:

Mr. Gallatin to the Secretary of State.

Ghent, 25th December, 1814. SIR The treaty which we signed yesterday, with the British ministers, is, in my opinion, as favourable as could be expected, under existing circumstances, so far as they were known to us.The attitude taken by the State of Massachusetts, and the appearances in some of the neighbouring States, had a most unfavourable effect. Of the probable result of the Congress at Vienna, we had no correct information. The views of all the European powers were precisely known, from day to day, to the British ministry. From neither of then did we, in any shape, receive any intimation of their intentions, of the general prospect of Europe, or of the interest they took in our contest with Great Britain. I have some reason to believe that all of them were desirous that it might continue. They did not intend to assist us; they appeared indifferent about our difficulties, but they rejoiced at any thing which might occupy, and eventually weaken our enemy. The manner in which the campaign has terminated; the evidence afforded, by its events, of our ability to resist, alone, the now very formidable military power of England; and our having been able, without any foreign assistance, and after she had made such an effort, to obtain peace on equal terms, will raise our character and consequence in Europe. This, joined with the naval victories, and the belief that we alone can fight the English on their element, will make us to be courted as much as we have been neglected by foreign governments. As to the people of Europe, public opinion was already most decidedly in our favour. I anticipate a settlement with Spain on our own terms, and the immediate chastisement of the Algerines. Permit me to suggest the propriety of despatching a squadron for that purpose, without losing a single moment.

I have little to add to our public despatch on the subject of the terms of the treaty. I really think, that there is nothing but nominal in the Indian article, as adopted. With respect to precedent, you will find two, though neither is altogether in point, viz. the

article of the treaty of Utrecht, and the latter part of the article of our treaty with Spain. You know, that there was no alternative between breaking off the negotiations, and accepting the article; and that we accepted it, only as provisional, and subject to your approbation or rejection.

The exception of Moose Island, from the general restoration of territory, is the only point on which it is possible that we might have obtained an alteration, if we had adhered to our opposition to it. The British government had long fluctuated on the question of peace: a favourable account from Vienna, the report of some success in the Gulf of Mexico, or any other incident, might produce a change in their disposition; they had, already, after the question had been referred to them, declared that they could not consent to a relinquishment of that point. We thought it too ha

zardous to risk the peace on the question of the temporary possession of that small island, since the question of title was fully reserved; and it was, therefore, no cession of territory.

On the subject of the fisheries, within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, we have certainly done all that could be done. If, according to the construction of the treaty of 1783, which we assumed, the right was not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we most explicitly refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly. In that case, it is only an unsettled subject of difference between the two countries. If the right must be considered as abrogated by the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none to give but the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, and we offered it. On this last supposition, this right is also lost to them; and, in a general point of view, we have certainly lost nothing. But we have done all that was practicable in support of the right to those fisheries-1st, by the ground we assumed, respecting the construction of the treaty of 1783-2d, by the offer to recognise the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi-3dly, by refusing to accept from Great Britain both her implied renunciation of the right of that navigation, and the convenient boundary of 49 degrees, for the whole extent of our and her territories, west of the Lake of the Woods, rather than to make an implied renunciation, on our part, to the right of America to those particular fisheries.

I believe that Great Britain is very desirous of obtaining the northern part of Maine, say from about 47 degrees north latitude, to the northern extremity of that district, as claimed by us. They hope that the river, which empties into the Bay des Chaleurs, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, has its source so far west as to intervene between the head waters of the river St. John's, and those of the streams emptying into the river St. Lawrence; so that the line north from the source of the river St. Croix will first strike the heights of land which divide the waters emptying into the Atlantic Ocean (river St. John's) from those emptying into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, (river des Chaleurs,) and afterwards the heights of land which divide the waters emptying into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, (river des Chaleurs,) from those emptying into the river St. Lawrence; but, that the said line never can, in the words of the treaty, strike any spot of land actually dividing the waters emptying into the Atlantic ocean, from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence. Such will be the foundation of their disputing our claim to the northern part of that territory; but, feeling that it is not very solid, I am apt to think that they will be disposed to offer the whole of Passamaquoddy bay, and the disputed fisheries, as an equivalent for the portion of northern territory, which they want, in order to connect New-Brunswick and Quebec. This may ac

count for their tenacity with respect to the temporary possession of Moose Island, and for their refusing to accept the recognition of their right to the navigation of the Mississippi, provided they recognise ours to the fisheries.

That northern territory is of no importance to us, and belongs to the United States, and not to Massachusetts, which has not the shadow of a claim to any land north of 45 degrees, to the eastward of the Penobscot river, as you may easily convince yourself of, by reeurring to her charters.

I have the honour to be, with respect, &c.

The Hon. the Secretary of State

ALBERT GALLATIN.

of the United States, Washington.

Extract from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. APRIL 18, 1822.

Mr. Floyd submitted the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to this House, if not injurious to the public good, any letter or communication which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, Esquire, one of the Ministers of the United States who concluded the Treaty of Ghent, after the signature of that Treaty, and which was written in conformity to the indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 25th December, 1814.

The said resolution was read and ordered to lie on the table one day.

APRIL 19, 1822.

The resolution submitted by Mr. Floyd, on yesterday, was taken up, read, and agreed to by the House.

MESSAGE from the President of the United States, to the House of Representatives, of 4th May, 1822, in answer to their Resolu tion of 19th April, 1822.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 19th of April, requesting the President "to cause to be communicated to the House, if not injurious to the public interest, any letter which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, one of the Ministers who concluded the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with the indications contained in his letter of 25th of December, 1814," I have to state, that, having referred the resolution to the Secretary of State, and it appearing, by a report from him, that no such document had been deposited among the archives of the Department, I examined and found among my private papers a letter of that description, marked "private" by himself. I transmit a copy of the report of the Secretary of State, by which it appears that Mr. Russell, on being apprized that the document referred to by the resolution had not been deposited in the Department of State,

delivered there" a paper purporting to be the duplicate of a letter written by him from Paris, on the 11th of February, 1815, to the then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House, as the letter called for by the resolution."

On the perusal of the document called for, I find that it communicates a difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majority of his colleagues, in certain transactions which occurred in the negotiations at Ghent, touching interests which have been since satisfactorily adjusted by treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The view which Mr. Russell presents of his own conduct, and that of his colleagues, in those transactions, will, it is presumed, call from the two surviving members of that mission, who differed from him, a reply, containing their view of those transactions, and of the conduct of the parties in them, and who, should his letter be communicated to the House of Representatives, will also claim that their reply should be communicated in like manner by the Executive-a claim which, on the principle of equal justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of the Ministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Russell's letter should be communicated, and that I would transmit, at the same time, a communication from him respecting it.

On full consideration of the subject, I have thought it would be improper for the Executive to communicate the letter called for, unless the House, on a knowledge of these circumstances, should desire it; in which case the document called for shall be communicated, accompanied by a report from the Secretary of State, as above suggested. I have directed a copy to be delivered to Mr. Russell, to be disposed of as he may think proper, and have caused the original to be deposited in the Department of State, with instruction to deliver a copy to any person who may be interested. JAMES MONROE.

Washington, May 4th, 1822.

Department of State,

Washington, May 3, 1822.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 19th ultimo, requesting the President" to cause to be communicated to the House, if not injurious to the public good, any letter or communication which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, Esquire, one of the Ministers of the United States who concluded the treaty of Ghent, after the signature of that treaty, and which was written in conformity to the indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 25th of December, 1814," has the honour of reporting to the President, that, until after the adoption of the said resolution by the House, there was upon the files of the Department of State, no letter from Mr. Russell, of the description mentioned therein;

but that Mr. Russell himself has since delivered at the Department, a communication purporting to be the duplicate of a letter written by him from Paris, on the 11th of February, 1815, to the then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House, as the letter called for by their resolution.

A copy of this paper is herewith submitted to the President. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

Extract from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. MAY 6th, 1822.

Mr. Fuller submitted the following resolution, to wit:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House the letter of Jonathan Russell, esquire, referred to in his message of the 4th of May, instant; together with such communications as he may have received relative thereto, from any of the other ministers of the United States who negotiated the treaty of Ghent.

The said resolution was received by unanimous consent of the House, read, and ordered to lie on the table one day.

MAY 7th, 1822.

The House took up and proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Fuller, yesterday, and the same being read,

Mr. McCarty moved that it lie on the table; which, being disagreed to.
The question was taken on agreeing to the resolution,

And passed in the affirmative.

Extract from the National Intelligencer of 13th June, 1822.

CONGRESSIONAL.

[It is one of the most vexatious incidents that has ever occurred to us, of lesser importance, that we mislaid our notes of the proceedings which took place in the House of Representatives on the 7th May last, on Mr. Fuller's motion, respecting Mr. Russell's letter, and on the bill authorizing the change of the site of the canal in this city, both of which debates we hoped to have published. We have the more reason to regret the circumstance, because a curiosity has been expressed to see what was said on Mi. Fuller's motion. friend, who attended to what passed, has furnished us, from memory, with the following sketch of the proceedings on that occasion. It is brief, but is believed to be substantially correct.]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-7th May, 1822.

A

Mr. Fuller's resolution, which was submitted yesterday, requesting the President to communicate the letter of Jonathan Russell, esq. relating to the treaty of Ghent, together with such communications as had been received from the other plenipotentiaries, or either of them, in explanation of the letter of Mr. R. was called up, and, on the question of its adoption

Mr. Floyd said, he had moved the original resolution for the Ghent correspondence, with an expectation that it might throw some light on the importance of the Columbia river, and the bill before the House proposing an establishment there. As the President, however, had not thought proper to communicate the letter in question, when specially called for, he (Mr. F.) had moved to