tented and grateful for the satisfaction of our common country with the general result of our services, I had no private interests or feelings to indulge, at the expense of others, and my earnest desire would have been, to have seen in every member of the mission, for the rest of my days, no other than a friend and a brother. Disappointed in this wish, my next hope is, that even the discords of Ghent may be turned to the promotion of future harmony in the Union. From the nature of our federative constitution, it is probable that hereafter, as heretofore, the most important negotiations with foreign powers will be committed to joint missions of several members. To every such mission and to all its members the Ghent negotiation will afford instructive lessons, as well by its union as by its divisions. The conduct of Mr. Russell will afford a negative instruction of deep import. It will teach them to beware of leaguing invidious and imaginary sectional or party feelings with the purposes of the enemy, against our rights-of assuming the argument of the enemy against ourselves-of proclaiming, without necessity, differences of opinion upon rejected propositions--of secret denunciations in the shape of self-vindication--of crude and shallow dissertations against essential interests and just claims, and of interpolating public papers to adapt them to the purposes of the moment. It will teach them to have a higher sense of the rights and liberties of this nation, than to believe them to be held at the will of a British king; and it will warn them to turn their talents to better uses than that of sacrificing the essential interests of their country. These are public concerns of great moment, and a just understanding of them in every part of the Union is indissolubly connected with a just estimate of the conduct of the majority of the Ghent mission, held forth to public censure by one of their colleagues. For a view of the whole ground it will be indispensable to compare the documents of the negotiation with the references of both parties to them in the discussion, and to that end it will be necessary that they should all be included in one publication. I ask of the candour of my countrymen to be assured, that this publication will be addressed to no temporary purposes, to no party feeling, to no sectional passions, but to the whole nation and to posterity, upon objects which, although implicating immediately only the conduct of the negotiators at Ghent, are of deep and permanent interest to themselves. August 5, 1822. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. FURTHER STRICTURES ON MR. RUSSELL'S REPRESENTATIONS AND ESTIMATES. I. Navigation of the Mississippi-Worthless to the British. In the joint despatch of the 25th of December, 1814, to the Secretary of State, signed by all the members of the American mission at Ghent, a narrative was given of the circumstances, under which the proposal had been made to the British plenipotentiaries and rejected by them, of a stipulation, confirming the provisions of the treaty of 1783, in regard to the fishing rights and liberties of the people of the United States, and to the right of the British to navigate the Mississippi. It was there stated, that after the American mission, in answer to the notification from the British, that their government did not intend to grant anew the fishing liberties, had asserted the principle, that from the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, and the nature of those rights and liberties, no further stipulation had been deemed necessary by the government of the United States, to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them; after they had sent to the British plenipotentiaries, on the 10th of November, 1814, a project of a treaty, containing no article or stipulation on the subject; after the British plenipotentiaries had, on the 26th of November, returned that project with alterations proposed by them, one of which was a stipulation that British subjects should at all times, have access to the river Mississippi and the free navigation of the river--to meet this demand, and to place both points beyond all future controversy, a majority of the mission determined to offer to admit an article confirming both rights. Nothing can be more clear and explicit than this statement that the determination of the majority was taken after the 26th of November, 1814. Yet directly in the face of it, Mr. Russell, in the Boston Statesman of 27 June, affirms that at the mission meetings of the 28th and 29th of November, "whatever might have been "said in relation to the Mississippi, on account of the alteration, respecting it, made in the 8th article of our project, by the Bri"tish plenipotentiaries, no new resolution was there taken by the "American mission to offer the navigation of that river for the fishing privilege. This offer was made on the 1st of December, in vir"tue of the vote taken before the 10th of November, and which, "although suspended, had not been reconsidered or cancelled." And he adds, "I am the more confident in this statement, as I dis'tinctly remember that when that offer was actually made, it was unexpected by A MAJORITY OF THE MISSION. Mr. Bayard, in re"turning home from the house of the British ministers, where the "conference of the 1st of December had been holden, very explicitly declared to Mr. Clay and to me, his dissatisfaction that this "offer had been made without his having been recently consulted in "relation to it. I dare, in regard to these facts, to appeal to the recollection of Mr. Clay, in confirmation of my own," 66 Marvellous indeed! So then this wonder-working and terrible proposal, this portentous sacrifice of the peace, comfort, and safety of the western world, was actually made in full conference with the British plenipotentiaries, not by a majority, but by a MINORITY, of the American mission. And Mr. Bayard, who had changed his mind, stood by, and saw the proposal made, heard it discussed, saw it entered on the protocol as the proposal of the American plenipotentiaries, and afterwards signed a letter declaring he had no objection to it; while all the time he was not for, but against it. And Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell, who from before the 10th of November had known the change of Mr. Bayard's mind, they too, witnessed this insolent usurpation, by the minority, of the name and rights of the whole mission, without daring to avow an objection to it either in the presence of, or in correspondence with, the British plenipotentiaries, or in the meetings of the mission itself. Mr. Bayard contents himself with whispering his dissatisfaction to Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell; and they, instead of vindicating the insulted rights of the majority, reserve it as a secret, which Mr. Russell, seven years after the death of Mr. Bayard, divulges to the world. The anecdote is an outrage on the memory of Mr. Bayard. Mr. Clay will not respond affirmatively to the appeal of Mr. Russell. I have no occasion for appealing in this case to the recollection of any one. I speak not only from the express and positive testimony of the joint despatch of 25 December, 1814, but from the record of a private diary, kept by me at the time, in which are minuted from day to day, with all the accuracy and detail in my power, the proceedings as well of the mission, as of both missions in their conferences and I now affirm, that on the 28th of November, 1814, after a discussion of more than five hours, in which every member of the mission, except Mr. Russell, took part, a vote was taken upon the proposal of Mr. Gallatin, to accept the proposed alteration of the 8th article of the project, presented by the British plenipotentiaries, relating to the navigation of the Mississippi, adding to it a counter stipulation for securing the fishing liberties within exclusive British jurisdiction; that a majority of the mission voted for this proposal, and that Mr. Gallatin should prepare for consideration the next day, an amendment to the 8th article conformably ;-that on the 29th of November Mr. Gallatin did produce this amendment, which, after another long discussion, was agreed to, and was the same offered to the British plenipotentiaries, as appears by the protocol of the 1st of December, 1814. It was to this vote of the majority, and to this alone, that the joint despatch of 25 December, 1814, referred; and it was to this vote, thus stated upon the face of the despatch, that Mr. Russell referred in his separate letter of the same date, when he said that he had been on that occasion in the minority. Yet it was not without reason that in my former remarks upon his letters I said, he gave, it may be, a silent vote against the proposal: for, from the minutes in my diary, although I know that a vote was taken, and that there was a majority in favour of the proposal, yet it does not appear that Mr. Russell voted against it; and from an observation made at the time by Mr. Gallatin, to which Mr. Russell expressed no dissent, I should now rather conclude that he did not on that day vote at all. It was not unusual when a vote was taken, as soon as a majority was ascertained, to omit calling for the vote of the fifth member; and Mr. Russell was not unwilling to avail himself of these opportunities to avoid voting at all. However that fact may be, I repeat that he took no part in the discussion, and that after the vote was taken, it was Mr. Gallatin's impression, which he expressed in Mr. Russell's presence without being contradicted by him, that he was then in favour of the proposal. The proposition to which Mr. Russell says he objected, [he should have said, against which he voted,] before the 10th of November, was not substantially that first offered on the 1st of December; nor was the latter offered in virtue of the vote taken before the 10th of November. The joint despatch of 25th December, says not one word of the vote taken before the 10th of November: nor had Mr. Russell's separate letter of 25th December, any reference to it whatever. His subsequent letters have indeed attempted to confound them together, for the purpose of urging against the proposition which was made, the arguments, some of which had been used by Mr. Clay, against that which was not made. But these are all corrections made to suit present purposes. By comparing together the article upon which the vote was taken before the 10th of November, (I shall soon say when) as Mr. Russell has published it in the Boston Statesman, and the proposal actually made as appears in the protocol of 1st December, it will immediately be perceived, that they are essentially different; and that the latter could not have been offered as the act of the American mission, by virtue of the vote taken upou the former. The history of the vote taken before the 10th of November is as follows: On the 29th of October, 1814, it was agreed at a meeting of the mission, that a draught of a project of a treaty should be made, to be discussed by the mission, and, as might be after such discussion settled by them, presented to the British plenipotentiaries. The task of making this draught was assigned to Mr Gallatin and me. Mr. Gallatin engaged to draw up the articles respecting the boundaries and Indians, and I undertook to prepare those respecting impressment, blockade, and indemnities. At a meeting of the mission the next day, the draughts of the articles were produced; and among those offered by Mr. Gallatin was the article cited by Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman of 27th June last. As it was finally set aside, I have no copy of it; but have no reason to doubt that was in the words cited by Mr. Russell. At this meeting, Mr. Clay objected to it. Mr. Russell was not present. The article was discussed further, chiefly between Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Clay, at meetings of the mission on the 31st of October, and on the 1st, 2d, and 3d of November. I had till then taken no part in the discussion. The following are extracts from my diary of subsequent dates, when, at meetings of the mission, all the articles of the draught were discussed. 66 4 November, 1814. "The great difficulty was with regard to "the fisheries. Mr. Gallatin's draught proposed the renewal of the "right of fishing and drying fish within the British jurisdiction, to "gether with the right of the British to navigate the Mississippi, "both taken from the peace of 1783. I was in favour of this. Mr. "Clay has an insuperable objection to the renewal of the right to "the British of navigating the Mississippi. I then declared myself "prepared either to propose Mr. Gallatin's article, or to take the ground, that the whole right to the fisheries was recognised as a part of our national independence; that it could not be abrogated by the war, and needed no stipulation for its renewal. Mr. Clay was averse to either of the courses proposed, and said that after "all if the British plenipotentaries should insist upon this point, we "should all finally sign the treaty without the provision respect"ing the fishery. Mr. Russell expressed some doubt whether he "would sign without it; and I explicitly declared that I would not, "without further instructions-I could not say that I would, with "them." 66 66 66 5 November, 1814. "The article concerning the fisheries and "the navigation of the Mississippi as drawn by Mr. Gallatin was "further debated, and the vote taken upon it. Mr. Clay and Mr. "Russell voted against it-Mr. Bayard, Mr. Gallatin, and myself "for proposing it. After the vote was taken, Mr. Clay said that "he should not sign the communication by which the proposal "would be made." 7 November, 1814. "Mr. Clay proposed a paragraph for the "note to be sent to the British plenipotentiaries, as a substitute in"stead of the article respecting the fisheries and the navigation of "the Mississippi, which had passed by vote on Saturday. Mr. "Clay said, that in declaring at that time that he should not sign "the note accompanying the project, if it included Mr. Gallatin's "article. he had not intended that it should in any manner affect "the minds of any of us. If the article should be proposed and accepted, and a treaty otherwise not exceptionable should be "obtainable he might perhaps ultimately accede to it; but the "object was in his view so important, that he could not reconcile "it to himself to agree in making the proposal. His proposed pa"ragraph took the ground which I had originally suggested that all "the fishery rights formed a part of the recognition of our Independence, and as such, were by our instructions excluded from "discussion. I said I should have preferred the proposal of Mr. "Gallatin's article, as placing the subject out of controversy; but "that as we could not be unanimous for that, I was willing to take t |