100 



This, and nothing more or less than this, is the substance of Mr 

 Russell s argument to show, that perhaps the United States were, 

 by the acquisition of Louisiana, absolved from the obligation of the 

 eighth article of the treaty of 1783, even before the war of 1812. 



But, says Mr. Russell, the treaty of 1783 was made, under a be 

 lief of both parties, that it would leave Great Britain with a portion 

 of territory upon the Mississippi, and therefore entitled to claim the 

 right of navigating the river. But the boundary line of the treaty 

 of 1783, was a line from the northwesternmost point of the Lake of 

 the Woods, due west to the Mississippi. And after the treaty of 

 1783, but before the war of 1812, it had been found that a line due 

 west, from the northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods, did not 

 strike the Mississippi. Therefore, continues Mr. Russell, Great 

 Britain could claim no territorial right to the navigation of the ri 

 ver ; and therefore had no longer any claim to the benefit of the 

 eighth article of the treaty of 1783. 



To this it may be replied : First, that the British claim of right 

 to navigate the Mississippi, was not founded solely on the territory 

 which it was believed they would retain upon that river, by the 

 boundary west from the Lake of the Woods. The eighth article 

 of the treaty of 1783, was a separate and distinct article, stipulat 

 ing the right of both nations to navigate the river, without any re 

 ference to boundary or to territory. But the boundary, the ter 

 ritory, and the right to navigate the river, were all, in that treaty, 

 cessions from Great Britain to the United States. And, had it even 

 been the intention of both parties, that Britain should cede thewhole 

 of her territories on the Mississippi, it was yet competent to her to 

 reserve the right of navigating the river for her subjects, in common 

 with the people of the United States, and competent for the United 

 States to accept the cession, subject to that reservation. They did 

 so, by the eighth article of the treaty. And in this point of view, 

 the British right of navigating the river, within the Americnn ter 

 ritory, was precisely similar to the American liberty of fishing 

 within the British territorial jurisdiction, reserved by the third ar 

 ticle of the same treaty. 



But, secondly, the discovery that a line due west, from the north- 

 westernmost corner of the Lake of the Woods, would not strike 

 the Mississippi, had not deprived Great Britain of all claim to terri 

 tory upon that river, at the time of the negotiation at Ghent. The 

 line described in the treaty was, from the northwesternmost point 

 of the Lake of the Woods, &quot; on a due west course to the river Mis 

 sissippi.&quot; When it was found that the line due west did not touch 

 the Mississippi, this boundary was annulled by the fact. It re 

 mained an unsettled boundary, to be adjusted bv a new agreement. 

 For this adjustment, the moral obligation of the parties was to adopt 

 such aline as should approximate as near as possible to the inten 

 tions of both parties in agreeing upon the line for which it was to 

 be substituted. For ascertaining this line, if the United States 

 were entitled to the benefit of the words &quot; on a due west course. - 



