116 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



and liberties previously existing and enjoyed, it was neither a privi- 

 lege gratuitously granted, nor liable to be forfeited by the mere ex- 

 istence of a subsequent war. If it was not forfeited by the war, 

 neither could it be impaired by the declaration of Great Britain, that 

 she did not intend to renew the grant. Where there had been no 

 gratuitous concession, there could be none to renew; the rights and 

 liberties of the United States could not be cancelled by the declaration 

 of Great Britain's intentions. Nothing could abrogate them but the 

 renunciation of them by the United States themselves. 



Among the articles of that same treaty of 1783, there is one stipu- 

 lating that the subjects and citizens of both nations shall enjoy, for 

 ever, the right of navigating the River Mississippi, from its sources 

 to the ocean. And although, at the period of the negotiations of 

 Ghent, Great Britain possessed no territory upon that river, yet the 

 British plenipotentiaries, in their first note, considered Great Britain 

 as still entitled to claim the free navigation of it, without offering for 

 it any equivalent. And, afterwards, when offering a boundary line, 

 which would have abandoned every pretension even to any future 

 possession on that river, they still claimed, not only its free naviga- 

 tion, but a right of access to it, from the British dominions in North 

 America, through the territories of the United States. The American 

 plenipotentiaries, to foreclose the danger of any subsequent misunder- 

 standing and discussion upon either of these points, proposed an 

 article recognising anew the liberties on both sides. In declining to 

 accept it, the British plenipotentiaries proposed an article engaging 

 to negotiate, in future, for the renewal of both, for equivalents to be 

 mutually granted. This was refused by the American plenipoten- 

 tiaries, on the avowed principle that its acceptance would imply the 

 admision on the part of the United States that their liberties in the 

 fisheries, recognised by the treaty of 1783, had been annulled, which 

 they declared themselves in no manner authorised to concede. 



Let it be supposed, my Lord, that the notice given by the British 

 plenipotentiaries, in relation to the fisheries, had been in reference 

 to another article of the same treaty: that Great Britain had de- 

 clared she did not intend to grant again, gratuitously, the grant in 

 a former treaty of peace, acknowledging the United States as free, 

 sovereign, and independent States; or, that she did not intend to 

 grant, gratuitously, the same boundary line which she had granted 

 in the former treaty of peace : is it not obvious that the answer would 

 have been that the United States needed no new acknowledgment of 

 their independence, nor any new grant of a boundary line? that, 

 if their independence was to be forfeited, or their boundary line 

 curtailed, it could only be by their own acts of renunciation, or of 

 cession, and not by the declaration of the intentions of another Gov- 

 ernment? And, if this reasoning be just, with regard to the other 

 articles of the treaty of 1783, upon what principle can Great Britain 

 select one article, or a part of one article, and say. this particular 

 stipulation is liable to forfeiture by war, or by the declaration of her 

 will, while she admits the rest of the treaty to be permanent and 

 irrevocable? In the negotiation of Ghent. Great Britain did pro- 

 pose several variations of the boundary line, but she never intimated 

 that she considered the line of the treaty of 1783 as forfeited by the 

 war, or that its variation could be effected by the mere declaration 

 of her intentions. She perfectly understood that no alteration of 



