SUPPLEMENTARY TO No. 25, VOL. IX, THIRD SERIES. THE PAST-THE PRESENT-FOR THE FUTURE. EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY R. NILES & SON, At $5 per annum, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE. that position of Spain, as solemnly declared by both the present contending parties? It was, that the navigation of the river Mississppi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to them both. If Great Britain, by the success of the war terminated in the treaty of 1763, was enabled to extort from France a concession of the free navigation of the Mississippi, as is asserted in the British argument, her condition was not the same in 1783. Yet, amidst all her reverses, without consulting Spain, she did not scruple to contract with the United States for their reciprocal freedom of navigating the Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, through Spanish territory, and passing the finest settlements and the largest city of Louisiana, as well as all the Spanish fortresses of of the lower Mississippi. Is Great Britain prepared to promulgate a law for Spain to which she will not herself submit, in analogous circumstances? «The British paper denies that the engagements of | Lawrence to the United States. What was the law of Paris, in 1814, and at Vienna in the following year, between the powers of Europe, in respect to the navigation of rivers, give any countenance to the natural right asserted by this government. It is difficult to conceive what other principle than that of a strong sense of the injustice of withholding from nations, whose territories are washed by rivers, the privilege of their navigation, dictated those Engagements. The clause cited in the paper under consideration is not in the nature of an original grant, but appears to be founded on a pre-existing, (and which could be no other than a natural), right. The powers whose States are separated or crossed by the same navigable river, engage to regulate by common consent all that regards its navigation. The regulation is not of the right, but of the use of the right, of navigation. And is the consent of the local sovereign is necessary to give validity to the regulation, so is that of the sovereign, above or below, whose territories are crossed by the same river; "It is not thought to be necessary further to extend and it is not stipulated that their use of the right of na-observations on the British paper, upon which I have vigation was to remain in abeyance until the manner of been commenting. If others in the course of your negoits enjoyment was regulated by the consent of all the in- tiation should be required, they will readily present terested powers. On the contrary, it cannot be doubted, themselves to you. It is more agreeable to turn from a that it was the understanding of the great powers at Vien- protracted discussion, which, although we are entirely na, that all the states concerned in the navigation of the confident of having the right on our side, if we are to judge Rhine and the other enumerated rivers, were to be forth-from the past, may terminate by leaving each party in the with let into the enjoyment of the navigation of them, possession of the same opinion which he entertained at its whether it was previously regulated, or not, by common commencement, to the consideration of some practical arconsent. Without such an understanding, it is manifest rangement, which, if possm, shall reconcile the views that any one of the states, by withholding its assent to of both. A river, it is manifest, may pass ugh the proposed regulations, upon real or ostensible grounds of territories of several powers in such manner as that, w objection, might indefinitely postpone, if not altogether each were to interdict the others its navigable use, within defeat, the exercise of the recognized right. The fact of his particular jurisdiction, every one of them might be desubjecting the use of a right to treaty regulations, as was prived of all the advantages of which it could be suscepproposed at Vienna to be done with the navigation of the tible. And, if the United States were disposed to exert, European rivers, and as was also done in the case of the within their jurisdiction, a power over the St. Lawrence, Danube, and other instances cited, does not prove that similar to that which is exercised by Great Britain, Brithe origin of the right is conventional, and not natural. tish subjects could be made to experience the same kind It often happens to be highly convenient, if not sometimes of inconvenience as that to which American citizens are indispensable, to guard against collisions and controversies, now exposed. The best, and, for descending navigation, by prescribing certain rules for the use of a natural right. the only channel of the St. Lawrence between Barnhart's The law of nature, though sufficiently intelligible in its island and the American shore is within our limits: and great outlines and general purposes, does not always every British boat and raft, therefore, 'that descends the reach every minute detail, which is called for by the com-St, Lawrence, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of plicated varieties and wants of modern navigation and the United States. The trade of the Upper Province is, commerce. And hence the right of navigating the ocean consequently, in our power, and a report to the legisla itself, in many instances, principally incident to a state of ture of New York, under date 28th March, 1825, (of war, is subjected, by innumerable treaties, to various re- which a copy is now put in your possession), concludes gulations. These regulations-the transactions at Vienna, by recommending an application to congress to exercise relative to the navigation of the European rivers and the power, thus possessed by us, in retaliation for the act other analogous stipulations--should be regarded only as of the British parliament of 5th August, 1822, entitled the spontaneous homage of man to the superior wisdom an act to regulate the trade of the provinces of Lower el the paramount Lawgiver of the Universe, by delivering and Upper Canada." If the recommendations of that his great works from the artificial shackles and selfish report were not adopted by the general assembly of New contrivances to which they have been arbitrarily and un-York, and if congress has hit hereto forborne to place Cajustly subjected. nadian navigation under any restrictions, in their transit "The force of the example in the definitive treaty of through our territory, it has been because of an unwillingpeace of 1783, between Great Britain and the U. States, ness to follow an unfriendly example, and from a hope that by which they stipulated that the navigation of the river mutual and candid explanations with Great Britain might Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remove all existing causes of hardship and complaint. reinain free and open to both parties, is not weakened by Prior to the passage of the British act of parliament, of any observations in the British paper. A stronger case 1822, and from the first settlement of the territory of need not be presented of the adinission of the principle the United States bordering on the lakes and the St. that a state, whose territories are washed by a river, can- Lawrence, their citizens had met with no difficulty in not be justly excluded from its navigation to the ocean by the disposal of the surplus produce of their industry, an intervening power. Spain held the entire right bank consisting chiefly of pot and pearl ashes, lumber, salted of the Mississippi from its som ce to the ocean, and the provisions and flour, at the markets of Montreal and left bank from the ocean up to the 31 st degree of north lati-Quebec. It was there sold, not for domestic consumptude, from whieh point, to its source, the residue of the tion, but for subsequent exportation, by sea, to distant left bank, it was supposed, belonged to the United States markets, principally British West India colonies. This and Great Britain in severalty. Spain, with respect to the trade was reciprocally beneficial; the American citizen, mouth of the Mississippi, thus stood, in 1783, in the same finding his advantage in a ready sale of his produce, the relation to the United States and to Great Britian, as British subject his, in the commission, storing, and other Great Britain now does, in regard to the mouth of the St. incidental tranactions and Britsh navigation enjoying the Vol. XXX]———- No. 29. exclusive benefit of re-transporting the produce to itsed to be wanted in those cities for the consumption of final destination. This trade had increased to such an either Canada, are, subsequently, exported from those extent that the single article of lumber, transported places of entrepot to foreign countries. From that cause down the St. Lawrence in the year 1821, amounted, in it would be unreasonable that they should be liable to value, to $650,000, without bringing into the estimate pay any higher or other duties than similar articles of the portion of that article which found its way through | Canadian origin. There is another reason for the limita lake Champlain and the Sorel to Montreal and Quebec. tion: we could not insit upon a general and indiscrimi This beneficial and innocent trade, so far as it dealt innate admission into those ports of all produce and mathe principal articles of flour and lumber, was almost en-nufactures of the United States, free of duty, without betirely destroyed by the duties imposed in the act of parliament of August, 1822, which, in effect, if not in form, are prohibitory. ing prepared to allow, as the equivalent, an admission into our northern territories of all British produce and manufactures on the same terms. But such an admission of British produce and manufactures, if not unconstitu tional, would be very unequal as it respects the lake country and other parts of the United States. The first article also provides for a right of deposite at Montreal and Quebec, or such other place as the British government may designate. Possibly, the British government may require a reciprocal privilege of introducing from the Canadas into the United States, free from duty, and there disposing of Canadian lumber, pot and pearl ashes, flour and salted provisions. Such a privilege would be of essential benefit to the upper province, in opening to it through the canals of the state of New York, the market of the city of New York. Should such a stipulation be required, you may agree to it, with a provision that the inhabitants of Canada shall be subject to the payment of the same tolls, ferriages, and other charges, in all re. spects, as citizens of the United States, from time to time, are, or shall be liable to pay. You may also agree to add furs and peltries to the list of articles which each party may introduce into the territories of the other, free from duty. This would be a stipulation very advantageous to Great Britain, in opening a shorter and better route to the ocean for those articles, than that through the St. Lawrence. "Should not the mutual interests of the two countries, in respect to this trade, independent of any considerations of the right in the navigation of the St. Lawrence, produce an arrangement satisfactory to both parties? It is a little remarkable that the opposition to such an arrangement proceeds from the party having the greatest interest in making it. That of the United States, as has been already stated, is simply to sell a surplus produce of labour. The place of its consumption is the West Indies. If it can be disposed of short of that place, at Montreal or Quebec, the citizens of the United States would be content. But, if they cannot sell those cities; if Great Britain by the imposition of duties which it will not bear, prevent a sale; they then desire to exercise the privilege of passing out the St. Lawrence and seeking a market wherever they can find it. Some portion of the produce which would take that natural direction, is now transported through the great canal which unites the Hudson and lake Erie. When the canal designed to connect the great canal with the St. Lawrence, at or near Oswego, which is in considerable progress, shall be completed, other portions of American produce will seek the market of the city of New York, instead of that of the Canadian capitals. If another canal "By the second article, our right of navigation, and to which is projected, shall ever be cut, that which is proposed to unite the St. Lawrence to lake Champlain, the a place of deposite simply, is stipulated without the prìinterest of his country in the navigation of the St. Law-vilege of introducing into the Canadas any articles wiratence will be still further diminished. Contrast this ever of American produce. Both articles secure to Bristate of our interest in the trade in question with that of tish subjects the right freely to navigate the St. LawGreat Britian. It will not be denied that the two British rence, where the channel is within our exclusive juris cities of Montreal and Quebec would be much benefit- diction. The first would secure all that we can ask; the ted by the prosecution of the trade. The British ton- second the least that we can take. nage enjoys, and if the navigation of the St. Lawrence "We could not rightfully object to a refusal to allow were freely thrown open to us, would probably continue sales of American produce, free of duty, within British to enjoy, the monopoly of the exportation of our produce, jurisdiction, however unfriendly it would be. But, in either as British or American property, to foreign pos- that case, there ought to be no limitation of the articles sessions. That produce serves to swell the list of arti- of our export or import trade. On the supposition of cles of general commerce in which great Britian, more such a refusal, the Canadas would be strictly entrepots, than any other nation, is concerned, and ministers direct- and not places of consumption of the objects of our ly to the wants of British colonies. If it enters some-trade, in either of its directions; and therefore, there what into competition with similar produce of Canadian origin, that consideration should be neutralized, by the fact, that the British West India colonist enjoys the benefit of the competition. For it cannot be supposed to be a part of British policy to shut up the American supply that one British colonist may thereby sell to another British colonist, at a price somewhat higher than he otherwise could do, without the remotest prospect of its reduction from [for] any length of time that the exclusion and the monopoly might exist. Without extending the comparison further, it must be evident that Great Britain is more, or at least as much, interested in the trade as we are. Our loss is not that of the entire value "3. The list may be increased of the articles which we of the articles which are prevented from reaching a mar-may be allowed to sell, at either or both of those cities, ket, under the operation of the British laws, but of the free of duty, so as so include all, or other, articles of the difference only in value, if there be any, between those growth, produce, or manufactures of the United States, articles and the substitutes on which our labor exerts with the permission to import into the United States itself in consequence of the existence of that impediment. similar produce of Canadian origin, but without any With this view of the matter, I have prepared two corresponding privilege of introducing into them British, articles, which accompany these instructions, under the European, or other foreign manufactures. designation of A and B; and which may be successively "If you should find the British government unwilling proposed by you, during the progress of the negotiation. to agree to either of the two preceding articles, with or By the first, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, up and without the modifications, or some of them abovemendown, from and to the ocean, is declared to belong to the tioned, you will decline entering into any arrangement citizens of the United States; and the ports of Montreal upon the subject of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and Quebec are open to the importation and disposal of and take any counter proposals, which they may offer, their lumber, pot and pearl ashes, flour and salted pro- for reference to your government. Neither the 3d artivisions, brought from the lake and St. Lawrence coun-cle of the treaty of 1794, nor that which was proposed try. The privilege is limited to these articles, because by either party at the negotiation of the convention of they are all produced in that quarter, which it is import- 1815, nor that which was offered by lord Castlereagh ant should be that vent; and which, not being suppos- in March, 1817, would serve as a proper basis to rega should be no restriction, as to what we should, or should not, export or import. "Between the maximum and the minimum which those two articles present, there are several intervening modifications, of which I will now specify some that present themselves, and to which, if you cannot do better, you are authorized to agree: "1. It may be proposed to limit the right of deposite to Quebec. "2. The sale of our produce may be limited to the port of Quebec; and, tries. late the right which we claim to the navigation of the 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 sections, &c. of the act.) Un St. Lawrence. Without adverting to any other decisive ob- der this authority, it would be competent to those offijections to the third article of the treaty of 1794, are, that cers to exclude, at their pleasure, from the privelege of it comprehended the Indians on both sides of the boun- warehousing our most valuable productions. If, by Bridary between the territories of the United States and tish legislation (on the supposition that you cannot preGreat Britain; and left Great Britain at full liberty to vail on the British government to regulate, by compact, impose whatever duties her policy might dictate upon the navigation of the St. Lawrence in the manner which our produce entering the Canadian ports. The act of has been herein proposed,) the privilege of warehousing parliament of August, 1822, would not be contrary to our produce was placed on a more stable footing, and we The stipulations of that article. The latter objection equal- were allowed to export it in our own vessels, it would be ly applies to both the American and British projects of a considerable improvement of the existing state of things. an article, which were proposed, but neither of which "During the negotiation between Mr. Rush and the was agreed to, in the negotiation of 1815, as well as to British plenipotentiaries, a desire was manifested by the that of lord Castlereagh. Nor would the United States latter to couple together the disputed points under the find any protection against the exercise of the power of fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, and the right asserted Imposing duties, by agreeing to the ordinary stipulation by the United States to the free navigation of the St. Lawin commercial treaties, restricting the duties imposed to rence; and, on the supposition of those two subjects bethe rate at which similar articles are liable when importing so blended, the British plenipotentiaries stated that ed from other countries. Because, in point of fact, no they were prepared to make offers of compromise and article, similar to those which are imported from our settlement, founded on a most liberd and comprehennorthern territory into Canada, is introduced there from sive view of the wishes and interests of the United States.' any foreign country. No foreign country stands in a si- (See pages from 80 to 86 of the pamphlet, and protouilar relation to Canada, that the northern parts of the cols of the 17th and 18th conferences.) These offers United States do. And Great Britain would not, there were to be made on the basis of the United States waivfore, be restrained from imposing duties upon our pro- ing their right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence,' duce, which should even be prohibitory in their effect, which, however, Great Britain was willing to grant to by their operation upon similar produce of other coun- them on a full equivalent; and that equivalent, it is to be inferred, was expected by the British plenipotentiaries, Whilst Great Britain may be unwilling to enter into to be furnished in the disputed territory to which the any treaty stipulations, acknowledging our right to the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent relates. What those navigation of the St. Lawrence, she may not be indispos- offers were they declined to communicate to Mr. Rush, ed to consent, by her own voluntary act, to repeal all although invited to do so, in order that he might transprohibitory and other duties imposed on American pro- mit them to his government. The government of the duce, so as to admit it imo the ports of Montreal and United States cannot consent to renounce a right which Quebec on the same terms as the same kind of produce they conceive belongs to them by the highest species of is received from Upper Canada. Such an equal admis- title. If, as the British government professes to believe, sion of our produce, would, in a great measure, super the ght has no just foundation, why does it insist upon sede the necessity of discussing and settling, at this its renunciation? Nor can this government agree to bartime, our right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, ter away any portion or o ritorial sovereignty of and of considering the regulations which the interests of Maine, or the proprietary rights of the both parties might require in the practical exercise of the of Massachusetts, for the navigation of a river in way to If the question right. Our citizens would enjoy, in those cities, a ready neither of them has any direct interest. and certain market for their produce, to obtain which, of the navigation of the St. Lawrence could be accommowould be the primary object of securing to them the na- dated in a manner satisfactory to both parties, so as to vigation of the St. Lawrence. It is because we cannot let the citizens of the United States into the practical and demand such an admission and privilege of selling our beneficial enjoyment of it, their government would be produce, as a matter of right, and because Great Britain willing that the arrangement should be equally silent in may decline the concession of it, although manifestly be- regard to the admission on the one side, or the abandonneficial to herself, that we desire to have this interest ment on the other, of the right as claimed and denied by placed upon some solid and permanent foundation. But, the parties, respectively. It is not easy to comprehend if you should be unable to obtain the British assent to why the British plenipotentiaries withheld the communieither of the articles proposed, with or without any of eation to Mr. Rush, of the very liberal offers which, acthe modifications of them, which have been suggested, it cording to their account of them, they were charged to would then be satisfactory to have the assurance of the make. When they appeared disposed to yield to the seBritish government that our produce, or, at least, the paration of the two subjects, as urged by Mr. Rush, they principal articles of it, which have been mentioned, shall still declined to make their proposal of compromise in be received at Montreal and Quebec on the same terms respect to the northeastern boundary. Under a belief as the like kinds of Canadian produce are there receiv- that no prejudice can result to either party from a full ed. And you may, in turn, assure the British govern- communication and a fair consideration of those offers, in ment that the president will recommend to congress to respect to either or both questions, you will invite a disreciprocate any British acts of liberality and good neigh-closure of them for reference home. It is obvious, that bourhood, in regard to the admission and sale of Ameri- no instructions adapted to them can be given, until they can produce in the Canadas, by acts of equal liberality are known; nor can we come under any preliminary oband good neighbourhood, on our side, in respect to the admission and sale of Canadian produce in the United States. It is within the competency of the mutual legislation of the two countries to remove many of the existing causes of complaint, without either party conceding or renouncing rights which there might be an unwillingness to admit or surrender. By an act of the British parliament, passed on the 5th July, 1825, entitled, 'An act to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad,' inland importation is allowed into the Canadas, from the U. States, in vessels, boats, or carriages, belonging to them, of any goods which might he lawfully imported by sea; but such goods must be brought to a port or place of entry, and are to pay the same duties as if they were imported by sea. They may be warehoused at Quebec, only, for exportation, without paying duty, under certain restrictions; but then the colfectors and comptrollers of the port are empowered to declare, in a written notice, to be by them promulgated, 'what sorts of goods may be so warehoused.' (See 28, wealth ligation as the price of their communication. If they are ever intended by Great Britain to be brought forward, the sooner it is done the better for the economy of time and the speedy settlement of the question, should they prove acceptable to this government. Had they been communicated to Mr. Rush, the delay would have been avoided which must now take place from your transmitting them to the United States, and receiving from hence the necessary instructions, if the offers should be made known to you." Extracts of a letter from Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain, dated Lexington, 8th August, 1826. "Your letter, under date of New York, on the 29th of June last, having been duly received at the department of state, and submitted to the president, was subsequently transmitted to me at this place, and I now have the bonor to address you agreeably to his directions, "He is very desirous of an amicable settlement of all the points of difference between Great Britain and the United States on just principles. Such a settlement, alone, would be satisfactory to the people of the United States, or would command the concurrence of their senate. In stating, in your instructions, the terms on which the president was willing that the several questions pending between the two governments might be arranged, he yielded as much to a spirit of concession as he thought he could, consistently with the interests of this country. He is, especially, not now prepared to authorize any stipulations involving a cession of territory belonging to any state in the union, or the abandonment, express or implied, of the right to navigate the St.roposition respecting the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Lawrence, or the surrender of any territory south of latitude 49, on the northwest coast." you suppose the British may insist, the president can see no legitimate purpose for which they should desze it. It cannot be wanted by them, either to reach ther owg dominions, or those of any foreign country, and stands, therefore, on other grounds than that on which we claim the right to navigate the St. Lawrence; and they are not allowed to trade with the Indians situated within our limits. The same observations are applicable to Lake Champlain.” tion of the St. Lawrence within our limits. the Extract of a letter from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. City, dated London, 21st September, 1827. "The British plenipotentiaries will not entertain any founded on the right claimed by the United States t navigate that river to the sea. "Although it may prove hereafter expedient to make a temporary agreement, without reference to the right, (which I am not authorized to do), I am satisfied that, for the present, at least, and whilst the intercourse with the British West Indies remains interdicted, it is best 16 leave that by land or inland navigation with the North American British provinces, to be regulated by the laws of each country, respectively. The British government will not, whilst the present state of things continues, throw any impediment in the way of that intercourse, if the United States will permit it to continue." Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Chau. Both the "III. The navigation of the St. Lawrence. articles, A, and B, unquestionably assume that the United States have the right to the navigation of that river, independent of Great Britain. Nor can the president consent to any treaty by which they should renounce that right, expressly or by implication. If a sense of justice should not induce Great Britain to acknowledge our right, some hope has been indulged that she might find a motive to make the acknowledgment, in the power which we possess, on her principles, of controlling the navigaIf she could be brought to consent to neither of those articles, your instructions did not look to any other treaty stipulations London 1st October, 1827. on the subject of the navigation of the St. Lawrence; and SIR: I had, at an early stage of the negotiations, ascerwhat they say with respect to practical arrangements, in other forms, was intended to refer to separate acts of tained, not only that no arrangement, founded on a rethe two parties. You are, indeed, authorized to take cognition of the right of the United States to the navigafor reference any counter proposals which may be made tion of the river St. Lawrence to the sea, was practi by Great Britain, because it is possible that some other ble, but that there was a sensibility on that subject which reconciliation of the interests of the two powers, than rendered it proferable not to approach it till all others, any which has occurred here, may present itself to the particularly that of the colonial intercourse, had British government; and because, if that were very been disposed of. It was, therefore, only after it be likely, such a reference would houde in courtesy to been distinctly ascertained, at the interview of the 18th Alg it is desirable, at present, for instant, [ultimo], with Mr. Huskisson and lord Dudley, the other party of the U. States, ou the St. Lawrence to that there was no chance left of the intercourse with the the liberty of trading at Montreal and Quebec, in British West Indies being opened, and after the princi their lumber and other articles of produce, charged with ples of the convention respecting the northeast boundary O higher duties than similar Canadian commodities, it had been substantially agreed to, that I brought forward would be unsafe to assent that, at no time, now or hereaf the question officially at our conferences. I did it withter, would the right of freely navigating the St. Law-out any hope of succeeding, but because this negotiation rence, with a convenient place of deposite be available, being the continuation of that of 1824, I apprehended without the liberty of trading with either of those places. that to omit altogether this subject, might be constructl Such a right would open to our navigation a new as an abandonment of the right of the United States. theatre of enterprise, and if the British colonial markets To my first suggestion, the British plenipotentiaries should be shut against us in consequence of high du- replied, that, however well disposed Great Britain might ties, others equally advantageous might be sought and be to treat with the United States respecting the free uafound. If the British government should decline agree-vigation of the river St. Lawrence, as a question of mu ing to either of the two articles, A and B, but be willing tual convenience, yet the views of the British governto receive our produce at Montreal or Quebec, either free of duty, or with such reduced duties as might enable it to sustain a competition with Canadian produce, two nodes of accomplishing this object present themselves: one by treaty, and the other by acts of separate regulation. Between them, there is no very decided preference. The latter was suggested in your instructions as being that which would be most likely to be attainable, and because it would not involve any abandonment of the rights of either party. If it be liable to the objection that either party may, at pleasure, put an end to it, the mutual interest which recommends its adoption would afford a guarantee of its durability. But you are authorized to consider your instructions enlarged so as to comprehend both modes of effecting the object, taking due care that, if that by treaty should, in the progress of the negotiation, seem to you best, the treaty stipulation shall either expressly reserve the right of the United States to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, in its whole extent, or at Ivast shall be so framed as not to be susceptible of the interpretation that they have abandoned that right. It is believed that the British government may be made to omprehend, that the privilege of introducing the produse of Upper Canada, as proposed in your instructions, Into the United States, and thereby securing the shorter and better route through the state of New York, will be an equivalent for that which we desire in the enjoyment of the markets of Montreal and Quebec. With respect to the right to the navigation of Lake Michigan, on which ment being the same now as they were in 1824, and they being prohibited by express instructions from entering into any discussion respecting the free navigation of that river, if claimed as heretofore by the United States on the ground of right, they could not entertain any propesition to that effect, if now made by me. It is sufficiently obvious that the determination of the British plenipotentiaries, not to enter into any discussion of the subject, was applicable only to themselves and could not prevent my offering any proposition, or annexing to the protocol any argument in support of it which I might think proper. But it appeared to me altogether unnecessary, if not injurious, to commit my government by presenting any specific proposal with the certainty of its being rejected; or to make this government commis itself still further, by reiterating its positive refusal to treat on the ground of a right on the part of the United States. I therefore made the entry which you will see in the protocol of the 20th conference, and which is sufficient for the object I had in view. You had, by your despatch of the 8th August, 1826, in conformity with my own wishes, so far enlarged my instructions as to authorize me to judge which mode would be the most eligible for the purpose of obtaining, at all events, the admission of American produce at Quebec or Montreal, free of duty; whether that by treaty, or that by acts of separate legislation. The alternative was not within my reach, as auy provision reserving the right of the United States to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, either expressly, or by implication, was in the present temper (B.) American paper on the navigation of the St. Lawrence, (18th protocul.) The right of the people of the United States to navigate the river St. Lawrenee, to and from the sea, has never yet been discussed between the governments of the United States and Great Britan. If it has not been distinctly asserted by the former, in negotiation, hitherto, it is because the benefits of it have been tacitly enjoyed, and because the interest, now become so great, and daily acquiring fresh magnitude, has, it may almost be said, originated since the acknowledgement of the independence of the United States, in 1783. This river is the only outlet provided by nature for the inhabitants of several among the largest and most populous states of the American union. Their right to use it, as a medium of communication with the ocean, rests upon the same ground of natural right and obvious necessity heretofore asserted by the government in behalf of the people of other portions of the United States, in relation to the river Mississippi. It has sometimes been said, that the possession by one nation of both the shores of a river at its mouth, gives the right of obstructing the navigation But I do not think that, in practice, this will be much of it to the people of other nations living on the banks longer denied. There is certainly a disposition, not above; but it remains to be shown upon what satisfactory evinced on former occasions, to make the navigation of grounds the assumption by the nation below of excluthe river free, provided it was not asked as a matter of sive jurisdiction over a river, thus situated, can be placright; and generally to encourage the intercourse be-ed. The common right to navigate it, is, on the other tween the United States and the adjacent British provin-hand, a right of nature. This is a principle which, it is ces. This change of disposition is undoubtedly due, in conceived, will be found to have the sanction of the most part, to the wish of obtaining supplies for the West India revered authorities of ancient and modern times; and, if colonies whilst the intercourse between these and the there have been temporary occasions when it has been United States remains interdicted. But it must also be questioned, it is not known that the reasons upon which ascribed to more correct views of what is so clearly the it rests, as developed in the most approved works upan interest, and ought to be the policy of Grea Britain in public law, have ever been impugned. As a general that quarter. It is certainly an extraordinary circum-inciple, it stands unshaken. The dispute relative to stance that the great importance of the American in- the Scheiat, ... 1784; is, perhaps, the occasion when the land commerce to her own navigation, and to the pros argument drawn from a right was most attempted perity of Canada, should not have been sooner strongly to be impeached. Here the circum were altoge felt and particularly attended to, that the obstacles to ther peculiar. Amongst others, it is known to have an intercourse, by which American produce is exported alleged by the Dutch, that the whole course of the two through Quebec, in preference to the ports of the Unit- branches of this river, which passed within the domined States, should have arisen on the part of Great Bri- ions of Holland, was entirely artificial; that it owed its tain, and not of the Uni d States. existence to the skill and labor of Dutchmen; that its It is, therefore, to that mode of attaining the ob- banks had been reared up at iminense cost, and were in ject in view, that I have turned my attention. The like manner mamtained. Hence, probably, the motive considerations which recommend the policy of remov- for that stipulation in the treaty of Munster, which had ing by their own acts, the practical inconveniences continued for more than a century, that the lower Scheldt, which still embarrass the intercourse, have been stat- with the canals of Sas and Swin, and other mouths of the ed, generally, to the British plenipotentiaries, but sea bordering upon them, should be kept closed on the with more force, and more in detail, to lord Dudley side belonging to the states. But the case of the St. and to other members of the cabinet. In an interview I Lawrence is totally different. Special, also, as seemed had to-day with his lordship, after having expressed my the grounds which the Dutch took as against the emperegret that no arrangement could, at this time, be made ror of Germany, in this case of the Scheldt, and, alon that subject, and after having urged the other reasons though they also stood upon a specific and positive comwhich should induce Great Britain no longer to prevent pact, of long duration, it is, nevertheless, known that the the navigation of American rafts, boats and vessels, be- public voice of Europe, on this part of the dispute, tween Montreal and Quebec; I added that, if she persist-preponderated against them. It may well have done so ed in denying it, although I had no authority to say that since there is no sentiment more deeply and universally such was the intention of my government, yet it seemed felt than that the ocean is free to all men, and the wato be a natural consequence, and ought not to be con- ters that flow into it to those whose home is upon their sidered as giving offence, that the United States should shores. In nearly every part of the world we find this adopt corresponding measures in regard to the naviga- natural right acknowledged, by laying navigable rivers tion of the St. Lawrence within their own limits. Lord open to all the inhabitants of their banks, and whereever Dudley, who had appeared to acquiesce in my general the stream, entering the limits of another society or na remarks, made no observation on this last suggestion. tion, has been interdicted to the upper inhabitants, it has But, what is somewhat remarkable is, that he, and se-been an act of force by a stronger against a weaker parveral of the other ministers with whom I have conversed, ty, and condemned by the judgment of mankind. The have expressed a doubt whether I was not mistaken in as-right of the upper inhabitants to the full use of the stream, serting that the navigation of the river was interdicted to our boats between Montreal and Quebec, Upon the whole, I have great hopes that, setting aside the abstract question of right, and though no arrange ment, by treaty, should take place, our citizens will, ere long, and through the acts of Great Britain alone, enjoy all the benefits of the navigation which they could obtain, even if the right were recognized. Should this expectation be disappointed, it is probable that a sufficient remedy will be found in the power to retaliate above St. Regis. I have the honor to be, &c. ALBERT GALLATIN. Hon. HENRY CLAY, Secretary of state, Washinetop. rests upon the same imperious wants as that of the lower upon the same intrinsic necessity of participating in the benefits of this flowing element. Rivers were given for the use of all persons living in the country of which they make a part, and a primary use of navigable ones is that of external commerce. The public good of nations is the object of the law of nations, as that of individuals is of municipal law. The interest of a part gives way to that of the whole; the particular to the general. The former is subordinate; the latter paramount. This is the principle pervading every code, national or municipal, whose basis is laid in moral right, and whose aim is the universal good. All that can be required under a pritciple so incontestible, so wise, and, in its permanent re |