pect of a more durable peace between Great Britain and the continental powers, and the consequent greater security for maritime rights were given as the justification for "this change of our ultimatum." It was added that the right of the United States to the fisheries, as defined in the treaty of 1783, and the right to trade with all other independent nations were not to be relinquished, nor was anything to be done which would sanction the claim of impressment or that of paper blockades. With these explanations, the American commissioners were authorized to make such a treaty as their own judgments should approve, subject to the usual requisite of ratification. A treaty was signed at Ghent on December 24, 1814. The plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain were Admiral Lord Gambier, Henry Goulburn, and William Adams. The treaty of Ghent was based upon the status quo ante bellum. All places taken by the one country from the other during the war were to be restored, and provision was made for determining, as far as possible, the international boundary. It was also stipulated that Indian hostilities should cease. The high contracting parties were to use their best endeavors to put an end to the slave trade. Of the subjects of illegal blockades and impressment the treaty made no mention. Neither was the question of the fisheries nor that of the navigation of the Mississippi referred to in that instrument. Indeed, the plenipotentiaries, having failed to reach a decision as to the latter two questions, agreed to postpone them for the further consideration of their governments. In connection with the foregoing, the following references may be noted: Calhoun's report from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, chargé, June 26, 1812, Am. Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Bayard, Gallatin, and Adams, April Davis's Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1325-1328. Proceedings of the commissioners under Art. V. of the treaty of Ghent, Proceedings of the commissioners under Art. VI. of the treaty of Ghent, relating to the boundary through the river St. Lawrence and lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron, 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 162–170. Proceedings of commissioners under Art. VII. of the treaty of Ghent, in relation to the boundary from Lake Huron to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 171–195. ‘In a letter marked ‘private,' from Mr. Clay to Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, dated December 25, 1814, are the following passages: "According to opinions which I have before communicated to you, our negotiation has terminated in a treaty of peace, which was signed yesterday. The terms of this instrument are undoubtedly not such as our country expected at the commencement of the war. Judged of, however, by the actual condition of things, so far as it is known to us, they cannot be pronounced very unfavorable. We lose no territory, I think no honor. If we lose a particular liberty in fisheries, on the one hand (which may be doubted), we gain, on the other, the exemption of the navigation of the Mississippi from British claims. We gain, also, the right of exemption from the British practice of treating with the Indians.' “An exposition by Mr. Gallatin of his views prior to assenting to the treaty of Ghent will be found in a letter to Mr. Monroe, dated at Ghent. October 26, 1814, to be found in the Monroe papers, with pencil notes by Mr. Monroe. “Mr. J. Q. Adams's diary of the period of the Ghent negotiations gives a narrative of those negotiations, which, though of deep interest, is affected by his then strong antagonism to Mr. Clay and to Mr. Russell, two of his colleagues (Wharton, Int. Law Digest, II. 167.) See, also, The Duplicate Letters, by J. Q. Adams: Washington, 1822. "You ask me what I think of the correspondence of our ministers at Ghent. I think well, very well of it. The language, though sometimes heavy, is on the whole as good at least as that of their opponents. Their arguments are better than their language. In argument their superiority is manifest. .. The British commissioners must be heavy dull men. Their introduction of Pitt's letter to Stanley, and their reliance on it, constituted a terrible faur pas, of which our ministers have properly availed themselves. In the whole correspondence our ministers seem to have been entirely collected and on their guard, and what is equally satisfactory and important, they have firmly maintained the honor and dignity of the country." (Mr. G. W. Hay to Mr. Monroe, Jan. 6, 1815, MS. Monroe Papers, inaccurately quoted in Wharton, Int. Law Digest, II. 167.) "I have no doubt that the British commissioners signed the treaty (if it be signed) under an expectation that Pakenham was in possession of New Orleans, and I am equally confident, from the tenor of the diplomatic correspondence, that New Orleans never would have been restored under the treaty." (Mr. G. W. Hay to Mr. Monroe, Feb. 15, 1815, MS. Monroe Papers, ibid.) As to the negotiation of the treaty the following authorities may be consulted: Adams's Life of Gallatin, 519; 10 John Adams's Works, 97, 106, 129, 131; 3 Am. St. Papers, For. Rel. 695, 730; 4 id. 310; 9 Brit. For. State Papers, 369, 530, 565, 752, 823. For correspondence between Mr. Clay and his colleagues, in respect to the negotiations at Ghent, see Colton's Correspondence of Clay, 28. English criticisms of the treaty are quoted in 2 Ingersoll's Historical Sketch of the Second War between the United States and Great Britain (1st series), 312, chap. xiii, In 37 London Quarterly Review, 286, as noticed in a letter of Mr. Gallatin to Mr. E. Everett, of August 6, 1828 (2 Gallatin's Writings, 400), the treaty of Ghent is spoken of as "That precious treaty of Ghent, which gave to them [the United States] all that they asked, and much more than they had any right to expect." 5. TREATY OF 1815. § 830. July 3, 1815, a convention to regulate commerce and navigation was concluded between the United States and Great Britain at London. The negotiators on the part of the United States were John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin; on the part of Great Britain, Frederick John Robinson, Henry Goulburn, and William Adams. In this treaty it was for the first time agreed that no higher or other duties or charges should be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on vessels of another power than were payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States, and that the same duties should be paid and the same drawbacks allowed on foreign importations, whether such importations were made in vessels of the United States or of the other contracting party. The convention, however, on the part of Great Britain, applied, with certain exceptions, only to the territories of his Britannic Majesty in Europe. It was to remain in force for four years from the date of its signature. By the convention of October 20, 1818, the term was extended for ten years. By the convention of August 6, 1827, it was extended indefinitely, subject to termination on twelve months' notice. Davis's Notes, Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1224, 1331; Am. State Papers, In 1821 the British minister complained of an "extra charge" for pilotage required of British vessels, as foreign vessels, at Norfolk, Virginia, under an act of the Virginia legislature. The complaint was sent to the governor of Virginia, with the statement that it had been "the invariable understanding of both parties that by the conventions of 3rd July, 1815, and 20th October, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, the charge of pilotage is included in the equalization of duties stipulated by that instrument upon the vessels of either party in the ports of the other. It is not doubted," added the Department of State," that the operation of the law of Virginia will by the proper authority be made conformable to this engagement in the conventions; and that measures will be taken for refunding any such sum of extra pilotage duty which may have been levied since the period of those conventions, as well as for guarding against its being again levied in future.” Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Gov. Randolph, July 2, 1821, 19 MS. Dom. Article I. of the treaty of 1815, in providing for mutual freedom and liberty of commerce, can not be construed to imply an obligation to protect the rights of foreign owners of slaves brought to our shores as seamen. Taney, At. Gen., 1831, 2 Op. 475. 6. NAVAL FORCES ON GREAT LAKES. $831. On April 28-29, 1817, an arrangement was made by exchange of notes for the limitation of the naval forces to be respectively maintained by Great Britain and the United States on the Great Lakes. The provisions of this convention and its history are fully given elsewhere. October 20, 1818, a convention was concluded between the United States and Great Britain respecting various matters, including the northeastern fisheries. The negotiators on the part of the United States were Albert Gallatin and Richard Rush; on the part of Great Britain, Frederick John Robinson and Henry Goulburn. The history of the convention, so far as it related to the fisheries, is elsewhere given. See the Northeastern Fisheries, supra, § § 163-168; 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 703 et seq. 8. INDEMNITY FOR SLAVES, 1822. $ 833. Article I. of the treaty of Ghent, in providing for the restoration of all places taken by the one country from the other during the war, stipulated that this should be done without any destruction or carrying away of any public property or of "any slaves or other private property." It was subsequently alleged that the British forces had carried away slaves in violation of this stipulation. As we have seen, the United States had complained of the violation of a similar stipulation in the treaty of peace of 1783, but the question was merged in the Jay treaty of 1794. For the violation of the stipulation in the treaty of Ghent claims for indemnity were presented by the United States. By Article V. of the convention of October 20, 1818, it was agreed that the question whether the claims were well founded and a proper subject for indemnity should be referred to some friendly sovereign or state for decision. The Emperor of Russia was selected as arbitrator, and rendered his award April 22, 1822. The point of difference was decided in favor of the United States. The Emperor, besides rendering his decision, offered to use his good offices as mediator in the negotiations which must be undertaken to carry it into effect. His offer was accepted, and on June 30– July 12, 1822, a convention was concluded under his mediation. By this convention the adjustment of the claims for indemnity was left to certain mixed commissions. This was followed by long and complicated proceedings, which resulted, however, in the final disposition of the controversy. 1 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, chap. xi. 350-390. 9. WEBSTER-ASHBURTON TREATY. $834. August 9, 1842, Daniel Webster and Lord Ashburton signed at Washington a treaty for the settlement and definition of boundaries, for the suppression of the African slave trade, and for the giving up of fugitives from justice. The boundaries to which it related were the unsettled parts of the northern and eastern boundary of the United States under the treaty of peace of 1783, embracing sections of the line all the way from the eastern boundary of the State of Maine to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. The most difficult part to adjust was what was known as the "northeastern boundary," which so largely affected the limits and the interests of the State of Maine. An effort to settle this controversy was made in the convention concluded by Rufus King and Lord Hawkesbury at London, May 12, 1803, but this convention was never ratified. A similar attempt to effect a settlement was made by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney in 1807, but their treaty failed by reason of other causes. When the American and British commissioners met at Ghent in 1814 to conclude a second treaty of peace between the countries, no progress had been made toward the determination of the northeastern boundary. The British commissioners proposed a "revision" of the line. The American commissioners replied that they had no authority to "cede " cede" any territory, and would subscribe to no stipulation to that effect, but they submitted a draft of five articles to provide for the marking of the whole line from the river St. Croix to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. These articles the British commissioners, with unimportant modifications, accepted. They appear as Articles IV., V., VI., VII., and VIII., in the treaty of Ghent. Article IV. related to the ownership of islands in the Bay of Fundy, and its execution has |