117 



j7*[Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, to the American 

 Commissioners. 



Department of State, April 15, 1813. 



&quot; The article in the treaty of 1794, which allows British traders from Ca 

 nada and the North West Company, to carry on trade with the Indian tribes, 

 within the limits of the United States, must not be renewed. The pernicious 

 effects of this privilege have been most sensibly felt in the present war, by the 

 influence whicfi it gave to the traders over the Indians, whose whole force has 

 been wielded by meant thereof against the inhabitants of our Westtrn States 

 and territories. You will avoid also any stipulatiou which might restrain the 

 United States from increasing their naval force to any extent they may think 

 proper, on the lakes held in common ; or excluding the British traders from the 

 navigation of the lakes and rivers, exclusively within our own jurisdiction.&quot;] 



Extract of a letter from the same to the same, 25th June, 1814. 

 &quot; Information has been received from a quarter deserving attention, that the 

 late events in France have produced such an effect on the British government, 

 as to make it probable that a demand will be made at Gottenburg, to surrender 

 our right to the fisheries to abandon all trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope, 

 and to cede Louisiana to Spain. We cannot conceive that such a demand will 

 be made. Should it be, you will, of course, treat it as it deserves. These 

 rights must not be brought into discussion. If insisted on, your negotiations 



&quot; We must confess that we consider the general views of Mr. 

 Russell, which are only exhibited, as for the most part sound, and 

 believe with him both that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the 

 war, and that much mischief might have resulted from allowing 

 the British access to the Mississippi from the interior, which was 

 offered and rejected. But we must wait to see in what lights the 

 subject has been placed in the communication of Mr. Adams. It 

 has been supposed, and indeed asserted with some exultation, that 

 the disclosure of this affair would affect the good repute of that 

 gentleman with the country, as a staunch and enlightened patriot. 

 It may be confidently believed, however, that those who have 

 predicted or desired this result, will be disappointed. If he com 

 mitted even an error of judgment, it was in common with Mr. Gal- 

 latin and Mr. Bayard, men whose diffusive and deep love of 

 country, and whose pervading sagacity and powers of just reflec 

 tion are so far acknowledged OH one side or the other by the poli 

 tical parties of the Union, that they may be declared to be fully 

 admitted. And when the case shall be studied in all its circum 

 stances and details of reasoning, it will probably be universally ac 

 knowledged, by candid minds, to be one as to which the course 

 pursued by the majority of the commissioners should not be deemed 

 inconsistent with the best dispositions that could distinguish Ame 

 rican negotiators. We hold the rejection by the British commis 

 sioners of the article offered to them, to be a fortunate incident, 

 but at the same time, we think it entitled to no small weight in the 

 question of the judgment which ought, at this distance of time, to 

 be pronounced on the proposal.&quot; 



In this article, the voucher for the exactness of the copy the 

 assertion from good autlmrity, that Mr. Russell had had no share 



15 



