It was by our act that the United States renounced the right to the fisheries not guaranteed to them by the convention. That clause did not find a place in the British counter-projet. We deemed it proper under a threefold view; 1, to exclude the implication of the fisheries secured to us being a new grant; 2, to place the rights secured and renounced, on the same footing of permanence; 3, that it might expressly appear, that our renunciation was limited to three miles from the coast. This last point we deemed of the more consequence from our fishermen having informed us, that the whole fishing ground on the coast of Nova Scotia, extended to a greater distance than three miles from land; whereas, along the coasts of Labrador it was almost universally close in with the shore. To the saving of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, we did not object. The charter of that company had been granted in 1670, and the people of the United States had never enjoyed rights in that bay that could trench upon those of the company. Finally, it is to be remarked, that the liberty of drying and curing on certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, as secured in the article, had not been allotted to the United States, even under the old treaty of 1783.

119. The American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State, On concluding the Treaty of Ghent with the British Plenipotentiaries. From "The Fisheries and the Mississippi," By John Q. Adams. Extract.

Ghent, 25th December, 1814. Sir: We have the honour of transmitting, herewith, one of the three copies of the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States, signed last evening by the plenipotentiaries of his Britannic majesty and by us.➖➖➖➖➖➖

At the first conference on the 8th of August, the British plenipotentiaries had notified to us, that the British government did not intend, henceforth, to allow to the people of the United States, without an equivalent, the liberties to fish, and to dry and cure fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulated in their favour, by the latter part of the third article of the treaty of peace of 1783. And, in their note of the 19th of August, the British plenipotentiaries had demanded a new stipulation, to secure to British subjects the right of navigating the Missis sippi: a demand, which, unless warranted by another article of that same treaty of 1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any colourable pretence for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer our right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to make any distinction in the several provisions of the third article of the treaty of 1783, or between that article and any other of the same treaty. We had no equivalent to offer for a new recognition of our right to any part of the fisheries, and we had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it by the British government. We contended that that the whole treaty of 1783, must be considered as one entire and permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abrogated, by a subsequent war between the parties to it; as an instrument recognising the rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United States as an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed thenceforth to constitute two distinct and separate nations. In consenting, by that treaty, that a part of the North American continent should remain subject to the British jurisdiction, the people of the United States had reserved to

themselves the liberty, which they had ever before enjoyed, of fishing upon that part of the coasts, and of drying and curing fish upon the shores; and this reservation had been agreed to by the other contracting party. We saw not why this liberty, then no new grant, but a mere recognition of a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited by a war, any more than any other of the rights of our national independence, or why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment more than we needed a new article to declare that the king of Great Britain treated with us as free, sovereign, and independent states. We stated this principle, in general terms, to the British plenipotentiaries, in the note which we sent to them with our project of the treaty; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no new stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to the people of the United States all the rights and liberties, stipulated in their favour, by the treaty of 1783. No reply to that part of our note was given by the British plenipotentiaries; but, in returning our project of a treaty, they added a clause to one of the articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the Mississippi. Without adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial usage, if the principle were just that the treaty of 1783, from its peculiar character remained in force in all its parts, notwithstanding the war, no new stipulation was necessary to secure to the subjects of Great Britain the right of navigating the Mississippi, as far as that right was secured by the treaty of 1783; as, on the other hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the United States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish, within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. If they asked the navigation of the Mississippi as a new claim, they could not expect we should grant it without an equivalent; if they asked it because it had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim of the people of the United States to the liberty to fish and to dry and cure fish, in question. To place both points beyond all future controversy, a majority of us determined to offer to admit an article confirming both rights: or, we offered at the same time, to be silent in the treaty upon both, and to leave out altogether the article defining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They finally agreed to this last proposal, but not until they had proposed an article stipulating for a future negotiation for an equivalent to be given by Great Britain for the navigation of the Mississippi, and by the United States for the liberty as to the fisheries within the British jurisdiction. This article was unnecessary, with respect to its professed object, since both governments had it in their power, without it, to negociate upon these subjects if they pleased. We rejected it, although its adoption would have secured the boundary of the 49th degree of latitude west of the Lake of the woods, because it would have been a formal abandonment, on our part, of our claim to the liberty as to the fisheries, recognised by the treaty of 1783.

You will perceive by the correspondence, that the 9th article [relative to putting an end to Indian hostilities] was offered us as a sine qua non and an ultimatum. We accepted it, not without much hesitation, as the only alternative to a rupture of the negotiation, and with a perfect understanding that our government was free to reject it, as we were not authorized to subscribe to it. We have the honour to be &c. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, HENRY CLAY,

-J. A. BAYARD,

JONATHAN RUSSELL,

ALBERT GALLATIN.

121. The Boundary.

From Mr Rush's Residence at the Court of London.

The boundary line, from the lake of the Woods. This line had been originally laid down in the treaty of 1783. It proved defective, and further provision was made for running it, in the treaty of 1794.-Several attempts, for effecting this provision, came to nothing. The cession of Louisiana by France in 1803 gave to the United States new and extensive territory west of the Mississippi.-This altered the relative position of Great Britain and the United States in this quarter, and the hitherto unsettled boundary was now arranged.-It was provided, that a line drawn from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods along the forty ninth degree of latitude due west, should be the line of demarkation, forming the southern boundary of the British territories and the northern bonndary United States, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains. In case such a line would not run along the forty ninth degree, but fall above or below it, then the line was to be traced by first drawing one from the same point, north or south as the case might be, until it struck forty nine; from which point of intersection the western line was to begin.—Thus it was definitively settled.

An attempt was made by the British plenipotentiaries to connect with this article, [on the boundary line from the Lake in the Woods] a clause securing to Great Britain access to the Mississippi, and the right to its navigation. They made a similar claim at Ghent, but withdrew it; and we declared that we could consent to no clause of that nature. Its omission having, in the end, been agreed to, that subject was also put at rest. Britain under the treaty of 1783, had the right of navigating the Mississippi; but it was then the western boundary of the United States. Their northern boundary, by the same treaty, was to have been a line running due west from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi. It was afterwards ascertained that a line so drawn, would not strike the Mississippi; its head waters not being within British limits, as first supposed. Hence, all reason for Britain to claim the right of navigating a river which touched no part of her dominions, ceased. The United States have claimed, in a subsequent negotiation, the right of navigating the St. Lawrence, from its sources to its mouth. The essential difference in the two cases, is, that the upper waters of the St. Lawrence flow through territory belonging to both countries, and form a natural outlet to the ocean for the inhabitants of several states of the American Union." The third article effected a temporary arrangement of claims beyond the Rocky Mountains and to Columbia river.

That settlement,called Astoria,made by Americans, was broken up by the British during the war, but fell back to the United States by the treaty of Ghent, on the principle of status ante bellum. The British plenipotentiaries manifested a strong desire to connect this subject with that of the boundary line; and appeared unwilling, except under such a connexion, to agree to the line in any shape. We pro

* See Definitive treaty between France and Great Britain of 30th May, 1814, art. 5, page 147 of this volume. In the Congress of Vienna Treaties the same stipulation is contained, on the Navigation of Rivers, extending it to the Scheldt, Moselle, Meuse, Mayne, and Necker. See general arrangements for the Navigation of Rivers, at large, as agreed on, by Eight European Powers, page 181, also in this volume.

posed its extension to the Pacific ocean. The treaty of Utrecht had fixed the forty-ninth degree of latitude as the line between the possessions of Britain and France, including Louisiana, since ceded to the United States. If therefore the United States and Britain arranged their claims westward, the same line carried on to the Pacific, seemed the natural one. We contended that, as far as prior discovery could give the right to territory, ours was complete to the whole, on the waters of the Columbia. It derived its name from the American ship that first entered its mouth. It was first explored from its inland sources under the express authority of the government of the United States. The British traveller, M'Kensie, had mistaken another river for a branch of the Columbia; the American travellers, Lewis and Clarke, as was now fully ascertained, having been the first to trace the Columbia from the interior to the ocean. Astoria had, as incontestibly, been the first permanent settlement at its month.

The British plenipotentiaries asserted, that earlier voyages of English navigators, amongst them Cook's, gave to Britain the rights of prior discovery on this coast. They alleged also that purchases of territory had been made by Britain, or her subjects, from the natives south of this river, before the American revolution. They made no formal proposal of a boundary in these regions, but intimated that the river itself was the most convenient, and said they could agree to none that did not give them the harbour at its mouth, in common with the United States. To this we could not assent, but were willing to leave things west of the mountains, at large, for future settlement. To this they objected, and made in turn propositions objectionable in our eyes. Finally it was agreed, that the country on the north-west coast of America, westward of the Rocky Mountains, claimed by either nation should be open to the inhabitants of both, for ten years, for purposes of trade; with the equal right of navigating all its rivers.

I cannot leave this part of the negotiation without remarking, that the important question of territorial rights which it involves between the two nations, is still an open one; and I do not fear to record the prediction that it will be found a question full of difficulty, under whatever administration either of Great Britain or of the United States, it may hereafter be approached. It is not in the genius of either nation readily to yield what it believes itself entitled to; and however strong our own convictions of the just foundation of the whole of our claim on that coast and its interior, the convictions of Great Britain in the stable nature of her right, that interferes so materially with ours, is not less decided and unequivocal. Nor will she push it with less zeal; not more on the general ground of her maritime and commercial enterprise, which are only stopped by the limits of the globe, than on her special desire to foster the growing interests of her colonial settlements all over this continent, and those of the trading companies that issue from them.

The fourth article prolonged for ten years the existing commercial convention. By its provisions, a reciprocal liberty of commerce is established between the United States and the British dominions in Europe. Importations and exportations into or from either nation, are to be the same as permitted to other nations, and chargeable with no higher duties. The vessels of each nation, pay equal tonnage duties in each other's ports; and duties upon merchandise imported into or exported from either, are the same whether conveyed in vessels of the one nation, or the

other. Other clauses give to vessels of the United States the right of trading with the principal British settlements in the East Indies; viz. Calcutta. Madras, Bombay and Prince of Wales' Island; but it is only the direct trade between these settlements and the United States, that is opened. The vessels of the United States pursuing this trade, or going to China, may also touch for refreshments at the Cape of Good Hope, St. Helena, or other possessions of Great Britain in the African or Indian seas. These are the principal enactments of this commercial convention. It was originally negotiated in the summer of 1815, by three public men of the United States, long signalized in the home and foreign service, Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Gallatin.

121. Statement on the side of the U. States on opening the West India Trude.

From the same.

The U.States contend for a free intercourse in their vessels, with the British West India Islands, and British colonies on the continent of North America, whenever the trade, to either, is opened at all by Great Britain to their flag; else they say, that, by navigation acts of their own, they will be obliged to prohibit the trade altogether. The steady policy of England has been, to secure as large an employment as possible of her own tonnage, in carrying on her commerce with the rest of the world. Her celebrated navigation acts, commenced in Cromwell's time and adhered to in principle ever since, whatever occasional departures there may have been from them in practice, have all had this end in view. They provided, that the whole trade between England, and the continents of Asia, Africa and America, should be carried on in English ships, manned by English sailors. They also embraced regulations that placed the trade between England and the European nations, upon nearly the same footing. It was against the previous monopoly of Dutch tonnage that these navigation acts were levelled. What more natural, than that other nations should be unwilling to witness the same monopoly in the tonnage of England, that she objected to in that of the Dutch; more especially since the foreign and colonial dominions of the former have swelled to an extent that could scarcely have been conceived in the time of Cromwell? The West India Islands being part of the British empire, her right to interdict all trade between them and any foreign country, could not be denied; and was not. As a general rule, she did interdict it. But there were junctures when, to advance objects of her own, she would throw the trade open to the United States. When she did this, she confined it to her own ships, manned, as by law they must be, by their own sailors. What the United States claimed was, that, whenever the trade existed at all, it should be carried on in their vessels, manned by their sailors, as well as with the vessels and sailors of England. The trade once opened, the United States were parties to it; and thence urged their right to a voice in its regulation. This was their doctrine. It had been maintained since the days of President Washington. It contemplated no interference with the colonial rights, or monopoly, of Great Britain. It left her at full liberty to prohibit the importation into her colonies of whatever articles she thought fit, from the United States; and in like manner to prohibit exportations. It only asked, that the commercial intercourse, of whatever nature it might be, that was once opened for her benefit, or that of both countries, should be placed upon a footing of equality as to the vessels