^" ^"y '""P^'^""* *o ^he natioraadru't
Ihl .1 operation of unavoidable causes, gradually lessen, and in
the course of a fewr yens probably recede altogether from the
p^at r.vers. She has, therefore, notwithstanding the opinion of
. 01 tne American commissioners and her own probable preten-
sions ot lairness given up nothing in point of value compared with
ine hi^he.ics, which, upon the same ground, she is itodoubtedlv de-
sirous of fortifying herself in withholding.
« In compliance with the intimation you had given me, I have
commen ed on this subject at much greater length even than I had
contemplated at the outset, perhaps, too minutely when I recollect
that a part of it at least must be much better understood at Quincv
than by myself, but the account of the recent state of thesl fish-
eries and the mode m which they were prosecuted, 1 thought might
not be unacceptable to you. My information with regard to them,
has in general been derived from respectable sources upon which
1 can rely, never having had any direct interest or concern in
the hsheries myself. 1 have riot attempted to apply the principles
of public law to the question respecting them, because the few
books of this description which 1 possess, are still at Wasl.injrton ;
and since the rising ot the council. 1 have not had time to make any
research elsewhere, and because I presume this part of the busi-
ness will be placed under the hands of those who will have both
the means and the ability to do it ample justice. ^
♦I had intended also in reference to the treaty of 1814, to have
made some few remarks upon the interdiction it may occasion, of a
trade between the United States and the British po/ts in India and
on Its operation upon the contested boundary on our North Eastern
frontier, so far as regards the right of possession to the Islands of
Dudley, Moose, and Frederick, in the Bay of Passamaq noddy. 1
have however, already so unduly trespassed on your patience, that
1 will only not omit them altogether. Both these objects attach
tothem some importance, but compared in point of value with the
possession of the fisheries, perhaps in a ratio not much greater
han the bullion m the mint at Philadelphia would be to the ore in
the mines of Peru.
• */ ^^*" K^ persuaded that in avowing the hope that all these ob-
jects may be disposed of in such a manner as best to confirm the
rights and secure the interests of the United States, I shall unite
fully m sentiment with yourself.
" I have the honour to remain, sir, with great consideration, vour
very respectful and obedient servant, ' ^
" JAMES LLOYD.'^
t
2I»
ceJnt? hlS^J'thf/'r- ' ^^y respectable merchant, con-
„ n » , . Boston, May «Oth, 1815.
«^ fn „K*'' • "■ •' ^''e«e«^'y to your request to me, I have endeavour-
•n thl °^^T.^^''^'^ •"formation in my power relative to our fisheriS
nP„ «ud the ne.ghbour.ng States, with their tonnage, numb " S
men employed quant.ty of fish caught, quantity of saU used
and the probable prce they averaged at foreign markete It I
was no. acqua.„ted with this busine^ before our rev" uUonarv war
shall endeavour to give you a statement from the year l/oo To'
1810 ; to some my account may appear large or much exaeeerated
but I have conversed with several gentleman who have be?nTrf*
y concerned .n the business, and two of them took much pS
to asco.ta.n the number, etc. some time since ; and I find tbeyTo
ftr beyond me ; but 1 shall endeavour togiveyou as correct a sTatl!
ment as I can and wish it rray prove satisfactory to you!
lour humble servant." ^
"My calculat.on ig. that there were employed in the Bank La
brador. and Bay fisheries, the years aboveLntioned 1232 vessels"
4 627 m!n /k ^7 '"u^ ^"^ P"^ '^"'"^ 36,540 tons, navigated by
4,627 men and boys, (each vessel carrying one boy.Uhev take and
cure, annually. 610,700 quintals offish ; they averse abVuTthre^
fares a year, consume, annually. 81.170 hhds. salt, thl average c^t
of these vessels is about $ 2,000 each ; the averse price ofthei
fish at fore.gn markets is $ 6 per quintal ; these vlssels also mike
IZtS'iLtba'r^ri^^''''' ''''''' '^^°''' -^-^co^z^,:
exclusfvloFLlt ''' ^^«-^q"'P'"««ts cost about $900, annually.
4ft'fl.Tn f ^^^ v^sels that fish at the Labrador and Bay, I put down
48,600 tons navigated by 5,832 men and boys ; they take and cure
annually. 648,000 quintals of fish ; they ^ but one fare a year *
Itr is 1050 do l!.. ?k' '''r^'*^^ their equipments, provisions,
^bfp »Vfhfh I '' ^''"'^ descnptjons of vessels are not so valu-
able as the bankers, more particularly those that go from the Dis-
mt of Ma.ne, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, as they are mostly
sloops of no very great value ; most of these vessels cure a part
of their fish where they catch them, on the beach, rocks, etc. and
he rest after they return home; several argoes of dr^ fish are
shipped yearly from the Labrador direct for Europe. The usuat
markets for those fish are in the Mediterranean, say Alican?, Leg
horn Naples Marseilles, etc. as those markets prefer sma fish
are ..ry small. 1 he average price of these fish at the market
^hey an- .b.p.scd ^fn $ ' , ,u,,, vo.sols also mi»ke from their fish
220
about 20,000 bbl*. of oil, which always meets a ready sale arid at
handsome prices, say from ^ 8 to JJ 12 per barrel, the most of it is
oousiimed in the United States.
♦• 1232 vessels employed in the Bank, Bay, and Labrador fisheries,
measuring - . . Tons, 86,140
Number of men they are navigated by, 10,469
Number of hhds. salt they consume, 178,370 hhds.
Quantity of fish they take and cure, 1,158,700 quintal*.
Barrels of oil they make, 37,620 barrels.
" There are also a description of vessels called jiggers or smalt
schooners of about from 30 to 45 tons that fish in the South Chan-
nel, on the Shoals and Cape Sables, their number 300, they carry
about 4 or 5 hands, say 1200 men, and take about 76,000 qtls. of
lish, annually ; consume 12,000 hhds. of salt, and make about 4,000
barrels of oil ; their fish is generally sold for the West Indies and
home consumption.
" There are another description of fishing vessels commonly cal-
led Chebacco Boats or Pink Sterns ; their number 600 ; they are
from 10 to 28 tons, and carry two men and one boy each, say 1,800
hands ; they consume 16,000 hhds. of salt, and take and cure
320,000 quintals of fish, annually. These fish also are wholly
used for home and West India market, except the very first they
take early in the spring, which are very nice indeed, and are sent
,to the Bilbito market, in Spain, where they always bring a great
price ; they make 9,000 barrels of oil ; these vessels measure about
10,800 tons.
" There are also about 200 schooners employed in the mackerel
fishery, measuring 8,000 tons, they carry l,e00 men and boys, they
take 60,000 barrels, annually, and consume 6,000 hhds salt.
" The alewive, shad, salmon, and herring fishery is also immense,
and consumes a great quantity of salt.
•> Whole number of fishing vessels of all descriptions 2,332
Measuring - - Tons, 115,940
Number of men navigated by, 1 5,069
Salt they consume, - . 265,370 hhds.
Quantity of fish they take and cure, 1,353,700 quintals.
Number of barrels of oi!, - 50,520 barrels.
Number of barrels of mackerel, 60,000 barrels,
" There are many gentlemen assert, and roundly too, that one
year there were at the Labrador and Bay, over 1,700 sail beside
the bankers ; but I feel very confident they are miuh mistaken, it
IS impossible it can be correct."
These papers will suflSce to show what reliance i'^ to be placed
on that information concerning the value of the fishing liberties, as
they had been enjoyed by the people of the United States from
the peace of 1783, to the war of 1812, which Mr. Russell in his
letter from Paris, of Hth February, 1815, says is the best iifor-
mation 'le can obtain ; but which, i» the duplicate of 1822, be di-
221
' l'**/V°S -^^ ^^^ information which A/ and his colleagues at Ghent
thef af.t'ri' '"1 'i^'. ''P^'t ^ ^'^^ 'nformaUoa^upon ^^"^11
they as i/ell as he had acted. It may be proper to refer also to
o?X'r/h^R 7V'' "^'^ extent of the fnteJe" in [he Lh rie^
01 nrhich the British government intended at the negotiation of
Ghent toobtain from the United State, the tacit oJlmp^d s 'rren
der.^ 2. The value of this interest as estimated, by British autho-
The instructions from the Secretary of State to the American
SniTh"" ^'u^^^'^ co„.„anding them in no eveni toTurTn"
Jiuf ^!- 'f'' ^"^ '^'"f *• surrender should be insisted on to brei
off the negotiation, were dated the 24th of June, 1814. By a sinS
rvLrortLeroi-'r* f.r^"'^ ^'^^^ ^^- recd^edTthJ
evening of the 8lh of August, the very day upon which the British
plenipotentianes had notified to us thi intentions of the r gove n
Which °^ If T ?t 'J'^K^'^ •"*''« ^'"•''^ •American J^l^ries,
Which, as they stated, had been granted by the treatv of 1 783
1 1th o? June \tZf ''•''^'- ^^«'^^^^' P- 23runde/daIe'of the
inoi aI ^^1'. t'»«''e IS a memorial of the merchants and prin-
apM resident inhabitants interested i„ the trade and fisheries of
Newfoundland, to admiraK Keats, who had been somrtLe governor
/^folu"^^' ^"u^'''' then about returning to England, it wm
fhltnl'* .^«^«'»»'r' ^^I^ ^""^ •" the Register waf preceded by
!!f the dme? '""""''' ''^""^ ''''' '' '"^''«'« '^' poHar leelin^
From Niles's Register of 11th June, I814.-The Fisheries.
" Ihe following memorial has excited , -nsiderable interest nar-
^ularly in the eastern States, so far ae ive have heard of ts Z-
mutation, I cannot doubt, from the high ground assumed by G^eai
Brttam since her victories on the continent, but that she wUI at
empt to exclude us from the fisheries as the grand nursery of her
seamen, etc. This opinion is strengtl^ned by hosts of " Ltract^
of Letters from England- Let tho^e who have calcu ated on the
"magnammity'' of Grea^fiWram look to it; those who have ea:-
Cpo^otd"^ '' '" ^"^'^^ " "^^ ''''''' '^' ^'^y «h^» -t '^
" The Boston Centinel says this memorial is alarmingly interest-
n^/W.T'.^'r 'I ^r^^'"^ ^^'^"'^'''^ ^««**. the lai^goveror
of Newfoundland who has promised to give it his support "
^^m peace mthout thefish^ries^ has begun to be ih'e cry. If «a-
<rio<»m has failed, we are pleased to see that ,Wer«« is about to
unite the people ; and 1 am very much mistaken in the character
of the ' middle' and ' south' if their representatives shall for a mo-
ment abandon the one lota of the rights of the ' eastern' population
however perverse it may have been to the views of I immens"*
majority of our citizens. If we • pull together^ all will be wdf
28 *
222
E*tt.c.. from the Wmori.l «>' »h«^N, wfoundland M.rchan.. to Adoairul Ke.l,,
mJst?hieflv '3!i^;V"' "''•^'"'"" "' " «'''^»* ""'^ .ndependent nation
must chieflj^ depend upon our preserving the sovereiRntv of the
^*fh fil ""*'°"' ^'f * heretofore enjoyed in the times of pe^e
^:^^^z:i o^%rrrci^. -^ -- «^ <>^--- -
" By former treaties with France and the United States of Ame-
h^nklT ^7V'^!'^'^^ ""^'T^^ '!'**"" P^vileges on those shore.,
banks, coMt of Labrador, and m the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the
T" u^u°^ ^T «*<:«"«ncy'» memorialista highly impolit c. and
^'h.ch the wisdom of the British government never would concede
except under very peculiar circumstances. ^^onceae
" Fifteen hundred American vessels have been known to bo
prosecuting the fashery at one time on the Labrador coast, bringing
w.h them coliee, teas, spirits and other articlen of contraband -!!!!
1 he intsrcourse of our fishermen with these secret enemies
to ou'r rherT ' Vl^' "'n ''? 'f"' '' ^'^^'^ '"°-' character Z
10 our fishery. The small planters and catchers of fish which
make the great body of the people on the coast of Labrador under
O^e influence of notions imbibed by their daily intercourse with
men whose interests are at war with ours, become dissatisfied w
their supplying merchants who are unable to meet their fordgn
competitors upon equal ground. The next step, as experTenfe
heirdebts rt'f '^'^' °",'-' ™«^"^ '» *''«'^ P°^«r to d'lscTarge
fhfL I k °^^''r'^ ""'^ insubordination follow, and finally
oZrT^ ^'T' "''""."^^'^ from their own government, andtS
emigrate to another, to the great loss of thei? country. ^
,.«. f • ' ^l P^''^®' •'^''^®'' **»« citizens of the United States
resort, in great numbers, to the Banks, where they anchor in v o!
ation of express stipulations to the great annoyance of this valua-
s^rtlT^ " "'' Newfoundland trade. Nor is it possible hat the
«UpuSlonf. '"'' '' °^''" '^'^ '' "^^^^^^ '""'^ '" '^' 'breach of such
AjIh^ *''''' ^'""^'"^ °"^ °^ ''"P«''t''^ concessions to insidious
have y^t'sHteT-'th^f"""' '^"''' ^""'* -cellency's memoriahst^
ofiLrop:rd^uu:tT„z^ ^^ ^'"'"^"'^ '"^^ ^•^^ ^^^^^^^^^
.f'l/jfil''*' ^"'^^^ ^^^}^^' '"^"' P'-ovisions, and every other article
of outfit are procured upon much better terms than the nature of
th.ng^ will admit with the British. These combined advantages en
frin ' T '° "ndersell the British merchant in the forego ma ket-
always be sustained under similar circumstances. 1-
litiJvifthT^'''^^ advantages since the commencement of hosti-
lities with America, derived to both our import and export trade
leaving now no competitors in the foreign market, and what fs oi"
223
the last and highest importance, the increaae of otir meftni to makf
mariners, while those of our enemies tavai, in ike same proper*
tion, be crippled, nhow the wiadom of preserving the ' vantage
eround' we now stand upon. And your excellency's memorialists
ieel the more argent in their present representation, as the pros-
pects which happily have recently opened in Europe, may afford
a well-grounded hope that the time is not very remote when
negotiations may be opened for the return of permanent peace.
" From the protection afibrded to the trade of this island by
your excellency, as well as by his excellency, sir John B. War-
ren, a great number of fishing vessels have gone to Labrador from
Nova-Scctia, the number of them employed on the Labrador shores
this season has been double, and the absence of their former intru-
ders has enabled them to tish unmolested. Your excellency's me-
morialists beg to press upon your serious consideration, of w^ ch
they cannot too often urge the important policy, should fortunately
the circurastances of Europe ultimately encourage such a hope, of
wholly excluding foreigners from sharing again in the advantages
of fishing, fi,/.^ which a large proportion of our best national de-
fence will be derived."
The following extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth,
Power, and Resources of the British empire, further illustrate the
views of the British government in relation to the contested fish-
eries at the negotiation of Ghent, and the value of these ^sheries.
The first edition of Colquhoun's work was published on the 20th
of July, 1814 ; the second edition, from which these extracts were
made, on the 18th of April, 1815. In the interval between these
two periods, the ne&;otiation at Ghent commenced and terminated,
and Mr. Russell's letter from Paris was written.
Extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and Resources of
the British empire — 2d edit. I8l5.
*• The value of these fisheries (of the British colonies in North
*• America,) to the parent state, will be more obvious after the
" lapse of 20 or 30 years, than at present. Certain it is, however,
" that their value is beyond all calculation : and their preservation
" as apart of the British empire, is of the most vital importance."
— p. 16, note. See also p. ^'.'4.
The value of these fisheries, in the table No. 8, p. 36, is esti-
mated at £ 7,560,000 sterling.
•' New-Brunswick and Nova-Scolia, from being both watered by
" the Bay of Fundy, enjoy advantages over Canada, which more
" than compensate a greater sterility of soil. These are to be
'• traced to the valuable and extensive fisheries in the Bay of Fun»
" dy, which, in point of abundance and variety of the ^nest fish,
*♦ exceed all calculation, and may be considered as a mine of gold —
'■*?
I(
224
" « treuure which cannot be fatimft^j . •_ ,
" labour. con,,,aralively spe^kJnl I k° ^'A^' »'"« ^^^'h little
" -II Europe."' pp. 312-31 J *' *^ '°"'^ '"' ^'^^'"ed to feed
: .;j^3;no ca„, this valuer crortSE!:^^^^^
" '^^'iomn'i:;::^^^^^^^^ annex.
;; incalculable adva^t^t an3 empTov fv ,? ^"'Y *'«^" derive
" vewels in the fishery in the riveTs^^ll ""'"''" "'^ '"C" and
;; of Nova Scotia. .hL ..TS; fioi T^ ' r« ? •^''^ ''^'
dense population of the Northern sS 1^!° ^'''''''»- The
; in the vicinity of the most p ohSc tlZTi-^'^'l^'^ «""»tion
" the treaty of Paris, i^Mav 1ft uT,^"' .""f*"""'' ^^ f'^^co by ,
" ble fisheries in North Zer'i.-' ^^-^ 1'''?'^ ""^^^^ ^osf valua^
« ^^m« to the British cZn^Zl 7jTf?^ •^'^'"^ «' ''"» /"•"""<
in all the markets in EuVope and t"e We t'foH-""''"^ ^ "A'oly
certain valuable consideraSon frnm n r •"'^'®'' "''« "Kht to a
;; the British government ^tcoSeLn?'^? "'"?^' *^ -'•«'"
"a fishery in these seas." pf'g^^^^^de the privilege ofcarryingon
" in thttd'^Jhr^ortH^ P-fi* *o *he individuals
-fisheries. Why, therefor:! rho'u,drot'2"''''.Vi«''^ *° »"«5i'
" nve a similar advantage from thp Sll • 1 ""'***' '''"«dom de-
" range of its extensive ^errSiSlnfc'i^ P°''*«'«« »^"hin the
;; richest and most prolific in Le ^".^.^f.^;''^".' ^^^'^^P^ the
and vessel liable to confiscation wh'chshould^'""^ "^"'"J' ^^'P
*' hose seas without previously D^iT. * P';esume to fish in
" ing a license limited to a certaKlVr"^*^ ^."^^' «"d receiv?
'' ^ith the privilege of curinu surhfi h*^''?u " ^'^ "«.V be caught
;; All nations to ha%e an equaTdaim to surS ' ' ^"'".'^ *«"''<>"!«?
tain stations, but to perliit none i^ ,1 ^,i'*;«"«««v'i.'nited ^ocer-
dies, except his majesty's subS whi^hJ •5'''^"'' ^^^^-In-
" nie, or in the parent state." p sis ''*'**'"" "««'dent in the colo-
"Fisheries.^nis^t'nirT^f':"'^*'^^^^^^
« united kingdom. Whether the pol2'ion!.rfrP°''*^"^^ «° the
relation to the Americans, o7asTarrsiln of' '°"''^^''«^ "^'th
*• power, it IS worthy of the roost n»r^?.. °^^ S^eat maritime
;; !"«"t. 3rr. Stewai has jtisuj rSkefin^'i'"'''" "^ ««^«-"-
-'and, (page .90,; that .^theU:?;^^ on, ZTLV^:'.
c<
C(
l(
«<
«4
i<
«f
<(
(<
i<
<l
l(
r<
K
<<
<(
<(
<l
225
rican States, io the Gulf of <?* t
of the wealth of the EHatern St«»« r ''* «.''^"'««'t »-e«ource8
"choonem.offromTOto iXon. ' '^''"" ^^'^h Rbout 2^
of these, about HW m^keTfrlri '"Ik^
on the Labrador shore from «h ***? ^*"'t' ofBelligle "d
European market is Ih'ipDeTo? .'." ""^^ '» '"tended fo; ?hf
on the north side of the i«lnnH . V*^°°°"*" 'n«ke their f«rl.
«on. returning vvith fin^" "^^^^^^ J^J^^^'' '"«''« two tHpl t a ta
are dned. The number oTm^'Vmni'' °? P^"^". ^here the fi,h
-ted at between titleen l^Vn^^E ^^ If^^''-^ ^
-ted at between-^ IT^::!;;^^^^^
to be very great. To see Trh ^''^ P^^^^ta on
';ver on our'own coasts:::d in'olir/r^r^'th
«t are known lo be very creat 'i'^"' "",""' ""o ">e profit* on
and navol power on oJr^wn coasts «n ^^ " «°"^<^« ^^ 'vea.S
nbandoned to the AmericanTis mtch to b^ ""' '''y ^'^'^'^^^
be distressing, were it not thatTh?! ''Totted, and would
»rhole, with such advantages as 'tt*""' ""^ ^«-o<=cupying the
tion, ,8 afforded in the cuh!vn?i« ?''°" P''«*^'"de all comDeS
"'ard's Island." pplaie 3lT " ""' ^^"'^•"ent of pS^^eS:
and .mmediate interest in tsl'^,t^^^^^^^^^ because the^c^
they had rested a right tChtfiXneM^rn^""'^' ^-^ ^^^"nj'ing fha
&|"I. r'"^ ««^'»«t this wnlm', rtr'"^'*'^''»'°4hia
f nited States, including th*.Jr Jl!. ' • ' *"* «''gument thaAh^
not claim bj r"-'>S,'a righUvhich'^r^'r '' l^«"'-«n cUw
the people o^Massachusetts ThI .« ^^ ^.?^" exercised onlv bv
«i!f Ju'' "' ^'•O" Jocal causes S' '^^^"J^^'nent or exer-
acquisition of Louis anT-'i^i"'''- ^'"^^ "^^^r a^rLaJ,; hv VL^
.- — , „g aavs.
226
the crown.
H
fishing liberties
wherever it max
continuance of a
hbirever lofty, is so inconsistent with the circumdtahcee of the case,
and with any sober construction which can be given to that treaty,
that he desires to be excused from seriously examining its validity.
From this contemptuous reference to a position to which he had
subscribed without hinting an objection, and which he cannot an-
swer, would not one imagine that the treaty of 1783 was a capitula-
tion of vanquished subjects at the <eetof a victorious and magnani-
mous master ? Mr. Russell's spait of independence, like his
patriotism, is bold and intrepid in generalities, pliant and submissive
in particulars. He gravely tells you, that until the Revolution, the
fishing liberties *" the colonies were held at the bare pleasure of
':* ' Qxious for the repurchase of our forfeited^
■•^j is willing to give for them an equivalent
; provided always, that it shall not be the
armtess right to travel upon a Western highway.
He disclaims all pretension to a liberty of his country stipulated in
a treaty, unless as a gracious temporary donation from the bounty of
his Britannic majesty, which, at the first blast of war, the mpnarch
had rightfully resumed j and although he has signed his name with
his colleagues to numerous papers claiming it as a permanent stipu-
lated right, unalienat . • but by our own renunciation, and in no wise
held at the will of the British king, he will not be thought so simple
as to have believed a word of what he has concurred in saying, or
to have imagined that at the treaty of 1783, the situation of the par-
ties was such that the United States could bargain for the fishing
liberties, or receive them otherwise than as precarious and tempo-
rary grants, resumable at the will of the grantor, so as to leave us
♦• withcut any title to them rvhatsoevei ' V/as Mr. Russell ignorant,
that through a large portion of the Revolutionary war, it was a de-
liberate and determined purpose of Congress that the United States
should include the northern British provinces ? That express pro-
vision for the admission of Canada into the Union, was made, in the
Confederation of 1781 ? That, finally, when Congress prescribed
the boundary line, which, for the sake of peace, they would ac-
cept, and which was that stipulated in the treaty, they passed va-
rious resolutions, declaring the rights of the United Stales in the
fisheries, and the necessity of stipulating for them, if possible, by
the treaty ; but that under no circumstances, v/hatever, were they
to be given up ? That in all the deliberations of Congress the ne-
cessity of this reservation was avowedly connected with the aban-*
donment of the pretension to include all the northern provinces in
the Confederation ? That the terms of the treaty of 1783, or ra-
ther of the preliminaries of 1782, which were word for word the
same, were almost entiialy dictated by the United States ? That
this very third article, securing the fisheries, and that very portion
of it stipulating for the liberty within British jurisdiction, was made
a sine qua non, by the American commissioners, two of whom ex-
pressly declared that they would not nign the treaty without it?_ and
to solve Mr. Russell's scruples, whether an interest of the State of
227
Massachusetts is an interest of the whoU r-
two commissioners was a citizen !f%fuH?'^°~*'»at one of those
nd,c„I„„, to deserve a» ^n,iT"' " '""-8'»™<» boMt, t„
forth'; crcttT .ttTh- "'•■ '"'«™. 'o indirect inference.
says in his original letter of llth p I ""'""i '<"' "^ expressfv
that he people of the whole Western r?."^"'" °f 'O"" May.
: J'';^,^'" »;»» ■"'".ense tract of tSo,^""''^- ""^ " »"»ffen<li»g
P~;r 'Xt t:«^'if"; '-e eye of the H.„.e of He-
of those whici, appears ,o°h;:'sX",i,l'™' "!'' ^''^■' i"-
«r ; for m that version he nn^iifil!! !t ^ conscience of the writ
to them. «' or but fZlly- ^ L.-f"" T'*** ""^^ «^ «^^ by acWbl
^' fens of an immense t^t of tPr.V^ '^^'^'' " ^»^« "noff;nd^n« S
even this concession to tKhfr'pn k f ^ "««*"' «« if grudgine
sentence to reduce it in JT "^'^®'^'°«n' he takes care in the «fmf
tent, by adding to hL «doS T "^""'^ "" ^' e»>arges it 'neT
'• ™en," the w^ds '^nnuX d^ reS^ ^ '^''T 4 ^^ ^"^ -
it was not so th^t tu^ ^ -^ "^creasing m numbsr "
wontto reasorortt\^^rr f^rff^"^ «-°'"^- -re
"theTrf' " ?n^^«-' by M^of 5;!^"-. ;7^. a resolution
the welfare of these United StatenhlTih?- I'*. •" ^''^»^«1 ^o
dt the expiration of the w»r Ik! i f . 'nhabUants thereof
" and undisturbed exercise of fh^-'^ '^""""^ t° «»Joy the free
;; Banks of NewfoundfaTanI hrotSeTS ''t '^ '''' ^ '^^
.. fj"? ^'"^raca, preserving invioLethI « r^ ''r'^' ^""^ «eas of
and the said States." ^ '"^'oiate the treaties between France
io^nnlt^LTn^ruZ^^^^ a-tionwas made by Mr
States," and the word wi tterZ'V''' ""'^''^ '' these lfn£'
";elve. And so. on the Sth ofTut ^*.' ^°'' f '«» «'«'«« ou o£
t was essential to the welfare of a/Z th. 'n '"'"''^'^ Passed-that
one section of 'the {jnfon l^T'^t ^''"^ ''" '"^^''^st important to
ported as the interes? of Ihe wEorft'/" ^^ <=onsidered and "^i
subjects from the navigation of he M^ • ' "«'?' '^ ««'»ding BrS
contended for, as the interest of h ^l'?W' «^ouId be claimed or
-hethergrcatorsmall"t:emia;h.W^^^^^^^^^^^^
' ""' ^"" «""««ing to the fullest
226
ej^eut, that it is, nevertheless, an intereet of the whole Union, I
only claim that other interests, alike local in their exercise, should
be entitled to the same benefit. If the gain by the .war, of a right
to interdict British subjects from descenc >ng the Mississippi river,
4^ad been to the people of the West an object of profit as great as
the privation of the fishing liberties by the same war would have
been to the people of the East an object of loss, the interests, as
concerned the whole, would have been equally balanced ; but in-
asmuch as the duty of preserving poasessions already and before
enjoyed, is paramount to that of making new acquisitions, the prin-
ciple of equity, as well as the spirit of union, would have dictated
as the true policy, that of maintaining both interests in the state in
which they had been before the war, rather than that of sacrificing
one part of the Union for the profit of another.
If the comparative value of the two interests had been as dis-
proportionate as they have been represented by Mr. Russell, and
the balance of value had been on the side to which he assigns it,
still the question of right, remaining the same, the small interest of
the East could not with justice have been sacrificed to the greater
interest of the West, without compensation. For although the
whoir ^Jnion may possess the power of preferring the interests of
the many to those of the few^ they have mo \ wer of arbitrary dis-
posal over the liberties of the smallest portion of the community.
If, by a solemn article of the Constitution, it is provided that the
private property of the humblest individual shall not be taken for
public use, without just compensation, how much more imperious
is the prohibition of taking away the scanty and hard-earned live-
lihood of a few fishermen, even were they annually decreasing in
number, to bestow new and exclusive benefits upon a distant portion
of population, without compensation to the indigent, without conso-
lation to the bereaved sufferer.
2'29
CONCLUSION.
The interests of the West are the interests of the whole Union-r
and so are the interests of the Ea8t;~and let the statesmen who
are the servants of the whole, beware of setting them in conflict
with each other. A review of these papers will show that the in-
terest really at stake in the negotiation of Ghent, a deep and import-
ant stake, was an interest of the East; that there was no Western
interest aflected by the article first proposed by Mr. Gallatin, or by
the amendment finally offered to the British plenipotentiaries at his
proposal, and rejected ; that the only plausible objection to it, rest-
ed upon a gratuitous assumption, contrary to all reason and expe-
rience, that it would have given a right of access to, and of inter-
course with, our Indians, to the British. This, the British had
possessed by another article of another treaty, acknowledged to be
extinguished by the wa^-but it would no more have been granted
to them, by a right to navigate the Mississippi, than by a right to
enter the harbour of New- York. The whole argument rested upon
a Jallacy ; a mis-statement of the question. Happy would it have
been for Mr. Russell, if, after assenting and pledging his signatures
to the decision of the majority, he had as cautiously withheld from
his government, and his country, the allegation of his reasons for
having voted against it, as he did at the time of the discussion, from
his colleagues. But, in the vehemence of his zeal to vindicate his
motives for one unfortunate vote at Ghent, which but for himself
would probably never have been known to the world, he has been
necessitated to assert principles of international and municipal law
and to put forth statements as of fact, more unsubstantial than the'
pageant of a vision. He has been reduced to the melancholy office
of misrepresenting the subject of which he treats the conduct and
sentiments of his colleagues in a great national trust and his own.
He has been compelled to disavow his own signatures, to contradict
his own assertions, and to charge himself with his own interpola-
trons. He has been forced to enter the lists as the champion of his
country's enemy, upon a cause which he had been specially entrust-
ed to defend and maintain— to allege the forfeiture of liberties which
he had been specially instructed not to surrender— to magnify by
boundless exaggerations, an ideal, and to depreciate in equal pro-
portion, a real, interest of his country— to profess profound re-
spect for the integrity and talents of men, while secretly denouncing
their conduct as treacherous and absur<i— and, finally, to traduce
before the Representative Assembly of the nation, the character of
the absent, and the memory of the dead.
It has been my duty, not only in justice to my own character and
to that of the colleagues with whom I acted, but in respectful defe-
rence to the opinion of that nation of which we were, and two of
us still are, the servants, to justify the conduct thus denounced in
^9
23U
the face of the country— anJ lo prove that the letter wliich contain-
ed that denunciation was o tissue of misrepresentaticns. The at-
tack of Mr. Russell was n1 first secret — addressed to the Execu-
tive officer of the administration, at the head of the t'epartment, un-
der whose instructions the mission at Ghent had acted. It was
made under the veil of concealment, and in the form of a private
letter. In that respect it had failed of its object. It had neither
made the Executive a convert to its doctrines, nor impaired his
confidence in the members of the majority at Ghent. Defeated in
this purpose, after i lapse of seven years, Mr. Russell is persuaded
to beheve that he can turn his letter to account, especially with the
aid of such corrections of the copy in possession as the supposed loss
of the original would enable him to make without detection, by bring-
ing it before the Legislative Assembly of the Union. Foiled in
this assault, by the discovery of the original, he steals a march upon
refutation and exposure, by publishing a second variety of his let-
ter, in a newspaper ; and when the day of retribution comes, dis-
closing every step of his march on this winding stair, he turns upon
me, with the charge of having, by the use of disingenuous artifices, led
him unawares into the disclosure of a private letter, never intended
for ihe public, and seduced him to present as a duplicate, what he had
not intended to exhibit as such. To this new separate and person-
al charge, I have replied, by proving the paper which contains it
to be, like the letter from Pans, a tissue of misrepresentations
For the justification of myself, and of my colleagues at Ghent,
nothing further was necessary. But the letter of Mr. Russell from'
Pans, contains doctrines with reference to law, and statements
with reference to facts, involving the rights, the harmony, and the
peace, of this Union.
" Dangerous conceits aie in their nature poisom.''^
If the doctrines of Mr. Russell are true, the liberties of the peo-
ple of the United States in the Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Law-
rence, and Labrador fisheries, are at this day held by no better
tenure than the pleasure of the king of Great Britain, and will be
abrogated by the first act of hostility between thp two nations.
If his statements are true, those liberties are the mere accommo-
dation of a few fishermen, annually decreasing in number, too
worthless to be accounted to the rest of the nation of any benefit
at all. •'
If his statements are true, the propositions made by the Ameri-
can to the British plenipotentiaries, on the 1st of December, 1814,
gave unrestrained and undefined access for the British to the Indians
withm our territories— laid our country bare to swarms of British
smugglers, and British emissaries— and exposed the anofiending
citizens of an immense territory to all the horrors of savage warfare.
I now submit to the deliberate judgment of the nation, whether
I have not proved that these doctrines and statements are equally
and utterly without foundation— That the rights and liberties in the
231
fisheries, are held at the will, not of ihe king of Great Britain, but
of the people of the United States ihemselres, founded upon na^
tional right, unbroken possession, and irrevocable acknowledgment
— That their value both immediate and remote, direct and conse-
m2 u " r™^"«!'y important not only to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, but to the whole Union-That the proposition made
to the British plenipotentiaries, on the Ist of December, 1814,
Zr^lli ""T^^fk ^T^ S'^^° *° ^^^ ^"t'«^' '"«tead of an unre-
etramed and undefined access to our Indians, no access to them
whatever— That it would have given them access, even to the
Mississippi river, only from a single spot in the British territories :
and a right to descend the river only with merchandise upon which
the duties should have been paid, and subject to all the custom-
house regulations.
The question in relation to the Mississippi, can never be revived.
1 hat spectre is forever laid. Great Britain has not only disavowed
K A^ \? '^ '^^'''^ "'' "°"'^ ''^^« admitted as valid, she has
abandoned that upon which she herself exclusively rested it. Ot
its value, in confirmation of the opinions which I have expressed,
If^^oF'^T- f ^l*""' f °°™ ^^^ '^^^^^^^ •" parliament, on the peace
01 1782, which show how It was estimated by her greatest states-
men at that time. Those estimates had been confirmed by an ex-
perience of thirty years. The slumbers of the unofiending citizens
of the Western Country, can, therefore, never more be, if they
ever were, disquieted by the visits of this apparition to the
g.impser. of the moon. But the day may come, though I trust it is
far remote, when the title to our fishing liberties may again be in
peril as imminent as it was at the negotiation of Ghent. And if, in
tnat day, the American statesmen who may be charged with the de-
fence and support of the rights, liberties, and interests of their
country, shou d deem it among the qualifications for their office to
possess some knowledge of the laws of nations, some acquaintance
with the history of their country, and some patriotism more com-
prehensive than party spirit or sectional prejudice ever gave or
ever can give, 1 trust in God that their proficiency will have led
them to the diacovery, that all treaties, and all artides of treaties,
and all hberhesvecogmsed in treaties, are not abrogated by war ;
that our fashing iberties were neither before nor since the Revolu-
tionary war, held at the mere pleasure of the British crown ; and
1.! !f. r interests and possessions of one section of the Union
are not to be sacrihed for the imaginary profit of another, either by
alZflf} r^^^l °' ^^ '''*'"S them away as the interests of
O disaffected part of the countnj.
APPENDIX.
h W€sternK.ri>jntaries,
In the remarks upon Mr. Russell's letter and duplicate, which
were submitted to the House of Representatives, I expressed the
most unqualified confidence in the justice of the West, and my en-
tire conviction that however justly the inhabitants of that portion
of the Union might have been incensed against the majority of the
Ghent mission, upon the statements and representations of those
letters, yet that when the plain unvarnished tale of real fact should
be laid before them, they would not only acquit the majority of any
intended sacrifice of their interests, but would find in the measure
itself, distmctly disclosed to them in its own nature, nothing to dis-
approve. In every part of this Union, when the whole truth can
once be exhibited to the people, there is a rectitude of public opi-
nion which neither individual enmity, local prejudices, nor party
rancour can withstand or control. Upon this public virtue of my
country I have ever relied, nor has it now, nor ever disappointed me.
I have the satisfaction of knowing from various sources of informa-
ti^on, public and private, thatthe general sentiment of the Western
Country, wherever the Remarks as well as the Letters have been
read, has done justice to the intentions of the majority, as well as
to the motives of Mr. Russell.
Yet, since the communication of his Letters to the House of Re-
presentatives, the uses for which it was suppose'd the production
of them was intended, and to which they were adapted, have
not been altogether abandoned in some parts of the Western
Country. The St. Louis Enquirer has pursued this purpose, in
the simplest form, by publishing the message of the President of
the United States to the House of Representatives of 7th May ;
and Mr. Russell's Private letter, and by suppressing the Duplicate
and the Remarks.
In the Kentucky Reporter, published in Lexington, and in the
Argus of Western America, published at Frankfort, various publi-
cations have appeared, exhibiting similar views of the subject, re-
presenting the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries,
on the 1st of December, 1814, as a very grievous offence, and
ascribing it exclusively to me. The subject has, however, been
233
vS!*illL'"'""" "r TP*"*'"*' '" *^^ ^oumAh Public Ad.
nrnnS ' ^"""^ °*''*''" ^^'"8^' '* ^'^ ^«*" inquired how, if the
proposal was so very exceptionable it could, under any circum-
stances have received the sanction or signatur; of Mr Clay '
Ihe following erfitona/ article in the Frankfort Arcus of 18th
July, seems intended to answer that question, and aUhough col-
^m.ng some severe strictures upon " the Secr;tary,'' minX wUh
them some cand.d admissions, in a spirit upon which 1 would w h
equal candour animadvert.
From the Argus of Western America, Frankfort, Kentucky, 18,h J.ly, i828.
THE GHENT MISSION.
dhJH'^ Penndoes not understand the circumstances attending the
Ghent negotiation, or he wilfully conceals the truth. ^
th^vthn u * '"«'''"ct'«n8 given to our commissioners were, that
ilhVnr R .°? '«;?* *° ""^ stipulation by which the pre-ex stins
right of British subjects to trade with the Indians living within ou?
wetdtlUoS^l fhTwaf "^"^^ "'"^"^ ''^ ^"^'-' ^^'^^
^olL^^''® aclmg under these instructions, it was proposed by Mr.
witfa^clf'V.K' ^'i''^ '^' ^''^ »^^'g«^'''" °* the MissisLppi
7yt ?Z A '^ ^^Tu^^ ""J" ^^'"^^'^^'' ou condition that the liberl
of thpW .,*""? ^-^ ° V*'^, ^"'•'^ '^'t*^'" *^« exclusive jurisdiction
Un t.d S^t's "%T'' '''°"v '^^ '^'^"^'""^'l t« the citizens of the
united states. This proposition was strenuously opposed by Mr.
Clay on the ground that it would give the British those very means
of influence over the Indians of which it was the object ol thl go!
ZiZV" V'' '^'."k ^' ^^'"^^'^ '^y *»'«•'• insiructiLs ^At
fion .JIrT' '^'^T^' '°» ^"^'^'•''' ^^'■^ favourable to the proposi-
tion, and Clay »ud Russell against it. In the end, however, JBoLrrf
waS^thaTtii?^^ ^^^^^*«^- ^^•-"-' - -^ P-P-^on
" Subsequently, however, the overthrow of Napoleon having
kft us to contend single-handed with the undivided power of S
fd"to'?hr«Tr'"'"^ ^•''"Sht proper to change the terms offer-
structions t^ rh.^r^^'"™'"'' ""'^ «^'^°'''^i"g'y «eot additional in-
ff r!T M ^°*' directing our commissioners to make a peace
If practicable upon the simple condition, that each party should
be placed m the same situation in which the war found^bem
At the commencement of the war, the British had a right bv
treaty, not only to navigate the Mississippi, but to trade with all
ZZT^? ^°K •'"'• ^^'°"''^" °"'- ^^"'"'"^^ione^^ were instructed
be nZ A the continuance of this right, if r . oetter terms could
be procured. Under these instructions a proposition relative to
the Mississippi and the fisheries, similar to that which had been
rejected, was again presented, adopted, and sent to the British
commissioners. But it did not restore the right to navigate the
A •
234
Mississippi in as full a manner as the British goTcrnrocnt desired,
and on that account, we presume, was rejected.
'*Now we believe the truth to be, that Mr. Clay still opposed
this proposition, believing that it never ought to be made b^ our
government, and perhaps was not necessar)^ to the conclusion of
the peace. But as the government had authorized a treaty to be
made on the statw ante helium, and as the proposition amounted to
nothing more, he did not refuse to sign his name to the letter
which contained rot only that, but all the other propositions made
in the treaty.
" The Secretary, in his strictures, confounds together the dis-
cussions which took place before and after the reception of the
additional instructions, by which means more discriminating heada
than Penn's have been deceived.
♦- The commissioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the
right to the fisheries in British waters, on our side, and the riu^ht to
navigate the Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83,.
were not abrogated by the war, but continued in full force without
any new stipulation at the peace. The Secretary calls this the
American side of the argument^ and exults, with many thanks to
God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations,
•ad particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in
1818. Surely this exultation is not only without cause, but con-
trary to reason. If the principle so strenuously asserted by him
be correct, what have we gained by it ? At the close of the war
our right to the fisheries and the British right to navigate the Alis-
sissippi, existed to the full extent at which they were secured by
the treaty of '83, and would have continued so to exist without any
additional stipulation until this moment. But the convention of
1818, restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word about the
navigation of the Mississippi. Hence, if the Secretary's position
be sound, we have lost by it a part of our fishing liberties, and
the British retain the right to navigate the Mississippi in its fullest
extent ! How can the Secretary consistently sjiy, that they abandon-
ed this right in tlie convention of 1818, when not a word is said
about it in that compact ? If he were PresideAt and the Bi-itish
were to claim the right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, he
would be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his owa
favourite principle ! !'*
Remarks on tl>c Above Editoria) Article.
This article admits that Mr. Clay did not refuse to sign his name
to the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st
of December, 1814, of confirming to the British the right of navi-
gating the Mississippi. It admits that the proposition was fully
warranted by the instructions of 19th October, 18H, and formally
assigns them, as his nn ive (or not refusing his assent to the pro
posal. It does, indeed, say that he believed the proposition
893 • #
affirms that the instructions of J 9th October l«ui.,fh^ ff i
stuctbnsof 19Tho\ •"*'»« "'i«^io» "as taken after the „-
ch^^ ;: ci:GrL'l?:;:L^:e::" — «*— ^ »- «ppeai^ to m^
le:;t ; vhi r'^^Ki-- ''^'^"" ^p""«"- '^'»>^- -"^y b^«-
na ht ^ '^'^ " P"^''<^ niinister uouhl be justified in refus-
ng h.8 signature to a proposition warranted or even reouLd bv
l?nUf 1 "■ *'"^ ''^'P«'=* ♦*'''• a ni»<^»i greater latitude than J
^fbi-L^re^S'Silr.^;;?;;,?' 7^ itr°| ^'T ?'™' T
oMLl'^f"!.'"' 'r"'- '■™"" "- P?o -^ on 'STas3.'
?r" m hi'/l^hT^r' """,' r '"' '"•' '"'" *"= "■"■"J "TthhSSt
r..?™ " J • ".'' '""'" ™''='' »" ^'o C'li <if November Thi.
IweenlheS^ course namely, Ihe receipt in Ibe inlerval be?
, »m„lt « .P«"od9 of the ».a. ,„.(«.«,„,» from the government
■8 amp jr sufficenl to justify him for vieUine his assent at l?.rh„;
could be procured. Rut it intimates the bel ef of Mr cTav that
1 e ZZZ^lfA "T; ''■ '^''^''''^' ^-^ instfuctioif Ye
«ne of the government to this meo.uro, is «-eishty, and whoever
will dol/ consider the situation and circumstances of this nation an5
Jts government, in October, 1814, will, I believe, not be very ready
ro join ma censure upon the government for offering a peace on the
ham of the state before the war. There was then a heavy re-
s|)onsibility, both upon the government and upon the mission at
trhent, that the war should be concluded. This nation would have
w •^"rt a r'Jpture of the negotiation upon light or trivial causes,
ana It It bad been broken ofi' ii[»on a refusal to continue to the Bri-
nsh a mere nominal right to navigate the Mississippi, possessed by
them and harmless to us until the war had begun,^e government
and the mission would have had a very differenWask to justify
themselves to this country, from that which they now have. If
instead of writing his letter of 11th February, 1816, from Paris'
Mr. Kussell had brought the substance of it home in his pocket'
nith the war still raging, and he had said, We have not concluded
the peace— we have broken off the negotiation— but here are our
reasons— producing his letter of seven sheets against the Mississip-
pi navigation, and the fisheries— What would the nation and the
world have said of the American government and the American
mission at Ghent ? After the responsibiUty has been removed,
and the peace concluded, it is very easy to «« enjoy the good and
cavil the conditions"— but in this case, measure still harder is dealt
out to the government and the majority of the mission : after the
good IS secured, the cavil is against conditions not annexed to it,
but merely once proposed— not against an actual stipulation, but
against a rejected offer— against a possibility extinct.
It IS sufficient for the justification of the majority of the mission
that itHuS authorized, and that they believed it to be required by
their instructions. But I cannot pass over 'his censure upon the
gavernment for issuing the instructions themselves, without notice.
I-arfrom deeming them blameable, I believe them to have been
wise and meritorious. The instructions not to surrender the fish-
eries, even at the hazard of breaking off the negotiation, Hiani-
rested a sensibility congenial to the true and essewtial interests of
the country. I have in these papers furnished proof that the in-
terest in the fisheries at stake in the negotiation,. was great and im-
portant. The disquisitions in the Western newspapers on this
subject, dwell largely upon the state of politics then prevailing in
the Eastern section of the Union. This is an invidious topic, and I
wish to dismiss It with ihis observation, that the administration of
Mr. Madison could not have honoured itself more than by maintain,
ing with inflexible energy against the enemy, the special interest of
^at portion of he Union which had been most opposed to the war.
But had that illustrious statesman and patriot suffered himself on
that occasion to be influenced by narrower considerations, it could
not escape him, that however exceptionable the political course of
theSta e of Massachusetts might be, the portion of the people, most
particularly interested in these fisheries, neither countenanced nor
supported It. They had been the first, and were among the great-
237
w.r »„d of .he Lo„t s,;!: M"b*t„lA"„7r ? V"*
Hacrificed the r iberties in th.. fmh^rv «, ml . ' '*' ^° •»■*«
ii« gmutude. „„ ituVhZTfoTZ'lZ^'^'TAtT''^'''^''
vernmeiit. The initruction l.. .J-„. ' " "" ^"^'Km go.
.(a.e before iH.«TZX:.UyZnSl"T 'nt^'" °'*^
and the fisheries, to themsplvpa Ti,:^ *^ .1 » f.^ose island,
deepest solicitude/ IWeffoPt'- *f L*^"" "** °''J«"* "''»''«**•
theiV pretension that the Ishtgb^^^^^^ ZnT^Tir .'"
war, were uoivearied. They presentrd it to .?« fn ^'^^'^f ^^ ^^^
ingenuity could devise It wn,7»!! « * / u. '" ^^'^''^ ^"^^ t****
iaft obstacle to thrc'r/culSonTrt t'^a^;'" TdfoS' -^"^ ^'^
the wisdom and the importance of the instruction to h1 a ■
m«8.on. to agree to a peace on the ba ^ of th^s^^te bf^p'T
war, was this : it enabled them to avoid a rupture of thlZlJ^^
fLt tz.'et\^^lXo^.1"e^'^L^^lV^^^if '-"-
p„. „, ,„ the wrongfor the r„p,„re , a„3 «S,r.b.tl„^'„?^^^^^^
c.p e, always m reserve, we were enabled to insist more pe«e,er
.nglyapon every particul r article in di«;nfflion. P'""""
1 he editorial article in the Argus charges " llu Stcrelart," »i.I.
confounding, id his strictures (on the duplicate la»m ^ J?j-
sions which took place before and afte?, the receSof .h^^^^^^
23a
«.
It is nol llie Secretury, but Mr. RumcII, who confound* thenc
preceding an<J subBcquent diicussioni. The joint despatch of 25lh
December, lb 14, and Mr, Russell's separate letter of the same
date, say not a word of the discussions prior to the receipt of the
new instructions. They refer eiclusively to the vote taken on ibo
29th of November, and to the proposition actually made on the Ist
of December. Mr. Russell's letter from Paris, confounds together
the preceding and snb«oquent discussions. His duplicate brin|{s in
the cancelled instructions, »s violated by the proposal actually made
on the tirst of December, and his publication in the Boston States-
mnn of 27th June, affirms, that no tiote ivas taken after the receipt
of the new instructions ; and calls upon Mr. Clay to confirm the
assertion. It is hoped that the discritninatit^ heads will &ad that
in these pages, the Secretary has been suflBciently explicit in dis-*
tinguishiog between the first and second votes, and between the
discusiiions upon both of them.
The editorial paper states that the nrfirle first proposed by Mr.
Gallatin, and voted by the maiority, was finally rejected, because
Mr. Bayard changed sides. This is not altogether exact. If there
was any change of sides, it was by Mr. Clay. He brought forward
on the 7th of November, as a substitute for Mr. Gallatin's article,
which had been voted on the 5th, the very same proposition which
I had offered to take instead' of Mr. Gallatin's article, bejore the
vote upon it had been taken, but which Mr. Clay had not then been
prepared to accept. Upon this new proposal of Mr. Clay, Mr.
Bayard agreed, /or the sake of unanimity, to take it instead of Mr.
Gallatin's article ; and so did I, and so did Mr. Gallatin himself.
Mr. Bayard, of course, afterwards voted, on the 89th of Novem-
ber, for the proposition which was actually made on the Ist of De-
cember.
The editorial article of the Argus, after abating that the commis-
sioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the right to the fiah-
eries in British waters, on our side, and the right to navigate the
Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83, were not
abrogated by the war, but continued in full force, without any new
stipulation at the peace, observes, that " the Secretary" calls this
" the American side of the argument,^' and exults, with many thanks
to God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations,
and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in
1818. The writer in the Argus appears to be chagrined at this ex-
altation of the Secretary, and exceedingly anxious to deprive him
of his satisfaction. But in the first place, this statement of the
principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent, is again not alto-
gether exact. The principle assumed by them, was in these
words, drawn up by Mr. Clay :
" In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten-
" tiaries, respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what
" passed in the conference of the 9th AuguBt, can only state, that
" they are not authorized to bring into diacussion ^ny of the rights
239
" or lihertiet which the United Stites have h«.i.«fof«- a
" rehition thereto. IVom their nature an J from ^J ' V^- "*
«• racter of the treaty of 1783 bv whi!h /I ' " I't-cuhar i i.a-
;; f-ther ,tipui«ti:^l'bee;tet ,\'t^:jr^^^^ -
This principle, thus aasumed, the Secretary .In... ^nii .* d •
«umed, and has since been maintained, agains: the BM ll^ 7
argumenf nanouaced in the conference of t^h A urn 7fi?/ ^'
to wh,ch this paragraph was the formal annwer.tl^ lee ^trv would
not lew heartily add his thanks to Mr. Chiv for ha^fn?! V ♦?•
interest at stake upoo it, that lie tbould miiniair. ti.. a*
Iwy »ould readily call it Mr. Clay's side o™ ,e r , ''', t7",
feaion to suppose it as uoequivocall, that lntT«. . / i /"^
a. he had made it his oflic?al, opinL'.""''/," Secret ."'hiS'
fcrarA%-tl™7;e^t:cry-5^^
S^S9^.i^^^-i„^;L:~££=^
British right of navigating the Mississippi, as well as in reUtion f!
the fisheries, and on this inaccuracy is Vounded the Lns^re r.h!
Secretary for calling it the Jlmeri/an side o/Larglmnt ' '^'
senTed bv°T"c?r '' T"f '^^ F""^'*^^*' ""'^ '« '^ '^^s pre-
seniea by Mr. Clay, and only m relat on to the fi«hpri..fl u
emphatically the American side of the arguZTmdstiluJ^.'^A
JO when afterwards the British plenipotfnrL deoi Id a Zu
lation in the treaty that BriUsh subjects should enjoy the rlht^of
o r'tS iet tZ'^' ^"' "^"^ '' " '""^ ^'^^^ P-Pot fS-oug^h
ul..! A '^ ^^ American commissioners then said to them •
If you admit our principle, you need no new stipulation to letur^
to you this right ; we are willing, however, to recoenUp it L o
article, declaratory of both rights. If vou rewfi tn ?" "^"^
foundation to claZ^ rl,,t of ul^^^^^^
fore, no pretence for asking it by a new stipulation. The British
plenipotentiaries could not extricate themselves from this dileSma
They said they claimed the right of navigation, asan eoZaSo;
ahandoning their line of boundary to the MississiDDi Id f!rf •
to the 49th parallel of latitude.^ We offered tTe'm' to lea' e^J?
boundary as ,t was~which they finally accepted Throughout
the whole discussion, the principle assumed by the AmerS com
missioners, was the American side of th, argLent? ^ "'
It Tva« still 80 in the negotiations after the peace which terminated
840
in the convention of 1818, and remains the American side of the
ai|;ument to this day. When, in the summer of 1816, British arm-
ed cruisers warned all American fishing vessels on the coast of No-
va-Scotia to a distance of sixty miles from the shores, they very
eignificantly proved what the British government had meant by their
side of ihe argument, and in entering upon the negotiation, imme-
diately flftprwards and inconsequence of that event, the Secretary
may be allowed tosjfeak with confidence when he says, that had it
not been for the principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent,
he could not have taken the first step in it—he could not have al-
leged a cause of complaint — sixty miles was largely within the ex-
tent of exclusive British jurisdiction, as to those fisheries, if our lir
berties in them had been abrogated by the war ; and the American
minister in England would have had no more right to complain of
this warning, or of any exclusion by British cruisers of American
fishing vessels from any part of the Newfoundland fisheries, than of
the seizure of an American vessel in the port of Liverpool for a
manifest violation of the British revenue laws.
It was upon the rights and liberties, in these fisheries, as recog-
nised in the treaty of 1783, as unimpaired by the war of 1812, and
as unabrogated, although no stipulation to confirm them had been
inserted in the treaty of Ghent, that the American minister in Lon-
don did complain of this wai*ning and interdiction of the American
lishermen. He recurred immediately to the principle asserted by
the American commissioners at Ghent, at the proposal of Mr. Clay,
and consigned in their note of 10th November, 1814. On that he
rested the continued claim of the United States to all the rights and
liberties in the fisheries, recognised in the treaty of 1783, and en-
tered upon a full discussion of the question with the British go-
vernment. The result of that discussion, which was continued in
the negotiation of the convention of 1818, appears in the first arti-
cle of that convention. The editorial article in the Argus, says that
this convention restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word
about the navigation of the Mississippi. The convention restricts
the liberties in some small degree; but it enlarges them probably
in a degree not less useful. It has secured thawhole coast fishery
of every part of the British dominions, except within three marin**
miles of the shores, with the liberty of using all the harbours,
for shelter, for repairing damages, and for obtaining wood and wa-
ter. It has secured the full participation in the Labrador fishery •
the most important part of the whole, and that of which it was at
Ghent peculiarly the intention of the British government at all
events to deprive us. This fishery cannot be prosecuted without
the use of the neighbouring shores, for drying and curing the f.sh :
it is chiefly carried on in boats, close into "the shores, and the loss
of It, even if the rest had been left unaffected by the same princi-
ple, would have been a loss of more than half of the whole interest.
The convention has also secured to us the right of dryk^ and
curing fish on a part of the island of Newfoundland, which had not
,^
^^
241. ■ ■ -'
b«en enjoyed under the treaty of 1783 : it has narrowed down the
preteasions of exclusive territorial jurisdiction with reference to
those fisheries to three marine miles from the shores. Upon the
whole I consider this interest as secured by the conveSon of
nil'Zl r""" •' «dr«°t«g««"« «» it had been by the treaty of
178J ; we have gamed by ,t, even of fishing liberties, perbaw as
E> fif n ^''^■^ '.*''.* • ''"* '^ ""*• ^« have gained pr^cUcalMh^
benefit of the principle, that our liberties in the fisheries rSised
^V^l 'Tk'^ °^ ''^^' ""^'^ not abrogated by the wTof fs^f 'Tf
they had been we never should have obtained, without a new war
^ny portion of them again. The error of the editorial artTcle in
he Argus, is in putting out of sight the difference between a con
tested and an uncootested right. After the conclusion of the peace
of Ghent, according to the American side of the argument Id ht
virtue ot the principle, assumed at the proposal of Mr Clav thi
rights and liberties ot the people of tL Suited Stli Tthes:
fisheries remained in full force, as they had been recoen"«ed bv
InH Tt^i ^^^^' Accordingto the BHtish side of the f ?g,fmenf
and o the doctrine of Mr. Russell's Letter from Paris, they were
totally abrogated by the war. The letter says, in ex^resMeTms
hat he hbertyv^a. "entirely at an end ,"' and that we we eTft
'^without any tule to it whatsoever- If this was he real doctrine of
he rmnority of the American mission at Ghent, has not the W
tnry reason to exult, and to give many thanks to God, that inS
ot avowing .t, they professed directly the contrary That m^
Clay himself proposed to the mission, and the mission at his pro
posal adopted the opposite principle, the American side ofthFal
gmnent After the peace of Ghent, the right of the peoil of th.
Unued States to the fishing liberties ^as pfrfect, h.tS 2s c^L^t-
l,L ^u'lu"'^ ^ ^"'**'^ '"^' 'f '^' ^^S^ndnt, and what we bate
gamed by the convention of 1818, has been an adjustmenrof that
contest, preserving essentially the whole interest that was in dif
P« te. The first article of the convention is upon its flco the ad"
jnstment of a contested question. The documents of the neiotu"
tion prove how xX was adjusted, and show that we obtained the ad
justment by maintaining our principle. On the principle of the let"
ter from Pans there was no liberty to maintair^ no rLht to aTser
no contest to adjust : the liberty wlsgone, irretrievaSy lost *
1 he editorial article says, that " if the British were to claim fhp
right navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, the Secretary wolw
be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his ownZ^uri te
principle ! " The double notes of admiration annexed to th«
closing period of the editorial article, indicate a long cher'^hed and
intense desire to fasten upon the Secretary, in spitf of a I that he
can say, the deep crimination of the dreadful consequence, to
which his favourite pr.nc.ple might yet lead. Mr. Russe I. too has
LXo it'is thi.^''"" '"P' '' '''"''' '^^•"^^ ^^eSecretar;:' My'
242
that the principle alludvjd to in its application to our fishint li-
berties, IS ^y favourite principle, I admit, knowing as I do, that it
has been the means of saving them from total extinction. That it
M my ffwn prmcipic, I have perhaps not more the right to say thao
that It was Mr. Clay's own principle : for it was at his proposal
that It was assumed by the American mission at Ghent, and the pa-
ragraph by which it was assumed, was drawn up by him. For aU
possible consequences in relation to the British right of navigating
the Mwftssippi, which may flow from the assumption of this prin-
ciple, Mr. Clay so far as official acta and signatures can pledge i«
•s responsible as I am.
But the truth is, that the principle can no longer be applied to
the British right of navigating the Mississippi, because they them-
selves have disclaimed it, and thereby renounced the right to the
claim. The right once disclaimed, cannot again be resumed. It
could not be resumed even after a tacit renunciation — a disclaimer
is still more. It was precisely because acquiescence on our part
in the principle asserted by the British plenipotentiaries, in their
notification of 8th August, would have been a s-jrrender and tacit
renunciation of the fishing liberties, that I deemed the counterno-
tification on our part, or a new article indispensable. But in assert-
ing a t>riRciple just and sound in itself, in defence of our own liber-
ties, we are in nowise bound to force it upon Q?eat Britain, in support
of any right of hers ; and as she has chosen to consider her right
to navigate the Mississippi by virtue of the 8th article of the treaty
of 1783, as abrogated by the war, we are neither bound to obtrude
«pon her that which she disclaims, nor to admit the claim, shouhl
she hereafter be disposed to retract the principle.
But this is not all ; the editorial article asks " how can the Se- ^
cretary consistently say that the British abandoned this right in the
convention of 1818, when not a word is said about it in that com-
pact ?" It is precisely because not a word is said in the compact about
if, that the British have abandoned the right. By the second arti-
cle of the convention a new boundary line is stipulated, along the
49th parallel of latitude, which of coui-se cuts them off from the
line to which they were before entitled to the Mississippi. Dis-
claiming the right secured to them by the 8th article of the treaty
of 1783, the on/y ground upon which they still claimed the right,
was by virtue of the line which brought them in contact with the
river. At the negotiations of 1807, and at Ghent, they declined
agreeing to the new line, unless with a reservation of the right to
navigate the river, and of access to it, through our territories.
They demanded the same thing at the negotiation of the convention
of 1818, and presented an article to that effect. But they finally
agreed to the new boundary line, without the reservation, and
thereby abandoned their last claim to the right of navigating the
river.
The editorial article in the Argus, is sufficient to justify Mr.
Clay for his assent to, and concarrence with, all the measures
248
Jgreed upon by the majority of the Ghent mission. His serrice*
to the nation are sufficiently distinguished to enablp him ♦<!!
"'.th the assistance of nnjuJt aspefsions upon o?hir» '" '^"^"'"*
t /
//. Mr. Floyd's Letter.
From the Richmond Enquirer of 27th August, 182«. "
To tU Editors of the Enquirer :
^"^"^■'^''■. VlROINIA, AUOMT 14, 1842;
myself alone, I have bien content T/resti^^Sms^to^
he decision of those with whom I act^etT/ejXa Z" ^^^^^^^^
the newspapers, or reporters to newspapers, either miZl.! I
me misrepresent me, or do not hear me. "wunderstand
In the commencement of this affair, I was not a HhIo «, • ^
to see the editorial remarks of the WeekTy Relter „ cZfr ^
Je publication of the President's message wShfiiM'°"''rt"«
Russell and Mr. Adams, subjecting mo t^ rmput.UonJn^^
tioneering views" and the " ietting^,n" this busine r mv . *'•''"
was not lessened to find any thing in my crrsriiabi;?/'"^^^^^
putations, as I have always felt the mZ perfect ronfiw *""'' T
correctness of my course': though I have^torhi.h 1 Tn' '° ^^"t
he correctness and integritv of the WeeklJ R?le/tS'h.°r ^^
these remarks were intended for any other purp?ethl„ ^f"^*
an honest opinion of the transaction as it appeared to'hJm ^"^
With these feelings, as soon as I recovered fromVL „
onder which I was labouring- when the Reg^te^ w s r.?;""^/
wrote a statement of the whole matter, to thfeditoT of ZT''* '
whose independent republican course has imnrJl!L ^''^^PfPe^
most favourable sentiments of his re'Stud: Zabi uj Z^T^l^
«ng there would be an end to the affair ery soon S Vh /m'"'^'
portunities might offer elsewhere, of doinTmyself iustil. f ''' T
cd to the suggestion of a friend in withhddS C So I^l^'t
XiTiVcrioVk^r^^^
the adoption of Mr. FuLV, re^lZ^llltlZ'l^^^^^^ l^l
m
i%e President for the papers; which now appears to have bl^n
ilone at the instance of Mr. Adanas himself.
There is certainly something very singular in this affair, tV t
Mr. Adams, who has laboured with so much zeal and perseverance,
to impress the nation with the belief that Mr. Russell is not correct
in his statements, should, nevertheless, as zealously adhere to de-
clarations eiiuully injurious, and unfounded as it regards myself;
to the end, it is presumed, to justify his own conduct in procuring
Mr. Fuller to make the call which I had desisted from, and which
it seems was so desirable to him as a mean of getting into the news-
papers, — this, too. after Mr. Kussell had said he knew nothing of
liiy intention of making the request I did make.
. Mr. Adams, J hail believed, was too well acquainted with eti-
quette, to leave his lawful game, to send a shaft at me, however he
might feel towards iue ; but, since he has thought proper to do so,
I mrst defend myself.
Whatever a Secretary shall say of me, I think it but right, to
hold him responsible ; nor will I consent that he shall ransack bis
department to find a clerk to prop his desires by a certificate. So
far as it regards myself, I must protest against the certificates of
clerks, who depend for their daily bread, upon the capricious
smiles of a Secretary of a Department. 1 do not wish to be un-
derstood as making any remark upon Mr. Adams's certifying clerks.
It is possible they may be respectable, I know nothing of t'lem;
nor, can I, consistent with my own self-approbation, know any body
but Mr. Adams, who 1 presume, having reliance, and regardless of
feelings or opinions, boldly and confidently, reiterates in his re-
joinder, that Mr. Russell procured me, to subserve his purposes,
and make the call in the House which I did make ; which assertion,
I unequivocally pronounce to be utterly destitute of that verity
which ought always to characterize assertions made to the public.
The story is briefly this :
Last winter was a year, at my lodgings, in conversation with
some of my friends, we were discussing the advantages of the oc-
cupation of the Oregon, or Columbia river, the value of the fur
trade of our western rivers, the wealth to be' derived from that
trade in the Canton market, and the practicability of supplying the
valley of the Mississippi with the manufactures of China by that
route ; when one gentleman observ,ed, that the Mississippi had
been discussed at Giient, and from the character of the gentlemen
engaged in it, there was a strong probability, that, if I had that cor-
respondence, I would obtain something, which might be useful to
me. I had then presented to the House, my report upon the occu-
pation of that river, and would have to make an exposition of the
bill when it came up for discussiuti. 1 instantly determined to make
the call, as the proper mode of getting the papers : but, I soon
found my bill for its occupation, could not, from the place it held
in the orders of the day, be acted upon that session : I then deter-
niincd to postpone tlie call until the next session. Accordingly, on
!^45
dWr^Jli^To/*^'* f*^!' commenting upon this, that, "it #ill be
tTZro(th^GS!n^V7r'''^ b*d intervened, between the
report ot the Ghent treaty documents to the Hoase and this se.
cood call, which Mr. Rusaell has admitted v.a. made U hia s^ffi^^^^^^
on the 23d of February, and not dhly ordered to lie on the tuble
ZrtLT'f ^"' •'•^^'^'l^ ''"^''^^ '« *' /'^^«^' I had not an op^
portun.ty of examming them until they were printed, which 3d
of course requ.re some days. But in that time, I 'had recTed
know ^f S '^ ^a'^ "^'"'Tl "^ "y ^«°^"y' «°d Mr. Adams Tdes
know I obtained leave of ab8enc6 for the remainder of the ees-
sion believing it not possible for me to return.
I left this city, I believe, about the 13th of March^ but mv fami-
^ being restored to health, I returned to WashiS. and «r vS
and on the 1 8th submitted the second resoiuUon, calling specifically
tIv^'' 'r f "^^ ' **»"* --esolution was adopted on the iS
•er?? ^nnM **V«"i ^^^^"J.'^*" ^^> that, on examining the pa-
pers, I could no hnd any thing I wanted, though I did perceive
ZT^f' ^^'f}f '""'•'' ^''}^,^ '^' ^^th of December, from Ghent!
dot «n '»?h '^*'* '" '"'I?;? ^""^'""^ °»t"™»y <^«>"«»«ded he had
done so as he was a public man, and in the discharge, as I thought
i' '^ w l*° '"^' ^^^^'^'^S ^^^ ^^'"« of the Mississippi rirer!
I will take no part in the controversy between Mf. Russell and
^n. tt'n;'h"°' ""^""^ * ""r ^""^^ W""«°' had not Mr. Adams
gone out of his way. in endeavouring to place me in an attitude
which he must know, nothing but his injustice could havreSfed
♦ki v";'*'T/ f^,.^"<=h surprised at the memory of the friend of
the National Intelligencer, as at all the rest of this affair .he has
eertainly reported to that paper as far as he went »rbstanfwiy''
^ori ?J/'t ^J '" '^'^ '^'^''^ ' ''"^ **»« «'^rP"^« "» that hK.
TrIitl'Ji ?^ P'^^^'f P°r^ ''^^'^ my justification begins. I
ihli tn J "Vl"! fu'^!.""'' •"«''« *»»«"« '«'»"ts. and nearly in
these words : That I had made the previous calls, and had not re-
newed it, as the letter wanted had been .pecificklly desired.^d
tJ-nf^''\u^''l^^ '^""^ the wishes of the House, and mirfit
send It If ha thought proper, as he was the judge of the proprifty
iouIdTl' h^ "1*^*5?' «"°^*'" resolotioMo the same ffi
woS d nrn5r'""r« ^J^^ *''«°'*y °^ ^^^ "°««« ? «°d if the papers
roffir!?nr u-'"°*^"'*^*^*"« '*"*' »" ^'oo'^' between me? high
Le™ seem.H P""'^.^^*?'"' ^^ich the President, who had the pa-
pere seemed to insinuate, I would not be the means of producL
*Kat4,v.l. What I wanted was the information, which I .upJoS
m
'paper« (o coatain relatire to the value of the M Uiiisippi, whidb
jvould, according to my view of the occupation of the Columbhi
river, show the value of the trade to flow in that channel, which
was to connect those two great rivers ; and that there could not
he any thing difficult to comprehend in that. That if the President
would tell the House such consequences would flow from the com-
munication, and at the same time state, that copies of the papers
would be furnished to any gentlemiin at the Department of State,
who might desire them, was a thing left for him to justify and to re-
concile : I wished myself to be correct, and said this for my owa
justification, and to sliow my owa consistency, and not the Presi-
dent's.
I will close these observations by observing to you, that I have
seen in your paper a few days ago, the remarks contained in a
Charleston Journal. I cannot divine how the writer knew 1 had
made a motion to refer the President's communication to my com-
mittee, before it was read. I conclude, though, it is much after
♦he disinterestedness of the times, and that a diplomatic mission to
some of the new republics, may be the hoped reward of the hon-
est exertions of the writer. How was that fact ascertJHned ? there
M no record showing whether the motion was made before the pa-
pers were read or not — this minute fact is known to the writer so
distant from Washington, who does not ever> know the part of the
country I live in-, as he sUites me to be a member from the west-
it may be honest ignorance— I- believe, though I did make the mo-
tion to refer the papers, as soon as it was asccrtuined what the
papers related to. This is every day's practice, and I have now
papers referred to my committee which the House never saw,
which contained information I had sought through the medium of
the House, as I had done that, which was to be used when my bill
was called up. I will sa/more. that if 1, by any proper act,
could have prevented this affair, that I would have done so ; nor
will 1, either in public or in private, refrain from commenting upon
the public conduct and opinions of any public man, who may be
thought, or may tWnk himself entitled to office. My opposition
Jias always been political, and directed by the ideas I entertain of
the power which gentlemen may think themselves entitled to ex-
ercise, under the constitution of the United States. Hook upon that
constitution ns containing expressed grants of power,aad cannot ap-
prove any opposite opinion.
' 1, as a public man, am willing to be judged by this test, and when
i, or others, cannot dgfend their opinion, injustice to the country,
they r ■• ' t to retire. In my public capacity I called upon the ex-
ecuti* '.anch of the government for papers expressly relating to
a national transaction, and for public use ; and if evil has resulted,
or private letters been divulged, it cannot attach to me.
I am, sirs, with great respect, your obedient servant,
JOHN FLOYD,
.i*:i4,.li£
lH^' »- ..'^ ^ ...^j.,-^|*y
^47
' ill Mr. rytir^ tSmr.
i'rtfm tb« Boston Patriot of ith September, 1822.
^ . „ . BoiToif, 3d SarTUMBBR, 1823.
Vb <A« £Arar* o/- <Ae Boston Patriot :
Gentlemen : Having seen in thj Richmond Enquirer of the 27th
of August, n letter from Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, in which he upeaks
of the conduct of Mr. Adams " in procuring Mr. Fuller to make
the call" for Mr. HusseirB letter and Mr. A.'s remarks in rolatiou
to the Ghent treaty, I am induced, with great reluctance, to ad-
dress you a line on that sulyect, for publication. My great aversion
to appear, without evident neeewity, in the tiewspupert, alona
withheld me from this course, on observing that Mr. li<issell,in his
letter re-published in the Nalional Intelligencer on the ad of July,
*ays Mr. Adams '• sought for a member who would coniant to make
the call." — "To one member from Massachusetts, ut least, he lutd
applied in vai«, before he finally succeeded in his object."
It was perfectly obvious, on being informed by the President's
message of the 4th of May, that Mr. Russell's private letter on the
Ohwit negotiation was to he seen by gentleinen who might coll at
the Department of State, that it would be immediately uubiisbed in
the newspapers. The messflge also stated the wish ot the Secre-
tary of State, to have the letter communicated to Congress, toge-
ther vHth his remarks, explanatory of its contents. This course
appeared to me perfectly fair ; and in supporting the motion, which
I had submitted for the purpose, 1 assigned, among other reasons,
the palpable unfairness of making the letter public, while the an-
swer was suppressed. Several members, with whom I conversed,
concurred with me entirely in the propriety of having both commu-
nicated together. It seems to me, therefore, very singular, that
any censure could be attached to Mr. Adams, even had he, as al-
leged, requested or '• procured" the call. I do, however, explicitly
declare, that neither Mr. Mams, nor any other person, either re-
quested or *' procured'* me to move the call, or to do any thing in re-
lation to it.
I regretted the absence of Mr. Russell, and did not know of his
intention to depart from Washington, until he was actually gone ;
had he been present, however, it did not occur ♦) me, that he could
have any objection to the resolution, and it would not have pre-
vented the support I gave it.
Mr. Floyd's remarks, in opposition to the resolution, appear to
me more accurately stated in his letter, than as reported in the In-
elligencer; but the addition which he has supplied, seems not ma-
terial, in my view, for his •• justification."
Permit me to add that while I regret extremely the unfortunate
occasion, I nevertheless rejoice in perceiving that it has produced
L>tni t'h r*"*' ^^ *»«« ""PO'-t «nd bearing; of several important
wnts, which required only to be understood, to allay the jealousies
nf "o«r?' ^"' * * v"* '? ""^"""^^d, between the differen secS
of our country. Tour's respectfully,
T. FULLER.
'ml •
ill
^m
tF,
From the National Intelligencer of 3ist August, 1822.
. To the Editors of the Ifational Intelligeijcer.
In U)« Richmond Enquirer of the 27th Auirust lfl99 tu^^^ ,.
puW.8hed a letter fron, \r. Floyd tp the edttofs of thTpapeTi«
tK^ertio^'^K'""''* *•**? ^"".V* '^' "'*'^»«' which he didTak7!
tT?« nfT^ °" -^ urreauivocally pronounces to be utterly desti
ae«!l^^h!rfK *"• '*^ri!'* Rejoinder, thus referred to, must have
seep that the name of Mr. Floyd is not so much as mentioned in it
Sv tdi,^''Jr'"^5*"°lf /'If r^*" °^*^« Resolution. onlvTa
•ay, that when Mr, Russell left the City, on the fifth of May I ore,
sumed he knew that the call for the letter would not beYenewed
by h.m. I have said that the call of the House of the 1 9th of
Apr.1, was made at Mr. Russell's instance or suggestion and that it
was ppocured by him. My vouchers for this assertion, are he
frJtr.?T°l.f!?"- *^"'''"" ''•"««'^ *» ^'' B''«"t «nd Mr. Bailey!
as attested iq their statements-trom the latter of which it appeara
5?'^ S* ^^f *^'' ^'- ^""«"'« Jitter was procured by him na£er
th«t if h ' r^'^** ^^' ^"''*" '^^^""«^ «^^*n«. t«"'ng Mr. FloVd
that If he wished a copy, be must move a call for it. Mr Flovd
has not denied this to be fact. If he did deny it, the question wouW
be upon the verity of Mr. Russell's assertL Tnd^"„Tof S^
Tde tJiheTiSi^^** ^"«J^' "I^^y" *° characterize asserTon^
precei? S T fev^ '" t ^f fP'^ »'»P':««ed as I could be by the
precept 01 Mr. Hoyd, or by his example. ♦.
W..hu,gtP,. 30th A„gu«, ,833. '"^""^ ^^'^^^ A^^S,
V. Further Remarks upon Mr. Floyd's Letter to the Edifor, of the
Richmond Enquirer.
The impartial editors of the Richmond Enquirer, in repubfish-
,ng this letter of mine to the editors of the National iLuKcer
r2>elling the charge of Mr. Floyd, annexed to it a note o^S
Skiff's ^Pi'*''i"''^°\P°'"<*'* °"* •" °»y letter between the
wh rrl^/*/J''^'''f '^ '^^ "^!' *^^»»»« "°»»e of Representative,
which resulted from it, a nice distinction.
u jr**''f?**^"f ?° r^ *•'" '■ ^^' ^'°y*' had accused me of having,
regardless of feehnp or opinions, boldly and confidently reiterati
« ri '"^^Z Rejoinder, that Mr. Russell bad procured him. CMr,
Floyd,) to sqbserve h,8 (Mr. Russell's,) p«r;,o,«, and make the
call 10 the House which he did make." And upon thisaccusa.
-'Tijir'^w'-
If 1 had «8,ertedf Zod/v ofMrZ^fZ'1 "f 'j;"^'
puted to me, he woufdhlTJhJ'' ^'''^''' **•"' ^'''c*> *>« >ti^'
sertioD. and oderUs truth hi^K*"**" '°.*»'^* ««'*"^« «* the 5
House, adopted upon hu^l.:^„!' ^^^ •"-«'-«°'> that the call of tS»
neither ia^^Z tha? Mr Flovd hnTrnT?'**' ^^ ^'- '^'"••'H'
Mr. Ru^eJl's purposes n^^^^ h.maejf ,„b,„„^„^ ^^
justly take offeEce.^ The factSih7did 1 "? *''' '^'^y** '^'^"M
call for Mr. Russell's letter had bpL ^aTu'- '''""*•>'' **»«» *»>«
w not denied by Mr Flovd anj .s trl ?. " T** '"gK^^'-'OD,
to me an assertfon that iTad^ot made Iha m7V."'^'^ 'fT^"*
hii-aself ground to stand imnn iJ^T ■ ■ * '^y** '^o"''! make
truth upSn my asseS ^ ' '" '^''''^'"^ '"J"^'*^« ^° '^''°' ««d un,
^rtnire^i^rr^rrr'^^h'^"^^^^ ^-"-^ ^-
thought, that Mr. Flofd ac^edl .1, ' ' , T^^^^ '"^^''t. nor
Russln/ I knew hirdXTeror;^ oCMr,
were applicable to «»« thnp/., * * "*•' *°' '«'' as the»
impote. was, the m>k ,,Zin <4W«„ IM' .'L""" 'r'""' «»
less reason couldVehaTe/or^;^:^ "*'»
cause to use the term, as applicable to Mr Fuller than it i^"
apphcab e to him. His rail nf lOfk a ."'"''' ^"^'^ * "*^» «■
gested to himT Mr RuLlf %^^lt^' d"* *?!'" directly gug-
1
i50
Miret) by any other member : but I neither nsfced Mr. Ftiller not
any other member to renew it. 1 did not, therefore, procure Mr.
Fuller, to renew the call and if I can be said to have procured the
«pll, moved for by him, it was only by the expression of a general
wiahto him, as to many others, that the papers should be commu-
nicated to the HoNse ; a wisb which had already been made known
to (he House by the me|i«age of the President.
Nothing offensive to Mr. Floyd was intended by me in my Re-
joinder, nor, if he had been governed by his own maxim, could he
have seen any thing offensive to him in it. Rut there is one thing,
at least, in which there is, between Mr. Russell and Mr. Floyd, a
tommunity of purpose : that of assuming an attitude of defence, for
Ibe purfipsc of making an attack upon me.
Mr. Floyd, in the p.iblication here alluded to, has indulged him-
■elf in many reflections and insinuations against me, which, having
BO relation to (he subject of this controversy, I deem it most respect-
ful to the public to pass over in silence. I bear no enmity to Mr.
Floyd. Having no personal acquaintance with him, 1 can have no
feelings towards him, other than those excited by his conduct as a
pablic man, which is open to my observation as mine is open to
There had been a time when, upon a critical occasion, in which
tay public conduct was not a little involved, Mr. Floyd, still m^re
wiknown to me than at present, had in the House of Represent-
atives taken a part which had given him claims to my esteem-r-per-
fcaps to my gratitude. His conduct and opinions then, were doubt-
less actuated exclusively by public motives, and without reference
at all to me — yet I was grateful to him for his support of a cause
which it had also been my duty to defend : the cause of a hero,
upon whose public services was invoked the public censure of bis
country.*
Whatever were his motives for moving the first call for the
Ghent papers, or the second, for Mr. Russell's letter, as he thereby
only exercised his right as a representative of the people, I could
take no exception to it. There were no ties of private friendship
between Mr. Floyd and me, which made his case different from
that of Mr. Russell ; and if he had received his impression of the
transactions at Ghent from representations such as those of Mr.
Kossell's lett^, he might, without impropriety, move a call for the
papers, for the purpose of bringing the whole subject before Con-
gress, and the nation, and of exposing what he might deem to be my
misconduct in the transaction, even though it should have no bear-
iHg upon his bill for the occupation of Columbia river.
By his publication in the Richmond Enquirer, he seems desirous
of being understood to disclaim any otker purpose in moving the
• See the Debate in the House of RepresentaUves, on the Seminole War,
February, 1819, Mr. Floyd's Speech, I
2H
mat bill— yet Irft dwclaimcr is not explicit.
w.AV*!lf P;®"*''"f •«*"«" o^" Congrew, as Chairman of a Comtak-
teeof the Houte of Reprtwntatives. he hud raad« a report recoaL
mendmgthe e.tabh«hinent of a territory at the mouth of Columbine
mer. He now states, that at that time, in convewal.oo at CI
lo^mgs with some of his friends, upon the subject oflhatreuoT.
wealth to be derived from that trade in the Canton market and
the pract.c«b,litv of supplying the valley of the M^wTssipJi w' h he
manuiactures ortbat route, one gentleman observed, that the JV i«!
•iss pp, had been discussed at Ghent, and from the chiracters of ha
genllemen engaged in it, there was a strong probabilitj th^if M
i%d had that correspondence he w<Hild Sbtain J^thingll^i
711 i?"*^n '" '*""• ^''°° '^y"'*'. *•« immediately deteiSne.l to
make the call, rs a proper mode of getting the papers, but alUv,
M If «7'"«*J to postpone the call until the next session.
Mr Fleyd has not informed the public, who it was that made the
suggestion to him, upon which he determined to call for the Ghent
correspondence ; but it was a person who knew that the Alississip.
Mr fIov? ".f^'"'**;' ''^^^^^^'■''l^ >*>«>. by suggetting this idea o
Mr.Hoyd. suTiciently manifested the disposition that the cor res-
pondence containing the discussion of the Mississippi at Ghent,
should be brought before the public.
io.^K^/*'^i?'''*"'*'J^*'**i **'" '°'S*'t be an occasion to obtain this ob-
ject, but where so much was known about the discussion of the Mis-
sissippi at Ghent, other purposes, besides the occupation of Co.'
lumbia river the fur trade, or the Canton market, were doubtless
oontempla ed in stiniulatiiig the call for the correspondence. I do
mI Tlovi*' K°T'''T, °^ r"** '"°^'''*"' '^ tbey ijere partaken by
Mr. Jloyd: but while influenced by them, he cannot claim the
privilege of impartiality, with reference to this inquiry, norshould
he have appealed to the public, as if he had been iniured by me
nn'Ti'o^ »t«t'nsthe fact, that the call of the House for Mr. Rus.'
hile f Kv J r? T'^^ ^•*[-' .*^« eusgeslion of Mi, Russell
himself. By Mr. f loyd's own showing, his first call for the Ghent
S^P m'; r VJ' fSg^'sted to him. He does not deny that the call
idde? e^r'th Vt"'"" '"^^ 'W''^ '^ »'™' ^^'J »•« "igbt have
;„ ;! i' J M ' ^''^ n" .^^'"'"S ^"'■'^«''*> '» the Richmond Enquirer,
tha? pajeni' ' ' *"" '""^^'''"^ '" ^"'' ^^ ^^^ ^'^'^^^ ^^
n.Jr!;^?of ^' now alleged by Mr. Floyd for his call of 17tb Ja-
nuap 1822, could not lead him to the suspicion, that there would
th-i r^ ?aT*""''% ? ^^^ Executive to furnish all the documenta
hat could be useful to him for his Columbia river bill ; nor does t
ndeed appear, that on the 16th of January, 1822, 'vhen he moved
£ «nl'^-ffi °?; •"" «"«P«*=t«^' o-- bad reason to suspect, there would
be any difficulty m obtaining all the papers upon the call.
* See fJie Richmond Enquirer of 2d Aogutf, 1822,
• . «
fhc tM€ MeoM to have been different on the next day. Irfr,
Floyd then proposed to strike out from his resolution, the exception
<vf papers, which, in the opinion of the President, it migiit be im-
proper to disclose ; and to the demand for the correspondence, had
added that for the protocol.
The following observations of Mr. Floyd in this day's debate,
[I7th January^ 1822,] explaining his reasons for wishing for the
whoii correspondence, without excepting even such parts of it as in
the President's opinion it might be improper to disclose, are par-
(kalarly remarkable. He observed " that the bill which he had
•♦this day reported to the House, contemplated a considerable
*• change in the mtercourse with the Indian tribes, in the West ; and
**it appeared by the report of the Secretary of War, made yester-
•* day, that a great injlutnce was exerciied over those tribes by our
•• European neighbours in that quarter. The correspondence be-
# tween the commissioners at Ghent, embraced this subject among
« others, and he thought it was desirable that the House should be
** in possession of the whole of it."
Mr. Floyd, in his recent publication, says that when the papers
were communicated to the House, in answer to this call, on exam*
iniog them, he could not find any thing he wanted ; but that he ex-
pected to find it in the letter of %. Russell, premised in his sepa-
TutB despatch of 25th December, 1814. He disclaims any inten>
tion, however, of calling for a private letter, and says, that if by
any proper act he could have prevented this affair, he would Itave
done so. Whether he found, in Mr. Russell's letter, when it was
communicated, any thing that he wanted, he has not said. There
was much touching the value of the Mississippi river, and much
about the influence exercised over those Indian tribes, by our Eu-
ropean neighbours in that quarter : the bearing of it, or of any part
of it, upon Mr. Floyd's bill for the occupation of Columbia river, is
not so perceptible as its bearing upon the object which he now
seems to disclaim. If he means to be understood to say, that he had
no other motive in calling for that letter than those that he has as-
signed in his recent publication, I should only regret that this paper,
when obtained, was so little suited to answer hi* expectations, or to
j;ive him the intormation of which he was in pursuit.
That he had other objects in view, it was certainly very natural
to believe, upon observing the earnestness with which he pressed for
the whole Ghent correspondence, without excepting such part as
the President might think it improper to disclose ; and upon com*
jparing I Is observations in the debate of 17th January, with the
eontents of Mr. Russell's letter.
His resolution of 19th April, called on the President (if not in-
jtirious to the public good) for any letter or communication, which
may have been received, from Jonathan Russell, after the signature
ttf the treaty of Ghent, and written in conformity to the indications
contained in his letter of 26th December, 1814. Although in this
call, tllere is neither qualification of the character of the letter oc
253
tonmunkation, whether public or private of thm /*«- ^u* <
^person by «Ao«». it n.i«ht haveV.n r-olived — T *?' °° !J!^
der the first call of 17th Jacuarv rth« ?!» i ! *"""" "."*
first rtnd apron.! rail hi k \i .^' . *"* ^o**"^*' between the
•nee, and secondly, that this letter of Mr R..«2ii »k ij ^
before Congress, (here cm\LTe6ly^n^^^^^^
gard to the correspondence, mv wish to tra.SfJ if ^'^^ '*'
pnrnoaf frnm *K« k A. "'^ .'''"'' '^ gratify him was the more
thT.!i K« *''?,^P«' ^¥^ whatever might be his motive for
the call, he would be convinced there was none in the eiZtivI
for conceahnent. As to Mr. Russell's letter, be?ore I S^^^J!
jr^^VrZtr^iirr^^^^^^
c^^vindi^^^^^
Mr. Floyd, when he says that I procured Mr Pnii«- t^ u
a., call (of 7,h May,) wjch he, M^r. pl^ylt/d" U,ed f"l'
turned upon them w.th a charge of having caused the paU^t's
death by omUtmg to administer foxglove, a remedy known to L
uited for h.s disease. Thus Mr. Floyd, after moving caU for
Lr.M rV^r"' ^"bout excepting even such as thf Pres lent
might think It improper to disclose ; after moving a second cSl for
any Utter or communication, unless injurious to the pubhc Jood
which may have been received from Mr. Russell, on the suWecT
after manifesting the utmost impatience for the papers wrnot
sparing the excitement of suspidons that they wJuTd "4 «rb?ed
iirTffk *" ' "-T ^T' "P^'' '"^ ^°' concurring wUh him^n the
wish, that they might all be produced, and impute! iTall to^ ierire
on my part of getting into the newspapers. ^
.^nlr** "l'?*°u^^® newspapers, but before the House of Reprc
sentaUves, that the motion of Mr. Fuller was adapted to bring me-
and It was at the call of Mr. Floyd, with the concurHng"m"n<i
5Sfi4
agency of Mr. RusselU that I had been summoned there. Under
their anipices, I should have been introduced like a convict of tbd
inquisition, with my sentence upon my breast. My own wish was
to appear with the accusation against me, and my defence for the
House to judge upon both. If Mr. Floyd had then reason to de-
sist from his call, I had the more reason for wishing it renewed.
It was Mr. Russell, too, who chose to go into the newspapers,
first by publishing his triplicate in Philadelphia, and then his reply,
in the Boston Statesman. It was with extreme reluctance that I
followed him into that field, and I took the earliest opportunity of
withdrawing from it, until called there again by Mr. Floyd.
If Mr. Jefferson himself, the patriarch of the revolution, the
immortal author of the Declaration of Independence, in the re-
tirement r-f private life, in the last stage of his illustrious career,
surrounded by the gratitude and veneration of his country, justly
thought it not unworthy of himself, to meet twice in the newspa-
pers, the accusations of a nameless " Native of Virginia," because
they struck at his honour, I hope it will be imputed to no thii-st for
newspaper contention, if I, who in comparison with him am but of
yesterday, but holding a public trust, for which dishonour is dis-
qualification, have met in the public journals, the con iirring and
persevering, though variously pretexted and modified, attacks of a
native of Massachusetts and a native of Virginia, both supported by
their -names, both acts of men, honoured themselves with public
confidence, and both tending, if not intended, to rob me of that
good name, without which to me public trust would be a reproach
and exiiitence itself but a burthen.
The perusal of Mr. Russell's duplicate disclosed to me the mys-
tery ofruiii which had been brewing against me, from the very day
after the signature of the treaty of Ghent. It was by representa-
tions like those of that letter, that the minds of my fellow citizens in
the West, had for a succession of years been abused and ulcerated
against me. That letter, indeed, inculpated the whole majority of
the mission at Ghent, but subsidiary slander had performed its part
of pointing all the guilt, and fastening all the responsibility of the
crime upon me. It was I who had made the proposal, and Mr.
Bayard, after assenting to it, had repented. Such were the tales
which had been for years in circulation, and which ceased not to
be told, until after the publication of Mr. Russell's letters and my
remarks. Imputations of motives of the deepest infamy, were
connected with these aspersions, conveyed in dark insinuations,
and vouched for upon pretended ambiguous givings out of the
dead.* Several of the public journals from the first call of Mr*
Floyd for the Ghent papers, had caught enough of the oracular and
prophetic spirit, to foresee that it would result in my irredeemable
disgrace. The House of Representatives had called for Mr. Rus-
• See the Aurora, daily, for the last week in May, and the Richmond En-
quirer of *th June, 1822.
i 'm m^m mm
255
wU'8 letter : Mr. Russell himself had furnished it, to be report^4
in answer to ifie call. Curiosity bad been potioned into eager-
ness for a sight of it, and of that eagerness Mr. Floyd had ex-
hibited no unintelligible share. If his only object was to obtain
information useful to him, with reference to the Columbia River Bill,
th? indexes to his mind, in the debate of the 17th of January,
1822, had mistaken their, direction. If he had another objedt, it
would have been candid to avow it then, and not to disavow it now,
Mr. Floyd says he will take no part in the controversy between
Mr. Russell and me. 1 should have had more reason to thank Mr.
Floyd for this profession of impartiality, if it comported better
either with the general tenor, or the particular import, of the pub-
lication in which it is contained. Mr. Floyd must not be allowed
at once to claim the rights of neutrality and to practise acts of en-
mity. The whole of his publication i Tull of hostility to me, as
inveterate as it was unprovoked : a neu al flag and a raking broad-
side are but indifferent vouchers for each other. Mr, Floyd now
comes forward in this controversy substantially as an auxiliary to
Mr. Russell, and as a pretext for it , he charges me with an asser-
tion which I never made, that he m; take it as personally offen-
sive to himself, and attack me under a colour of self-defence. I
never gave cause of oifence to Mr. Floyd, and if in the Ghent
papers for his profound researches touching the value of the Mis-
stssippi river, or the discussion of the Mississippi at Ghent, he
could not find any thing he wanted, the fault was not mine. It is
usual to look for information to places where it is likely to he found.
If an astronomer should point his telescope to the moon in search
of spots on the face of the sun, it would not be surprising if he
could not tind any thing that he wanted.
Mr. Floyd declares that he will not either in public or in private
refrain from commenting upon the public conduct and opinions of
any public man, who may be thought or may thin* himself entitled
to office. He adds that his opposition has silways been political
and directed by the ideas he entertains of the power which gentle-
men may think themselves entitled to exercise, under the constitution
of the United States. If, by these general expressions, Mr. Floyd
means any special reference to me, I have not the slightest objec-
tion to his commenting upon my public conduct and opinions, whe-
ther in public or private, while he will con6ne himself to that ex-
act verity, of which he has so sound a theoretic conception. I am
perfectly wilhngeven that he should take his Columbia River Bill
aa the text for a comment upon the discussion of the Mississippi at
Ghent. But if he comments upon the power which I may think
•myself entitled to exercise under the constitution of the United
States, from the ideas which he entertains of it, I shall only ask
the hearers to examine well the coincidence between my thoughts
and his ideas on the same subject. He says he looks upon the
ronstitution of the United States as containing expressed arants of
power, and cannot approve any opposite opinion. I hold no oppo-
256
si^e opiniou, and if in his comments, public or private, Mr. Ployd
should impute to me that I do, I can only hope that his hearers will
. judge of my opinions as they are, and not according to the ideas of
them entertained by Mr. Floyd.
Mr. Floyd intimates that he shall hold me responsible not oniy
for every thing that I say of him, but for every thing that may be
said of him by persons in official stations under me. To the first
part of this determination I have no objection ; but he will excuse
me from holding myself responsible to him for what I do not say of
him, or for what may be said of him by any other man. The offi-
cial dependence of the subordinate officers of government, neither
in law, justice, or equity disqualifies them for the exercise of the
rights, nor absolves them from the responsibility of giving testimo-
ny ; and the credit due to that testimony, depends not upon official
station, but upon individual character. I called upon Mr. Brent
and Mr. Bailey for statements of facts, material in the controversy
l^etween Mr. Russell and me, and known only to them. They have
long held in the Department, offices of great trust and confidence, of-
fices for which no other than men of perfect integrity and unsullied
reputation could be qualified. They are not personally known to
Mr. Floyd ; and I do him the justice to believe, that if they had
been, he would have spared some of his reflections. But they are
extensively known to others, and wherever known, are respected.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.>
PAVIS & FORCE, PRINT.
I
*"J.WM | l«|n,il ' l | ij i p. i L
"I II.IWWI
B B I |W"H » 1 1 WI J H|
•m^i:
CONTENTS.
urnojtvcrtotii
Page.
3
Debate in House of Representatives of the D. S. ITth Januarr 1824.
From tlie National Intelligencer,
CORRBSPOWDBWCB WHICH LBD TO THIS TBEATT OP GHERIT
JExtract, from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the Unit-
ed States, of the 16th and 17th January, 1822,
Mr. Floyd's Resolutions calling for the Ghent Corres'^ndenco,.'.'.'
Message from the President of the United States to the House, trans^I!
t,„g the Correspondence, 2lFeby.I822.
Report of the Correspondence to the President of the United States by
the Secretary of State, , '
American Note No. 6, in answer to British Not'eNo/v^'wNov* I8l7'
Project of a Treaty sent with the above Note '
Rritish Noto, No. 7, *9fi'w*",".T**
» . , , ' ' • 26 Nov'r 1814.
l-roject of a Treaty as returned with this Note
Extract of a Law of the United States, passed July 6. 1812.
British Note,No. 8, .. . ^ ' ^"•••/V*"'
Protocol of ^onferlnce 30 Nov'r 1814,
Protocol of Conference, jq^^V J^^f'
Protocol of Conference ,^„ V . , »
American Note, No. 8 Z:ZZ""u^]^
p^rrrf^rre^e,::::"'^^
. . „, . ' •#..... 23Dec'rl814. "
American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State of the
United States, 25n ' 1
Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State-Ext*rIcI,*.*.****,*.*.'.'*25Dlc'r ISU
Mr. Gallatin to the Secretary of State [ ././sDe'r llu
TUB Dt7PHCATE lETTERS AWD XHE REMAKS. '
Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the Unit-
ed States, ,o , i« .
Mr ri„ ^, D , . 1» and 19. April, 1822,
Mr. Floyd's Resolution calling for Mr. Russell's Letter
Message from the President of the U. States to tl.e House.' * May, V8*22*
Report of the Duplicate to the President of the United
States by the Secretary of State, 3 jyj jggg
Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives'
of the United States, « ,»„
' 6and7May, 1822,
<Mr. Fuller's Resolution.
Kxtract from the National rnfBiii^o«o,., ,.f i-i.u , ,03^
" c— '•'•'• •" ■'-ti« June, lozz
13
13
13
13
14
17
24
26
43
43
44
46
47
48
51
53
56
ST
59
59
B9
60
61
61
CONTENTS.
Page..
t>ebateonMr. Fuller^s Resolution, ..• 64
Message from the President of the United States to the House, transmit-
ting the Duplicate Letters and the . Remajrks of the Secretary of
State, 7 May, 1832, 63
Report to the President of the United States of the Secretary of State's
Remarks, 68
Mr. RussclPs Private Letter to the Sec'y of State. Paris, ll Feb'y 1815, 6<
Duplicate, left 22 April, 1832, by Mr. Russell at tlie Department of State, 66
Remarks thereon, by John Quincy Adams 3 May, 1822, 88
VHX TRIPLICATB.
Extracts from the National Gazette. Philadelphia, lO and 25 May,
1822, 114,118
Mr. Russell's Reply to Mr. Adams. From the Boston Statesman, 27
June 1822, 119
Mr. Adams's Rejoinder. From the National Intelligencer of 17th July
and 7th August, 1822 138, 158
Mr. Brent's Statement, , 155
Mr. Bailey's Statement , l56
ITRTHER STRICTURES OTX MR. RCSSBLL^B REFRESGNTATIONB AND
STATEMENTS.
I. Navigation of the Mississippi — worthless to the British, .........•••.. 163
II. itight to the Fishing Liberties — Effect of War upon Treaties — Pecu-
liar character of the Treaty of 1783, 182
III. Fishing Liberties — Their Value, 202
Mr. Lloyd's Letter,.. 210
Nevk'foundlandMemoiial. From Niles's Register, of llJune,l8l4, 221
Extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and
Resources of the British Empire, 223
Conclusion, 229
ArrEHDix.
I. Western Commentaries, ,. 232
Extract from the Argus of Western America. Fratflcfort, Keniucky,
18 July, 1822 233
Remarks on the above Extract,.. 234
II. Mr. Floyd's Letter— Richmond Enquirer of 27 August, 1822, 243
III. Mr. Fuller's Letter— Boston Patriot of 4 September, 1822, 2*7
IV. Mr. Adams's Answer to Mr. Floyd's Letter — National Intelligencer
f 31 August, 1822, 248
V. Further Remarks upon Mr. Floyd's Letter, ...^... 248
T" '" ■ " >■■<
I*
KIIUATA.
Page 13,
18,
20,
2*,
25,
46,
71,
71,
77,
~7,
f8,
86,
87,
108,
117,
12!,
121,
130,
133,
147,
152,
161,
200,
221,
line 5, for " arcady," read " already •'
last line bi,t one, for " boimdarifs," read " countries '»
hne 24, for " article," read '• article » """*"".
25, for "ratification," read "ratifications."
\V [°r"«ogotintiOMs,"read "negotiations."
i, from the bottom, for " plenipotiaries," -^ead "plei,U
potentiaries." , * P'eni?
20, towards tlie endj strilie out "the."
2J, for "dependant," read "depe.ident,"
32, at the beginning of the line, add "from."
last hne but one, for " grant to," read "grant or.'»
Ime37, before "negotiation," add "of the"
31, for "then," read "than."
24, for " only," read " ably."
3 from the bottom, for ."rating," read «catin«."
J from the bottom, for "oity,"re8d "rity."
a, for "conference, read "conference "
2? '^^°";'i'^^«""'"'^'''-!:P''°P"«nty,>'read "propriety
■ii, at the beginning, strike out " in '» t t"
12, for "orignal," read "original."
16, for " them," read " it."
6, for "9th," read "8th."
12, for «'24tb," read "25th."
*. after '<oj)inioi(,''inFrii " iipo;,."