erms between the crowns of France and Great Britain shall be
agreed on. A copy of the articles is here enclosed, and we cannot but
flatter ourselves that they will appear to Congress, as they do to all
of us, to be consistent with the honor and interest of the United
States, and we are persuaded Congress would be more fully of that
opinion if they were apprised of all the circumstances and reasons which
have influenced the negotiation. Although it is impossible for us to go
into that detail, we think it necessary, nevertheless, to make a few
remarks on such of the articles as appear most to require elucidation.

_Remarks on Article 2d, relative to Boundaries_

The Court of Great Britain insisted on retaining all the territories
comprehended within the Province of Quebec, by the act of Parliament
respecting it. They contended that Nova Scotia should extend to the
river Kennebec; and they claimed not only all the lands in the Western
country and on the Mississippi, which were not expressly included in our
charters and governments, but also such lands within them as remained
ungranted by the King of Great Britain. It would be endless to enumerate
all the discussions and arguments on the subject.

We knew this Court and Spain to be against our claims to the Western
country, and, having no reason to think that lines more favorable could
ever have been obtained, we finally agreed to those described in this
article; indeed, they appear to leave us little to complain of and not
much to desire. Congress will observe that, although our northern line
is in a certain part below the latitude of 45 deg., yet in others it
extends above it, divides the Lake Superior, and gives us access to its
western and southern waters, from which a line in that latitude would
have excluded us.

_Remarks on Article 4th, respecting Creditors_

We had been informed that some of the States had confiscated British
debts; but although each State has a right to bind its own citizens,
yet, in our opinion, it appertains solely to Congress, in whom
exclusively are vested the rights of making war and peace, to pass acts
against the subjects of a power with which the Confederacy may be at
war. It therefore only remained for us to consider whether this article
is founded in justice and good policy.

In our opinion no acts of government could dissolve the obligations of
good faith resulting from lawful contracts between individuals of the
two countries