116 



0r why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment, more than we need 

 ed a new article to declare that the king of Great Britain treated with us a.s 

 free, sovereign, and independent States. We stated this principle, in general 

 terms, to the British plenipotentiaries, in the note which we sent to tnevn, with 

 our projet of the treaty ; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no new 

 stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to the people of 

 the United States, all the rights and liberties stipulated in their favour by the 

 treaty of 1783. No reply to that part of our note was given by the British 

 plenipotentiaries ; but, in returning our projet of a treaty, they added a clause 

 to one of the articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the 

 Mississippi. Without adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial usage, 

 if the principle were just, that the treaty of 1783, from its peculiar character, 

 remained in force in all its parts, notwithstanding the war, no new stipulation 

 was necessary to secure to the subjects of Great. Britain, the right of navigating 

 the Mississippi, as far as that right was secured by the treaty of 1783 ; as, on 

 the other hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the Unit 

 ed States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish within the exclusive juris 

 diction of Great Britain. 



&quot;If they asked the navigation of the Mississippi, as a new claim, they could 

 not expect we should grant it without an equivalent ; if they asked it because 

 it had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim of the people of the 

 United States, to the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish, in question. To 

 place both points beyond all further controversy, a majority of us determined 

 to offer to admit an article confirming both rights; or, we offered at the same 

 time, to be silent in the treaty upon both, and to leave out altogether the article 

 defining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They finally 

 agreed to this last proposal, but not until they had proposed an article stipulat 

 ing for a future negotiation for an equivalent to be given by Great Britain, for 

 the navigation of the Missisippi, and by the United States, for the liberty as to 

 the fisheries within British jurisdiction. This article was unnecessary, with re 

 spect to its professed object, since both governments had it in their power, with 

 out it, to negotiate upon these subjects if they pleased. We rejected it, al 

 though its adoption would have secured the boundary of the 49th degree of lati 

 tude, west of the Lake of the Woods, because it would have been a formal aban 

 donment, on our part, of our claim, to the liberty as to the fisheries, recognised 

 by the treaty of 1783.&quot; 



For the more complete comprehension of the foregoing extract, 

 and Mr. Russell s letter, we copy the article, and two extracts from 

 the instructions of the American commissioners. 



Article offered by the American to the British Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, on the 

 1st of December, 1814. 



* e The inhabitants of the United States shall continue to enjoy the liberty to 

 take, dry, and cure fish in places within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Bri 

 tain, as secured by the former treaty of peace; and the navigation of the river 

 Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall remain 

 free and open to the suhjerts of Great Britain, in the manner secured by that 

 treaty ; and it is further agreed that the subjects of his Britannic majesty shall 

 at all times have access, from such place as mat/ be selected for that purpose, in 

 his Britannic majesty^ aforesaid territories, westward and within three hundred 

 miles of the Lake of the Woods, in the aforciaid territories of the United States, 

 tn the. river Mississippi, in order to enjoy the benefit of tlte navigation of that 

 river, with their goods, effects, and merchandise, whose importation into the said 

 States, shall not be entirely prohibited, on the payment of the same duties o.s- 

 would be payable on the importation of t/ie same into the Atlantic ports of th*i 

 mi.d States, and on conforming with the usual custom-house regulations.&quot; 



