&Z;r i - i ' . - FRIDAY' nr.Tnni?p7TT ; :- , v , fir: ' ' :!
With ngln, Ocu 11.
ff . . ... rhl"il will eifw4un
V1 . t.Z.t Un'.unt ihewing lhev
" ' Jnlitnl9bo.eple.potenturicf,
lfc'brru. oo which riiey were
io nf roctc ul canclode lr-
- ii ) the au bi!it of anomer
r , . - i
V " -.linfl.
c tr""" j 4 ves Madison.
DOCUMENTS.! v
r inter irmi . ,
GArt. 12th ju&tti. 181
cl the
CJ-.u " J 1
icd to propose a Jietruug. a,
i.: hsur, cD the cuuing -.Ja .-:!
Itcciice having ruen agreed upo0l4
Mo-Ojv tnc bta iu , j0l w.ir or l( Hu7r.it,
Vetodue, hercwitn,a copy 01 , : br jof()f mfJ whcthcr
. - - . It . r . . . 1 t i. -
ccce i
which wjs opened no tnc-r,
ci eirncst
wrrt thAtthe oczoaa Ho niisht
diia ischd peace, hen irahic to D'jih
xru:s. I hey, at the same ti me, dr-
rfjitd, that r.o everts vtnicn nau oc-
oor:d since tne bt si prupoia. to thts
ttrociition, had alien jfJ the pacific j
n l . L - i l l : . '
with
te raoitsicctrc ueirr i
t t
put tnu
I
tf3
2ii liberal r sounds the fou
i peace which, securing the rights ;fcciJ w,th suffl
I. The forcible stizurc ofmarines
wb)ard of merchant vess.-Ii, a.id m
ctccticn with it, thelthim of hi
..i:dic ii.jcsty to ine alitgi.
.l thc native sublets ol G
uocr
rcat
cnuic
Ve understood diem to' intimate,
fcMtheDmi-h goverunieot did not?
r '-etc 15 point as one which they
parutuLiriv drsirius of discus-
lz; but that, m it hJd occupied so
i -X'nfnta piCviin tht- diiputci be-;
the two couutrics. it ntce-sari-.
h ntnctcd notice, and w as con udcr- i
su' ject whuh would ccrae
tiUlSCUiSSOt.
-I- The Indian AUics of Great
to be- ificladtdin tht pjt: a-
and a dc finite bauadary to be
scd for their territory
1 re Britiih Gon
an airiorment upon th'u poiot
l a Vta nsn : that they were
i authorised to conclude a treaty ol
Itice which did nut embrace the lu-
6 a' a lies of his Jiritacnic ma.
;nd that the e8bb,ishme..t ol
tt&itc boudArr ol th. lW,, ..r.
y was oecesvarv to secure a nr.
Ifn... I'"'
,acStut an K.t... .u it..:. !
"7 0U Great Britiin.
A revision of he boundary line
ldJcent BrnUH
W Wee of territory, and re. )
presented the proposed revUioo'
intended merely for the purpose
51
preventing uncertainty and dilute.
Afttr having stated these three !
poictsVai siibjeas of discussion, the :
British cotnaiUtiotiers added, that!
nelorethey desired ny answer from '
us, they felt it incumbent upon theml
to declare, that th Hnnh rmvm-
I t .
I ' .wi7 t4lv - W tl .
imerKans to the fisheries gctfsrailv,
or in ihf 'pi Q sat ; but that the pri-i
vi!efe, formerly granted bv treatv to,
the Uoited Stts of fishing within)
the limit or thr U'lii o j i ri.Jiction.
and of Ltndi'--g aa l -Irving fish on the
sh ie cithe U i i h territori; , tv m!:l
notb - renewed with a. a a qval n;.
v Ti.r extent of what w.a onid-rtd
bv then .ratci& p.-culuily British,
was nat -tated.
' F cm th manner in ivhirh ther
brouf.t this subject into 'view, thrv
be; m-vl to wi;h u? V) uc'drrand that
qu
r pc: to provi -. expresalv in the
trra-y p".ce for th-:r renewal.
The B itish Commissioner h.iv
iuw' s t.', tiiat thrve nrere all the sub-
wmcn they intended to bring
requeued t'
fro yiihittne umw - they ivcre uot a(,xv us hit i: siv-ul
.yccrt. l-ord J.11:!. fie.,iry C"ou!-: j be dlcuscl. ami th,t the v on?v in
UdVkU,lAV M'1"' ;tendidto :ive us o ttrcr that these
,r,idnnisatyf;ao.i.u.uar uc,,. ( privic(, h Kj Ctasefj lo cXUr. and I
iuV.Ghiast. I ne cay w.ur th . wouf. n.,t hr i(J granted without!
vale at, nor uylts1 we .thought I
iruU P-ti exhibited hy the B:i-. sl u t., enter into neCochtioQ on
icse several points? and, whether
'here auv
amn;-r,t thrse which
; ired us to st te, on our p.rt such. o:h:
er cu j; ct s we might intend t pr
pos fir di usion iu the cvursc of;
the ntgo '.Ktion. j
The meeting was then atlj urned
to the nnt .4 . in orir f r.i7' i w
disposition of their g .femment, or j, thc o;TO:tllP;llv 0f consuU.vi n am-jnglJ
which it ws willing toaclude the j lr lhl? ccu:sc nt the fivcninROf tht I
F2Zt ' i " . . ! ssme d iv, we receivrd : our letters ol !
ucirawocs 5reatj s:i:isiactirn. i i;-;ecHild be no h-sitnion, on
C ;mm:sioQcrs. th.tt we were not in !
.craoitsicctrc ucirri uuo tou;:s.ru tC(l 03 lhe ru ..ects , f I-li o pa-! i
iti:cd:tTrren:cs waxn divid-d thc:;c vio()nr t,ound Tv,m : o! fisheriesj
ccuncA aadto ii up,n-jvHt! N.,r di(i ;t 5Ct:in pr,;h..b!e, although J
uitiono!!' m r .r,
ient precision in that
ara miertsu u uotn n.nifW, .n.mri j f t b i ..o:.ferrn.r. that thev could
cu: wen) Dy lasting bn.is 01 amitv. m;ttrfl ;n MftV shi0c. Ve did I
wleU I n r u hnur-vpr. tf nri inrlrf thr t
iKsdlhe followtog 5Uect, as those ! j refcult or hv. aov ha.ty proceeding ab
t?en which rt appealed; to them that fu i;y lo break'offthe negation. It!
tt diirusiioos would! be l.kcly w! w,g DOl inaWlble lhatf on th. PU,.J
aua cn vra.cn uicy were msiruci. ;.,cltjl :ne larlf4n. the B.itish ev-
I eminent had rec ived erroneous tm
. presd ns from the ludian traders in
L Cmada, whkh our rcprecntations
m;ht remove : And it appeared, at
j ill evenis, important to asrertain dis
I; B'itaia on both points. We, there
fore, thought it sdvisable to invite the
British Commissioners to a general
conversation on all the points; sta-
in
to them, at the Same time, our
want of instructions on two of them,
and holding out no expectation of the
probability of our agreeing to any
aiti le respecting them.
At our m -rtinp on the ensuing dav
! wxs informed the British C:mmitsiun-
crs, that upon the hrst and thirdpoint
proposed by thm we were provided
withviastructiuns, and we presented
as luriher subjecta considered by our
government as suitable for discussion:
1st. A definition cf blockade ; and
as far might be mutually agreed of
other ik utf ai and bclltgereat'righti.
21. Claims of indemnity in certain
cs-s of capture and seizure.
. We then stated that the subject, 1st
of Indian pacification, and boundary,
au i 2d of fisheries, were embraced by
bur instructions.
We observed, that as these points
had not bceo heretoiore tne grounds
sfany controversy between the go
vernment of Great Britain aud that of
the Uoited States, and had not been
alluded to by lord, Castlererghj io
his letter proposing the negociatioQ
it could not be expected that they
should h;vc been onticipita ted and
"made the subject of itnstrur.tiphs
our government : that it wa natural
to be; uopnsed,that our instructions
vere confined to those, subjects upon
which .difTcrcnce -bsiween the two
euniries were known 'to exist ; and
that the pr position-to define in a
treaty between the United Slates and
Great Britain, the boundary of the In
dian posessifn within ou territories
vus new and Hyithout example. No
su n provision had rWn inserted in
the treaty 6t peace i.iT783, nur in i-ny
otner treaty betWceP the t'wo coun
tries.' N such provisions had to our
kaowledge, ever bern inserted in any
ticaty made by Great B itain or any
otiier European power in relation to
tne sa:ue description of people ex'tst
ug under like circumst tnces. We
would say, however, that V it would j
not be. doubted that pea e with the
I lrtd:"ns ivou'd rertaialy fol'owi peace
witn G-eat B'i'ain ; that we had in
I rm.Uion that Commissioners had al
reauy b- cn appointed to treat with
tnem ; that a treaty to th.u etlct
I inight.pr.rhau,tis)ve bem areadv con- ;J
eluded ; and that thc Uoited State
having no interest, nor any motive to
continue t jjperate var against the
Indians, t iere could never be a m -m
nt when our government would
not be disp sed v m..ke peace with
th-rr.
'We then expressed our wish to re
.eivc ii.) n the British Comndf8ioo-
e. s a statement of the views and ob- '
if eta of Grem ' Britain unmi all the I
p jiriu, and our willingness to discuss !
their all, in order that, even if no ar.
range ea- f . uid b agreed on, upon
the p dnts nut meiuded in our intruc
:i ns, the government f the Unitrd
Stts m g"t be possessed of the en
tire and precise iateoti'-ns of th-t of
Great .U itain, reecting he3e points,
aud that the British government might
be fu'ly informed f the objections
on the part of the Uuitcd Scales, to
any such arrangement.
In answer to our remark' that these
po:nta hid not been a'luded to by
L. riCaitlrreagh,in his Uttrr propos
ing the negociatiun, it was said, that
?t c.uid not be expected, that, in a
iettrr merely intends
g.juinti.m, he shout
topics or d'sussioo,
ttrr merely intended to invite a ne-
td enumerate tne
pics or u'scussion, or state inr. pre
tensions ot nis government ; since
thc3e would depend upon ulterior e
vents, and might arise out of a subse
quent state of things.
In reply to our observation, that the
proposed stipulation of ah Ihdiao
b vundsry was without example n the
practice of European nations, itUvas
asserted thdt the Indians must in some
sort be considered as an independent
people, since treatie3 were made wUh
them both by Qreat Britain and by the
United States ; upon which we point
ed out the obvious and important dif
ference between the treaties we might
make witn Indians, living in our ter
;uo y, & sulh a treaty s was propos
ed to b- made, respecting th m,'with
a foreign power, who had solemnly
acknowledged the, territory on which
thev resided to be part of the Uoited
States.
We were then a ked ly the British
Cooimissioptrs whether, in cane they
should enter fu.ther upon the discus
sion of the several poinu which had
been stated, it e. could expect that it
would terminafe b some provision?'! J
arrancr-w-ment on ihe points on which i
we tud no instructions, particularly j
on that respecting the IndUns, which
arrangement would be subject to the
ratification of our-gnvexnment i ': ,
We answered that, before the sub-
icts 7ere distinctly. understood, and j
thC CDjecci iu view mure prcnaciy
disclosed, we could not decide whe
ther it would be possible to form any
sAtisfactory article on the subject;
oor pledge ourselves as to the exerf
cise of a discretion under our ppwersj
even with respect to a provisional a
grcemcnt, t We added that as wc
should deeply deplorc a rupture of
the negociation on, any point, Jit was;
"our anxious desire .to employ all pos
sible means td avert an event so se
ribus in iu consequences ; :'and that
wc had not been withtut hopes thaft
a discussion might correct the. effect
w 5ny erroneous intormation w men
British govern nent might have
rccyed onjthe subject, which they
had .nDOed a a preliminary7 basis,
tsl- this opportunity to re
mark, thxp nation: observed a poliT
cy more libcxlnd humane towards
the Iadians thaiKthat pursued by the
U. States; thait ob object had been,
by all practicable mtas; to introdbce'
civilization amongst tfcem i that their
possession were secured to them by
well defined bcundenes ; hat heir
persons, lands and other property
were n ; w more effectually protected
against violence or fraud fiom Jjoy'
quarter, than they had been uocler af
ny former government , that even ouf
r - tl.
cmzens, were not aiiowta to purchase
their land ; that when they gave up
thsir title to any poTtion of their coun
try to the "United States, it .iv. s by
v luntary treaty with our government
who gave them a satisfactory equiva
lent ; and through these means the
U. States had succeeded in preservf-
51
ing, since the treaty of Greenville
i95, an uninterrupted peace of 16 ;
yeais, witn all the lQdian tnoes ; a
period, of tranquility much longer,
than they wt-re known to have enjoy
ed heretofore.
It was then expresdy stated on our
part that thc proposition respecting
1 1 1 w -1
J the Indians, was not distinctly under
stood. We akcd whetner the paci
fication, and the settlement of a boutv
darv f r them were both nude a eiie
quanm? Which was auswered mi
he affirmative. The questiou was
then aked the British Commissioh
srs,'yhetl:er the proposed Indian
boundary was intended to prccluide
the United Slates from the rightjof
pu chasing by treaty from the IndUns
without consent of G. Brita n, lapds
lying beyond that boundary l And
as a restriction upon the Indiaos from !
filing by amicable treaties lands to
r)ie United $;ates as had been hithpr, i
to practised ?
To this question, it was first an
swered by one of the Commissioners'
that the Indians wou'd not be restrict- J
ed from selling their fends, burtty.t
the United States wou'd be restricted
from purchasing them ; and on refine
tion another of the Commissioners
stated, that it was intended that ih
Indian territories should be a barrier
heiween the British dominions -ahd
those of the United States j that bcjth
G. Britain and the U. States should
be restricted from purchasing thdr
lands ; but that the Indians might stll j
them to a third party. J
The proposition respecting Indian
bounebfy thus explained, andronnie
ted with the right of sovereignty as
cribed to the Iodiansover the country,
amounted, to nothing lesa than acje
mand of the absolute cession of. the
rights both of sovereignty and of soli- j
We cannot abstain from remarking
to you, that the subject (of Indian
boundary) was ipdiatiocdy stated
when firt proposed, and that the cx
planati n were at first pbacure an
dwavs givn tvith reluctance. Abd
it was declared from the first moment
to be a tine qua nony rendering any
discussion unprofitable until n wasi
admitted as a basis. Knowing that
we had do pbwer to , cede lo the In
dians any part of our territory, we
thought it unnecessary to ask, what
probably would not have been an
swered till the principle was admitted
where the line of debarkation of the
Indian country was proposed to be
estab ished? . j
Trie British Commissioners, af?e-
having repeated that their instructions
on the subject of the Indians were
peremptory, stated that ucleas we
could give some assurances, that our
powers v would allow us - to mke ja
least a provisional arrangement on th
subject, any further discussion wodld
be fruitless, and that thty'mut cba
sult their own government on thii
state of things. They proposed ac
cordingly a suspension of the confer
ences, until they should have received
an answer; it being understood that
each party might call a meeting hen
ever they had acy prcpoeition to sab -
mit. JL ncydisnAtchea a speoai mes
senger the same evtsbing. and we are
now waiting for the result, j t
Before the proposed adj nrnment
took place, it was agreed that there :
should be a protocoYof the conferea-
rH. tnat a .stntcmnt hmitrl !. Fn'r that .
ami that we shpdnVeet the hextjdaj
to compare the' stjments4:jWe acV .
eording'y met agfkf.ohejrj
the l(Xh instant, aaduVmapae
upon what should cibtiVutef theujf6p
tjcol of the cobfei&ces;:, .-L IcopyMpi
this instrument ve have the! honor to
transmit with this dispatch ; andVe
alio enclose a copy oi tpe statement
originally drwn up on bur part, for
the purpose of making known to- you
the passages to which the British
Commissioners objected. 1 -
Their objection to some of the pas
sages was, that they appeared to 6e
argumentative, and that thei otbject br .
thr protocol was to contain a mere) T.
statpm-nt of (act?. Theyvj however,
objected to the insertion of the answer
which they ha given to ouf quearjon ;
resijecting the efiect of the; proposed
Indian boundary ; hut they agreed to',
an alteration of theis-original prbposU
tion on that subject, which renders it
much more explicit than as stated,
either in the fi st coaferepe or in
their proposed draught of the protocol
Thev also objected to the inscrtrhn
of the , fact, that thev had proposed to ,
adjoum the conferences, untilnney
could obtain further ins'.ructibhs from
their government. The return ol
their messenger may, perhaps dis
close the motive of their reluctance in
that re-pect. M
We have the honor to bes, very res
pectfully, sir, your humble apd obedi
ent servants,. j P ,
' : JOHN QUtNCY A.DAM9,
J. A- U WAltD,
t P II. CLAY, J j ;
. ; JON A. UUSSLL.
( Here folio vr the Protocols of Confer
ence, which asrrce in substance with what is
stated in the above letter. .
9Vj
h A : ;
Messrs, Adams, Bayarcf Cl,i RtfsieLandj :-:'t;
GaUatin, to Mr. Afonroe, 'Secretary, -of ' C i
Sute, dated ' Ghent,. 19 Jltig 1814.lp
Sir Mr Baker, Secretary to ihpVt
British mission, calkd bpon us''tb,(p'-'-X
day, at 1 o'clock, and invited us td'a -coherence
to be hel at thi;ee Trij 4
was agreed to, and the British Com .
missiouers opened it, by saving, ; that '
they. d receive! their further jn-4
si ructions this mornihgv and had opt
lost a moment, in requesting a meet-
ing for the purpose of communicating
the decision of their government., It ,
is proper to notice that L urd Gastie '
reaghhad arciye"dlast night in thiss4 r
city, whence, it is said; jhe will de
part to-morrow oa his way to Br us- ) T 1
seb and Vienna ; pi - "
The British Commissioners stated
that their Gove reinem hid felt some
surprize, tht we were not instructed
rejecting the Indians, as jit could not :
have been expected that ! they would
leave xheir Allies, in their cpmpara .
tively weak situation, exposed td oar
resentmeau -Great-Brttaic might
justly have supposed that the Ameri
can government would have furnish
ed us with! instructions, jauthorising
us to agree tof a positive article 6q the
subject but the least, sn.'uldd,'
man4as that we ? should Jsigu a prb.
visional article admitting the priuci
nle, subiect tbsthe1raiif?cattoh ofloui' -
government ; so mar, ir t snoura oe ;
ratified, the treaty thouMtk-eTectj:
and, if not, that it should, be null and
void ; on our assent or refusal to ad
mit such an article wonld depend the ;
cooticuince or-suspension of the ne
gociatLm. . ; "::P'Pp;- PP:
As we had represented thatjthe
propositioa raade by ;tb&n,-' on that
subjeevwasnbt suftxeotly explicit,
: heir govcrnmcot Hid directed them
to give' us every necessary expltna- . . ;
iibn; and to state -cfisinctiy'',i "j f-p
which must be considered ; as. an in- ; : p
dis ptnsable preliminary, i i
JipThis was a sine fiia non that the
Indians should be tnciuaeu in tne pa-
cification, and, as incident thereto, p.
that the boundaries of theijr territory,
should be psimaneatly eitaWiahed-.
FA
1
.V
1
4
!
v
3
1
? ;
i
1,
A
;
X
r