115 



separate and personal explanation of his dissent in a particular and 

 important transaction of the case. We would remark that such ex- 

 planations are by no means rare in the annals of diplomacy. — 

 0:^ [We learn, from good authority, that the first call in the House 

 of Representatives, for the correspondence which led to the Treaty 

 of Ghent, was not made at the instigation of Mr. Russell, nor in 

 consequence of communications Avith him ; and that in like manner, 

 he had no share in the call for the private letter.] The attention 

 of Mr. Floyd was attracted to it, we presume, by the following 

 passage of a short extract of a letter from Mr. Russell to the Secre- 

 tary of State, contained in the correspondence which the Presi- 

 dent submitted to Congress on the 25th of February. 



"As you will perceive b)-- our despatch to you, of this date, that a majority 

 only of the mission was in favour of offering to the British plenipotentiaries, an 

 article confirming the British right to the navigation of the MississiDpi, and ours 

 tcj the liberty as to the fisheries, it beco'mes me in candour to acknowledge, that 

 I was in t!ie minority on that question. I must reserve to myself the pov/ei of 

 communicating to you, hereafter, the reasons which influenced me to differ from 

 ,4 majority of my colleagues on that occasion ; and if they be insufficient to sup- 

 /port my opinion, I persuade myself they will at least vindicate my motives." 



That his letter may be the better understood, we shall proceet! 

 to quote that part of the ofScial despatch to which he refers, which 

 relates to the article mentioned. The despatch is dated Ghent, 

 25th December, 1814 ; and is among the papers communicated to 

 Congress. 



"At the first conference on the 8tb of August, the British plenipotentiaries 

 had notifii'd to us, tliat the British government did not intend, henceforth, to al- 

 low to the people of the United States, without an equivalent, the liberties to 

 fiph, and to dry and cure fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulat-' 

 ed, in their favour, by the latter part of the third article of the treaty of peacp 

 of 1783. And, in their note of the 19th August, the British plenipotentiaries 

 had demanded a new stipulation to secure to British subjects tiie right of navi- 

 gating the Mississippi ; a demand, which, unless warranted by another article 

 of that same treaty of 1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any 

 colourable pretence for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer our 

 right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to 

 make any distinction in the several provisions of the third article of the treaty 

 of 1783, or between that article and any other of the same treaty. We had no 

 equivalent to offer for a new recognition of our right to any part of the fisheries, 

 and ^ve had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it by 

 the British government. We contended that the whole treaty of 1783, must be 

 considered as one entire and permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary trea- 

 ties, to be abrogated by a subsequent war between the parties to it ; as an in- 

 strument, recognising the rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United 

 States, as an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on 

 which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed, thenceforth to consti- 

 tute two, distinct and separate nations. In consenting by that treaty, that a 

 part of the North American continent should remain subject to the British juris- 

 diction, the people of the United States had reserved to themselves the libert}'-, 

 which they had ever before enjoyed, of fishing upon that part of the coasts, and 

 of drying and curing fish upon the shor.^s ; and this reservation had been agieed 

 to by the other contracting party. We saw not why this liberty, then no new- 

 grant, but a mere recognition of a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited 

 by a war, any more than any other of the rights of our national independence, 



