91 



selves and their motives for making that proposal, than BIr. Rus- 

 sell could be called upon to justify himself for merely having been 

 in the minority upon the question whether an article should be pro- 

 posed, which he did actually concur in proposing, and which the 

 adverse jjarty had not thought worth accepting. 



The writer of these remarks is not authorized to speak for his 

 colleagues of the majority ; one of whom is now alike beyond the 

 reach of censure and panegyrick ; and the other, well able, when 

 he shall meet this disclosure, to defend himself But he believes 

 of them what he affirms of himself, that had they entertained of the 

 projected article, and of the argument maintained by the mission, 

 the sentiments avowed in either of the variations of Mr. Russell's 

 letter from Paris, no consideration would have induced them to con- 

 cur in proposing it, or to subscribe their names to a paper declar- 

 ing that they had no objection to it. 



Still less, if possible, would they have thought it reconcileable 

 with their duty to their country, had they entertained those senti- 

 ments, to have subscribed, on the 25th of December, 1814, the 

 joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, already com- 

 municated to Congress, and on the same day to have written the 

 separate and secret letter, fore-announcing that of 11th of Februa- 

 ry, 1815, from Paris. 



Besides the memorable variation between the original and du- 

 plicate of the letter of 11th February, 1815, which has been exhi- 

 bited in parallel passages extracted from them, there are others not 

 less remarkable. In the course of the duplicate^ the total and un- 

 qualified abandonment of the rights of the poor fishermen, is com- 

 pensated by an eloquent panegyric upon their usefulness to the 

 country, their hardy industry, their magnanimous enterprise, and 

 their patriotic self-devotion. Little of this appears in the original ; 

 and that little, in the after-thought of a postscript. Towards the 

 close of the duplicate^ the spirit of prophecy takes possession of the 

 writer. By his " trust in God, and in the valour of the West," he 

 foresees the victory of General Jackson at New-Orleans. He fore- 

 sees the convention between the United States and Great Britain, 

 of October, 1818. In the original there is no prophecy — no " trust 

 in God, and in the valour of the West." 



With all these varieties the two copies of the letter form an ela- 

 borate and deeply meditated dissertation to prove : 



1. That the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 

 of 1783, the treaty which upon its face is a treaty of independ- 

 ence, a treaty of boundaries, a treaty of partition, as well as a 

 treaty of peace — was, in his estimation, all his signatures at 

 Ghent to the contrary notwithstanding, a mere treaty of peace, 

 totally abrogated by the war of 1812. 



2. That the same treaty, was a treaty sui generis, consisting of 

 two parts ; one, of rights appertaining to sovereignty and in- 

 dependence ; and the other, of special grants and privileges ; 

 of which the foraacr were permanent, and the latter abix)gated 

 by the war. 



