pUPLICATE.] 35 



tied, renderedi 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, mdeed, for a long time to come, be of 

 little use to her for all the (160) legitimate purposes of transit and 

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

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

 fishing liberty (16 1; must be to the disadvantage of the United 

 States. 



The freedom (162) of navigating the Mississippi,' however, is not 

 to be estimated by the mere legitimate uses that would be made of 

 it. The unrestrained and undefined access, which would have 

 been inferred from the article which we proposed, (163) must have 

 placed in the hands of Great Britain and her subjects, all the facili- 

 ties of communication 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 unrighteous purposes. A vast field for contraband (164) 

 and for intrigue would have been laid open, and our western territo- 

 ries would have swarmed with British smugglers and British em- 

 issaries. The revenue would have been defrauded by the illicit 

 introduction of English merchandise, and the lives of our citizens, 

 and the security of a valuable portion of our (165) country, would 

 have been exposed to Indian hostility, excited by an uncontrolled Bri- 

 tish intluence. (166) If our instructions of the 15th of April, 1813, already 

 cited, forbid us, in order to guard against such an influence, to renew the treaty 

 of 1794', " allowing the North West Company and British traders to carry on 

 trade, v/ith the Indian tribes within our limits, a privilege, the pernicious effect! 

 of which have been most sensibly felt in the present war," we certainly violated 

 the spirit of those instructions in offering the means of exercising that influence 

 with still greater facility and effec» than could result from that priviUge. 



\V hat 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 annoyance ? What justice or equality 

 was there, in exposing to all the horrors of savage warfare, the 

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

 or but faintly, benefited by the fishing privilege, merely to provide 

 for the doubtfiil accommodation of a (168) few fishermen, annually de- 

 creasing in number, in a remote cuarter, and entirely exempt from 

 the danger. 



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

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

 and which, 1 trust, will be (169) deemed sufficient, at least, to vindi- 

 cate my motives. 



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

 and judgment, of those j^entlemen, would restrain me from oppos- 

 ing them on sliu;ht grounds, and a deference for their opinions makes 

 me almost ^f^iw that I have erred in dissenting from them on the 

 present occasion. I can but rejoice, however, that the article, ae 



11 



