23$ 



It is not the Secretary, but Mr. Russell, who confounds 

 preceding and subsequent discussions. The joint despatch of 25th 

 December, 1814, and Mr. Russell s separate letter of the same 

 date, say not a word of the discussions prior to the receipt of the 

 new instructions. They refer exclusively to the vote taken on the 

 29th of November, and to the proposition actually made on the 1st 

 of December. Mr, Russell s letter from Paris, confounds together 

 the preceding and subsequent discussions. His duplicate brings in 

 the cancelled instructions, as violated by the proposal actually made, 

 on the first of December, and his publication in the Boston States 

 man of 27th June, affirms, that no vote was taken after the receipt 

 of the new instructions ; and calls upon Mr. Clay to confirm the 

 assertion. It is hoped that the discriminating heads will find that 

 in these pages, the Secretary has been sufficiently explicit in dis 

 tinguishing between the first and second votes, and between the 

 discussions upon both of them. 



The editorial paper states that the article first proposed by Mr. 

 Gallatin, and voted by the majority, was finally rejected, because 

 Mr. Bayard changed sides. This is not altogether exact. If there 

 was any change of sides, it was by Mr. Clay. He brought forward 

 on the 7th of November, as a substitute for Mr. Gallatin s article, 

 which had been voted on the 5th, the very same proposition which 

 I had offered to take instead of Mr. Gallatin s article, before the 

 vote upon it had been taken, but which Mr. Clay had not then been 

 prepared to accept. Upon this new proposal of Mr. Clay, Mr. 

 Bayard agreed, for the sake of unanimity, to take it instead of Mr. 

 Gallatin s article ; and so did I, and so did Mr. Gallatin himself. 

 Mr. Bayard, of course, afterwards voted, on the 29th of Novem= 

 ber, for the proposition which was actually made on the 1st of De 

 cember. 



The editorial article of the Argus, after stating that the commis 

 sioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the right to the fish 

 eries in British waters, on our side, and the right to navigate the 

 Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of 83, were not 

 abrogated by the war, but continued in full force, without any new 

 stipulation at the peace, observes, that &quot; the Secretary&quot; calls this 

 ** the American side of the argument&quot; and exults, with many thank? 

 to God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations, 

 and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in 

 1818. The writer in the Argus appears to be chagrined at this ex 

 ultation of the Secretary, and exceedingly anxious to deprive him 

 of his satisfaction. But in the first place, this statement of the 

 principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent is again not alto 

 gether exact* The principle assumed by them, was in these 

 words, drawn up by Mr. Clay : 



&quot; In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten- 

 &quot; tiaries, respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what 

 &quot; passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state, that 

 * they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the righU 



