bassador at Paris, in the year 1784; but no correspondent disposition being shown by England, this second overture failed.

Cunning of the British Policy. "The interest and prejudice of those who were benefited by the monopolies and exclusive system of England were opposed to any treaty with this country, on the principle of reciprocal advantage. The political writers of that day, under the influence of these partial views, or not sufficiently appreciating the true theory of commerce,1 contended that it would be folly to enter into engagements by which England might not wish to be bound in future ; that such engagements would be gratuitous; as, according to their interpretation, Congress possessed no power, under the Confederation, to enforce any stipulation into which they might enter; that no treaty that could be made would suit all the States; if any were necessary, they should be made with the States separately; but that none were necessary; and those who talked of liberality' and 'reciprocity' in commercial affairs were either without argument or knowledge; that the object of England was not reciprocity and liberality, but to raise as many sailors and as much shipping as possible. (Sheffield, Chalmers, and Knox.)

"This unequal footing of our foreign commerce, and the language made use of by England at this juncture, served still more to increase the public discontent; especially as it was plainly avowed that England ought to render the trade with us as exclusively advantageous to herself as her power would enable her to do. Congress having no such power under the Confederation to impose countervailing and other corrective regulations of trade, the States separately attempted to establish regulations on this subject. But, as a part only of the States joined in this measure, and as the laws that were passed for this purpose differed from each other, the experiment completely failed.

"In this condition of our navigation and our trade, subject

1 Senator King was too charitable, or too diplomatic, in his explanation of conduct. The evidence is clear to the student of history that the British people and Government never intended that the United States should become a nation, or develop any power at sea.

to foreign restrictions, without a power at home to countervail and check the same, Congress resolved to make another effort to conclude a commercial treaty with England. For this purpose Mr. Adams, since President of the United States, was appointed, and went to England. He resided there for several years, but found and left the Government unchanged, and equally as before disinclined to make with us a treaty of com

merce.

"This further disappointment, with the depreciating condition of our navigation and trade, joined to the embarrassment of the public finances, produced what no inferior pressure could have done; it produced the General Convention of 1787, that formed the Constitution of the United States.

"Had England entered into a liberal treaty of commerce with the United States, this Convention would not have been assembled. Without so intending it, the adherence of England to her unequal and exclusive system of trade and navigation gave to this country a Constitution; and the countervailing and equalizing bill now before the Senate, arising from the same cause, may assist us in establishing and extending those great branches of national wealth and power which we have such constant and urgent motives to encourage."

The Barrenness of Treaties. Here a single observation may be made. If England by her antagonism and churlishness gave to our country its Constitution, she also gave to us our early marine, which, but for the Constitution, had never been. With the most liberal treaty that our own people could have made, we would never had a marine to cope with the British. No treaty could do more than to put us on an equal footing at the Custom House. It would be unequal everywhere else—at the freight market, the underwriter's office, at the bank, at the office of the consignee, on 'Change, etc. Our Government had no Navy or other means of defending our maritime rights; we had no prestige on the sea, nor was our flag known by the nations of the world. We were poor as a people, had always been imposed upon; all we had ever accomplished was the nominal Independence that England meant one day to recover and redeem. After all our experience with nations, and with all our

sus

knowledge of the forces which control the commerce of the world, we should discount immensely the faith of our fathers in treaties. To the present day we have no "liberal commercial treaty" with Great Britain, AND WE NEED NONE. All we need is our freedom to apply our Constitution to the regulation of our trade. England now has this freedom tied uppended, nullified. We have given this freedom into her charge. Beginning now, for one year to come, we have no more power to regulate our trade with respect to Great Britain than we had under the Articles of Confederation. For one of its principal objects, our boasted Constitution has suffered emasculation. It is not a certainty that our liberty will ever be regained, or that we will ever have a marine of our own again for our foreign trade as the fruits of an early passion for the restraints of treaties. And the "treaty" that binds our hands is thus described by Senator King: "The treaty of Ghent (Dec. 1814) was followed by a meagre Commercial Convention, made at London, and limited, in its duration, to a few years only." Afterward he adverts to this "convention as follows:

"And the expectation since entertained that a more enlarged and equal treaty of commerce and navigation, applicable, in its provisions, to peace as well as war, might be substituted in place of the present Commercial Convention, has hitherto suspended the interference of Congress."

But the treaty so much desired was never made. Instead, the "meagre Convention" was extended, and when the West Indies were opened afterward, it was by Act of Parliament on one side, and by Act of Congress on the other.

King's Conclusion and the Vote. "If this bill becomes a law, it must be followed up by ulterior provisions, if requisite to give it complete effect. Either the intercourse must be reciprocally beneficial, or it must not be suffered to exist."

Mr. Macon, of Ga., spoke in support of the bill; after which the question was taken on engrossment and third reading and determined in the affirmative-yeas, 32; nays, 1. The next day -April 4-on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" the yeas were 31, and the nays, 2. The yea votes were from nine Northern and nine Southern states; the nay votes from one

Northern and one Southern state. They objected to the mode, not to the principle.

In the House, this bill was reported from the Committee of the Whole without amendment, and put on passage for third reading. Mr. Pitkin "spoke more than an hour for its support." On ordering to third reading the vote was, yeas, 123; nays, 16. It was forthwith read a third time and passed," and became law for years afterwards. Being firmly adhered to, it accomplished its purpose.

The unanimity shown in the vote upon this bill, if it could be commanded now in support of proper means for the refloating of our flag at sea, would cause more respect for the name and fame of the United States than the world has ever yet accorded. Such a manifestation of strength as well as resolution would prove a happy augury of success.

CHAPTER XV.

EXTENSION OF RECIPROCITY BY ACTS AND CONVENTIONS.

Principles of Our First Treaty of Commerce. Our first treaty of amity and commerce was made with the United Netherlands, October 8, 1782, our Commissioner being John Adams. It was ratified by the Continental Congress and proclaimed January 23, 1783. It was made with the thirteen United States of America by name, in this respect setting a precedent, which Great Britain refused to follow. The principles of this treaty, set forth in its preamble, read thus: —

The contracting parties" desiring to ascertain in a permanent and equitable manner, the rules to be observed relative to the commerce and correspondence which they intend to establish between their respective States, countries, and inhabitants, have judged that the said end cannot be better obtained than by establishing the most perfect equality and reciprocity for the basis of their agreements, and by avoiding all those burdensome preferences which are usually the sources of debate, embarrassment, and discontent; by leaving also each party at liberty to make, respecting commerce and navigation, such ulterior regulations as it shall find most convenient to itself, and by founding the advantages of commerce solely upon reciprocal utility and the just rules of free intercourse; reserving withal to each party the liberty of admitting at its pleasure other nations to a participation of the same advantages.'

Respecting duties and imposts of the two nations these were to be the same to each other as for the "most favored nation."

The treaty with Sweden in the following year, made by Benjamin Franklin, for the "thirteen United States of North America," was drawn upon the same lines in respect to preamble and articles.