129 



peculiar character, abrogated by the war, Mr Adam "«* only « 

 Isserts, but alleges to have obtained, when first suggested by hm. at 

 Ghent the umnimons assent of the American m.ss.on. 1 he proof 

 of this allegation appears to be inferred from the s.gna ure, by aH 

 that mission, of a note, to the British ministers, of the 10th of No- 

 Tember, in which that principle was partially adopted. It has al- 

 ready been seen, even from the avowal of Mr. Adams himself, that 

 the paragraph, offered by Mr Clay, admitting that doctrine was a 

 «6sL(f to a proposition which the minority had opposed. To 

 adopt, partially, in the spirit of compromise, adcctrine, as a pretext, 

 ,0 preserve the fishing privilege and to get rid of a proposition con- 

 firmative of the British right to the navigation of he Mississippi 

 cannot fairly be considered as an unanimous acknowledgment by the 

 Imer ican m^ission, of the orthodoi^y of that doctrine. The constr- 

 tutionofthe United States was, avowedly, the result of compro- 

 Biise, and thence some, at least of those who ^'gn«^^."',^' '"^t™.-^^"'; 

 must necessarily have subscribed to provisions which thej d d n„t 

 desire, and to opinions which they did not approve. The .nfer- 

 ence of Mr. Adams is. therefore, not correct. I do "«' y<=c»"^^t> 

 indeed, that any member of the mission, e''"P';"g "■■• jl^f^^V ™- 

 self, appeared to be a very zealous believer in that doctrine. Eve^n 

 Mr.Griiatin, in his separate letter of the 25th of December 18 4 

 (c) speaks only of this doctrine as one that had been amimed. feme 

 it s thattheinmority consented to admit that doctrine as an expe- 

 dient only to prevent the proposition, already decided on by the 

 ma-luy.f™™ constituting in Article of our project. So far and no 

 for Ser were the minority willing to go in adopting that doctrine, 

 but whenever it was proposed to sanction the British right to na^ i- 

 gate the Mississippi, they uniformly resisted It. ., „ t,,;,:,u 



^ Mr. Adams also asserts that the proposal confirming the Br i,=h 

 ri..ht to the navigation of the Mississippi and ours to the fishing 

 priv lege, was made not by ^ majority, but by the whole of the Ame- 

 rican mission, and refers to the protocol ot the conference of the 

 1st of December, at which that proposal was, at length, made, and 

 to our note of the 14th of that month, signed by all the American 

 mission, which said that '■ to such an article, -^Aicft they viei^ed a> 

 Zerely declaratory, the undersigned had no objection, and have of- 

 fered to accede." 



M Exlracl ofakllerfrom AlUrt Gallalm, Esg-to the Secretary of Stale, 

 dated iilh December, l<il4. 

 « On the subiecl of the faheries, within the jurisdiction of Great Bntctin, 



«e ImZ ertltldJe all that eould be done. If according to the '■o«slmcHon 



cf the treaty ohl&, «hich we assumed, the right was not abrogated by the 



tar,ir:tld^tire,sincewenioste.vlicmrefus^ 



recti!) or indirectly. In that case it is only an unsettled subject oj "W^renc'M 

 ZcZ the two countries. If the right must be considered as abrogated by the 

 'Z^ec^Z'XaLit without °a» equivalent. ^''f^r/Ifr On,A« 

 reco.ntionofthei^righttona^igate the Mississippi, andweojcred l. On his 

 Zt Supposition this right is a/» te( lo them, and, m a general poait 01 >.ev., 

 we certainly have lost iiothinj. ' 



