that "all slaves and other private property" were
delivered up by the British using as their guide a different
construction of Article I. "The construction," Monroe said, "ignored
the distinction which existed between public and private property."
Had it been intended he continued, "to put slaves and other private
property on the same ground with artillery and other public property
the terms "originally captured in the said forts or places which shall
remain therein on the exchange of the ratification of the Treaty"
would have followed at the end of the sentence after "slaves and other
private property."[67] With their construction, he contended that both
interests, the public and private would have been subject to the same
limitation. Besides, Monroe held that the restrictive words
immediately following "artillery and other public property" was not
intended to include the words "slaves and other private property." If
"the slaves and other private property" are placed on the same footing
with artillery and other public property, "the consequences must be
that all will be carried away."

Monroe learned, furthermore, that Mr. Baker, Charge D'affaires of
Great Britain, had placed another construction on Article I of the
treaty. In this new construction he had made a distinction between
slaves who were in British ships of war in American waters and those
in the ports held by British forces at the time of the exchange of
ratifications.[68] Monroe and the commissioners, on the other hand,
were of the opinion that the United States was entitled to all slaves
in possession of the British forces within the limits of the United
States forts or British ships of war. Concerning this opinion Baker
wrote April 3, 1815, that it could not be shown that Monroe's
construction was sanctioned by the words of the Article. "If this
construction had been known then," he remarked, "we would have
decidedly objected to it and proposed others."[69]

Accessible reports indicate that the governments of Great Britain and
the United States persisted in the constructions given by their
respective representatives. Clavelle, the Commander-in-Chief of the
British forces in the Chesapeake, claimed that the treaty meant only
such slaves or other private property should be delivered up as were
"originally captured in the forts or places to be restored." In
conformity with their construction of the Article, Clavelle refused
furthermore to restore the slave