162 



It is a singular circumstance, that at ^hent, as at Paris, there shouW 

 be an accusation of defectipn against an American minister. Mr. Russell, 

 the delinquent in the latter case, less foitunate than Franklin, found no 

 colleague tp vouch for the manliness of his course ; and the fact that he 

 adopted the British argument as to the effects of the war to terminate 

 our privileges, as ■Well as the opinion that the fisheries themselves were 

 of decreasing value, rests upon his own published stat;em,ents, In these 

 views he stood alone. Mr. Adarns suggested to his associates, and Mr. 

 Clay embodied in a proposition to. be presented to the British commis- 

 sioners, the principle that we held our rights' of fishing by the same 

 tenure as we did our independence; that, unlike another class of treat- 

 ies, the treaty ot 17S3 is to be regarded as perpetual, and of the nature 

 of a deed, in yhich the fisheries are an appurtenant of the soil conveyed 

 or parted with; and that, therefore, no stipulation was necessary or de- 

 sirable to secure the perpetuity of the appendage, more than of the ter- 

 ritory itself. In other words, if we must contract anew for fishing 

 grounds, so must we also pbtain a new title to our territories. This, 

 as I understand it, is the substance of the proposition itself, and of the 

 various discussions of which, from time to time, it formed the basis. 

 The position was impregnable. The arguments founded upon this 

 gi-ound were not answered by the British mission in 1814, nor by the 

 ministry during the negotiations which terminated in the convention of 

 1818. They are unanswerable. But it is not to be denied that the 

 present difficulties are attributable to the war. Had the two nations re- 

 mained at peace, there could have been no pretence of forfeiture ; there 

 would have been no compromise in 1818 between the British doctrine 

 and our own; and, of course, no ambiguous instrument on which the 

 colonists could assume, as they now do, to shut us out of bays that our 

 vessels have visited ever since they were won from France. And since 

 England Jias not renounced the pretension that was assented to by Mr. 

 Russell, it may be worthy the consideration of our statesmen, whether 

 the principle may not be revived, on the recurrence of relations similar 

 to those which first caused its assertion. The consequences of wars no 

 one is wise enough to foresee ; the questions which they really adjust, 

 how few ! the questions which they open for future generations, how 

 many ! 



Notwithstanding the position talien by Messrs. Adams, Clay, Bayard, 

 and Gallatin, at Ghent, that our treaty rights were not abrogated by 



In the enclosed letter he has ventured to deviate, and has assigned his reason for it. I 

 think, however, that I ought to oommlmieate it to you. 



I have no papers, that I recollect, that can be of any service to him. I jrablished in the Boston 

 Patriot all I recollect of the negotiations for peace in 1782 and 1783. But I have no copy of 

 that publication in manuscript or print, and I had hoped never to see it or hear of it agam. 



All tliot lean say is, tliat I would continue this war forever, rather ttmn surrender one acre of 

 our territory, one iota of thefisluyries, as estabfisliedby the third article of the treaty of 1783, or 

 one sailor impressed front any merdmnt ship. 



I will not, however, say this to my son, though I shall be very much obliged to yon if you 

 will give him orders to the same eifeet. 



It is the decree of Providence, as I believe, that the nation must be purified in the <umace 

 of affliction. 



You will be so good as to return my letter, and believe me your respectfiil fellow-oitizen a,iii 

 sincere public and private fiiend, JOHN ADAMS. 



BreS'ideut Madison. 



