04 bmvATE.] 



onsettled, rendered, perhaps, the free navigation of the Mississippi, 

 for the moment, of little advantage to her, particularly as her right 

 to reach it was at least equivocal ; and as, by another treaty, she 

 could carry on trade with our Indians. 



This navigation might, indeed, for a long time to come, be of lit- 

 tle use to her for all the (160) legitimate purposes of transit and in- 

 tercourse ; but every change that could take place in this respect 

 must increase its importance to her; while every change in the 

 fishing liberty (161) would be to the disadvantage of the United 

 States. 



The freedom (162) of the Mississippi, however, is not to be esti- 

 mated by the mere legitimate uses that would be male of it. The 

 unrestrained and undetined access which would have been inferred 

 from the article which we proposed, (163)wouM have placed in the 

 hands of Great Britain and her subjects all the facilities of commu- 

 nication with our own citizens, and with the Indians inhabiting the 

 immense regions of our western territory. It is not in the nature 

 of things that these facilities should not have been abused for un- 

 righteous purposes. A vast field for contraband (161) and intnguo 

 would have been laid open, and our western territories would have 

 swarmed with British smugglers and British emissaries. The re- 

 venue would have been defrauded by the illicit introduction of 

 English merchandise, and the lives of our citizens, ar:d the security 

 of a valuable portion of our (1^'5) country exposed to Indian hostilities, 

 excited by an uncontrolled British influence. (1«36) if our in- 

 s-lructions to guard against such an influence forbid us to renew the British li- 

 berty to trade with our Indians, we certainly violated the spirit of those instruc- 

 tions in offering the means of exercising that influence with still greater facility 

 and effect than could result from that liberty. 



What was there in the fishing liberty, either of gain to us, or loss 

 to Great Britain, to warrant, in consideration of it, a grant to her of 

 such means of fraud and annovance ? What justice or equality was 

 there in exposing to all the horrors of saviige wariare the unoffend- 

 ing citizens of an immense tract of territory, (167) not at all benefited 

 by the fishing privilege, merely to provide for the doubtful accom- 

 modation of a (168) few fishermen, in a remote quarter, entirely ex- 

 empt from the danger ? 



Such have been the reasons which induced me to differ from a 

 majority of my colleagues with regard to the article in question, 

 and which I trust will be (169) thought sulBcient, at least, to vindicate 

 my motives. 



The unfeigned respect which I feel for the integrity, talents, and 

 judgment of those gentlemen, would restrain me from opposing 

 them on slight grounds, and a deference for their opinions makes 

 me almost fear that 1 have erred in dissenting from them on the 

 jHPesent occasion. I can but rejoice, however, that the article, as 



