cessary, in order to give such arrangement validity, that a repealing law should be made: that, in the tenth article of the Spanish Treaty, it is stipulated that any goods on board a Spanish ship which may be wrecked on our coast, shall not be subject to the payment of any greater dues or duties than they would be in a like case on board of an American vessel, which is annulling our revenue laws in this respect, which requires the payment of ten per cent. more. He mentioned this only to remind those gentlemen who had held up this idea as intended to operate relative to the British Treaty, that if it be necessary in the one case, it must be in the other, and not that he held any such opinion, for he believed a Treaty was a law of the land, without any interference of theirs to make it so.

[APRIL, 1796.

she said on the subject of cordage, iron, pitch, urpentine, &c.? Had she said that these valuable articles of ours should not be carried in time of war, but be deemed contraband? No. How magnanimous was it in that nation, that they were not afraid of our supplying their enemies with these articles in time of war! They discarded that narrow policy which had been embraced by other nations. Rightly had the Secretary of State of Spain been called the Prince of Peace. He not only opened the sea to us, but, also, the noble river of the Mississippi, which a barbarous policy had long kept shut against us. But did Spain stop here? No; she knew that it would be necessary we should have a depot in the river for our produce, and she has said that depot shall be her own city of New Orleans, without laying either a tonnage

is simply payment for storage of the goods. The consequence will be, as is most frequently the case, that her liberality will itself reward her, for the town of New Orleans will probably become the emporium of the Western world.

Mr. SWANWICK said, he would beg leave to de-on vessels or a duty upon goods. All she requires tain the Committee whilst he made a few observations upon the Spanish Treaty. At the same time that that Treaty removed all cause of difference between the United State and Spain, it did not shackle their commerce with respect to Spain; it had not stipulated any particular regulations with respect to the ships of either country, but left to each country its own regulations. When the Treaty was negotiated, it was well known that all those States in the Union which grow wheat, corn, &c., would turn their eyes to the settlements There was one article in the Treaty particularly of Spain, as opening a ready market for their pro- favorable to the merchants of this country. It duce. It might have been thought the policy of was well known that heretofore there were often Spain to have yielded up her markets on unfavor-heavy embargoes on their ships in Spanish ports, able conditions, but she admitted us in her ports on the same terms as other nations.

Spain had also taken great pains with respect to fixing the boundaries, so as to preserve peace with the Indians, and to prevent those injuries to which they had been heretofore too much subject.

which sometimes detained them a considerable time, to their great inconvenience. In future no embargo was to be applied to them.

He had always considered Spain as liberal with respect to commerce, because, although she may Here, said Mr. S., is a list of advantages. But shut us out of the Havana, still, by a circuitous what were they to give in return? Embargoes course, we supplied their West India settlements were not to apply to Spanish ships when in this in time of peace; and it was a commerce that al-country; but these seldom occurring here, were ways brought freight with it. If Spain had been nothing in comparison to the advantages obtained. actuated by a narrow policy, she might have sti-It had happened heretofore, very unfortunately pulated it to them on disadvantageous terms, or loaded our ships with restrictions to countervail those upon her. No such terms are, however, to be found in the Treaty. Trade is by it left as it ought to be, in a great measure, to regulate itself.

The great article, that neutral ships make neutral goods, was recognised in this Treaty. What greater advantage was it possible for Spain to confer? It was even an article of the Treaty that articles of sustenance should never be consi dered as contraband. Honorable regulations for both countries! How happy would it be for the countries in Europe, if the same regulations were everywhere made! There would then be no necessity for offering bounties on provisions; for the greatest bounty was to let commerce be perfectly free, and to shackle or restrain it, was the greatest misfortune that could befal those even who imposed such restraints. He had always considered the free circulation of the necessary provisions of life not only as a great blessing, but as essential to the welfare of the human race; and as this was attended to in the Treaty with Spair, he delighted to dwell upon it. What had

for our merchants, that some of their vessels had fallen into the hands of Spanish privateers. That nation was too magnanimous to countenance such proceedings; she comes forward and says she will make good the losses without stipulating any return of advantage. She might have contrived to set off against this claim. When they considered the importance of a friendly understanding with this nation; that she was the third maritime nation in Europe, having seventy ships of the line, besides a considerable number of frigates, and that their territory on this Continent joined us, he trusted they should always cultivate her friendship. He gave a preference, in taking it up, to the Treaty with this Power, to any he had lately laid before us, because he saw on the face of it a liberal and enlightened policy, favorable to this country.

He did not intend to take up a much longer time of the Committee. There had lately, he said, a considerable change taken place in the politics of Spain. The Prince of Peace had been so fortunate as to effect a general pacification for his country, and they were, perhaps, about to become mediators in the affairs of Europe; nor

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

should he be surprised if she had at present the means of dictating terms to the maritime Powers, by throwing the weight of her forces in either scale. Should they, then, think for a moment on a rejection of this Treaty, because there might be difficulties as to that with England? He hoped not. Spain may be of great service to this country. Every one knows the interest which she has with the Dey and Regency of Algiers, and her neighborhood to that Power. If a time should come when they should find themselves obliged to send their frigates into the Mediterranean, where could they find so convenient a port for them to put into as Cadiz ? It would be beneficial in every point of view to keep friends with that country. Considering all these circumstances, he hoped gentlemen would consider twice before they determined to reject the Spanish Treaty. He could not refrain, on this occasion, from giving the praise which he thought due to the contracting Powers.

Mr. DAYTON rose to request a vote might be taken upon the question, as he doubted not gentlemen had formed their opinion upon the Treaty before them; and, if every gentleman in the Committee was to rise and speak as greatly at length as the gentleman who had just sat down, they would not have the question put for several weeks. Mr. HARPER said he did not rise to question the goodness of the Treaty, nor the pacific intentions of the Prince of Peace; but to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had certainly misunderstood what had been said in that Committee, when he stated that any one had proposed to reject the Spanish Treaty. Several gentlemen, it was true, had said, that if the British Treaty was rejected they might reject others. But did any one think that the members of that House were like angry children, and because they could not get all they wanted they would not have a part? He should vote for the Spanish Treaty, as he intended to vote for all the others.

[H. OF R.

tated. And here he must confess that, previous to that discussion, he was rather inclined in favor of the Treaty; he thought there was nothing in it which would warrant the outcries made against it, but that the opposition to it might have been raised by sinister motives, and that the people had not had proper information on the subject. In the meantime he endeavored to search for himself, and to gain all the information he was able to obtain on the subject; the result left an unfavorable impression upon his mind. It appeared to him that the Treaty did not give satisfaction for past injuries; that it did not provide for the loss of negroes; it did not assure recompense for spoliations on their commerce; nor did it propose to deliver up the posts in the condition in which they were to have been delivered up by the Treaty of Peace. It appeared that they might become charged with debts which they did not owe. It appeared to afford no security for the future, and decided the question of neutral vessels making neutral goods, against them. It appeared to take away their best weapon of self-defence, by narrowing the power of that House with respect to sequestration of debts, to operate against the interests of the United States.

Under this conviction, he turned his mind to the consideration of the situation in which the House of Representatives stood, and the duties which they lay under. Their duties seemed to divide themselves into two classes: first, the complete Legislative power of the country; the other, those special duties in which they stood related to the people as their Representatives. In considering these duties he should not trespass much upon the time of the Committee by going into detail. It seemed evidently to be one of their duties to guard against the encroachments which might be made by the Executive on the rights of the people. The necessity of such a guard would be apparent whenever they looked into the Governments of Europe, where it would always be found that the Executive was inclined, by gradual steps, to enMr. HILLHOUSE wished to bring forward the croach upon the Legislative authority. This beresolutions which he had before proposed, except-ing the special duty of the House of Representaing the Spanish Treaty, which had just been carried. They were read.

The motion was put and carried.

Mr. GILES wished the phraseology to be altered so as to correspond with the resolution already passed: which was agreed to.

The resolutions for carrying into effect the Treaties with the Indian tribes, and with the Dey and Regency of Algiers, were severally put and

carried.

TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN. The resolution for carrying into effect the Treaty with Great Britain having been read

Mr. MACLAY rose and said he meant to oppose the resolution. He would make a few observations as to the reasons which had induced him to disagree to the present proposition, and to offer another in lieu of it. When the question of the British Treaty had been indirectly brought forward, he had attended with great patience to the arguments for and against the question then agi4th CON.-32

tives, it was one that could not be dispensed with. With respect to the present Treaty, a part of the people consider that the Legislative rights of that House have been encroached upon. The petitions on the table, from persons in different parts of the Union, were to this effect.

In that situation stood the House at that moment. They had, in order to ground their deliberations, and to form their judgment, called for information from the PRESIDENT. That information had been denied to them; they were left to take their measures in the dark; or, in other words, they were called upon to act without information. These considerations induced him to offer a resolution in place of that now under consideration.

Mr. M. then submitted the following preamble and resolution:

"The House having taken into consideration the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between the United States and Great Britain, communicated by

H. OF R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[APRIL, 1796.

brought forward in the House and referred to the Committee, and then if members wished to have the gentleman's [Mr. MACLAY's] resolution in their hands it might be printed.

Mr. GILES agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut. Those who were opposed to the Treaty wished to have the resolution which had been proposed in their hands. If gentlemen were ready to speak to the merits of the Treaty, he would have them proceed; if not, he hoped the

Committee would rise.

the President in his Message of the first day of March last, are of opinion that it is in many respects highly injurious to the interests of the United States; yet, were they possessed of any information which could justify the great sacrifices contained in the Treaty, their sincere desire to cherish harmony and amicable intercourse with all nations, and their earnest wish to co-operate in hastening a final adjustment of the differences subsisting between the United States and Great Britain, might have induced them to waive their objection to the Treaty; but, when they contemplate the conduct of Great Britain, in persevering, since the Treaty was Mr. BOURNE hoped the Committee would not signed, in the impressment of American seamen and the seizure of American vessels, (laden with provisions,) rise. The resolution of the gentleman from Penncontrary to the clearest rights of neutral nations; whe-sylvania was exactly the reverse of the resolution ther this be viewed as the construction meant to be on the table. Ought a delay, he asked, to take given to any articles in the Treaty, or as contrary to and place on a subject of such importance? Gentlean infraction of the true meaning and spirit thereof, the men say they wish to have an opportunity of House cannot but regard it as incumbent on them, in speaking; but to what purpose? Was there a fidelity to the trust reposed in them, to forbear, under member of the Committee who was not decided? such circumstances, taking at present any active mea- If there was one member in that Committee who sures on the subject: Therefore, would say he was not decided, he would not object to a debate taking place. But he believed that that was not the case, and that a three weeks' debate would not make the least alteration. They knew that the British Treaty had long been the subject of reflection of every member; for what purpose, then, defer a question which ought to be decided with celerity? He hoped, therefore, no further delay would take place, but that the question would be taken.

"Resolved, That, under the circumstances aforesaid, and with such information as the House possess, it is not expedient at this time to concur in passing the laws necessary for carrying the said Treaty into effect."

Mr. GILES wished the resolution just read might be printed for the use of the members, together with the one they were then considering. He moved that it be laid on the table.

Mr. HENDERSON said that the paper last read could not be laid on the table until the former resolution was disposed of.

Mr. GILES moved that the Committee rise, in order to get rid of the resolution. He meant, he said, to make some remarks upon the British Treaty, but not expecting that an opportunity would be given to-day of speaking to the subject, he was not prepared to enter upon it.

Mr. MACLAY withdrew his motion, on being informed he might bring it forward in the House:

Mr. W. LYMAN did not think the expediency or inexpediency of the British Treaty had been considered three weeks. The question which had been so fully discussed was on the powers of the House. How could it be said that the Treaty had had an ample discussion, or that no change of opinion would take place? Even the gentleman himself might think differently from what he then did, after a fair discussion of the question; and he believed it would be canvassed in a fairer and Mr. BUCK said, it appeared to him time that all more ample manner than it had hitherto been the preliminary questions were settled, and he considered. It was said the resolution offered by hoped it would be settled, before the Committee the gentleman from Pennsylvania was the reverse rose, what should be done with the resolution of the one now under consideration. The Comwhich had been read. He thought it was con-mittee, he said, could not be forced to discuss the sistent with the doctrine which was wished to be question in any way they did not like. With reestablished. He was persuaded that every gentle-spect to the preamble to the resolution, it was by man had made up his mind on the subject, and if they debated for three weeks no change of opinion could take place; he wished, therefore, they might det rmine whether the proposed resolution should be taken up.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, the paper which had been read by the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. MACLAY] was certainly not in order. He had no objection, however, to its being laid upon the table and ordered to be printed; still he believed it proper that the discussion which might take place should be on the resolution before the Committee, as that was the proper question. For his own part he should be against a discussion upon the British Treaty being gone into. It was his wish to take the question then; but if gentlemen desired to go into the discussion he was willing to give them an opportunity.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said the resolution might be

no means new; it was a practice recommended by the greatest civilians: it was a kind of window to the subject. He hoped the Committee would rise, as it was near the usual time of adjournment, and that the resolution would be printed.

Mr. MURRAY did not mean to enter into the merits of the Treaty, nor the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. HILLHOUSE,] more than to say that it met his hearty concurrence. The resolution for the inexecution of the Treaty brought forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MACLAY.] contained a proposition directly the reverse of the first. It was an issue joined. He believed that members were prepared to vote, and he wished the question to be taken. In this state of things it was extraordinary to him to hear the gentleman from Virginia move for the Committee to rise. Yesterday he had united with that gentleman in pushing on the

Execution of British Treaty.

Mr. MURRAY would vote for the Committee to rise, as he despaired of taking a vote or of hearing a word said to-day on the merits of the resolution offered. Gentlemen will, of course, come prepared, and he trusted that, however terrible the Treaty may have struck them in the dark, a little discussion might diminish their horrors. could not, however, suppress his surprise that none of those-and especially the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GILES]-who had entertained opinions hostile to the Treaty so long, should be at a loss to enter on its discussion with an eagerness proportioned to their zeal and conviction of its mighty faults. But the gentleman, it seems, has left his paints and brushes at home, and cannot now attempt, though the canvass is before him, to

H. OF R.]

Execution of British Treaty.

Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, Jno. S. Sherburne, Israel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn.

Mr. JACKSON moved that the yeas and nays should be taken upon the resolutions for carrying into effect the Treaties. They were taken upon the Spanish Treaty; but every voice being in favor of it, the yeas and nays were dispensed with on the Indian Treaty, as that resolution seemed also to pass unanimously.

Mr. CHRISTIE making some objections to the resolution for carrying into effect the Treaty with Algiers, and some papers relative to it being confidential communications, and reported to a select committee, on motion, the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, April 15.

Mr. ABIEL FOSTER, from the committee to whom was referred the resolution respecting the expediency of preventing, for a limited time, the exportation from the United States of Indian corn or corn meal, rye or rye meal, made the following report, which was read and agreed to by the House:

[APRIL, 1796.

Mr. GALLATIN made three several motions for committees to be appointed to bring in a bill or bills for carrying each of the three Treaties agreed to into effect; all which were agreed to.

Mr. G. also presented a number of petitions from the Western country, signed by 328 persons, praying for the English and Spanish Treaties to be carried into effect.

THE TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, when, having read the resolution for carrying the British Treaty into effect

Mr. Buck rose, and wished the question to be taken upon Mr. MACLAY's resolution. This was opposed by Mr. MADISON and Mr. HILLHOUSE, and then Mr. MADISON addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. M. said, on a subject of such extent and importance, he should not attempt to go through all the observations that might be applicable to it. A general view of the subject was all that he meant at present. His omissions would be more than supplied by others who might enter into the discussion.

The proposition immediately before the Committee was, that the Treaty with Great Britain ought to be carried into effect by such provisions as depended on the House of Representatives. This was the point immediately in question. But it would be proper in examining it to keep in view also the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MACLAY] which had been referred to the Committee, and which would be taken up of course, if the immediate question should be decided in the negative.

"That in some parts of the United States, owing to an unfavorable season the last year, and other causes, there exists a scarcity of the articles mentioned in the resolution; but that generally there is a plentiful supply. That, notwithstanding the price of those articles are high, yet they do not generally exceed the present enhanced prices of labor and other articles; that recent information of the state of foreign markets in Europe and other countries, does not authorize the expectation of any considerable exportation of those articles from the United States; that many of the principal seaport towns appear to be well supplied with the articles in question, not only sufficient for their own consumption; but in such abundance as to be able to supply other parts of the United States, where a scarcity exists; and, from the information received by the committee, it is probable those markets will be resorted to, as affording a prospect of better prices than can be expected from foreign markets. The committee also find that merchant mills and stores in several parts of the interior country, are well supplied with very considerable quantities of the articles mentioned in the resolution, as well as with wheat and flour; that the prices of the latter have fallen very considerably The first consideration being excluded by the within a short time past. The committee, therefore, decision of the House, that they have a right to beg leave to submit to the House the following resolu-judge of the expediency or inexpediency of passtion, viz:

"Resolved, That it is inexpedient to prohibit the exportation of Indian corn, corn meal, rye, or rye meal." EXECUTION OF TREATIES.

The House took up, as next in the order of the day, the resolution for carrying into effect the Treaty lately concluded between the United States and the Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Mr. SWANWICK said that one of his constituents had put into his hand this morning a letter from Captain William Penrose, at Algiers, dated January 4, 1796, by which it appeared that the American prisoners were not then released, but kept at hard labor there. Mr. S. read the letter.

If the proposition for carrying the Treaty into effect be agreed to, it must be from one of three considerations: either that the Legislature is bound by a Constitutional necessity to pass the requisite laws without examining the merits of the Treaty, or that, on such examination, the Treaty is deemed in itself a good one, or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it into force, although it be in itself a good one, or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it into force, although it be in itself a bad Treaty.

ing laws relative to Treaties; the question first to be examined must relate to the merits of the Treaty. He then proceeded to consider the Treaty under three aspects: first, as it related to the execution of the Treaty of Peace in 1783; secondly, as it determines the several points in the Law of Nations; thirdly, as it respects the commerce between the two nations.

First. He would not inquire on which side the blame lay, of having first violated the Treaty of 1783, or of having most contributed to delay its execution, although he did not shrink from the task under any apprehension that the result could be disadvantageous to this country. The Treaty