64 



Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State. 

 (PRIVATE.) 



Paris, llth February, 1815. 



SIR : In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter of 

 the (1) 25th of December, I (2) now have the honour to state to you the 

 reasons which induced me to differ from a majority of my col 

 leagues on the expedienc} of offering an article confirming the 

 British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of the 

 American people to take and cure fish in certain places within the 

 British jurisdiction. 



The (3) prppnRififui ^f c lc h an articleappeared to be inconsistent 

 with our reasoning to prove its absoIuTe&quot;lnutIIitY. According to 

 thiajreasomng, no new stipulation was any more necessary ^on the 

 ^ubiecToT such an article, than anew slipUlTTttoTrfoFTlie recognition 

 of the sovereignty and independence oitne Umied States. 



The article proposed appeared also to be inconsistent with onr 

 instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5j our 

 tight to the fisheries to be brought into discussion ; for, it could not be 

 believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject which 

 we were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (&) argument, 

 and not an (9) agreement, was to be^avoided. If our construction 

 was indeed correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to show that 

 we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the interdicted dis 

 cussion. 



At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objection 

 able, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted 

 by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which 

 (10) this majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which 

 related to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in these 

 principles, and in this construction, it became us to act accordingly ; 

 if they were (11) not correct, still it was unnecessary to add inconsist 

 ency to error. 



I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majori 

 ty, pithpr in thpir VJPW nfihp treaty of 1783. whence they derived 

 their prin^ii^ ps T-Qf~o^uiLJu^trjictions ; jmd that my great objection 

 to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to reconcile 

 our conduct with our reasoning and declaration?. 



