APPENDIX.

1. Western Commentaries.

In the remarks upon Mr. Russell's letter and duplicate, which were submitted to the House of Representatives, I expressed the most unqualified confidence in the justice of the West, and my entire conviction that however justly the inhabitants of that portion of the Union might have been incensed against the majority of the Ghent mission, upon the statements and representations of those letters, yet that when the plain unvarnished tale of real fact should be laid before them, they would not only acquit the majority of any intended sacrifice of their interests, but would find in the measure itself, distinctly disclosed to them in its own nature, nothing to disapprove. In every part of this Union, when the whole truth can once be exhibited to the people, there is a rectitude of public opinion which neither individual enmity, local prejudices, nor party rancour can withstand or control. Upon this public virtue of my country I have ever relied, nor has it now, nor ever disappointed me. I have the satisfaction of knowing from various sources of informa tion, public and private, that the general sentiment of the Western Country, wherever the Remarks as well as the Letters have been read, has done justice to the intentions of the majority, as well as to the motives of Mr. Russell.

Yet, since the communication of his Letters to the House of Representatives, the uses for which it was supposed the production of them was intended, and to which they were adapted, have not been altogether abandoned in some parts of the Western Country. The St. Louis Enquirer has pursued this purpose, in the simplest form, by publishing the message of the President of the United States to the House of Representatives of 7th May; and Mr. Russell's Private letter, and by suppressing the Duplicate and the Remarks.

In the Kentucky Reporter, published in Lexington, and in the Argus of Western America, published at Frankfort, various publications have appeared, exhibiting similar views of the subject, representing the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries, on the 1st of December, 1814, as a very grievous offence, and ascribing it exclusively to me. The subject has, however, been

presented in a manner more impartial, in the Louisville Public Advertiser, where, among other things, it has been inquired how, if the. proposal was so very exceptionable it could, under any circumstances have received the sanction or signature of Mr. Clay?

The following editorial article in the Frankfort Argus, of 18th July, seems intended to answer that question, and although containing some severe strictures upon "the Secretary," mingles with them some candid admissions, in a spirit upon which I would with equal candour animadvert.

From the Argus of Western America, Frankfort, Kentucky, 18th July, 1822. THE GHENT MISSION.

"Mr. Penn does not understand the circumstances attending the Ghent negotiation, or he wilfully conceals the truth.

"The first instructions given to our commissioners were, that they should not agree to any stipulation by which the pre-existing right of British subjects to trade with the Indians living within our territories, should be revived. The object of this instruction was to cut off the means of British influence among the Indians, which we had felt so fatally in that war.

"While acting under these instructions, it was proposed by Mr. Gallatin to offer the British the free navigation of the Mississippi, with access to it through our territories, on condition that the liberty to take and cure fish on the coast within the exclusive jurisdiction of the British colonies, should be continued to the citizens of the United States. This proposition was strenuously opposed by Mr. Clay, on the ground that it would give the British those very means of influence over the Indians of which it was the object of the government to deprive them, as evinced by their instructions. first Gallatin, Adams, and Bayard, were favourable to the proposition, and Clay and Russell against it. In the end, however, Bayard changed sides, and it was rejected. Of course, no such proposition was made at that time.

At

"Subsequently, however, the overthrow of Napoleon having left us to contend single-handed with the undivided power of Great Britain, our government thought proper to change the terms offered to the British government, and accordingly sent additional instructions to Ghent, directing our commissioners to make a peace if practicable, upon the simple condition, that each party should be placed in the same situation in which the war found them.

"At the commencement of the war, the British had a right by treaty, not only to navigate the Mississippi, but to trade with all our western Indians. Of course our commissioners were instructed to consent to the continuance of this right, if no better terms could be procured. Under these instructions a proposition relative to the Mississippi and the fisheries, similar to that which had been rejected, was again presented, adopted, and sent to the British commissioners. But it did not restore the right to navigate the

Mississippi in as full a manner as the British government desired, and on that account, we presume, was rejected.

"Now we believe the truth to be, that Mr. Clay still opposed this proposition, believing that it never ought to be made by our government, and perhaps was not necessary to the conclusion of the peace. But as the government had authorized a treaty to be made on the status ante bellum, and as the proposition amounted to nothing more, he did not refuse to sign his name to the letter which contained not only that, but all the other propositions made in the treaty.

"The Secretary, in his strictures, confounds together the discussions which took place before and after the reception of the additional instructions, by which means more discriminating heads than Penn's have been deceived.

"The commissioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the right to the fisheries in British waters, on our side, and the right to navigate the Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83, were not abrogated by the war, but continued in full force without any new stipulation at the peace. The Secretary calls this the American side of the argument, and exults, with many thanks to God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations, and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in 1818. Surely this exultation is not only without, cause, but contrary to reason. If the principle so strenuously asserted by him be correct, what have we gained by it? At the close of the war our right to the fisheries and the British right to navigate the Mis. sissippi, existed to the full extent at which they were secured by the treaty of '83, and would have continued so to exist without any additional stipulation until this moment. But the convention of 1818, restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word about the navigation of the Mississippi. Hence, if the Secretary's position be sound, we have lost by it a part of our fishing liberties, and the British retain the right to navigate the Mississippi in its fullest extent! How can the Secretary consistently say, that they abandon. ed this right in the convention of 1818, when not a word is said about it in that compact? If he were President and the British were to claim the right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, he would be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his own favourite principle !!"

Remarks on the Above Editorial Article.

This article admits that Mr. Clay did not refuse to sign his name to the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st of December, 1814, of confirming to the British the right of navigating the Mississippi. It admits that the proposition was fully warranted by the instructions of 19th October, 1814, and formally assigns them, as his motive for not refusing his assent to the pro posal. It does, indeed, say that he believed the proposition

never ought to be made by our government, and perhaps was not necessary to the conclusion of the peace. The perhaps it was not, of course implies that perhaps it was necessary to the conclusion of the peace, and in candid reasoning is of itself sufficient to justify the majority in the determination to make the proposal, which they did believe to be necessary.

In transferring the blame, whatever it might be, of making the proposition, from the majority of the mission, who only executed, to the government which issued the instructions, under which Mr. Clay did not refuse his signature, a new field of argument is opened, not very reconcileable with any portion of Mr. Russell's papers on this subject. Mr. Russell's duplicate alleges, that the proposition was in positive and wilful violation of instructions, explicit and implicit. Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman of 27th June last, affirms that the instructions of 19th October, 1814, had no effect whatever on the proposition to the British plenipotentiaries of 1st December; that no vote in the mission was taken after the instructions of 19th October were received-and he appeals to Mr. Clay to confirm this statement.

It is, to be sure, a matter of opinion, whether the government ought to have given the instructions of 19th October, 1814,-or not, upon which every member of the Ghent mission, individually, had the right of entertaining his own opinion. There may be extreme cases in which a public minister would be justified in refusing his signature to a proposition warranted or even required by the instructions of his government: a member of a commission may indulge himself in this respect with a much greater latitude than a single plenipotentiary, for the obvious reason that the instructions may be executed without his assent. Mr. Clay, therefore, might have withheld his signature from the proposition which was made on the 1st of December, 1814, as he had said he should withhold it from that which had been voted on the 5th of November. The reason assigned in the editorial article of the Argus, for his having taken a different course, namely, the receipt in the interval between the two periods of the new instructions from the government, is amply sufficient to justify him for yielding his assent at last, but in candid reasoning, if it justified him in pledging his signature to a measure which he disapproved, it surely more than justified the majority, in determining to offer a proposition, which they approved, and for which they had been prepared even before those instructions had been received.

The editorial article in the Argus, admits, in amplest form, that at the commencement of the war, the British had the right to navigate the Mississippi, and that the commissioners were instructed to consent to the continuance of this right, if no better terms could be procured. But it intimates the belief of Mr. Clay, that the government ought never to have issued such instructions. Yet the reason stated in the editorial article itself, as the inducing motive of the government to this measure, is weighty, and whoever

will duly consider the situation and circumstances of this nation and its government, in October, 1814, will, I believe, not be very ready to join in a censure upon the government for offering a peace on the basis of the state before the war. There was then a heavy responsibility, both upon the government and upon the mission at Ghent, that the war should be concluded. This nation would have ill-brooked a rupture of the negotiation upon light or trivial causes, and if it had been broken off upon a refusal to continue to the British a mere nominal right to navigate the Mississippi, possessed by them and harmless to us until the war had begun, the government and the mission would have had a very different task to justify themselves to this country, from that which they now have. If, instead of writing his letter of 11th February, 1815, from Paris, Mr. Russell had brought the substance of it home in his pocket, with the war still raging, and he had said, We have not concluded the peace we have broken off the negotiation-but here are our reasons-producing his letter of seven sheets against the Mississippi navigation, and the fisheries-What would the nation and the world have said of the American government and the American mission at Ghent? After the responsibility has been removed, and the peace concluded, it is very easy to "enjoy the good and cavil the conditions"-but in this case, measure still harder is dealt out to the government and the majority of the mission: after the good is secured, the cavil is against conditions not annexed to it, but merely once proposed-not against an actual stipulation, but against a rejected offer--against a possibility extinct.

It is sufficient for the justification of the majority of the mission that it was authorized, and that they believed it to be required by their instructions. But I cannot pass over this censure upon the government for issuing the instructions themselves, without notice. Far from deeming them blameable, I believe them to have been wise and meritorious. The instructions not to surrender the fisheries, even at the hazard of breaking off the negotiation, manifested a sensibility congenial to the true and essential interests of the country. I have in these papers furnished proof that the interest in the fisheries at stake in the negotiation, was great and important. The disquisitions in the Western newspapers on this subject, dwell largely upon the state of politics then prevailing in the Eastern section of the Union. This is an invidious topic, and I wish to dismiss it, with this observation, that the administration of Mr. Madison could not have honoured itself more than by maintain. ing with inflexible energy against the enemy, the special interest of that portion of the Union which had been most opposed to the war. But had that illustrious statesman and patriot suffered himself on that occasion to be influenced by narrower considerations, it could not escape him, that however exceptionable the political course of the State of Massachusetts might be, the portion of the people, most particularly interested in these fisheries, neither countenanced nor supported it. They had been the first, and were among the great