Indiana Republican, Volume 1, Number 23, Madison, Jefferson County, 31 May 1817 — Page 5

Republicanextra. r May 31. I From the liberty Hall.

Deferred Articles. rrwF.ATY OF GHENT.

i jfir nrc in the construction of the first

u t this treaty has already arisen between fov rnment that of Britain in relation to Wroes carried off by the British naval of. Cat the conclusion of the late war. On iubiect a correspondence took place be.n Mr Monroe, then secretary of state, & Baker, the British charges des affairs at hincton, soon after the ratification of the v ; and subsequently between Mr. Adams, 'minister at Loudon, and the British secrcI, for foreign affairs. Extracts from this espondence were communicated to the seon the 7th of Feb. by message from the idem, conformably with their resolution he 28th January. The message occupies fnuch space for the columns ot a weekly r but the subject is too interesting to be d by we have therefore copieci the folr portions of it, by which the reader be made acquainted with the controversy the state in which it was left and probably Tains. ...

fc National Register, a very respectawe

-int published at wasningiun v,uy, mwu-

uding the puDiicauon ui wic uutuwuno companying the message, has the follow-

his has been a very shameful affair on the i nf the. British : and Mr. Adams, by rc-

L,r the nrotorol of the negotiations, has

t 1 1 .1, Int-nnWirtc if the ri T"

( or at least of the American commission-

If! 21V ug IU UlC ujai ai nciv v J -

iseolozy in which it is expressed. Lord ftereagh and lord Bathurst have been re--d to&the necessity of seeking refuge in a negative, or in complete silence, whilst the cr'uan ambassador orries off" the fact & the immr in complete iriuiv.ph.Thc British go-

nment has carried off noihing but the ne-

3 for which it will pa dcaily in the estiionof the world, by the loss - r confidence

h good faith and honor. In futu e negoci Ins 'it will be better to adopt tautology ir 1 -

destruction, or carrying away any artillery or other public property; or any slaves or other private property." This projet was returned by the British plen. ipotentiaries with the proposals of several alterations, and among the rest, in this part of the first article, which they proposed should be so changed as to read thus : " All territory, places and possessions, without exception, belonging to cither party, and taken by the other durirg the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored without delay and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property, or any slaves other private property, originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty' . It will be observed that in this proposal, the words " originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the ratifications of this treaty," operated as a modification of the article as originally proposed in the American projet. Instead of stipulating that no property, public or private, artillery or slaves, should be carried away, they limited the prohibition of removal to all such property as had been originally captured in the forts and places, and should remain there at the exchange of the ratifications. They included within the limitation private as well as public property, and had the article been assented to in this form by the American plenipotentiaries, and ratified by their government, it would have warranted the construction which -the British commanders have given to the article as it was uirimate'y agreed to, and which it cannot admit. For, by a reference to the protocol of conference held on the first of December, 1814, there will be found among the alteration:, to the amended projet, proposed by the American plenipotentiaries, the following : " Transpose alteration consisting of the words originally cafturci in the said forts cr places and which shall remain therein upon the exchange c the ratifications of this treaty, after the words public property.1 " Agreed to by the BritLh plenipotentia-

in re

wording of a treaty tha.!i to subject cur10 such absurd and ridiculous verbal

hblin" as our public authorities have been

ipelled tohstento on the subject-

rzd front Mr. Adams letter to lord Castlere. Tn. dated Qih of u?ust 1 8 1 c.

Ifr Lord In two several conferences with

ir lordship, i have had the honor of menping the refusal of his majesty's naval comnders, who at the restoration of peace been the United States and Great Britain, re stationed on the American coast, to rere the slaves taken by them from their own. Sin the United States, during the war, and in their possession, notwithstanding the )ulation in the first article nf the treaty of )ent, that such slaves should net be carried ay. Presuming that you are in possession the correspondence, on this subject, which I passed between the secretary of state of f United States and Mr. Baker, it will be necessary for me to repeat the demon st raft, that the carrying away of these slaves is compatible with the terms of the treaty. !t as a reference to the documents of the nc nation at Ghent may serve to elucidate the Mentions of the contracting parties, I am iniced to present them to your consideration, hopes that the minister of his majesty now put to depart for the United States, may be thorized to direct the' restitution of the ves conforms hlv to tlip treatv. or to orovidc

f tlmf rarried

' 1 ' . ... 1

.7av crmlrarv to th-jf ctinil ition. WillCIl. lU

!.e evfcut nt thnir not hpiufr restored. Iam in-

w m W ' ' -y

ructeu by rny government to claim. '1 he first preset of the treaty of Ghent as offered by the American plenipotentiaries, ad tint part of the first article relating to aves, was therein expressed in the following Jiinner : All territory places and pcjssessions, without exception, taken by either party from the 3ther during the war, or which may be taken iter the signing of this treaty shall be restorwithout delay, and without causing any

Ir thus anoears that the American plenipo

tentiaries admitted, with regard to artillery and public property, the limitation which was proposed by the riritish amended projet, but that they did not assent to it with regard to slaves and private property : that, on the con-trary.tlicyaskedsuchatranspo-ition of the words of limitation, as would leave them applicable only to artillery and public property, and would excepr slaves and private property from their operation altogether; that the British plenipotentiaries and government by this proposed transposition of the words, had full notice of the views of the other contracting party, in adhering to the generality of the pro Libiticn to carry away slaves and private property, while acquiescing in a limitation with respect to artillery and public properry. With this notice, the British government agreed to the transposition of tiic words, and accordingly that part of the article as ratified by both governments now sunds thus ; Ail territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the orther during the war, or which may be taken 3fter the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restor td without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away anv of the artillery or other public property, originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; or any tlaves or other private property." . From this view of the stipulation, as originally proposed at the negociation of Ghent -as subsequently modified by the proposals of the respective plenipotcr.tiaries, and as finally agreed to by both parties. I trust it will remain evident, that in evacuating all places within the jurisdiction of the U. States and in departing from their waters, the British commanders were bound not to carry away any slaves, or other private property of the citizens of the U. States, which had been taken on their shores. Had the construction of the article itself been in any decree equivocal, this statement ot the

ynanner in which it tras drawn up, would have sufficed to solve every doubt of its mean ing. It would also show that the British plenipotentiaries were not unaware of its purport a$ understood by those of the U. States and as I am instructed to urge its execution.' Copy of a Note from lord Bathurst U Mr Adams dated Oct. 25, 18 15. The undersigned, one of his mejesty's principal secretaries of state, has had 'he honor to receive Mr. Adams' letters of the 9th of Aug. and 5th of Sep. last : the first of which, recites the first article of the treaty of Ghent, and requires ' that his majesty's naval commanders, who at the restoratian of peace between the U. States and G. Britain were stationed on the American coast, should restore the slaves taken by them, from their owners, in the U. S. during the war. and then in their possession This claim is set up in consequence of the following interpretation which is given to thefirst article cf the said treaty by the gevernment of the U. States, in as far as it relates to slaves & private property, namely: 'That in evacuating all places within the jurisdiction of U States & in departing from their waters, the British commanders were bound not to carry away any slaves, or other private property of the citizens of the U States, which had beed taken upon their shores.' And it takes its origin from a different construction, of the same article of the treaty, by his majesty's naval officers on the coast of America,' ho (according toMr. Monroe's ieiter to Mr Biker of the tst cf April) contend that 'slaves and other private property are comprised under the same regulation with artillery and public property, and that none ought in consequence, be restored, except such as were at the time of the rat. ifications of the treaty, in the forts and places where they were originally taken.' 'I he arguments brought forward by the American government, in support of their understanding of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, rests partly upon such collateral evidence as may be deduced from the intention of the negocbtors, at the time they drew up that article. The undersigned need not remind Mr. Adams of the inconvenience which would result, were the parties upon whom treaties were binding to recur to the intent ons of the negotiators of such treaty, instead of taking ss their guide the context of the treaty itself, on any point of controvery respecting it. The undersigned is however, willing to waivs this objection. In this instance it would appear that the alteration in the original article proposed by the British commissioners was introduced by a verbal amendment suggested by the American plenipotentiaries. Many altera, tionsof this kind took place, sometimes at the suggestion of one patty and sometimes of the other, but it surely is not meant to be inferred from this 'hat a change of phrase, pn fess -dly verbal, is to be taken as necessarily denoting or importing an admitted change of construction, it is certainly po-sible that one party may propose an alteration wirh a mental reservation of some construction of his own, & that he may assent to it, on a firm persuasion that the construction continues to be the same; and that therefore he may conciliate, and yet concede nothing by giving his assent. The proposed alteration was considered as merely verb al no suspicion appears to have been entertained that it changed the stipulation as originally introduced : and it is not averred that the American plenipotentiaries then tho'c of the construction now set up by their govern ment. The meaning of the British negccntors is admitted to have been made quite apparent by their projet, and as nothing passed indicative of any objections to it on the part ot t he American commissioner!, or of any departure from it by the British negociaters when tlic alteration was suggested by one party and acceeded to by the other; and as there was no discussion on the propriety of making the restitution more extensive as to slaves, and private property than as to the other prorty menuoned, the undersigned cannot subscnoe to -nc conclusions which Mr. Adams and his government have drawn from this manner f viewing the subject. The undersigned I will no proceed to'examine that part of which regards the construction that has btea given to the context of the article m quest by the government of the U. States. (To be conclnded next we- ;