fence of which it was advanced, and pin all their claims of superior service upon their ineffectual opposition to a proposal which they did actually concur in making, and which failed, not in consequence of their objections, but because the enemy disdained to accept it. If by the sturdiness of their adherence to their opinions, they had prevented the proposal from being made, there might have been some semblance of a claim to credit from those who tremble at the sight of an Englishman afloat upon the Mississippi. If the enemy had eagerly snatched at the offer, and British emissaries, British smugglers, and Indian wars, had swarmed upon us, in consequence, the minority might have had some apology, for disengaging their responsibility to the act, and casting upon their colleagues of the majority all its evil report. But so far as the proposal could possibly have operated mischief, they are answerable for it by their concurrence. So far as the immediate rejection of the proposal by a clear-sighted enemy, can test its possible consequences, the event affords as little cause for the minority to glory in their foresight, as their assent to what they thought so pernicious, gives them reason to be proud of their firmness. A loud call upon the nation to discriminate between the profound wisdom and comprehensive patriotism of the minority, and the dulness, absurdity, and contracted spirit, or treachery, of the majority, could scarcely rest on weaker grounds, than upon the aversion of the minority to principles which they nevertheless did sanction; and upon their arguments against measures to which they did subscribe their names. The majority have asked for no discrimination. As one of them, I have as little desire to conceal, as to proclaim, my separate agency in the transactions of the mission, or my vote upon any measure discussed by them. I ask, only, not to be misrepresented.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS:

21st September, 1822,

CORRESPONDENCE WHICH LED TO THE TREATY OF

GHENT.

Extract from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. JANUARY 16, 1822.

Mr. Floyd submitted the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the Treaty of Ghent, which has not yet been made public, and which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose.

The said resolution was read and ordered to lie on the table one day.

JANUARY 17, 1822.

On motion of Mr. Floyd,

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him yesterday, and the same being again read, and modified to read as follows:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the Treaty of Ghent, together with the Protocol, which has not yet been made public.

Mr. Lowndes moved to amend the same, by subjoining the following, viz: "And which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose."

And the question being taken thereon, it passed in the affirmative.

The said resolution, modified and amended as aforesaid, was then agreed to by the House; and Mr. Floyd and Mr. Walworth were appointed a committee to present the same to the President of the United States.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, a Report from the Secretary of State, with the Documents accompanying it, in pursuance of a resolution of the House of the 17th of January last. JAMES MONROE.

Washington, 21st February, 1822.

Department of State,

Washington, 21st Feb. 1822,

The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th January, requesting the President of the United States to cause to be laid before the House all the correspondence which led to the Treaty of Ghent, together with the Protocol, which has not been made public, and which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose, has the honour to submit to the President the papers embraced by that resolution.

The President of the United States.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

American Note No. 6, in answer to British Note No. 6.

Ghent, November 10, 1814. The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt. of the note addressed to them by His Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiaries, on the 31st ultimo.

The undersigned had considered an interchange of the project of a treaty as the course best calculated to exclude useless and desultory discussion, to confine the attention of both parties to the precise object to be adjusted between the two nations, and to hasten the conclusion of the peace so desirable to both. Finding, in the note of the British plenipotentiaries of the [21st] ultimo, a mere reference to the points proposed by them in the first conference, with the offer of assuming the basis of uti possidetis, on which the undersigned had in substance already declined to treat; they did not consider it as the project of a treaty presented in compliance with their request. They proposed, in their note of the 24th ultimo, that the exchange of the two projects should be made at the same time. And it is not without some surprise, that the undersigned observe, in the note to which they now have the honour of replying, that the British plenipotentiaries consider their note as containing the project of a treaty, to which the undersigned are supposed to be pledged to return a counter-project.

Believing that where both parties are sincerely desirous of bringing a negotiation to a happy termination, the advantage of giving or of receiving the first draft is not of a magnitude to be made a subject of controversy, and convinced that their government is too sincerely desirous of that auspicious result to approve of its being delayed for a moment upon any question of etiquette, the undersigned have the honour to enclose herewith the project of a treaty, accompanied with some observations upon several of the articles, which may more fully elucidate their object in proposing them.

The British plenipotentiaries stated, in their last note, that they had no other propositions to offer, nor other demands to make, than those contained in their note of the 21st ultimo, which, with the reference to their former declaration respecting the fisheries, contains only two propositions, viz: that of fixing the boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi; and that of adopting, with respect to the other boundaries, the basis of uti possidetis. *[In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipotentiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state that they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the rights or liberties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed in relation

*Paragraph drawn by Mr. Clay, and inserted at his proposal.

thereto. From their nature, and from the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no further stipulation has been deemed necessary by the government of the United States, to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them.] The undersigned have aready, in their last note, explicitly declined treating on the basis of uti possidetis. They cannot agree to any other principle than that of mutual restoration of territory, and have accordingly prepared an article founded off that basis. They are willing even to extend the same principle to the other objects in dispute between the two nations; and in proposing all the other articles included in this project, they wish to be distinctly understood, that they are ready to sign a treaty, placing the two countries, in respect to all the subjects of difference between them, in the same state they were in at the commencement of the present war; reserving to each party all its rights, and leaving whatever may remain of controversy between them, for future and pacific negotiation.

The British plenipotentiaries having, in their note of the 4th of September, communicated the disposition of their government to receive favourably a proposition which should acknowledge the boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, or to discuss any other line of boundary which might be submitted for consideration, the undersigned answered, that as soon as the proposition of Indian boundary should be disposed of, they would have no objection, with the explanation given by the British plenipotentiaries, to discuss the subject.

The government of the United States had, prior to the acquisition of Louisiana, been disposed to agree to the boundary, from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, from a wish not only to arrange that subject, but also to settle, in a definitive manner, the differences respecting the boundary and islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy and its assent to the proposed stipulation of that boundary was refused on account of the acquisition of Louisiana, the boundaries of which might have been affected by it. The undersigned cannot agree to fix the boundaries in that quarter, unless that of Louisiana be also provided for in the arrangement. They accordingly submit for consideration the article on that subject which appears to have been agreed on between the British and American commissioners in the project of convention of the year 1807.

In respect to the intended review of the other boundaries between the British and American territories, with the view to prevent future uncertainty and dispute, the undersigned propose the reference of the whole subject to commissioners and they pre-. sent accordingly five articles, drawn on the principles formerly adopted by the two powers for settling the question respecting the river St. Croix.

The article already agreed on, respecting the Indian pacification, is included in the project of the undersigned. In conformity with

their former suggestion, they offer another, intended to restrain the hostilities, and to prevent the employment, of the savages in war, and one reciprocally granting a general amnesty.

The only other subjects which have been presented by the undersigned as suitable for discussion, were those respecting seamen, blockade, and indemnities.

Keeping in view the declaration made by lord Castlereagh, in his note of the 29th of August, 1812, to Mr. Russell, and in his letter of the 4th November, 1813, to Mr. Monroe, the undersigned propose only a temporary article, intended, without affecting the rights or pretensions of either country, to attempt to accomplish, by means less liable to vexation, the object for which impressment has hitherto been thought necessary by Great Britain. The proposed agreement being purely conditional, and limited in duration, each party will be bound only so far, and so long, as the other shall fulfil its conditions; and at the end of the term fixed for the duration of the article, or whenever either party may fail to perform his engagement, the rights of both will be as valid and entire as they were before the agreement.

The article respecting blockades is believed to be in perfect conformity with the principles of the law of nations, as acknowledged by both nations. The definition is borrowed from the treaty of 1801, between Great Britain and Russia, and the residue of the article from the unratified treaty of 1806, between Great Britain and the United States.

That relating to indemnities, consists of two parts: the first for irregular seizures, captures, and condemnations of American property, contrary to the established laws and usages of nations, previous to the commencement of the war; and the second for similar irregularities committed during the war, and contrary to the known and established usages of war, between civilized nations. The cases of the first apply exclusively to claims of the citizens of the United States, because, the causes of such claims were then confined, by the relative situation of the parties, to one side. It is presumed, that the British government will itself be sensible of the justice of making indemnity for injuries committed by its officers, in violation of principles avowed and recognised by itself; particularly in the letter from lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, of 11th April, 1801, and in that from Mr. Merry to Mr. Madison, of 12th April, 1804; and that the same justice will be admitted, in cases where the territorial jurisdiction of the United States was violated, and where the injury was occasioned by the retrospective effects of the British Orders in Council, of June, 1803, as to the return from the contraband voyages, and of the Orders in Council of January 7, 1807.

With regard to the Orders in Council, of November, 1807, and of April, 1809, the undersigned will observe, that these having been issued solely on the ground of retaliation against France, and their object having altogether ceased, it is just to indemnify the