Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-10-15

expressly in the treaty Of peace for their re-
newaL
The British Commissioners havinr stated.
that these we're all the subjects which they
intended to bring forward or 10 suggest. re
quested 70 be informed, whether We were
instructed TO enter into negotiation ON these
several points and, whether there was aov
amongst these which We thought it unneceSs
sary to bring into the negocistion ! and tleey
desired Us to eatc, on our psrt. such other
subjects as We might intend to propose TOR
discussion In the Course of flie H.tsciation.
The meeting was then adjourned to the
next day. in Older to affosd Us thtopportu-
nifty of consultation amonR ouxtelSes. be.
fore we gave an answer.
In the course ofthe cssaiSRe& the Same
day. we received your letters of the 25tk
AMI 9th Of June.
&kere could be no hesitation. Of, orr s,art,
in nfprming tie British Commissioners. chat
we we're u6t instructed on the subjects of
Indian paciftation or boundary, and of fish,
cries. Nor did it seem probable, although
neither ofthese points had been stated with
sufficient precision in that first vesbaI con.
fereHcc. that they could be admitted in any
shape. We did not wish, however, to pre-.
ding abruptly 70 break off the negotiation. It
was nor impossible that. on the subject of
the Indians. the British government had re.
ceiyed erroneous impressions from the Indi-
an traders in Canada, which cur represen-
tstions might remove: And it appeared, ut
all events, important, to ascertain distinctly
the precise intentions of Great Britain ON
both points: We. therefore, thought il ad
visaoie to invite the British Commissioners
to general conversation on all the points
stating tothem, at the same time, our want
OF instructions on two ofthem, and holding
out no expectation Of the probability of our
agreeing to any article respecting them
AT our meeting on the ensuing day vein
formed the British commissioners. that ups
on the first and third points proposed BY
them we were provided with Instructions.
and we presented as further subjects consi-
dered ~ our go7ernment as suitable for dis
cussicn:
lst a definition OF blockade; and as far
mignt ne mutually agreed Of other neutral
and betliSerent rights.
I'd, Claims OF indemnify in certain cases,
OF capture and seizure,
We then.stated that the subjects. 1st Of
lpdian paciiication, and boundary, and I'd of
fisheries. were not embraced by cur instruc>
tions
We observed, that as thesc points had
Hsf oeen heretofore the grounds of any cons,
sroyersy between the government of Great
Britain and that of the United States, and
had not been alluded TO by lord CastIereagh.
IN his letter proposing the negotiation. it
could not be expected that they should have
been anticipitsted and made the subject of
Instructions by our government that it
was natural TO be supposed, that our instruc-
tons were confined to those subjects upon
which differences between the two countries
were known to exist end that the PROPOSE.
ton to define, IN treaty between the u
nited States and Great britain, the bounda.
ry OF the Indian possessions within our ter
ritorics, was new and without example. No
such provision had been inserted in the trea-
~ OF peace in 1893. nor in any other treaty
betweenthe two countries. No such pro-
vision had, to our knowledge, ever been in~
serted IN any treaty made by Great Britain
or any other European power in relation to
The same description OF people, existing uH-
der like circumstances We would say,
however, thati 1t would not be doubted that
peace with the Indians would certainly fol-
low peace with Great Britain: that we
had information that Commissioners had al
ready been appointed to treat with them
tnat treaty to th2t effect might, perhaps,
have been already concluded and that the
United States having no interest,", nor any
motlves to Continue separate war against
the indians, there could never be . moineRt
NJ u al rA. - - - II.