ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. GARTER, ESQ. 121 



the correspondence, because tlie United States Government had taken 

 the attitude in the course of the correspondence that it would not 

 recognize any further establishments of European powers on the ISorth 

 AmcTican continent— a suggestion of a doctrine subsequently known 

 among statesmen as the JNlonroe doctrine. Mr. Monroe was then Pres- 

 ident of the United States. In consequence of that suggestion Great 

 Britain withdrew from her joint action with the United States in the 

 negotiation, but as I ratherassume, and as I think is very natural and 

 indeed evident, kept herself api)rised of the course of the negotiations 

 between Kussia and the United States. 



The President. Was there a formal declaration that they would 

 cease acting jointly! 



Mr. Carter. There was a formal declaration that they would cease 

 acting jointly. I cannot now point to the particular letter; but that 

 is the fact. 



The President. And the motive given was the doctrine of President 

 Monroe"? 



Mr. Carter. I am not able to say that was the reason given in the 

 statement, but that I think was the fact. I may possibly be able here- 

 after to answer the question of the President. I cannot lay my hand 

 at present upon the correspondence showing the grounds upon which 

 Great Britain withdrew her participation. 



The President. Perhaps it is not material to your argument. 



Mr. Carter. Here is a note that perhaps throws light upon it. 

 This is an extract from a letter from Mr. Kush, the American Minister 

 in London to his own Government dated January 9, 1824. I read from 

 the American State Papers, volume 5, p. 403. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. Probably what you are looking for is on page 

 48 of volume 2 of the British Case, a letter from Mr. Canning to Sir 

 Charles Bagot. There is some allusion there to it. 



Mr. Carter. I will read this letter to which I refer: 



Extract of a letter from Mr. Bush, dated London, January 9, 1824. 



I have heretofore written to you on the 6th and 22nd of December, and have now 

 to inform you that from interviews which I have had with Mr. Canning since the 

 present mouth set in, I lind that he will decline sending instructions to Sir Charles 

 Bagot to proceed jointly with our Government and that of Russia in the negotiation 

 relative to the Northwest coast of America; but that he will be merely informed 

 that it is now the intention of Great Britain to proceed separately. 



Mr. Canning intimated to me that to proceed separately was the original intention 

 of this Government, to which elfect Sir Charles Bagot had been instructed, and never 

 to any other; and that Sir Charles had only paused under your suggestions to him 

 of its beiug the desire of our Government that the three powers Should move in 

 concert at St. Petersburg upon this subject. 



The resumption of its original course by this Government has arisen chiefly from 

 the principle which our Government has adopted, of not considering the American 

 continents as subjects for future colonization by any of the European powers — a 

 principle to which Great Britian does not accede. 



I have informed the Secretary of State of the above intention of this Government. 

 It will produce no alteration in my endeavors to obtain in negotiation here a settle- 

 ment of the points as between the United States and Great Britain, respecting the 

 Northwest coast, in manner as my instructions lay. them down to me. 



And Mr. Canning's version of the same affair will be fonnd in the 

 place just indicated by Mr. Justice Harlan. Mr. Canning says in a 

 note to Sir Charles Bagot: 



These reasons had induced us to hesitate very much as to the expediency of 

 acceding to the projiosition of the United States for a common negotiation between 

 the three Powers; when the arrival of the Speech of the President of the United 



