Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. III.
MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, JUNE IB, 1322.
No. 12.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
1IV S. G HA.YTLA.YDSf li. M. ORME
O.i Hancock Slreot, opposite tbe Auction riiore
at THREE HOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR VO t.'R
DOLLARS AT TUE EXI'IKATIO.N OE TIIE
YEAR.
83* Advertisements conspicuously inserted
nt ike customary rates. Betters on business, in
atl euses, must be cost paid.
Diplomatic Controversy.
REMARKS,
Ry the Secretary of State, on a Paper deliver-
ed by Mr Jonathan Iiusstll, at the Depart-
mi nt of State, on the did of.ipril, tt;i-2,
To lie communicated to the House of Keprcsen
talives, as tin; duplicate of a Letter w ritten
by him at Paris, the 11th of Feb. 1815, to
the then Secretary of State, and as the Let
ter called for by the Resolution ofthe lluase
of Wlh April, 1822
[Continued from our last].
Cut (hero is a point of view, more im
portant than any regard to his conduct
and sentiments, in which his letter is yet
to hd coo-idored. If there weru any
force in hi< argument against the mea
sures, or any correctness in his state
ments against his colleagues, it is proper
they should he sifted and examined.
Let ns, therefore, examine the pro
posed article, in both its parts : first, as
relates to the fishing liberty for us ; and
secondly, to the navigation of the Mis
sissippi by tho British. And, in order
to ascertain the property ofthe princi
ples assumed, and ofthe measures adop
ted by the American commissioners, as
now in question, let us promise the state
of things as they existed, and the cir
cumstances under which this proposal
xvas offered.
I’.y the third article of tho treaty of
1783, it was agreed that the peoplo of
the United States should continue to en
joy the fisheries of Newfoundland and
the Bay of St. Lawronce, and at all other
places in the sea, where the inhabitants
of both countries used at any time there
tofore to fish ; &i, also, that they should
h ive certain fishing liberties, on all the
fishing coast within the British jurisdic
tion of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands,
and Labrador. The title by which the
United States held those fishing rights
and liberties was the same. It was the
possessory use of the right, or, in Mr.
Russell's more learned phrase, of the
41 jus mervs f-cultatis,'’ nt any time
theretofore as British subjects, and the
acknowledgement by Great Britain of its
continuance in the people of the United
States after the treaty of separation. It
was a national right ; and, therefore, as
much a right, though not so immediate
an interest, to the people of Ohio ami
Kentucky, ayeand to the people of Lou
isiana, after they became a part of tiie
people ofthe United States, as it was to
tho people of Massachusetts and Maine.
The latter had always used it, since they
had heen British colonists, and the coasts
had been in British dominions. But, as
the settlement ofthe colonies themselves
had not heen of time immemorial, it was
not, and never was pretended to be, a
title by prescription.
Such was the title of the United States
to the fisheries—prior possession, and
acknowledgement by the treaty of 1733.
The commissioners at Ghent had re
ceived from the Secretary of State a let
ter of instruction, dated 25th of June,
1811, containing the following passage ;
“ Information has been received from
“ a quarter deserving of attention, that
“ the. late events in France have produc
“ ed such an effect on the British go
“ vernment, as to make it probable that
“ a demand will be made at Gothenburg
f ‘ to surrender our right to the fisheries,,
“ to abandon all trade beyond the Cape
ofGood Hope, and to cede Louisiana
“ to Spain. We cannot believe that
,l such a demand will he made ; should
“ it be, yon tv ill, of course, treat it as it
“ deserves. These rights must not hr
“ brought-into discussion. II insisted
“ on, your negotiations will cea a e.”
Notv, it is very true that a majority of
the commissioners did construe these in
structions to mean, that the rights to the
fisheries was not to be surrendered.—
They did not subtilize, and refine, and
inquire, whether they could not surren
der a part, and yet not bring the rigid
into discussion ; whether we might not
give up a liberty, and yet retain a right;
or whether it was an argument or an
agreement, that was forbidden. 1 hey
understood that the fisheries were not to
be surrendered.
The demand made by the British go
vernment was first advanced in an artful
and ensnaring form. It was by assuming
the principle that the right had been
forfeited by the war, and by notifying the
American Commissioners, as they did at
the first conference, “ that the British
“ government did not intend to grant to
“ the United States, gratuitously, the
“ privileges formerly granted by treaty
“ to them, of fishing within the limits ot
“ the British sovereignty, and ol using
“ the shores of the British territories
“ for purposes connected with the fishe
ries.” Now to obtain the surrender of
thus much of the fiisheries, all that the
British plenipotentiaries could possibly
desire, was, that the Amerioun cemmis- ^t
sioners should acquiesce in the principle,
that the treaty ol 1783 was abrogated by
the war. Assent lolhis principle wouhl
have been surrender of the right. Air.
Russell, if we can make any thing of his
argument, would have assented, and sur
rendered, and comforted himself with
the rctlection, that, as the right had not
been brought into discussion, tho in
structions would not have been violated.
But, however clearly he expresses
this opinion in his letter, and however
he endeavors to fortify it by
argument, lie never did disclose it to the
same extent at Ghent. The only way
in which It was possible to meet the no
tification of the British plenipotentiaries,
without surrendering the rights which it
jeopardized, was by denying the princi
ple upon which it was founded. This
was done by asserting the principle, that
the treaty of independence of 1783 was
of that class of treaties, and the right in
question of the character, which are not
abrogated by a subsequent war ; that
the notification of the intention ol the
British government not to renew the
grant, could not affect the light of the
U. States, which had not been forfeited
by the war ; and that, considering it as
still in force, the United Slates needed
no new grant from Great Britain to re
vive, nor any new article to confirm it.
This principle 1 willingly admit was
assumed ami advanced by the American
commissioners at my sugge-tion. 1 be
lieved it not only indispensably necessa
ry to meet the insidious form in which
the British demand of surrender had heen
put forth ; but sound in itself, and main
tainable on the most enlarged, humane,
and generous principles of internation d
law. It was asserted and maintained by
the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent;
and if, in the judgment of Air. Russell,
it suffered the fishing liberty to be brought
into discussion, at least it did not surren
der tkc right.
It was not acceded to by the British
plenipotentiaries. Each party adhered
to its asserted principle ; and the treaty
was concluded without settling the in
terest involved in it. Since that time,
and after the original of Mr. Russell’s
letter ofthe lltli February, 1815, was
written, the principle asserted by the
American plenipotentiaries at Ghent,
has been still asserted and maintained
through t>vo long ami arduous negotia
tions with Great Britain, and has passed
the ordeal of minds of no inferior ability.
It was terminated in a new and satisfac
tory arrangement of the great interest
connected with it, it in a substantial ad
mission of the principles asserted by the
American plenipotentiaries at Ghent ;
by that convention of the 20th October,
1818, which, according to tire duplicate
of Air. Russell’s letter, he foresaw ii
February, 1815, even while writing hi
learned dissertation against the right
which he had been instructed not to sur
render, and the only principles by which
it cooitl ho defended.
At this time, and after all the contro
versy through which the American
principle was destined to pass, and has
passed, l without hesitation, re-assert,
in the face of my country, the principl
which, in defence of the fishing liberties
of tilts nation, was at my suggestion
asserted by the American plenipoten
liarics at Ghent.
I deem this rea‘?ertion of it the more
important, because, by the publication
at this time of Air. Russell’s fi tter, that
plenipotentiary has not only disclaimed
all his share in the first assertion of it.
but lias 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 ar
guments coinciding much with those of
his letter, but advanced by British ica-
soners, are not before the public. I lie
principle is yet important to great inter
ests, and to the future welfare of this
country.
When first suggested, it obtained the
unanimous assent of the American mis
sion. In their note of 10th November,
1814, to the British pleuipotentiares,
which accompanied their first project n|
a treaty, they said, “ in answer to tho
* declaration made by the British plcni-
‘ potentiaries respecting the fisheries,
‘ the undersigned, referring to what
1 passed in the conference of (lie 9th
* August, can only state, that they are
‘ not authorized to bring into tho dis-
I cussion any ofthe rights or liberties
‘ which the United States have hereto
‘ fore enjoyed iu relation thereto.—
II From their nature, and Irotn the pe-
“ culiar character of the treaty of 1783,
“ by which they were recognized, no
“ further stipulation has been deemed
“ necessary bv the government of the
“ United States, to entitle them to the
“ full enjoyment of all of them.” Thi-
paragraph was drawn up, and proposed
to the mission by the member with whom
Air. Russell concurred in objecting to
the proposal of an article confirmative of
the fishing liberties and navigation of
the Mississippi, and as a substitute lor it.
The mission unanimously accepted it :
and the fishing liberties being thus se
cured from surrender, no article relating
to them or to the Mississippi was in
t! „
serled in the projet sent to the British
Altssion.
But one of the objects of the negotia
tion was to settle the boundary between
tbe United States and the British domin
ions, from the northwest corner of the
Lake of the Woods westward. That
boundary by the treaty ol 1783, had
been stipulated to be, “ from the most
“ northwestern point of the Lake of the
“ Woods on it due west course to the ri-
“ Ter .Mississippi; and thence, down the
“ middle of the Alississippi, to the thirty -
11 first degree of north latitude while,
“ by the eighth article ofthe same treaty,
it had been stipulated, that “ the navi-
“ gation of tbe river Alississippi, Irotn
“ its source to the ocean, should lorever
“ remain free and open to the subjects
of Great Britain aud the citizens ol the
“ United States.
ty of 1703, was a separate and distinct
article stipulating the right ol b ith na
tions to navigate (lie river, without any
reference to boundary, or to territory.
But the boundary, the territory, and the
right to navigate the river, were all, m
that treaty, cessions from Great Britain
to the United .States. And, had it even
heen the intention of both parties that
Britain should cede the whole of her ter
ritories on the Alississippi, it was yet
competent to her to reserve the right ol
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 reservation. They did so by the
eighth article of (lie treaty. And, in
this point of view , the British right ol
navigating the river, within the Ameri
can territory, was precisely similar to the
The l ight of Great Britain and of the American liberty ot fishing within Hu
United Slates, at the lime ofthe treaty
of 1783, to make this stipulation with re
gard to the navigation ofthe Alississippi,
might he and afterwards was questioned
by Spain, then a possessor also ol terri
tories upon the same river, and indeed
of both its banks, from its mouth, to a
higher latitude than that thus stipulated
as the boundary ofthe United Slates.—
But, tis, between Great Britain and the
United States, there could, at the time ot
the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, he
no possible question ofthe right ol both
to make the stipulation, the bounda
ry line itself being in substance a con
cession of territory to the river, and
down its middle to latitude 31, which
Great Britain was undoubtedly compe
tent to make, and the United States to
receive. Now the United States having
received the cession and the boundary,
with the right to navigate the river, with
tho express condition that the naviga
tion of the river should forever remain
I)iitirh territorial jurisdiction, reserved
by the third article ofthe same treaty
But, secondly, tho discovery that a
line due west, from the northwestern
most corner of the Lake of the Woods,
would not strike the Mississippi, had not
deprived Great Brit lin ol all claim to ter
ritory upon that liver, at the tune ofthe
negotiation at Ghent. The line discrib-
ed in the treaty was, from tbe northwest-
ernrnost point of the L ike of the Wood-,
“ on a due west course to the rivor Mis
sissippi." When it was found that the
line due west did not touch the Alississip-
pi, this boundary was annulled by tbe
fact. It remained an unsettled bounda
ry, to be adjusted by a new agreement.
For this adjustment, the moral obligation
ofthe parties was to adopt such a lino as
should approximate as near as possible
to the intentious ol both parties in agree
ing upon the line for which it was to be
substituted. For ascertaining this line,
if the United States were entitled to the
course," Britain was equally entitled to
the benefit ofthe words “ to the river
.Mississippi.” Both the demands stood
on the same grounds. Before the war
of!8 12, throe abortive attempts had hern
free and open to British subjects, and benefit of the words “ on a due west
having expressly assented to that condi
tion, without considering it as infringing
upon any right of Spain ; they could
not, consistently with good faith, by ac
quiring afterw ards tbe right of Spain, al
lege that this acquisition absolved them
from the obligation ofthe prior engage
ment with Great Britain. There is, in
deed, in Air. Russell’s letter, a hesita
ting argument to that effect ; the odious
character of which is but flimsly veiled
by its subtlety. Tbe United States had
always insisted upon their right of navi
gating the Mississippi, hv force of the
article ofthe treaty ol 1783, and had ob
tained the acknowledgement of that right
from Spain herself, many years hetoro
they acquired her territorial right by the
“ the river Alississippi, is not to he nllow-
“ ed to British subject-, with their goods
“ or effects, unless such articles shall
“ have paid all the duties, and be within
“ all the custom-house regulations, ap-
“ plicahle to goods and efiects of citi-
“ zens of the United States. An access
“ through the territory of the United
“ States to the waters running into the
“ western side of the Mississippi, is under
“ no modification whatever to be stipu-
“ luted to British subjects.”
Such then was the state of things in
relation to this interest in question, at
the lime when the war of 1812 broke
out ; and at the negotiation of Ghent,
the -ame question of boundary again oc
curred for adjustment.
Tbe right ofthe British to n line from
the Lake of the Wood- to the Mississippi.
had never heen renounced : and, at the
la-t negotiation betwen the patties, four
years alter the United States had acquir
ed Louisiana, and with it all the Spanish
rights upon the Alississippi, the British
government, in assenting to take the
19th parallel of latitude, us a substitute
for the line to the .Mississippi, had ex
oressly re-stipulated for the'lree navi
gation of the river, mid free access to
it from our territories ; to botho! which
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney had been
explicitly authorized to accede.
Under this state of things, it had never
icon admitted by the British, nor could we
maintain against them by argument, even
that the Mississippi river was within our <*.('-
elusive jurisdiction : for so long as they had
a right by treaty to a line of boundary to
that river, and consequently to territory up
on it, they also had jurisdiction upon it ;
nor, consequently, could tiie instructions of
15th April. 1813. had they oven heen still
in full force, have restricted the Aim.'ic.i
commissioners from making or receiving .
proposition, for continuing to the British tin-
right of navigating the l iver, w hich they had
enjoyed, witliout ever using it, from the
time, of the treaty of 1703. when the United
States bad receii ed, by cession from them,
the right of enjoying it jointly with them.
Bearing in mind rliis state ot tilings, we
are also to remember, that in the conference
of 19th August,-181-1, and in the letter of
that date, from the Briti-h to the American
made by the parties to adjust this boon- j plenipotentiaries, (see Wait’s State Tapers,
darv. The first was by the treaty of vol. 9, pp. 334 and 838.) they had claimed
1791 when it was already conjectured, U new north-western bouhdary line from
but not ascertained, that the line doe west ! Superior to the Mi-sissippi, and the
r .ii? ii. '| free navigation ol that river. J o this me
from the lake would not intersect the Vlm , rioil “ < , !) ,. Iim i s sio,n rs had answeied on
Alississippi. By the fourth article ofthe
treaty of 179). it was agreed that a joint
survey should be made to ascertain the
fact; and that, if, on the result of that
survey, it should appear that the west
line would not intersect the river, the
parties would proceed, “ to amicable
negotiation, to regulate the boundary
purchase of Louisiana. With what front j line in that quarter, according, to justice
then could an American negotiator have and mutual convenience, & in conlor-
said, after the latter period, to a British
minister :—You have no right to the na
vigation ofthe Alississippi, for although,
on receiving from you a part of the river,
we expressly stipulated that you should
forever enjoy a right to its navigation,
yet that engagement was a fraud upon tho
rights of Spain ; and although long be
fore we had acquired these rights of
Spain, she had acknowledged our right
to navigate the river, founded upon this
very stipulation ot which you now claim
the benefit, yet l will now not acknowl
edge your right founded on the same
stipulation. Spain, no party to tho com
pact between you and me, alter contro-
verting it as infringing upon her rights,
finally acceded to its beneficial applica
lion to us, as compatible with those
rights. But we who made the compact
with you, having now acquired the. ad
verse rights of Spain, w ill not allow you
the beneficial use of our own compact.
We first swindled and then bullied Spain
out of her rights, l>v this eighth article
ofthe treaty of 1783 ; and now, having
acquired ourselves those rights, w e plead
them for holding our engagement with
you for a dead letter.
This, and nothing more or less than
this, is tho substance of Air. Russell’s
argument to show, that perhaps the Uni
ted States were, by the acquisition of
Louisiana, absolved from the obligation
of the Cth article of the treaty of 1783,
even before the war ol 1812.
Bui. says Air. Russell, the treaty of
1733 was made, under a belief of both
parties, that it would leave Great Britain
with a portion of territory upon the Mis
sissippi, and therefore entitled to claim
the right of navigating the river. But
the boundary line ofthe treaty ot 1783,
was a line from the northwestern most
point of the Lake of the Woods, due
west to the Mississippi. And after the
treaty of 1783, hut before the war of
1812, it had been found that a line due
west, from the northwest corner of the
Lake of the Woods, did not strike the
.Mississippi. Therefore, continues Mr.
Russell, Great Britain, could claim no
territorial right to the navigation ofthe
river : and thereA.ire, had no longer any
claim to the benefit of the eighth article
ofthe treaty of 1783.
To this it may be replied : First, that
the British claim of light to navigate
the Alississippi 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 trea-
mity to the intent of the treaty of 1783.
This survey was never made. The se
cond uttenpt to adjust the line was, by
the convention, signed on the 12th ol
May, 1803. by Air, King and Lord llaw-
kesbury ; the fifth article of which, af
ter reciting the same uncertainty, wheth
er a line drawn due west from the Lake
of the Woods would intersect the Mis
sissippi, provided that, instead oT the
said line, the boundary of the United
States, in that quarter, should, and was
declared to he, the shortest line ‘Audi
could be drawn between the northwest
point of the Luke of the If'onds, and the
nearest source of the riser .Mississippi.—
This convention not having been ratified,
the third attempt at adjustment had been
made in the negotiation ot Alr. Monroe
and Mr. Finkney, of 1800 and 1807 ;
at which ail article had been proposed
and agreed to, that the line should be
from the most northwestern point ofthe
Lake of the Woods, to the -1.9th parallel
of latitude, aud from that point due west
along and w ith the said parallel, as far
as the respective territories extend in that
ijuartcr. And with that article was
coupled another, as follows :
“ It is agreed by tlie United States,
“ that his Majesty’s subjects shall have,
“ at all times, free acce-s from his
“ Alajesty’s aforesaid territories, by
“ by land or inland navigation, into the
“ aforesaid territories of the U. States,
“ to the river Mississippi, w ith the goods
“ and effects of his Majesty's said sub-
“ jects, in order to enjoy the benefit
“ofthe navigation of that river, as se-
“ cured to them by the treaty of peace,
“ between his Majesty and the United
-< States, and also by the third article ol
“ the treaty of amity, commerce, and
“ navigation, of 1794. And it is fur-
“ther agreed, that his Majesty's sojects,
“ shall, in like manner, and at all times
have free access to all the waters and
the 24th of August, 1814: The undersign
ed perceive thru the Bnli-.U povernuieul
“ propose, without purpose specifically al-
“ legeel, to draw the boundary line w estw ard.
“ not from the Lake of lhe Woods, as it now
“is, but from Lake Superior.” and lin y ob-
j.-cted to it, as demanding a cession of ter
ritory.
The British plenipotentiaries, on the 4th
September, tol l, replied :
“ As the necessity for fixing some boun
dary for the northwestern frontier lias been
mutually acknowledged, a proposal (or a
discussion on that subject cannot be con
sidered as a demand for a cession ol territo
ry, unless the United States are. prepared to
assert that there is no limit to their territo
ries in that direction, and that, availing
themselves of the geographical error upon
w hich that part of the treaty of 178.3 w as
founded, they will acknowledge no botioda
ry whatever, then, unquestionably, any pro
position to fix one, be it what it may, mint
lie considered as demanding a large cession
of territory from the United States.
" Is the A neiican govvninnuit prepared
to assert such an unlimited right, so contra
ry to the evident intention of 1 tie treaty ii
sell ? Or, is his .Majesty’s government to
understand that the'American plenipoten
tiaries are w illing to acknow ledge the boun
dary from the Lake of the Woods to the
Mississippi, (tile arrangement made by a
convention in 1803, but not ratified,) is that
by which their government is ready to a-
bidy;
The British plenipotentiaries are in
structed to accept favorably such a proposi
tion, of to discuss any other line of boumla
ry which may be submitted for considers
tion.”
1 stop here for a moment to observe how
instinctively, if the expression may be al
lowed, both the parties in this correspon
dence recur to tbe treaty of 1783, with a
consciousness that it was vet in lull force
tificationtwice given o i the pa t of the Bri-
lisb government, that tlwy did not intend to
grant, without equiial it, l lie liberty offish*
ing within the British jurisdiction, the. coun*
ter-notificatiun, already noticed, was intro
duced, informing them that the American
government did not consider the fishing Ii*
herties as forfeited by the war, and that they
would remain in full force without needing
any new grant to confirm them. At tins
stage of the negotiation, therefore, the Ame
rican plenipotentiaries did actually pursue
the first of those three oilier w ays of proceed
ing, which Mr. Russell, in the postscrip to
tiie original of his letter of the I ith of Feb
ruary, 1815, says the y might have taken, ami
to w hich he adds that he w ould have assent
ed, namely, to contend for the continuance
of the fishing privilege, notwith-landing tho
war, without saying any thing about the na
vigation of the Mis-issipni. It cann.it hot tie
surprising to find Mr, Russell, within three
months after these events, writing privately
to the Secretary of State, staling this as a
course other than that which we had pursued,
and that he would have assented to it if we
had, when it was the very course that wo
did pursue, and he had assented to it. V.’o
did contend, not for the indestructibility, as
Mr. Russel terms it, of the treaty of i78.3,
but that, from its peculiar character, it was
not abrogated by the mere occurrence of
war, Wo never maintained that the treaty
of 1783 was indestructible, or imperishable,
hut that the rights, liberties, and boundaries,
acknowledged by it as belonging In us, were
not abrogated by mere war. We never
doubted, for example, that we might bo
compelled to stipulate a Hew boundary;
but that would have been, out as a con ...
quence of mere war, but tbe i fleet of to. -
quest, resulting from war. The difference
between our principle and that of the Bri
tish, was, that they, considering the rights
•Ii-know ledg. il as hi-|nugi..g to us by die
treaty, as mem grunts h Id them as an
nulled by war ..-)■■ c ; iilvb We. view i g
them as right-'existing hnfoi-e |lie t.ea v. id
- ii. -knowledged by it, eiudd not ad. nt
• a - be forfeited w ithout our own a-«ti .
Brit.u . ""gbt have iecovereil thi 'll by con
quest, but Ilia could not lie cuuaoin.ih tP
u iI limit our acque; ri-'u r. laid! or ex pm c-l.
Air. Russell, who assent* d to our principle,
and asserted it with us, now s..ys he always
thought the British piinciple was the true
one. If the American mission, at that try
ing time, had acted upon i’. lie iit-vir would
ham prophesied the convention of October,
li 18.
The eighth article of tbe projet of a trea
ty. sent by the American commissioners on
tbe 10th of November, offered tin-bound ry
which had been proposed in I 807,aline mu lti
or south to latitude 19. ii westward, on that
parallel, as far as the territories of the two
. ountries extended and said nothing about
1 lit Mississippi. Bat w hen, on the 20th of
November, the British plenipotentiaries re
turned the projet, with tin ir proposed a-
mendments, tln-y accepted the 4Sitb naral-
1.1, westward, from the Lake of the Wood-,
for the boundary, hut with the following ad
dition to the article: "And it is further
" agreed, the subjects of his Brilanic Map s»
“ ty shall, at all times, have access, from lus
“ Brilanic Alajosty’s territories, by land or
‘•inland navigation, into the aforesaid terri
tories of the United States to the river
“ Alississippi, with their goods, effects, nml
“ merchandise, anil that hi- [iritariic Jl-.jes-
“ ty’s subjects shall have and enjoy the free
" navigation of tIre said r:\i-r.”
It was to meet this denial! that, at (he
conference of 1st December, the American
plenipotentiaries proposed to strike out all
those words, and to substitute the amend
ment contained in tbe protocol of that con-
I'ereuee, already communicated to (hingress.
It was thus that the ret eion which Air. Rus
sell. w ithin three months aflervvai d -, so sin
gularly professes not to perceive letiveiii
die fidiieg liberties nod tile Mis '-sippi na
vi gat ion, not only natoi dly <i: iw . tint lot red
itm-'l upon the Aim-viraii plenipotentiaries.
They Ii.id sued the fi-biog lib.itics frail
surrender, as they had In en spi i-i.,|ty in-
!meted to do, by asserting th u the lie. -y
of 178.3 had not been abrogated ipsojti'la
by the war. Two days before recoiling
this counter projet, they had mcciird from
Washington, a fresh instruction expressly
authorizing them to conclude a treaty
on the basis of the stains ante helium, m-
eludii.g, of course, the fishing liberty mv
one side, and the n vigati n of the Alis
sissippi on the other. They could not,
therefore, consistently with those instruc
tions. either ri )o. t this IF i'idi demand, or
abandon to surrender the fisheries. They
tiered, therefore, the amendment contain-
l ing the renewed acknowledgment ot botli ;
as an appeal for either in support of its and they said to the British plcnipotcntia-
claiins. The expression in the. above Ame Lies—We have told you that we consider
rican note, applied to the boundary, " as il all die right -., secured to us by tilt* treaty of
now is lire reference of the British note
to the geographical error in the treaty of
1
1783, as still in force. AN hat we demand, if
you assent to it, we must yield in return.—
783, and theirWillingness to discuss the or- If, as we say, the treaty of 118:3 is yet in
angement of 1803, (the shortest line from force, you have the right of navigating the
lake of the Woods to the Mississippi,) both
acknowledge the treaty of 178.3 as the basis
of all proposition aud all argument, and as
being yet in force for every thing which
should not he otherw ise provided for in the
new treaty.
In their note ofthe 2tst of October, 1814,
the British commissioners said :
“ On the subject of the fisheries, tiie un
dersigned expressed, with so much frank
ness, at the conference already referred to,
the views of their government, that they con
rivers falling into the western side of sider any further observations on that topic
vi • ■ i , ,i,„ as unnecessary at the present time,
the river Alississippi, and to the navi- J 1
gation of the said liver.
This negotiation was suspended, by a
change of the British Ministry, and was
not afterwards resumed. But tiie fol
lowing observations upon the two arti
cles, contained in a letter from Mr. Ma-
di«on to Alessrs, monroe and Pinkney,
of 30th July, 1807, show how far Air.
Jefferson, tiie then President of the L'.
States, had authorized those commis
sioners to accede to them.
“On the question ofthe boundary be
tween the dominions of his Alaj.-sty and
those ofthe United States, the undersigned
are led to expect, from the discussion wh.vh
this subject lias already undergone, that the
northwestern boundary, from tho Lake, ol
the Woods to the Alississippi, (the intended
arrangement of 1803,) will he admitted with
out objection.”
Thus stood the parties and the subject,
when on the 10th of November, 1814, the
American plenipotentiaries sent the fu-t pr
jet of a treaty to the British commisioners,
Acce=s by land or inland navigation contained no article relating cither to tin
from the British territories, through j fisheries or to tile Mississippi; but, in the!
the territory of the United States to l note which accompanied it, to meet the no-! of navigating the Mississippi. As the par*
Mississippi, and we have the fishing rights
and liberties unimpaired. If, as you say,
the treaty is abrogated, how can you claim
the right of navigating the Mi-sissippi ? You
must admit the one, nr not demand the o-
llier. We i-fi’eryoii the alternative of a new
stipulated admission of both, or a total o-
mission of both. We offer y on in applica
tion the choice of our principle or of your
own.
The British commissioners took (lie pro*
posal for reference to their government, by
whom it was immediately rejected. But,
to show how anxious they wire to obtain
from us the surrender of our fishing liber
ties, and how cheaply they valued the right
of navigating the Mississippi, as one of the
last expedients of negotiation, they offered
us an article agreeing that, after the peace,
the parties would further negotiate “ re-
11 spel ling the terms, conditions, aud regula-
" lions, under which the inhabitants of the
“ United States” should again enjoy *h..
fishing liberties, “ in consithrulion of a fair
ri/viralent. to he agreed upon between Ii -
■‘Maji iy mill the said l oiled States, and
‘granted by the s: 1 d United States for
i''such liberty aforesaid ;” and a reriproenl
tipulation with regard to tile Biiti-h right