126 



Tvbich most perplexes us is the fisheries, and we have not yet de- 

 cided on the mode of proceeding, in relation to it. They have told 

 us that the liberty of taking, drying, and curing fish within the ex- 

 clusive jurisdiction of Great Britain, will not be continued to ui 

 without an equivalent ; we cannot relinquish this liberty, and we 

 cannot offer territory as an equivalent. Shall we then offer the 

 free navigation of the Mississippi, which they apparently suggested 

 with this view. I think this will be carried in the affirmative, al- 

 though I have very serious objections to the measure." 



The other letter was dated the 20th of November, 1814, and says 

 as follows :-— 



" Without having been- deceived relative to the disposition of the 

 majority, on the subject of the free navigation of the Mississippi, I 

 am happy to inform you that this disposition was not inflexible, and 

 we finally transmitted our project without the article that had at 

 first been carried,'*'' This article was as follows : — 



" The right and liberty of the people and inhabitants of the Unit- 

 ed States to take, dry, and cure fi^h in places within the exclusive 

 jurisdiction of Great Britain as recognised (and secured) by the^ 

 former treaty of peace ; and the privilege of the navigation of the 

 Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,^ 

 (as secured to the subjecls of Great Britain by the same treaty) are^ 

 hereby recognised and confirmed." 



" Besides the objection to such an article which had occurred to 

 tou, and which had not escaped us, the blending of the two points 

 together and making them mutually dependent on each other, which 

 was not done in the treaty of 1783, made this article the more ob- 

 jectionable." 



From these facts it is manifest that the solution afforded by Mr. 

 Adams for " the difference in my mind between the writing of the 

 original and the duplicate" is not correct. A despatch, received 

 on the 24th of November, could not well have had any influence on 

 my reasons for opposing a measure, previous to the 10th of that 

 month. 



I have accused no one of acting against instructions, but surely 

 f ought not to offend if I discovered a disposition to act, as far at 

 least as might be expedient, in conformity to my own construction 

 of them. 



Mr. Adams, when I last saw him at the Department of State, 

 showed me on record, an instruction to the American ministers at 

 Ghent, dated the/o«W/fc of October, 1814, apparently with- a view 

 tofreslien my memory in relation to our dispensation from the obli- 

 gation of observing the instructions, which 1 had alleged as a cause 

 for opposing the proposition, with respect to the Mississippi. I 

 had not proceeded far, however, in its perusal, before Mr. Adams 

 interrupted me by saying that he believed it had not been received 

 at the time, adding, after a momentary pause, that he did not know 

 if it had ever been received. The instructions of the 4th of Octo- 

 bfer, which had never been received, had just as much influence oa 



