132 



I did not give a ulent vote, which Mr. Adams says " it may be I 

 did," after having said that I concurred with Mr. Clay in opposing 

 it; '* I did entertain, and express at Ghent, the opinions disclosed 

 in my letter ;" and, if I did not disclose them " to the same extent^'* 

 I did state them with sufficient precision and perspicuity to entitle 

 them to alt the consideration which they might deserve. 



Mr. Adams charges me with ascribing to my colleagues opinions 

 which they never entertained, arguments which they never ad- 

 vanced, and doctrines which they not only would disclaim with in- 

 dignation, but diametrically opposed to those which they did main- 

 tain. Let it be remembered here that my letter received from 

 Paris was confined, in justification of my conduct, to combating the 

 opinions, arguments, and doctrines of the majority, which, in the 

 despatch of the 25th of December, 1814 (d) were stated by them, 

 or at least by Mr. Adams, for that despatch was drawn up by him, 

 Mr. Gallatin, indeed, in his separate letter of the same date, (c) 

 does not go to the same extent. He merely states the assumption 

 of the peculiarity of the treaty of 1783. 



To support this charge, Mr. Adams says I impute to my col- 

 leagues an opinion that the Independence of the United States was 

 derived from the treaty of 1783. 



In what part of my letter he finds such an imputation I am at a 

 loss to discover. In contending against any peculiarity of that treaty, 

 I simply said " I could not believe that the Independence of the 

 United States was derived from the treaty of 1783." Without admit- 

 ting such a derivation of our Independence, I could not perceive, 

 indeed, any ground for the peculiarity ascribed to that treaty ; for a 

 mere recognition of a prior right furnished none ; no other treaty 

 containing such recognition having been considered as possessing it. 

 In denying such a derivation, although fairly inferrable from the 

 doctrine of Mr. Adams, I charged no one with believing in it, but 

 I removed the only foundation, as I conceived, on which the doc- 

 trine of Mr. Adams could be supported ; and now, in disclaiming 

 that foundation, unless he can show a better, he virtually renounces 

 that doctrine. 



He says, also, that I impute to my colleagues " that they rested 

 their claim to the fishing privilege on prescription ;" but he adds 

 that, " as the settlement of the colonies themselves had not been 

 of time immemorial, it zvas not, and never was pretended to be a 

 title by prescription." This appears to have been a recent dis- 

 covery. In the letter of the 25th of December, above mentioned, 

 it is said, " this liberty, then," (1783) " no new grant, but a mere 

 recogniiion of a prior right aZtt-r/T/s enjoyed." And again, in the 

 same letter, " without adverting to the ground of prior and imme- 

 morial usage," &c. If I erroneously inferred from these passages 

 that a title was claimed from prescription, my error, I trust, will 

 be considered a venial one. Mr. Adnms can undoubtedly explain 

 what he meant by " a prior right, always enjoyed," and by '* the 

 ground of prior and immemorial usiige." He did not mean, it 



