specified in the present article. [The commissioners to meet at St. Andrews, N. B. Boundary to be surveyed and marked. In case of disagreement, the matter to be referred to the decision of some friendly Power, as in Art. IV.]

ARTICLE VI.

Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the boundary of the United States from the point where the fortyfifth degree of north latitude strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be "along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order, therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in this present article. [The commissioners to meet at Albany. Boundary to be designated. In case of disagreement, the matter to be referred to the decision of some friendly Power, as in Art. IV.*]

ARTICLE VII.

[The commissioners provided for in Art. VI. to determine the boundary between Lakes Huron and Superior and the Lake of the Woods. In case of disagreement, the matter to be referred to the decision of some friendly Power, as in Art. IV.]

ARTICLE VIII.

[Commissioners may employ a secretary, &c. Grants of land by either party prior to the war not to be invalidated by any decision of the commissioners.]

*For the decision of the commissioners under this article, June 22, 1822, see Revised Statutes relating to District of Columbia (ed. 1875), 300-302; Treaties and Conventions (ed. 1889), 407-409. — ED.

ARTICLE IX.

The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their citizens and subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

ARTICLE X.

Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.

ARTICLE XI.

This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this day, or sooner if practicable.

In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals.

Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.

EARLY in 1814 many towns in Massachusetts presented memorials to the legislature, setting forth the dangers to which the war with Great Britain exposed them, and suggesting the appointment of delegates, “to meet delegates from such other States as might think proper to appoint them, for the purpose of devising proper measures to procure the united efforts of the commercial states, to obtain such amendments and explanations of the constitution as will secure them from further evils" (Dwight). The matter was favorably considered by the legislature, and Oct. 18 twelve delegates were elected in a joint session of the two houses, by a vote of 226 to 67. The action of Massachusetts was followed by the election of seven delegates by the legislature of Connecticut, which already had under consideration suggestions of a similar nature, and of four delegates by the legislature of Rhode Island. The delegates thus chosen, together with two from New Hampshire and one from Vermont, representing local conventions in those States, met at Hartford Dec. 15, and remained in session until Jan. 5, 1815. The proceedings of the convention were secret, but the report, from which an extract follows, was published and widely circulated. The legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut sent commissioners to Washington to urge the submission of the amendments to the Constitution suggested by the convention; but the war had ended before they arrived, and their recommendations were disregarded. The injunction of secrecy laid upon the members of the convention, and the failure to make public the journal, led to the impression that the proceedings were of a treasonable nature, and had in view a dissolution of the Union.

REFERENCES. Text in Dwight's History of the Hartford Convention (ed. 1833), 352-379; the extract here given is on pp. 368–379. The report is also in Niles's Register, VII., 305–313, where are also, pp. 328–332, com

mercial and financial statistics published by order of the convention. The journal is also in Dwight, op. cit., 383-398. R. M. Sherman's account of the convention is in Niles's Register, XXXIX., 434, 435; see also ib., VII., 185– 189, 193-197, 257, 258, 321-326, 337, 338, 369-371, a series of articles hostile to the convention. The best recent accounts are in Adams's United States, VIII., chap. 11, and Lodge's George Cabot, chaps. 11-13; see further, Johnston, in Lalor's Cyclopædia, I., 624–626; Barry's Massachusetts, III., 407-422; and articles in New Englander, XXXVII., 145–159, and New Engl. Mag., VI., 181-193 (March, 1834).

[After severe general criticism of the Administration, and of the policy by which "this remote country, once so happy and so envied," is now "involved in a ruinous war, and excluded from intercourse with the rest of the world," the report continues:]

To investigate and explain the means whereby this fatal reverse has been effected, would require a voluminous discussion. Nothing more can be attempted in this report than a general allusion to the principal outlines of the policy which has produced this vicissitude. Among these may be enumerated—

First.- A deliberate and extensive system for effecting a combination among certain states, by exciting local jealousies and ambition, so as to secure to popular leaders in one section of the Union, the controul of public affairs in perpetual succession. To which primary object most other characteristics of the system may be reconciled.

Secondly. The political intolerance displayed and avowed in excluding from office men of unexceptionable merit, for want of adherence to the executive creed.

Thirdly. The infraction of the judiciary authority and rights, by depriving judges of their offices in violation of the constitu

tion.

Fourthly. The abolition of existing taxes, requisite to prepare the country for those changes to which nations are always exposed, with a view to the acquisition of popular favour.

Fifthly. The influence of patronage in the distribution of offices, which in these states has been almost invariably made among men the least entitled to such distinction, and who have sold themselves as ready instruments for distracting public opinion, and encouraging administration to hold in contempt the wishes and remonstrances of a people thus apparently divided.

Sixthly. The admission of new states into the Union formed at pleasure in the western region, has destroyed the balance of

power which existed among the original States, and deeply affected their interest.

Seventhly. The easy admission of naturalized foreigners, to places of trust, honour or profit, operating as an inducement to the malcontent subjects of the old world to come to these States, in quest of executive patronage, and to repay it by an abject devotion to executive measures.

Eighthly. Hostility to Great Britain, and partiality to the late government of France, adopted as coincident with popular prejudice, and subservient to the main object, party power. Connected with these must be ranked erroneous and distorted estimates of the power and resources of those nations, of the probable results of their controversies, and of our political relations to them respectively.

Lastly and principally. A visionary and superficial theory in regard to commerce, accompanied by a real hatred but a feigned regard to its interests, and a ruinous perseverance in efforts to render it an instrument of coercion and war.

But it is not conceivable that the obliquity of any administration could, in so short a period, have so nearly consummated the work of national ruin, unless favoured by defects in the constitution.

To enumerate all the improvements of which that instrument is susceptible, and to propose such amendments as might render it in all respects perfect, would be a task which this convention has not thought proper to assume. They have confined their attention to such as experience has demonstrated to be essential, and even among these, some are considered entitled to a more serious attention than others. They are suggested without any intentional disrespect to other states, and are meant to be such as all shall find an interest in promoting. Their object is to strengthen, and if possible to perpetuate, the union of the states, by removing the grounds of existing jealousies, and providing for a fair and equal representation, and a limitation of powers, which have been misused.

The first amendment proposed, relates to the apportionment of representatives among the slave holding states. This cannot be claimed as a right. Those states are entitled to the slave representation, by a constitutional compact. It is therefore merely a subject of agreement, which should be conducted upon principles of mutual interest and accommodation, and upon which no sensi