DUPLICATE.] 77 



but, certainly, the majority believed 03) themselves ta be permitted, 

 their own construction to the contrary notwithstanding, to offer a Very expli 

 cit proposition, with regard to the navigation of its principal 



(104) river ; now, this offer I considered, for the reasons just suggested, not to 

 he a violation of the instructions in question, but I considered it to be against 

 both the letter and the spirit of our instructions of the l5th of April, 1813. By 

 these instructions we were explicitly and implicitly directed &quot;to avoid any 

 stipulation which might restrain the United States from excluding the British 

 traders from the navigation of the lakes and rivers, exclusively within our own 

 jurisdiction.&quot; This instruction applied with the greater force to the Mississippi, 

 because, as it is believed, it was the only river to which it could apply. 



While I believed, therefore, that we were permitted to offer a proposition, re 

 lative to the fishing liberty ; and that, in treating concerning this liberty, or in 

 discussing our claim to it, we in no way violated our instructions, nor affected 

 the &quot;enoral rights which we were forbidden to bring into discussion; I did be 

 lieve, and do still believe, that we were expressly and unequivocally forbidden 

 to offer or to renew a stipulation tor me free navigation, by the British, of the 

 Mississippi, a river within our exclusive jurisdiction. 



Considering, therefore, the felling liberty to be entirely at an. 

 end, without a new stipulation for its revival ; and believing that 

 we were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such a 

 stipulation, I did not object to the article proposed by us, because 

 any article on the subject was unnecessary, or contrary to our in 

 structions, but 1 objected specially to that article, because, by con 

 ceding (105) in it, to Great Britain, the free navigation of the Mississippi, 

 (106) we not only directly violated our instructions, but we offered, in my esti 

 mation, a price mut-.h above its value, and which could not justly be given. 



In no view of the subject, could I discover any (107) analogy 01 

 relation beetweeu the two objects ; and the only reason for connecting 

 them, and making them mutual equivalents for each other, appeared 

 to be, because they were both found in the treaty of 1783. If that 

 treaty was abrogated by the war, as I consider it to have been, any 

 connection between its parts must have ceased, and the liberty of 

 navigating the Mississippi, by British subjects, must, at least, be 

 completely at an end; for it will not, I trust, be attempted to con 

 tinue it by a UQ& prescriptive title, or to consider in as a (108) reserva 

 tion made by the United States from any grant of sovereignty, which, 

 at the treaty of peace, they accorded to Great Britain. If, indeed, 

 it were such a reservation, it must have been intended for (110) our 

 benefit, and of (111) course, no equivalent for the fishing (112, privilege, 

 likewise for our benefit. If it is considered as a reservation made by 

 Great Britain, it will reverse (113) all the facts assumed by us ia re 

 lation to that privilege. 



The -114) third article of the treaty of 1783, respecting the fish- 

 eries, and the ( -H5&amp;gt; eighth of that treaty, respecting the Mississippi, 

 had not the slightest reference to each other, and were placed as 

 remote, the one from the other, as the limits of that treaty could 

 well admit ; whatever, therefore, (116- might have been the cause of 

 inserting the fishing liberty, whether it was a voluntary and gratui 

 tous grant on the part of Great Britain, or extorted from her as a 

 condition, on which the peace depended, it could have had no re 

 lation H7) with the free navigation of the Mississippi. Besides,, the 



10 



