effected at Washington, in six months from the date hereof, or sooner if possible.

In faith whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention, drawn up in two languages, and have hereunto affixed their seals.

THE undersigned Secretary of State, directing the Imperial administration of Foreign Affairs, has the honor to communicate to Mr. Middleton, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, the opinion which the Emperor, his master, has thought it his duty to express upon the object of the differences which have arisen between the United States and Great Britain, relative to the interpretation of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent.

Mr. Middleton is requested to consider this opinion as the award required of the Emperor by the two powers.

He will doubtless recollect, that he, as well as the Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, in all his memorials, has principally insisted on the grammatical sense of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, and that, even in his note of the 4th [16th] November, 1821, he has formally declared, that it was on the signification of the words in the text of the article as it now is, that the decision of His Imperial Majesty should be founded.

The same declaration being made in the note of the British Plenipotentiary, dated 8th [20th] October, 1821, the Emperor had only to conform to the wishes expressed by the two parties, by devoting all his attention to the examination of the grammatical question.

The above mentioned opinion will show the manner in which His Imperial Majesty judges of this question: and in order that the cabinet. of Washington may also know the motives upon which the Emperor's judgment is founded, the undersigned has hereto subjoined an extract of some observations upon the literal sense of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent.

In this respect, the Emperor has confined himself to following the rules of the language employed in drawing up the act, by which the two powers have required his arbitration, and defined the object of their difference.

His Imperial Majesty has thought it his duty, exclusively, to obey the authority of these rules, and his opinion could not but be the rigorous and necessary consequence thereof.

The undersigned eagerly embraces this occasion to renew to Mr Middleton the assurances of his most distinguished consideration.

St. Petersburg, 22d April, 1822.

NESSELRODE.

Washington dans l'espace de six mois, de la date ci-dessous, ou plutôt s'il est possible.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé la présente Convention & y ont apposé respectivement le cachet de leurs

armes.

Fait triple à St. Pétersbourg, de l'année mil-huit-cent-vingt & deux.

A.

LE Soussigné, Secrétaire d'Etat dirigeant le Ministère Impérial des affaires étrangères, a l'honneur de communiquer à Monsieur de Middleton, Envoyé Extraordinaire & Ministre Plénipotentiaire des Etats Unis d'Amérique, l'opinion que l'Empereur, Son Maître, a cru devoir exprimer sur l'objet des différends qui se sont élevés entre les Etats Unis & la Grande Bretagne, relativement à l'interprêtation de l'Article premier du Traité de Gand.

Monsieur de Middleton est invité à considérer cette opinion comme la décision arbitrale demandée à l'Empereur par les deux Puissances. Il se rappellera sans doute, qu'aussi bien que le Plénipotentiaire de S. M. Britannique, il a dans tous ses mémoires principalement insisté sur le sens grammatical de l'Art. I. du Traité de Gand, & que même dans sa note du Novembre, 1821, il a formellement déclaré que c'etoit sur la signification des mots dans le texte de l'article tel qu'il existe, que devoit se fonder la décision de Sa Majesté Impériale.

La même déclaration étant consignée dans la note du Plénipotentiaire Britannique en date du Octobre, 1821, L'Empereur n'a fait que se conformer aux vœux énoncés par les deux Parties, en vouant toute son attention à l'examen de la question grammaticale.

L'opinion ci-dessus mentionnée fera connoitre la manière dont Sa Majesté Impériale juge cette question, & afin que le Cabinet de Washington connoisse également les motifs sur lesquels se fonde le jugement de L'Empereur, le Soussigné joint à la présente, un extrait de quelques observations, sur le sens littéral de l'Article premier du Traité de Gand.

Sous ce rapport, L'Empereur s'est borné à suivre les règles de la langue employée dans la rédaction de l'acte, par lequel les deux Puissances ont réclamé son arbitrage, & défini l'objet de leur différend.

C'est uniquement à l'autorité de ces règles, que Sa Majesté Impériale a cru devoir obéir & Son Avis ne pouvoit qu'en être la conséquence rigoureuse & nécessaire.

Le Soussigné saisit avec empressement cette occasion, pour réitérer à Monsieur de Middleton les assurances de sa considération très-dis tinguée.

St. Pétersbourg, ce 22 Avril, 1822.

A Monsieur de Middleton, &c. &c.

NESSELRODE.

April 22, 1822.

A

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S AWARD.

INVITED by the United States of America and by Great Britain to give an opinion, as arbitrator in the differences which have arisen between these two powers, on the subject of the interpretation of the first article of the Treaty which they concluded at Ghent, on the 24th December, 1814, the Emperor has taken cognizance of all the acts, memorials, and notes, in which the respective plenipotentiaries have set forth to his administration of foreign affairs the arguments upon which each of the litigant parties depends in support of the interpretation given by it to the said article.

After having maturely weighed the observations exhibited on both sides:

Considering that the American plenipotentiary and the plenipotentiary of Britain have desired that the discussion should be closed;

Considering that the former, in his note of the 4th (16th) November, 1821, and the latter, in his note of the 8th (20th) October, of the same year, have declared that it is upon the construction of the text of the article as it stands, that the arbitrator's decision should be founded, and that both have appealed, only as subsidiary means, to the general principles of the law of nations and of maritime law;

The Emperor is of opinion "that the question can only be decided according to the literal and grammatical sense of the first article of the treaty of Ghent."

As to the literal and grammatical sense of the first article of the treaty of Ghent :

Considering that the period upon the signification of which doubts have arisen, is expressed as follows:

"All territory, places, and possessions, whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves, or other private property; and all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public nature, or belonging to private persons, which, in the course of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong."

Considering that, in this period, the words originally captured, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications, form an incidental phrase, which can have respect, grammatically, only to the substantives or subjects which precede;

That the first article of the treaty of Ghent thus prohibits the contracting parties from carrying away from the places of which it stipu lates the restitution, only the public property, which might have been originally captured there, and which should remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications, but that it prohibits the carrying away from. these same places, any private property whatever;

That, on the other hand, these two prohibitions are solely applicable to the places of which the article stipulates the restitution:

The Emperor is of opinion:

"That the United States of America are entitled to a just indemnifi

Al

INVITÉ par les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et par la Grande Bretagne à émettre une opinion, comme arbitre dans les différends qui se sont élevés entre ces deux Puissances, au sujet de l'interprétation de l'article premier du Traité qu'elles ont conclu à Gand, le 24 Décembre, 1814, l'Empereur a pris connoissance de tous les actes, mémoires et notes, où les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont exposé à Son Ministère des affaires étrangères, les argumens que chacune des parties en litige fait valoir à l'appui de l'interprétation qu'elle donne au dit article.

Après avoir murement pesé les observations développées de part et d'autre :

Considérant que le Plénipotentiaire Américain et le Plénipotentiaire Britannique ont demandé que la discussion fût close;

Considérant que le premier dans sa note du Novembre, 1821, et le second dans sa note du Octobre de la même année, ont déclaré, que c'est sur la construction du texte de l'article, tel qu'il existe, que la décision arbitrale doit se fonder, et que l'un et l'autre n'ont invoqué que comme moyens subsidiaires, les principes généraux de droit des gens et de droit maritime.

L'Empereur est d'avis, "que ce n'est que d'après le sens littéral et grammatical de l'article 1, du traité de Gand, que la question peut être décidée."

Quant au sens littéral et grammatical de l'article 1, du traité de Gand.

Considérant que la période sur la signification de la quelle il s'élève des doutes, est construite ainsi qu'il suit.

"Tous les territoires, lieux et possessions quelconques, pris par l'une des parties sur l'autre, durant la guerre, ou qui pourroient être pris après la signature du présent traité, à l'exception seulement des isles ci-dessous mentionnées, seront rendus sans délai et sans faire détruire ou emporter aucune partie de l'artillerie ou autre propriété publique originairement prise dans les dits forts et lieux et qui s'y trouvera au moment de l'échange des ratifications du traité ou aucuns esclaves ou autres propriétés privées. Et tous archives, registres, actes et papiers, soit d'une nature publique ou appartenans à des particuliers, qui dans le cours de la guerre peuvent être tombés entre les mains des officiers de l'une ou de l'autre partie, seront de suite, en tant qu'il sera praticable, restitués et délivrés aux autorités propres et personnes auxquelles ils appartiennent respectivement."

Considérant que dans cette période, les mots: originairement prise et qui s'y trouvera au moment de l'échange des ratifications, forment une phrase incidente, laquelle ne peut se rapporter grammaticalement qu'aux substantifs ou sujets qui précèdent.

Qu'ainsi l'article 1 du traité de Gand, ne défend aux parties contractantes d'emporter des lieux dont il stipule la restitution, que les seules oropriétés publiques qui y auroient été originairement prises et qui s'y trouveroient au moment de l'échange des ratifications, mais qu'il défend d'emporter de ces mêmes lieux, aucune propriété particulière quelconque.

Que d'un autre coté, ces deux défenses ne sont applicables qu'uniquement aux lieux dont l'article stipule la restitution.

L'Empereur est d'avis:

"Que les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, sont en droit de réclamer de la

cation, from Great Britain, for all private property carried away by the British forces; and as the question regards slaves more especially, for all such slaves as were carried away by the British forces, from the places and territories of which the restitution was stipulated by the treaty, in quitting the said places and territories.

"That the United States are entitled to consider as having been so carried away, all such slaves as may have been transported from the above mentioned territories on board of the British vessels within the waters of the said territories, and who, for this reason, have not been restored.

"But that, if there should be any American slaves who were carried away from territories, of which the first article of the treaty of Ghent has not stipulated the restitution to the United States, the United States are not to claim an indemnification for the said slaves."

The Emperor declares, besides, that he is ready to exercise the office of mediator, which has been conferred on him beforehand by the two states, in the negotiations which must ensue between them in consequence of the award which they have demanded.

Done at St. Petersburg, 22d April, 1822.

April 22, 1822.

B.

Count Nesselrode to Mr. Middleton.

The undersigned Secretary of State, directing the Imperial administration of foreign affairs, has, without delay, laid before the Emperor, his master, the explanations into which the Ambassador of His Britannic Majesty has entered with the Imperial Ministry, in consequence of the preceding confidential communication which was made to Mr. Middleton, as well as to Sir Charles Bagot, of the opinion expressed by the Emperor upon the true sense of the 1st Article of the Treaty of Ghent.

Sir Charles Bagot understands, that, in virtue of the decision of His Imperial Majesty, "His Britannic Majesty is not bound to indemnify the United States for any slaves, who, coming from places which have never been occupied by his troops, voluntarily joined the British forces, either in consequence of the encouragement which His Majesty's officers had offered them, or to free themselves from the power of their master-these slaves not having been carried away from places or territories captured by His Britannic Majesty during the war, and, consequently, not having been carried away from places of which the article stipulates the restitution."

In answer to this observation, the undersigned is charged by His Imperial Majesty to communicate what follows to the Minister of the United States of America.

The Emperor having, by the mutual consent of the two Plenipotentiaries, given an opinion, founded solely upon the sense which results from the text of the article in dispute, does not think himself called upon to decide here any question relative to what the laws of war permit or forbid to the belligerents; but, always faithful to the grammatical interpretation of the 1st Article of the Treaty of Ghent, His Imperial Majesty declares, a second time, that it appears to him according to this interpretation;

"That, in quitting the places and territories of which the Treaty of Ghent stipulates the restitution to the United States, his Britannic Majesty's forces had no right to carry away from these same places and territories, absolutely, any slave, by whatever means he had fallen or come into their power.