prior to the war. We knew that some of the British
creditors were making common cause with the refugees and other
adversaries of our independence; besides, sacrificing private justice to
reasons of state and political convenience is always an odious measure;
and the purity of our reputation in this respect, in all foreign
commercial countries, is of infinitely more importance to us than all
the sums in question. It may also be remarked that American and British
creditors are placed on an equal footing.

_Remarks on Articles 5th and 6th, respecting Refugees_

These articles were among the first discussed and the last agreed to.
And had not the conclusion of this business at the time of its date been
particularly important to the British administration, the respect, which
both in London and Versailles is supposed to be due to the honor,
dignity, and interest of royalty, would probably have forever prevented
our bringing this article so near to the views of Congress and the
sovereign rights of the States as it now stands. When it is considered
that it was utterly impossible to render this article perfectly
consistent, both with American and British ideas of honor, we presume
that the middle line adopted by this article is as little unfavorable to
the former as any that could in reason be expected.

As to the separate article, we beg leave to observe that it was our
policy to render the navigation of the river Mississippi so important to
Britain as that their views might correspond with ours on that subject.
Their possessing the country on the river north of the line from the
Lake of the Woods affords a foundation for their claiming such
navigation. And as the importance of West Florida to Britain was for the
same reason rather to be strengthened than otherwise, we thought it
advisable to allow them the extent contained in the separate article,
especially as before the war it had been annexed by Britain to West
Florida, and would operate as an additional inducement to their joining
with us in agreeing that the navigation of the river should forever
remain open to both. The map used in the course of our negotiations was
Mitchell's.

As we had reason to imagine that the articles respecting the boundaries,
the refugees, and fisheries did not correspond with the policy of this
court, we did not communicate the preliminaries to the minister until
after they were signed (and not even then the _separate article_). We
hope th