man from Pennsylvania [Mr. MACLAY] had laid a resolution upon the table, calculated to defeat the execution of the Treaty. And what was this for? Because the PRESIDENT Would not bend his will to a majority of that House. And what were they now debating upon? Had not the discussion been solicited by the majority of that House? It was, and he would venture to say, there never was before an instance of a majority wishing to convince a minority. If gentlemen were determined to destroy the Treaty, let them come forward and do it. Why waste so much precious time and money unnecessarily ?

The will of the people was expressed in the Constitution, and he hoped it would be obeyed; for, if it was not, the consequence would be dreadful. When he left home, three fourths of the people were against the Treaty, but now, by letters he had received, a very large majority wished it to be carried into effect, seeing that the peace, the happiness, and the prosperity of the country depended upon it.

[H. or R.

it with our Treaties with other nations, and those between Great Britain and other nations; the result of this inquiry was, that he found that no privilege or advantage given by Great Britain to other nations was withheld from us; that advantages were secured to us which were enjoyed by no other nation, nor even by her own subjects; that we gave her little that was not enjoyed by every other nation; and, on the whole, that it was as good a Treaty as we had a right to expect, and as he had ever expected to obtain. He was sensible that prejudice, which, like a sentinel at the door of the human mind to keep out truth and argument, had induced many good citizens of the United States at first to be opposed to the Treaty, who, upon being prevailed on to give it a more candid examination, had declared in favor of it; but he hoped the Representatives of the people, called to decide on a question which might affect the dearest interests of millions, would, as much as possible, divest themselves of prejudice and passion to do it entirely, he believed, was impossible.

What were the arguments of gentlemen? Because the PRESIDENT has refused to send them cer- The first, and, if well-founded, the most imtain papers that were asked for, they were deter-portant objection which he had heard made against mined to destroy the Treaty. Was this acting the Treaty was, that a claim for negroes and other like the Representatives of a free people? Be- property carried away from New York had been cause if they were of opinion the PRESIDENT had wholly overlooked or given up by our Minister. done wrong, should they do wrong also? Did they Here, he said, he was sensible any argument he ever know that two wrongs made a right? might adduce would be opposed by the party opinThe instrument should be taken up fairly, and ions formed at the time-when judging in our the question should be solely met upon the ground own case, and when we felt a great degree of senof public advantage. If it was thought for the sibility for the losses and injuries we had recently advantage of the United States to destroy the experienced. He was not unapprised that ConTreaty and take the consequences, he must sur-gress had claimed that the construction of the 7th render his opinion to the will of a majority. He gloried to join in a majority. He had never desired a man in the majority to change his opinion. Why, then, is it said the minority wanted to cram the Treaty down the majority's throats? But he would beg gentlemen to pause for a moment; for it was well known that men of sense may sometimes be so far prejudiced in their own opinions, as not to be able to see the truth. He believed every member acted as he thought was for the best, but prejudice might have laid too fast a hold upon some of them. He hoped they should act for the benefit of the Union at large; and if so, he hoped gentlemen who had voted for opening the Mississippi would take a view of the river St. Lawrence, the Lakes, and New York. He hoped, however, the business would be settled with candor, and if so, he trusted harmony and confidence would be the consequence.

When Mr. WILLIAMS had concludedMr. HILLHOUSE rose and said, the subject now under consideration was one of the first in magnitude he had ever been called to deliberate upon, and that the circumstances under which it came up were peculiar, for, previous to the Treaty's being either promulgated or known, a hue-and-cry had been raised, and the prejudices of the people as much as possible excited against it, and he confessed it had not been without its effect upon his own mind. When the Treaty came out, therefore, he was led to examine it with attention, compare

article of the Treaty was such as to require the delivering up of the negroes, and had passed the resolution read by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. HEATH,] and that that opinion had, without examination, been implicitly followed by many respectable characters; but he hoped, at this distance of time, he might expect a candid hearing, whilst he examined their arguments and the Law of Nations, to which alone resort can be had to decide differences between sovereign and independent nations. To his mind they were conclusive that we had not a well-founded claim; to every mind, he believed, they would render the claim at least doubtful.

His first inquiry, he said, should be, whether negroes were to be considered as property? This, he believed, must be admitted: they were thus recognised by the article itself, which says "negroes or other property." Negroes being mentioned amounts only to a specification of one kind of property; as, in the Constitution, it says "capitation or other direct taxes," which is a conclusive recognition that a capitation tax is a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution. Upon no other ground than that of property could the United States claim them; as men, they had a right to go where they pleased. Our Commissioners, at the time of the embarkation, had no hesitation in declaring that they considered "negroes, horses, and other property," as being precisely on the same footing, and selected a claim

H. OF R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

for a horse as one of the strongest that could be found to enforce a compliance with this construction of the article. The claim was in these words: "Mr. Vanderburgh had a horse stolen from him, out of his stable in Beekman's Precinct, in Dutchess county, 26th February, 1780, and the horse was conveyed by the person who stole him to a then British post, in Westchester county, where he has since been detained; so that Mr. Vanderburgh could not recover him again. The horse is now in the possession of Col. James De Launcy, of this city, from whom Mr. Vanderburgh has demanded him, and who refuses to deliver him to Mr. Vanderburgh."

In the letter of the Commissioners to General WASHINGTON, on this subject, they say:

[APRIL, 1796.

been intended they should be again returned into bondage, there would have been some express stipulation to that effect in the Treaty. The words are, "and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies," &c. There is nothing that indicates the least intention that this article should have a retrospective operation. It can only relate to property then belonging to the American inhabitants. Wherever any article was intended to have a retrospective operation, some expression is used that clearly shows such intention. In this same article, speaking of delivering up records, dee Is, &c., these words are added, "which in the course of "In the interview between the 15th and 24th, num- the war may have fallen into the hands of his bers applied to us for a restitution of their negroes and officers," &c. In the 4th article, “debts heretofore other property in the possession of others, but we sup- contracted." Any other construction would have posed it most eligible to defer a requisition till a clear required the restoration of vessels which had been unequivocal case, similar to that of Mr. Vanderburgh's, taken from the Americans, and were then in New where the proofs were at hand and not embarrassed York, under the term "other property," as well with the circumstances of a capture in war or other pre-as negroes and horses. If any negroes or other tences under which property is withheld here, should property, in the possession of the American inpresent itself; sensible that if restitution was denied in habitants at or after signing the preliminary artisuch an instance, it would inevitably be in every other." cles, were carried off, it was no doubt a violation It therefore appears clear that negroes, horses, of the Treaty, but he had not understood that they and other property, were, by this article, placed refused to deliver up property of that description, upon the same footing, and that it was as much a or that such property was carried off to any great violation of the Treaty to carry away a horse

negro.

as a

He next proceeded to inquire what was the situation of this property, and in whom, according to the Law of Nations, it was vested at the time of executing the Treaty? This point, he said, Mr. JEFFERSON had fully settled to his hand, and read out of his collection the following extracts:

"We now come together (says Mr. Jefferson) to consider that instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new chapter in our history. The state in which they found things is to be considered as rightful; so says the Law of Nations.-Vattel. The state in which things are found at the moment of the Treaty, should be considered as lawful, and if it is meant to make any change in it, the Treaty must expressly mention it. Consequently, all things about which the Treaty is silent, must remain in the state in which they are found at its conclusion.-Bynk. Since it is a condition of war that enemies may be deprived of all their rights it is reasonable that every thing of an enemy's, found among his enemies, should change its owners, and go to the Treasury. It is morcover usually directed, in all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well those found among us as those taken in war, shall be confiscated."

of

These authorities, he said, clearly proved that all negroes and other property which in the course of the war had been taken, or in any way had fallen into the hands of the British, had shifted their owner, and were no longer the property the American inhabitants. In the case of negroes, the British Commander-in-Chief had exercised the highest act of ownership, by manumitting such of them as should conform to certain stipulations, pointed out in his proclamation. If any change was intended to have been made by the Treaty in the circumstances of these negroes, and it had

amount.

But this matter does not rest only on there being no words in the Treaty which can be construed to have a retrospective operation, but it is fairly to be inferred from the papers contained in this same collection of Mr. JEFFERSON, that it was so understood by the negotiators; for, in the course of that negotiation, it appears to have been a prirestitution of the Tory estates, or compensation mary object with the British Minister to obtain for them. They almost made a sine qua non, and negotiation; and to induce the British Minister a refusal to comply had well nigh broken off the to relinquish that article, our Commissioners which had been taken, and towns and villages brought in a claim for negroes and other property which had been destroyed during the war. He here read the following letter from Mr. Oswald, the British Minister, to our Commissioners, viz:

"You may remember, that from the very beginning of our negotiation for settling a peace between Great Britain and America, I insisted that you should positively stipulate for the restoration of the property of all those under the denomination of Loyalists or Refugees, who have taken part with Great Britain in the present war; or if the property had been resold, and passed into such variety of hands as to render the restoration impracticable, (which you assert to be the case in many instances,) you should stipulate for a compensation or indemnification to those persons adequate to their losses. To those propositions, you said, you could not accede. ously joined me in insisting upon the said restitution, Mr. Stachey, since his arrival at Paris, has most strenuyou every argument in favor of the demands, founded compensation, or indemnification, and in laying before on national honor, and upon the true principles of justice. Those demands you must have understood to extend, not only to all persons of the abovementioned description, who have fled to Europe, but likewise to all

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[H. OF R.

amount, have been carried off or destroyed by the enemy, and that, in the opinion of Congress, the great loss of property which the citizens of the United States have sustained by the enemy, will be considered by the several States as an insuperable bar to their making restitution or indemnification to the former owners of property which has been or may be forfeited to, or confiscated by, any of the States."

those who may now be in any part of North America,
dwelling under the protection of His Majesty's arm, or
otherwise. We have also insisted on a mutual stipula-
tion for a general amnesty on both sides, comprehend-
ing thereby an enlargement of all persons who, on ac-
count of offences committed, or supposed to be commit-
ted, since the commencement of hostilities, may now be
in confinement, and for an immediate repossession of
their properties and peaceable enjoyment thereof, under
the Government of the United States. To this youter, says:
have not given a particular and direct answer. It is,
however, incumbent on me, as Commissioner of the

King of Great Britain, to repeat the several demands,
and without going over those arguments upon paper,
which we have so often urged in conversation, to press
your immediate attention to these subjects, and to urge
you to enter into proper stipulations for their restitution,
compensation, and amnesty, before we proceed further
in this negotiation."

To which our Commissioners returned the following answer:

Dr. FRANKLIN, in a letter to the British Minis

"I must repeat my opinion, that it is best for you to drop all mention of the refugees. We have proposed, indeed, nothing but what we think best for you as well let it be in an article which may provide that they shall as ourselves. But if you will have them mentioned, exhibit accounts of their losses to Commissioners hereafter to be appointed, who shall examine the same, to

gether with the accounts now preparing in America of the damages done by them, and state the account; and that if a balance appears in their favor, it shall be paid by us to you, and by you divided among them, as you shall think proper. And if the balance is found due to us, it shall be paid by you. Give me leave, however, to advise you to prevent so dreadful a discussion, by dropping the article, that we may write to America and stop the inquiry."

The following article was accordingly drawn up, and proposed to be inserted in the Treaty,

VIZ:

"In answer to the letter you did us the honor to write on the 4th instant, we beg leave to repeat what we often said in conversation, viz: that the restoration of such of the estates of the refugees as have been confiscated, is impracticable, because they were confiscated by laws of particular States, and in many instances have passed by legal titles through several hands. Besides, sir, as this is a matter evidently appertaining to the internal policy of the separate States, the Congress, by the na- "It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly ture of our Constitution, have no authority to interfere recommend it to his Parliament to provide for and make with it. As to your demand of compensation to those compensation to the merchants and shopkeepers of Bospersons, we forbear enumerating our reasons for think-ton, whose goods and merchandise were seized and ing it ill-founded. In the moment of conciliatory over- taken out of the stores, warehouses, and shops, by order tures, it would not be proper to call certain scenes into of General Gage, and others of his commanders or offiview, over which a variety of considerations should in- cers there; and also the inhabitants of Philadelphia, for duce both parties at present to draw a veil. Permit us, the goods taken away by his army there; and to make therefore, only to repeat, that we cannot stipulate for compensation also for the tobacco, rice, indigo, negroes, such compensation, unless on your part it be agreed to &c., seized and carried off by his armies under Generals make restitution to our citizens for the heavy losses they Arnold, Cornwallis, and others, from the States of Virhave sustained by the unnecessary destruction of private ginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia: And property. We have already agreed to an amnesty more also for all vessels and cargoes belonging to the inhabitextensive than justice required, and full as extensive as ants of the said United States, which were stopped, humanity would demand; we can, therefore, only re- seized, or taken, either in the ports or on the seas, by peat, that it cannot be extended further. We should his Governors, or by his ships of war, before the declabe sorry, if the absolute impossibility of our complying ration of war against the said States. And it is furfurther with your propositions, should induce Great ther agreed that His Britannic Majesty will also earnestly Britain to continue the war, for the sake of those who recommend it to his Parliament to make compensation caused and prolonged it; but, if that should be the case, for all the towns, villages, and farms, burnt and destroywe hope that the utmost latitude will not be again given ed by his troops or adherents in the said United States." to its rigors. Whatever may be the issue of this negotion, be assured, sir, that we shall always acknowledge the liberal, manly, and candid manner, in which you

have conducted it."

In consequence of information from our Commissioners that the claim was made and pertinaciously insisted on by the British Minister, Congress passed the following resolutions, viz:

"Resolved, That the Secretary for Foreign Affairs be, and he is hereby, directed to obtain, as speedily as possible, authentic returns of the slaves and other property which have been carried off or destroyed in the course of the war by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Ministers Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace.

“Resolved, That, in the meantime, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs inform the said Ministers, that many thousands of slaves, and other property to a very great

After pressing the matter to the utmost extent, we find, by Mr. ADAMS's Journal, that on the evening previous to signing the Treaty, the Ministers on both sides came to the following result:

agreement with the inhabitants of Boston, that they "Upon this I recounted the history of Gen. Gage's should remove their effects, upon condition that they would surrender their arms; but as soon as the arms were secured, the goods were forbid to be carried out, and were finally carried off in large quantities to Halifax. Dr. Franklin mentioned the case of Philadelphia, and the carrying off effects there, even his own library. Mr. Jay mentioned several other things; and Mr. Laurens added the plunder in Carolina, of negroes, plate, &c. After hearing all this, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. Stachey, retired for some time, and returning Mr. Fitzherbert said, that upon consulting together, and weighing everything as maturely as possi

H. OF R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[APRIL, 1796.

ble, Mr. Stachey and himself had determined to advise to the particular cases, or acquainted with the particular Mr. Oswald to strike with us according to the terms we circumstances which must fall under your view in the had proposed, as to our ultimatum respecting the fish-course of the evacuation, to give you a precise definition ery, and the loyalists. Accordingly we all sat down, of the acts which you are to represent as infractions of read over the whole Treaty and corrected it, and agreed the Treaty; nor can I undertake to give an official conto meet to-morrow at O's house, to sign and seal the struction of any particular expression or terms of the Treaties." Treaty, which must, in cases of ambiguity or different interpretations, be explained by the Sovereignties of the two nations, or their Commissioners appointed for that purpose."

Will any candid man say, after reviewing these circumstances, that the 7th article was meant to secure the restitution of negroes and other property taken in the course of the war? If that had been meant, would it not have been improper to have urged it as an argument against the introduction of an article which would have subjected this country to immense embarrassment and expense?

It is true that the United States did challenge negroes and other property, which had fallen into the hands of the British previous to signing the Treaty. This circumstance, for the reason he had mentioned, and others that might be suggested, ought to have very little weight, for it is well known that recriminations of a violation of the Treaty soon commenced on both sides, and each mustered up every tolerable claim; many of which have since been admitted on both sides to be groundless. A circumstance which strongly corroborated what he said was, Sir Guy Carlton's letter on that subject had also been so grossly misunderstood and misrepresented, from that time to this, and now advanced by a gentleman on this floor, [Mr. GILES,] and even by Mr. JEFFERSONin this instance departing from that candor which is so conspicuous in almost every other part of this excellent performance-for, when speaking on this subject, he says, "here there was a direct, unequivocal, and avowed violation of this part of the 7th article, in the first moment of its being known." Mr. JEFFERSON has given us a copy of Sir Guy Carlton's letter to General WASHINGTON, which is relied on to support this assertion, which is so far from speaking such a language, that in his opinion, it was directly the reverse, and that in a very pointed manner. His words are:

A letter drawn up with great caution and extremely characteristic of that great man, who has always been extremely careful never to commit himself, but upon mature deliberation and upon sure ground. Here, Sir Guy Carlton, as a public officer of Great Britain, had made an explicit declaration on the subject, and that was directly against our claims; for his directing an inventory of the negroes, was only an evidence of his being disposed to conduct candidly in the matter, and give us an opportunity to recover a compensation, if we could afterwards make out our construction of the Treaty to be right.

Both in the United States and Great Britain it is admitted, as a sound rule of construction, that where any law or instrument is doubtful, and the liberty of any one, even of a slave, to be effected by it, that construction was to be preferred which was favorable to liberty. Under this rule, ought this Treaty to be so construed as to reduce to slavery three thousand persons who had obtained their liberty, by putting themselves under the protection of the British arms, unless there was some positive unequivocal stipulation in the Treaty which could admit of no other construction, he hoped, for the honor of America, they would make stance which he had never seen mentioned, which, no such challenge. There was another circumin his opinion, greatly weakened our claims, which was the doubts he entertained of our right to demand of a foreign nation the restitution of a runaway slave. The United States are now at peace with all the world; suppose a slave should escape into the dominions of a foreign nation, and on demand they should refuse to deliver him up? he very much doubted whether we should have just ground of complaint. On the other hand, if any of our citizens may be so unfortunate as to be reduced to slavery by any of the Barbary Powers in Africa, should make their escape into the dominions of any of the European nations, and upon being claimed by such Powers, should be delivered up, he did believe we should have good ground of complaint against such nation, as being unjust and inhumane. And, so far as principle is concerned, what difference does it make whether the citizens of the United States are carGen. WASHINGTON, at that time, seemed disin- ried into slavery in Africa, or the inhabitants of clined to give an opinion on that subject, but inti- Africa are brought into slavery in the United mated the propriety of leaving any doubtful States? he knew of no principle that made a difclause of the Treaty to be settled by future nego-ference between the natural rights of a white or tiation; for in a letter from him to our Commissioners in New York, dated June, 1783, who had written to him for particular and pointed instructions on this very subject, there is this passage:

"I must confess, that the mere supposition that the King's Minister could deliberately stipulate in a Treaty an engagement to be guilty of a notorious breach of the public faith towards people of any complexion, seems to denote a less friendly disposition than I could wish, and I think less friendly than we might expect. After all, I only give my own opinion. Every negro's name is registered, the master he formerly belonged to, with such other circumstances as serve to denote his value, that it may be adjusted by compensation, if that was really the intention and meaning of the Treaty. Restoration was inseparable from a breach of public faith, and is, as I think all the world must allow, utterly impracticable."

"It is exceeding difficult for me, not being a witness

black man. The first principle that is laid down in the rights of man, is, that all men are born free and equal; it does not say all white men. He did not believe, he said, that the House would ever admit so absurd a doctrine, as that the different

Execution of British Treaty.