53 * 



should remain subject to the British jurisdiction, the people of the 

 United States had reserved to themselves the liberty, which they 

 had ever betbre enjoyed, of hshing upon tfiat part of the coasts, 

 and of drying and curing fish upon the shores ; and this reserva- 

 tion had been agreed to by the other contracting party. We saw 

 not why this liberty, then no new grant, but a mere recognition of 

 a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited by a war, any 

 more than any other of the rights of our national independence, 

 or why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment more 

 than we needed a new article to declare that the king of Great 

 Britain treated with us as free, sovereign, and independent states. 

 We stated thi? principle, in general terms, to the British plenipo- 

 tentiaries, in the note which we sent to them with our project of 

 the treaty ; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no new 

 stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to 

 the people of the United States all the rights and liberties, stipu- 

 lated in their favour, by the treaty of 1783. No reply to that part 

 of our note was given by the British plenipotentiaries ; but, in re- 

 turning our project of a treaty, they added a clause to one of the 

 articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the Mis- 

 sissippi. \Vithout adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial 

 usage, if the principle were just that the treaty of 1783, from its 

 peculiar character, remained in force in all its parts, notwithstand- 

 ing the war, no new stipulation was necessary to secure to the sub- 

 jects of Great Britain the right of navigating the Mississippi, as far 

 as that right was secured by the treaty of 1783 ; as, on the other 

 hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the 

 United States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish, within the 

 exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. If they asked the naviga- 

 tion of the Mississippi as a new claim, they could not expect we 

 should grant it without an equivalent : if they asked it because it 

 had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim of the 

 people of the United States to the liberty to fish and to dry and cure 

 fish, in question. To place both points beyond all future contro- 

 versy, a majority of us determined to offer to admit an article con- 

 firming both rights : or, we ofiered at the same time, to be silent 

 m the treaty upon both, and to leave out altogether the article de- 

 fining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They 

 finally agreed to this last proposal, but not until they had proposed 

 an article stipulating for a future negotiation for an equivalent to be 

 given by Great Britain for the navigation of the Mississippi, and by 

 the United States for the liberty as to the fisheries within the Bri- 

 tish jurisdiction. This article was unnecessary, with respect to 

 its professed object, since both governments had it in their power, 

 without it, to negotiate upon these subjects if they pleased. We 

 rejected it, although its adoption would have secured the boun- 

 dary of the 49th degree of latitude west of the Lake of the Woods, 

 because it would have been a formal abandonment, on our part, of 



