10 



their lirst resolution of 17th January, were to be furnished from the 

 Department of State ; and some mistrust had been discovered, that 

 there would be a disposition there to withhold some of them. The 

 second call, was for a paper known not to be forth-coming from 

 thence, until it should be furnished by Mr. Uussell himself; for 

 which he had taken care to be prepared. Mr. Russell, too, by ob- 

 serving, when he delivered it at the Department, that he was in- 

 different whether it should be communicated or not, but if not, that 

 he wished it might be returned to him, evidently disclosed a suppo- 

 sition on his part, that I should feel reluctant at the communication 

 of it to the House — that I should shrink from the exhibition of its 

 contents to the world. My official duty was to report it to the Pre- 

 sident for communication to the House, and if precluded from the 

 privilege of remarking upon it, 1 should have been reduced to the 

 singular predicament of being made the silent reporter of my own 

 condemnation. A deceased, and an absent colleague, were impli- 

 cated in the charges of the letter, apparently as much as myself. 

 Could I in justice to myself, I could not in duty to them, be the 

 bearer of these imputations to the Legislative Assembly of the na- 

 tion, without declaring them to be unfounded. I did, therefore, ia 

 reporting the paper to the President, request that in the communi- 

 cation of it to the House^it might be accompanied by my Picmarks. 

 The following pages will show the sequel. 



In the collection of these papers, however, the defence and jus- 

 tification of myself and my colleagues of the majority, forms but a 

 secondary purpose. Its primary intention is to prove — 



1. That the principle assumed by the American mission at 

 Ghent, at the proposal of Mr. Clay, and in a paragraph drawn 

 up by him that the rights and liberties of the people of the 

 United States in the North American fisheries, were not abro- 

 gated by the war of 1812, was a just and sound principle, en- 

 tirely conformable to the law of nations. 



2. That the article first offered by Mr. Gallatin, which was not 

 proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, and the amendment 

 to the 8th article of the project, also offered by Mr. Gallatin, 

 which was actually proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, 

 and by them rejected, was only a declaratory recognition oT 

 that same principle, applied to the British right of navigating 

 the Mississippi, as well as to our fishery rights and liberties. 



