is given to the colonial governments in Canada to with-
draw the latter of these concessions, by excepting any
of the Canadian ports from those to which our vessels
are by the act made admissible; and the duties itaposed
by the act, upon all those of our exports which could
render the trade profitable, are prohibitory.

Extract of a despatch (No. 10) from Mr. Rush to Mr.
Adams, dated

LONDON, August 12, 1824. "The act of parliament of the fifth of August, 1822, having immediate relation to the commercial intercours between the United States and the British continental possessions in their neighborhood, I naturally regarded it, as your instructions to me had done, in connexion with the act of June the 24th, 1822. This brought under consideration our claim to the navigation of the river St. Lawrence. Between this question, and the questions of commercial intercourse under the act of June, 1822, the British plenipotentiaries were constantly unwilling to acknowledge any connexion. Nevertheless, looking to your instructions, and as well to the reason of them, as to their authority, I treated the two questions as belong-subjects of both countries, and that the vessels belonging ing to one and the same general subject. They asked whether, taking the two acts of parliament together, the United States did not already enjoy the navigation of this river? I said that they did: by the act of June the 24th, 1822, they enjoyed it from the ocean to Quebee; and by that of August the 5th, 1822, from any part of the territories of the United States to Quebec But, from the fact of the colonial governments in Canada, being invested with a discretionary power to withdraw the latter of these concessions, by excepting any of the Canadian ports from those to which our vessels were made admissible, it followed that our enjoyment of the navigation of this river was rendered contingent upon British permission. This was a tenure not reconcilable in the opinion of the government of the United States, with the growing and permanent wants of their citizens in that portion of the union or with the rights of the nation. It was due to both these considerations that it should stand upon a different tenure, and the time had arrived when it was des.rable that the two nations should come to an understanding upon a question of so much import

with more

practice, to make them the rule of their conduct fo some years after the war of 1812, until, by the acts of parliament, just recited, Great Britain close to consÉT the intervention of that war as putting an end to their w bidity. This state of things, by remitting each party is their interior and original rights, rendered it manifestly incumbent upon the government of the United States now to attempt to settle, by convention, or in some other manner, with Great Britam, the true nature of the tenure by which they held the navigation of this stream. Such was the character of the remarks by which I ilustrated the propriety of adding to the two articles which I had offered for the regulation of the commercial intercourse between the United States and the Brush colonies, whether continental or insular, a third article relating exclusively to the navigation of the St. Lawrence.— A third article will be found, accordingly, in this connexion, as part of our projet, aiready referred to, as 25nexed to the protocol of the third conference. Its stypu, lations were, that the navigation of the St. Lawrence in its whole length and breadth, to and from the sea, should be at all times equally free to the citizens aud to either party should never be subject to any molestation whatever by the other, or to the payment of any duty for this right of navigation. After this unequivocal provision, it concluded with a clause that, regarding such reasonable and moderate tolls as either side might claim and appear to be entitled to, the conracting parties would treat at a future day, in order that the principles regalating such tolls might be adjusted to mutual satisfaction. "I deemed it most advisable to ingraft upon the arti cle this principle respecting tolls, although it was not particularly mentioned in your despatch. In pursuing into their details some of the general principles which you had laid down, I was left under the impression that our title to navigate this river, independently of the conscut of Great Britam, could be made out complete and decisive strength, under the qualified admission of the claim to toll. The writers on public law had generally so treated the subject, and, m some of the modern treaties, of high authority in our favor, on the general question, the admission was, also, to be seen. I refer particularly to the filth article of the treaty of peace, of the thirueth of stay, 1814, between the alled "The British plenipotentiaries next asked, whether powers and France, where, after providing for the free any question w. s about to be raised on the right of Great || navigation of the Rome to all persons, it is agreed that Britain to exe ude, altogether, vessels of the United pric.ptes should be laid down, at a future congress, for States from trading with British ports situated upon the the collection of the duties by the states on its banks, in St. Lawrence, or elsewhere, in Canada? I replied that the manner most equal anu favorable to the commerce I was not prepared absolutely to deny such a right of all nations. In advering to the clan of toll, as a Great Britain, to whatever considerations its exercise question only for future discussion, and one that might be might be open. I remarked, also, that it seemed al- of like interest to both parties, (the British navigation of ready to have been substantially exercised by this act of this river being obliged," in some parts, to pass close to the 5th of August, 1822: for, by its provisions, only cer- our bank), an 1, moreover, where the clam, it advanced tain enumerated articles were allowed to be exported on either side, was to be made dependent, on sufficient from the United States into Canadian ports, and duties cause being shown for it, I did not believe that I was were laid upon these articles, which might be said to losing sight of any principle of value to the United States amount a to prohibition. I added, that, although the fore- in this controversy. The clause, I hope, will be found going act had not laid any duty on the merchandise of to have been too guarded in its terms to be open to such the United States descending the St. Lawrence with a view to exportation by sea, yet that an act of the pre- "There was another point on which I felt more uncerceding year did, viz: upon their timber and lumber, tainty. The navigation of this stream, although I beheywhich made it highly expedicnt that the relative rights ed it could be demonstrated to be the just right of the of the parties to the use of the waters of this great stream, people of the United States, could not draw after it all should be ascertained. I here went into a review of the its benefits to them, without a concurrent right of stopfooting upon which the trade between the United States ping at some point, or port, where both of its banks fell and the Canadas stood, under the stipulations of the within the colonial territory of Great Britain. Upon treaty of 1794. The memorial from the inhabitants of what footing was 1 to treat this latter and subordinate Franklin county, in the state of New York, and the re-question? Your instructions had not dealt with it, and I port of the committee of the house of representatives felt my self at a loss. It could scarecly be doubted but upon that document, furnished me with the necessary lights for executing this duty, as well as for pointing out the injurious and burdensome operation of the act of the 5th of August, 1822. The latter act had superseded all the former conditions of this intercourse. With these conditions, the citizens of the United States had been, I said, content, and it was believed that they had been found, on experience, satisfactory on both sides. The treaty stipulations of 1794, were among the articles of that instrument declared, when it was made, to be permanent; and so mutually beneficial had appeared to be their operation, that both parties continued, mi

auce.

a risk.

that, our right to navigate the river being established, Britain would, as matter of international comity, and as an arrangement advantageous also to herself, allow us a place of entry for our vessels, and deposite for our produce, somewhere on its shores. She has so largely, of late years, been extending the warehousing system to all other nations, for their convenience and her own, that it might well be presumed she would not exclude the United States from a participation mit at Quebec, or elsewhere, at a suitable port in Canada. Yet I felt it to be a point of some delicacy, and therefore thought that it would be most judicious to leave it wholly untouched

in my proposal. Another reason operated with me for "My reply was not satisfactory to the British plenipothis silence. As far as I was able to carry my investiga-tentiaries. They combatted the claim with increased tions into the point, I found much ground for supposing earnestness, declaring that it was altogether untenable, that the right to the navigation of a river under the strong and of a nature to be totally and unequivocally rejected. circumstances which marked that of the United States to Instead of having the sanction of public law, the law and the navigation of the St. Lawrence, would involve, as an the practice of nations equally disclaimed it. Could I incident, the right of innocent stoppage somewhere on shew where was to be found, in either, the least warrant the shores; an meident indispensable to the beneficial en- for its assertion? Was it not a claim plainly inconsistent joyment of the right itself. By the seventh article of the with the paramount authority and exclusive possession treaty of Paris, of 1763, the free navigation of the Missis- of Great Britain? Could she for one moment listen to it? sippi was granted to Great Britain, but without any clause "I remarked, that the claim had been put forward by securing to British vessels the privilege of stopping at the United States because of the great national interests New Orleans then a French port, or at any other port involved in it, yet, that this consideration, high as it was, or place on any part of the shores. Yet the historical would never be looked at but in connexion with the just fact appears to have been, that Britain did use New Or-rights of Great Britain. For this course of proceeding, Jeans as a place for her vessels to stop at, and this without both the principles and practice of my government might any subsequent arrangement with France upon the sub-well be taken as the guarantee. The claim was, therejeet. The case becomes still stronger, if, afterwards, fore, far from being put forward in any unfriendly spirit, when New Orleans fell into the hands of Spain, the Bri- and would be subject to a frank and full interchange of tish continued to use it for the same purpose, contrary, sentiments between the two governments. I was obviat first, to the remonstrances of the Spanish governor of ously bound, I admitted, to make known, on behalf of that town, which is also believed to have been the fact. mine, the grounds on which the claim was advanced-a I abstained, however, from asserting, in this negotiation, duty which I would not fail to perform. I stated that the subordinate right in question. we considered our right to the navigation of this river, as strictly a natural right. This was the firm foundation on which it would be placed. This was the light in which

"On the principal question of our equal right with the British to the entire and unobstructed navigation of this river, I dwelt with all the emphasis demanded by its mag-it was defensible, on the highest authorities, no less than nitude. I spoke of it as a question intimately connected with the present interests of the United States, and which assumed an aspect yet more commanding in its bearing upon their future population and destinies. Already the immense regions which bordered upon the lakes and northern rivers of the United States, were rapidly filling up with inhabitants, and soon the dense millions who would cover them, would point to the paramount and irresistible necessity for the use of this great stream, as their only natural highway to the ocean. Nor was the question one of magnitude to this part of the union alone. The whole nation felt their stake in it; the middle and the north more immediately; but all the rest by the multiplied ties and connexions which bound up their wants, their interests, and their sympathies, with the middle and the north. It was under such a view of the immediate and prospective value of this navigation to us, that I first presented it to the notice of the British plenipotentiaries as a question of right. I told them that they must understand this to be the sense in which I had drawn up the article upon the subject, and that it was the sense in which I felt myself bound, as the plenipotentiary of the United States, to urge its adoption.

on the soundest principles. If, indeed, it had ever heretofore been supposed that the possession of both the shores of a river below, had conferred the right of interdieting the navigation of it to the people of other nations inhabiting its upper banks, the examination of such a principle would at once disclose the objections to it. The exelusive right of jurisdiction over a river could only originate in the social compact, and he claimed as a right of sovereignty. The right of navigating the river was a right of nature, preceding in point of time, and which the mere sovereign right of one nation could not annihilate as belonging to the people of another. It was a right essential to the condition and wants of human society, and conformable to the voice of mankind, in all ages and countries. The principle on which it rested, challenged such universal assent, that, wherever it had not been allowed, it might be imputed to the triumph of power or injustice over right. Its recovery and exercise had still been objects precious among nations, and it was happily acquiring fresh sanction from the highest examples of modern times. The parties to the European alliance had, in the treaties of Vienna, declared that the navigation of the Rhine, the Necker, the Mayne, Moselle, the Maese, and the Scheldt, should be ice to all nations.

"I approach an interesting part of this negotiation when I come to make known in what manner the British pleni-The object of these stipulations was a evident as praisepotentiaries received this disclosure. They said that, on worthy. It could have been no other than to render the principles of accommodation, they were willing to treat of navigation of those rivers free to all the people dwelling this claim with the United States in a spirit of entire ami- upon their banks; thus abolishing those unjust restrictions ty; that is, as they explained, to treat of it as a concession by which the people of the interior of Germany had been on the part of Great Britain; for which the United States too often deprived of their natural outlet to the sea, by an must be prepared to offer a full equivalent. This was abuse of that right of sovereignty, which claimed for a the only light in which they could entertain the question. state, happening to possess both the shores of a river at As to the claim of right, they hoped that it would not even its mouth, the exclusive property over it. There was be advanced; persisted in, they were willing to persuade no principle of national law upon which the stipulations themselves it would never be. It was equally novel and of the above treaties could be founded, which did not extraordinary, They could not repress their strong feel-equally apply to the case of the St. Lawrence. It was ings of surprise at its bare intimation. Great Britain thus that I opened our general doctrine. It was from possessed the absolute sovereignty over this river, in all such principles that I deduced our right to navigate this parts where both its banks were of her territorial do- river, independent of the mere favor or concession of minion. Her right, hence, to exclude a foreign nation Great Britain; and, consequently, independent of any from navigating it, was not to be doubted, scarcely to be claim, on her side, to an equivalent. discussed. This was the manner in which it was at first received. They opposed to the claim an immediate, positive, unqualified resistance.

"I abstain from any further recapitulation to you of the principles which I invoked, or of the authorities to which Í referred, for a reason to be now mentioned. It will be "I said that our claim was neither novel nor extraor-seen, by the first protocol, that our agreement had been dinary. It was one that had been well considered by my to carry on the negotiation by conference and protogovernment, and was believed to be maintainable on the col. This, the more usual mode at all times, was can soundest principles of public law. The question had ceived to be peculiar by appropriate where the subjects to been familied to the past discussions of the United States, be handled were so various, and their details, in some inas their state papers, which were before the world, would stances, so extensive. It was recomended, also, and this show. It had been asserted, and successfully asserted, was of higher sway with me, by the example of the nein relation to another great river of the American conti-gotiation of 1818, in the course of which some of the same pent; flowing to the south, the Mississippi, at a time when subjects had been discussed by this government. Neverboth of its lower banks were under the dominion of a fo-theless, each party had reserved, under this agreement, reign power. The essential principles that had governed the right of annexing to the protocol any written statethe one case, were now applicable to the other. ment that might be considered necessary, as matter either

of record, or of explanation. In your instructions to me of being adduced for the United States, to the navigation respecting this claim to the navigation of the St. Law-of this river. There was, at least, a strong natural rence, a question wholly new as between the two nations, equity in it, which would come home to the people of the you had adverted to my presenting it in writing, if neces- United States, impressing them with new convictions of sary, and I determined, under all the circumstances, that the hardship of now refusing them the use of this stream, I should not properly come up to my duty, unless by as an innocent pathway to the ocean. But, as I had not adopting this mode. The question was not only new, your elucidations of this view of the subject, I was careful but of the greatest moment. I saw, also, from the be- to use it only in surbordination to the argument of natugining, that it would encounter the most decided oppo-ral right. The latter I treated as sufficient, in itself, to sition from Great Britain. In proportion as her plenipo- make out our title, and repudiated the necessity of retentiaries became explicit and peremptory in denying it, sorting to any other. I will own, however, that my disdid it occur to me that it would be proper, on my part, position to confide in the argument founded upon joint to be unequivocal in its assertion. This could be best acquisition, was increased by the analogy which it appeardone upon paper. This would carry the claim distinctly ed to me to bear to the course of reasoning pursued with to the archives of this government, rather than trust it Great Britain, by my predecessor in this mission, in reto foundations more uncertain and fugitive. It would lation to the fisheries. If our title to a full participation explain as well as record, the sense in which it was in- with Britain in the fisheries, though they were within the serted on the protocol. Another motive with me for aknowledged limits and jurisdiction of the coasts of British this course, and scarcely a secondary one, was, that it America, was strengthened by the fact of the early inwould serve to draw from Great Britain, in the same habitants of the United States having been among the form, a precise and full avowal of the grounds on which foremost to explore and use the fishing grounds, why she designed to oppose the claim. On a question so was the analogous fact of their having assisted to expel large, and which, from all that I perceived to mark its the French from the lower shores of the St. Lawrence to first opening between the two governments, could hardly be of no avail? I had believed in the application and fail to come under discussion again hereafter, it appeared force of the argument in the one instance, and could not to me that it would be more acceptable to my government deny it all the consideration that it merited in the other. to be in possesion of a written document, which should embody the opinions of this government, than to take the report of them from me, under any form less exact or authentic.

"The necessity of my recounting to you the British argument in answer to our claim, is superseded by my being able to transmit it to you in their own words upon paper. It is sufficiently elaborate, and was drawn up "1, accordingly, drew up a paper upon the subject,|with great deliberation. It is annexed, (marked N.) to which, under the right reserved, I annexed, (marked B), the protocol of the twenty-fourth conference. The into the protocol of the eighteenth conference, and so it tention avowed by the British plenipotentiaries, at the stands amongst the papers of the negotiation. The British | nineteenth conference, of obtaining for its doctrines, beplenipotentiaries continued to urge their animated pro-fore it was delivered to me,the full sanction of their highest tests against this proceeding on my part; not that they professional authorities on matters relating to the law of could divest me of my privilege of recording my sentiments in the shape of this written statement, but they earnestly pressed the propriety of my abandoning, altogether, any claim to the navigation of this river, as a claim of right, which shut them out from treating of it upon other bases. But having taking my determination, under ather estimates of my duty, I did not depart from it.

nations, may serve to show the 'gravity and importance,' to repeat their own expression, which the question had assumed in their eyes. I have, otherwise, reasons for knowing that their argument was prepared under the advice and assistance of five of the most eminent publicists of England. With all the respect due to a paper matured under such auspices, I am not able to look upon it as impugning the argument which, under your direction, and following the course of others before me, I had be come the organ of making known on behalf of the United States.

"The paper which I drew up, aimed at presenting a broad, but intelligible, outline of the principal reasons in support of our claim. These were such as you had set before me, and as I judged to be immediately deducible from them. Under the latter, I included the argument "In several instances the British paper has appealed to on the Mississippi question, used by an illustrious indi-the same authorities that are to be found in mine. It is vidual, then the organ of our government in its intercourse in the application of them only, that the difference is seen. with foreign states. I considered this argument as virtual- In other parts, the difference is made to turn upon words ly comprehended in your instructions by the reference rather than substance. But an error that runs throughwhich they contained to it; the questions in both cases, out nearly the whole of their paper, consists in attributing so far as each drew support from the deep foundations of to mine a meaning which does not belong to it. This ap the law of nature, being the same. Of this luminous plies especially to the particular description of right which state paper I followed the track, adopting its own lan- we claim; how far it is one of mere innocent utility, how far guage, whenever this could be done, as the safest, the a right necessary to us and not injurious to Britain; how far most approved, the most national. The only view of a right which, if not falling under the technical designation the subject not elicited on that occasion, which I ventured of absolute, is, nevertheless, one that cannot be withheld. to take up, was one pointed out by the locality of the St. These are all qualifications that were not overlooked in Lawrence. I will briefly explain it. my exposition of the doctrine; a light, however, in which "The exclusive right possesed by Great Britain over the British paper does not appear to have regarded it. both banks of this river, was won for her by the co-opera- But as each document is now of record, and will be jugdtion of the people who now form the United States. Theired by the terms which it has used and the construction exertions, their treasure, their blood, were profusely em- that ly attaches to them, I will not enlarge upon this barked in every campaign of the old French war. It was head.

"The British paper deals with our claim as standing upon equal footing with a claim to the use of the roads, canals or other artificial ways, of a country; forgetting that the case in dispute is that of a natural stream, forming the only natural outlet to the ocean—the stream itself being common, by nature to both countries. Commenting upon the acquired title of the United States, which I had put

under this name that the recollection of that war still lived in the United States; a war which, but for the aid of New England, New York and Pennsylvania, if of no more of the states, would probably not have terminated when it did, in the conquest of Canada from France. If these states were at that epoch, a part of the colonial empire of Great Britain, it was, nevertheless, impossible to obliterate the recollection of historical facts, or exclude the inferen-forward under the restriction described, their paper arces that would attach to them. The predecessors of the gues, that the same ground would justify a correlative present inhabitants of those states had borne a con- claim, by Great Britain, to the use of the navigable rivers, stant and heavy burden in that war, and had acquired, and all other public possessions, of the United States, simultaneously with the then parent state, the right of which existed when both countries were united under a descending this stream, on the hypothesis, assumed for common government! By a like misapplication of obthe moment, of their not having possessed it before; vious principles, it argues that our claim would also a right of peculiar importance to them, from their local | justify Britain in asking a passage down the Mississippi, position and necessities, It was to this effect that or the Hudson, though neither the one nor the other noticed a title, by joint acquisition, as, also, susceptible touch any postion of the British territories; or that

might equally justify a claim, on her side, to ascend, with British vessels, the principal rivers of the United States, as far as their draft of water would admit, instead of depositing their cargoes at the appported ports of entry from the sea! On doctrines, such as these, I could only say to the British plenipotentiaries, that I was wholly unable to perceive their application to the argument, unless the United States had been advancing a claim to the navigation of the river Thames, in England.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin.
(No. 1.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, 19th June, 1826. 3" The navigation of the St. Lawrence from the ter sitories of the United States to the sea.

latitude, stretch over sixteen degrees of longitude, and thus present a surface, altogether, of upwards of eightythree thousand square miles. Eight states of this union, (three of them among the largest in it), and one territory, border on them. A population already exceeding two millions, and augmenting beyond all example, is directly and deeply interested in their navigation. They are entirely enclosed within the territories of the United States and Great Britain, and the right to their navigation, common to both, is guarantied by the faith of treaties, and rests upon the still higher authority of the law of nature. These great lakes are united by but one natural outlet to the ocean, the navigation of which is common to all mankind. That outlet, along a considerable part of its course, forms a common boundary between the territories of the United States and Great Britain, and to that extent the

"The government of the United States have seen, with very great surprise and regret, the manner in which the assertion of this right of navigation, through Mr. Their argument also assumes that the treaty stipu- Rush, during the former negotiation, was met and resistlations of 1794, exclude all idea of a right, on our side, ed by the British plenipotentiaries. The president has to the navigation of this river, forgetting, that if, under respectfully and deliberately examined and considered those stipulations, vessels of the United States were in- the British paper which was delivered in by them, and terdicted the navigation of British rivers between their which is annexed to the protocol of the 24th conference, mouths and the highest port of entry from the sea; so, and he has been altogether unable to discern, in its reasonon the other hand, British vessels were interdicted the ing or its authorities, any thing to impeach the right of navigation of the rivers of the United States, beyond the the United States, or to justify the confidence with which highest ports of entry from the sea; and, also, that the the exclusive pretensions of Great Britain are brought whole terms of the international intercourse, in that quar-forward and maintained. What is the right claimed by ter, were, by this compact, such as at the time satisfied the United States? The North American lakes are both parties, without impairing the rights which either pos- among the largest inland seas known on the globe. They sessed independent of the compact, and which only re-extend from about the 41st to the 49th degree of north mained in suspense during its existence. This observatinn snggosto another to which their argument is open, In parts which they press as of decisive weight. It alleges that because, by the general treaty of Vienna, the powers whose states were crossed by the same navigable rivers, engaged to regulate, by common consent, all that regarded their navigation, because Russia held by treaty the navigation of the Black sea; and because of the many instances, capable of bemg cited, where the navigation of rivers or straits that separated, or flowed through the territories of different countries, was expressly provided for by treaty; that, because of these facts, the inference was irresistible, that the sight of navigation, under such circumstances, depended upon common consent, and could only be claimed by treaty. Here, too, it seems to have been forgotten, that it is allowable m treaties, as well as oftentimes expedient, for greater safety and pre-right of navigating it is enjoyed by both. The United cision, to enter into stipulations for the enjoyment or regulation of pre-existing rights; that treaties are, in fact, expressly declared, by the writers upon the laws of nations, to be of two general kinds: those which turn on things to which we are already bound by the law of nature, and those by which we engage to do something more. In their quotation, also, of the note from the first volume of the laws of congress, containing an intimation that the United States could not be expected to yield the navigation of the Mississippi, without an equivalent, they seem wholly to have overlooked, besides the other points of that note, that it was made at a period when it was well known that no part of that river touched the territories of a foreign power; and when, therefore, its exclusive navigation belonged to the United States, as much So as the Delaware, or the Potomac.

States contend that they are invested with a right to pass from those lakes, the uncontested privilege of navigating which they exercise, through that natural outlet, to the ocean-the right of navigating which, by all nations, none presumes to question. The right asserted, in other words, is, that their vessels shall be allowed, without molestation, to pursue their trackless way on the bosom of those vast waters, gathered together, in no inconsiderable degree, in their own territory, through that great channel of the St. Lawrence, which nature itself has beneficently supplied, to the ocean, in which they are finally deposited. They ask that the interests of the greater population, and the more extensive and fertile country above, shall not be sacrificed, in an arbitary exertion of power, to the jealousy and rivalry of a smaller population, inhabiting a more limited and less productive coun"The foregoing are some of the remarks upon the try below. The United States do not claim a right of British paper, which I submitted at the conference, after entry into Britsh ports, situated on the St. Lawrence, receiving it. The first impressions that I had of my duty against British will, and to force their productions into In regard to it, and consequently, my first determination the consumption of British subjects. They claim only the was to reply to it at large, in writing, annexing my reply right of passing those ports, and transporting their proto the protocol. But, on more reflection, I deemed it ductions to foreign markets, or to their own, open and most proper to abstain, at present, from this step. As willing to receive them; and, as incident and necessary to a view of the whole -ubject, giv, n out under the imme-the enjoyment of that right, they claim the privileges of diate eye and authority of this government, and with ex-stoppage and transhipment, at such places within the traordinary care, it appeared to me that the British paper British jurisdiction, and under such reasonable and equiought to come under the knowledge of my own govern- table regulations, as may be prescribed or agreed upon. ment, before receiving a formal or full answer from any Source less high. If it be thought to require such an answer, a short delay could be nothing to the advantage of its being afforded, either through me, or my successor in this mission, under the light of further instructions "If the St. Lawrence is regarded a strait, as it ought to from home. The pause seemed the more due, not only be, connecting navigable seas, there would be less controfrom the newness of the discussion between the two go-versy. The principle on which the right to navigate vernments, but, because I may not, at this moment, he sufficiently apprised of all the modifications under which mine may desire it to be presented in a second and more full argument. I hope that this forbearance, on my part, will be approved, as having been, under the exigency, the most circumspect and becoming course. I gave the British plenipotentiaries to understand, that the written argument, on the side of the United States, must not be considered as closed, but, on the contrary, only as opened."

"Such is the right, the assertion of which shocked the sensibility of the British plenipotentiaries. The impartial world will judge whether surprise most naturally be longing to the denial or to the assertion of the right.

straits depends, is that they are accessorial to those seas which they unite, and the right of navigating which is not exclusive, but common to all nations; the right to navigate the seas drawing after it that of passing the straits. Let that principle be applied to the present case. The United States and Great Britain have, between them, the exclusive right of navigating the lakes. The St. Lawrence connects them with the ocean. The right to navigate both, (the lakes and the ocean), includes that of passing from the one to the other through the natural link.

ter.

Is it reasonable or just that one of the two co-proprie- poses unconnected with the commerce or society of the tors of the lakes should altogether exclude his associate state through which it is required, it cannot justly be defrom the use of a common natural bounty, necessary to nied. In the enjoyment of this right of passage, the use the enjoyment of the full advantages of them? But, if of the territories, in which it is exerted, is merely colthat vast mass of water, collected from a thousand tribu- lateral. If it be for purposes of lawful war, the end tary sources, in the immense reservoirs of the North carries the means; and the neutral cannot deny the passAmerican lakes, and cast by them into the Atlantic ocean, age without weighty considerations. through the channel of the St. Lawrence, is to be consi- "But the right of the inhabitants of the upper bank of dered, in its transit through that great channel, as a river, a river to the use of its navigation in its passage to the the name which accident has conferred, and not a strait, sea, through the territories of another sovereign, stands the right of the United States to navigate it is believed to upon other and stronger ground. If they were to bring be, nevertheless, clearly and satisfactorily maintainable. forward the pretentions to trade, or open any other interIn treating this subject, there is, throughout the whole of course with the nation inhabiting the banks below, against the British paper, a want of just discrimination between its consent, they would find no support or countenance in the right of passage, claimed by one nation, through the reason, or in the law of nature. But it is inconceiveable territories of another, on land, and that on navigable wa- upon what just grounds a nation below can oppose the The distinction, it is true, is not always clearly ad- right of that above to pass through a great natural highverted to in the writers on the public law, but it has a way into the sea, that it may trade or hold intercourse manifest existence. In the former case, the passage can with other nations by their consent. From the very nature hardly ever take place, especially if it be of numerous of such a river, it must, in respect to its navigable uses, be bodies, without some detriment or inconvenience to the considered as connon to all the nations who inhabit its state or its citizens, whose territory is traversed. If the banks, as a free gift, flowing from the bounty of Heaven, country be in a forest state, there is a destruction of tim- intended for all whose lots are cast upon its borders; and, ber, if not of soil. If in a cultivated condition, the fields in this latter respect, it is clearly distinguishable fum ea are trodden down and dilapidated, and the use of the nals and works of art, from the use of which, being erecroads more or less impairs them. In both, there is dan- ted at the expense of one, all others may be excluded. ger of collisions between the native and foreign citizens. The right to prohibit the use of natural channels, deduced But a passage on land, through the territories of another, in the British paper, from that of the exclusive nature whenever it is innocent, cannot be lawfully refused. It of those of an artificial kind, would establish the power is to be granted by a neutral to a belligerent army, if no if it were practicable, to forbid the enjoyment of the serious injury is likely to accrue to him. As the right of showers of rain which are equally dispensed by the author judging whether the passage be or be not innocent, must of all good, because the gardener may lawfully deny the abide somewhere, expediency suggests that it should be employment of his watering vessels in the irrigation of exercised by the sovereign of the soil, But his judge any grounds but his own. The land may be divided ment and decision must be regulated by reason and jus- through which a river passes, or which composes its bed tice; and, of course the passage cannot be rightfully re- by artificial lines of demarcation; but the water itself is fused upon grounds merely arbitrary. How stands the incapable of such a division. It is confluent and concase of a passage on navigable water? In that, no injury tinuous. And that portion of the floating mass which is is done to timber or soil, to cultivation or to roads; no now in the territorial dominion of the lower nation, was dangerous collisions between the inhabitants and the fo- yesterday under that of the nation above; and, contemnreigners arise; not a trace is left by the passenger behind.ing alike the authority of all, will, to-morrow, be in that In the passage of the St. Lawrence, for example, the vcs- ocean to which the presumptuous sway of no one has as sel is waited, on the same water which first floats it from yet been lawfully extended. The incontestible right the territories of the United States, to the ocean. It is which one nation has to trade with others, by their contrue, as is alleged in the British paper, that this water sent, carries along with it that of using those navigable washes the quays of Montreal and Quebec, passes under means necessary to its enjoyment, which the bounty of the walls of a principal fortress, and, also, through the nature has provided for all, in respect to seas, and, in finest settlements of Canada, and extends along a space regard to rivers, for the nations who inhabit them. of near six hundred miles, within the dominions of his "The British paper inquires if the American governBritannic majesty. But when the American vessel shall ment can mean to insist on a demand, involving such have arrived at the ocean, to which she is supposed to be consequences as it describes, without being prepared to bound, she will have inflicted no injury upon those quays; to apply, by reciprocity, the principle on which the dethe guns of the fortress will have been silent; those fine mand rests, in favor of Great Britian? The American settlements of Canada, and that space of six hundred government has not contended, and does not mean to miles, (not exactly, as is asserted, extending through the contend, for any principle; the benefit of which, in analo heart of a British colony), will have remained unmolest-gous circumstances, it would deny to Great Britian. ed. She will have left no traces of injury behind her: Accordingly, with respect to that branch of the Columher voyage itself will not have made on the inhabitants bia which rises north of the parallel 49, (should that the impression of a passing dream; and, like the water parallel be mutually agreed to as the boundary between on which she was borne, she will have sought her track- the territories of the two powers), a case analogous to less and innocent course to the ocean, to reach which that of the St. Lawrence will be presented. And you Great Britain would be as much justified in claiming a have been hereinbefore instructed, in the event of that power to prevent the one as the other. branch bejug navigable within the British territory, to stipulate for the right of navigating the Columbia to the ocean, in behalf of British subjects. In regard to the Mississippi, (the example put by the British plenipotentiaries), if further exploration of the country shall develope a connexion between that river and Upper Canada, similar to that which exists between the U. States and the St. Lawrence, the American government, always faithful to principles, would be ready to apply to the Mississippi the doctrines which it now holds in regard to its great northern rival. It is not necessary to discuss all the extreme cases which may be fancifully suggested, such as a foreign claim to pass the isthmus of Darien, to drive a trade between Europe and distant India, through two oceans; or that of passing through England to trade with France or other portions of the European continent. Examples of that kind belong to the species of sophistrywhich would subvert all principles, by pushing their assumed consequences into the regions of extravagant sup→ position. (To be concluded in our next. )

"Nor ought the cases of rivers which rise and debouche altogether within the territorial limits of the same nation, to be confounded with those which, having their sources and navigable portions of their bodies in states above, finally discharge themselves within the limits of other states below. In the former instance, these is no basis on which a right in common can rest. The navigation of those rivers, ordinarily, can only be desired for porposes of commerce or intercourse with the nation to whose territories, in their whole extent, they are confined. And as every nation, strictly, has a right to interdict all foreign commerce, and to exclude all foreigners from its territories, as is done, in a considerable degree, by China, it follows that every one has a right, generally, to prohibit an entry into such rivers, or the use of its artificial roads. This right of prohibition exists where the direct object of the visit of foreigners is social or commercial. The end being forbidden, the means necessary to its accomplishment may be rightfully withheld. But, if an innocent passage is demanded for pur