APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

gether. This is true, and she had a right to prevent the trade to London, and the United States have a right to interdict her trade to this country. But, he would ask, if there be no relaxation of these rights, of what advantage is the Treaty ? The very object of a Commercial Treaty is a reciprocal indulgence in the exercise of these rights, and the peculiar dependence of those Islands upon the United States for their very subsistence, would command a participation in that trade, if properly used.

The resort to the United States for supplies to facilitate the present operations in the West Indies, is a striking evidence of the importance of the United States to their existence.

It has been observed, that the Spanish Treaty has not opened the Spanish Islands to the United States. This is true, and it would have been a desirable thing if it had effected this object. But it should be recollected, that the United States have made no commercial concessions to Spain, and that the Treaty does not profess to contain any material commercial regulations.

[H. OF R.

bor in the said Territories, or if they should be permitted in manner aforesaid, to go to any other place therein, shall always be subject to the laws, government, and jurisdiction of whatsoever nature established in such harbor, port, or place, according as the same may be. The citizens of the United States may also touch for refreshment at the Island of St. Helena, but subject in all respects to such regulations as the British Government may from time to time establish there.”

The 14th article relates to the commerce and navigation of the two countries generally, and will be passed over without remark.

The 15th article was, in his judgment, highly objectionable.

This article restrains the United States from imposing upon British goods higher duties, &c., than upon those of other foreign nations. It authorizes Great Britain to equalize the existing unequal duties between the American and British bottoms, and restrains the United States from reviving the existing inequality. One objection to this article is, that it abandons, without an equivalent, the advantages resulting from the peculiar nature of the trade carried on between the United States and Great Britain. This trade consists, on the part of the United States, mostly of raw materials, which employ the artisans of Britain, and on the part of Britain, of the manufacture of artisaus in the most finished state; and, in addition, there is always a large specie balance against the United States and in favor of Great Britain. It is calculated that the United States furnish a mar

The 13th article contained regulations for the East India trade. This article has been held up as an apology for all the commercial defects of the Treaty. He did not pretend to be perfectly acquainted with the nature of this trade; but, as far as he understood the explanation of the advantages of this article, he could not concur in the result. The common remark is, that this article secures to the United States a right which before was a courtesy. This remark possesses some plausi-ket for at least one-third of the whole surplus bility, but no substance; what is called courtesy, is trade founded upon the interest of the parties. He believed that a courtesy in trade, the basis of which is the interest of the party granting it, is a better security than forced regulations by Treaty, without the basis of interest for their support.

manufactures of Great Britain, and for this the most suitable returns for the British market are made. The loss of so valuable a market could not be supplied in any part of the world. It would naturally be supposed that a trade so favorable would be entitled to some indulgence on the part It is admitted that the trade to the East Indies, of the nation receiving the favor, and would combefore this Treaty, was extremely lucrative, and mand some respect to the nation affording it, proof course could not be the effect of the Treaty. vided it had energy enough to avail itself of the But the restrictive and monopolizing hand of Great advantage; but by this article it is abandoned Britain is seen to extend itself, even to this branch with a nominal, but no real equivalent. This of commerce, in the prohibition of the exporta- consideration is greatly strengthened by extendtion of East India articles to an European marketing it to the peculiar nature of the trade between in American bottoms-which is a restriction the United States and the West Indies, which has which does not now exist, and is another restric- been already remarked upon. tion upon the citizens of the United States trading thence, which, in his opinion, will lessen very much the boasted security of right under this article whenever the interest of the East India Company would justify the prohibition of that trade. The restrictions alluded to are in the following words:

"Neither is this article to be construed to allow the citizens of the said States to settle or reside within the said Territories, or to go into the interior parts thereof, without the permission of the British Government established there; and if any transgression should be attempted against the regulations of the British Government in this respect, the observance of the same shall and may be enforced against the citizens of America in the same manner as against British subjects or others transgressing the same rule. And the citizens of the United States whenever they arrive in any port or har

Upon this ground, the discrimination in favor of American over British bottoms, has been built; and the growth of American shipping has very considerably increased, in consequence of this policy. Our experience, therefore, is bartered away without even the probable calculation of a countervailing advantage.

The apology made for this article, that the United States have granted no right to Britain which she did not possess before, is entirely delusive. It may be true that no new right of sovereignty is granted to Great Britain; but she is now less at liberty to exercise a right without hazard, by a restriction imposed upon the United States, and which she had failed to exercise until this restriction was imposed. It is remarkable, from the whole complexion of the Treaty, that the advantages gained by Great Britain consist in

restrictions imposed upon the United States, as if her object was to restrain the United States in the exercise of their rights of sovereignty.

The 16th article related only to the appointment of Consuls, and does not require notice.

[April, 1796.

It is the assent to the principle which constitutes the disgrace, and this injury to the United States. If other terms could not have been procured, French property in American bottoms might have been left to the ordinary operation of the Laws of Nations, without an explicit and invidious stipulation for its seizure and condemnation.

The 18th article defines contraband goods. There was a common, but just objection, made in this article, to wit: that the contraband list was extended, and that several articles were added, which were never admitted before to be contraband. It is to be observed that all these additional articles are amongst the exports of the United States, while most, or perhaps all of them, are amongst the exports of Great Britain. This circumstance proves that the reciprocity assumed by this article, is delusive, and that the advantage is wholly in favor of Great Britain. This article contains, also, some regulations respecting the seizure of provisions in American vessels, under certain circumstances, which are extremely equivocal and suspicious. He said, he presumed this

The 17th article was, in his opinion, objectionable in many respects. It yields a formal assent to the seizure and condemnation of enemy's property on board of American vessels. He had expected to have heard this article apologized for, and not justified. But he was surprised to hear it asserted that it was problemetical whether the admission of this principle would be for the advantage or disadvantage of the United States. This was throwing the article into a problem, without attempting to solve it. It was discarding the exercise of the reasoning faculty. From the peculiar situation of the United States in their relations to the rest of the world, the establishment of the principle that neutral vessels shall give freedom for their cargoes, is to them of primary importance of course, the United States have sedulously exerted themselves in all their foreign negotiations to have that principle formally admit-article had furnished the pretext to Great Britain ted as the Law of Nations. In every other Trea- for issuing the late order for seizing American ty entered into by the United States, this princi- vessels bound with provisions to France. He ple has been carefully inserted. A formal assent would not pretend to say that the article justified to the contrary doctrine will probably produce a a construction which might give rise to the order; retrograde effort upon all former exertions, which but the existence of such an order since the signwill require a great length of time to counteract. ing of the Treaty is universally admitted; but he In the relations between the United States and would assert that, whether the order was to be Great Britain, the principle is peculiarly import- considered as the practical construction of this arant. Great Britain possesses the most formidable ticle, or an infraction of it, or an infraction of the fleet in existence, and is at least one-half her time neutrality of the United States in any respect, it at war. The United States have an extended might be attended with the most serious consecommerce, without the protection of a fleet, and quences. If this invasion of the neutral rights is from her remote situation from Europe, the great to be the first fruits of the Treaty, the most scene of war, as well as from the genius of the alarming results may be expected from its further American people, are not likely to be involved in operation. The Executive of the United States European contests. Hence, the disadvantage of have declared that even the permission of this the United States from this stipulation will be in conduct by one of the belligerent Powers is a proportion to the greater probability of their re-breach of neutrality against the other; and, of maining free from war than Great Britain, and, in proportion to their more defenceless state of commerce. There exists another forcible reason which ought to have prevented this stipulation: its necessary operation upon the present belligerent Powers.

course, a just cause of war from the injured nation. This doctrine is so clearly established in a letter from Mr. JEFFERSON, written by order of the PRESIDENT to Mr. Pinckney, dated 7th September, 1793, that he would beg the indulgence of the Committee in reading two or three paragraphs from the letter. It is in the following words:

Under this article, French goods in American bottoms are made subject to British seizure and "This act, too, tends directly to draw us from that condemnation; but British goods in American state of peace, in which we are wishing to remain. It bottoms are free from French seizure and con- is an essential character of neutrality, to furnish no aids demnation. This was an evident partiality in fa- (not stipulated by Treaty) to one party, which we are vor of Britain against France, which, in his opi- not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we pernion, could hardly be warranted by the species of mit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we neutrality proclaimed by the Executive as are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain isting state of the nation. It was not only a neu-France, and between restraining it ourselves, and perit, would be a partiality which might lead to war with trality, but an impartial neutrality. If a devia-mitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully, is no diftion from the first line of impartial neutrality ference. She would consider this as a mere pretext, of could be in one case justifiable, he thought every which she would not be the dupe, and on what honorAmerican feeling would have inclined to favorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus, we the cause of liberty, and not the cause of despotism.

the ex

He said, it was no apology for this article, to say that an article upon the opposite principle could not be obtained. Then let none be obtained.

could see ourselves plunged, by this unauthorized act of Great Britain, into a war, with which we meddle not, and which we wish to avoid, if justice to all parties and from all parties, will enable us to avoid it. In the case where we found ourselves obliged, by Treaty, to with

hold from the enemies of France, the right of arming in our ports, we thought ourselves, in justice, bound to withhold the same right from France, also; and we did it. Were we to withhold from her supplies of provisions, we should, in like manner, be bound to withhold them from her enemies also, and thus shut to ourselves all the ports of Europe, where corn is in demand, or make ourselves parties in the war. This is a dilemma which Great Britain has no right to force upon us, and for which no pretext can be found in any part of our conduct. She may, indeed, feel the desire of starving an enemy nation; but she can give no right of doing it at our loss, nor of making us the instrument of it."

[H. OF R.

zens from entering into foreign service within the United States, and applies equally to all foreign Powers. But Great Britain, not contented with this fair and just regulation, has extended this provision, so far as regards herself, beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, and entirely destroys the impartiality and neutrality of the existing legal provision. What is the operation of this article upon the belligerent Powers? It is this: An American citizen entering into the French service, out of the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, against Great Britain, is punishable. An American citizen entering into the British After this unequivocal declaration made by the service, under the same circumstances, is not punExecutive of the United States, what plea could ishable. Besides, it is a prohibition upon Ameribe made to the French Government to justify an can citizens which has never been inposed upon acquiescence in this conduct of Great Britain? the subject or citizen of any nation, as far as he Whether it be the result of the construction of the could recollect. But the practice of entering into Treaty, or an infraction of it, what apology could foreign service has at all times been resorted to as this House make for giving efficacy to the Treaty affording the best military education. When it before some satisfactory explanation was made is recollected that this article is to continue in upon the subject? Suppose the Republic of France force for only two years after the termination of were to approach the Executive of the United the present European war; that there is no proStates with this letter in her hand, and say, "Here bability of the United States being, during that is your own declaration of your own neutrality; period, engaged in an European war; and that you have unkindly departed from the principles this article is in no respect connected with the avowed by yourself, in favor of my enemy. You professed objects of negotiation; has not the stiseem to have concurred in a scheme for distress-pulation too much the appearance, as well as the ing a whole nation by withholding supplies of pro-effect, of interfering in the present European quarvisions, when a better office might have been ex-rel, and evincing a partiality for the interests of pected from the United States." Suppose a similar appeal were to be made to this House, whilst deliberating upon the expediency or inexpediency of giving efficacy to the new Treaty, which is used by Great Britain to sanctify her conduct; what reply could be made in either case? Is any gentleman who is disposed to carry the Treaty The 22d article stipulates that notice shall be into effect, prepared to give a satisfactory answer given before acts of reprisal, &c., shall be authoto so just and so interesting a complaint? Accord-rized by either of the contracting parties, which ing to the very principles avowed by the Executive, rather than give no cause of umbrage to Great Britain, we give just cause of war to France. Yet, it has been said, that it would be disgraceful to the nation not to give efficacy to an instrument containing this disgraceful concession. It is not sufficient to say, that the Republic of France will not avail herself of this breach of neutrality, and enter into hostilities against the United States. It is sufficient to show that the United States, by the execution of this Treaty under this construction, will furnish just cause for such a conduct; and, if this be not the just interpretation of the instrument, no disgrace can be greater than to execute a Treaty with a nation at the very moment she is engaged in its infraction.

The 19th article contains some regulations respecting privateers which required no comment. The 20th article respected the punishment of pirates, which was not material.

The 21st article pronibits American citizens from entering into any foreign service against Great Britain, and defines piracies. He would remark, that there is an existing law in the United States upon this subject, which operates equally towards all the belligerent Powers. This act extends no further than to prohibit American citi

Great Britain, in violation of our professions of an impartial neutrality? And can this conduct be justified, either from the nature of the cause in which France is engaged, or from the good offices rendered by that great nation to the United States?

was proper.

The 23d article was that in which he expected to have found some provisions for the protection of American seamen against British impressments; instead of this humane and salutary provision, he found that the officers and crews of those very ships of war, &c., engaged in the unauthorized impressments, are to be hospitably received in the ports of the United States, and a proper respect to be paid to those officers according to their respective ranks. Strange substitute, this, for the protection of American seamen! This article is rendered more aggravating, by the practice of the British in impressing American seamen since the signing of this very Treaty, whilst the table of the House is almost laboring with evidence of this fact; whilst the fact is not denied by any gentleman on this floor-in the very same breath in which a bill has been passed for the protection and relief of this valuable class of citizens, is the House called upon to make provisions for effectuating a Treaty of Amity, &c., with the nation committing these wrongs!-with a nation refusing to respect any evidence of protection which could be afforded to this description of citizens by the Government of the United States, and an alarm and wonder is excited, because the House,

H. OF R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

under these circumstances, should deliberate upon making the provision!

The 24th article prohibits the arming of ships, by other foreign nations, in the ports of the United States, and selling their prizes; and restrains the United States from selling them more provisions than would be necessary to carry them to the next port of the nation to which they belong. Although he could see no propriety in these stipulations, particularly at this time, he would pass them over without remark.

The 25th article deserved two remarks: The first was, that it accommodates Great Britain in her scheme of privateering against France, and evidenced the same temper with several other articles towards the belligerent Powers, which has been remarked upon. The other grew out of the general clause of reservation which it contained. The clause he alluded to is in the following words:

"Nothing in this Treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public Treaties with other sovereigns or States. But the two parties agree that while they continue in amity neither of them will in future make any Treaty that shall be inconsistent with this or the preceding article."

[APRIL, 1796.

others of each of the two countries residing in the other shall have time to remove with their effects, &c.; which was in every respect proper.

The 27th article provides for reciprocally giving up certain fugitives from justice; which was not objectionable.

The 28th article respects the time of the duration of the Treaty.

He said, that having examined the Treaty at large, with candor, and with the best judgment he possessed, he found in it so much to condemn, and so little to applaud, and some of the objectionable parts were so formidable in themselves, that it was wonderful to him that the Treaty should have found an advocate, upon its mere merits, in the United States. Viewing the subject as he did, and believing it his duty to exercise his discretion upon it, nothing contained in it could justify him in giving his vote for the necessary provisions to give it efficacy.

sarily eventuate in a total dissolution of the Government itself. The other, a war with Great Britain. He said, that if either of these consequences would result, he would vote for the necessary provisions, although the vote would be more against his feelings than any vote he had ever before given. Whether either of these consequences would result cannot be positively ascertained but by experiment. The subject, however, like all others, was susceptible of a certain degree of reasoning and calculation.

Mr. G., after apologizing for the time he had already consumed, proceeded to consider the probable consequences of refusing, or giving efficacy to the Treaty. Gentlemen in favor of making the provision had suggested two consequences resulting from a refusal, of a very serious nature. From this reservation it is evident that all the The one, what is termed by them the hostility of articles which affect the present belligerent Pow-departments of Government, which would necesers, are intended as constructive of the Treaty between the United States and France; and the construction is so made as to operate most injuriously to France, and most advantageously to Great Britain. Indeed, this construction seems to have bound so hard upon the French Treaty, in the opinion of both negotiators, that they, probably apprehending that it might in some respect be deemed a positive infraction of that Treaty, thought it necessary to insert this sovereign clause. He said that the whole of the stipulations which affect the present belligerent Powers were the most reprehensible interferences in the Europoan quarrel, for the following reasons: First, they are wholly unnecessary, because they are totally disconnected with the objects of negotiation between the two countries, and with the usual and natural orders of commerce, and of course must be deemed voluntary on the part of the United States. Second, the interest of the United States could not be contemplated, because there is no probability of their being engaged in a naval war in two years after the termination of the present war, at which time these stipulations are to cease; of course, the accommodation was intended for the present war, in which the United States are not engaged, and not for a future war in which they may be engaged. Third, because it is a dishonorable deviation from that impartial neutrality professed by the United States in favor of a nation the least of all others entitled to the accommodations of the United States, and against a nation the most of all others entitled to them. Fourth, it voluntarily hazards the resentment and hostility of a nation, which, if exerted, might produce to the United States the most serious calamities.

The 26th article provides that, in case of war between the two countries, the merchants and

It should be recollected that the House is now engaged in the exercise of its Constitutional rights. It is called upon to make provision for carrying into effect the British Treaty. Two things naturally present themselves to its consideration: the one, the expediency of the object of expenditure itself, for which the appropriation is required; the second, the ways and means of raising the money. It has been settled by the House, that both are within the Constitutional discretion of the House. The PRESIDENT would deprive the House of the right of judging of the expediency of the expendicure, and limits its discretion to the ways and means of furnishing the supplies. This point being previously settled, he should not enlarge upon it. He proposed to give the history of the rise and progress of the Treaty. He would be correct as to facts, and precise as to dates. Very shortly after Great Britain became a party to the war against France, the PRESIDENT proclaimed the United States to be in a state of impartial neutrality. The Proclamation was dated 22d of April, 1793. An attempt had been made, and was at that time continued, to terminate the differences which subsisted between the United States and Great Britain, growing out of the inexecution of the Treaty of Peace. This attempt proved un

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[H. or R

He further took

successful. On the 16th of June, 1793, Great Bri- of our own Government; and, in short, to reduce us to tain issued an order, which affected the rights of the present situation of France, a misfortune which he neutral vessels. This order, and the acts commit- deprecated, as well for our sakes, as for the common ted under it, served to increase the causes of dis- welfare and tranquility of mankind. pute between the two countries. On the meeting occasion to observe, with respect to the conduct of our of Congress, in the succeeding Fall, the PRESIDENT Government, in maintaining our neutrality, that, alcommunicated to them all the negotiations which though there were some matters with which this Governhad taken place between the two countries, inti- ment was not perfectly satisfied, (and to which, for the mated that negotiations did not promise a favor-same reason, they refrained from giving that opposition able issue, and that it was left with Congress to from the general tenor of the conduct of our Governthey thought they would be justified in doing,) yet, say what further was to be done. In this critical ment, they were convinced it was their desire to mainsituation of affairs, Congress took the subject into tain a full neutrality, which was an additional motive consideration. Great Britain was, at that time at for their present conduct." least, considered as the aggressing nation. The It is to be remarked, that on the 8th January first measure of self-protection proposed was a re- the revocation of the hostile order of the 6th Nostriction of the commerce of Great Britain with vember took place, and on the next day after an the United States. This measure was objected apology for the acknowledged indelicacy of interto, as being too strong as a commercial measure, fering in the internal affairs of a foreign Governand too weak as a political one. As far, however, ment, Lord Grenville modestly undertakes to inas a vote was taken upon it, a majority of the termeddle with the affairs of the United States. House appeared in favor of that proceeding. On It had always been a matter of surprise to him the 6th of November, 1793, an additional order that the American Minister should have listened was issued, the purport of which was, to take and to such a communication, and still more surprising bring to legal adjudication all neutral vessels that it should have met with a favorable reception bound to French ports. This additional evidence in the United States. But the fact is, that on the of hostility gave rise to three other measures: the 19th of April, 1794, the Chief Justice was taken one was an embargo for a limited time, which was from the exercise of his Judicial duties, and nomieffected; the second was the suspension of com-nated Envoy Extraordinary to Great Britain, mercial intercourse between the United States during the pendency of two of the beforemenand Great Britain; the third, a sequestration, or tioned propositions in the House of Representarather the arrestation, of debts due to British sub- tives. The House of Representatives proceeded jects. The proposition for the arrestation of debts to pass the bill for the suspension of commercial was moved the 27th March; the proposition for intercourse, on the 25th of April, by an uncomthe suspension of intercourse, 7th April, 1794. monly large majority; and on the 27th of April On the 4th of April, 1794, the PRESIDENT laid be- the bill was negatived by the Senate, upon the fore the House a communication from Mr. Pinck-casting vote of the VICE PRESIDENT. The effect ney, Minister from the United States to Great Britain, containing a conversation between Mr. Pinckney and Lord Grenville, of a very extraordinary nature, which always appeared to him to be the ground-work of the change which shortly afterwards took place in the conduct of the Executive of the United States towards the House of Representatives. The part of the communication alluded to is in the following words:

"Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, dated the 9th of January, 1794—

of this vote was a discontinuance of the embargo, and an abandonment of all the other measures proposed for self-protection. In these facts will be seen the commencement of what gentlemen call the hostility of departments, but what he should term the due exercise of the checks provided by the Constitution; and if it is to be traced to this source, the House of Representatives will evidently appear not to be the aggressor. The House viewing their measures defeated by the Constitutional check, acquiesced in the de"Lord Grenville answered that the only reason for cision without a murmur. Now they are told, if renewing them was, lest the present instruction, being the House should exercise its Constitutional check, a revocation of that of the 6th of November, might also a dissolution of the Government would necessabe deemed to revoke these articles, which were connect- rily ensue. This conclusion seemed to him withed with it. His Lordship then explained the motives out foundation, and ought not to be brought into which had induced his Government to issue the present calculation in estimating the present question. instruction. The first, he said, was the sincere desire The Treaty itself was concluded on the 28th Ocof the Administration to maintain the best understand-tober, 1794. It was communicated to this House ing and harmony with the United States. The second was, what he could not mention to me officially, but what he still thought it right I should be apprised of, that no misconception of their motive might be entertained; that he was aware of the delicacy of speaking to a foreign Minister concerning the internal state of his country, neither would he expect an answer from me on the subject; but that their second reason was, by this conduct, to take away every pretext from evil persons among us, who, according to the intelligence he had received, were endeavoring to irritate our people against Great Britain, as well as to oppose the measures

the 1st of March, 1796, having on the same day been promulgated by Proclamation, declaring it obligatory.

from an intimation of Lord Grenville, which had He remarked, that the Treaty had originated always excited his apprehension; it was commenced against the known sense of the House of Representatives, and every step of its progression seemed to have been marked with peculiar coercion. When a British Minister undertakes to declare that the motive for the revocation of the