Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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