(Author’s note: It will thus be seen that the British proposed the date of ratification as the time of the effectiveness of the treaty, and the cessation of hostilities, and that the Americans consented, thus carrying into the treaty the provision so uniformly overlooked by our historians.) PASSAMAQUODDY ISLANDS. (Author’s note: There was towards the end of the negotiations at Ghent much and voluminous correspondence, mainly on the part of the British, concerning the question involved in the Passamaquoddy Islands situation; it was magnified, admittedly, out of proportion to the subject involved, especially in view of the fact that the final disposition of these fisheries was relegated to a civil commission to meet after peace. The British, while conceding the relative insignificance of the islands, maintained that a question of honor was involved which might “prove an insuperable bar to the conclusion of peace at the present time.” In reading the mass of British correspondence on the subject of these islands one is forced to the conclusion that there was an underlying purpose.) AS TO WORDING IN MUTUAL RESTORATION CLAUSE. The American _projet_ of November 10 contained also the proposition that all territory, places, and possessions “taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.” The _projet_ returned on November 26 by the British Commissioners was altered to read all territory, places, and possessions, “belonging to either party and taken by the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.” The protocol of a conference of the American and British Commissioners, held on December 1, contained the following statements: At a conference held this day, the American plenipotentiaries proposed the following alterations in their _projet_, as amended by the British plenipotentiaries: 1st—In article I, strike out the alteration consisting of the words “belonging to,” and “taken by,” and preserve the original reading, viz: “taken by either party from the other.” This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, and, after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration of their Government. (Ibid., pages 735, 742.)