The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-03

Of THE whole suhject--with representing-thAt
the offer 10 navigate the Mississippi was gene
al and unqualified, when the proposal was, OF
limited access from single spot OF British
territory to the river, for the purpose Of navi-
eating it with merchandise upon which the
duties should have been first paid--with rep
resenting mis- colleagues as having violated
the letter and spirit of their instructions, and
their own construction of their Instructions
with ascribing opinions to his colleagues which
they never entertained, arguments which they
never advanced. and doctrines which they
would disclaim with Indignation and which are
dramatically opposite to those they did MAIN
tain--and with representing that his colleagues
rested their claim to the fishing privilege up
on prescription !; and this notwithstanding al
the light OF learning with which lie had irradi-
dated them from the lucid sources OF 'Jas
uler9 tacSltdiis -, of "1tlfra E.en0TaaAa home
nts;" OF 8 nult,tm ieaipus occur1it Tegi,;" and
OF the ilnprescriptble character of fisheries.
Vi all this not one word was said at Client.
The majority never asserted the right of the
fishing privilege, as resting upon the right of
prescription nor had they ever the benefit of
Mr.. Russell's learned labours to prove that it
was not applicable 10 the subject"
MIR. Adams is extremely severe on rfr. Rus
sell for holding himself forth throughout his let
ter as "haying been the intrepid and nfexi-
bic asserter and supporter of the rights Of the
west, against the majority ofhis colleagues'-
of all.wbich. nothing was known at Ghant. The
article m question was drawn up and proposed
to the mission by a citizen of the west, and OPP
posed by another citizen from the same sec
tion Of the Union. Mr.. Russell took the least
part in the discussion and did not object that
it was contrary to their instructions. "He
gave, it may be, silent vote against its pro-
posal, and when it was determined by the
majority to propose it, he Concurrcd." Mr.
Adams states that Mr.. Russell coficurred indi-
vidually in the measure, signed all the papers
approving it, and then secretly wrote to the
government letter of eensure, reproach and
Misrepresentation against it, and those who
proposed it.
MIR. Adams next proceeds to an examination
of the article proposed, relating to the fishing
liberty for the United States, and the nayiga.
ton of the Mississippi by the British. BY the
treaty of 1888 it was agreed that the United
States should continue to enjoy the fishing
privilege where the Inhabitants used at any
time heretoForeto fish, and also CERTAIN fishing
liberties within the British jurisdiction. The
title Of the United States to the fisheries was,
prior possession, and acknowledgment by die
treaty of 1888. The Commissioners at Client
received instructions dated 25th of June. 1874.
not to suffer the right to the fisheries to be
brought into discussion, by which a majority
of the mission Understood chat this right was
not to be surrendered. The British pleuipo-
tiaries early informed the American Commits
sioners that their government did not intend
to grant, gratuitoasly, tie privilege formerly
grsnted, of fishing, &c. within the British iu-
risdiction. The majority of the American
mission considered that if they were to ac-
knowledge that the war of 3l2 abrogated the
treaty Of 1853, it would amount to s,rren-
der of our claim to the fisheries. Mr. Russell.
is; his letter contends that such was the effect
OF the war but DIR. Adams AYERS that he nev-
er disclosed his opinion to the same extent at
Client. The maierity of the mission contend
ed that the treaty was of character which
could not be abrogated by a subsequent war;
This principle was assumed and advanced at
the suggestion offAlr. Adams. II was not ac-
eeded TO by the British, and the treaty was
concluded without settling the interest inyoiy-
ed in it. Since that time, the principle has
been asserted through two negotiations with
Great Britain, and was Substantially admitted
and an adjustment of the subject made, on
this principle, in the convention of the Goth
of October, 1878. When this principle was
Grst proposed. by Mr. Adams, it obtained, as he
states, the unanimous consent of the Ameri-
can mission.
The next subject remarked upon by Mr..
Adams, is the boundary line from the north
west corner Of the Lake of the Woods west
ward. By the treaty of 1853 the boundary
was stated to be froin the most northwestern
point 81 the lake on due west course to the
river Mississippi, thence down the middle of
that river to the 3lst degree of north latitude
and it was stipulated that Tire navigation of
the river from its source to the ocean should
forever remain free and open to both nations.
Mr. Adams contends that the requirement of
Louisiana by the United States could not alb
solve them from the prior obligation to allow
the navigation of the Mississippi to Great
Britain. Before the war of 1912 it was ascer-
tanned that line due west from the north
westernmoat point of the Lake of the Woods
would not strike the Mississippi, therefore Mr..
Russell commended that Great Britain had no
territorial right to the navigation of the river.
Mr.. Adams argues that the British clam 10
navigate was not founded solely on the terri
tory it was believed they would retain on the
river. The stipulation to navigate was dis
tlnct article without reference to boundary or
territory the rigift of the British of navigat.
ing the river was precisely similar to the A.
merican liberty Of. fishing within the British
territorial jurisdiction.
When it was found that a line due west
from the northwestemmost point of the Lake
of the Woods diI not touch the Mississippi.
this boundary, says Mr.. Adams, was anrfuiled
by the fact. The boundary remained unset
tied, and both parties were morally bound to
adopt surh aslinn az should annrn,,imate nnar-