Misbusippi 111 as lull a manner as the British government desired, 

 and on that account, we presume, was rejected. 



*'Now we believe the truth to be, that Mr. Clay still opposed 

 this proposition, believing that it never ought to be made by our 

 government, and perhaps was not necessary to the conclusion of 

 the peace. But as the government had authorized a treaty to be 

 made on the status ante bellum, and as the proposition amounted to 

 nothing more, he did not refuse to sign his name to the letter 

 which contained not only that, but all the other propositions made 

 in the treaty. 



*' The Secretary, in his strictures, confounds together the dis- 

 cussions which took place before and after the reception of the 

 additional instructions, by which means more discriminating heads 

 than Penn's have been deceived. 



" The commissioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the 

 right to the fisheries in British waters, on our side, and the right to 

 navigate the Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83, 

 were not abrogated by the war, but continued in full force without 

 any new stipulation at the peace. The Secretary calls this the 

 American side of the argument, and exults, with many thanks to 

 God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations, 

 and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in 

 1818. Surely this exultation is not only without cause, but con- 

 trary to reason. If the principle so strenuously asserted by him 

 be correct, what have we gained by it ? At the close of the war 

 our right to the fisheries and the British right to navigate the MiS' 

 sissippi, existed to the full extent at which they were secured by 

 the treaty of '83, and would have continued so to exist without any 

 additional stipulation until this moment. But the convention of 

 1818, restricts our fishing liberties, and soys not a word about the 

 navio-ation of the Alisnssippi. Hence, if the Secretary's position 

 be sound, we have lost by it a part of our fishing liberties, and 

 the British retain the right to navigate the Mississippi in its fullest 

 extent ! How can the Secretary co?isistently say, that they abandon- 

 ed this right in the convention of 1818, when not a word is said 

 about it in that compact ? If he were President and the British 

 were to claim the right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, he 

 would be obliged to grant their claim vahd or contradict his owft 

 favourite principle ! !'' 



Kemarks on the Above Editorial Article, 



This article admits that Mr. Clay did not refuse to sign his name 

 to the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st 

 of December, 1814, of confirming to the British the right of navi- 

 gating the Mississippi. U admits that the proposition was fully- 

 warranted by the instructions of 19th October, 1814, and formally 

 assigns them, as his motive for not refusing his assent to the pro 

 posai. It does, indeed, say that he believed the propositioa 



