91 



selves and their motives for making that proposal, than Mr. Rus 

 sell could be called upon to justify himself for merely having been 

 in the minority upon the question whether an article should be pro 

 posed, which he did actually concur in proposing, and which the 

 adverse party had not thought worth accepting. 



The writer of these remarks is not authorized to speak for his 

 colleagues of th majority ; one of whom is now alike beyond the 

 reach of censure and panegyrick ; and the other, well able, when 

 he shall meet this disclosure, to defend himself. But he believes 

 of them what he affirms of himself, that had they entertained of the 

 projected article, and of the argument maintained by the mission, 

 ihe sentiments avowed in either of the variations of Mr. Russell s 

 letter from Paris, no consideration would have induced them to con 

 cur in proposing it, or to subscribe their names to a paper declar 

 ing that they had no objection to it. 



Still less, if possible, would they have thought it reconcileable 

 with their duty to their country, had they entertained those senti 

 ments, to have subscribed, on the 25th of December, 1814, the 

 joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, already com 

 municated to Congress, and on the same day to have written the 

 separate and secret letter, fore-announcing that of llth of Februa 

 ry, 1815, from Paris. 



Besides the memorable variation between the original and du 

 plicate of the letter of llth February, 1815, which has been exhi 

 bited in parallel passages extracted from them, there are others not 

 less remarkable. In the course of the duplicate, the total and un 

 qualified abandonment of the rights of the poor fishermen, is com 

 pensated by an eloquent panegyric upon their usefulness to the 

 country, their hardy industry, their magnanimous enterprise, and 

 their patriotic self-devotion. Little of this appears in the original ; 

 and that little, in the after-thought of a postscript. Towards the 

 close of the duplicate, the spirit of prophecy takes possession of the 

 writer. By his * trust in God, and in the ralour of the West,&quot; he 

 foresees the victory of General Jackson at New-Orleans. He fore 

 sees the convention between the United States and Great Britain, 

 of October, 1818. In the original there is no prophecy no &quot; trust 

 in God, and in the valour of the West.&quot; 



With all these varieties the two copies of the letter form an ela 

 borate and deeply meditated dissertation to prove : 



1. That the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 

 of 1783, the treaty which upon its face is a treaty of independ 

 ence, a treaty of boundaries, a treaty of partition, as well as a 

 treaty of peace was, in his estimation, all his signatures at 

 Ghent to the contrary notwithstanding, a mere treaty of peace, 

 totally abrogatevi by the war of 1812. 



2. That the same treaty, was a treaty sui generis, consisting of 

 two parts ; one, of rights appertaining to sovereignty and in 

 dependence ; and the other, of special grants and privileges ; 

 of which the former were permanent, and the latter abrogated 

 by tke war. 



