133 



&eem?, any thing like prescription. Is he quite sure that, in dis 

 cussing this privilege, while in England, in 1815 or 1816, he 

 never set up a prescriptive title, or a title from immemorial usage ? 



Mr. Adams likewise asserts that I represent ** the offer of an ar 

 ticle, granting to the British the right of navigating the Mississippi, 

 as an equivalent for the fishing privilege in British jurisdiction.&quot; 

 I certainly believed that it might have been so interpreted, even in 

 its original form ; and that, if so interpreted, it could be made to 

 mean more than would be meant by a simple continuance of that 

 right, and of that privilege, as they stood, independently of each 

 other, in the treaty of 1783. That the navigation of the Missis 

 sippi was, at last, offered, not under the principle of Mr. Adams, 

 or the status ante helium, which thus far were the same, but as an 

 equivalent, sufficiently appears from the documents, notwithstand 

 ing the subsequent intimation that &quot; we considered that offer as 

 merely declaratory&quot; Besides, Mr. Gallatin, in his separate letter 

 of the 25th of December, says, &quot; if the right must be considered 

 as abrogated by the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. 

 We had none to offer but the recognition of the right to navigate 

 the Mississippi, and we offered it.&quot; 



I have now, I trust, satisfactorily explained the inconsistencies 

 and tissue of misrepresentations with which Mr. Adams has, with 

 so much dignity and propriety, charged me. To whom inconsis 

 tency and misrepresentation can be justly imputed an impartial 

 public is left to decide. 



With regard to what is considered so serious an offence, my not 

 having shown my letter, written at Paris, to my colleagues, at the 

 time, I will merely observe that the majority had already, in the 

 despatch of the 25th of December, (d) given their reasons for the 

 affirmative, without taking any notice of the reasons on which the 

 minority supported the negative. I believed it just, therefore, to 

 account for rny conduct, by stating my objections to the reasons as 

 signed by the majority, and to these objections my letter was con 

 fined. I imputed to the majority nothing which they had not 

 alleged for themselves. Their case was before the government on 

 their own showing, and I did not believe that there was any obli 

 gation to consult them on the case of the minority. To the only 

 member of the mission who had a direct interest in that case, I did 

 show, at the time, the letter written at Paris. I certainly was not 

 aware of the proprienty or etiquette of communicating a private 

 or separate letter to my colleagues, particularly as their private or 

 separate letters had not been communicated to me. That they 

 did occasionally write such letters is not only probable, but the let 

 ter of Mr. Gallatin, of the 25th of December, furnishes proof in 

 point. That letter of Mr. Gallatin was never shown to me, and I 

 certainly never felt myself aggrieved because it was not, although 

 he stated in it the grounds in which he had acted as one of the ma 

 jority. 



J here most solemnly protest, as Mr. Adams appears to believe 



17 



