Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-11-07


TO the British Ministers without such an article;
declaring, however. in our note, which accorpa-
med that project. that in answer 10 he dcclara-
ton made by the British Plenpoten,iaries respect
ing the iShatics, the undersigned, referring TO
VIVA passed in the conference of the 9th OF Au-
gust, only state that they are not authorized
TO bring into discussion any Of the rights or liberties
which the United States have here otore enioyeJ
in relation thereto. From their nature, and from
the peculiar character of the treaty of 1883,
by which they recognised, no further
stipulation has been deemed necessary by the
government OF the United States, 10 eniitle them
TO the full enjoyment VI all ~oi them" This para
graph was drawn up by you, as Mr.. All ans him
self admits; and your sole object in drawing il up
was TO get rid of the offer Of the navigation of the
Mississippi "a an eq,erdl.nt for the ii shing liberty
10 induce the majority TO 20 with you, on this
point, you adopted the doctrine of the REGULARITY
OF the treaty of 1888 On the 9Th of November
the British Ministers returned our projects with
marginal alterations and suggestions, and with an
explanatory note dated the 26th, the preceding
day. The meetings OF the American mission on
the 2Sih and 29th were to deliberate on this com.
inunication from the British Minister'S in which
not word was said concerning either the naviga-
lion OF the Mississippi. or the fishing privilege. If
This subject mentioned by us at those meet
iugs, and possibly 1t might be, still il is certain
that the proposition in relation 10 it which had
been first carried and then waived by the major
'ty. previous to the 10Th Of that month, was not
decided on again. as MIR. Adams more than insinu-
ates distinctly remember. and doubt not YOU
recollection will perfectly accord with mine, tina:
n majority OF the mission were surprised when
that proposition was offered at the conference on
the LIST oil December, such an offer was then
cntiTety unexpected By them Mr.. Bayard in re-
turning with you and me TO the Hotel, expressed
his dlsapprobaiion in very strong terms that such
an offer should have been made so long after the
affirmative decision had been taken on IT. ,rifhout
osam consulting him. To show you that nv
memory has been correct on this point, will give
you an extract from letter which l addressed to
you at Stockholm, on the 18th October, 1915 and
which hope you still have in your possession
| In that letter, speaking Of Mr.. $50, say: "who
alter having explicitly avowed that the contested
liberty OF the fisheries was equivalent for the
Tree navigation Of the Mississippi not only insisted
that the latter should be offered i'm consideration
OF the former, but actually himself made this offer
10 the British Ministers in a manner 1tnerDecfed
and unauthorized by at least majority of his COL
leagues. To show you also, that remember
correctly concerning the time when the PROPOSE
ton was really discussed and decided, and the ma
iority relaxed in relation TO ii, will give you here
extracts from two letters which l wrote to Mr.
Crawford at the time.
In Il letter to him, dated at Ghentt the 9TH No.
; vember, 1914, is the following" The question
I which perPlexes us the most, is that concerning
the fisheries, and we have not yet decided on the
mode oil proceeding in relation to it, They have
told US that the liberty of taking, drying, and cur
ing hsh within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great
Britain, viii not be continued to us without an
equivalent We cannot relnquish this liberty.
and we cannot offer territory as an equivalent
Shall! we then offer the free navigation of the
Sississppi, which they apparently suggested with
This view? | think this will be carried in the ,f
hrmative, although have very serious objections
TO the measure"
In another letter TO hin, Of the 2ith November
1914, say: g Without having been deceived re-
iaive TO the disposition of The majority on the ann
Jei OF the Tree navigation oil the Mississippi am
happy to inform you that this disposition was not
tnfe1ib!e, aud finally transmitted our project
without the article that had at first been carried
This article was follows: The right and Ii.
beTty oil the people and inhabitants of the United
states, TO take, dry, and fish, in places with.
IN the exclusive jurisdiction Of Great Britain. as
recognised and secured by the former treaty of
peace, and the privilege OF the navigation OF the
Mississippi within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States. as secured TO the subjects of Great
britain, by the same treaty ,arc hereby recognised
and confirmed
''Besides the objections to such an article which
mad occurred to you and which had not escaped
Us, the blending the two points toge Their and ma
KING them mutually dependent on each other,
which was not done in tl,e treaty Of 1888, made
this article the more Objectionable"
think wo must remember alike concerning
the transactions above referred 10, and leave yoI,
10 draw differences.
mere are other points in which we ought and
believe shall agree. Mr.. Adams in his remarks
you VIII perceive, has made Us assent to his prin-
cipie' ana even to the proposition in question. Ist
n
toned, OF our note OF the 10Th OF oyember, adj
uniting The Tccuitdr character of the treaty of
1885, and because the mission unanimously accep.
ted 1t. lie says that +, and OF course YOU, assent
ed to the proposition, bee il swas made by the
tph0ie q The american mission as may be seen
by the protocol Of the conference of the !st of
December, 1914, and by the letter from the a.
mercan TO the British Plenpotentiaries of the i1th
December, iSli, which says, s'to such an article
,ehich they vie'ced as merely detdrafoyy, the IN
dersigned had no objection, aud have offered 10 ac-
cede," and Mr. Adams says, that, to that letter
the name Of MIR. Russell is subscribed. He might
have added also your name. Now, 1 consider ali
this as clubbing, and shall SO treat it, and trus,
| shall be supported by your opinion-with regard
to the adoption OF the principle of MIR. Adams.
WIN respect to the peculiar character Of the trea-
ty oil 1855, &c. i'll the paragraph " hich YOU fur
| nisbed for the note Of the 10Th of November il
was assehted TO by Lhat occasion, az the only
means OF obtaining the consent of the majority to
the only exPedienl which left TO get rid of the
| proposal already decided by that majority. of
giving the Tree navigation OF the Mississippi for
! the lShing privilege. That principle was admit.
ted by us for that object, on that occasion onIv
We considered it as mere preteEt, that tI,ns
used might do good, but could 10 far do no bar,o
Whatever Influence it might have on the British
ministry, 1t had sslutary one on our colleagues
W i'uucIng mem 10 Waive their proposal-when-
ever tbat principle or prctext or any other ,vas
advanced and applied to sanction the British claim
| 70 the Tree navigation OF the Mississippi we uni
| ioTmiy held II 10 be unsound and resisted il az .
| coiolngly. with regard 20 the protocol of tho
is'oi December, it was like all other protocols. a
mere record Of tacts-snd the fact that tbat prn
position was made 10 the British ministers in mo
| way implied the Unanimous consent OF the Hrrcr-
Icdh ministers to such propositions our signing lilo
| letter oil the l4,h oil December, 1914 after the
proposition had been made, ackno WEIGHING that
.ac,, cannot De evidence OF your consent or mine
i n ~ gg ada r.