Execution of British Treaty.

welfare must be equally dear to all-that temperance and calmness would have marked our deliberations; that all our efforts would have been made to enlighten the minds and convince the judgments of each other, instead of lessening one another in our estimation, and that of our constituents, by dishonorable imputations, and which, I trust, every member would spurn. As to myself, Mr. Chairman, I stand here regardless of any imputations that ill-nature may cast upon me in this House, or abuse which may be conferred without doors. I shall not be deterred from pronouncing that opinion which my best reflections have enabled me to form.

[H. or R.

they are daily receiving the one and embracing the other, even by force; but so familiar is this kind of friendship, that I believe our people would willingly dispense therewith; it proves, too, the old adage, that too much familiarity breeds contempt.

But, sir, the next article seems to be the great boon for all the concessions that are made by this compact. There is no one but will admit that the surrender of the posts would be an important acquisition at this time; but how infinitely more so would it have been in the year 1783, when they ought to have been delivered? We should not only have received the benefits of the fur trade, which gentlemen prize so high, from that time to Sir, in considering this subject, I had hoped every the present, with all its accumulations, but we information possessed by any of the departments should have had peace with the Indians, and thereof Government would have been freely afforded by saved the millions which have been expended us; and I cannot but lament that the PRESIDENT, in war, and the lives of many thousand valuable by a too strict adherence to what he has supposed citizens. Moreover, our lands would have been to be his Constitutional duty, refused the request purchased and settled to their limits, and our of this House for certain papers, which request Public Debt thereby much extinguished, and we seemed to me not only proper, but innocent- should have been less embarrassed. But what proper, because they might have afforded inform- has been the course pursued in this business? We ation that would reconcile many of the objections have been obliged, by vast expense, to coerce a entertained of the Treaty, and finally produce its peace with the Indians, and when ready to grasp adoption; it was innocent, because, if there was the posts, we are told they are not ours, and the no unfair procedure respecting this business, why interference of another Treaty has thrown them not publish the transaction to the world-at all two years further from our reach. I had underevents to the Representatives of the people, who, stood, Mr. Chairman, that the Envoy was charged it is acknowledged by all, were not only to act on to demand, not to cede them, and surely this is a the Treaty in some way, but were intrusted with cession; for if he had a right to give them up for the management of some of the dearest rights of two years, why not for twenty-two, or any other their fellow-countrymen? If, then, the people given period? the principle certainly goes to this. confide in us such important concerns, might not So that, by this stipulation, we find, instead of rethe Executive have reposed some degree of confi-ceiving retribution for the detention of the posts, dence, and complied with a request so decorously and respectfully made? But he has told us his duty forbids it. We are then reduced to the necessity to judge of the thing from the face of it, without the wished-for informtion. And I must confess it has always presented such a hideous and deformed aspect to my mind, that I have ever disliked it-which, together with the unfriendly sentiments of my constituents to it, has produced my prejudices. But I had determined, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had ratified it, and many approved it, to keep my mind open for every information the subject was capable of. As, then, none has been offered to operate a change of my opinion, and as the most likely source is shut against us, my prejudices, instead of being lessened, have become firmly fixed in the opposition.

I have thought proper to make these few preliminary observations. I will now offer some considerations on the Treaty, and will avoid, as much as possible, retracing the ground that has already been trodden by those who have gone before me.

By the first article, we find a firm and inviolable peace, a true and sincere friendship, is to exist between the respective countries, and the people thereof, without exception. How sincere the friendship between the countries is, I will not undertake to say; but the friendship of Great Britain to our property and our people, of certain descriptions, is unbounded indeed, inasmuch as

further delays are allowed, and no claim made. Hence we stand precisely in the same situation we did in the year 1783-no other assurance for their deliverance than we then had-British faith, of which, I had thought, gentlemen had had enough, by not having any. I will ask whether we have any stronger assurances now that Great Britain will perform, in 1796, what she ought to have performed in 1783? For my part, I know of none, unless it is that she has now a better bargain than she then had; but, indeed, this ought not to be an incitement, when, by refusing to comply with one, she is solicited to enter into another, more to her advantage. And this policy, too, is supported by a gentleman who informs us he represents the half of the State of New York, [Mr. COOPER; he advises accepting what we have got, and negotiate for more. God forbid we should have any more negotiations of this kind! for, if we have, I fear we shall negotiate ourselves into Colonial subjects again.

But we are told the British committed no infraction of the Treaty of 1783, by withholding the posts; for we, having thrown legal impediments in the way of the recovery of their debts, became the first infractors thereof, whereby they were left free to comply or not. Let us, for a moment, inquire into this fact. By the 4th article of that Treaty, creditors on either side were to meet with no legal impediment to the recovery of their debts. By the 7th article of the same Trea

H. or R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[April, 1796.

laws opposing it were mere nullities. These opinions were cited the other day by a gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. SEDGWICK,] and relied on. I hope they will have their due weight on the application now to be made of them. So that, on the whole, it does appear to me the British creditor had nothing more to struggle with than other creditors had, except the well-founded prejudices imbibed by our countrymen against that nation, which, though the laws might in some measure correct, they could never eradicate. That these prejudices have produced irregularities in many instances and delay of collections, I have no doubt; but from the nature of things it is well known no foresight or precaution could guard against it. Indeed, they might have been expected, for can it be supposed that men would stand calmly and an unrelenting British creditor, who had aided to impair the very means of his debtor to pay, and whose Government was by their acts daily increasing the evils, by exciting the Indians to war against us, whereby our citizens were borne down with burdens to defend themselves? I say, would not such reflections, with ruin before our eyes, produce a degree of irritation in the most calm amongst us? I owe none of these debts, I never did, and I never will, if I can help it. I spurn the idea of involving my country in a debt of an incalculable amount, when millions of them never received any benefit thereby. It is wrong, it is unjust. I again repeat, that it does appear to me, on an impartial view of this subject, that the United States are not chargeable with the first infraction of the Treaty of 1783, and that therefore, we are not bound now to enter into a compact which appears to me to be warranted neither by the principles of reciprocity nor justice.

ty, His Majesty was, with all convenient speed, to withdraw his armies and garrisons from every post and place. Now, sir, on comparing these articles, can it be presumed by any one that the latter stipulation was to remain unexecuted until the creditors recovered their debts? Was it to remain as a pledge for the performance of the other? No one can entertain the idea for a moment. Suppose the creditors had gone on in the collection of their debts without interruption, would it be said that the stipulations of the 7th article would be suspended until all the creditors were wholly satisfied? It is absurd, particularly when we reflect that the Commissioners who negotiated that Treaty must have contemplated the recovery of those debts by lawsuits; therefore, if the latter clause was intended to coerce the former, we would certainly not had the inser-see their families reduced to penury and want by tion of the words "with all convenient speed," which implies an early compliance. If the opposite construction was just, I would venture to say, the British Government would never have agreed to surrender the posts, but in consequence of such concessions as it now gets; for it would have the advantages of the fur trade, and the faith of this country pledged for the payment of the debts, which were accumulating by interest. This was a pleasing situation; but what was the situation of the British debtors? Deprived of their negroes, which were to be returned by the Treaty; deprived of the advantages of the trade with the Indians, whereby they might be enabling themselves to discharge those debts; harassed and worn down with taxation, to support the Indian wars excited by their creditors. In this situation of things, was it not natural for them to look around for security or indemnity against these evils; and would anything more naturally present itself, than withholding the payment of the money to the very cause of these evils? None, sir; and I cannot conceive it so dishonorable as some gentlemen pretend to view it.

But, sir, I will endeavor to show that the laws which were enacted by States for prohibiting the recovery of the British debts, was not an infraction of the Treaty of 1783. By the little book, which the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILLHOUSE] says is so precious, and which he hopes will be preserved for some time to come, we find that Mr. JEFFERSON has, in consequence of complaints from the British Minister, respecting the impediments to the recovery of British debts, inquired into the facts, in those States where the complaints originated; the result of these inquiries was, that though there were State laws prohibiting, yet a number of gentlemen, of the first abilities and great integrity-generally professional characters, and who have been engaged in proceedings of this kind-certify, that wherever attempts were made to recover these debts, they have met with no more obstruction than other creditors. Besides, those gentlemen were generally of opinion that, on the final ratification of the Treaty of 1783, it repealed all laws at variance with it. If, then, it had such a powerful attribute as to repeal former Jaws, it follows, as a consequence, that subsequent

But I undertake to say, and with some confidence too, that Great Britain committed the first infraction of that Treaty, by withholding the posts, and also carrying away the negroes, which she had expressly stipulated to give up; and, to my astonishment, it is now contended that the taking away the negroes was not a violation of the Treaty, as they came into their possession by the rights of war, and being deemed property were vested in the captors. Admit, for a moment, they were that kind of property, and they became as much the property of their captors as any they had possessed themselves of in the same way, what then? Certainly, that it followed of course, they had a right to dispose of them in any way they chose, either to emancipate them, retain them in slavery for their own use, or return them to their original owners. Which of these alternatives have they elected to do? [Here he read the following sentence from the Treaty of 1783,] "And His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies." &c., &c. Now, sir, was not the carrying away the negroes a violation of this article? All America once thought so. No other construction ever entered the head of man till this Treaty appeared;

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

owners so construed it, and in virtue thereof made demands. Congress, and even "Camillus," once thought so, and so they declared it in the most solemn manner. And so it would be construed by all descriptions of people, from the school-boy to the Senator, to use the expression of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. COOPER,] had our minds remained in the same state they were in a dozen years ago. Sir, if there be modern constructions of the Constitution, I will venture to say there is the same of Treaties. But another clause of the same article justifies my construction, to wit: the leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein. Gentlemen will hardly say this means fortifications garrisoned by American soldiery; this would be absurd, for it is pretty well known that American artillery guarded itself better than British Treaties did. Was not this artillery, which had fallen into the hands of the enemy, a vested property, till the chances of war or the Treaty had made a disposal thereof? Unquestionably it was. Were not the archives, records, deeds, &c., which had also fallen into the hands of the enemy, their property? There can be no doubt of it. Yet we find these things stipulated to be given up.

[H. OF R.

renewed, and this country thrown into a scene of litigation and confusion. Sir, it will never be submitted to, if this construction be right, and I can see no other meaning it can have. It is unknown what a face of country will be covered by these claims. I know a man, now in this city, who holds many millions of these claims by agreement with the King of Great Britain, prior to the Revolution; whether he means to renew the claim under this article, I cannot say; but if this article only admitted of a doubt-and it certainly does, notwithstanding the labors of the gentleman from Connecticut, yesterday, [Mr. TRACY]-we ought to be extremely cautious, and weigh it well before we accept it, situated as much of this country is. But, however objectionable this article is, no less so is the succeeding one. It is, that the debts of individuals of one nation due to the individuals of the other, shall not be subject to sequestration or confiscation. By this we give up one among the strongest_holds we have on Great Britain, for her peace and respect towards us; a thing, if retained, would be of more terror to her than all the fleets we shall have for many years to come. But, it is said, it is unjust that individual confidence should be impaired by national differences. Let gentlemen If, then, they chose to yield one species of pro- refer to history, and they will find that almost all perty, might they not another? But, it is said, wars have been originated in the conduct of inthe negroes were not our property at the time of dividuals to each other, who, by acts of outrage signing the Treaty; so neither did the archives, and retaliation committed on one another, gather records, &c., belong to the States-they were the strength from time to time, till they become a property of the enemy; but certainly the British national object, and cause a national war. The Minister had as much right to stipulate for the interference of individuals frequently restores peace return of the one as for the other, and he has in as again. I mention this to show, that where there explicit terms. This must have been the under- is such a familiar intercourse between nations, as standing of the Commissioners who negotiated that between this and Great Britain, there ought to be Treaty, although one of them has been traced to not only the obligation of fear, but that of interest. his slumbers, the evening before the sealing the For, if it be an individual loss to the people of that Treaty, for a different construction. So that, in nation to commit outrages on the people of this, this instance, the British have certainly committed it will be a more certain security against those the first infraction, by carrying off the negroes.outrages than the influence of personal fear. But And is it not extraordinary that, notwithstanding I have heard it said, if this Treaty be violated by this, no claim is made for them, and yet we are war, it becomes a nullity, and this article falls with bound to pay the British debts, when the very the rest. I am of a different opinion, for the negomeans of doing it are taken from the debtor by the tiators, in forming this, were guarding that procreditor? Sir, this is a serious oppression, and perty against the evils of war; they express this though not of a very great magnitude, will never- to be their object; they could have no other, for theless be felt in an interesting manner, and if it is hardly presumable there would be confiscasubmitted to, will be so under much disquietude. tions in time of peace. Sir, the fact is, if we agree I will now make some observations on the 9th ar- to this article, there is no event of war or national ticle, which to me was extremely objectionable, and differences. whatever may be the outrages of the immensely important, as it breaks in on a property conflicting Powers, that will justify a breach of it. the rights of which above all ought to remain un-I would hold myself bound at all times, or in any shaken or hazarded by construction. By this arti- event, to observe this article. This is my bona cle, British subjects who now hold lands in the fide, although I voted against the insertion of these United States shall continue to hold them, ac-words on another occasion, and although so much cording to the nature and tenure of their estates and titles therein.

What is the nature and tenure of their estates and titles therein? They claim and hold them either by proclamation from the King, granting certain tracts, or by special contracts with him for so much as described therein. This is the nature and tenure of the British claims generally, in this country. And I will venture to assert, if this article be agreed to, all those old claims will be

has been said about prostrating the honor and faith of this nation. By these observations, gentlemen will see I am a friend to sequestration and confiscation; yet I declare, if I know myself, I am a friend to justice, although our negotiator has said such a conduct was unjust. I differ, too, sir, from my friends on this point, when they say this should be the last resort in case of war. With me, it should be among the first; for I have such a horrible aversion to the effusion of human blood,

that I would strip my enemy of all his property before I would commit such an outrage on humanity; if that would not restore peace, then I would use the bayonet as my dernier resort. This closes my observations on the permanent articles of the Treaty; which to me are of such weight, however futile they may be to others, that I cannot, in my conscience, agree to be bound myself thereby, or suffer my country, so far as my negative will prevent it.

The latter part of the Treaty being of a commercial nature, and temporary, I am not disposed to hazard many observations upon it, because I am ignorant of commercial affairs, my interest never leading me to an acquirement of a knowledge of it, and my industry not being adequate to the abstruseness of the subject. However, I will offer some general observations.

The 15th article prevents a discrimination of duties, as, also, a prohibition of exports and imports, unless general, with all nations. Every one who knew the course of my political opinions two years ago, must know I am opposed to this. I did think that these two propositions, under the existing state of things, as relative to the time they were proposed, would have answered the desired purpose.

[APRIL, 1796.

and, therefore, would be more impressive than the gentleman stationary at that Court. He added, too, that he might not possess all that enmity to that nation that some of the Southern people have, and, therefore, an accommodation would more readily, and with more facility, take place. This conversation happened several days before the appointment of an Envoy, indeed, before I heard the idea suggested. But so it was, one was appointed who fitted the character precisely. Though, unfortunately for this country, so soon as he crossed the ocean he abandoned the temper of his nation, as expressed by a respectable majority of the Congress that were then in session when he was appointed, and has fixed a veto thereon. This abandonment of the temper of his country, fully proves the other requisite of his character, to wit: that he did not possess all that enmity to the British Government that the Southern people did. Indeed, I doubt whether he had any, or such is his forgiving disposition and urbanity of manners, that he could not be so impolite as to urge the temper of his country, it was too rigid. What gentlemen's feelings may be who favored this system, I cannot say; I confess mine are not a little wounded; yet not so much as to endeavor to avenge myself on the object, to the injury of my country, as has been insinuated.

The discriminating duties would either have produced countervailing ones, or an amicable and equal adjustment of differences; in either event, The 25th article is highly objectionable, as it I should have been pleased-the first, tending to certainly is unfriendly to the French, inasmuch the encouragement of our manufactures, the as it permits British privateers, on capturing other, to accommodation. I was also willing-French vessels, to enter our ports and remain for nay anxious, to try the effects of a prohibition of security. By this, we become the protectors and all intercourse with that nation. It would have harborers of the enemies of our friends, and nodetermined one important fact, in my mind, thing will be more likely to produce a war with namely, whether we could better do without their that favorite nation, than pursuing a conduct like manufactures, or they without our commerce? this; for, can it be supposed, that the French will and, though this experiment might have produced see their vessels captured by the British, just off a temporary inconvenience, it would ultimately be our coasts, and immediately run into our ports, an important advantage to the encouragement of there to remain till convenient to depart, which our own manufactures. Besides, it is said, that certainly will not be as long as French vessels are country is jealous and sore under their separation waiting their departure? Is this, Mr. Chairman, from us. If this be a fact, and I believe it is, it consistent with strict neutrality? Is it consistaffords us an additional reason to pursue that po-ent with the obligations we are under to that nalicy which will finally close our intercourse with tion, or the gratitude we owe her for her magthat nation, instead of drawing closer the bands nanimous services rendered us during the late of friendship, which, I am sorry to say, has al- war? To me, it is a shameful dereliction of our ready too much influence. I am here reminded friends; one that my obligations, my gratitude, of a conversation that took place between myself and my friendship, spurns at, and will not suffer and a gentleman high in office, and very high in me to submit to. But, to my astonishment, it is the estimation of some. Whilst the resolution asserted that we are under no obligations to France prohibiting a further intercourse with Great Bri- for the assistance she gave us. It was afforded, tain was under consideration, I met with him, and not for friendship to us or our cause, but from enit immediately became the subject of conversa-mity to Great Britain. Sir, whatever might have tion. He exclaimed against it as war, worse than been their motives, it is unbecoming us to say, war; it was underhanded and unmanly, and, for it we acknowledge the aid, we must admit therefore, unworthy of Americans. If it was the the obligation. It is further said, [by Mr. HILLintention of gentlemen to go to war with that HOUSE,] that she gave us no aid until we had capcountry, and the complaints would justify it, he tured Burgoyne, whereby we had proved to the would join hand in hand in an open manner; world that we were able to cope with that nabut, when there existed such differences between tion. The inference from this is, that their aid nations, the proper course to be pursued was the was unnecessary, and their untimely interference appointment of an Envoy Extraordinary, who tarnished the laurels that America was about to would go the nation complained of with a per-pluck by conquest over Great Britain. But how fect knowledge of the temper of his own country, does General Washington's letter, respecting