[DUPLICATE.] 77 



but, certainly, the majority believed (lOaO themselves to be permitted, 

 their own construction to the contrary notwithstanding, to offer a very expli- 

 cit proposition, with regard to the navigation of its principal 



(lO*) river ; now, this offer I considered, for the reasons just suggested, not to 

 be a violation of the instructions in question, but I considered it to be against 

 both the letter and the spirit of our instructions of the l5th of April, I8I3. By 

 these instructions we were explicitly and implicitly directed " to avoid any 

 stipulation which might restrain the United States from excluding the British 

 traders from the navigation of the lakes and rivers, exclusively/ within our oian 

 jurisdiction.'''' This instruction applied with the greater force to the Mississippi, 

 because, as it is believed, it was the only river to which it could apply. 



While I believed, therefore, that we were permitted to offer a proposition, re- 

 lative to the fishing liberty ; aud that, in treating concerning this liberty, or in 

 discussing our claim to it, we in no way violated our instructions, nor affected 

 the general rights which we w^ere forbidden to bring into discussion ; I did be- 

 lieve, and do &till believe, that we were expressly and unequivocally forbidden 

 to offer or to renew a stipulation for the free navigation, by the British, of (he 

 Mississippi, a river within our exclusive jurisdiction. 



Considering, therefore, the fishing liberty to be entirely at an 

 end, without a new stipulation for its revival ; and believing that 

 we were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such a 

 stipulation, I did not object to the article proposed by us, because 

 any article on the subject was unnecessary, or contrary to our in- 

 structions, but I objected specially to that article, because, by con- 

 ceding (105) in it, to Great Britain, the free navigation of the Mississippi, 



(106) we not only diieclly violated our instructions, but we offered, in my esti- 

 mation, a price much above i!s value, and which could not justly be given. 



In no view of the subject, could I discover any (107) analogy or 

 relation beetween the two objects ; and the Only reason for connecting 

 them, and tiiaking them mutual equivalents for each other, appeared 

 to be, because they were both found in the treaty of 1783. If that 

 treaty was abrogated by the war, as I consider it to have been, any 

 connection between its parts must have ceased, and the liberty of 

 navigating the Mississippi, by British subjects, must, at least, be 

 completely at an end; for it will not, I trust, be attempted to con- 

 tinue it by a (108) prescriptive title, or to consider in as a (108) reserva' 

 tioii made by the United States from any grant of sovereignty, which 

 at the treaty of peace, they accorded to Great Britain. If, indeed 

 it were such a reservation, it must have been intended for (110) owr 

 benefit, and of (HI) course, no equivalent for the fishing (112) privilege, 

 likewise for our benefit. If it is considered as a reservation made by 

 Great Britain, it will reverse (113) all the facts assumed by us in re- 

 lation to that privilege. 



The '114) third article of the treaty of 1783, respecting the fish- 

 eries, and the (115^ eighth of that treaty, respecting the Mississippi, 

 had not the sUghtest reference to each other, and were placed as 

 remote, the one from the other, as the limits of that treaty could 

 well admit ; whatever, therefore, (116) might have been the cause of 

 inserting the fishing liberty, whether it was a voluntary and gratui- 

 tous grant on the part of Great Britain, or extorted from her as a 

 condition, on which the peace depended, it could have had no re- 

 lation (117) with the free navigation of the Mississippi. Besides, thi* 



10 



