them to declare, that the British government did not deny the right of the Americans to the fisheries generally, or in the open seas; but that the privileges, formerly granted by treaty to the U. States of fishing within the limits of the British jurisdiction, and of landing and drying fish on the shores of the British territories, would not be renewed without an equivalent.

The extent of what was considered by them as waters peculiarly British, was not stated. From the manner in which they brought this subject into view, they seemed to wish us to understand that they were not anxious that it should be discussed, and that they only intended to give us notice that these privileges had ceased to exist, and would not again be granted without an equivalent, nor unless we thought proper to provide expressly in the treaty of peace for their renewal.

The British commissioners having stated that these were all the subjects which they intended to bring forward or to suggest, requested to be informed, whether we were instructed to enter into negociation on these several points, and whether there was any amongst these which we thought it unnecessary to bring into the negociation? and they desired us to state, on our part, such other subjects as we might intend to propose for discussion in the course of the negociation. The meeting was then adjourned to the next day, in order to afford us the opportunity of consultation among ourselves, before we gave an answer.

In the course of the evening of the same day, we received your letters of the 25th and 27th of June.

There could be no hesitation, ou our part, in informing the British commissioners, that we were not instructed on the subjects of Jadian pacification or boundary, and of fisheries. Nor did it seem probable, although neither of these points had been stated with sufficient precision in that first verbal conference, that they could be admitted in any shape. We did not wish, however, to prejudge the result, or by any hasty proceeding abruptly to break off the negociation. It was not impossible that, on the subject of the Indians, the British government had received erroneous impressions from the Indian traders in Canada, which our representations might remove: and it appeared, at all events, important, to ascertain distinctly the precise inten

tions of G. Britain on both points. We, therefore, thought it advisable to invite the British commissioners to a general conversation on all the points; stating 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 article respecting them.

At our meeting on the ensuing day we informed the British commissioners, that upon the first and third points proposed by them we were provided with instructions, and we presented as further subjects considered by our government as suitable for discussion:

1st. A definition of blockade; and as far as might be mutually agreed, of other neutral and belligerent rights. 2d. Claims of indemnity in certain cases of capture and

seizure.

We then stated that the two subjects, 1st of Indian pacification, and boundary, and 2d of fisheries, were not embraced by our instructions.

-We observed, that as these points had not been heretofore the grounds of any controversy between the government of G. Britain and that of the U. States, and had not been alluded to by lord Castlereagh, in his letter proposing the negociation, it could not be expected that they should have been anticipated and made the subject of instructions by our government; that it was natural to be supposed, that our instructions were confined to those subjects upon which differences between the two countries were known to exist; and that the proposition to define, in a treaty between the U. States and G. Britain, the boundary of the Indian possessions within our territories, was new and without example. No such provision had been inserted in the treaty of peace in 1783, nor in any other treaty between the two countries. No such provision had to our knowledge, ever been inserted in any treaty made by G. Britain or any European power in relation to the same description of people, existing under like circumstances. We would say, however, that it would not be doubted, that peace with the Indians would certainly follow a peace with G. Britain: that we had information that commissioners had already been appointed to treat with them; that a treaty to that effect might, perhaps, have been already concluded: and that the U. States having no interest, nor any motive to continue a

separate war against the Indians, there could never be a moment when our government would not be disposed to make peace with them.

-We then expressed our wish to receive from the British commissioners a statement of the views and objects of G Britain upon all the points, and our willingness to discuss them all, in order that, even if no arrangement should be agreed on, upon the points not included in our instructions, the government of the U. States might be possessed of the entire and precise intentions of that of G. Britain, respecting these points, and that the British government might be fully informed of the objections, on the part of the U. States, to any such arrangement.

- In answer to our remark that these points had not been alluded to by lord Castlereagh, in his letter proposing the negociation, it was said, that it could not be expected, that in a letter merely intended to invite a negociation, he should enumerate the topics of discussion, or state the pretensions of his government; since these would depend upon ulterior events, and might arise out of a subsequent state of things.

In reply to our obsérvation, that the proposed stipulation of an Indian boundary was without example in the prac tice of European nations, it was asserted that the Indians must in some sort be considered as an independent people, since treaties were made with them, both by G. Britain and the U. States: upon which we pointed out the obvious and important differences between the treaties we might make with Indians, living in our territory, and such a treaty as was proposed to be made, respecting them, with a foreign power, who had solemnly acknowledged the territory on which they resided to be part of the U. States.

We were then asked by the British commissioners whethe er, in case they should enter further upon the discussion of the several points which had been stated, we could expect that it would terminate by some provisional arrangement on the points on which we had no instructions, particularly on that respecting the Indians, which arrangement would be subject to the ratification of our government?

We answered, that before the subjects were distinctly understood, and the objects in view more precisely disclos ed, we could not decide whether it would be possible to form any satisfactory article on the subject; nor pledge

ourselves as to the exercise of a discretion under our powers, even with respect to a provisional agreement. We added, that as we should deeply deplore a rupture of the negociation on any point, it was our anxious desire to employ all possible means to avert an event so serious in its consequences; and that we had not been without hopes that a discussion might correct the effect of any erroneous information which the British government might have re-. ceived on the subject which they had proposed as a preliminary basis.

We took this opportunity to remark, that no nation observed a policy more liberal and humane towards the Indians than that pursued by the U. States; that our object had been, by all practicable means, to introduce civilization amongst them; that their possessions were secured to them by well defined boundaries, that their persons, lands, and other property were now more effectually protected against violence or frauds from any quarter, than they had been under any former government; that even our citizens were not allowed to purchase their lands; that when they gave up their title to any portion of their country to the U. States, it was by a voluntary treaty with our government, who gave them a satisfactory equivalent; and that through these means the U. States had succeeded in preserving, since the treaty of Greenville of 1795, an uninterrupted peace of sixteen years, with all the Indian tribes; a period of tranquility much longer than they were known to have enjoyed heretofore.

It was then expressly stated on our part, that the propo sition respecting the Indians, was not distinctly understood. We asked whether the pacification, and the settlement of a boundary for them were both made a sine qua non.—— Which was answered in the affirmative. The question was then asked the British commissioners, whether the proposed Indian boundary was intended to preclude the U. States from the right of purchasing by treaty from the Indians, without the consent of G. Britain, lands laying beyond that boundary? And as a restriction upon the Indians from selling by amicable treaties lands to the U. States, as had been hitherto practised?

To this question, it was first answered by one of the commissioners, that the Indians would not be restricted

from selling their lands, but that the U. States would be restricted from purchasing them; and on reflection another of the commissioners stated, that it was intended that the Indian territory should be a barrier between the British dominions and those of the U. States, that both G. Britain and the U. States should be restricted from purchasing their lands; but the Indians might sell them to a third par ty.

ཟླ

The proposition respecting Indian boundary thus explained, and connected with the right of sovereignty ascribed to the Indians over the country, amounted to nothing less than a demand of the absolute cession of the rights both of sovereignty and of soil. We cannot abstain from remarking to you, that the subject (of Indian boundary) was indistinctly stated when first proposed, and that the explanations were at first obscure and always given with reluctance. And it was declared from the first moment, to be a sine qua non, rendering any discussion unprofitable until it was admitted as a basis. Knowing that we had no power to cede to the Indians any part of our territory, we thought it unnecessary to ask, what probably would not have been answered till the principle was admitted, where the line of demarkation of the Indian country was proposed to be established.

The British commissioners, after having repeated that their instructions on the subject of the Indians were pe remptory, stated that unless we could give some assurance, that our powers would allow us to make at least a provisional arrangement on the subject, any further discussion would be fruitless, and that they must consult their own government on this state of things. They proposed accordingly a suspension of the conferences, until they should have received an answer, it being understood that each party might call a meeting whenever they had any proposition to submit. They dispatched a special messenger the same evening, and we are now waiting for the result.

Before the proposed adjournment took place, it was agreed that there should be a protocol of the conferences; that a statement should for that purpose be drawn up by each party, and that we should meet the next day to compare the statements. We accordingly met again on Wednesday the 10th inst. and ultimately agreed upon what