Martinsburgh gazette. [volume] (Martinsburgh, Va. [W. Va.]) 1810-1825, 1814-12-22
THE NEGOTIATION.


THE NEGOTIATION.
We have published the most interesting
portion of the late dispatches of our
ministers, and had intended giving the
residue in this and the following paper.
But as this could not be done without
excluding nearly every thing else; and
as they relate principally to the Indians
and are not particularly interesting, we
content ourselves with extracting the
most important parts, from which it will
be seen that the subject has been arrang
ed in manner satisfactory to both par
ties. Our ministers in letter of the
10Th of September, in answer to note
of the British commissioners, on the sub.
ject of Indians and Indian boundary, re
mark
"The allegation of the British plenipo.
tentiaries, that it is inconsistent with the
practice or principles of G Britain to aban-
don in her negotiations for peace, those
who have co operated with her in war, is
not applicable to the Indians. but on The er
roneous assumption Of their independence,
which, 90 far as she is concerned, has cen
fully disapproved. And although no power
from these tribes to the British govern.
nlens to treat in their behalf, would, for
the same reason be admitted by the IN
dersigned, they may, nevertheless, OBJ
serve, that the British plenipoteutiaries
having produced no such powers, having no
authority to bind the Indians, to engage
for their assent to the pacihcation. or to
secure the continue nee of peace on their
part whilst speaking of them as allies, do re-
ally propose to treat for them, not as if
they were independent nations. but as ifthey
were the subjects of Great Britain.
The undersigned, Sc far from asking
that, in relation to the Indians, Great Bril-
with her former practice and principles, on
ly desire that she would follow her own ex
ample respecting them, in her former trea-
ties with other European nations, and with
the United States. No provision for the
Indians is found in the treaty of 1868, by
which France ceded Can ada to G Britain,
although almost all the Indians living with,
in the territory ceded, or acknowledged to
belong to G. Britain, had taken part with
France in the war. No such provision was
inserted in the treaty of peace of 1883, be,
tween G. Britain and the u. States, aftho'
almost all the Indian tribes living within
the territory recognized by the treaty to
belong to the United States, had, during
the war, co-operated with Great Britain,
and might have been considered as her ell
lies more justly than on the present occa-
sion So far as concerns the relations be-
tween G. Britain and the u. States, these
Indians can be treated for only on the
princi Piles by which amnesties are stipulated
in favor of disaffected persons, who, in
Tunes of war and invasion, co operate with
the enemy ofthe nation to which they be
long TO go as far as possible in securing
the benefit Of the peace to the Indians. now
the only object protested by the British GO
vernment in their present sine qua non, the
undersigned offer stipulation in general
terms, that no person or persons, whether
subjects. citizens, or Indians, residing
within the dominions of either party. shall
be niolested orsaonoyed, either in their per
sons or their property, for any part they
may have taken in the war between the u
States and G. Britain, but shall retain all
the rights, privileges and possessions, they
respectively had at the commencement of
the war they, on their part, demeaning
themselves peaceably, and conformably to
their duties to the respective governments.
This the undersigned have no doubt will
effeetually secure to the Indians peace IT
they themselves will observe it, and they
viii not suppose that Great Britain
would wish them included in the peace,
but opon that condition.
The British commissioners in q long let
| ter of October 9th, in reply to the above
conclude By saying
"t remains only to notice two objections
which the American plenipotentiaries have
urged against the proposal Of Indian pscifi-