239 



^« or liberties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed lu 

 *« relation thereto. From their nature, an;l from the peculiar cha- 

 " racter of the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no 

 *' further stipuhUion has been deemed necessary by tlie govern- 

 *' ment of the United States to entitle them to the lull enjoyment ol 

 « all of them." 



This principle, thus assumed, the Secretary does call (he Amen- 

 can side of the argument, and with his thanks to God, that it was as- 

 sumed, and has since been maintained, against the British side oj tae 

 argument, announced in the conference of 8th August, 1814, and 

 to which this paragraph was the formal answer, the Secretary would 

 not less heartily add his thanks to Mr. Clay, for having made this 

 principle his own, by proposing it to the mission, by signing the 

 note in which it was contained, and by maintaining it against the 

 British plenipotentiaries, as long as it was necessary for the_^great 

 interest at stake upon it, that he should maintain it. 1 he S^cre- 

 tary would readily call it Mr. Clay's side of the argument, i[he had 

 reason to suppose it as unequivocally that gentleman s individ.^^^^^ 

 as he had made it his othcial, opinion. The Secretary hiniself, 

 not only pledged to it his official signature but hrmly believed, and 

 still firmly believes it sound-warranted by the laws ot nations, 

 and sanctioned by the most eminent writers on international juns. 

 Drudence as well as by many of the most eminent lawyers and 

 Ksren'o? G^eat Britain. The inaccuracy of the statement in 

 the editorial article of the Argus, is in representing the commis- 

 sioners as having assumed the principle, in its application to the 

 British right of navigating the Mississippi, as well as in relation to 

 fhe fisherL, and on this inaccuracy IS iounded the censure oi the 

 Secretary for calling it the American side of the argiiment. 



ThrcmLissioners a.^^^^^^ the principle, on^ as it was pre- 

 sented by Mr. Clay, and only in relation to the fisheries. It was 

 emphatically the American side of the argument, and still continued 

 so vvhen aUerwards the British plenipotentiaries demanded a stipu- 

 lation in the treaty, that British subjects should enjoy the right of 

 ntiga ing the Mississippi, and access to it for that purpose through 

 onr terHtories. The American commissioners then said to them : 

 ?f vou aL t oi^r principle, you need no new stipulation to secure 



V, Ln^no. their ine of boundary to the Mississippi, and agreeing 

 :r«^rall^ or U..£ we o;e«. J»™ . .e.ve^.^^ 



