QTJESTION ONE. 11 



sign it or not; but he could draw in five minutes an article agreeing 

 to negotiate concerning the Mississippi and the fisheries without im- 

 pairing our claim to them by the Treaty of 1783. He drew an 

 article accordingly, which I read, and told him I had no other ob- 

 jection to it than that it would be instantly rejected by the British 

 Plenipotentiaries. I further said that as they were all determined 

 at last to yield the fishery point, I thought they were wrong not to 

 give it up now and sign the treaty without another reference to Eng- 

 land, as well as without my signature. I could not sign it, because I 

 could not consent to give up that point. But if I were of their opin- 

 ion, I would make sure of the treaty now. They were setting every- 

 thing afloat by another reference, and it was arrant trifling to be 

 still cavilling about a point upon which they had resolved ultimately 

 to yield." 



The following is an extract from Mr. Adams' Memoirs under date 

 25th December, 1814, relating to the settling of the form of the report 

 of the plenipotentiaries to their Secretary of State : 



" In mentioning to the Secretary of State the principle on which 

 we had relied respecting the fisheries, I had stated that we considered 

 the treaty of 1783 as a permanent contract, no part of which was 

 liable to be abrogated by the subsequent war. Mr. Clay, with the 

 assent of Mr. Russell, had altered it to read, we thought it might be 

 considered, and Russell afterwards had written it, we contended it 

 might be considered. Mr. Russell made out the fair copy of the 

 despatch to be sent. On reading it over, to compare it with the 

 original draft and amendments, I perceived this alteration, and im- 

 mediately objected to it. I insisted upon substituting the word must 

 for might, to read, we contended the treaty of 1783 must be con- 

 sidered, etc. Mr. Russell and Mr. Bayard agreed to this amend- 

 ment." (British Counter-Case, App., p. 150.) 



13 Mr. Russell, at a subsequent time in a controversy with Mr. 



Adams, said : 



" I do not recollect, indeed, that any member of the mission, ex- 

 cepting Mr. Adams himself, appeared to be a very zealous believer in 

 that doctrine." (British Counter-Case, App., p. 162.) 



In reply to Mr. Russell, Mr. Adams said : 



" Mr. Russell has taken infinite pains to fasten exclusively upon me, 

 the imputation of being the only asserter of this doctrine, that from 

 the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, and from the nature of 

 the fishing rights and liberties, they had none of them been abrogated 

 by the war, and needed no new stipulation to preserve them. And it 

 is this doctrine, which in the calmness of his urbanity he styles the 

 dream of a visionary. 



" I certainly never should have claimed the credit of having been 

 alone in the assertion of this principle. I should have been willing 

 that all my colleagues, who united with me in asserting it in the note 

 of 10th November, 1814, at Ghent, signed by them all, should have 

 gone through life with the credit, and have left to posterity the repu- 

 tation, of having had each an equal share in this assertion. But Mr. 

 Russell has effectually disclaimed all his portion of it, and its conse- 



