commissioners had proposed with respect to impressment and blockade, the British commissioners maintained, were unnecessary, since the British Government were willing to conclude the treaty without any stipulation upon the subjects included in those articles, and the American ministers had stated that the conclusion of the peace would not depend upon those points. The British commissioners objected to the article upon indemnities, stating that the indemnifications proposed were unprecedented and were so objectionable that if insisted upon, all hope of bringing the negotiations to a favorable issue must prove in vain. The declaration was made that, as the British Government made no claim for losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the war, neither could they consent to make compensation for losses sustained by the citizens of the United States in the war.71

The British note suggested that a stipulation be made by which the courts of justice in each state should be open to all the claimants of the other state, and that "no obstruction be thrown in the way of their recovery of the rights, claims, or debts of any kind, respectively due or belonging to them." The article with reference to amnesty was declared to be wholly unnecessary. The British ministers stated with refer

71 British to American Ministers, Nov. 26, 1814; MS., Bureau of Indexes and Archives, "Treaty of Ghent"; American

ence to particular alterations in the various articles, that they were prepared to make such explanations as might be required with a view to reconciling the pretensions of the two Governments. In the concluding paragraph of the British note the former demand of the principle of uti possidetis was reluctantly withdrawn in these words: "The undersigned have foreborne to insist upon the basis of uti possidetis, to the advantage of which they consider their country fully entitled. But should this negotiation terminate in a way contrary to their hopes and just expectations, they must protest against any claim or demand being urged by the American Government in any future negotiation, in consequence of the facilities which His Majesty's Government have now shown themselves willing to afford to the speedy restoration of peace.'

9972

The amended projet returned by the British commissioners provided that the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at the time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give time for the completion of the British. plans against New Orleans, the successful outcome of which was never doubted. The date from which a limitation would be placed upon the capture of prize

72 British to American Ministers, Nov. 26, 1814; MS., Bureau of Indexes and Archives, "Treaty of Ghent"; American

vessels was changed from the signing of the treaty to the exchange of ratifications. In the article providing for boundary commissioners the British substituted two for three commissioners, and provided that, in case of a failure of the two commissioners to agree, reference should be made to a friendly Power whose decision should be accepted as final. It was expected that two partisan commissioners would not agree upon all, if any, of the points in dispute, and that in consequence the settlement of the questions would be submitted to the arbitration of a European Power with whom the influence of Great Britain would naturally be greater than that of the United States.

The article concerning the northwest boundary was changed from the wording, "a line drawn due north or south (as the case may be) from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, until it shall intersect the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and from the point of such intersection due west along and with the said parallel, shall be the dividing line between His Majesty's territories and those of the United States to the westward of the said lake, so far as the said respective territories extend in that quarter," to the following: "a line drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods, along the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, shall be the line of demarcation between His Britannic Majesty's territories and those of the United

territories of the United States extend in that quarter." The British added to this article a guarantee to British subjects of the privilege of the navigation of the Mississippi River."

73

An additional article relating to the prisoners of war was proposed by the British commissioners. Instead of a mere statement that "all prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty," the British offered the following: "All prisoners of war, taken on either side as well by land as by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the ratifications of this treaty shall have been exchanged, on their paying the debts which they have contracted during their captivity. The two contracting parties respectively engage to discharge in specie the advances which may have been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of such prisoners."74

By abandoning the principle of uti possidetis, as well as the Indian boundary and the exclusive military control of the lakes, the British Government cleared away what had proved to be the chief obstacles in the way of peace.

73 Copy of projet of treaty of peace; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 735-740.

74 Ibid.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION OF THE PEACE NEGOTIATION

The British note presenting the amended projet of the treaty and giving up the principle of uti possidetis was received November 27. For three days thereafter the American ministers were engaged in discussing the alterations made in the projet and formulating their reply. The principal discussion was over the article with regard to the northwest boundary, particularly that part added by the British note granting to Great Britain the navigation of the Mississippi. This provision was vehemently opposed by Clay, the champion of the West. Gallatin, out of regard for the feeling in New England, was in favor of granting the navigation of the Mississippi in exchange for the fishing privilege. Clay with much fervor argued against this plan, asserting that the fishing privileges were of much less value than the navigation of the Mississippi; Adams, on the other hand, considered that the privilege of navigating the Mississippi was of small importance.1 Clay maintained that to require a stipulation on the fisheries was inconsistent with the claim already advanced that the rights respecting these

320