11 



318 



conittnictioii its nthrr rompocts of thiii nature. Thn rocof^ition of the indcpondance of the United 

 StiiU'a cdiiM iiiit wdll liavc t^'ivcii it a ])ouulinr clmmrtcr, and rxrt'ptf'<l it rroiii the oporatinn of lliom 

 n\viK Such n rucii^'iiitidii ('\]ir('!ii<i'il or inipliod, \a always imliHiHiUsablo on tlio part of ovory uation 

 witli wliuni wu form a TriMity wlmlsoever." 



(Idem, p. GU.) 



" It is fnmi tliis viow of thi» siilijeet that T have been constrained to lioliovo that them wa« nothing 



iu the Trciity of 17^3 wliidi could nut ossi'iiiiiiUy distinguisli it from ordinary trentios, or rescue it on 

 aoi'ount of any iH'Culiarity of cliaractor from tlio Jimi Mli, or from the operation of thosu events on 

 wliiili till' ciintiiiui.ni'c or lonniiialioii of Kucli tri'iities depenilH." 



" I know not indeed, nny treaty, imr any article of any treaty, whatever may have Imen the subject 

 to which it related, of tlie terms in which it was expressed, that ha^ Hurvived a war between the parties 

 without bciiij,' spnially renewed, liy reference or recital in the sneceediii^; Treaty of I'eace. I cannot, 

 indeed, conceive the possihdily of snih a Treaty, or of such an Article ; for, however clear and strong 

 the nti|iidation» for ]K'rpetuity might lie, these stipidatioiis themsdveH wmdd follow tlu! fate of ordinary 

 unexecuted onga^jemeuts, and require, after a war, the declared uwent uf the parties for their revival" 



(Idem, p. 75.) 



" T have in this view of the stibject Ix'en led to conchide that the Treaty of 1783, in relation 



to the tishinj,' liberty, is abroj,'iited by the war, niid that this liberty iH totally destitute of support ftom 

 proscription, and consequently, that wo are left without any title tu it whatsoever." 



(Idem, p. 77.) 



" C'on.siderinff. therefore, the Kshin); liberty to be entirely at an end, without a new stipulation for 

 its revival ; and believiri!» tliat we are entirely free to di.scuss the terms and conditions of such i 

 stipulation, I did not object to the article pro|M)9e<l by us, because any article on the subject wu 

 unnecessary, or contiarv to our instructions, but 1 objecU^I specially to that article, because by oon- 

 cedin;,' in it to (iri'at liritain, the tree uavii»ation of the Mississipjii, we not oidy directly violated onr 

 instructions, but we ottered, in my estimation, a price much above its value, and which could not 

 justly bo given." 



(Idem, p. 87.) 



" T have always been willing; to make any sacriflca for the fishing privilege, which its natnre or 



comparativi^ iinjiortance rouM justify, but 1 conscientiously IhjUovo that the free navigation of the 

 Mssis.si]i|ii, and the acces;; to it, whicli we expressly oll'ered, wero pre);nant with too much mischief to 

 be olfered, directly, under our constnution of the Treaty ; or, indirectly, as they were in fact oQ'ered, 

 as a new ei(utvalent for the liberty of taking and drying tisli within JSritish jurisdiction." 



Mr. Rtisscll was supported by Henry Clay in these views. 



Our Icaniiil IVicnil, Dr. Dana, mentioned tlte eireumslances under which En^'land 

 was carryins on the nfjiotialioii.s at Ghent. She was enguf^ed in a continental war, ivith 

 tlie most illustrious warrior of modern times, and the Americans were more or less 

 exacting according to her embarrassmcnt.s. We have this described at p. 233 of 

 Mr. J. Q. Adams' correspondence, as follows: — 



" Subsequently, however, the overthrow of Na])oleon having left us to contend single-handed with 

 the undivided jKiwer of Uniat Britain, our Government thotight proper to change the tenns oll'ered to 

 the Briiisli tioveriiment, and accordingly sent additional instructions to Ulicut, direuting our Commis- 

 sioners to tnake a jieace, if iiracticalile, upon the simple condition, that each party should bo placed iu 

 the same situation in which the war found them. 



" At the rommeneement of the war, the British had a right by Treaty, not only to navigate the 

 Mississippi, but to tra<le with all o\ir We.stem Indians. Of course our Commissioners went instnioted 

 to consent to the continuance of this right, if no k'tter terms could be procured. Under these insti-uc- 

 tions a jiropositiou relative to the Missis.sipjii and the lisheries, similar to that which had been rejected, 

 was again ]iresenti'd, ailojited, and sent Ui the British Commi.s.sionein. But it did not restore the right 

 to navigate the ILississijipi, iu aa full a manner as the British Oovemment desired, and on that account, 

 we jiresumc, wa.s rejected." 



The following dates will explain the meaning of the paragraph referring to 

 Napoleon. The mission to Ghent had met before the disasters to French arms wiiich 

 resulted in the abdication of Napoleon on the 4th April, 1814. Napoleon was conveyed 

 to Elba in May following. Witli^ the slow communications of the time, the Americans 

 learned onlyi n June of the victories of England, which seemed to have given a certain 

 tone of firmness to hor negotiations at Ghent. The Treaty was signed on the 24th 

 December, 1814. On the Ist March, 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba and landed at 

 Frcjus. Americans regretted having precipitated llieir negotiations, and not beinjr in a 

 position tr avail themselves of the renewal of war on the Continent to Insist on better 

 terms, many expressed their grief in uomcaaured tones ; but it was too late. 



