In the amended proposal of the British (see British to American ministers Nov. 26, 1814), there are two things highly pertinent to the inquiry we are conducting, to establish the real value of the Battle of New Orleans. The first was the provision that peace would not be effective until after ratification by both countries. The second consisted in the proposed wording for the mutual restoration clause as follows: “Belonging to either party, taken by the other.” The effect of this wording in the mutual restoration clause, would have been that all territory belonging to either party, taken by the other, should be returned. But this would not embrace Louisiana, for from the English standpoint, it did not legally belong to the United States. As to the first point, a quotation is here given from Updyke (page 317): “The amended project returned by the British commissioners provided that the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at the time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give time for the completion of the British plans against New Orleans, the successful outcome of which was never doubted.” The American ministers, on November 30th, consented to the substitution of the day of exchange of ratifications for that of the signature of the treaty, as the time for cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the period when prizes at sea shall be restored. (See American to British ministers, Nov. 30, 1814.) This agreement was duly carried into the treaty, as we have heretofore set forth, Article XI, prescribing all details. The American ministers opposed the proposed words in the mutual restoration clause, “belonging to either party, taken by the other.” They insisted on the words, “taken by either party from the other.” Strong reasons were given by the Americans for their attitude, but the British ministers refused to yield, saying the matter would be referred to their Government (Updyke, pp. 324-325). The British Government, on December 6th, instructed their Commissioners to insist upon the retention of the words in dispute, and advanced skilful arguments, in which the real purpose was not revealed. For a digest of these arguments, see Updyke, pages 335-336. To the present day reader, having knowledge of the expedition, which was then on its way to capture New Orleans, the English purpose seems very manifest. With diplomatic art the British Government sought to make it appear that the disputed words, “belonging to either party and taken by the other,” were founded in the objective relating to the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay during the time of the agreed upon reference to a commission to determine the ownership of these Islands.