171 



Mr. Russell says, that 1 expressed at Ghent my great contempt of 

 ;he British right to reach and navigate the Mississippi : and Mr. 

 Russell s motive for using this expression is as apparent as it is invi- 

 iious. 1 never, at Ghent or elsewhere, expressed contempt of this 

 right, otherwise than by maintaining, that in the nature of things it 

 must and would he, as it had been, a naked right without use ; of no 

 value to them, and of no damage to us. For this opinion my rea 

 sons are now before the public ; and if a solid answer to them can 

 oe given, I shall be ready to acknowledge that I have been mistaken 

 in entertaining it. But I shall not take for such answer, any thing 

 [hat was said at (jhent ; and much less any thing; since alleged by 

 Mr. Russell. I shall not take for an answer, the immense import 

 ance TO us of the Mississippi and its navigation. No man has a 

 deeper sense of it than I have ; but it has no bearing on the ques 

 tion. The navigation of the Rhine is of immense importance to the 

 people of Germany and of France. There are treaties, by which 

 the right to this navigation, both ascending and descending, is stipu 

 lated for all mankind.* The people of the United States enjoy it 

 as much as the people of France or of Germany. Is it of any va 

 lue to us ? Is it of any injury to them ? I shall not take for an 

 answer Mr Russell s perpetual mis-statements of the question ; 

 his perpetual confounding of the article first proposed by Mr. Gal- 

 latin, which was never proposed to the British, with the amend 

 ment to the 8th article, which was proposed to them and rejected ; 

 hi* -/erpetual confounding of both with the 3d article of the treaty 

 of 1794. Mr. Russell says he has good reason to oelieve, that not 

 another member of the mission agreed with me in this opinion. 

 The best possible proof that Mr. Russell himself entertained it, is 

 found in the straits to which he is reduced to muster arguments 

 against it. His ingenuity cannot devise a plausible objection to the 

 proposal as it was made : so he substitutes in its stead, at one time 

 the article first proposed by Mr. Gallatin, and never offered ; at 

 another, the third article of the treaty of 1794 ; at a third, his con 

 jectural inferences of abuses which might be made of the privi 

 lege, as if the United States would have had no power to control 

 them. His argument is never against the proposal as it &quot;was made. 

 It is always against the substitute of his own imagination. Mark 

 his words: 



&quot; It would be absurd to suppose that any thing impossible was 

 &quot; intended, and that Great Britain was to be allowed to navigate 



* &quot; The navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it becomes navigable 

 &quot; unto the sea, and vice versa, shall be free, so that it can be interdicted to no 

 11 one : and at the future Congress, attention shall be paid to the establishment 

 ** of the principles, according to which the duties to be raised by the states bor- 

 &quot; dering on the Rhine, may be regulated, in the mode the most impartial, and 

 &quot; the most favourable to the commerce of all nations. * [Definitive Treaty be 

 tween France and Great Britain, of 30 May, 1814.] 



The same stipulation is contained in the Vienna Congress Treaties, and ex~ 

 tended to the Necker, the Mayne, the Mosellej the IVJeuse, and the Scheldt, 



