Newspaper Page Text
VOL. 111.
MILLEDCEVlLL.fi, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1022.
No. 20.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
nV S. aH.tYTLA.YDff U. M. OR ME.
0 1 Hancock Street, opposite the Auction Store,
AT THREE DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR EOUR
DOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE
YEAR.
tET X Ivortisements conspicuously inserted
at ttm customary rates. Letters on
all ca.es, must be post paid.
.WV'VWUUTX.
in the United
Stales,are hereby repealed; Provided, That
nothihg in this net contained shall authorize
the allowing of drawbacks on the exporta
tion of any goods, wares, and merchandise,
from any port or place of said territory, other
llian on those which shall have been import
ed directly into the same, from a foreign
port or place ; and no drawback shall he al
lowed on any goods, wares, or merchandise,
exported from any port of Florida which
shall have been i ported before the tenth
,1 ly of July, one thous md eight hundred and
twenty-one.
Sec. It .And be. it further enacted, That
ihe first section of an net passed on the se-
cund day of March, one thousand eight hun
dred and nineteen, entitled “ An act Sup
plementin')' to the acts concerning the
mg trade,” he so far altered nod air
ACT to provide for the collection of du
ties on imports and tonnage in Florida, and
for other purposes.
/;.■ it enacted /,,/ the Senate and lhu.se aj
Representatives of the Vailed States of A
jr.-.rlcain Congress assembled. That all tin
ports, harbors, waters, and shores, of all Ilia
part of the main land of Florida, lying he
tween the collection district if St. M iry’s.
io rgia, and the river Nassau, with all
the ports, harbors, waters, and shores, of al
the Islands opposite and nearest thereto, he.
and hereby are, annexed to, and made, and
constitute 1 a part of, tins collection district
of St. Mary’s, in G 'orgia.
Sec. 2. A id be il further enacted, That all
the ports, harbors, shores, and waters, ul
the main land of Florida, and of the I-damL
opposite and nearest thereto, extending from
the said river N iss-m to Cape Sable, lie, and
the same are hereby, established a collection
district, by the name of the district of St.
Augustine, whereof Si. Augutine shall be
the only port of entry.
Sec. 3. And be it farther enacted, That all
the ports, harbors, shores, and waters, of
the main land of Florida, and of the islands
opposite and nan rest thereto, extending from
Cape Sable to Charlotte Bay, he, and the
same are, established a collection district,
by the name of the district of Key West,
and a port of entry m ly he established in
said district, at such place as the President
of the United States may designate: l‘ro-
vided, Tint, until the President of the Uni
ted States shall deem it expedient to estab
lish a port of entry in the district of Key
AV st, and a Collector shall be appointed for
said district, tlie same district is annexed to,
and shall he a part of, the district of Apala
chicola.
Sec. 4. And he it farther enacted, That all
the. ports, hailmrs, shores, and waters, of
the main land of said Florida, and of the Is-
Irrids opposite and nearest thereto, extend
ing from Charlotte Bay to Cape St. Bias,
b •, and hereby are, established a oullceti in
d strict, by the name of the district i >f Apa
lachicola ; and a port of entry shall lie es
tablished for said district, at such place as
tins President of the United States may de
signate.
Sec. 5. Aal be it farther enacted, That all
the residue of the ports, harbors, waters,
and shores, of said Florida, and of the Is
lands thereof, Ire, Si tlie sa nr arc established
a collection district, by the n one of the dis
trict of Pensacola, whereof Pensacola shall
be tile only port of entry.
Sec. 0. And be it. farter enacted, That the
President of the United States, lie, and lie
is hereby, authorized to establish such ports
of delivery in each of said districts, and u|ro
in that portion of said territory annexed to
the district of St. Mary's, as lie may deem
expedient.
Sec. 7. And be il farther enacted, That the
President of the United States, with the ad
vice and consent of the Senate, shall ap
point a collector fur each district, tu reside
at !ho port of entry, and a surveyor for the
district of Pensacola, and a surveyor for,
and to reside at, each port of delivery iin-
thoiized by this act; B it tile President, in
the recess of tin; Senate, may make tempo
rary appointments of any such collector or
surveyor, whose commission shall expire in
forty days from the commencement of the
Ilexl session of Congress thereafter.
Sec. a. Aa l be it farther enacted, That
each collector and surveyor authorized by
this net, shall give bond for the true and
faithful discharge of his duties, in such sum
as ilm President of the United Slates may
direct and prescribe; and tile collector for
the district of Pensacola shall, in addition to
Ilia fees and emoluments allowed by law,
receive three per cent, commissions and no
more, on all moneys received and paid In
Liin on account of tile duties on goods,
wares, and merchandise, and on the tonnage
of vessels ; and each other collector shall, in
addition to the fees and emoluments allow
ed by law, receive annual salary of fin hun
dred dollars; and three per cent, commis
sions, and no more, on all moneys received
nod p .id by him on account of the duties on
grinds, wares, and merchandise, imported in
to Ins district, and on the tonnage of vessels ;
Sind each surveyor authorized by this m t
Shall, in addition to the fees ai d emolu
ments allowed by law, receive an annua
caliiiy of three hundred dollars; and each
such collect™ and surveyor shall exercise
tile same powers, ill* subject to the
duties, 1 and be until led to the same privi
leges and immunities, ns other cull- clurs
and surveyors of the customs ot the United
States.
Sec. 9. And be il farther enacted. Tire
ships or vessels arriving front and alter the
thirtieth day of J me next, from the Cape of
Good Hope, or from any place beyond tin-
Rime, shall he admitted to make entry at
the port of entry of Pensacola, and at no
other port or (il ice in Florida.
See. 10 .And be il farther enacted, That
till laws which impose any duties on the im
partition of any goods, wares, and mer
chandise, info said territory ot Florida, or
on the exportation of any goods, wares, and
merchandise, from said ti riitory, or on the
tonnage of vessels, or which allow any
drawback on the exportation of any goods,
l
that the sea const and navi gable rivers of
he United States he, and the same arc liere-
t*y, divided into three great districts, the
first and second to lie ami remain as there
in described, and the third to include all the
ports, harbors, sea coasts, and navigable ri
vers, between the southern limits of Geor-
liu and the river Perdido, and said third
great district so established, shall lie sub
po t to all the regulations and provisions of
said act.
PHILIP P. BARBOUR,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN GAILLAUD,
President of tile Senate, pru-tempore.
Washington, May 7. t822.— Approved,
JAMES MONROE.
\N ACT to relieve the people of Florida from
the operation of certain ordinance-.
He il enacted lit/ the Senate and House of
Ihprisentatircs of the Vailed St des of Amer
ica in Congress assembl'd, That an unit
wince numb red three, made and pa-std on
lie eighteenth of July, eighteen lure Ii i!
ltd twenty one, by M.i’pir Gem c.,1 \ ah. v
.1 ackson, Governor of the provinces of ill
Floiidas, entitled •* An ordinance p , .,.!i ,
fur the naturalization of the inlialn' ini- .
the reded territory mol ail oiali .amo ', - -
sed by the cily council of St An.mi .tine, o.,
Ilm seventeenth October, , igh ■ • -o h i n|:eu
mid twenty-one, imposing , , •
tain taxes nil the ii.-'ialiitnn'". ..! ti,. •
laws, ordinances, or resolx t
enforce or confirm the ■ n.
same are herein, ri'pealc,, , .
and void.
8ec 8. And be it farther
any person sli ,11 alt. nr.:
said laws, ordinances, -
(Handing and reccix ing a - i, ;
or assessment, authonzeJ
thereby, such person sa !.
thereof, he punished by li re
two hundred d -I'.ir*, re
mit exceeding x moil h ci
-aid punishon- a-.
See. .T. .+-.d hi U /V.iOA-,1-
the President of the United
such manner and umli*r c .
li** may iliri'ft .«« <1 |>rt*srriU., ■ «. ■
fund* I to any person any s i
which he m ly h ve p ml n e
■ if either of Said laws, nrd-i: ...
solves.
Sec. t A ul bi U fu
this net shall he ill Im cc f: en.i .
first day < f Jure- next.
Washington, May 7, t — ,r
AN ACT authorizing the ! , .
school In-nil in the ti! •,
Be il enacted In/ the S.,
Representative* of the i. • ; , v
mac i in Congress rvc-.-aZiis .
gister of tic laud ofiic
lie i- hereby, mitlniriz i
lands within said distitet i-q - nt 1
one thirty sixth part m .lie 1
moldy railed Cirri.’a Grain
t-cbtiols w ithin the-auie ; a - .
f the I md nlfice it T-are it. .
in like manner, autho tz 1! tn -
his district. school la .1 , who.
it ti the eleven sections .nr .al, ■'
sluill be equivalent to the lure , ,-:x
part of the Vincennes u .1 itu'n , 1, lie
the use of sclimils witnin sai I tra t Ii s
be the duty of tin* Registers nfu-es ud. >
making sui li selcrtiuns, tu In- ci ilia al to
ion ii'imliereil l .1 enly, in cadi tnw nli a,
and the seh.cliou so made shall he reserved
from said.
Washington, May 7, 1822— Approved.
in* Colonel with an air of reprimand,
‘ Sir, a soldier should know how to die
on the spot where he is struck.” Co
lonel Lebrun was near this Marshal, anil
shuddered. ‘Our trade is nut carried
on with rose water,’ said the ferocious
warrior ; “ it is not on the day of halite
that we are to think of philanthropy.”
Diplomatic Controversy.
Tin: “ PRIVATE” LETTER.
Letter of Jonathan llasselt, to the lton. the Se
cretary of Stale, in relation to the negotiati
ons at Ghent.
Paris, 1 till F.h. 1815.
Sir :—In conformity with the intimation
contained in my letter of the 40th December,
I have now the honor to state to you the
reasons which induced me to di!T r from a
majority of my colleagues no the expedien
cy of uttering an article confirming the Br -
lisli right to the navigation of the Mississip
pi, and the right of tile American people to
take and cure fish in certain places within
the British jurisdiction.
T n- proposition oT such an article appear
ed tn In: incmisi-ti'lit with nor reasoning 10
prove its absolute inutility. According to
this reasoning, no now stipulation was any
morn necessary on the subject of such an ar
ticle, than a new stipulation for the recogni-
ion of the sovereignty and independence of
the United Stales. Tile article proposed
appeared also inconsistent with nor instruc
tions, as interpreted hy us, which forbid us
to siiilbrniir ligUt to the fisheries to Tic hro’t
into discussion-—for it could not he believed
that we were left free In -tipulate 1111 a sull
ied which we were ri strained from disrus-
-i ", and that an argument and tint an a-
-. -cement was to lie avoided If our instnic-
111 " as indeed correct, it might not perhaps
. d tilt t,, show that vve have not, in fact,
emu .te'ely refrain' d from the interdicted
disci:m. At any rate the proposal of tile
article in ipiestinn, was object intnihh.' in as
mucu 1-it w.i-i n iiitipatihie with the piin-
iple as.- ' d ny a iiiajnriiy of the mission,
:itid wi ll l ■ .ii-n*ii-Tain which that inajo-
:ily lint ait", I on Fiat part nf nur iostr ic-
i.hi-, w hich rtlii. d 1.1 the fisheries If 1 lie
m d'i. Jy weie eo .eel u, these principles Ik.
■ .. - in-tmdion. 'I became 11s to art ae-
■ -i n 'un. I' du x were sull ii
. - 1 a: le-Sdiy to add luconsistency to er
ror.
! f . • i r f -a, however, that I did tint
■ in - airily nitln r in their view s
'7;:3. whence, they derived
. , I -, or 1 f our instructions—a..d
iv • .1 <• ■ t dijeciimi 10 proposing I lie «r-
■t arise ir,nii ,,n a 11 a 1 v 'a reenn-
..oiiT mill 11 <r reisoui ig,and dc-
settlcniem of the shores might at any time
have been effacted hy the policy of the Bri
tish government, and would have made the
assent of British subjects, under the itilhienre
of that policy, necessary to the continuance
of a very considerable portion of that privi
lege. Tin y could not have meant thus tn
place within the control of a foreign govern
ment and its suhji etsaniiitcgr.il pari, as we
now a licet to consider this privilege, of our
national rights.
It is from this view of the subject that I
have been constrained to believe, that there
that there was Untiling in the treaty of 178.9
which could essentially distinguish it from
ordinary trestles or rescue it, on account of
any peauliarity of character, from the jura
belli, or from the operation of those events
un which the continuance or termination ot
sorb treaties depends. I was, in like man
ner, compelled to believe, if any such pecu
liarity h'-lniigi'd to those provisions iu that
treaty, which had an immediate conned am
with our audit pend once, that it did not neces
sarily affect the nature of the w hole treaty,
•y i"
arli.-
• licxe that the ind'jpi'iide ice
!a*c» x as del i, from lh.‘
me 1, •„ . ..f 10a 1
'> '» -‘el ti If ■ n gax c in tins
ihar character, m 111- t suc!i
•i-iu O 1 «.:strd, w ould ne-
thi : .-a _c dis dot • iusepa-
nx - -u,ns. and nial.c 1 one <11
"initc, :|U.i!ly imp,- i-hahln
ty • - x cl . ge which might
t:%i.is hi t x - i'll tlie. ennlract-
AN ACT tn repeal the fourteenth section of
“ Aa ad to re luce nail fix ttie unlit.11 y peace
establishment," pa-scil lire second day of
March one thousand eight hundred and
twenty (lire.
I'n it enacted bi/ Ihe .SV11 Me and House of
He/ircscnlalivt of the Uoiu d States of Ameri
ca in Congress assembled. That lire four
teenth section of the act, ••mill'll •' Aa vt
to reduce and fix the military pit ice estab
lishment,” passed the -cc-md day of March,
one thousand eight hundred and twenty-
one, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Washington, May 7, I84i—Approved.
BEllNADOT PE.
On the eve of the battle of Wagram,
Bonaparte gave the order that the sol
diers were not to quit the r inks during
the action, even tn remove tiie wounded
into places of safely ; but Bcicnlolie
did nut insert this prohibition in his or
ders. During the battle Ids divi-ion
suffered much, anil many wounded lay
Ihe plain. Bertiadotto consequently
ordered some horses to be detached horn
1 lie artillery, in order to bring up the
carriages in which the wounded were
to he removed ; and when it ixa- observ
ed to him that this step might expose
the artillery to lie taken, * AN"li it does
that signifx V - iid lie, ‘ it is lint brass ;
the blond of tire soldier is more pretious.’
The Emperor’s order, however, had
keen 1 xecuted througho it the at my with
the greatest strictness ; insomuch that a
Marshal of France, seeing some grena
diers cat rving their Colonel whose thigh
r .' 1 all', - rdence of tIm United Slates,
upo 1 titi sc fu at'on nt.,1 principles set
h, 1 1 ol ar d id bx 'lie Aineriran Con-
. pa the dei I iration of J dy, t;; 0 and
r ,,;ix iiiaiijli grant, in the treaty of
/ , d its ra is dated accordingly.
(ne ' v >f 17!;3, was men ly a treaty
• - a* o. rriii therefore subject to the same
• f c-eisti 11, 'ion, as ail ntln-r compacts
i- lature. The recognition of the indc-
d ice of the United States, could not
II b.ive given to it a pec .liar character
r-' expected it from the op, ration of these
it. - S o- 1 i rrci»,.n'tion, expressed orim-
t-e 1, is nle .,y- .ndis.iensahlc on the part of
j '.atiii.i, ixi h whom we formally trea
t, c. h't-iievcr. Fr re-, n the treaty of al
re, Io *g before tioi year i71!3, not only
•\,». i-s ty ■ ecg iiz* 1 hut eng ig d i'lt''clnal-
C to ul 11:t.Ii; 1 tbis i-idependeoci—a ,il yet
1 ia treaty, so far from being considered as
ms spaaing ■">>' mysterious peculiarity, hy
■x hicli i s e\i .t.-iice was perpetuated, has li
ve 1 xx i'limit \x ae ) a d although a part of it
eonlaiaed winds of perpituity and was un
executed In ig since enti e|y terminated.
Had the reeognidmi of our independence
by Great Britain given to tile treaty of 1783
toy p -ciiiiar eh irartcr could I lave properly
extended to those provisions only which
,!f cli-il that independence. All those ge
neral rights, for instance, of jurisdiction,
which appertained tu the United States
m their quality as a nation, might, so far as
that treaty was declaratory of them, have
been embraced hy such pecularity, without
necessarily extending i's inllueuce to more
special liberties and privileges, nr to provi
-ions long since executed; not indispensa
bly connected with national sovereignty, or
cessasilv resulting from it.
The liberty to take and cere fish xvithin
the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain
was certainly not necessary to perfect the
jurisdiction of the United States, there
is no reason to believe that such, liberty
intended to he raised tn an equality with the
general right of fishing within the common
jurisdiction of all nations, which accrued tu
us as a member of the great national family.
On the cn trary, the ill.-linction between
the special liberty and the general right, ap
pears to have been well understood hv the
American ministers, who negotiated tin-
treaty of 1783, and to have been fie rly
marked hy the very import of the t.-rms
xvli ch they i.nploycd it would evidently
have h, en unwise in them, however ingeni
ous il may lie in us. to exalt such a privilege
to the rank of a sox ereign right, and t m b)
to have assrnn dtlie u necessary and ire e:.-
xeire-ut obligation nf considering such a li
In, tv to tie an indis-pi-n«ahle condition of our
national existence, and thus rendering that
existence as precarious as the liberty itself.—
They could not have considered a privilege,
which they expressly made to depend, to a
cry considerable extent, for its i nntimiHiici,
j on new en nts ti. private interests, as partnk
or attach to a privilege w hich hail no
gy to such pro vision, 01 any relation to that
in it cpei, deuce.
1 know not, indeed, any treaty, or any ar
ticle of a treaty, whatever may have been the
suhjeci to which it related, or the terms in
which it was expressed, that has survived a
war bet ween the parlies, without being spe
cially renewed, by reference or recital, in the
succeeding treaty of peace, i cannot indei it
conceive of lire possibility of such ,1 treaty
or such an article—for however dear and
strong tire stipulations themselves would fnl
low Hie fate of ordinary miexeciiti d engage
ments, and require, altera war, tire declared
assent of the parlies for their revival.
W c appear, in fact, not to have had an un
qualified confidence in our construction of
the treaty of 1783, or to have been xv tiling to
rest exclusively on its peculiar chv al ter, our
title to any of the rights mentioned in it, and
much less our title to the li.hiog privilege in
question. If hostilities could not ufl'ecl that
treaty, nr abrogate its provisions, why did
we permit the hoimdarics assigned hy it to
be brought into discussion, or stipulate for a
restitution of all places taken from us during
the present war? If such restitution was
secured by the mere operation of the treat)
"f 178.-1. whv di-J we discover any solicitude
for lire status ante In Hum and not resist the
principle of uli possidetis on that ground ?
With rcgaid to the fishing privilege, wi
de li ".fly slated to you In our letter of the
ii -t December, 11 rat at die time of the trea
ty of 1783, it was no now grant, we having
always before that time enjoyed it. and thus
h-avored to derive our title to it from pre
scription. A title derived from immemori
al usage, antecedent to 1783, could not w ell
o ve it- origin, nr its validity, tn any com-
oacl euncloib il at that tints—and w e could,
therefore, in this view of the subject, cor
rectly say that this privilege was, then, no
n 0 y. :• ,1--t':.-,l is, ihal nor right to the ex
ercise of it xvas totally independent of such
compact. If sve were well founded, howe
ver, In tire assertion of our prescriptive title,
it xvas quite unnecessary for us to attempt to
gin a kind nf charmed existence to the trea
ty of 1783, and to extend its indrfinalili! in
fluence In every article of xv hicli it was com
posed, merely Io preserve that title which
wed. dared to he in no xvay derived from il
—and which had existed, and of course could
exist, without it.
R was rather unfortunate, too, forourar-
gninent against a severcnce nf the provisions
of that treaty, that xve should have discover
ed, mirselxes, such a radical difff rence lie
tween them, making the fishing privilege de
pend on immemorial usage, and of course
distinct in its nature and in its origin from
the rights resulting from our independence
AVe, indeed, throw some obscurity oxti
this subject, when xve declare to you that
this privilege xvas always enjoyed by us be
fore tile treaty of 1783, thence inferring that
it was not granted hy that treaty, and in the
same sentence and from the same fact ap
pear also to intvrfer that it was not to he for-
f itecl hy war, any more than any other of
the rights of our in icpendence—making it
thus one of those, rights, and of course ac
cording to our doctrine, dependent on that
treaty. There might have lieen nothing in
comprehensible in thi* mode of reasoning,
had the treaty recognized this privilege to he
derived from prescription and confirmed it
on that ground. The treaty lias, however,
not the slightest allusion to the past, in refer
ence to this privilege, hut regards il only
with a view to the future. The treaty, there
fore, cannot lie construed as supporting a pre
existing title, hut as containing a grant en
tirely new. If we claim, therefore under
the treaty, tv must renounce prescription ;
and if xve claim from prescription, we can
derive no aid from the treaty. If the treaty
he imperishable in all its parts, the fishing
privilege remains unimpaired, without a re
currence to immemorial usage, and if our
title tn it lie well founded on inimcmmial
usage, the treaty may perish without affect
ing it. To have endeavored to support it on
both grounds implies that we had not entire
confidence in either—and tn have proposed
a new article indicates a distrust of both.
It is not, as I conceive, difficult to show
that we call, indeed derive no better title to
this fishing privilege from prescription than
from any inaistructible quality of lire treaty
of 1783.
I’rescriptinn appears to me to lie inappli
cable to the parlies and to tire suhj'i t, and
to be defective both in fact and clli-ct.
As to the parties—the irmnniiei'ial enjoy
ment of a privilege within British jurisiiicti
on, hy British siihjeots, the inhabitants ol
British colonies, could not well lie consider
i d as evidence of a title to that privilege
claimed hy lire citizens of an independent
republic, residing w ithin the exclusive juris
diction of that republic. The people ol the
United States as socll. could have claimed
00 special privilege xvithin the dominions of
any foreign power, from immemorial usage,
in 1788, when the longest duration of tlreir
own existence, in that quality, was little
more, at the utmost, than the brief period of
seven years, which is surely not beyond the
* memory of man, (ultra nremm iam liominis.)
. . 1 had been shot off bv a cannon ball made big,,Mho charaeterk entitled to the durate n] Th' p-qile of the Unit'd States had lie
wares, or merchandise, oilier mail «u< n no- j - • 1 . . .... - • > - -> •>--<
ing privilege* moment, being effectually pre
vented 1 herefrom hy the existing state of
hostilities. Nor could the inhabitant* of the
colonies, originally constituting the U.Stall:*,
even in their colonial condition, acquire a-
gninst tlreir sovereign any right from long u-
suage or the mere lapse of time (Nullum
tempos regi necurrit.) The British sovc
rt igti xvas always competent to regulate or
restrain his colonies iu their commerce and
intercourse with each other, whenever and
however he might think proper. Am) had
Ire forbid his subjects io the province of .Mas
sachusetts Bay, to fish and dry and cure fish
in the hays, harbors and creeks of Labrador,
which, hy the way, had not humemiiihilly
belonged to him, it is nut Io lie imagined
tlm! Urey would have conceived themselves
discharged from the obligation of submitting
on account of any pretended l ight from im
memorial usage. Tire li-lii.g privilege,
therefore, enjoyed liy British subjects with
in British jurisdiction could give 110 peiina-
nent and independent light to those subjects
themselves, and a fortiori no such right to
the citizen - of the I.'oiled States, claiming
under a different estate, and in a different ca
pacity. Gnat Britain might, indeed,as well
prescribe for the prerogatives of her sove
reignty oxer us, as we for any of the privi
leges which xx e enjoyed as her subjects. I
do not think it necessary to enquire Innv far
the practice of tire people of the whole orl
ginal thirteen United Slates, or of the Unit
ed States now including Louisiana, or luivx
far the immemorial usage of the people of
Boatiii) can establish a proscriptive right in
the people of Ncxv Orleans. 1 trust I have
said enough tu show that prescription is in
applicable to the parlies. It is also, I con
ceive, inapplicable to tire subject.
Had lire United Stales, as an independent
nation enjoyed from time immemorial the
fishing prix ilcge iu question, still, from tire
nature of this privilege. no prescriptive rigltl
would have thence been established. A
liglil to fish or to trade, or lo do liny oilier
thing within the exclusive jurisdiction of a
foreign stale, is a simple power, a right of
mere ability ,(ji<4 meraficultatis) depending
on the will ol such slate, and consequently
imprescriptible. An independent title can
be derived only from treaty.
It conceive, therefore, that a claim to the
fishing privilege from immemorial usage, is
not only unsupported by the fuel, hut can
not in effect, result from such usage.
1 have been, in this view of the subject,
led to conclude that tile treaty of 1783, in
relation to ti c liberty, is abrogated hy the
xvar, and that this fishing liberty is total des
titute of support from prescription,;ind Ibnl
xve consequently are left without any title tu
it whatsoever. For i cannot prevail upon
myself to seek for such a title in the relative
situations of the pa ties at the time of nego
tiating the treaty nf 1783, and contend, ae
cording to insinuation contained in nor let
ter lo you, of the “21st. December, that the
jurisdiction of Great Britain over the coin
■ ties assigned 10 tier in America, xvas n grant
from the United States, and that tire United
Stales, in making this grant, reserve
themselves the privilege in question. Such
a pretention, however lofty, is so inconsist
eot with tan real circumstances of the case,
and xvitli any sober construction xxliieh can
he given to that treaty I shall I trust lie ex
cusrd 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
character of the treaty (if 1783, as well as wit’
regard to every other foundation on vvlih
tlrey were disposed to rest our title to the
fishing privilege, 1 shall now proceed to ex
plain the causes which influenced me to dis
sent from them in the interpretation of our
instructions. These instructions forbid us
to permit our rights to the trade beyond the
Gape of Good Hope, to the fisheries and!
Louisiana, to bn brought into discussion,
conceived that this prohibition extended to
the general rights only, which affected out
sovereignty ami resulted from it, and not h
the mere special liberties or privileges vvliicl
had no relation to that sovereignly, either
as to its nature or extent.
The right, relative to (lie trade beyond
the Cape of Good Hope, xvas the right which
In longed to ns as an i.idcpcndcut nation, in
common xvitli all other independent nations,
and not the permission of trailing to those
parts of the East Indies which were within
the exclusive jurisdiction ol Great Britain.—
In like mailer, the right to the fisheries, con
templated hy ottr instructions, xvas. I con
ceived, the right common to all nations to
use the open sea for fishing ns well as for na
vigation, and not t ;e liberty to fish and cure
fish w illiin the territorial limits of any foreign
state. The right to Louisiana, which xvas
not to he brought into discussion, xvas the
right to the empire and domain of that re
gion, and not the right of excluding Great
Britain from the free navigation of (he .Mis
sissippi, How far vve conform to this in
struction with regard (0 the general right to
Louisiana, it is not necessary for me here to
inquire, hut certainly the majority believed
themselves permitted to "Her a very expli
cit proposition with regard to the naviga
tion of its principal river, i believe xvitli
them that vve are so permitted and that vve
were likew ise permited to offer a pronosition
relative lutlir fishing liberty, and, had the oc
casion required it, to make proposals con
cerning tin trade to British East Indies. I
was persuaded that treating relative to these
privif ges or discussing the obligation or ex-'
pediem y of granting or withholding them,
respectively, violated in noway our con
st rnctionsorafiecled the general rights which
we were forbidden lo bring into discussion.
Considering therefore the fishing litre it)
to he entirely at ail end, without a new stipu
lotion for its revival, and believing that wi
were entirely free to discuss tl e terms and
conditions of such n stipulation, I did not ob
ject to the article proposed hy us liecaon
any article on the subject was unnecessat>
or contrary toour instiuctioiis, but 1 objected
specially to that, article, because conceding
in it In Great Britain, tire free navigation 1
the Mississippi, vve directly violated nor 0
strlictinns, and v»e offered, in my eslimalio
for the fishing privilege a price niuili obuv
alue.
'iesor drank' oclis)' a's'are paid nr allowed in l them lay him down, and said to the dy- I of theinhereotproperties of sovereignly. The | iu fact, during that period, enjoyed the li»h-
any analogy between tire two subjects, Si thn
only reason f"f coimei ting them ami making
them mutual equivalents for each other, ap
peared to lie because they were both luund
in the treaty of 1783. Il that treaty was
abrogated hy the war, as I consider il to
have been, any connection between ils parts
must have ceased, and the lilreily of navi
gating the Mississippi by BritiMi subjects
must at least be cnmplcti ly at an ei.d ; for
it will not I trustin' attempted to 1 onto tie
it by a prospective title or lo ci/nsioi 1 it aa
a reservation made by the Utnlfd t-lat'-s
from any grant of sovereignty which, at ll 11
treaty of peace, they ai'coidid to Great
Britain. If indeed il was such a re servation,
it must have lieen intended for our benefit,
and of course no equivalent for t Ire fishing
pritilrgi'. il it is consiiWj'd « rcwiva-
lion maiL l»> (in it JLitair), it will revnao
tin* facia absiumd Ly u« in reiatfuri lo ti.at
|>i ivilrp*.
Tin* third article of tin treaty nf I7CS,
respeding the mid tin t-ightli artt-
rlc *d Ilia, tmd)4 repu ting the MoHSHppj,
lind not I lie slightest reftmice lo i. > cti nilit r,
and wen* placed as remote, the one iVu* •
the other, as the limits of that treaty could
well admit. Whatev v, thuelhn , was die
cause of iriflcrlintf the fi lling liheiiy, whe*
ther it was a voluntary mid gratuitous p ant,
on the part of G eat Biifiiin, or extorli d
from her as a Ct ndiiion on which ttm peaeu
depended, it eould lo.ve had no rel.ition to
the fin* navigation ol the Mississippi. Be-
-id» , the article, relative to fids liver, must
I '.Mo the e\ itii nt \ iew s ol the parlies at the
time, from their relations to each ollit r and
their known relations to a third power as lo
this liver, have been rrinsidtn d of m'du l
and equal advantage, and furnished no si.h-
jed for co: pensatinn or adjustment in any
other provision of that treaty.
Both pm ties believed that iliisriverL.ueh-
cd the territories ol'both, tmd that ul’'em . e,
both had a right lo ils navigation. A' Spain
possess* d both hanks of lids iivt r, to a con
siderable distance from ds mouth and one
of its hanks m ally Ilii'ou^liotit its whole < x-
tent, both pai lits had un interest in muting
to prevent that power from obstructing it*
navigation. fi.*d not the article b* en in
tended to engage Ihe parties in rt 11 i 1. to
Spain, they would probably have limited it
the nav igation ol tire l iver so far as tin ir
own territories extended on it, and not li vc
stipulated for this navigation to the oci an
Inch necessarily carried it through tire ex
clusive territories of Spam. If the circum
stances had been io fact such as the parties,
at tire time believed lliein to be with a view
to which they acted; or had these circum
stances suhsi qneoily experienced no radieal
change Great Britain would have gaiiu d
now no more than sire would have granted
hy the renewal of the article in relation to
the navigation of the Mississippi, and would
not, any more than in 1783, have acknowl
edged any equivalent to be conferred hy it,
for our liberty relative to the li-heries. The
ciiviunsUioees however, assumed hy The
pai lies, at tire time, in relation to Great Bri
tain, and from which her rights wine deduc
ed, have not only, in part, hei n since disco
vered not to have existed, but those, which
did exist have hei n entirely changed liy sub
sequent events, it lias been clearly ’ascer
tained that the territories assigned to Great
Britain, no w here in fact, reached Ihe Mis
sissippi, and tire acquisition of Louisiana hy
the United States had forever removed the
Spanish jurisdiction from that river.—The
w hole consideration, therefore, on toe part
of Great Britain, w hether derix ed from her
territorial l ights or from her part of the re
ciprocal obligations relative to Spain, having
entirely failed, our engagements, entered into
on account of that consideration, may ho
fairly construed lo have terminated with
it.
I11 this view of the subject Great Britain
could have no title to the navigation of the
Mississippi even if a xvar had not taken place
between the parties. To renew, therefore,
the claitnsof Great Britain, under that arti
cle, subject lo this construction, would he
granting her nothing, and lo renexv that ar
ticle, independent of this construction, and
without any reference to tire circumstances
that attended ils origin in 1783, or to the
events which have since occurred in rotation
'.0 it, would he granting her advantages not
only entirely unilateral as it relates to the
proxisions of the article itself, hut, as I be
lieved, of much greater importance than a-
ny which we could derive from a renewal
ofthe liberty relative to the fisheries.
If the article which we offered merely in
tended to rescue the third and eigtlith artic
les of the treaty of 1783 from tire operation
of the present xvar and to-continue them
precisely as they were immediately prior to
this xvar, the third article luring then in full
force, and the eighth article being no longer
obligatory, xve should have attempted to ex
change, like General Drummond, the dead
for the living. It is not suprising, therefore,
tliai the British guvernnnuit should, in mc -
pecling such an intention, have rejected our
proposition. I was opposed, however, to
making the proposition, not only because I
xvas convinced that was offered xxitli no
Micii intention, hut because 1 helived it
would give to Great Britain the free naviga
tion of the Mississippi under circuiristanc*,
and evidently lor an object which would
place it on very distinct grounds lion those
on wliii li it was placed by tin- treaty of
1783. The whole 1 f the Mississippi being
now exclusively within the acknowledged
j'.iijibrtl' ii of the l ii ' d Slates, a simple
renewal of tile British right to navigate it
would place that light beym d the reach of
the war and of en ry other previous circum
stance which might have impaired or ter
minated it ; and the power to grant, on our
pui 1, being in iv complete, the l ight to en
joy. on IterV, under our grant, most lie com
plete also. It would he absurd Id so;q o r.
that any thing ii npossible was inti ruled, and
that Great Britain was to he alh xxr.d I" na
vigate the Mississippi only precisely as <.|,o
w uuld have navigated it immediately after
the treaty ol 1783, as if her teiritories ex
tended to it and a» il Sjainwes in mine
possession of one of its banks and of a con
siderable 1'iirtion ol the other. Tin re-ceg-
I nilion of the British tight to r.-xi at- the
In no view of the subject could I discover | Mississippi wolM be, under existing cir-
