or liberties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed in "relation thereto. From their nature, and from the peculiar cha"racter of the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no "further stipulation has been deemed necessary by the govern"ment of the United States to entitle them to the full enjoyment of "all of them."

This principle, thus assumed, the Secretary does call the American side of the argument, and with his thanks to God, that it was assumed, and has since been maintained, against the British side of the 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. The Secretary would readily call it Mr. Clay's side of the argument, if he had reason to suppose it as unequivocally that gentleman's individual, as he had made it his official, opinion. The Secretary himself, not only pledged to it his official signature, but firmly believed, and still firmly believes it sound-warranted by the laws of nations, and sanctioned by the most eminent writers on international jurisprudence, as well as by many of the most eminent lawyers and statesmen of Great Britain. The inaccuracy of the statement in the editorial article of the Argus, is in representing the commissioners as having assumed the principle, in its application to the British right of navigating the Mississippi, as well as in relation to the fisheries, and on this inaccuracy is founded the censure of the Secretary for calling it the American side of the argument.

to

The commissioners assumed the principle, only as it was presented by Mr. Clay, and only in relation to the fisheries. It was emphatically the American side of the argument, and still continued so, when afterwards the British plenipotentiaries demanded a stipulation in the treaty, that British subjects should enjoy the right of navigating the Mississippi, and access to it for that purpose through our territories. The American commissioners then said to them: If you admit our principle, you need no new stipulation to secure you this right; we are willing, however, to recognise it by a new article, declaratory of both rights. If you reject it, you have no foundation to claim a right of navigating the Mississippi, and, therefore, no pretence for asking it by a new stipulation. The British plenipotentiaries could not extricate themselves from this dilemma. They said they claimed the right of navigation, as an equivalent for abandoning their line of boundary to the Mississippi, and agreeing to the 49th parallel of latitude. We offered them to leave the boundary as it was--which they finally accepted. Throughout the whole discussion, the principle assumed by the American commissioners, was the American side of the argument.

It was still so in the negotiations after the peace which terminated

in the convention of 1818, and remains the American side of the argument to this day. When, in the summer of 1815, British armed cruisers warned all American fishing vessels on the coast of Nova-Scotia to a distance of sixty miles from the shores, they very significantly proved what the British government had meant by their side of the argument, and in entering upon the negotiation, immediately afterwards and in consequence of that event, the Secretary may be allowed to speak with confidence when he says, that had it not been for the principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent, he could not have taken the first step in it--he could not have alleged a cause of complaint--sixty miles was largely within the extent of exclusive British jurisdiction, as to those fisheries, if our liberties in them had been abrogated by the war; and the American minister in England would have had no more right to complain of this warning, or of any exclusion by British cruisers of American fishing vessels from any part of the Newfoundland fisheries, than of the seizure of an American vessel in the port of Liverpool for a manifest violation of the British revenue laws.

It was upon the rights and liberties, in these fisheries, as recognised in the treaty of 1783, as unimpaired by the war of 1812, and as unabrogated, although no stipulation to confirm them had been inserted in the treaty of Ghent, that the American minister in London did complain of this warning and interdiction of the American fishermen. He recurred immediately to the principle asserted by the American commissioners at Ghent, at the proposal of Mr. Clay, and consigned in their note of 10th November, 1814. On that he rested the continued claim of the United States to all the rights and liberties in the fisheries, recognised in the treaty of 1783, and entered upon a full discussion of the question with the British government. The result of that discussion, which was continued in the negotiation of the convention of 1818, appears in the first article of that convention. The editorial article in the Argus, says that this convention restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word about the navigation of the Mississippi. The convention restricts the liberties in some small degree; but it enlarges them probably in a degree not less useful. It has secured the whole coast fishery of every part of the British dominions, except within three marine miles of the shores, with the liberty of using all the harbours, for shelter, for repairing damages, and for obtaining wood and water. It has secured the full participation in the Labrador fishery ; the most important part of the whole, and that of which it was at Ghent peculiarly the intention of the British government at all events to deprive us. This fishery cannot be prosecuted without the use of the neighbouring shores, for drying and curing the fish: it is chiefly carried on in boats, close into the shores, and the loss of it, even if the rest had been left unaffected by the same principle, would have been a loss of more than half of the whole interest. The convention has also secured to us the right of drying and curing fish on a part of the island of Newfoundland, which had not

been enjoyed under the treaty of 1783: it has narrowed down the pretensions of exclusive territorial jurisdiction with reference to those fisheries, to three marine miles from the shores. Upon the whole, I consider this interest as secured by the convention of 1818, in a manner as advantageous as it had been by the treaty of 1783; we have gained by it, even of fishing liberties, perhaps as much as we have lost; but if not, we have gained practically the benefit of the principle, that our liberties in the fisheries recognised by the treaty of 1783, were not abrogated by the war of 1812. If they had been, we never should have obtained, without a new war, any portion of them again. The error of the editorial article in the Argus, is in putting out of sight the difference between a contested and an uncontested right. After the conclusion of the peace of Ghent, according to the American side of the argument, and by virtue of the principle, assumed at the proposal of Mr. Clay, the rights and liberties of the people of the United States in these fisheries, remained in full force, as they had been recognised by the treaty of 1783. According to the British side of the argument, and to the doctrine of Mr. Russell's Letter from Paris, they were totally abrogated by the war. The letter says, in express terms, that the liberty was entirely at an end ;" and, that we were left "without any title to it whatsoever." If this was the real doctrine of the minority of the American mission at Ghent, has not the Secretary reason to exult, and to give many thanks to God, that instead of avowing it, they professed directly the contrary? That Mr. Clay himself proposed to the mission, and the mission at his proposal adopted the opposite principle, the American side of the argument. After the peace of Ghent, the right of the people of the United States to the fishing liberties was perfect, but it was contested. There was a British side of the argument, and what we have gained by the convention of 1818, has been an adjustment of that contest, preserving essentially the whole interest that was in dispute. The first article of the convention is upon its face the adjustment of a contested question. The documents of the negotiation prove how it was adjusted, and show that we obtained the adjustment by maintaining our principle. On the principle of the letter from Paris, there was no liberty to maintain, no right to assert, no contest to adjust: the liberty was gone, irretrievably lost.

The editorial article says, that "if the British were to claim the right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, the Secretary would be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his own favourite principle!!" The double notes of admiration annexed to this closing period of the editorial article, indicate a long cherished and intense desire to fasten upon the Secretary, in spite of all that he can say, the deep crimination of the dreadful consequences to which his favourite principle might yet lead. Mr. Russell, too, has resorted to this forlorn hope of charge against the Secretary. My reply to it is this-

That the principle alluded to in its application to our fishing hberties, is my favourite principle, I admit, knowing as I do, that it has been the means of saving them from total extinction. That it is my own principle, I have perhaps not more the right to say than that it was Mr. Clay's own principle: for it was at his proposal that it was assumed by the American mission at Ghent, and the paragraph by which it was assumed, was drawn up by him. For all possible consequences in relation to the British right of navigating the Mississippi, which may flow from the assumption of this prineiple, Mr. Clay so far as official acts and signatures can pledge, is as responsible as I am.

But the truth is, that the principle can no longer be applied to the British right of navigating the Mississippi, because they themselves have disclaimed it, and thereby renounced the right to the claim. The right once disclaimed, cannot again be resumed. It could not be resumed even after a tacit renunciation—a disclaimer

is still more. It was precisely because acquiescence on our part in the principle asserted by the British plenipotentiaries, in their notification of 8th August, would have been a surrender and tacit renunciation of the fishing liberties, that I deemed the counter notification on our part, or a new article indispensable. But in asserting a principle just and sound in itself, in defence of our own liberties, we are in nowise bound to force it upon Great Britain, in support of any right of hers; and as she has chosen to consider her right to navigate the Mississippi by virtue of the 8th article of the treaty of 1783, as abrogated by the war, we are neither bound to obtrude upon her that which she disclaims, nor to admit the claim, should she hereafter be disposed to retract the principle.

But this is not all; the editorial article asks "how can the Secretary consistently say that the British abandoned this right in the convention of 1818, when not a word is said about it in that compact?" It is precisely because not a word is said in the compact about it, that the British have abandoned the right. By the second article of the convention a new boundary line is stipulated, along the 49th parallel of latitude, which of course cuts them off from the line to which they were before entitled to the Mississippi. Disclaiming the right secured to them by the 8th article of the treaty of 1783, the only ground upon which they still claimed the right, was by virtue of the line which brought them in contact with the river. At the negotiations of 1807, and at Ghent, they declined agreeing to the new line, unless with a reservation of the right to navigate the river, and of access to it, through our territories. They demanded the same thing at the negotiation of the convention of 1818, and presented an article to that effect. But they finally agreed to the new boundary line, without the reservation, and thereby abandoned their last claim to the right of navigating the river.

The editorial article in the Argus, is sufficient to justify Mr. Clay for his assent to, and concurrence with, all the measures

agreed upon by the majority of the Ghent mission. His services to the nation are sufficiently distinguished to enable him to dispense with the assistance of unjust aspersions upon others.

II. Mr. Floyd's Letter.

From the Richmond Enquirer of 27th August, 1822,

To the Editors of the Enquirer:

NEW-BERNE, VIRGINIA, August 14, 1822. Gentlemen: I am induced to write to you, impelled by the nu merous editorial remarks which have issued from different parts of the Union, relating to the controversy between Messrs. Russell and Adams, involving me in a greater or less degree; but more particularly from the unwarrantable assertions of Mr. Adams throughout his rejoinder.

On entering into public life, I formed a plan from which I determined never to depart, unless for the strongest reasons; and I assure you, it is with pain and regret, I now deviate from that plan. When any thing occurs in my public conduct, if it concerns myself alone, I have been content to rest my claims to justice upon the decision of those with whom I act, entirely regardless whether the newspapers, or reporters to newspapers, either misunderstand me, misrepresent me, or do not hear me.

In the commencement of this affair, I was not a little surprised to see the editorial remarks of the Weekly Register in concluding the publication of the President's message with the letters of Mr. Russell and Mr. Adams, subjecting me to imputations of "electioneering views" and the "getting up" this business my surprise was not lessened to find any thing in my course, liable to such imputations, as I have always felt the most perfect confidence in the correctness of my course: though I have too high an opinion of the correctness and integrity of the Weekly Register to believe these remarks were intended for any other purpose, than to give an honest opinion of the transaction as it appeared to him.

With these feelings, as soon as I recovered from a severe illness, under which I was labouring when the Register was received, I wrote a statement of the whole matter, to the editor of that paper, whose independent republican course has impressed me with the most favourable sentiments of his rectitude and ability; but, thinking there would be an end to the affair very soon, and that the opportunities might offer elsewhere, of doing myself justice, I yielded to the suggestion of a friend in withholding it: nor, do I think the necessity would now exist, had the whole of the debate been published, which took place in the House of Representatives upon the adoption of Mr. Fuller's resolution, making the final call upon