65 



-• [duplicate.] 



Paris, lllh February, 1822.t 



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

 the (1) 25th December, I (2) have now the honour to state to you the 

 reasons which induced me to differ from a majority of my col- 

 leagues 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 (3) proposal of such an article appeared to be inconsistent 

 with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. 



According to this reasoning, no new stipuhition 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 

 instructions, as (4) interjrretcd by ws, which forbid us to suffer (5) our 

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

 be believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject 

 which we were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (8) argw 

 menti and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our con- 

 struction was, indeed, correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to 

 show that we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the in- 

 terdicted discussion. 



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

 tionable, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles as- 

 serted by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which 

 (10) that 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 ac- 

 cordingly. If they were (H) incorrect, still it was unnecessary to 

 add inconsistency to error. 



I freely confess, however, that 1 did not accord with the majori- 

 ty, either in their views of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived 

 their principles, nor of our instructions ; and that my great objec- 

 tion to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to re- 

 concile our conduct with our reasoning and declarations. 



* The word (Copy) had here been written by Mr. Russell, and erased. The 

 traces of it are visible on the paper. 



t J^ote on the date of the Duplicate. This was the date of the paper as deli- 

 vered by Mr. Russell on the 22d of April, 1822, at the Department of State. It 

 was afterwards altered to 1815, with his approbation, and before it was com- 

 nstiuit ckted to the Honso, os will be seen in the seqtiel. 



