DOCUMENTS BEARING OK THE TREATY OP GHENT, 1814. 265 



from the British to the American plenipotentiaries, (See Wait*s State 

 Papers, vol. IX pp. 334 cmd 338,} they had claimed a new northwest- 

 ern boundary line from Lake Superior to the Mississippi, and the free 

 navigation of that river. To this the American commissioners had 

 answered on the 24th of August, 1814: The undersigned perceive that 

 the British government " propose, without purpose specifically alleged, 

 to draw the boundary line westward, not from the Lake of the Woods, 

 as it now is, but from Lake Superior:" and they objected to it, as 

 demanding a cession of territory. 



The British plenipotentiaries, on the 4th September, 1814, replied: 



As the necessity for fixing some boundary for the northwestern frontier has 

 been mutually acknowledged, a proposal for a discussion on that subject cannot 

 be considered as a demand for a cession of territory, unless the United States 

 are prepared to assert that there is no limit to their territories in that direction, 

 and that availing themselves of the geographical error upon which that part of 

 the treaty of 1783 was founded, they will acknowledge no boundary whatever, 

 then, unquestionably, any proposition to fix one, be it what it may, must be con- 

 sidered as demanding a large cession of territory from the United States. 



Is the American government prepared to assert such an unlimited right, so 

 contrary to the evident intention of the treaty itself? Or, is his majesty's gov- 

 ernment to understand that the American plenipotentiaries are willing to 

 acknowledge the boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi (the 

 arrangement made by a convention in 1803, but not ratified,) as that by which 

 their government is ready to abide? 



The British plenipotentiaries are instructed to accept favourably such a 

 proposition, or to discuss any other line of boundary which may be submitted for 

 consideration. 



I stop here for a moment, to observe how instinctively, if the ex- 

 pression may be allowed, both the parties in this correspondence recur 

 to the treaty of 1783, with a consciousness that it was yet in full force, 

 as an appeal for either in support of its claims. The expression in 

 the above American note, applied to the boundary, " as it now is ;" 

 the reference of the British note to the geographical error in the 

 treaty of 1783, and their willingness to discuss the arrangement of 

 1803, (the shortest line from the Lake of the Woods to the Missis- 

 sippi,) both acknowledge the treaty of 1783 as the basis of all propo- 

 sition and all argument, and as being yet in force for every thing 

 which should not be otherwise provided for in the new treaty. 



In their note of 21st October, 1814, the British commissioners said : 



On the subject of the fisheries, the undersigned expressed with so much 

 frankness, at the conference already referred to, the views of their government, 

 that they consider any further observations on that topic as unnecessary at the 

 present time. 



On the question 'of the boundary between the dominions of his majesty and 

 those of the United States, the undersigned are led to expect, from the discus- 

 sion which this subject has already undergone, that the northwestern boundary, 

 from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, (the intended arrangement of 

 1803,) will be admitted without objection. 



Thus stood the parties and the subject, when, on the 10th of No- 

 vember, 1814, the American plenipotentiaries sent the first projet of 

 a treaty to the British commissioners. It contained no article relat- 

 ing either to the fisheries or to the Mississippi ; but, in the note 

 160 which accompanied it, to meet the notification twice given on 

 the part of the British government, that they did not intend to 

 grant, without equivalent, the liberty of fishing within the British 

 jurisdiction, the counter-notification, already noticed, was introduced, 

 informing them that the American government did not consider the 



