124 



The duplicate also refers to the same instructions, and perfectly 

 agrees, so far as it does refer to them, with the interpretation of 

 them in the original letter. 



The original letter says, The duplicate says, 



&quot;The majority believed them- The majority believed them 

 selves to be permitted to offer a selves to be permitted, their own 

 very explicit proposition, with construction to the contrary not- 

 regard to the navigation of its withstanding, to offer a very ex- 

 principal river. I believed with plicit proposition with regard to 

 them that we rtere so permitted, the navigation of its principal ri- 

 and that we were likewise per- ver ; now this offer I considered, 

 mitted to offer a proposition re- for the reasons just suggested, 

 lative to the fishing liberty,&quot; &c. not to be a violation of the instruc- 



tionSy in question,&quot; &,c. 



Instead of any contradiction or inconsistency, there is here a 

 perfect accordance in the sense of the two papers, in relation to 

 the instruction of the 25th of June. 



I will here observe that my letter, written at Paris, in 1815, was 

 as may be readily ascertained, confined to a discussion of the 

 grounds which the majority assigned or suggested, in the despatch 

 of the 25th of December, for the offer of the navigation of the 

 Mississippi for the fishing privilege. To justify my own conduct 

 to my government, in opposing that offer, 1 believed that it would 

 be sufficient, at the time, to show why the reasons of the majority 

 had not satisfied me. In preparing the paper which I left at the 

 Department of State, 1 believed it to be proper, for the causes 

 already suggested, to assign, for my justification, an additional reason 

 which had influenced me in the course which I pursued, at the 

 time. The paper therefore, says, in speaking of the offer, &quot; but 

 I considered it to be against the letter and the spirit of our instruc 

 tion of the.J5th of April, 1813.&quot; (b.) 



Mr. Adams, in his remarks, admits, at least by implication, that 

 &quot; the letter and the spirit&quot; of this instruction was, indeed, against 

 that offer, when he resorts for a release irom the obligation of ob 

 serving it, to other instructions, of the 19th of October, 1814, 

 which, he says, were received on the 24th of the following Nov. 

 authorizing the status ante helium, as a basis of negotiation. He 



(6) Extract of a letter of instructions from the Secretary of State, to the Ameri 

 can Commissioners, dated 15th April, 18 13. 



&quot; The article in the Treaty of 1794-, which allows British traders from Cana 

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

 in 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 

 which it gave to the traders over the Indians, whose whole force has been 

 wielded, by means thereof, against the inhabitants of. our western States and 

 territories. You will avoid also any stipulation, that might restrain the United 

 States from increasing their naval force, to any extent they may thinkproper, on 

 the Lakes, held in common; or excluding the British traders from the naviga 

 tion of the lakes and rivers exclusively \vithin our own jurisdiction. * 



