The courts of the United States had not yet declared that British debts contracted before the war, were recoverable.

In one of the circuits, a decision had been recently made, partly favourable, and partly unfavourable, to the claim of the creditor.

To this decision writs of error had been brought, and the case was pending before the supreme court.

The motives therefore originally assigned for holding the posts on the lakes still remained; and, as it was a maxim with the executive "to place an adversary clearly in the wrong," and it was expected that the existing impediments to the fulfilment of the treaty on the part of the United States would soon be done away, it was thought unadviseable, had the military force of the union been equal to the object, to seize those posts, until their surrender could be required in consequence of a complete execution of the treaty.

In the mean time, the British minister was earnestly pressed upon the subject.
This prudent conduct was far from being satisfactory to the people.
Estimating at nothing, infractions made by themselves, and rating highly those committed by the opposite party, they would, in any state of things, have complained loudly of this act of the British government.