Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a return of the arms and military stores furnished to the respective states, under the provisions of the law of one thousand eight hundred and twelve

At head of title: [107]. 15th Congress, 1st session, 1817-1818. House. February 20, 1818. Read, and ordered to lie upon the table.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting documents containing the information required by the resolution of Mr. Wright, on the 22d inst. relative to the execution of the act fixing the military peace establishment

14th Congress, 1st session, 1815-1816. House. Document no. 33. January 27, 1816. Read and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Report of the Committee on Military Affairs, on the differences that exist, between the United States and some of the individual States, respecting the relative powers of the general and state governments over the militia

February 28, 1815. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States. Printed be Roger C. Weightman

Resolutions reported by the Military Committee, expressive of the thanks of Congress to Major General Jackson, and the troops under his command, for their gallantry and good conduct, in the defence of New Orleans

February 13, 1815. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States. Printed by Roger C. Weightman

Grant of Permission for lease of military lands from Sir Robert Prescott to Thomas Clark, 1798-1801.

Transcript (original spelling and grammar retained): By His Excellency Robert Prescott Esquire, Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over His Majestys Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, General and Commander in Chief of all His Majesty’s forces in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and their several Dependencies and in the Island of Newfoundland &ca. &ca. &ca. I do hereby authorise and permit Thomas Clark of Queenstown in the County of Lincoln in the Province of Upper Canada merchant to take possession of all that Lot, piece and parcel of Land (being part of the land reserved by his Majesty for Military purposes) situate, lying and being at Queenstown in the Township of Newark, in the Home District in the said Province of Upper Canada, bounded and abutted as follows, that is to say beginning at the Distance of two Chains and ninety links from the South East End of his Majesty’s Store House, the said distance being measured along the Bank up Stream, thence South thirty nine degrees and an half West one Chain and fifty links thence south fifty degrees and an half East one Chain and thirty links thence North thirty nine degrees and an half East to the Edge of the Bank and from thence along the Bank to the place of beginning, containing thirty one perches and one hundred and twenty five square links and to occupy and hold the said Lot, piece and parcel of Land during pleasure subject nevertheless to the provisoes and Conditions herein after contained, that is to say. First on condition that it shall and may be lawful to and for His Majesty his Heirs and Successors and to and for the Commander in Chief of His Majesty Forces for the time being and to and for the Officer commanding his Majesty’s Forces in Upper Canada for the time being and to and for either of them to determine and make void this present permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot, Piece or Parcel of Land above described at any time hereafter whenever he or they shall see fit so to do without any compensation or indemnification to the said Thomas Clark or any other Person or Persons whosoever for any Loss Injury or Damage which he the said Thomas Clark or any other Person or Persons whosoever may thereby sustain. Secondly on this further Condition that it shall and may be lawful to and for His Majesty his Heirs and Successors and to and for his and their Officers, Soldiers and Servants at any time hereafter by order of the Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Forces for the time being or by order of the Officer commanding his Majesty’s forces in Upper Canada for the time being or by order of the Officer of His Majesty’s Corps of Royal Engineers commanding in the said Province of Upper Canada for the time being to enter upon the said Lot Piece and parcel of Land which the said Thomas Clark is hereby permitted to occupy during pleasure or upon any part thereof and to take down and from the said Lot piece and parcel of Land or from any part thereof to remove any dwelling House Store or other Buildings on the said Lot, piece or Parcel of Land or any part thereof erected and to remove any goods or Chattels on the said Lot piece and parcel of Land or on any part thereof or on any such dwelling House Store or other building found or being and that His Majesty his Heirs and Successors or any other Person or Persons whosoever shall not be liable or responsible to the said Thomas Clark or to any other Person or Persons whosoever for any Loss, Injury or Damage which he or they shall or may in such case sustain. Thirdly on this further Condition that the said Thomas Clark shall not erect on the said Lot Piece or Parcel of Land which the said Thomas Clark is hereby permitted to occupy during pleasure or upon any part thereof at any time or times hereafter any dwelling House store or other Building whatsoever of Stone or brick or of any other materials wood only exccepted and that if any dwelling House or Store or other building of Stone or brick or of any other materials except wood shall at any time be erected on the said Lot, piece or parcel of Land or upon any part thereof, then and in such case, this present permission and every Clause and Article thereof shall from thenceforth cease and determine and be absolutely and entirely null and void. And lastly on this further Condition that the said Thomas Clark or any other Person whosoever shall not assign this permission to occupy the said Lot, Piece or Parcel of Land above described to any Person of Persons whosoever, and if any such assignment shall be made by the said Thomas Clark or by any other Person in his right, or on his behalf, that then and in such case such assignment and this permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot piece and parcel of Land above described, and every Clause and Article thereof shall from thenceforth cease and determine and be absolutely and entirely null and void. Given under my hand at the Castle of St. Lewis in the City of Quebec in the Province of Lower Canada this Ninth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight and in the thirty eighth year of His Majesty’s Reign. [Signed here by Robert Prescott] By Order of the Commander in Chief [Signed here by James Green (Illegible signature)] I the said Thomas Clark above named do hereby accept the above written Permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot piece and parcel of Land above described upon and subject to the several Provisioes and Conditions above written and each and every of them severally and respectively. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand the Sixteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight and in the thirty eighth year of His Majesty’s Reign. [Signed here by Thomas Clark] Signed in the presence of [Illegible signature – looks like J. M Donell Lt. Col.] [Illegible – looks like 2d. Battn R. C. Sm?] [Signed here by C. Anderson] Whereas Inconveniences did arise from the peculiar situation of the Ground contiguous to the above described Lot of Land and the occupation thereof, if estimated by the above Limits would prove highly disadvantageous to Mr. Thomas Clark be it known that in consideration thereof we do permit the above Lot to extend one half Chain more in length up stream so as to comprehend the space allowed for the Road between Lots Two + Three, and we do hereby appropriate the said additional space wholly to the use of the said Thomas Clark. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed this Thirteenth Day of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand Eight Hundred and one. [Signed here by J. M’Donell Lt. Col] 2d. Battn. R. C. [in?] Com of Fort George + Dependencies Robt. Pilkington Captain Royal Engineers

Tourism and the precautionary principle : a survey of academic and government stakeholders

The purpose of this exploratory investigation was to provide a more precise understanding and basis from which to assess the potential role of the precautionary principle in tourism. The precautionary principle, analogous to the ideal of sustainable development, is a future-focused planning and regulatory mechanism that emphasizes pro-action and recognizes the limitations of contemporary scientific methods. A total of 100 respondents (80 tourism academics, 20 regional government tourism officials) from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand completed the webbased survey between May and June 2003. Respondents reported their understanding of the precautionary principle, rated stakeholder involvement and education strategies, assessed potential barriers in implementation, and appraised steps of a proposed fi-amework for implementation. Due to low sub sample numbers, measures of central tendency were primarily used to compare groups, while inferential statistics were applied when warranted. Results indicated that most respondents (79%) felt the principle could be a guiding principle for tourism, while local and regional government entities were reported to have the most power in the implementation process. Findings suggested close links between the precautionary principle and sustainability, as concern for future generations was the most critical element of the principle for tourism. Overall, tourism academics were more supportive of the precautionary principle in tourism than were regional government tourism officials. Only minor variation was found in responses among regional groups across all variables. This study established basic ground for understanding the precautionary principle in tourism and has been effective in formulating more precise questions for future research.

Ethics in government and business

Canadians appear to hold the activities of those in government and in big business in low esteem. Media reports of several high-profile political and corporate instances of unethical conduct have reinforced the public's concern for the status of ethical conduct and honesty in government and in big business. The response by public and private sector managers to unethical conduct by employees is largely in the form of 'ethical rules' which both sectors agree provide a measure of certainty as to the ethical conduct expected from employees. Since research on ethics in the public and private sectors is limited and since ethics is a topic of increasing concern to both sectors, this thesis provides data that could assist managers in dealing with the issue of ethical conduct within their respective organizations. The purpose of this thesis is to compare the state of ethical conduct within public and private sector organizations in Canada. This is accomplished through a description and analysis of the approaches taken by the public and private sectors as well as the four professions of law, engineering, accountancy and medicine. Ethical conduct within the public sector focuses on the ethical behaviour of public servants rather than elected officials. The underlying intent of this thesis is to discover if contemporary ethical problems are similar in the public and iv private sectors with respect to the four ethical areas of conflict of interest, political activity, problem public comment and confidentiality. The comparative data on both public and private sector ethics are assessed and similarities and differences are identified. One major finding emerges from this study. Codes of ethics in both the public and private sectors are perceived by management to play an important role in the prevention of unethical conduct. A procedure for developing a code of ethics is presented along with recommendations as to the administration of a code of ethics. Finally, recommendations are made as to the role of education in ethics.

Strategies for economic development in the Commonwealth Caribbean: a comparative study of the foreign economic policy strategies adopted by the Manley government in Jamaica and the Williams government in Trinidad and Tobago

This thesis compares the foreign economic poUcy dimension of the development strategies adopted by the governments of two Commonwealth caribbean countries: The Hardey government In Jamaica, and the· Williams government in Trlnidad and T ooago, The foreign economic policIes adopted by these governments appeared, on the surface~ to be markedly dissimilar. The Jamakan strategv on the one hand, emphasised self-reliance and national autonomy; and featured the espousal of radical oonaHgnment together with attempts to re-deftne the terms of the Islands externaa economIc relaUoos. The Trinidadian strategy 00 the other hand, featured Uberal externaUy-oriented growth poUctes, and close relatjoos with Western governments and financial institutions. Th1s study attempts to identify the explanatory factors that account for the apparent dlssimUarUy 1n the foreign economic policies of these two govemnents. The study is based on a comparison of how the structural bases of an underdeveloped ecooomYg and the foreign penetration and vulnerabUUy to external pressures asSOCiated wUh dependence, shape and influence foreign economic poUcy strategy. The framework views fore1gn ecooom1c strategy as an adaptive response on the part of the decision makers of a state to the coostralnts and opportunities provided by a particular situation. The · situat i 00' in this case being the events, conditions, structures and processes, associated wUh dependente and underdevelopment. The results indicate that the similarities and dissimHarities in the foreign economic policies of the governments of Jamaica and Trinidad were a reflecUon of the simHarities and dissimilarities in their respective situations. The conclusion derived suggests that If the foreign pol1cy field as an arena of choice, Is indeed one of opportunities and constraints for each and every state, then poHcy makers of smaU, weak, hlghW penetrated and vulnerable states enter thlS arena with constraints outweighing opportunities. This places effective limits 00 their decisional latitude and the range of policy options avaUable. Policy makers thus have to decide critical issues with few estabUshed precedents, in the face of domestic social and political cleavages, as wen as serious foreign pressures. This is a reflection not only of the trappings of dependence, but also of the Umned capabilities arising from the sman size of the state, and the Impact of the resource-gap In an underdeveloped economy. The Trinidadian strategy 1s UlustraUve of a development strategy made viable through a combination of a fortuitous circumstance, a confluence of the interests of influential groups» and accurate perception on the part of poUcy makers. These factors enabled policy makers to minimise some of the constraints of dependence. The faUure of Manlets strategy on the other hand, 15 iHustraUve of the problems involved tn the adoption of poUcles that work against the interest of internal and external political and economic forces. It is also tUustraUve of the consequences of the faUure 00 the part of policy makers to clarify goals, and to reconcile the values of rapid economic growth with increased self-reliance and national autonomy. These values tend to be mutuany Incompatible given the existing patterns of relations in the jnternational economy.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The claim of Amasa Stetson, of Massachusetts, on the United States, for money advanced, in fulfilling the orders of the Government while discharging the duties of Commissary General of Purchases, in time of the late war with Great Britain ; and for services rendered. --

Claim relating to the War of 1812.