103 



** sion of territory, unless the United States are prepared to assert 

 f that there is no limit to their territories in that direction, and that, 

 &quot; availing themselves of the geographical error upon which that 

 M part of the treaty of 1783 was founded, they will acknowledge 

 &quot; no boundary whatever, then, unquestionably, any proposition to 

 &quot; fix one, be it what it may, must be considered as demanding a 

 ;s large cession of territory from the United States. 



&quot; Is the American government prepared to assert such an unli- 

 ik mited right, so contrary to the evident intention of the treaty it- 

 ; * self? Or, is his majesty s government to understand that the 

 %&amp;lt; American plenipotentiaries are willing to acknowledge the bound- 

 ** ury from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, (the arrange- 

 44 ment made by a convention in 1803, but not ratified,) as that by 

 &quot; which their government is ready to abide ? 



&quot; The British plenipotentiaries are instructed to accept favour- 

 v&amp;lt; ably such a proposition, or to discuss any other line of boundary 

 u which may be submitted for consideration.&quot; 



I stop here for a moment, to observe how instinctively, if the 

 expression may be allowed, both the parties in this correspondence 

 recur to the treaty of 1783, with a consciousness that it was yet in 

 full force, as an appeal for either in support of its claims. The ex 

 pression in the above American note, applied to the boundary, &quot; as 

 it now is;&quot; the reference of the British note to the geographical 

 error in the treaty of 1783, and their willingness to discuss the ar 

 rangement of 1803, (the shortest line from the Lake of the Woods 

 to the Mississippi,) both acknowledge the treaty of 1783 as the basis 

 of all proposition and all argument, and as being }et in force for 

 every thing which should not be otherwise provided for in the new 

 treaty. 



In their note of 21st October, 1814, the British commissioners 

 said : 



&quot; On the subject of the fisheries, the undersigned expressed with 

 ; so much frankness, at the conference already referred to, th 

 u views of their government, that they consider any further observ- 

 * ations on that topic as unnecessary at the present time. 



&quot; On the question of the boundary between the dominions of his 

 kC majesty and those of the United States, the undersigned are led 

 t; to expect, from the discussion which this subject has already un- 

 &quot; dergone, that the northwestern boundary, from the Lake of the 

 &quot; Woods to the Mississippi, (the intended arrangement of 1803,) 

 &quot; will be admitted without objection.&quot; 



Thus stood the parties and the subject, when, on the 10th of 

 November, 1814, the American plenipotentiaries sent the first pro- 

 jet of a treaty to. the British commissioners, it contained no arti 

 cle relating either to the fisheries or to the Mississippi ; but, in the 

 note which accompanied it, to meet the notification twice giveu o;j 

 the part of the British government, t,hat they did not intend IQ 

 grant, without equivalent, the liberty of fishing within the British 

 jurisdiction, the counter-notification, already noticed, was intro.rluc- 



