sY AMR. BUEi.,,
T'i~S  ACOPN JOIN'- REO0LC;TIO,, O\  THIE SAME, SU13JE-CT EPfOM "TlE
CI,,-,IMITTEE O'4E~  AFFURltS.
t\N' THFE L-'OUSEf OF RlP-,PESE-wNTATIVF,S., MAY -27 1,'7Y
WASH~iNC,'TO.N'
P.11,!NTEr-' AT -LNION or111-lcg;
18-O1t.,
I 
I 
~
*'".,_ ~,, "' ~  -.
cCIS
$         st
X  ef 
O;  )f
=   c:;g:)*z
A  s
$    t -     
_              A:   _- 
B' 2    D; 
Q DSt;st
H,Ntt  
9)  
Rep. No. 295.
' 31st CONCsRES
1st Session.
FREE NAVIGATION OT TIHE ST. LAW-RENCE.
MIAY 2, ]1850.
4Ir. BUEL, fromn the Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented the following
view-s of a portion of the committee; which were ordered to be printed:
[TO ACCOMPANY REPORT 095.]
u7te ziwdersig,fied, mtembers of the Cowmiizittee on Foreign Affairs, to whomn
werie referred sundry petitions of citizens of tiw United States residing
i?t States adjacent to tle northern chain of lakes, and the memorial! of
the legislature (f the State of Wisconsin, praying  Cotngress to adoqt
ieasi,,resfor sccuriitg to Amierican comnmece the right of freely navi gatin, the St. Laltwre)ce, a.zd also joinzt resolutions of the legislatuere of
the State of liclhigan relative to the sanze subject, ASSENTING to the
resolztiont reported by the committee, also report their reaso'zs:
The free navigation of the St. Lawrence, from its connexion with the
chail of lakes to the ocean, presents a question somewhat new in the
histoQry of the government.   In its early agitation, its importance was
more prospective thlan present; and hence, after various unsuccessful attempts to settle it by negotiation with Great Britain, it was allowed to
sliuihber until a more urgent occasion should call for its decision.
The future, which then seemed distant, has suddenly become a present reality, and the wonderful growth of our inrland commerce of the
lakes has revived the question and given to it fresh interest.  The goverinment is now called upon to adopt measures for securing a commercial
privilege of great local and national importance.  Final action upon the
subject will determine wlhether the export productions of the Northwe;st
and the States adjacent to the lakes may, in part, find their way to the
marlkets of the world throu-gh the ocean-outlet of nature, or be disadvantageonuslv forced through the interrupted, contracted, and circuitous charnels of art.  It wil in t:act determine whether themiillions whlo dwell and
are to dwell inl the valley of the laklces shall he permitted to seek intercourse with remiote countries by a gentle and easy descent to the oceanr,
thlnus appropriating the St. Lawrenee as a natural highway to the purposes fi1r whrh  it was designed by Providence, or whether they must divert streamsnl  from their native beds, fell forests, fill up valleys, bridge
chasus, and even climb or penetrate mountains, in order to maintain
su(-,h intercourse.
\Whoever will look at this question in its length and breadth will not
wonuder tlhat it now presses itself upon tile attention of the country as a
,,4reat practical question.  The laws of nature, the wants of the people,
the commnercial interests of the country, and even the necessities of the
Ho. or RE-Ps 
Rep. No. 295.
case, conspire to present the question as one which must ere long be decidled, either by legislation or negotiation, or by that great current of events
which overrides human effort, and accomplislhes elds in spite of all resistance.
Nor is the question one of mere local im-portarnce.  The St. Lawrence
forms part of the long chain of waters -which lies upon our northern
boundary, as did once the Mississippi upon our western; and the qulestion of freely navigating the latter was not' much less national inll its nature than is that of freely navigating the former.
A full examination of the subject requires somne notice of the fact that
our government has hitherto claimed the righlt of freely navigating the
St. Lawrence as a natural right.  It was upon this basis that the claim
was urged and supported with g;reat p)owver and ability.  It was resisted
by Great Britain, and the discussion termuiate~  without its settlement.
The claim of right is believed to stand now as it did- the-i];h:ae that new
events haye given it new strength.  The subject, therefore, presents itself
in a twofold aspect
1. As a right, tor be claimied by the government.
2. As a privilege, to be secured by treaty, or some reciprocal legislation.
We  do not propose to discuss at great lenigthl the natural right of the
United States to a free passage to the ocean through the waters of the St.
Lawrence.   Whilst but few arguments can be added to those which were
urged nearly a generation since in its support, it is yet worthy of notice
that the experience of the present day has so clearly proved their justice
and validity. The wants anid necessities of the extensive region of the
lakes, which were their so plainly shadowed forth in the future, have
fow come to exist, and confirm the justice of our claim. It is therebfore
deemed well to revive, if not to press, thiis view of the subject, so bat, if
the government shall at last conceive itself com]-?elled to purchase as a
privilege that which justly belong,ed to it as a right, its action may appecar, what it really will be, a measure of necessity, resulting from the
unwillingness of Eingland to acknowledge the justice of our claini. - In
such an event, it will be but just that the transaction should stald forth
in its true character in the history of her intercourse with us; whilst,
however, the unconditional acklinowledgi,eint of our right by Great Britain
would be received by the people of this country with the liveliest satisfaction, and could not fail to have a powerful influence in convincing
them of her disposition to treat us with justice and liberality, and in confirming the good understanding which 1n0ow happily prevails between tlhe
two countries.
Although the righlt of the United States freely to navigate the St. Lawrence to the ocean may have existed from the definitive acknowledginent
of our independence by Great Britain in 17S3, and even from the treaty of
Paris in 1763, which secured to her the Canadas, and of course to her, in
common with her adjacent colonies, the use  and control of that river
throughout its whole extent, yet, as a q(uestioiz, it is modern in its origin.
So long as there was no occasion for exercising the right, there was none
for asserting or disputing it.  It is true, under the supposition that the
sources of the Mississippi were within the British bounndaries as established by the treaty of 1783, that instrument contained a stipulation
that "'the navigation of the river Mississippi, j)'0o, its source to the occJea/,
shall forever remain free and open to tbhe subjects of Great Britain atid
.6
i 
Rep. No.e 295.
the citizens of the United States," whilst it was silent upon the subject
of navigating the St. Lawrence.   The cases were undoubtedly analogous
as regards the natural right of navigating similar outlets to the ocean, but
in some respects they were  widely different.   We  cannot' fail to perceive
that, by this stipulation, the two countries claimed'the free navigation of
the Mississippi from its source to the ocean on the natural right alone,for
that claim was thus put forth in the treaty, without any arrantgemient with
Spain, by whom the mouth of that river was then held.  But this feature
in the case deserves more particular notice in another' connexiolln.
It must also be observed that the cases were   idely different in respect to the supposed relative importance of the two rivers.  The situation of the mouth of the Mississippi in reference to the Gulf of Mexico
and the West Indies, the continuance of navigation for more than a thousand miles above its mouth at all seasons of the year, and its character as
an extensive national boundary, well indicated the future importance of
the river, and the wisdom of securing, if possible, the right of freely navigating its waters. But the future value of the St. Lawrence was then
estimated by different circumstances.  It was ice-bou:rld for one-half of
the year.  It was contiguous to but one of the States, (New York,) and
for but a small part of its northern boundary; and even here the habitation of the white man was seldom, if ever, to be found.  We  had no
commerce, no property, afloat upon this river, unless in the bark canoe and
emanating from the small tradiig posts among the Indians upon  tlhe
upper lakes.  Even this trade was carried- on with Montreal, and was essentially Canadian iii its character.   The geography of all this region
was but little understood in our own country muitch  less in Europe; and
some of its natural curiosities were there known very much as wonderful
traditions or fables.  Detroit existed only as a trading post; whilst Buffalo, (which now rivals even the ancient capital of New York,)' Cleveland,
Chicago, and MilwaLuklie, were then unknown.  The -great valley of the
lakes was without people, without commerce.   Whilst they were viewed
as a waste of waters, their shores were skirted for thousands of miles by
one continuous wilderness.
Besides, canals were at this time unknown in our country.  It was
gravely published in London, about the middle of the last century, in aii
extensive geographical and historical work, that the Falls of Niagara are
six hundred feet in height, and, at the period of the acknowledgment of
our independence by Great Britain, they were doubtless regarded as an
insurmountable barrier against all connexion by navigation of the upper
lakes with the waters of the St. Lawrence.   In fact, no human "wisdom
could foresee that w'hat then seemed to be the work of centuries was
destined to be accomplished in one or two generations.  Still less could
human wisdom fo-resee that these lakes would so soon teem with a commerce that should demand the use of that highway to the ocean which
was provided for it by nature. Had the wonderfl realities of the present
been thought or dreamed of, and our natural right under such circumstances questioned, at the period of the treaty of'83, can any one doubt
that we should have deimanded a stipulation for the free navigation'of the
St. Lawrence, and that such stipulation would have been as readily arranged as that for the free navigation of the Mississippi?
We have suibmitted the preceding observations forithe purpose of showing that the question of our right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence
7 
Rep. No. 295.
could not have existed as a practical question at the period of the treaty of
'83, but is one of subsequent and mnodern origin.  rWe  have desired to
show that it could not exist as a practical question until the country of
thle lakes came to be inhabited and civilized, and to teem with a commerce
seeking its natural channel in this oceani-outlet.  That period has now
come, and with a rapidity far beyond the conceptions of our ancestors.
The spirit of enterprise and adventure, which at an early day in our history sent the American pioneer to the foot of the Alleghanies, has carried
his descendants far over and beyond this barrier, and planted their habitations on the shores of those great lakes upon whose waters they now
ask to be borne in their downward passage to the ocean.
Having thus briefly noticed the origin anid history of our claim, we
come next to a consideration of the arguments upon which it rests.
Nature plainly points to the ocean as a field of e-iter)prise for the whole
world, and international law recognises it as property to be enj(oyed in
common by all nations.  While nature has thus provided the worlcl with
a common highway, she has been lavish in also providing for iniland nlations lesser highways or means of access to it, sluch as inlets and rivers.
The right of all nations jointly to niavigate the ocean may well be dedued
from the fact that it is the common reservoir fornied by a union of the
lesser highways or rivers, which, to a certain degree, are recognised as
the property of the contiguous nations through whose territories they
pass, to the extent of their contiguity. This property is justly qualified
by the claim of upper and inland nations to the right of passage to and
from the ocean; and this right of ingress and egress asserts but little more
than the national right of using and f)llowing a national qualified property until it reaches the ocean or colmmoni reservoir, where all stand upon
equal footing.
A nation may well assert control over a river flowing  in its whole
length through its own territories. So, too, by analogy, mray a nation
assert control over the sources or upper parts of a river, so far as they
lie within its boundaries.  Such  righlt interferes with the interests of
no nation below in seekiig passage to and fromni its mouth, and prosecuting its trade and  commerce  upon  the  oce,an.  Blut is it not a
very different case, when a nation, by discovery, settlemenit, or  conquest, takes possession of the mouth  of a great ocean-outlet, which,
it may  be, extends inland for thousands  of  miles, washes and  fertilizes the soil of various climates and countries, and is the only natural highway of many nations equally sovereign with  that whilch may
chance to own the soil contiguous to its imouthl?  What p)rocess of' reasoning, or what plea of convenience or nlecessity, in such case, can concentrate in the lower nation a sovereignty wvhichl overrides and absorbs all
sovereignties above, or give to the lower sovereignty a greater right of navigation than that whichi belongs to the upper?  Thie language of thie pro.
tocol referred to in the letter of Mr. Rush, when minister to Ernglaul4, to
Mr. Adams, the American Secretary of State, dated August 1.2, 1823, well
confirms the preceding view:
" It has sometimes been said that the possession by one nation of both
the shores of a river at its mouth gives the right of obstructing the navigation of it to the people of other'nations living on the banlks above; but it
remains to be shown upon what satisfactory grounds the assumpLion by
the nation below of exclusive jurisdiction over a river thus situated can be
placed. The common right to navigate it is) on the other hand, a right
.                                                                                                                                                                       4.
I8
I 
Rep. No. 295.
of nature.  This is a principle which, it is conceived, will be found  to
have the sanction of tie.mnost revered authorities of ancient and modern
timles; and if there have been temporary occasions when it has been ques
tioned, it is not known that the reasons upon which it rests, as developed
in the most approved works upon public law, have ever been impugned.
" There is no sentiment more deeply and universally felt than that the
ocean is free to all men, and the waters that flow into it to those whose
home is upon their shores.  In nearly every part of the world we find this
natural right acknowledged, by laying navigable rivers open to all the inhabitants of their banks; and wherever the strearn, entering the limits of
another society or nation, has been interdicted to the upper inhabitants, it
has been an act of force by a stronger against a   weaker party, and coildemned by the judgment of mankind.'I'he right of the upper inhabitants to the full use of the stream rests upon the same  imperious want as
thlatof the lower-upon the same intrinsic necessity of participating in
the benefits of this flowing element."
Let-us now inquire into the nature of this right of sovereignty over
Inavigable rivers passing through different countries.'I'he 7a-tural law'
clearly points to them  as highways common to the niations which dwell
upon their banks.  The law of nations likens themi to highways, and
such, it is believed, they are defined to be byv the statute law of nearly all
civilized countries.  But the control of ordinary highways is by no means
absolute in the ruling sovereignly.   They are appropriated  by human as
well as natural laws to certain specific purposes, whicht are inconsistent
with the unqualified right of any power to dispose of them at will.  T'he
individual, subject, orcitizen, the naturalman, possesses rights here which
even the sovereignty cannot justly antnul or take front himrn without  rendering coripensation.']he instructions'of IMr. Adamrns to Mr. Rush in
IS23 upon this subject are so pertinent to this view,  that they deserve
to be quoted: " The right of navigating the river is a right of nature,
preceding it in point of time, and which the sovereign right of one nation
cannot annihilate, as belogitilg to the people of ainother."   Upon this
point, Mr. Rush pressed our claim on the British government in the very
termts of his instructions.
The principle relied on points to, and springs from, the natural right of
every huilati creature to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and happiness, and
to the use of all those just mneans which are niecessary to give effect to
that right.  The existing sovereignty may regulclte the use of a highway,
but it has no right, in ordinary cases, to close or destroy it, without coimpensating individual losses.  Such avenues are ftr tihe use of thie publicof the individuals composing the ruling state.  IThe ri,ght to a highway is
the right to use it, to travel in it, to pass and repass.   It is created,
whether artificial or natural, not so tnuch for thie accomniodationi of nations
in their so'verei,gn capacity, as of the itildividuals who dwell near them,
and who, without themn, could not proseculte the ordinary pursuits and occulpatioris of civilized life.  Is it not evidetit, then, that the sovereignty
which a nation is said to possess over its highwiays is, substantially and
for practical purposes, the right of the idividual m.a)t  to use  them for
those objects for which they were originally designed?
Let us now apply these views more directly to the case of navigable
rivers.  They are held to be highways by the courts of Erngland atid of
this country, and the right of using thetm is likened to that of using a
9
6
i 
Rep. No. 295.
highway.  The English and American law treatises and decisions are full
of authority to this effect, and it is unnecessary to cite them.   It is Mworthy
of remark that Congress, as early as I 76, affirmed this view in respect to
the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence.  This
wras done by a resolution adopted in that year; and the same view was afterwards reaffirmed in the ordinance of 17S7, which, in the very language
of the resolution cited, declares the said waters and the carrying places between the same "to be common highways, and forever free, as well to tilhe
inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States
and those of any other' States that may be admitted into the confederacy,
without any tax, impost, or duty tl-herefor."   Thie right of freely navigatinig the -lississippi to its mouth had already been asserted by the United
States, and the resolution cited and the ordinance of 17S7 extended that
right to thie navigable tributaries of both rivers.
How, then, stands the case of the St. Lawrence?  It is a large navigable
river, emptying directly into the ocean.  For several hundred miles above
its mouth, it is substantially a great ocean-inlet, averaging not less thati
thirty miiles in width.   Above, the American sovereignty rules upon one
balnk and the English upon the other; whilst belowv, both are ruled by
the latter. It is a national highway; and the right to navi,gate it is the
right to use it, to apply it to those purposes for which it was designed by
the God of nature.  The right of navigation in this; case, as in that of a
highw ay, is the right of the individual, the 7?atural man; and the ruling
sovereignty is absolute' in neither.   In fact, that sovereignty or control
which a nation claims for itself over a navigable river passing within its
borders is substantiall5 il-e right of its people-its individual citizens or
subjects-to use it according to its natural design of furnislhing them with
a pathway to the ocean, and enabling them to hold intercourse with the
remote nations of the globe.   Howr, then, can those who dwell upon  the
upper parts of a navigable stream lose the right of freely passing on it to
and from the ocean by happening not to dwell under the sovereignty of
that people who occupy its lower banks?  How can it be shown that a
mere differen-ce of local position can thutis operate to diminish or enlarge a
natural right wlich exists anid belongs to man independently of all luman government?
To such views as these may be added the authority of Mr. Clay, who,
when he was Secretary of State, in his instructions of June 19, 1S26,' to
MIr. Gallatin, our minister at London, used the following laniguage:' It is
inconceivable upon wlhat just grounds a nation below call oppose the riglht
of that above to pass throtugh a great natural highway into the sea, that it
may trade or hold intercourse with other nations by'their consent.  Fromt
the very nature of such a river, it mrust, in respect to its iavigal)le uses,
be considered as common to all the nations who inhabit its banks, as a
free gift flowitig from the bounty of Heaven, intended  for all whose lots
are cast fupon its borders."  And in his instructions of thle Sth of August,
in the same year, to Mlr. Gallatin,!le says, concerning the right of navioating the St. Lawrence, independently of Great Britain: " Nor can the President consent to any treaty by which they should renounce that iight, expressly or by implication."
The right to rcrulate the use of a highway —as  a nas,igab~le river  mnst
not be confounded with an absolute sovereig:nty.   This right of re,ll).ationi must necessarily belong to the contiguous nations; but it nust  be
I10
I 
Rep No. 295.
exercised consistently with the prior natural right of navigation.   Laws
and govertnment should extend as well over the waters as the banks of a
rives, and they form what mnay be called the local jurisdiction.  But the
prior right of navigation overrides all local law, and cannot be aniulled,
for it existed before and exists ~ndependentl:  of all law.  The  right rmayy
be regulated under lawsby considerations of justice and expediency, but
it cannot be destroyed.  Th4e right ofnavigating the ocean furnishes an
apt illustration of the distinction thus taken.   No one wvill deny that it
is a natural right, and  exists independently of law; but its exercise
brought into existence new circumstances and relations between nations,
which rendered necessary some law for the regulation of such exercise.
Here we see the origin of' international miaritime law, which asserts julrisdiction oc er the ocean, furnishes it with a government, and regulates
without destroying the prior right.  It is only in this sense that a nation
can be said to have sovereign power over the mouth of a navigable
river, as against another occupying above.   This same distinction was
evidently taken by Mr. Adams in his instructions to Mr. Rush, before
referred to, and in the following termis: " The exclusive right of.jurisdictiion over a river originates in the social compact, and is a right of soveignty.  The right of iavi,,tiiizg the river is a right of nature, preceding
it in point of time, and which the sovereign right of one nation cannot
annihilate, as belonging to the people of another."  The  Congress of
Vienna, in lSl5, whilst it provided for thie free navigation of many of the
rivers of Europe, did not omit also to provide that   the regulations
established witlh regard to the police of this navigation" should  he respected-th,us plainly recognising a right of jurisdiction as distinct from
that of navigation.
'We have now reached that point in the argumneiit upon. the nature of national sovereignty over navigable rivers emptying into the ocean where we
are prepared to assert it is sel(orn, if ever, absolute' aul  z?qualli,ed.  It does
not exist in the case of a navigable stream situate entirely within the territory of a single nation; for it is subject to the prior natural right of those who
have pla,ited their homes upon its banks, and must bhe exercised consistently with that right.  It does not exist in the case of a nation dwelling
upon any part above its mnouth, or, it may be, occupying exclusively its
sources; for, in that case, such nation, exercising its absolute sovereignty, conld divert the stream, and thus destroy the  navig,ation of
nations occupying below.  Lastly, it does not exist in the case of a nationt holding the mouth; for if, as we have just seen, a nation oecupying
above cannot possess it, by what principle of justice can it be showin that
a nation o(cupying below can possess it, tbhus establishling, in respect to
sovereignty over a navigable river, an unequal rule of right amongst
those who have chosen to settle upon its borders, and who, though from
necessity they must occupy different positions in regard to its moutth, and
dwell at different distances from the sea, yet all settled upon its borders
for the same purpose of using it, of navigating it, of trading with remlote
nations, of passing and repassing at will between their homes and the
oceanI?
Further, if Great Britain contends for an absolute national sovereignty
over the mouths of navigable rivers which may be in her possession, is
she prepared to submit to the consequences which naturally flow from it,
and seem quite as reasonable as the doctrine itself?  The doctriie, it is
11
I 
Rep. No. 295.
true, does not go quite so far as to imply absolute property in the contiguous water, as in land or moveable articles; for the water by necessity
would cease to become such when it passes from one territorial dominion
into another.  It is continuous in its nature; and the same water forms
thie navigable river both above and below the dividing boundary line.
Yesterday it was in one dominion, to-day it is in another, and " to-morrow will be in that ocean to w,hvich the presumptuous sway of no one
has as yet been lawfully extended."  Whilst the doctrine does not go to
the length just intimated, it does, howxvever, give as absolute and sovereign
control over the sources of a river to a nation within whose territories
they are situate, as over the mouth to that nation which may possess it.
Such control is as just and consistent with the principles of right in one
case as in the other.
Apply this consequence of the doctrine claimed to the case of the St.
Lawrence, anid what follows? Its chief sources are the great lakes, one
of which lies enti2rely within Amnericai territory.  It has been believed
that the waters of Lake Erie can be made to flow into the Ohio.  This
idea is not altogether new; for such  a connexion, in the form of a
canal, was  the subject of correspondence between   Washington and
Jefferson at an early day iln the history of the country.  It was then
supposed that it might be the means of bringing the trade of the western
country to Virginia.  Whatever might be the effects of such a measure at
the present day, by way of diverting trade, if feasible, it might be so executed as to create a new  and large navigable river within our borders,
which, whilst it would form a great highway for inlaid commerce,would
at the same time swell the waters of the Ohio so as to be navigable by
steamboats at all seasons of the year for a much greater distance above
its mouth.  But would England acquiesce in such a measure, when she
shoulcLd suddenly find the waters of the St. Lawrence partially dried up,
and its navigation from Lake Ontario to Quebec perhaps destroyed by
s4oals, rocks, and rapis'?
Yet this case, extreme as it may seem, would be the natural result of
the doctrine for which England contends.  It could work hut little injury to us, except so far as the St. Lawrence may.be contiguous to New
York.  Laklie Ontario is of great depth, and, although its outlet would
become greatly diminished, yet its surface would be but little affected,
and its navigation would continue as before.  The upper lakes would remain tihe same, as their surplus waters w\ould still accumulate in, and be
discharged from, l1ake Erie.  But this objection would be without force,
since our drainage of its surplus waters would not injure its navigation.
Yielding, however, to this objections let us pass upward for a thousand
mniles, and we come to the extremity of Lake Michligaii, which lies entirely within our borders.  It cannot be denied that the United States
have as sovereign control over the waters of this lake as any nation can
have over those of a navigable river.  But will England admit such control to be absolute and unqualified, and allow us to drain its waters into
the Ohio or Mississippi? In this case, as in the other, she might behold
her navigatiotn of the St. Lawrence obstructed by new shoals, rocks, and
rapids. AMichigan, too, might be a little interested in this state of things;
and all the States of the Northwest, whose conimerce passes over  the
lakes, might find their ancient right of navigation interrupted by impassable shoals, if not in the St. Clair and Detnit rivers, certainly in Lake
St. Clair, the depth of whose navigable channels is now barely sufficient
12
s 
Rep. N6. 295.
for the passage of our largest vessels.  Here is one of the strongest cases
to be put for asserting the doctrine of absolute sovereignty over navigable
waters connecting with the ocean.  It is not the case of a river, but a
large inland sea, 340 miles long, and averaging 58 miles in width, and
lying entirely within our own country.  The United States have not yet
claimed the right thus to drain its waters and destroy or impair the navigation of the St. Lawrence; but it implies no greater sovereignty on our
part than that which Great Britain claims over that river, and one case
has been supposed to illustrate the other, and to show that there can be
no such right as that of absolute control over the month of a navigable
river emptying into the ocean, as against a nation occupying the same
river above.
Another argument may be adduced in favor of the claim of the United
States, based upon the joint acquisition of the St. Lawrence by Great
Britain and her American colonies, as the result of the war with France,
followed by the treaty of 1763, which gave the Canadas to England.  In
that war, many of the colonies, now States of this Union, ",well bore
their part," and contributed not a little in accomplishing its results.
From that time to the Revolution they enjoyed freely its navigation, and
none can question their right during this period. But they claimed it
then as colonies; and should they, by revolutionizing and erecting themselves into independent States and sovereignties, possess less right of
navigation than before? Would it not be more reasonable to suppose
that their transition from a state of colonial vassalage to one of national
sovereignty weold enlarge; if possible, or at least not diminish, and even
destroy, their former right?
'We are now brought to a consideration of the last, and perhaps the
strongest, argument in favor of the American claim-that of comimercicd
ntecessity.  This argument has its origin in no temporary or artificial
causes, which it is in our power to remove, but springs from that difference
of geographical position to which, from the nature of things, nations
must forever be subject.'cThe unerring counsels of natre'" have led
our people to the shores of the great lakes, and pointed them out as
sources and parts of a great navigable highway to the ocean. Circumstances connected with the recent and wonderful growth of our country,
and especially of that section which borders upon this highway, now
point to its use, not merely as a convenience, but necessity. This
argument presents us with a view of the trade and commerce which now
seek access to the markets of the world through this channel, and invites
us to estimate them, if possible, for the future. It pictures to us the valley of the lakes as it is, and is to be.
This valley contains a lake coast of abo.t 5,000 miles, of which nearly
three thousand belong to' the United States.  Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron,
M5iclhigan and Superior, not including the straits and channels by which
thiey are connected, form a continuous body of water 1,450 miles in length
and averaging 61 miles in width. But few countries can, none but our own
does, contain such a field for inland commerce. Its commercial importance
is best exhibited by the wonderful development of population and
wealth which have so suddenly accumulated upon its shores. History
has never before recorded a more wonderful story in the settlement of the
world than that which tells of the birth and growth of this Northwestern
valley. The general settlement of our country has surpassed the most
sanguine expectations; but that has been the work of centuries, whilst
13 
Rep No. 295.
the settlement' of this valley has been the work of a generation-of a day.
There are those who saw the Northwest when it did not contain 5,000 inhabitants, and are now living to see it teeming with a population of five
millions, or almYost double our entire population when we declared our
independence of Great Britain.  Its commerce has been equally sudden
in growth and wonderful in extent.
W\Iho will not be startled on being told that the commerce of Michigan
has become nearly equal to that of all Canada?  Yet, incredible as it may,
seem, it is true.  But Michigan is the child of one generation; and in
our o\wn day her population has risen from five to nearly five hundred
thousand, whilst the population of Canada is more than three times
that of this youtthftil State, and, having the experience of two centuries,
she even now languishes as with premature decline.
Tile foilowing is a comparative view of the commerce of Canada and
.Michigan, in respect to certain leading exports, for the year 1847:.
Michigan exnerted,
933,179
601 6S88
73,S84i,ooo
26 633,ot)O
,7,119,S32
Canada exported.
Flour, bbls.  -      -      928,061O
'Wheat, bushels      ~      925,0t12
Lumber, in feet          76,913,735
Shingles.       -   14,744,000
Aggregate exports for 1847 (urnkniown)
..I,... 1- 
We have not the means for determining, in figures, theaggregate exports
of Canada for the year 1847, but, from such infobrmation as we have been
able to obtain, they are believed to have been miuch less thanthose of Michigan; but the imports of the formnier for the sam.e year are known to have
been greater than those of the latter.  Furthermore, the trade of Canada
has been, of late years, steadily declining, and has reached a point of
great depression; whilst that of Michigan, as of all the Northwestern States,
has been steadily increasing.
There are now eight States inmmediately connected with the navigation
of the lakes whose commerce, to some extent, might, if permitted, seek
an outlet to the ocean through the St. Lawrence-Vermont, New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin   They
were estimated to contain in 1846 a population of 8S8S77,456,:or nearly
half that of the whole Union, of which 2,928,925 depended  upon: the
lakles for reaching a market.  Much information upon this subject is con
tained in the very valuable report to the Secretary of War from the Topop
graphical Bureau of December 10, 1847, which presents a view of the lake
commerce up to the year 1846.  We have drawn upon this source for a
few important statistics, and do not doubt that they may be relied on as
mainly correct, since they are based upon detailed reports from the various
collection ports and districts, which exhibit the kinds and quantities of
which the commerce consists.  We have been also kindly furnished by
Colonel Abert) of the Topographical Bureau, with some facts and figures
touching the commerceof the lakes at a much later period; and, as thley
are believed not yet to have been published, they are presented below, in
a consolidated form, in connexion with those for a former year:
Lake tonnage for 1846 was, steam......................... 60 825
Do......do........sailing....................... 46011 
Totalt for 1846.....................,...  106,836~
14 
Rep. No  295'.
The utpper lake tonnage for 1849, with that of Lakle Ontario for
1848, exhibits a total tonnage of-that of Lake Champlain not
included............................................ 19S,295
Inres  isnw 10prcn., ben............9,
lariners employed on the lakes in 1846 were..................6,972
The following table exhibits the t()tl exports and imports of certain
Buffalo, (port.) 1846......................     $48,989  116
Cleveland.... do..................................  12,559,110
Detroit.    do................................. d...o 8,  706,348
Oswego       do..............................           9,502, 980
Erie.       do..............                           6,373,246
Whitehall... do ~................... 6,327 489
Monroe, (district,) and Toledo, 1846.................... 9 519,067
Sandusky, (district,) 1846............................  5 943, 127
B3urlington................................    3,777,726
Chicago, (port,) 18S4S18..............................   11 903,000
Milwaukie....do......................   5, 927,000
The aggregate exports and imports of the lake ports for 1846 were reported at $123,829,821.
This sum, however, represents a duplicate commerce, since the exports
of one place are to some extent the imports of another, and the nett value
was estimated to be one-half, or $61,914,910.
This view, for 1846, falls much short of the whole truth, since it is
known that these estimates include nothing for the commerce of eighteen
important places, from which there were no returns for that year.
If we now look at the lake commerce for the year 1848, we find that
its increase is nearly commensurate with that of the tonnage, as above
stated. The aggregate exports and imports for that year of the different
lakes were estimated as follows, in round numbers:
Lake Michigan, exports and imports, 184..............$24, 320,000
Lake Huron......do.....do....do.................    848,000
Lake St. Clair....do.....do....do.................        636,000
Lake Erie......do......do....do.............d e 115,785 000
Lake Superior.....do.....do....do.................  (unklinown.)
Total for 1848, in round numbers..........11590
Lake Ontario, for 1848........................ I,-.f 
Lake Chmpain.-.do..............................
14165S9,000
~1 ~i, 00'0
(unknown.)
169, 730, 000
Consolidated returns in exact numbers:
Lakes above the fall s.................................5ee
Lake Ontario.................................. 
Lake Champlain, (1846):.............................1
Lakle Superior.............(ue.nko.)..
.$141,593, 567
28 t 40, 927'
11' 266,059
(unknown.)
_, - - r181, 000, 553
4;
15
I
.I:    "  
Rep. No. 295.
This estimate gives the sum of $181,000,553 as the aggregate value of
the lake exports and imports for the year 1848, of which, upon the principle before mentioned, one-half may be set down as the nett value for
that year-. 90,500,276.
Such are some few of the many facts from which some estimate may
be formed of the immense commerce of the lakes. The great increase of
the articles of flour and wheat, as received for a series of years prior to
184S, at Buffalo, the principal receiving depot of the lake commerce, on
its way to the eastern markets, fuirnishes something like an index of its
general increase in other productions.  Reduced to all equivalent in vwheat,
they rose from 2,780,000 bushels in 1841 to 10,6SS88,564 bushels in 18417;
and, adopting 17 per cent. as an approved rate of annual increase of the
aggregate lake commerce, in tenll years, or in 1S57, its riett valutie will be
$170,54).,257.
The above facts and figures enable us to form some idea of the present
commercial condition of the lake valley.  But who can measure its prospects in the future?  The experience of the few past years teaches that
its growth has surpassed all prior calculations, and past estimates have
seldomi kept pace with existing realitie.s.  It has become quite impossible
to proportion  in advance, the increase of this region in population,
wealth, and commerce, to the increase of its facilities for cofmmunicating
with the eastern markets. The future refuses to be governed by rules of
past experience.  If the commerce of this valley is to increase from sixtythree millions in 1S47 to ONE IIUNDRED AND SEVENTY MILLIONS in 18S57,
who will undertake to measure it at the expiration of another quarter or
half of a century?  And if it now crowds our channels of communication almost to stoppage, and, consequently, finds its way disadvantageously through them to market, what will be the condition of things in
fifty, twenty-five, or even ten years hence, unless some portion of it can
find its way to the ocean through the channel of the St. Lawrence, whichl
nature has constructed for it with so liberal a hand?
Fitther, we cann6t overlook the very important fact that the free navigation of the St. Lawrence would, in effect, for commercial purposes,
add three thousand miles to our ocean-coast.  It would convert the lakes
into great ocean-inlets or bays, and their ports into  ocean-harbors
WVhitehall, Burlington,.Oswego, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukie,
Chicago, and all our lake towns and cities, would be substantially upon
the ocean.  They could thus carry on a direct export and import trade
with Liverpool, with China, or any other remote country of the globe
which may be accessible from the ocean.  It would open their valuable
timber forests, and enable them to send ships, as well as cargoes, for sale
to the English marts, or those of any other country by whose-navigatiolt
laws it might be permitted.  Such a change in geographical position
could hardly fail to produce a great revolution in the commerce of the
Northwest, not by way of diverting it seriously from its accustomed charif
nels, but by opening new fields of enterprise, stimulating new industry,
and giving new employment to labor.  No apprehension need be entertained that existing artificial channels would not continue to be taxed for
transportation, as now, to the extent of their capacity for public use and advantage. We have already shown the probable future increase of our lake
commerce; and all apprehension like that suggested should be dispelled,
when it is also considered that the population of the Northwest alone;
16'
i 
Rep. No. 295.
estimating by approved principles of increase as applicable to that particular and growing region, will, in the lapse of half a century, be not far
from thirty millions, or several millions greater than the present population of the entire Union.
There are also some other facts which must be noticed for the purpose
of showing that the free navigation of the St. Lawrence would be revolutionary in some of its results, not by interfering with present commercial
interests, but by stimulating new industry and calling for new labor. We
had in 1847, as before seen, a lake tonnage of nearly 200,000 tons; and
this, with its subsequent increase, is employed in short voyages, varying
in time from one to a few days.  But open the St. Lawrence, and these
voyages may, instead of days or weeks, require months and even years.
One single ocean voyage may become equal to all the voyages of a vessel
which plies during every week of the navigable season between Buffalo
and Chicago.  For every vessel engaged in present commerce that passes
out upon the ocean, another must sooner or later take its place.
All this would require more tonnage and more hands.  Can it be
doubted that, under the stimulus of this measure, our lake tonnage would
be suddenly arnd vastly increased, and even quadrupled, at an early day?
In this estimate we do not include the vessels which would be constructed
for sale in a foreign market. Such an increase of tonnage would bring
with it an increase of hands, and raise the amount of the latter from
seven to twenty-eight thousand.  These results would tend to produce
competition, whilst competition would tend to cheapen the transportation
of our commerce.  To this must be added the advantages of a continuous
voyage  one which would be subject to little or no delays at intermediate
ports, and to no expenses for transhipment.  A  large portion of the
expense of transportation is incurred at the places of shipment and discharge, and hence the cost of the voyage is not determined by its length.
All the ports upon the lakes below Lake Superior are said to be nearer
Liverpool than Odessa, the principal wheat mart on the Black sea.
Cleveland is said to be more than a thousand miles nearer; so that there is
little room for doubt that the lake valley, having thle advantages of a continuous voyage via the St. Lawrence, can send its wheat as cheaply to
the English markets as the country of the Black sea, and thus maintain
a successful competition.
We should fail to do justice to the subject if we omitted to notice another feature in the commercial condition of the lake' valley: that for at
least five months in every year its navigable waters are bound  up with
frosts and snows of a northern winter.   In 1846, the capital invested in
the lake tonnage was estimated at six, and now  cannot be fahn
millions; but during the long period.of'pi-0.a l is idle,
whilst the ships are decaying at their moorings, amidst snow and ice.
Por this loss, it is well known, the public is obliged to pay, by a
necessary'and consequent increase of prices charged for the transportation
of persons and property. Fromn this cause alone are the people of the lake
valley every year taxed hundreds of thousands of dollars; but it is a tax
which, to some extent at least, the free navigation of the St. Lawrence
would remove. Winter upon the lakes now suddenly turns thiusands
out of employ for nearly half a year; and, being generally untited, by the
habits of a seafaring life, to engage in ordinary occupations upon land, to
many of the-m but little is left save to congregate in the cities, and there
2
/~
~
17 
Rep. No. 295.
viciously squander their earnings of the summer.   Make free theiSt. Law rence, and many of our ships, with their crews, engaged during the sum mer in inland commerce, at least such as are fitted for ocean navigation,
would flee from the icy lakes during winter, and seek other and more ge  nial fields of commercial enterprise.
We have now presented a brief sketch of the principal arguments upon
which our claim to a free navigation of the St. Lawrence is based.   It
must, however, be remembered, that this exhibition of the commerce of
the lakes has been confined entirely to that which is American in its char acter. There is also upon the lakes a large British commerce, which
would be greatly increased by that reciprocal stimulus of trade which would
spring from a joint and equal navigation of the river by the people of both
countries.
But little, therefore, now remains, save to inquire what objections, if
any, can be urged against the justice of the American claim? That it
would benefit us, there is no doubt; and that it would work no injury to
British commercial interests, seems equally clear.  So far from that is the
truth, that it would operate as a fresh stimulus of British enterprise in
Canada.  By what principle, then, of natural right and justice, or of in terlnatiopal law, can England withhold from us a right of so much na tional importance, and one the concession of which could work no injury
to her own right of navigation, or involve any sacrifice of her honor?
Where a right claimed by one nation against another is an innocent right,
and its enjoyment is essential for the public interests of the nation claim ing, it is believed that the law of nations has amply provided for its recog nition,  "Property cannot deprive nations of the general right of travelling
over the earth, in order to have a communication with each other,for carrying on trade, and other just reasons. The master of a country may only
refuse the passage on particular occasions, where he finds it is prejudicial
or dangerous."  (Vattel, book 2, ch. 10, sec. 132.) The same author (in ch.
10 of same book, sec. 134) says: " A passage ought also to be granted for
merchandise; and as this may in common be done without inconvenience,
to refuse it without just reason is injuring a nation, and endeavoring to
deprive it of the means of carrying on a trade with other states; if the
passage occasion any inconvenience, any expense for the preservation of
canals and highways, it may be recompensed by the rights of toll."  The
navigation of the St. Lawrence can be connected with that of the upper
lakes only by a canal. None exists at present for that purpose within our
own country; and, having no right, we of course cannot ask the privilege
of transporting our commerce through the canals of Canada without relndering a just compensation.
The right of passage, where it may be innocently exercised,' may be
well illustrated by the case of navigable straits connecting seas, the navigation of which is common to several nations.  As the rivers St. Mary,
St. Clair, and Detroit have often been called straits, forming a continuous
communication between some of the great lakes, so the St. Lawrence,
which is but another though longer link in the chain, may be likened unto a
strait. It connects the ocean, which is free to all nations, with an inland
sea, whose navigation is common to the two nations which occupy its
shores. And of such a case the saone writer upon international law says:
" He who possesses the strait cannot refuse others a passage through it,
provided that pasage be innocelt anrd attended with no danger to the
is
I
pp*' -- 
Rep. No. 295.
State."'  This right of passage has been well called by Grotius, " a right
interwoven with the very frame of human society;" and, if more need be
added to confirm the argument, let his declaration be cited, that " a free
passage through countries, rivers, or over any part of the. sea, which belong to some particular people, ought to be allowed to those who require
it for the necessary occasions of life, whether those occasions be in quest
of settlements, after being driven from their own country, or to trade with
aremote nation."-Book 2, ch. 2, sec. 13.
Further, can any objection be drawn from the practice and opinions of
the world, as exhibited in its international treaties?   Here it is to be remarked, that the concession of new rights must not be confounded with
the recognition of old ones.  Treaties sometimes create rights, and sometimes merely acknowledge those already existing, which, though questioned to some extent, are, upon examination, found to have a just existence in nature, and independently of treaties.  They are, therefore, formally asserted by one party, and acknowledged by the other, so as
effectually to remove all grounds for future question or difference. Thius
the thirteenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, (1713,) by which  France
ceded to England Newfoundland, continued to the subjects of France the
use of certain fisheries upon the coasts of that island.  This same right to
the fisheries was recognised as belonging to France by the fifth article of the
treaty of Paris, (1763,) which renewed and confirmed so much of the 13th
article of the treaty of Utrecht as relates to this subject. At the treaty of Ver
sailles (17S3) these fisheries were again the subject of negotiation, and Great
Britain and France readjusted the terms upon which they should be enjoyed by the respective parties. The French right of fishery was again the
subject of adjustment between the parties at the treaty of Paris in 1814.
From this series of negotiations it may well be argued, that the treaty of
Utrecht did Iiot create the right of fishery for France, but recognised it as
one already existing, and the subsequent treaty stipulations upon the subject concerned chiefly the principles and limitations by which it should be
exercised.
The third article of our treaty of 1783 with England may also be cited as
in point, as it stipulated for the continued right on our part to enjoy the
fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the coast and banks of Newfooundland, " a nd a t all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of
both countries used at any time heretofore to fish." Was it not obviously the intention of the parties to this stipulation not to create, but to acknowledge, for and as against each other, rights already existing, and
which had existed and been enjoyed in common at least since the acquisition of Canada?  rThese rights to the fisheries were thus, admitted to
belong to the United States, notwithstanding their  sepaion from the
mother country. The language of the article is, "that the people of the United States shall continue to ernjoy" the fisheries, and thus continues without
creating a right. This continuance was evidently based not upon aii idea
of concession on the part of England, but upon principles of natural justice and right, having their origin in the fact, that it was partly American
enterprise that had discovered, explored, and occupied these fisheries.
The United States contended for such principles as these ill settling the
terms of the convention of iS1S. England sought to maintain that the
war of 1812 had abrogated the American right to the fisheries, whilst Mr.
Rush, who conducted the negotiations on our parts insisted upon that
19
.. 7:
I 
Rep. No. 295.
right as being permanent or, perpetual in its nature, as old at least as the
treaty of 1783; and he shaped the terms of the convention upon this subject, with an express design on his part of excluding " the implication of
the fisheries secured to us being a new grant."'
The case is conceived to be analogous, and it would be difficult to show,
that the natural right of the United States to transport their commerce
upon the St. Lawrence to and from the ocean is much less than that, which
they enjoy to the northeastern fisheries.
The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi also well illustrates the view now  submitted.  At  the treaty of  17S3 with  Great'
Britain, its mouth was held by Spain.  It formed our western boundary,
and its sources were supposed to lie within British territory. Each party
stipulated in this treaty for the free and joint navigation of the river.
But did either party co)ncede to or create in the other any supposed new
right?  Did this stipulation amount to anything more than a recognition
or declaration of right as against each other, and a claim or assumption
of it as against Spain?  It was in fact an acknowledgment of supposed
pre-existing right-a right freely to use and navigate the river, as a great
highway to the ocean, which nature had created for the accommodation of
the nations who might dwell upon its banks. The sources of the river
were, however, subsequently ascertained to be entirely within our
own boundaries, and we were left alone to assert our right against Spain.
Our representatives at Madrid were instructed to press upon her attention
not the privilege merely, but the right of freely navigating the Mississippi to its mouth; and so anxious were the American peeple upon this
subject, and so well satisfied of the right, that the question threatened at
some future time to involve us in a war with that country; but the farseeing policy of Mr. Jefferson, which looked to the acquisition of Louisiana, settled it by the treaty of cession in 1803. It may, then, well be
asked, can England now justly deny to us a principle, in reference to the
mouth of the St. Lawrence, which  she has already asserted against
Spain in reference to that of the Mississippi?
Nor, it is believed, can any objection to the American claim, as being
against the practice or law of nations, be derived from treaties amongst
the nations of Europe, which relate to the use of navigable rivers. They
are believed to have proceeded in part upon the idea nat of creating, but
of affirming rights; not of conceding privileges, but of recognising
rights which had a prior existence under the natural law.   There are
in Europe many rivers which are not by nature navigable, but are made
so by clearing out their channels and by other artificial  means, such as
the Elbe, Macs-e, Weser, and Oder.  In such cases, both reason and internationial la-w justify the exaction of tolls, to meet the expense of putting and keeping them in navigable condition; but this exaction should
be limited to such special and necessary purposes.
By the treaty of Paris (1814) between England and France, the navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it becomes navigable unto the
sea, was declared to be free. At this time a congress of European nations
had already been proposed, and, in anticipation of its sitting, this same
treaty provided, that such congress should " examine and determine in
what manner the above provisions can be extended to other rivers which
in their navigable course, separate or traverse different States."
The congress of Vienna seems manifestly to have proceeded upon the
20
- I I I
I I.. 
Rep. No. 295.
principle of recognising the right of nations freely to navigate to  its
mouth the same river, which separates or crosses their territories as a preexisting right, founded in nature and confirmed in national convenience
and necessity.  By the general treaty, (June 9,1815,) all those "powers,
whose States are separated or crossed by the same navigable river," stipu -
lated that their navigation,' along their whole course, from the point
where each of them becomes navigable to its mouth, shall be entirely
free, and shall not, in respect to com'nerce, be prohibited to any one."
(See arts. 108 and 109, Herzlet's Commercia Treaties, vol. 1.)  Article
96 of the same treaty provided specially that its principles concerning the
navigation of rivers should be applicable to the Po. To this treaty were
appended certain articles intended to operate as a uniform system of police for regulating their navigation; also, a set of articles providing,specially for the free navigation of the Rhine, and another set providing for
that of the Neckar, Mayne, Moselle, Meuse, and Scheldt, from the point
where each of them becomes navigable to their mouths."
We have thus the voice of nearly all Europe sanctioning the principle
contended for; for nearly all Europe was party to this treaty. In respect
to the navigation of rivers, the treaty acts in part upon rights already
supposed to exist.  It asserts and regulates, without creati%? them.  As
the statute often merely affirms the comnimon law, so this treaty affirms
the international and natural law; and the action of the Vienna congress
upon this subject had its origin not so much in a denial of the right of
nations to freely navigate rivers which separate or cross their territories, as
in the necessity of agreeing upon some uniform regulations for using it, and
Freeing it troni those embarrassments which might otherwise flow from the
various and conflicting regulations of different States.   Whatever may
have been the ancient doctrine respecting national sovereignty over the
nmouths of navigable rivers emptying into the ocean, the British claim to
an absolute centrol over the mouth of the St. Lawrence should now be
considered as inconsistent with a liberal and enlightened application
of the natural law, and with the principles recognised by the general
treaty of Vienna, to which England was a prominent party.
If the American Uliion had never been formed, or if each of its States
were now to become suddenly invested with full national sovereignty, a
case would exist very analogous to that, which made the navigable rivers
of Europe an important and even necessary subject for adjustment by the
congress of Vienna.  In either of such events, what State would presume to assert against another absolute control over the waters of a navigable river, which should separate or traverse the territories of both? Who
shall close the mouth of the Connecticut?  -Who shut up the Delaware,
and drive the ships of Philadelphia from its waters?'What single State
shall barricade the Mississippi against the commerce of St. Louis, Cincinnati, and all the great States and Territories situate upon its banks, or
those of its vast tributaries, which stretch fronm the Alleghlanies to the
Pocky mountains?
To these questions there can be but one answer-" N6ne."  The eterial principles of justice-the laws of nature-answer, " None."   But. in
either of the supposed casess our navigable rivers would become the theatres of various contending interests, and necessarily subject to a variety
of local jurisdictions. To avoid all differences and conflicts which might
natu-rally flow from such variety of inteest and jurisdiction, a congress of
21 
Rep. No. 295.
States, like that of Vienna, might well assemble for the purpose of aflirming, by treaty, for and against each other, the right of freely navigating
those rivers by which they might be separated or crossed, and of regulating its exercise by principles of fairness and uniformity   Tile case has
been supposed for illustration; and is it not evident, that suchi a treaty
would not create the right of navigation, but simply afirm and recogiuse
it as one pre-existing? Such a treaty would declare an existing right, and
provide for its equal and peaceful enjoyment.
We have thus far considered the free navigation of the St. Lawrence as
the subject of a claim on the part of our government under the law of
nature and of nations. We have done this, that the question may be
viewed in its whole extent, and that, should the views and arguments submitted in favor of the American claim as one of right not be regarded as
conclusive, they may at least appear as reasons, why the British government should now generously concede to us a privilege, in support of which
so much can be urged, and to which time has added value and importance. If it cannot be secured as a right, then it is to be considered as a
privilege, to be acquired either by treaty or, by some reciprocal legislation,
based upon the idea of rendering a just equivalent.
If England will not acknowledge the right, as conferred upon us by the
hand of nature, she should acknowledge it by treaty. She should, accordin to her view, create it, and confer it upon us with her own hand.   She
should do it, too, with the generosity of nature, without money and without price.  She should do it with a magnanimity which so well becomes
her position.  To her it can work no injury, whilst to us it is a measure of
great advantage.'Why should she not grant to us, in respect to the mouth
of the St. Lawrence, what she asserted against Spain in 17S3, in respect
to that of the Mississippi? Why not yield to us what, in 1S14, she demanded
fiorn France in relation to the Rhine?  Why not follow now her own enI',ghtered examnple at Vienna, when she demanded of Europe the free navi,ation of the Po, the Scheldt, and other rivers, which did not wash a foot
of British soil?
But, if England will neither acknowledge the right as already existing,
nor confe-r it upon us as a gratuity, then it can only be acquired by purchase, on the rendition of some just equivalent.   We have already, under
another view of the subject, presented those considerations which now
conspire to render the free navigation of the St. Lawrence a question of
present and practical importance.  If the right be denied, they' yet weigh
in favor of acquiring the privilege, and it is unnecessary to repeat them.
If it is to be purchased by treaty, then it presses itself upon the attention
of the treaty-making power, as a question which, if not soon settled by
negotiation) must ere long be settled by the irresistible course of human
events. But if it is to be purchased by means of reciprocal legislation,
then it urges itself upon the attention of Congress, and calls for the adoption of legislative measures with a view to its acquisition.  Whatever
difference of opinion may exist as to the mode by which it should be acquired, it seems very certain, that the question in regard to the St. Lawrence, which so earnestly engaged the attention of the administrations of
Monroe and the younger Adams, and which Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, as
they successively stood at the head of the State Department, pressed upon
the attention of the British government with so much ability and patriotismi is now revived with increased magnitude. Nor is the tact to be d4s
22
4 
Rep. No. 295.
guised, that the sudden growth of the lake valley, its increased and increasing commerce, its convenience, its wants, its dearest interests, the petitions of its people, and circumnstances connected with the geographical
relations of the two countries, and  their future peace and harmony, are
all conspiring to present the question as one, whose early settlement is
suggested by the soundest dictates of justice, prudence, and wisdom.
ALEX. W. BUEL.
JOHN  A. McCLERNAND.~
E.G. SPAULDING.
[* Mr. McClernand signs the foregoing report, meaning thereby to affirm
the following principles, which are understood by him to be substantially
affirmed by the report, viz
1st. That by natural law, the right of navigating a stream or river is
the equal and common right of al the inhabitants upon its borders. 2d.
That by the law of society, upon the establishment of a local jurisdiction
over a part of the river, the pre-existing natural right of navigating that
part becomes subject to modification by the local sovereign. 3d. That
the right thus remaining still holds good for the purpose of innocent exercise or use, and is denominated an imperfect right; but is, nevertheless,
an essential and real right. 4th. That the obstruction or refusal of this
rightt, when not called for by the peace or safety of the local sovereign,
and to the injury of the inhabitants above, is a wrong, which may authorize
denand for redress.]
23 
!Ill~~~- " -;"   I   ~~~~',   I
I
tzl ,            i      ,.
"I