Newspaper Page Text
at /
w
7^C
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. III.
MILLEDGEVILLL, TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1822.
JSo. 24.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
DY S. GfU.YTL.LVD fj- R. JU. ORME,
Oil Hnucock Street, opposite the Auctiou Store,
AT THREE DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR FOUR
HOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE
TEAR.
U r* Advertisements conspictioq«ly inserted
at tlie customary rates. Letters oil business, in
oil eases, must be post paid.
I IIOM THE BOSTON AMERICAN STATESMAN.
.Ur. Russell's Reply to .Mr. Adams.
It was not until the 30th tilt, that I receiv
ed a copy of the communication which had
Iveen made by the President, to the House of
Representatives, on tile 7th of that month.
Tina cnininnuitiation consists of » letter
which I had written from Paris on the tfitli
of February, 1815, and addressed to the
then Secretary of State, of a puper left by
mr at the Department of State, on the Sid
of April last, and the remarks of Mr. Adam*
o.i both. I say on both — fofr, notwithstanding
that the report of Mr. Adams to the Presi
dent, speaks only of his remarks on the pa
per deposited tiy me at the Department, as
put mentioned, yet a considerable portion of.
those remarks apply to the letter received
at that department in 1815. The message
of the President of the 4th tilt, indeed, evi
dently considers the contemplated report of
Mr. Adams to he confined to that letter on -
Tv. It is apparent, from the whole tenor of
that message, that the letter which Mr. Mon
roe received from Paris, was alor,:. the do
cument called for, and to be. communicated
to the House. I was surprised, therefore,
on receiving the printed documents, to find
that either more had been called for on the
Sill, or, without being embraced by such
call, had been communicated on the 7th of
May, than had been signified by that mes
sage.
1 had left Washington on the 5th, in the
belief that, at so late a moment of the. ses
sion, no call, in reference to that message,
would be made, or, if made, that it would
produce the letter only received from Paris,
with the corresponding report of the. Secre
tary of State. My surprise was not dimin
ished when, on reading the remarks ol Mr.
Adams, I discovered that they mainly owed
their existence and character to a paper,
which had been considered not to be the
paper called for, and which had been ob
truded on the House, after my departure, at
the special instance of Mr. Adams himself,
and to afford him an opportunity of giving
•another specimen of his taste and temper to
the public.
Mr. Adams, on the 6th of May, the very
next day alter my departure from Washing
ton, went to the House of Representatives,
and there, in person, sought for a member
who would consent to make the call which
was necessary for tile tfificiul publication of
Fiis personal remarks, l'o one member from
Massachusetts, at least, he had applied in
vain, befor he finally succeeded in bis object.
It would seem that the evidence furnished
by these facts ought to have been sufficient,
at least, to deter him from accusing others
of “ a wanton promulgation before the legis
lative assembly of the nation.”
For the previous calls, whatever might
have been the motive for making them, I am
not responsible. With the gentleman who
made the call on the I7th ot January, fur
the correspondence which led to the treaty
of Ghent, not already made public, I had
not the least personal acquaintance at the
time, nor had i before that call was actually
made, the slightest intimation, directly or
indirectly, of any intention of making it
In an interview with Mr. Adams, at his
house, a short time afterwards, he said, in
reference to that call, that a letter had been
found from me, in the archives ot state,
which might lie considered to lie embraced
by it. He desired to know if I was willing
to have it communicated. I replied that t
had no distinct recollection of tiie letter to
which he alluded, and that I wished to see it
before I gave consent to its publication.
He acquiesced, and I repaired accordingly
to the Department of State. I found the
letter to which Mr. Adams had icferred, to
be that which I had written at Ghent, on
the 25th of December, 1815, and which an
nounced the fact of my having been in the
minority oil the proposition relative to the
navigation of the Mississippi and the fishing
privilege, and intimated my intention of
communicating the reasons which had in-
lluenced mv conduct on that occasion. 1
could perceive no good cause why I should
object to the communication of such a let
ter, am! I consented that the part which re
lated to the subject just mentioned, should,
with the approbation of Mr. Adams, he com
municated. Mr. Adams at that lime ex
pressed no dissatisfaction that ( had written
3uch a letter, nor made any comment on its
contents. This is all the, participation which
I had, directly or indirectly, with the cull of
tlie i7tli of January.
The memhuvtvh i had made that call, made
also thu call of the 1 Dili of April. This se
cond call tvas obviously occasioned by the ex
tract of my letter of the 25th ot Dee. 1 " I 4, *
Mb- ivo mentioned, which the first call had
brought forth. To that member I Imd neyet
■communicated, bv transcript or otherwise,
the contents of my letter written at Paris for
* The following is the extract alluded to -
pxtract of a letter from Jonathan Rwsell, Esq.
to the Secretary of State, itated tit Ghent, ‘loth
of Ur-ember, 1814, and communicated to the
Rouse of Representatives by the president on
thc2\slcf February, 1822.
« My necessary occupation, at 'bis moment,
in aiding my colleagues to prepare our joint
despatches, puts it out ot my power to furnish
you with any details or observations exclusive
ly my own.
“ As, however, you will perceive by our des
patch to you of this date, that a majority only
of the mission was in favor of ottering to tlie
British plenip tentiaries an article confirming
the British right to the navigation ot the \lis-
s,- .ippi, and ours to the liberty as to the fish
eries, it becomes me, in candor, to acknowl
edge that I was in the minority on that ques
tion 1 must reserve the power of communi
cating to you, hereafter, the reasons Which in
fluenced inc to ditl'er from a majority ot my
colleagues on that occasion, anil if they be in*
sufficient to support my opinion, I persuade my*
lelWficy icii» at lea,H cindicajt my rflgitjvejj."
tvhicli he called. I had refused to others
any account or copy of that letter, for which
they had applied to me, as I believed for
publication. As a reason for thus refusing,
I uniformly assigned the necessity, in my
opinion, of the. previous consent and appro
bation of the constituted authorities for the
regular publication of a letter written by me.
while in the public service, to one of those
authorities, and in relation to that service.
All the participation which I had in this
call was, to leave at the Department of State,
m consequence of an abdication from that
department, tlie paper which has since been
published as a duplicate. The simple facts
are these: On the morning of the 20th of
April, a gentleman employed in the Depart
ment of State called on me at my lodgings
and inquired if 1 could furnish a duplicate
of the. letter which had been called for. 1
intimated a reluctance to communicating
any thing as a duplicate. Ho observed, that
it need not he presented as such to the
Ho'ihh, but ivbj»rd t - have It so presented to
the department. This is, in substance, what
was said on that occasion.
On the Sid, 1 called at the Department
of State—Mr. Adams was not there, and I
left the paper with the gentleman who had
pplied to me for it. The word “duplicate”
had indeed been written on it, in conse
quence of his suggestion as above slated,
but I gave no further intimation, much, less
any assurance that it was so. He made no
nquiry fz I in idr no comment. 1 observed
merely, that 1 left it for the examination ot
Mr. Adams; it that I was indifferent w hether
it was communicated under the call of the
House or not, as the letter called for ; hut, i
not so communicated, I expressed the expec
tation that it would be returned to me. ile
received it accordingly.
A few days afterwards I again visited the
Department of State, and was again so un
fortunate as not to find Mr. Adams there.—
l saw, however, the gentleman with whom
I had left the paper,and learnt from him that,
as it had been dated, as he supposed, by
mistake, in 18-2-2, ho had taken the liberty
to correct it by inserting 1816. 1 made no
objection, but repeated my expectation hat,
if it should not be deemed proper to use it
for the purpose for which it nad been deliv
ered, it would be returned to me.
I made a third visit to the Department of
State on the 2d of May, if ( remember cor
rectly. Mr. Adams was then in Ins oilier.,
and in passing thither I learned from tile gen
tleman who had received the paper deliver
ed by me on the ;22d, that it hud undergone
another alteration in its date, and that 1816
had been made to give place to 1815. This
last alteration was, it seems, found necessary
to make the paper agree in dale with the
letter received from Pars, which had at last
hern found; and thus to be able to use that
paper with a better grace as a duplicate, and
to abuse it with the more confidence for its
variation from that letter. The corrective
pouter assumed appears to have been limited
accordingly.
Mr. Adams soon spoke of the paper which
I had left on the 22d. and had not proceed
ed far without complaining of its difference
from the original, vvhicn had been found.—
This circimi -tancc he affected to consider
particularly offensive. In vain I represent
ed that the difference between the two was
not material; that neither was perssnal or
accusatory; that both were merely defen
sive; and that I was willing that either or
neither should Ini communicated, as he
might judge proper. I soon perceived that
it was too lain to offer explanations with a
prospect of success. He was not in a Hu
mour to listen to me even with civility.—
The manner in which he treated the busi
ness, destroyed, in me, even a wish to con
ciliate or appease him.
I have stated these facts principally to
show that the paper was left at the Depart
ment of State, nut oil my own proper mo
tion, hut that it was left there on the appli
cation, and marked duplicate at the sugges
tion, of a person belonging to that Depart
ment, and possessing the eonfidi nee of Mr.
Adams. Such an application was altogeth
er unexpected by me, and was made with
out any previous intimation, suggestion, or
encouragement, on my part; mid, had it
not been made, that paper would never have
been left at the. Department of Slate, nor in
any other manner presented to the public
Having twice failed in my attempts to see
Mr. Adams, I had no opportunity of offer
ing those explanations which the ease ap
peared to require, until it was too late to of
fer them.
I considered it an act of frankness to place
the paper, when thus applied for, whatever
might bn its merits or defects,in the power
of the person who might consider himself
the most liable to he affected by its publiea-
presents as a duplicate, is that the letter wi it
ten at Paris, “although of the tarns general
purport, and tenor with the so called dupli
cate, differs from it in several highly signifi
cant passages.” Ho presents, as an exam
ple, a parallel extracted from the t to pa
pers. Hr deduces Irmn this parallel tliecon-
tradiction that I did believe in the one paper,
and that I did not believe in the other paper,
that we if ere permitted I «y our instructions
at Ghent to off r a stipulation for the navi
gation, by the British, of thu Mississippi.—
Ho tar, however, from the parallel passages
exhibiting such a contradiction, they contain
within themselves the evidence of their con
sistency with each other.
The original letter refers exclusively to
the instructions of the 25th of June, 1814,
(a) on which the majority, in the despatch
of the 25th of December, of the same year,
solely relied, when they said, “ Our instruc
tions had I'm hidden us to suffer our right to
the fisheries to be brought into discussion,
and h id not authorized us to make.: * da.
tinelion in the several provisions of the bd
article of the treaty of 1783.”
The duplicate also refers to the same in
structions, and perfectly agrees, So far as it
does refer to them, with the interpretation
of them in the original letter.
Thcoriginalktlersai/s: The duplicate says:
“ The majority be- “The majority be
hoved themselves to lieved themselves to
he permitted to offer
a very explicit pro
position with regard
to the navigation of
ho permitted, their
own construction to
thu contrary notwith
standing, to offer a
its principal river.—• very explicit propo-
/ believed U'idli them sition with regard to
that tee were so per- (lie. navigation of its
milled, and that wo principal river. Now
were likewise per- this utTer I consider-
mitleil to offers pro- ed, for the reasons
position relative to just suggested, not to
the fishing liberty,” be a violation of the
Sic. instructions in ques
tion,” Sic.
Instead of any contradiction or inconsist
ency, there is here a perfect accordance in
the sense of the tw o papers, in relation to
the instruction of the 25th of June.
I will here observe,that my letter, written
at Paris in 1815, was as may he readily as
certained, confined to a discussion of the
grounds which the majority assigned or sug
gested, in the despatch of the 25th of De
cember, for the oiler of the navigation of the
Mississippi for the fishing privilege. To
justify my own conduct to my government,
in opposing that offer, I believed that it
would lie s fiicient at the time to show why
the reasons of the majority had not satisfied
me. In preparing tlie papar which i left
at the Department of State, I believe it to
he proper, for the causes already suggested,
to assign, for my justification, an additional
reason which bad influenced me in the course
which I pursued at the time. The paper,
therefore, says, in speaking of the. offer,
“ hut i considered it to be against the letter
and the spirit of onr instruction of the 15th
of April, 1313.” (b)
Mr. Adaius, in his remarks, admits, at
least by implication, that “ the letter and
the spirit” of this instruction were, indeed,
against that offer, when he resorts for a re
lease from Ihe obligation of observing it, to
other instructions, of the 10th of October,
1814, which, ho says, were received on the
4th of the following November, authorizing
nut insisting on a simultaneous one on theirs,
and then, after having decided to do so, t<
prepare and digest this project, until the I dtl,
of November, when it was presented.—
During this period the proposition in ques
tion, after having been repeatedly and tlior
ouglily discussed, was cai l ied, us a part of
the project, in the affirmative, by a bare ma
jority, Mr. Clay und myself having uniform
ly opposed it.
After the majority decided on making tin
proposition just mentioned an article of the
contemplated project, the dissatisfaction ol
tiie minority at this decision, especially ol
.Mr. Clay, who declared that lie would sign
no treaty of which such an article should
make a part, induced the majority, particu
larly the gentleman who is now no more, to
relax in llieir adherence (U it, Hz to consent to
present our project without such an article.
Instead of such au article in the project, or,
as Mr. Adams himself avows, os a substitute
f.r it. the paragraph, ju t!) a-tiibec, by him
to Mr. they, was inserted in the note of the
10th of November.
That this proposition had been decided on,
helorc the 10th of November, is not only to
be inferred from the avowal of Mr. Adauis,
just mentioned, that ei substitute for it li id
been inserted in our note of that day, tint it
isexpressly proved by the following extracts
ol two letters which I addressed, at the lime,
to the American Minister at Paris.
The first is dated at Ghent, the 4th of
November, 1814, and says,
“ If we adhere to the. understanding which
we now have, we shall make the si tus ante
brtlum a sine qua non. The question which
most perplexes ns is the fislieries, and we
have nut yet decided on the mode of pro
ceeding, in relation to it. They have told
us that the liberty of taking, dryi. g. and cur
ing fish within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Gnat Bn tain, will not be continued to us
w ithout au equivalent; vvecannot relinquish
this liberty, and vve cannot offer territory as
an equivalent. Shall we then . Her the free
gation of the Mississippi, which they
apparently suggested with this new ? I
think this will he carried in tlie affirmative,
although i have very serious objections to
the measure.”
The other letter was dated the 20lli of
November, 1814, and says as follows :
" Without hkving hern deceived relative to
the disposition of the majority, on the subject
ol the liee navigation of the Mississippi, 1
am happy to inform you that this dispose
tion was not inflexible, and we finally trans
mitted our project without the article that
had at first been carried." This article was
as follows:
“ The right and liberty of the people and
inhabitants ol'thc United Mates to takc,diy,
and cure fish in places within tlie exclusive
jurisdiction of Great Britain, as recognized
(and secured) by the former treaty of peace ;
and the privilege of tlie navigation of tin;
Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Urii.sd States, (as secured to the sub
jects of Great Britain by the same treaty,)
are hereby recognized and confirmed.”
“ Besides the objection to such an article
which had occurred to you, and which had
nut escaped us, the blending of the two points
together null making then mutually dependent
on each other, which was not dune in the
treaty of 1783, made this article tlie more
objectionable.”
From these, facts it is manifest that the
the status ante belum as a basis of negntia- rotation afiorded by Mr. Adams for “the
lion. Ho evidently means to insinuate, if diffi retice in my mind between the writing
not to assert, that, in consequence of the °t Ihe original and the duplicate” isnotcor-
basis thus authorized, the American Mission r, ct. *
discussed the proposition relating to the na
igation of the Mississippi, and the fishing
privilege, on the 28th and SUth of November,
and. as a result of that discussion, offered it,
on the first of December, to (he British mi
tiisli is.
This statement is incorrect. The sense
of the.Mission was not distinctly taken on
the 28th and 29lh of November, in relation
to this proposition ; nor did any majority at
that time agree to offer it.
The following is the real history of the
transaclion:
On tlie 2tth of October wo addressed a
note to the British Ministers, and repeated
a request, already made to them, that they
would communicate all the other specific
propositions, (the preliminary article pro
posed by Ihe British government having al
ready been accepted by us,) offering a simul
taneous exchange of projects by both par
ties. The British Ministers, by their note of
the 31st of that month, decliu d complying
with this request, saying that they had alrea
dy, by their note of the 21st of that month,
communicated to ns all the points upon
which they were instructed to insist. After
the receipt of this note vve met together e-
. ,, - • , .. very day, I believe, in order, first, to decide
t there was certainly neither "J ’ ’ .
if vve should present, on our part, a com
plete project to the British Ministers, wlth-
distinrtly stated, til mv letter, that the rev i
val of the British l ight to navigate tlie Mis
sissippi would be, under existing circum
stances, a new and complete grant to her,
fzc. And, in another plaen, “ in thus i fll r
mg the navigation of the Mississippi and the
access to it through our territories, as an
equivalent for tlie fishing liberty, we not on
ly placed both on ground entirely different
from that on whirl) they respectively stood
in Ihe treaty of 1783,” fee.
The meetings of tlie American mission on
the 28th and 21llli of November were not in
consequence of the despatch received on life
24th of that mouth. They were convened
for the purpose of discussing the alterations
suggestions of tlie British ministers on 0111
project which they bad returned (0 us on
tlie 27th, with an explanatory note of the
26th. Whatever might have been said at
these meetings in relation to the Mississippi,
account of the alteration respecting it,
miide in the 8th article of our piojecf, by
tlie British Plenipotentiaries, no new reso
lution was there taken by the American
mission to offer the navigation of that river
fur the fishing privilege. This offer was
made on the 1st December, in virtue of tin
ly of tliis docti ine as one that had In 1 n p».'
sumed. Sure it is, IIihI the uiiiionty con»
suited to admit that doctrine as an expnli-
ent only to prevent tin proposition, alle.idy
decided on by the majority, Irutn constitut
ing an article ot our pioject. So far, and
no farther, were the minority willing to go
in adopting that doctrine, hut whenever it
was proposed In sum lion the British right
to navigate the Mississippi, tiny Linluiuily
resisted it.
Mr. Adams also asserts, that the propos
al confirming tiie British rigid to the navi
gation of tile Mississippi and nur’s to the
fishing privilege, was made not by a major
tif, but by the whole of the American mis
sion, and infers to the protocol of the con
ference of tin first of December, at which
that proposal was at length made, and to
our nole of Ihe Nth of that month, signed
by all the American mission, which said
that “to such an article, uhidi they lieuid
ns merely declaratory, the nndi rsigned had
no objei lion, and have odi-ied to ; erode.”
If he had referred, at the same lime, to
the despatch of the 25th December, 1814
(d) lie would there have seen that, in fact, a
majority only, and not tlie whole of ihe
oto taken before the loth of November, and mission, decided to make that proposal,
which, although suspend, d, had not bet n The vv ol ds of the despatch, in reference to
re-considered o-cancelled. I am (lie more | that proposal, are, “to place both points
continent in this statement, as I distinctly re-1 beyond all future controversy, a majority of
member that when that offer was actually us determined to offer an aitide confiuning
!. •---* 1 * ■' both rights.” Mr. Adams signed that des
patch, and thus, at that time, attested a fact
which he now positively denies.
The protocol was a mere record of the
facts which had occurred at the corifeicnce,
and in no way furnished proof that a pro
position there mude had or had not het
made, it was unexpected by a majority of
the mission. Mr. Bayard, in returning home
from the house of the British ministers,
where the conference of the 1st December
had been holden, very explicitly declared
to Mr. Clay and to me, his dissatisfaction
that this offer had been made with nut his
having been recently consulted in relation to previously decided 00 unanimously by tlie
it I ilut’i* III ri>fr:ii'ii tii tliMKri l:n*ta in uminti I .1 t, mi ‘V .
tion. In thi:
secrecy nor concealment to offend him. He
had the sole power to publish it or not, as he
might judge proper, and to consult Ilia own
feeling and interests in forming his decision
When a private letter, written solely for the
vindication of my own conduct, to those to
whom I was immediately responsible, was
asked of me by a person known to he under
the orders of the Secretary of State, for the
purpose ol presenting it to the public—a tri
bunal for which it had never been intended,
and to which it ought not to have been pre
sented without my consent—I certainly did
believe that I was permitted to make those
corrections of the copy in possession w hich
appeared to me to be proper to exhibit my
case most advantageously before that tribu
nal. I the more confidently entertained this
opinion as the paper .wax not to be there ex
hibited without the previous examination
and consent of the adverse party. Such
were the views with which it was unreserved
ly confided to Mr. Adam3. But he commu
nicated iny private letter as the paper call
ed for, and, with it, he disingenuously com
municated the paper entrusted to him, not
as the paper called for, but as a convenient
vehicle for passionate invective, and inlem-
peralive personal abuse against me. If jus
tice, or even decency towards me presented
no obstacle, still I should have believed that
(it) Extract of a letter of instruct ions, received
from the Secretary o f State by the Commissioners
at Ghent, duted Titii of June, 1814.
Information has been received, from a
quarter deserving attention, that the late e-
vents in France have produced such an effect
on the British government as to make it pro
bable that a demand will he made at Qotlien-
tiurgb to surrender our right to the fisheries, tn
abandon nil trade beyond the Cape of Good
Hope, and so cede Louisiana to Spain. We
cannot believe that such a demand will he
made ; should it lie, you will of course treat it
as it dt.scrres. These, rights must not be brought
into discussion : if insisted on, your negotiations
unll cease.”
(b) Extract of a letter of instructions from the
Secretary if State to the .-lineriatn Commis
sioners, dated Iblli Jtpril, 1813,
“ The article in the treaty of 1794, which al
low- British traders from Canada, and the
Northwest Company, to carry on trade with
the Indian tribes, within the limits el' the Uni
t'd States, must not be renewed The perni
cious efftets of this privilege hare been must rat-
ribly felt in the present war, by the influence
which it gate to the traders over the. Indians,
whose whole force has been wielded, by means
thereof, against the inhabitants of our western
statrs and territories You will avoid also any
stipulation, that might restrain the United
Statesfrom increasing their naval force, to any
a respect lor the representatives ol the pen- sqatestrom Increasing their naval force, to any
pie of the I nited States would have at least j patent they may think proper, 011 the Lakes,
been sufficient to have determined him from j held in common ; or excluding tlie llritish tra-
so rude and irregular a course of proceeding, j dt rs from the navigation of the lakes and rivers
His first remark on what he ostentatiously exclusively within our ounjun’sdietio
A despatch, received on the 24tli of
November, could not well have had any in
flucnce on my reasons fur opposing a mea
sure, previous to the lOiliof that month.
I have accused no one of acting against
instructions, but surely I ought net to offend
if I discovered a disposition to act as fa
least as might he expedient, in conformity to
my own construction of them
Mr. Adams when 1 last saw him at the
department of state, showed me no record,
an instruction to the American minister
Ghent, dated the fourth, of October, 1814,
appearently with a view to freshen my
memory in relation to our dispensation from
the obligation of observing tile instruction,
vv bicli i had allegt d as a course tor oppo
sing tlie proposition, with respect to the Mis
sissippi. 1 had not proceeded far, however,
in its persual, before Mr. Adams interrupted
me by say ing that he believed it had nut
been received at the time, adding, after a
momentary pause, that lie did not know it it
had ever been received. The instructions of
the 4th of October, which had never been
received, had just as much influence in tiie
discussions of the. mission, previous to the
10th of November as a letter of the 19th of
October which was not received until more
than fourteen days after these discussions
had taken place.
It inay not be improper to remark here
that an instruction received on the 21th of
November, authorizing the status ante bellum
although highly satisfactory as it regarded
the past, could not well, considering what
had already been done, have had much prae
tical effect on the future negotiations. On
the 10th of that month we had, in substance
if not in name, already proposed tiiat basis
in opposition to that of the uti possiihlis,
urged by our adversaries, in our note to
them ol that date, we offered with a suffi
cient precision the status ante billuin, when
vve said that tiie undersigned “cannot agree
to any other principle than that of a mutual
restoration of territory, and have according
ly prepared an article founded on that basis
They are willing even to extend the same
principle to the other objects in dispute le
tween the two nations ; and in proposing all
the other articles, included i.i this project,
they w ish to be distinctly understood that
they are ready to sign a treaty placing the
two countries, in respect to nil the subjects
of difference between them, in the same slutt
they were in at the commencement of the
present war, reserving to each party all its
lights, and leaving whatever may remain of
controversy between them, for future fz pa
cific negotiation.”
Besides, the proposition to which I oh
jecied before the 10th of November, and
which was substantially that first offered 01
it. 1 dare, in regard to these facts to appeal
to the recollection of Mr. Clay in coufu illa
tion of my own.
The explanation which I have given, will,
I li ust, sufficient to show that there could
have been no impropriety in staling, at any
iime, the instructions of the 15th of April,
1813, ns furnishing an objection, at least dur
ing the first day of November, to a propo
sition to revive nr continue to Great Britain
a right to the free navigation of the Missis
ippi—a river within our exclusive jurisdic
tion. As this was the only topic, in the pa
per left at the Department ol State, which
as not in the letter received from I’aris,
which could, by the must sickly imagination,
be straned into an attack upon others, 1
shall take but little notice of tlie remaiks of
Mr. Adams in relation to the remainder of
that paper.
The opinion which I there suggested, eon
earning the cause of the rejection of our pro
position, by the Brili'h ministers, was ail
opinion formed soon alter that event, and 1
mentioned it to several persons, particularly
to the American minister at Paris, al or n-
bnut tlie time my letter was written at that
place. A “trust in God and the valor of the
west” for the disappointment ofour enemies,
was naturally' suggested, at the time, by a
pious and patriotic confidence in those who
were able and might be willing, to defend
us, and certainly had nothing in it of prophe
cy. It was evedcntly more wise to place
a trust there than, instinctively, in the fish
of the East, which were swimming in Brit
ish waters. Nor was there any semblanci
of prediction of the treaty of 1818, in a be
lief that the fishing privilege might thereaf
ter he obtained, by negotiation, “without
any extravagant equivalent whatever,” as
that belief was not only suggested hy the
nature of the case, but authorized hy the ex
plicit offer made hy the British ministers,
on the llHh of December, 1814, thus to ne
gotiate and to grant that privilege in consid
eraliou of a fair equivalent. By tlie mea
sure of Mr, Adams, no extravigant equivalent
is precisely equal to no equivalent at all.
As to the sentiment which 1 expressed in
favor of the fishermen immediately interest
ed in that privilege, it is a sentiment always
and every where felt hy me, and could not
be expressed out of time or place,
Thus much for the important differences
between the private lelier received from
Paris, and tile paper left at Ihe Department
of State, which have afforded such an am
ide field to Mr. Adams for the desplay of
the enviable attributes of his head and
heart.
I shall now make a few brief observations
on the principal charges which he exhibits
against me, of inconsistency and misrepre
sentation.
The principle, that the treaty of 1783 w as
not, on account of its peculiar character,
abrogated by the w ar, Mr. Adams not only
rc-asserts but alleges to have obtained,
when fust suggested hy him at Client, the
unanimous assent of the American mission.
The proof of this allegation appears to he
inferred from the signature, hy all that mis
sion, of n note to Ihe British minister!; of
the 10th of November, in whic h that princi
ple was partially adopted. It has already’
been seen, even from the avowal of Mr.
Adams himself, that the paragraph offered
hy Mr. Clay, admitting that-doctrine, was a
substitute to a proposition which the minori
ty had opposed. To adopt, partially, in Ihe
spirit of compromise, a doctrine, as a pretext
to preserve the fishing privilege and to get
rid of a proposition congrtnative of the Brit
ish light to the navigation of the Mississip
pi, cannot fairly he considered as an unani
mous acknowledgment, hy the American
mission, of the orthodoxy of ! hat doctrine.
The constitution of the United States was,
avowedly, the result of compromise, and
thence some, at least, of those who signed
that instrument, must necessarily have soli
scribed to provisions which they did not
desire, and to opinions which they did not
approve. The inference of Mr. Adams is,
therefore, not correct. I do not recollect,
indeed, that any member of the mission, ex
cepting Mr. Adams himself, appeared to he
■1 very zealous believer in that doctrine.
Even Mr. Gallatin, in his separate letter of
the 25th of December, 1814, (c) speaks un-
(c) Extract of a letter from Albert Gallatin. Esq
to the Secretary of State, dated 20th liectmber,
1814.
“ On the subject of (lie fisheries, within the
. , jurisdiction of Great Britain, we have certainly
the 1st of December, was not, in my opin-1 done all that could be done. If, according to
ion, authorised by the status av. 1 .: helium. I 1 the tor/.ructi<:n 0/ the treaty cl 1783, w hich we
mission making it. The protocol of the 1st
of December stated that the pioposal in
question had been offered by the American
mission, and the note of the 14lh of that
month simply recognized that fact. Neitin r
that protocol ot that note intimat. d that
this proposal had been unanimously off, ird
by the American ri.i-sion. Tile majority
who were competent befpre the 1O1I1 No
vember, to determine on making that pro
posal, were equally competent to main it
on the 1st of December, and to say, on this
Nth of that month, that they had made it,
and that “ to it they had no objection, and
assumed, the right was not abrogated by the
war, it remains entire, since We most explicit
ly refused to renounce li, either directly or
directly. In trial vase it is only an unsettled
s ■ * hj e ■ l ol diilervnre between tin 1 wo countries.
If the r ght be considered ,,s nbgrogalcci by the
uar, vve cannot regain it without an equivalent.
\\ e hud none to give but the recognition of llieir
l ight 10 iiueiputi the -M ncissipj.., and we ofle-eil
it. O11 thi- last supposition, tins right is also
lost to them; and, in a general point of view,
we certainly Iture tost nothing:'
(d) / ,rtractfe.nn a dnpettth from the American
TUmpyt, nt writs to the Secretory if Slide, tlul.
ed Ghent, g&th of Dtctmber 1.-, 14.
“ At the fust conference, on the full of August
the Butisli plenipotentiaries iiad notified' 1
that the British government did not intend,'
henceforth, to allow the people otthc U. r-t.il. s,
without an iqiurutent, the Idle ties to i sh, und
to dry and cure li-h within the exclusive British
jnrisdic tion, slip luted in tln-ii luvor by ihe lat
ter part ol tii,- li,,, ,J ai tn le or tin* treaty ofpeaco
ot 17rs 3. And in the note of Uie 19tli ol August,
tlie British plenipotentiaries Imd ucn aruler. a
ntie stipulation to serine to Brili-lisr bjecls tin;
rigid 01 navigating (lie Mississippi, a demand,
which, unless warrunttilby auotlur article ot tin;
same treaty ot 1783, w eco 1,1 no per* civ e tact
Great Britain Imd nny redo uble pretext for
making. Our iosiructioi s hail Jorbiiluen in tt>
suffer our right to theJh: : n s to be biouglit into
discussion und hud nut authorised 1 sto make a-
ny distinction in the several provisions 01 tire
third article of the treaty of 1783, 01 between
that article and any otlie ‘ ot tlie same treaty.—-
We had 0 equivalent to offer for unto recogni.
turn of 0111 right to any port ol tire fisheries, and
vve had no power to gran any tqmrnte.t, wl.ii h
might be a-keU lor it by the British gov'eminent.
\\e contended that the whole treaty of irt>3
must be eon- .d ed a- one enure an t permanent
romp,ict, i.ot liable, like ordinary treaiies, to bo
abrogated by a subsequent war between tiie
parties to it, as 1111 in t imicnt recognizing tlie
rights and liberties enjoyed by the pco| le ol tm;
touted Stairs to au independent nation, and
containing the terms and cm,dll.011s no winch
the two parts oi one empire ; *-l mutually u-
greed, thenceforth, in constitute iwo di-tinct and
Separate nations. In contenting, by Hud treaty,
that 11 part oj the. Aortli Amerwun continent
should remain subject to tire British jurisdicti
on, toe people of the Lniled s’r is Imd ns reed
to themselves the liberty, which tin y had ever
before enjoyed, of fishing tin tlint part of tl.fl
coa t, anil ot drying mid curing fish upon the
shotps—and bus reservation hail been agiecd to
by the other contracting parly. We saw not
vv h) tins I belly, then no ncu grunt, lint a merd
rt cogue inn if 11 prior right, should be iurtr did
by wu', nny more than in y other of (he tights
of our national independence—nr why wo
slumlil tu i',l a new stipulation for its e. joj ir.ent
more than we need a new article to derla e
that the king oj Great Britain treated with us ps
free, son reign, null independent stales. H e stat
ed tliis principle, in general terras, to the British
plenipotentiaries, in nut*; which We sent to
tliein with our project of the treaty-—and we al
leged it as the ground upon whir li no new >li—
piilutiun was denned by our g> ren.ment neccs—
-ary to scenic to the people ol the li.Mates all
tiie l ights and liberties, stipulated in llwir favor
by the treaty of 1783. No reply to that part of
our note was given by the British I'lenipotenti-
aries—bat, in returning our project eta treaty,,
they edded a clause to one of the arli, les stipu
lating for u right for British subjet Is to nnv i .rute
the Mississippi, vv ithont adverting to Ihe ground
of prior unit immnnvrial usage, ij the principle
were just, that the treaty of 1783, from its peril,
liar character, remained in force in all its parts,
notwithstanding the war, no new stipulation
was ncres.-ary 10 secure lo the s bjcctsof tin at
B it am the l ight ol navigating thi- Missi-sippi ua
far us thut right was secured by the treaty of
1783—us. on the other hand, no m w -tipurali-
on wasnece- ft y to secure to the people ot the
United Mates the liberty to lisli and to dry and
cure fish, within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Great Britain. If they asked the navigation of
the Missis-ippi, ns a inw claim, (hey could not
espect we should trio.t it without tin equivalent
—ii they a. hed it because it had been granted
in 1783, lliey must recognize the claim of the
people ol the l nited States to the liberty tu fish
und lo dry and cure lisli in question.
“ '10 place both points beyond all future eon-
Irocersy, a majoRU y or cs detirmuu.l to offer to
admit an arii'le confi.trnng both rights “