The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-04-08

EaHt OF The Ml-sisSlppi, auu CERTAIN u
beris claimed by the United States in
the Aheries, and 10 the part (Which bore |
an tik transactions. These Impulaut in. |
lereIare no " eli secured"-" Anaccount |
ther,Sre, of what occurred in the nesoiia |
lion ;aGhent, on those tloo subjects, Is not,
pernas, necessary TO the present or future
securIs of any Of the hts of the nation.
| aud IssHIy Interesting IA appertainug To
lts pa shlstory.-With these impressions,
and beng extremely unwilling to present
myselfht any time, before the public,
had altsSt resolved TO remain silent, and
thus epose myself 10 the inference of an
acquiesence in the correctness of all the
statemnts made by both my Colleagues
but hse, on mole reflection, thought it
may besxprcted of me, and be considered
as dnu on my part, to contribute all IN
my pO%.r towards fUll and faithful an
derstandng of the transactions referred to.
Under tits conviction, Twill, at some future
period, core propllIoas than the present
To calm aud dspasslonate consideration,
and whenthere can be no mislnterpreta-
ton of motives, .,sg before the public
narrative d those transactions, as under
stood them.n
From even a careless perusal of that let
ter, II is apparent, that the only tUo sub
jects of the negotiations at Ghent To which
IT refers, were the na'ig ton of the Mssis
! 5ippi and certain fishing liberties that rtle
errors which had supposed were com
mltted, applied to both Mr.. Russell s. Mr..
Adams, though more particularly to the
appendix of the latter that THEY were
unnientlonai that they affected myself
principally that | deemed them of no
public importance, as CONNECTED with the
| then or future security of ANY of the rights
of the nation, but only interesting to its
past history that doubted the necessity
of my Offering to the public any account OF
| those transactions and that the narrative
which promised :as to be presented at a
season of more calm, and When there conld
bs no misinterpretation of motives. A
though Mr.. Adams believes otherwise, |
yet think there are some unutentioBal err
rols, IN the controversial gapers Between
him and Mr.. Russell But have reserv-
ed to myself an exclusive right of judging
when shall execute the promise which
hay : made, and | shall neither be quick
ened nor retarded in its performance
by the friendly anxietes Of any of my op
Ponents.
fInjury accrue to any one by the delay
II publishing the narrative, the public will
not suffer by it. 1t is already known by
the publication ofthe British and American
projects, the protocols, and the correspon-
dence between the respective plenipoten-
tlarie3, that the British government made
at Client demand Of the navigation Of
the Mississippi, by an article IN Their pro
Iect nearly ~ the same words as those
which were employed 10 the treaty of 1888
that majority OF the American commis
| soners was in favor of accedlng to that de
| mand, upon the condition that the British
government would conce6e to US the same
fishing liberties, within their jurisdiction,
as were secured to US by the same treaty
ofl783 !; and that both demands were IT,
nally abandoned. The fact Of these mutual
propositions was communicated by me To
the American pablic III speech which l
delivered 10 the House of Representatives,
on the 29th day of January, 1915. Mr..
HopklnsUn had arranged the terms of the
treaty of peace, and charged upon the
w ar aud the Administration the loss of the
fishing liberties, within the British jurisdic
ton, which we enjoyed prior to the war.
In vIndlcatinS, IN my reply to him, the
| course of the government and the cOndl
lions of the peace, | stated -
When the British Commissioners dc
manded III their project a renewal to Great
Britain of the right of the navigation of the
Mississippi, secured by the treaty of 1888,
a bare ma GRITTY of the American Commits
oil. TO fho
dition that the liberties in question were re
newed to US. He was not one OF that ma
ljority. He would not trouble the Com
mittee with his reasons for being opposed
TO the offer. A majority of his colleagues,
dctuateGhe behtUsd by the BEST m0tlpeS, made
however the offer, aud II was refused by
the British commissioners"
[See Daily MAJ. Int Of 2lst March, 1916.
And what thought Of my colleagues oflhe
majority, appears from the same extract.
The spring afte the termination Of the ne
quotations at Client, 1 went to London, and
there entered upon h"w and highly i'm
| portant negotiation with two of them,
(Messrs. Adams and GaIlatin,l which re
suited, on the Sd July, 1915, IN the Com
nerclal Convention, which has been since
made the basis of most of our commercial
arrangements with foreign powers. Now
i'll had discovered at Client, az has been
asserted, that either of them was false aud
falthless TO his country, would have No
UNFAIRLY commenced with them another
negocialion2 Further there never has
been a period during our whole acquain
lance, that Mr.. Adams aud have not ex
changed when we have met friendly sau
tations, and the courtesies aud hospita:tles
of social intercourse.
The address proceeds to characterize
the support which gave to Mr.. Adams
as unnatural. The authors of the address
have not stated why it is unnatural, and
we are therefore left to conjecture their
meaning. Is 1t because Mr.. Adams is from