Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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 in the United Stales,are hereby repealed; Provided, That nothihg in this net contained shall authorize the allowing of drawbacks on the exporta tion of any goods, wares, and merchandise, from any port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-