[duplicate.] 79 



article relative to this riyer, must,' from the evident views of the 

 parlies at the time, from (118) their nlations to each other, and from 

 their known relations to a third (119) power, have been considered of 

 mutual and equal advantage, and furnished no subject for compen- 

 sation or adjustment in any other provision of that treaty. 



Both parties believed that this river touched the territories of 

 both, and that of course both had a right to its navigation. As Spain 

 possessed both banks of this river to a considerable distance from 

 its mouth, and one of its banks nearly throughout its whole extent, 

 both parties had an interest in uniting to prevent that power from 

 obstructing its navigation. Had not the article been intended to en- 

 gage the parties in relation to Spain, they (120) probably would have 

 limited it to the navigation of theiriver, (12i) so far as their own terri- 

 tories extended on it, and not have stipulated for its navigation to 

 the ocean, which necessarily carried it through the exclusive ter 

 ritories of Spain. If the circumstances had been, in fact, such as 

 the parties at the time believed them to be, and with a view to 

 which they acted, or had these circumstances subsequently expe- 

 rienced no radical change, Great Britain would have gained now, 

 no more than she would have granted by the (122) renewal of the 

 article in relation to (123) the navigation of the Mississippi, and would 

 not, any more than in 1783, have acknowledged any equivalent to 

 be conferred by it, for our liberty relative to the fisheries. The 

 circumstances, however, assumed by the parties at the time, in re- 

 lation to Great Britain, and from which her rights were deduced, 

 have not only, in part, been since discovered not to have existed, 

 but those which did exist have been entirely changed by subse!» 

 quent events. 



It has (124) been clearly ascertained, that the territories, assigned to 

 Great Britain, no where, in fact, reached the Mississippi ; and,the ac- 

 quisition ofLouisiana, by tbe United States, (125) had forever removed 

 the Spanish jurisdiction from that river. The whole consideration, 

 therefore, on the part of Great Britain, whether derived from her 

 territorial rights, or from her part of the reciprocal obligations, re- 

 lative to Spain, having entirely failed, our engagements, entered 

 into, on account of that consideration, may be fairly construed to 

 have terminated with it. 



In this view of the subject. Great Britain could have had no title 

 to the navigation of the Mississippi, even if a war had not taken 

 place between the parties. To renew, therefore the claims of 

 Great Britain, under that article, subject to this construction, would 

 be granting her nothing ; and, to renew that article, independent of 

 this construction, and without any reference to the circumstances 

 that attended its origin in 1783, or to the events which have since 

 occurred in relation to it, would be granting her advantages not 

 only entirely (126) unilateral, as it relates to the . article itself, but, 

 (127^ as I believed, of much greater importance than any which we 

 could derive from the liberty relative to the fisheries. 



