have the message committed to a committee of which he was a member, but the motion had not prevailed. He had, however, hoped, since he had desisted from again requesting the letter, that no other gentleman would have proposed it. It was manifest that it had been withheld to prevent the excitement and ill blood which the contents might produce. He hoped the resolution would not be adopted.

Mr. Fuller said, he was happy to hear from the gentleman from Virginia, that he had been induced to abstain from a further, call for Mr. R's letter to prevent the excitement of "ill blood," and he would by no means be behind him, (Mr. Floyd,) in such a laudable intent; but, in his opinion, the communication of the letter, and of the explanation of the other commissioners, to Congress and to the public, would have a far greater tendency to allay the ill blood, if any existed, than the suppression of the explanation, while the letter was in effect made public. The President's message informed us, Mr. Fuller said, that he had transmitted the letter to the Department of State, and directed copies of it to be delivered to persons who should apply; consequently, it would soon reach the newspapers, while the comments or explanations which ought to accompany it would be effectually suppressed. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unfair than thus to stifle all reply. It reminded him, he said, of what he had of late frequently witnessed in this House, when some bill was pending, and, before it was understood, one of its opposers would make a speech against it, and conclude with a motion to lay it on the table, which precluded all debate, and, consequently, all explanation. The indignation produced by such a course every gentleman must have observed and sometimes have felt. There was nothing so safe and honourable as a full disclosure of the statements of both sides. He regretted, he said, that his colleague, the writer of the letter, was not in his seat, as he was sure he could not object to the call, more especially as it appeared from the message, that the gentleman himself had furnished to the Department a duplicate or copy of that letter to be communicated to Congress before the original had been found. As to the suggestion that the Ghent correspondence or the letter in question could throw a single ray of light on the subject of the occupation of Columbia river, it was too improbable, Mr. Fuller said, to have ever entered his mind; but if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Floyd) had expected it at first, he could see no reason for his giving over the pursuit. He hoped the House would see the obvious justice of adopting the resolution.

Mr. Cocke said, he could see no reason for calling for the letter; the President had declined communicating it, and, therefore, he thought it not proper in the House to persist in the call.

Mr. Sergeant said, he rose to correct the error into which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cocke) had fallen, in supposing the President had "declined" communicating Mr Russell's letter. It appeared, on recurring to the message, (a part of which Mr. S.

read,) that he merely declined sending the letter, without also sending such answer or explanation as the majority of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty, or any of them, should request. On the other hand, the President signifies his willingness to communicate both together; and Mr. S. said, he could see no objection whatever to the resolution, which seemed, under existing circumstances, to ask no more than was due to the survivers of the commissioners, whose conduct was implicated, and who had a right to be heard.

Mr. Cocke, after hearing the message read, the terms of which, he said, he had not before so particularly attended to, withdrew his opposition.

Mr. Hardin said, he was glad the letter was called for, and he should vote for the resolution, as it would show the western people in what manner their interests were disregarded or sacrificed; that the commissioners offered to give up the navigation of the Mississippi to secure the fisheries of the east.

The resolution was then adopted with only one or two voices in the negative.

MESSAGE from the President of the United States, transmitting (pursuant to a resolution of the House of Representatives, of 7th May,) a Letter of Jonathan Russell, late one of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States, at the negotiation of Ghent, with Remarks thereon, by the Secretary of State.

To the House of Representatives:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th of May, requesting the President of the United States" to communicate to that House the letter of Jonathan Russell, esq. referred to in his message of the 4th 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," I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the documents called for by that resolution. JAMES MONROE.

Washington, May 7, 1822.

Department of State,

Washington, 7th May, 1822.

The Secretary of State has the honour of transmitting to the President of the United States his remarks upon the paper deposited at the Department of State on the 22d of last month, by Jonathan Russell, late one of the plenipotentiaries of the United States, at the negotiation of Ghent, to be communicated to the House of Representatives, as the letter called for by their resolution of the 19th of that month; and the Secretary of State respectfully requests that the President would transmit to the House of Representatives these Remarks, together with the above mentioned communication of Mr. Russell, on the renewal of the call therefor by the House: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

(PRIVATE.)

Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State.

Paris, 11th February, 1815,

SIR: In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter of the (1) 25th of December, I (2) now have the honour to state to you the reasons which induced me to differ from a majority of my colleagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of the American people to take and cure fish in certain places within the British jurisdiction.

The (3) proposition of such an article appeared to be inconsistent with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. According to this reasoning, no new stipulation was any more necessary, on the subject of such an article, than a new stipulation for the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

The article proposed appeared also to be inconsistent with our instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5) our right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion; for, it could not be believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject which we were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (8) argument, and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our construction was indeed correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to show that we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the interdicted dis

cussion.

At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objectionable, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which (10) this majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which related to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in these principles, and in this construction, it became us to act accordingly; if they were (11) not correct, still it was unnecessary to add inconsistency to error.

I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majority, either in their view of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived their principles, or of our instructions; and that my great objection to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to reconcile our conduct with our reasoning and declarations.

SIR: In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter of the (1) 25th December, I (2) have now the honour to state to you the reasons which induced me to differ from a majority of my colleagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of the American people to take and cure fish in certain places within the British jurisdiction.

The (3) proposal of such an article appeared to be inconsistent with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility.

According to this reasoning, no new stipulation was any more necessary, on the subject of such an article, than a new stipulation for the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

The article proposed appeared, also, to be inconsistent with our instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5) our right to the fisheries, to be brought into discussion; for, it could not be believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject which we were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (8) argument, and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our construction was, indeed, correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to show that we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the interdicted discussion.

At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objectionable, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which (10) that majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which related to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in these principles, and in this construction, it became us to act accordingly. If they were (11) incorrect, still it was unnecessary to add inconsistency to error.

I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majority, either in their views of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived their principles, nor of our instructions; and that my great objection to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to reconcile our conduct with our reasoning and declarations.

* The word (Copy) had here been written by Mr. Russell, and erased. The traces of it are visible on the paper.

+ Note on the date of the Duplicate. This was the date of the paper as delivered by Mr. Russell on the 22d of April, 1822, at the Department of State. It was afterwards altered to 1815, with his approbation, and before it was communicated to the House, as will be seen in the sequel.

I could not believe that the independence of the United States was derived from the treaty of 1783; that the recognition of that independence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would necessarily render this treaty ab olutely inseparable in its provisions, and make it one entire and indivisible whole, equally imperishable in all its parts, by any change which might occur in the relations between the contracting parties.

The independence of the United States rests upon those fundamental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress, in the declaration of July, 1776, and not on any British (12) grant in the treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly.

The treaty of 1783 was merely a (13) treaty of peace, and therefore subject to the same rules of construction as all other compacts of this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United States could not (14) well have given to it a peculiar character, and excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition, expressed or implied, is always indispensable on the part of every nation with whom we form any treaty (15) whatsoever. France, in the treaty of alliance, long before the year 1783, not only expressly recognised, but engaged (16) effectually to maintain, this independence; and yet this treaty, so far from being considered as possessing any mysterious peculiarity, by which its existence was perpetuated, has, even without war, and although a part of it contained words of (17) perpetuity, and was (18) unexecuted, long (19) since entirely terminated.

Had the recognition of our independence by Great Britain given to the treaty of 1783 any peculiar character, which it did not, (20), still that character could have properly extended to those provisions only (21) which affected that independence. All those general rights, for instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the United States, in their quality as a nation, might, so far as that treaty was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) such peculiarity, without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere (24) special commercial liberties and (25) privileges, or to provisions (25) long since executed, not indispensably connected with national sovereignty, (27) or necessarily resulting from it

The liberty to take and cure fish, within the exclusive (28) jurisdiction of (29) Great Britain, was certainly not necessary to perfect the (30) jurisdiction of the (31) United States; and there is no reason to believe that such a liberty was intended to be raised to an equality with the general right of fishing within the common jurisdiction of all nations, which accrued to us as a member of the great national family. On the contrary, the distinction between the special liberty and the general right appears to have been well understood by the American ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1783, and to have been clearly marked by the very import of the terms which they employed. It would evidently have been unwise in them, however ingenious it may be in us, to exalt such a privilege