DOCUMENTS BEABING ON THE TREATY OF GHENT, 1814. 249 



patch to be sent. On reading it over, to compare it with the original 

 draft and amendments, I perceived this alteration, and immediately 

 objected to it. I insisted upon substituting the word must for might, 

 to read, we contended the treaty of 1783 must be considered, etc. Mr. 



Russell and Mr. Bayard agreed to this amendment. 



******* 



No. 28. 1815, February 11 : Separate Report of Mr. Jonathan Rus- 

 sell, one of the United States Negotiators, to the United States Sec- 

 retary of State. 



(Private.) PARIS, llth February, 1815. 



SIR : In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter of 



the 25th of December, I now have the honour to state to you 



151 the reasons which induced me to differ from a majority of my 



colleagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming 



the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right 



of the American people to take and cure fish in certain places within 



the British jurisdiction. 



The proposition of such an article appeared to be inconsistent with 

 our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. According to this rea- 

 soning, no new stipulation was any more necessary, on the subject of 

 such an article, than a new stipulation for the recognition of the 

 sovereignty and independence of the United States. 



The article proposed appeared also to be inconsistent with our in- 

 structions, as interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer our right to 

 the fisheries to be brought into discussion ; for, it could not be believed 

 that we were left free to stipulate on a subject which we were re- 

 strained from discussing, and that an argument, and not an agree- 

 ment, was to be avoided. If our construction was indeed correct, it 

 might not, perhaps, be difficult to show that we have not, in fact, 

 completely refrained from the interdicted discussion. 



At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objection- 

 able, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted by 

 a majority of the mission, and with the construction which this 

 majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which related 

 to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in these principles, and 

 in this construction, it became us to act accordingly; if they were not 

 correct, still it was unnecessary to add inconsistency to error. 



I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majority, 

 either in their view of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived their 

 principles, or of our instructions; and that my great objection to 

 proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to reconcile our 

 conduct with our reasoning and declarations. 



I could not believe that the independence of the United States was 

 derived from the treaty of 1783; that the recognition of that inde- 

 pendence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar char- 

 acter, or that such character, supposing it existed, would necessarily 

 render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions, and make 

 it one entire and indivisible whole, equally imperishable in all its 

 parts, by any change which might occur in the relations between the 

 contracting parties. 



