Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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 “