der of any territory south of latitude 49, on the Northwest Coast." "III. The navigation of the St. Lawrence. Both the 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 navigation of the St. Lawrence within our limits. If she could be brought to consent to neither of those articles, your instructions did not look to any other treaty stipulations on the subject of the navigation of the St. Lawrence: and what they say with respect to practical arrangements, in other forms, was intended to refer to separate acts of the two parties. You are indeed authorized to take for reference any counter proposals which may be made by Great Britain, because it is possible that some other reconciliation of the interests of the two Powers, than any which has occurred here, may present itself to the British Government; and because, if that were not very likely, such a reference would be still due in courtesy to the other party. Although it is desirable, atpresent, for the inhabitants of the United States, on the St. Lawrence, to enjoy the liberty of trading to Montreal and Quebec, in their lumber and other articles of produce, charged with no higher duties than similar Canadian commodities, it would be unsafe to as

sert that, at no time, now or hereafter, would the right of freely navigating the St. Lawrence, with a convenient place of deposite, be available, without the liberty of trading with either of those places. Such a right would open to our navigation a new theatre of enterprise, and if the British colonial markets should be shut against us in consequence of high duties, others equally advantageous might be sought and found. If the British Government should decline agreeing to either of the two articles, A and B, but be willing to 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 modes of accomplishing this object present themselves: one by treaty, and the other by acts of separate regulation. Between them, there is no 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 least shall be so framed as not to be susceptible of the interpre

tation that they have abandoned that right. It is believed that the British Government may be made to comprehend, that the privilege of introducing the produce 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 you suppose the British may insist, the President can see no legitimate purpose for which they should desire it. It cannot be wanted by them, either to reach their own 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."

British West Indies remains interdicted, it is best to 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. CLAY.

London, 1st October, 1827. Sir: I had, at an early stage of the negotiations, ascertained, not only that no arrangement, founded on a recognition of the right of the river St. Lawrence to the sea, was practicable, but that there was a sensibility on that subject which rendered it preferable not to approach it till all others, and particularly that of the Colonial Intercourse, had been disposed of. It was, therefore, only after it had been distinctly ascertained, at the interview of the 13th instant, [ultimo,] with Mr. Huskisson and Lord Dudley, that there was no chance left of the intercourse with the British West Indies being opened, and after the principles of the Convention respecting the Northeast boundary had been substantially agreed to, that I brought forward the question officially at our conferences. I did it without any hope of succeeding, but because this negotiation being the continuation of that of 1824, I apprehended that to admit altogether this subject, might be construed as an abandonment of the right of the United States.

To my first suggestion, the British Plenipotentiaries replied, that,

however well disposed Great Britain might be to treat with the United States respecting the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, as a question of mutual convenience, yet the views of the British Government 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 proposition 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 to themselves, and could not prevent my offering any proposition, or annexing to the Protocol any argument in the 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 commit 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 8th August, 1826, in conformity with my own wishes, so far enlarged my instructions as to authorize me to judge which method 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 any 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 of this Government, out of the question. But, had it been in my power to select the mode, I would have resorted to that suggested in the original instructions, being fully satisfied that we may, with confidence, rely on the obvious interest of Great Britain to remove every restriction on the exportation of American produce through Canada, and need not resort to any treaty stipulation short of at least a liberty, in perpetuity, to navigate the river, through its whole extent.

Whatever motives may have induced the measures which gave rise to the first complaints of our citizens, a different policy now prevails. In consequence of the extension of the warehousing system to the ports of Quebec, Montreal, and St. John's, places of deposite are, in fact, allowed for every species of American produce, free of duty, in case of exportation, which is all that, in that respect, we could ask as a matter of right. The navigation between Montreal and Quebec, either to the sea, or from the sea, has not been granted; and it is precisely what cannot now be obtained by a treaty stipulation, without what would be tantamount to a disclaimer of the right.

But I do not think that, in practice, this will be much longer

denied. There is certainly a disposition, not evinced on former occasions, to make the navigation free; provided it was not asked as a matter of right; and generally to encourage the intercourse between the United States and the adjacent British Provinces. This change of disposition is undoubt edly due, in part, to the wish of obtaining supplies for the West India Colonies, whilst the intercourse between these and the United States remains interdicted. But it also must be ascribed to more correct views of what is so clearly the interest, and ought to be the policy, of Great Britain, in that quarter. It is certainly an extraordinary circumstance, that the great importance of the American inland commerce to her own navigation, and to the prosperity of Canada, should not have been sooner strongly felt, and particularly attended to; that the obstacles to an intercourse, by which American produce is exported through Quebec, in preference to the ports of the United States, should have arisen on the part of Great Britain, and not of the United States.

It is, therefore, to that mode of attaining the object in view, that I have turned my attention. The considerations which recommend the policy of removing, by their own acts, the practical inconveniences which still embarrass the intercourse, have been stated, generally, to the British Plenipotentiaries, but with more force, and more in detail, to Lord Dudley, and to other members of the cabinet. In an interview I had to-day with his Lordship, after having expressed my regret that no arrangement could, at this

time, be made on that subject, and after having urged the other reasons which should induce Great Britain no longer to prevent the navigation of the American raft, boats, and vessels between Montreal and Quebec; that, if she persisted in denying it, although I had no authority to say such was the intention of my Government, yet it seemed a natural consequence, and ought not to be considered as giving offence, that the United States should adopt corresponding measures in regard to the navigation of the river St. Lawrence, within their own limits. Lord Dudley, who had appeared to acquiesce in my general remarks, made no observation on the last suggestion.

But, what is somewhat remarkable is, that he, and several of the other Ministers with whom I have conversed, have expressed a doubt whether I was not mistaken in asserting 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 arrangement, 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 honour to be, &c.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
HON. HENRY CLAY,
Secretary of State, Washington.

Citizens of the Senate and

House of Representatives : The year 1826 has closed with an uninterrupted course of prosperity for the republic.

You have again been summoned from your several districts by the public voice to meet in congress-and though the reflection of the time past is sweet and grateful to the memory, the future, big with events, elicits all your attention. Many causes concur to make this national jubilee interesting, for now the strength and vigour of the government is seen in its institutions-the body social and the body politic being bound by the strongest ties, the people satisfied with the government and a general harmony prevailinga harmony, admirable and happy, and correspondent with the hopes indulged the past year, and which we trust a kind Providence, in the infinitude of his mercy, may continue.

Every day our foreign relations are more firm and important. A minister plenipotentiary has been despatched to the court of Saint James to conclude additional articles of the treaty with Great Britain.

From France, commercial agents have been appointed. This con

duct is in an accordance with the general disposition the European nations have manifested towards the emancipation of this country. The Governments of Prussia and Wurtemburg have in like manner, appointed commercial agents. Nothing has occurred to interrupt our friendly relations with the United States of North America-the treaties of navigation, commerce and amity, concluded with their Minister Plenipotentiary have been ratified by both houses of Congress. The Congress view with peculiar interest this important negotiation with a nation so near to us, and whose system of government is so analogous to our own ; in short, a nation who must ever be united to us by every sympathetic bond.

The American Congress,.which attracted the attention of the world, assembled in the city of Panama,-its discussions progressed happily-in September our members returned to lay before the house an account of it; the sessions of this body are to be continued in the village of Tacubaya. There have already arrived two of the ministers of Colombia and Guatemala, one from the United States, and others daily expected.

There has arrived at this capital