DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Treasure "Room 
 
[No. IX.] 
 THE 
 
 American Remembrancer ; 
 
 O R, 
 
 AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION 
 
 ESSAYS, RESOLVES, 
 SPEECHES, &c 
 
 RELATIVE, OR HAVING AFFINITY, TO THE 
 
 TREATY with GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 — <-«^^«^>^^>^»§>»-> — 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 
 ( 6 z. 8 3 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 PRINTED BY HENRY TUCKNISS, 
 FOR MATHEW CAREY, NO. I 1 8, MARKET-STREET. 
 
 NOVEMBER 28, 1795.- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 1. Addrefs to the Independent Citizens of Virginia 3 
 
 2. Memorial and Petition of a number of the Citizens 
 
 of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the General 
 
 Affembly t/xreof 4 
 
 3. Tally, No. II. - - 12 
 
 4. Camillas, No, XXI* - - - 15 
 
 5. No. XXII. - - 24 
 
 6. No. XXIII. - - 36 
 
 7. i\fo. XXIV. ... 45 
 
 8. 2& XXV. ... 56 
 
 9. CW<?, No. XVI. 63 
 
 10. Atticus, No. VI. 67 
 
 11. No. VII. 7° 
 
American Remembrancer, qffc. 
 
 From the Petersburg Intelligencer. 
 To tie Independent Citizens cf Virginia. 
 
 THE prefident of the United States, in his letter to the 
 felectmen of Boftcn, dated 28th uf July, 1795, copies 
 whereof have fince been tranfmitted to fimdar meetings of the 
 people in other parts of the United States, having, as it is con- 
 ceived, virtually refuted to view the representation of the peo- 
 ple as a fource of information wo; thy cf his confuieraiion, in 
 deliberating upon the propriety of ratifying or rejecting the late 
 treaty between Great Britain ami the United States, as recom- 
 mended by the fenate — and having, as it is believed, firll re- 
 fufed his confent thereto, until Great Britain mould withdraw 
 her infamous orders for feizing provifions in American velTels 
 bound to France — and fince that time, during the continuance 
 of the fame orders, in the midft of numerous reprefentations 
 from the people in almoft all parts of the United States, difap- 
 proving the fatal inilrument, having actually proceeded to its 
 ratification, and given it all the energy which his conltitution- 
 aj functions could effect ; and having, by thefe proceedings, 
 rendered all further reprefentations and applications to him, 
 upon the fubject, abfurd and nugatory — It is important, when 
 fuch inattention to the public voice is manifefted, that the peo- 
 ple fhould boldly exercife their right of addreffing their objec- 
 tions to all other conftituted authorities, within the United 
 States, who pofTefs any agency relative to this highly interefting 
 fubjeft. 
 
 Upon this principle, the following Petition to the General 
 Afiembly of Virginia, in virtue of their conftitutional right of 
 appointing fenators for this ftate, to the congrefs of the United 
 States, is fubmitted to the independent citizens thereof. It is 
 prefumed, that the time, previous to the meeting of the aft 
 fembly, is too fhort to afford that general circulation of the 
 petition throughout the ftate, which is defirable : but it is hoped, 
 that fuch patriotic citizens, as may approve its contents, wili 
 be active in favoring their fellow citizens with an opportunity 
 of teftifying, in like manner, their approbation, by their refpec- 
 tive fubferiptions thereto. 
 
 kef 2-?^ 
 
4 • Virginia Memorial and Petition. 
 
 Through thefe means, one more effort may be made, by a 
 declaration of the public fentimenr, to prevent the final ratifi- 
 cation and ultimate energy of an inftrument, which is deemed 
 fatal to the interefls, the happinefs, and perhaps, finally, to the 
 liberty and independence of the United States. 
 
 Oflobcr 12, 1795. 
 
 To the General Affembly of the Commonwealth of Virgui'ui. 
 
 The Memorial and Petition of the Subfcribers thereof, 
 RefpeBfully fieweth — 
 
 THAT they have feen and maturely confidered the treaty, 
 lately negociated with Great Britain, and conditionally 
 ratified by the president and fenate of the United States. 
 
 That they infer, from the nature of the condition annexed 
 to the ratification, that the faid treaty ought to receive, and 
 muft again receive, the fan£tion of the conftituted authorities, 
 before it can be finally binding on the United States; in as 
 much as the indeterminate fufpenfion of that part of the trea- 
 ty, which relates to the trade between the United States and 
 the Weft Indies, mull be made determinate, in the new article 
 piopofed to be added ; and in as much as the connexion efta- 
 blifhed by that article, between the parts fufpenderi, and the 
 temporary refidue of the treaty, conftitute them eflentially 
 conditions of each other, and muft involve the latter in the 
 fate of the former, whereby a change will be made, both in 
 the form and fubftance of the inftrument, that will be equiva- 
 lent to a new compact. 
 
 That in the prefent ftage of the tranfa£tion, they deem it 
 their right and their duty, to purfue every conftitutional and 
 proper mode of urging thofe objections to the treaty, which, 
 in their judgment, require to be entirely removed, before it 
 ought to be finally eftablifhed. 
 
 That under this conviction, they fubmit the following obfer- 
 vations to the confideration of the general aflembly. 
 
 I. Even " waving the merits of the refpective complaints and 
 pretenfions of the two parties," as to the inexecution of the trea- 
 ty of peace, it is reafonable to view the two parties as equally 
 culpable, or equally blamelefs, and to determine that the exe- 
 
Vise ini a Memorial and Petition. 5 
 
 cation of the treaty of peace equally by both ought to have 
 been provided for. Yet, whilft the United States are to comply, 
 in the molt ample manner, with the article unfulfilled by them, 
 and to make compenfation for whatever loffcs may have accrued 
 from their delay j Gveat Britain is relcafed altogether, from arie 
 of the articles unfuifilied by her, and is not obliged to make 
 the fmalleit compenfation for the damages which have accrued 
 from her delay, in fulfilling the other. 
 
 Thefe equitable and reciprocal claims of the United States 
 are not even allowed the chance of arbitration. 
 
 This inequality of terms, is greatly aggravated b,y other con- 
 ceffions, on the part of the United States, which, Lef.des 
 adding to the violation of the conftitution, artfully intro.lr.cv.l 
 in this treaty, may, in a great meafure, defeat the good conle- 
 quences of a furrender of the Weftern polls, if that article of 
 the treaty fhould be faithfully executed by Great Britain. 
 
 The Britifh fettlers and traders, within an indefinite tract of 
 country, are allowed to retain both their land and allegiance at 
 the fame time, and confequently to keep up a foreign and hoflile 
 influence over the Indians, within the limits of the United 
 States. 
 
 The Indians, within thefe limits, are encouraged to continue 
 their trade with the Britifh, by the permiffion to bring their 
 goods, duty free, from Canada, where the goods being charged 
 with no fuch impoft as is payable on the goods of the United 
 States, will be offered for fale witfa that tempting preference^ a 
 regulation alfo, but too likely to cloak the fraud of fmuggling 
 traders in a country otherwise favorable to them. 
 
 Under a like femblance of reciprocity, the advantage fecured 
 to the United States in the fur trade, by their poffeffion of the 
 carrying places, is abandoned to the fuperiority of Britifh 
 capital, and the wfecurity of the Canada duty or duties on 
 
 • 
 
 imports 
 
 A part only of the pods, harbours, and Says, of a fingle 
 Britifh province, is made free to the citizens of the United 
 States, in confideration of a freedom of all their pods, har* 
 bours, and bays, to Britifh fubjecls. The goods and merchan- 
 dize of the United States not entirely prohibited by Canada 
 (but which, in fact, are always prohibited, when partial and 
 temporary admiffions are not dictated by neceffity) may be car- 
 ried there in confideration of a free nrimiffion from Canada, of 
 all goods and merchandize not entirely prohibited by the United 
 States, where there never is, in fa£t, this entire prohibition. 
 A like itipulation, liable to the like obfervation, is extended to 
 the exports of the United States, and the province of Canada, 
 
 Vol. III. B 
 
6 Virginia Memorial and Petition. 
 
 There are further inftances of a nominal and deluGve recipro- 
 city. 
 
 In the cafe of the Miffiflippi, there is not even an oftenfible 
 or nominal reciprocity. The pods and places on its eallern 
 fide, are to be equally free to both parties; although the treaty 
 itfelf fuppofes that the courfe of the northern boundary of the 
 United States, will throw the Britifh beyond the very fource of 
 that river. This item of the treaty is the more to be noticed, 
 as a repetition and extenfion, under fuch circumftances, of the 
 ftipulated privileges of Great Britain on the Miffiflippi, will be 
 conftrued into a partiality in the United States, to the interefts 
 and views of that nation on the American continent, not likely 
 to conciliate thofe from whom an amicable adjultment of the 
 Miffiflippi is expected ; and was, no doubt, intended by Great 
 Britain as a fnare to our good underftanding with 'he nation 
 mod jealous of her encroachment and aggrandizement. 
 
 II. Without remarking the inexplicit pfovifion for redreffing 
 paft fpoliations and vexations, no fufficient precautions are ' v 
 taken againft; them in future. On the contrary, by omitting 
 to provide for the refpect due to fea-letters, paflports and cer- 
 tificates, and for other cuftomary fafe-guards to neutral veflels, 
 ** a general fearch warrant" (in the ftrong, but juft language 
 of our fellow citizens of Charlelton) is granted againft the A- 
 merican navigation. Examples of fuch provifions were to be 
 found in our other treaties, as well as in the treaties of other 
 nations. And it is matter of juft furprize, that they fhould 
 have no place in a treaty with Great Britain, whofe conduct 
 on the feas, fo particularly fuggefted and enforced every guard 
 to our rights that could be reafonably infifted on. 
 
 By omitting to provide againft the arbitrary feizure and im- 
 prifonment of the American feamen, that valuable clafs of ci- 
 tizens remains expofed to all the outrages, and our commerce 
 to all the interruptions, hitherto experienced from that caufe. 
 
 By exprefsly admitting, that provifions are to be held contra* 
 band, in cafes other than when bound to an inverted place, and 
 impliedly admitting that fuch cafes exift at prefent — not only a 
 retrofpeclive fanction may be given to proceedings againft 
 which an indemnification is claimed, but an apparent licenfe 
 is granted to frefh and more rapacious depredations on our 
 lawful commerce ; and facts feiem to fhow, that fuch is to be 
 the fruit of this impolitic conceffion. It is conceived, that the 
 pretext, fet up by Great Britain, of befieging and ftarving whole 
 nations, and the doctrine grounded thereon, of a right to in- 
 tercept the cultomary trade of neutral nations, in articles not 
 contraband, ought never to have been admitted into a treaty 
 
Virginia Memorial and Petition. 7 
 
 of the United States — Becaufe, 1. It is a general outrage on 
 humanity, and an attack on the ufeful intercourfe of nations. 
 2. It appears, that the doctrine was denied by the executive, 
 in the difcufftons with Mr. Hammond, the Britifh minifter, and 
 that demands of compenfation, founded on that denial, are now 
 depending. 3. As provifions conftitute not lefs than two-thirds 
 of our exports, and Great Britain is nearly half her time at 
 war, an admiflion of the doctrine facrifices, in a correfpond- 
 ent degree, the intrinfic value of our country. 4. After a public 
 denial of the doctrine, to admit it, in the midlt of the prefent 
 war, by a formal treaty, would have but too much of the ef- 
 fect, as well as the appearance, of voluntarily concurring in the 
 fcheme of diftrefTing a nation, whofe friendly relations to the 
 United States, as well as the ftruggles for freedom in which it 
 is engaged, give a title to every good olTice which is permitted 
 by a juft regard to our own intereft, and not ftrictly forbidden 
 by the duties of neutrality. 5. It is no plea for the meafure, 
 to hold it up as an alternative to the difgrace of being involun- 
 tarily treated in the fame manner, without a faculty to redrefs 
 ourfelves. The difgrace of being plundered with impunity, a- 
 gainft our confent, being, under no circumftances, fo great as 
 the difgrace of confenting to be plundered with impunity. By 
 annexing to the implements of war, enumerated as contraband, 
 the articles of fhip timber, tar or rofin, copper in fheets, fails, 
 hemp, and cordage, our neutral rights and national interefts 
 arc (till further narrowed. Thefe articles were excluded from 
 the contraband lift, by the United States, when they were 
 themfelves in a ftate of war. (See ordinance relating to cap- 
 tures on fourth of December, 1781.) Their other treaties ex- 
 prefsly declare them not to be contraband. 
 
 Britifli treaties have done the fame ; nor, as is believed, do 
 the treaties of any nation in Europe, producing thefe articles 
 for exportation, allow them to be fubjects of confifcation. The 
 Itipulation was the lefs to be admitted, as the reciprocity af- 
 fumed by it, is a mere cover for the violation of that princi- 
 ple — molt of the articles in queflion, being among the exports 
 of the United States, whilft all of them are among the imports 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 By exprefsly ftipulating with Great Britain, againft the free- 
 dom of enemy's property in neutral bottoms, the progrefs to- 
 wards a complete and formal eitabhihmcnt of a principle in the 
 law of nations, fo favorable to the general intereft and fecurity 
 of commerce, receives all the check the United States could 
 give to it. Reafon and experience have long taught the pro- 
 priety of confidering free Ihips as giving freedom to their car- 
 
8 Virginia Memokial and Petition. 
 
 goes. The fevcral great maritime nations of Europe, have not 
 only eftablifhed, at different times, by their treaties with each 
 other, but, on a folemn occafion, jointly declared it to be the 
 law of nations, by a fpeciric compact, of which the United 
 States entered their entire approbation (fee their adl of the cth 
 of October, 1780). Great Britain alone diffented. But flie her- 
 felf, in a variety of prior treaties, and in a treaty with France, 
 fince, has acceded to the principle. Under theft circumitnnces, 
 the United States, of all nations, ought to be the lalt to com- 
 bine in a retrograde effort on this fubject, as being, more than 
 any other, interested in extending and ellablifhing the commer- 
 cial rights of neutral nations. — Their fituation particularly fits 
 them to be carriers for the great nations of Europe, during 
 their wars ; and both their fituation, and the genius of their 
 government and people, promife them a greater (hare of peace 
 and neutrality, than can be expected by any other nation — The 
 relation of the United States by a treaty on this point, to the 
 enemies of Great Britain, was another reafon for avoiding this 
 ftipulation. Whilll Britifh goods, in American veffels, are 
 protected againft French and Dutch captures, it was enough 
 to leave French and Dutch goods in American veffels, to the 
 ordinary courfe of judicial determination, without a voluntary, 
 a pofitive, and invidious provifion for condemning them. It 
 has not been overlooked, that a claufe in the treaty propofes to 
 renew, at fome future period, the difcuffion of the principle 
 now fettled ; but the queftion is then to be, not only in what, 
 but 'whether in any cafes, neutral veffels fhall protect, enemies' 
 property ; and it is to be difcuffed at the fame time, not whe- 
 ther in any, but in what oqfes, provisions, and other articles not 
 bound to inverted places, may be treated as cxmtraban3. So 
 that when the principle is in favor of the United States, the 
 principle itfelf is to be the fubjecl of difcuffion ; when the prin- 
 ciple is in favor of Great Britain, the application of it only, is 
 to be the fubject of difcuffion. 
 
 III. Whenever the law of nations has been a topic for con- 
 fideration, the refult of the treaty accommodates Great Britain 
 in relation to one, or both of the republics et war with her, 
 as well as in the abandonment of the rights and interefts of 
 the Uuiied States. 
 
 Thus American veffels bound to Great Britain, are protect- 
 ed by fea papers, again!! French and Dutch fcarches ; but 
 when bound to France or Holland, are' left expofed to Britifh 
 fearches, without regard to fuch papers. 
 
 American provilions in American veffels, bound to the ene- 
 rgies of Great Britain, arc left, by treaty, to the feizure and 
 
Virginia Memorial and Petition. 9 
 
 ufe of Great Britain ; but provifions, whether American or 
 not, in American vefTels, cannot be touched by the enemies of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Britifh property, in American vefTels, is not fubject to French 
 or Dutch confifcation — French or Dutch property in American 
 vefTels, is fubjec"ted to Britifh confifcation. Articles of (hip 
 building, bound to the enemies of Great Britain for the equip- 
 ment of vefTels of trade only, are contraband — bound to Great 
 Britain for the equipment of vefTels of war, are not contra- 
 band. 
 
 American citizens entering as volunteers in the fervice of 
 France or Holland, are punilhable : but American volunteers 
 joining the arms of Great Britain againfl: France or Holland, 
 are not punifhable. 
 
 Britifh (hips of war, and privateers with their prizes, made 
 on citizens of Holland, may freely enter and depart the ports 
 of the United States; but Dutch {hips of war, and privateers 
 with their prizes, made on fubjects of Great Britain, are to 
 receive no fhelter or refuge in the ports of the United States. 
 — This advantage in war is given to Great Britain, not by a 
 treaty prior to an existing war, but by a treaty made in the 
 midfl of war, and exprefsly flipulating againfl a like article of 
 treaty, with the other party, for equalizing the advantage. 
 
 The article prohibiting confifcations and fequefhations, is 
 unequal between Great Britain and the United States ; Ameri- 
 can citizens have little, if any, interefl in private or bank 
 (lock, or private debts, within Great Britain. So, where much 
 would be in the power of the United States, and little in the 
 power of Great Britain, the power is interdicted : Where 
 more is in the power of Great Britain than of the United States, 
 the power is unconfined. Another remark is applicable — When 
 the modern ufage of nations is in favor of Great Britain, the 
 modern ufage is the rule of the treaty ; but when the modern 
 ufage is in favor of' the United States, the modern ufage is re- 
 jected, as a rule for the treaty. 
 
 IV. The footing on which the treaty places the fubject of 
 commerce, is liable to infuperable objections. 1. The nature 
 of our exports and imports, compared with tndfe of other 
 countries, and particularly of Great Britain, has been thought, 
 by the lcgiflature of the United States, to juftify certain dif- 
 ferences, in the tonnage and other duties, in favor of Ameri- 
 can bottoms ; and the advantage pofTefTed by Great Britain, in 
 her fuperior capital, was thought, at the fame time, to require 
 fuch countervailing encouragements. Experience has lhown 
 the" folidity of both thefe considerations. The American na- 
 
lo Virginia Memorial and Petition. 
 
 i 
 
 vigation has, in a good degree, been protected, again ft the ad- 
 vantage on the fide of Britifh capital, and has increafed in 
 proportion •, whilit the nature of our exports, being generally 
 neceflaries, or raw materials, and our imports confuting moftly 
 of Britifh manufactures, has reftrained the difpofition of Great 
 Britain to counteract the protecting duties afforded to our na- 
 vigation. If the treaty is carried into effect, this protection is 
 relinquifhed, and congrefs are prohibited from fubltituting any 
 other. Then the Britifh capital, having no longer the prefent 
 inducement to make ufe of American bottoms, may be ex- 
 pected, in whatever hands operating, to give the preference to 
 Britifh bottoms. 
 
 2* The provifions of the treaty, which relate to the Weft 
 Indies, where the nature of our exports and imports gives a 
 commanding energy to our juft pretenfions, inftead of allevi- 
 ating the general evil, are a detail of particular humiliations 
 and facrifices. Nor will a remedy by any means be found, in a 
 revifion of that part alone of the treaty. 
 
 If Great Britain fhould accede to the propofition of the fe- 
 nate, and the treaty be finally eftablifhed, without that part of 
 it, but in all its other parts : She will, in that event, be able 
 to exclude American bottoms altogether from the channel of 
 intercourfe, and to regulate the whole trade with the Weft 
 Indies, in the manner heretofore complained of, whilit the 
 United States will be completely difpoffeffed of the right and 
 the means of counteracting monopoly, unlefs they fubmit to 
 an univerfal infraction of their trade, not excepting with nations 
 whofe regulations may be reciprocal and fatisfactory. 
 
 3. The treaty, not content with thefe injuries to the United 
 States, in their' commerce with Great Britain, provides, in the 
 15th article, agajnft the improvement or prefervation of their 
 commerce with other nations, by any beneficial treaties that 
 may be attainable. — The general rule of the United States, in 
 their treaties, founded on the example of other nations, has 
 been, that where a nation is to have the privileges of the mod 
 favored nations, it (hall be admitted gratuitoufly to fuch privi- 
 leges only as may be gratuitoufly granted, but (hall pay, for 
 privileges not gratuitouily granted, the compenfation paid by 
 others ; this prudent and equitable qualification of the footing 
 of the moft favored nation, was particularly requifite in a 
 treaty with Great Britain, whofe commercial fyftem, in rela- 
 tion to other countries, being matured and fettled, is not likely 
 to be varied by grants of new privileges that might refult to 
 the United States. It was peculiarly requifite, at the prefent 
 juncture, alfo, when an advantageous revifion of the treaty 
 
Virginia Memorial and Petition. if 
 
 with France is faid to be favored by that republic ; when a trea- 
 ty with Spain is actually in negociation ; and when treaties 
 with other nations, whofe commerce is important to the United 
 States, cannot be out of contemplation. 
 
 The propofed treaty, neverthelefs, puts Great Britain, in all 
 refpects, gratuitoufly, on the footing of the nations mod fa- 
 vored, even as to the future privileges, for which the molt 
 valuable confidcrations may be given ; fo that it is not only out 
 of the power of the United States to grant any peculiar privileges 
 to any other nation, as an equivalent for peculiar advantages 
 in commerce or navigation, granted to the United States ; but 
 every nation, defiring to treat on this fubject with the United 
 States, is reduced to the alternative, either of declining the 
 treaty altogether, or of including Great Britain, gratuitoufly, 
 in all the privileges it purchafes lor itfelf. An article of this 
 import is the greateft obftruction, next to an abfolute prohi- 
 bition, that could have been thrown in the way of other trea- 
 ties ; and that it was infidioufly meant by Great Britain to be 
 fuch, is rendered the lefs doubtful, by the kindred features of 
 the treaty. 
 
 4. It can be no apology for the commercial difadvantages, 
 that better terms could not be obtained. If proper terms could 
 not be obtained^ at that time, commercial articles, which were n$ 
 •wife ejfetitially cotmetled with the objetls of the embaffy, ought t$ 
 have waited for a more favorable feafon. Nor is a better apolo- 
 gy to be drawn from our other treaties. Thefe not only avoid 
 many of the facrifices in the new treaty ; but the chief of 
 them were the guarantees or the auxiliaries of our indepen- 
 dence ; and, in that view, would have been an equivalent for 
 greater commercial conceffions than were infifted on. 
 
 V. The prefident and lenate, by ratifying this treaty, ufurp 
 the power of regulating commerce, of making rules with re- . 
 fpeci to aliens, of eitablifhing tribunals of juftice, and of de- 1 
 fining piracy. A formal demonftration of every part of this 
 complex propofition is not requifite. We will prove, that this 
 treaty is dangerous to liberty, and that the conftituted autho- 
 rities, who have given it their fanclion, have flagrantly vio- 
 lated their duty, by an appeal to the conftitution itfelf, to that 
 explicit inftrument, which we formed as the unerring guide 
 of our reprefentatives, but which fome of them have dared 
 
 to violate. 
 
 VI. A treaty, thus incompatible with our conftitution, thus 
 unequal in its conditions, thus derogating from our national 
 rights, thus infidious in fome of its objecls, and thus alarm- 
 ing in all its operations, is not only unworthy of the voluntary 
 
i a Tolly— No. II. 
 
 acceptance of an independent and happy people, but is art 
 abject facrifice, which ought to have been rejected with difdain, 
 in the mod humiliating and advcrfe circumftances. It is fin- 
 cerely believed, that fuch a treaty would not have been jiftened 
 to at any former period, even when Great Britain was mod 
 powerful, and the United States moft feeble. To pretend, that, 
 however objectionable the inflrument may be, it ought to be confi- 
 dered as the only efcape from a hojlile refenlmer.t of Great Britain, 
 •which would evidently be as impolitic, as it would be unjujl on her 
 part, IS AN ARTIFICE TOO CONTEMPTI- 
 BLE TO ANSWER ITS PURPOSE. It will not 
 eafily be fuppofed, that a refufal to part with our rights, 
 without equivalents, will be made the pretext of war on us ; 
 much lefs that fuch a pretext will be founded on our refufal, 
 to mingle a facrifice of our commerce and navigation, with an 
 adjuftment of political differences. Neither is there any evi- 
 dence in hiftory, or in human nature, that nations are to be 
 bribed out of the fpirit of encroachment and aggreffion, by ' 
 humiliations, which nourifh their pride, or by unreafonable 
 conceffions, which extend their refources and their power. To 
 do juitice to all nations — to obtain it from them by every 
 peaceable effort, in preference to war — and to confide in this 
 policy, for avoiding that extremity, or for meeting it with 
 firmnefs, under the bleffing of heaven, when it may be forced 
 upon us, is the only courfe of which the United States can 
 never have reafon to repent. 
 
 The petitioners, relying on the wifdom and patriotifm of 
 the general affembly, pray that the objections to the treaty, 
 comprifed in thefe obfervations, mr.y be taken into their ieri- 
 ous confideration ; and that fuch meafures towards a remedy 
 may be purfued, as may be judged moft conformable to the 
 nature of the cafe, and moft conliftent with couftitutional 
 principles. 
 
 Sophiftry Detected 
 
 [CONTINUED FROM VOL. 2. PAGE 201.] 
 
 No. II. 
 
 GA M I L L U. S, already proverbial for prolixity and 
 verbofity, has gone beyond his ufual tedioufnefs on 
 the fubject of fequeflration and confifcarion. He has devoted 
 
TULLY— No. II. ij 
 
 io the iftveftigation no left; than four or five entire num- 
 bers^ of length fufficienl t .whauft the patience of evf.n a pen- 
 ; fain. Eut by thir, elaborate difcuflion, lie has not 
 gained a profelyte. 
 
 When he can feizc z finglc fentiment, in any writer on the 
 laws of nations, that favors this part of the treaty, he lays as 
 rhuch Hrefs upon his opinions as the priefts of Apollo ever 
 )( Iphian oracles. But every opinion eppofed to his, 
 tioned — every fact, however well authenticated, 
 he endeavours to invalidate or explain away. — Artful and fo- 
 ririift as he 1 L>, he hasj by one finglc fentence, overturned the 
 fabric h oded fa much time to ered. He h is conceded 
 
 enough to fatisfy every rational mar <f the fallacy of his ar- 
 guments. He ha:- : dged, that there ate cafes, in which 
 not only the fequeftration, but the confifcation. of property, 
 rr.ay be jutlifial-'e. 
 
 But led it lhould be pretended, that a drained or unwar- 
 ranted conftruction is put on his words, I fliall give the fen- 
 tence at length, thai the reader may judge for himfelf : " It 
 would have been an incitimable gem in our political conftitutiotK 
 had it contained apofitive ttipulation againft fuch a practice (viz. 
 that of fequeftration and. confifcation) except, perhaps, BY 
 WAY OF REPRISAL FOR THE IDENTICAL INJL'^ 
 RY, ON THE PART OF ANOTHER NATION," 
 It is plainly and juftly deducible from this fentence : 
 lit. That when any nation fequeftera the property of ano- 
 ther nation, the latter has a jult right, »« by way of reprija!> 
 for the identical injury" to fequefter the property of the fub- 
 je£ts of the aggreflbr. 
 
 2d. That when any nation confifcates the property of the 
 fwbjecls of another nation, that nation has a right, " by way 
 of reprifal," to fequefter or confifcate the property of the fub- 
 jedls or citizens of the offending nation. Thus, then, there 
 are two cafes in which fequeftration, and one in which confif- 
 cacion, io juftifiable. This might be lufficient to evince the 
 fallacy of" CamiPus. But from thefe politions flow more fatis- 
 factory confequences. 
 
 If a nation differs a<? flagrant, or a more flagrant injury, 
 than the fequeftration or confifcation of the property of her 
 citizens, fhe has, a fortiori, a right, " by -way of reprifal" al- 
 though not for exactly " the identical injury" to fequefter 01 
 confifcate the property of the Citizen's or fubjeCts of the of- 
 fei ding 
 
 The qurftioh 19. then limply this, are there any violations of 
 I laws oi nation-, wjth refpecl to the rights of property, as 
 Vol III. C 
 
14- Tilly— No. II. 
 
 great or greater than the fequeftration or confiscation of pro- 
 perty ? That there are, England has debarred even Camillas 
 of the power of denying. Let us fuppofe, for fake of argu-r 
 ment (and this will fur fly be allowed a fuppofable cafe J that a 
 piratical nation, before ifiuing any declaration of war, clan- 
 deftinely grants letters of marque and reprifal to all her vefltls, 
 and this conducted in fuch an artful manner as to reacli all 
 quarters of the globe about the fame period, and thus render 
 the commerce of an unfufpecling rival an inevitable prey to a 
 band of lawlefs robbers. Can the Federalift, can Curtius, can 
 Camillus, deny that this is a more heinous violation of the 
 law of nations, and a more deep and lading injury, than the 
 fequeftration or even confifeation of an equal value of pro- 
 perty within the territory cf the piratical nation ? — Surely, if 
 they have the audacity to deny it, they will find few of the en- 
 lightened citizens of America to coincide in opinion with them. 
 
 Suppofe, further, that the aggrieved nation had, in its own 
 territoiy, property of the fubjedts of the other nation, of 
 equal value with that which had been thus piratically plunder- 
 ed, would it not be a right, nay a duty, to feize it, for the 
 purpofe of making restitution to the fufferers ? Unqueftionably 
 it would. 
 
 Again, let us fuppofe (and this, likewife, will be allow- 
 ed a very fuppofable cafe) the fame, or any other piratical 
 nation, to have iiTued orders, on the 6th cf November , 1793, or 
 on any other day in any other year, to her cruifers, to feize 
 the vefllls of any neutral, and carry them into her ports " for 
 legal adjudication" that the " Algerine" judges in her admiralty 
 courts had conftrued " legal adjudication" to mean " condem- 
 nation ;" and that the neutral nation, without any real or pre- 
 tended violation of the rights of neutrality, mould be bafe- 
 ly and perfidioufly plundered of her property, to an incalcu- 
 lable amount. 
 
 Is not this a more heinous violation of the laws of nations, 
 than would have been the fequeftration of property in the coun- 
 try of the aggrelfor ? Does the difference of place, in which the 
 robbery is perpetrated, conftitute any eiVential difference in the 
 turpitude, the villainy of the deed ? And if it be lawful, in 
 the cafe of the leffer crime, to retaliate by fequeftration or con- 
 fifeation, can the fuperior enormity of the other annul the right 
 of the fufferer ? 
 
 If a robber or murderer meets me on the highway, and 
 (tabs me, am I to defend or avenge myfelf in no other way, 
 than in the " identical" one, in which he was guilty ? Am I 
 »ot to attempt refinance, becaufe I have no weapons of de- 
 
Camillus — No. XXI. i£ 
 
 fence but piftols, and have been attacked with a fword ? 
 <« Away with thefe abfurd and incongruous fophifms ! Blufh, 
 " apoftle of temerity, of meannefs, and of deception ! Why 
 tf will you perfevere in accumulating ridicule and contempt; 
 " upon your own head ?" * 
 
 The laws and modern practice of nations profcribe fequef- 
 tration and confifcation of the property of the citizens or 
 fubjecls of other nations within our territory! So do they 
 equally profcribe robbery on the high feas, in time of peace. 
 And the government that commences hollilities, by a violation 
 of the law of nations, in either mode, has no right to com- 
 plain for having juftke executed, and punifhment inflicted on 
 her, by the fame or any other more convenient violation of the 
 law of nations. 
 
 By the modern laws of war, prifoners are entitled to good 
 treatment, unlefs they forfeit their right, by mifconduct or 
 crime. — But fuppofc a nation to refort to flow but certain me- 
 thods of exterminating its prifoners, fuch, for inftance, as in- 
 fected, corrupted, or even poifoned victuals — or the peftilential 
 and deftroying vapours of prifon-fhips (ANOTHER VERY 
 SUPrOSABLE CASE)— is the fufiering nation obliged to 
 obferve the rigid rules of the laws of war ? Is it, for fear of 
 being diihonored, to allow its beft citizens to fall vidims to 
 the infatiable cruelty of a barbarous enemy ? Surely not. And 
 if a violation of the laws of war is to be punifhed by a fimi- 
 lar or other violation, it is equally certain, that a violation of 
 the laws of nations demands vengeance, in a fimilar manner. 
 
 TULL Y. 
 f_TO be continued.] 
 
 Defence of Mr. Jay's Treaty, 
 
 [CONTINUED FROM VOL. 2. PAGR I99.] 
 
 No. XXT. 
 
 SINCE the clofing of my laft number, I have accidentally 
 turned to a pan* age of Vattel x which is fo pertinent to the 
 immediate fubject of that paper, that I cannot refrain fron intcr- 
 
 * See Camillus No. 18, 
 
to Ca MILL us — No. XXI. 
 
 rupting the progrefs of the difcvflion, fo q;'ote it ; it is in thefc 
 words (b. 3-ch. 4.fe6fc,63.)"'J , hefovej , eign, daring war, can 
 neither detain thofe fubjeas oi~ the encrn ,*re within his 
 
 dominions at the time of the dc I nor their effccls. 
 
 They came into his country on the p th. By permit' 
 
 :/. • to enter his territories, and continue there, he tacitly prom 
 th ; . <7y, and fecurity for their return." This pafHige com uns, 
 ex; lici the principle which ij> the genera! bufi& of my ar- 
 gUi ■/, that the permifnon to a foreigner to . 
 
 with 'o, and acquire others within, our country, 
 
 in time of pi ace, virtually pledges the public faith for & 
 curity of his perfon and property, in the event of 
 can this be reconciJed -with the natural right (con*: 
 by the cultomary law of nat'ons) which this ., to 
 
 confifcate the debts due by the fubjeo" f a ifr. ene- 
 
 mies I 1 afk once more, can there be a nntural right to do that 
 which includes a violation of faith ? 
 
 It |s plain, to a demonftraMrn, that the rule laid do\ i 
 
 this pafi'age, which js fo juft and perfjpicui us as to fpeak 
 viclion to the heart and undcrllanding, unites he rjatura) 
 the cuftomary law of nations, in a cone pre- 
 
 tenfion to confifcate or fequcfter the , rt'y of 
 
 our enemy, found in our country at the 3 ut of 
 
 3 war. 
 
 Let us now proceed to examine the policy a:. 
 fu ; "i a pretention. 
 
 In this inveftigation, I (hall aflume, as a bafis of ai 
 the following po fit ion, That it is advantageous to nation 
 commerce with each other. 
 
 Commerce, it is manifeft, like any other objec": 
 prize or induflry, will profper in proportion as it is fee ore,. 
 fecurity, confequently, promoting its profperity, extends its ad- 
 vantages. Security is indeed eflential to its having a due and 
 regular courfe. 
 
 The pretenfion of a right to confifcate or fequefter the ef- 
 fects of foreign merchants, in the cafe in queftion, is, in its 
 principle, fatal to that neceffary fecurity. Its free exercijfe 
 would deftroy external commerce; or, which is nearly the 
 fame thing, reduce it within the contracted limits of a game 
 of hazard, where the chance of large profits, accompanied 
 with the great rifles, would tempt alone the adventurous and 
 the defperate. Thofe enterprifes, which, from circuitous or 
 long voyages, flownefs of fales, incident to the nature of cer- 
 tain commodities, the neceffity of credit, or from other caufes, 
 demand confiderable time for their completion, mult be re- 
 
Camitlus — No. XXI. 17 
 
 irrcH C , indeed, mud be banilhed from all 
 
 ,i\ commerce; an engine, the imp ice jf 
 i vigorous and furcefsful profecution, be 
 
 doubtc b) none, who wii! be guided by experience or oofer- 
 vation. 
 
 h cannpt need amplification, to elucidate the truth of thefe 
 s. The (terms 6f war occur fo fuddenly and fo often, 
 bio the fuppofition, that the merchants oi one coun- 
 their property, to any extent, or for any dura- 
 ti 1 'her country, which was in the p'raQrjee of confif- 
 
 cati [ueftering the eiTtcts of its enemies, found within 
 
 its terr'tories, at the ccmnencement of a war. That practice, 
 Si -/•■-. would necefpirily parable and wither the commerce 
 of the country in which it obtained. Accordingly, nations at- 
 tentive t 6 the cultivation <-f commerce, which formerly were 
 betrayed, by temporary confederations, into particular inftances 
 of that atrocious practice have been led, by the experience 
 of '..'s mifchiefs, to abftain from it in later times. They faw 
 that to have periifted in it would have been to abandon com- 
 petition on equal terms, in tlve lucrative and beneficial field of 
 fierce. 
 It is no anfwer to this, to fay that the exercife of the right 
 might be ordinarily fufpendecl, though the right itfelf might 
 be maintained, for extraordinary and great emergencies. 
 
 In the firft place, as the ordinary forbearance of its exer- 
 cife would be taken by foreigners for evidence of an intention 
 never to exercife it, by which they would be enticed into large 
 depofiies, that would not otherwife have taken place; a depart- 
 ure from the general courfe would always involve an aft of trea- 
 chery and cruelty. 
 
 In the fecond place, the pojfibility of the occafional exercife 
 of fuch a right, if conceived to exitt, would be, at leaft, a flow 
 poifon, conducing to a fickly habit of commerce ; and, in a 
 fcries of time, would be productive of much more evil than 
 could be counterbalanced by any good which it might be pofli- 
 ble to obtain in the contemplated emergency, by the ufe of the 
 expedient. 
 
 Let experience decide — Examples of confiscation and fequcf- 
 I tration have been given — "When did the dread of them prevent 
 a war ? when did it cripple an enemy, fo as to difable him 
 from exertion, or force him into a fubmiflion to the views of 
 his adverfary ? When did it even fenlibly confpire to either of 
 thefe ends ? If it has ever had any fuch effect, the evidence of 
 it has not come within my knowledge. 
 
I 8 Ca MILL us— No. XXI. 
 
 It is true, that between Great Britain and the United States, 
 the expectation of fuch effects is better warranted than per- 
 haps in any other cafes that have exifted ; becaufe we common- 
 ly owe a larger debt to that country, than is ufual between na- 
 tions, and there is a relative (late of things, which tends to a 
 continuation of this fituation. 
 
 But how has the matter operated hitherto ? In the late war 
 between the two countries, certain ltates confifcated the debts 
 due from their citizens to Britifh creditors, and thefe creditors 
 actually fuffered great lodes. The Britifh cabinet muft have 
 known, that it was pcllible the fame thing might happen in 
 another war, and on a more general fcale ; yet the appearances 
 were extremely ftrong, at a particular juncture, that it was 
 their plan, either from ill-will, from the belief that popular 
 opinion would ultimately drag our government into the war, 
 from the union of thefe two, or from other caufes, to force 
 us into hoftiiities with them. Hence it appears, that the appre- 
 henfion of acts of confifcation, or fequeftration, was not 
 fufficient to deter from hoftile views, or to infure pacific di'f- 
 pofitions. 
 
 It may be pretended, that the menace of this meafure, had 
 a retraining influence on the fubfequent conduct of Great 
 Britain. But if we afcribe nothing to the meafures which 
 our government actually purfued, under the preflure of the 
 provocations received, we at leafl find, in the courfe of Eu- 
 ropean events, a better folution of a change of policy in the 
 cabinet of Great Britain, than from the dread of a legiflative pi- 
 racy on the debts due to their merchants. 
 
 The truth unfortunately is, that the paflions of men ftifle 
 calculation j that nations the molt attentive to pecuniary confi- 
 derations, eafily furrender them to ambition, to jealoufy, to 
 anger, or to revenge. 
 
 For the fame reafon, the actual experiment of an exercife 
 of the pretended right, by way of reprifal for an injury com- 
 plained of, would commonly be as inefficacious, as the menace 
 of it, to arreft general hoftiiities. — Pride is roufed ; refent- 
 ment kindled ; and where there is even no previous dilpofition 
 to thofe hoftiiities, the probability is, that they follow. Na- 
 tions, like individuals, ill brook the idea of receding from 
 their pretenfions under the rod, or of admitting the juftice of 
 an act of retaliation or reprifal, by fubmitting to it. Thus we 
 learn, from the king of Pruffia himfelf, that the fequeftration 
 of the Silefia debt, inftead of procuring the reftoration for 
 which it was defigned, was on the point of occafioning an 
 open rupture between him and Great Britain, when the fuper- 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXI. 19 
 
 vention of a quarrel with France diverted the ftorm, by render- 
 ing him neceflary as an ally. 
 
 Perhaps it may be imagined, that the practice of confifcation 
 or fequeltration would be more efficacious to wound and dif- 
 able Great Britain, in cafe of a war, than to prevent it. But 
 this alfo is a vain chimera ! A nation, that can, at pleafure, 
 raife by loan twenty millions fterling, would be in little dan- 
 ger of being difconcerted or enfeebled in her military enter- 
 prizes, by the taking r.way or arrefting of three or four mil- 
 lions due to her mer/hants. Did it produce diltrefs and dis- 
 order among thofe whom it affected and their connexions ? If 
 that diforder was fufiicient to threaten a general derangement 
 of mercantile credit, and, with it, of the public finances, the 
 pending war affords an example, that the public purfe or cre- 
 dit could be brought Fuccefsfully into action for the fupport 
 of the fuilerers. Three or four millions of exchequer bills ap- 
 plied in loans, would be likely to furficc, to prevent the partial 
 evil from growing into a national calamity. 
 
 But we forget, that as far as the interruption of the pay- 
 ment of the debts due to her merchants could be fuppofed to 
 operate upon Great Britain, war itfelf would effentially anfwer 
 the purpofes of confifcation or fequeltration — By interrupting 
 trade and intercourfe, it is in fact, in a great degree, a virtual 
 fequeltration. Remittances to any extent become impractica- 
 ble. There are few ways, in which, on account of the ltate 
 of war, it is lawful to make them j and debtors are, for the 
 molt part, enough difpofed to embrace pretexts of procras- 
 tination. 
 
 The inconvenience of deferred payment would, therefore - , 
 be felt by Great Britain, with little mitigation, from the 
 bare exiltence of war, without the neceflity of our govern- 
 ment incurring the difcredit and refponfibility of a fpecial 
 interference. 
 
 Indeed, as far as the dread of eventual lofs can operate, it 
 ought, in a great meafure to have its effect exclufive of the 
 idea of confifcation. Great Britain mult want reflection, not 
 to be fenfible, that, in making war upon us, (he makes war 
 upon her own merchants *, by the depredations upon our trade 
 destroying thofe refources from which they are to be paid. If 
 fhe be indifferent to this confideration, it will be becaufe (he is 
 governed by fome motive or pafiion powerful enough to difpofc 
 her to run the rifle of the entire lofs — in the reliance of obtain- 
 ing indemnification by the acquisitions of war, or in the terms 
 •f peace. 
 
20 Ca MILL us—No. XXI. 
 
 Will it be faid, that the feizure of the debts would put in 
 the hands of our government a valuable refjurce for carrying 
 on the war? This, upon trial, would prove as fallacious as 
 all the reft. Various inducements w-mld prevent debtors f--om 
 paying into the treafury. Some would decline it from confeien- 
 tious fcruples, from a doubt of the rectitude of the thiri 
 others, with intent to make a merit with their creditors of 
 the concealment, and to favor their own future credit and ad- 
 vantage — others, from a defire to retain the money in their own 
 employment — and a great number, from the apprehenfion that 
 the treaty of peace might revive their refponGbility to the cre- 
 ditors, with the embarraflment to themfelyes of getting L^ 
 as well as they could, the monies which they had paid into the 
 treasury. Of this, our lafl treaty of peace, in the opinion of 
 able judges, gave an example. — Thefe caufes and others, which 
 do not as readily occur, would oppofe great obltacles to the 
 execution of the meafure. 
 
 But fevere laws, inflicting heavy penalties, might compel 
 it — Experience does not warrant a fanguine reliance upon this 
 expedient, in a cafe in which great opportunity of conceal- 
 ment is united with ftrong motives of inclination or intercit — 
 It would require an inquifition, juftly intolerable to a free peo- 
 ple — penalties, which would confound the due proportion be- 
 tween crime and punifhment, to detect, or to deter from con- 
 cealment and evafion, and to execute the law — Probably no 
 means lefs efficacious than a revolutionary tribunal ami 
 tine would go near to anfwer the end. — There are but few, I 
 truit, to whom thefe would be welcome means. 
 
 We may conclude, therefore, that the law would be evaded 
 to an extent, which would difappoint the expectations from 
 it, as a refource. Some monies, no doubt, would be collect- 
 ed; but the probability is, that the amount would be infigni- 
 ficant, even in the fcale of a fingle compaign — But, mould 
 the collection prove as complete, as it ordinarily is, between 
 debtor and creditor, it would little, if at all, exceed the expenfe 
 of one campaign. 
 
 Hence wc perceive, that, regarding the meafure, either as 
 a mean of difabling our enemies, or as a refource to ourfelves, 
 its confequence dwindles, upon a clofe furvey ; it cannot pre- 
 tend to a magnitude, which would apologize, either for a 
 facrifice of national honor or candor, or for a deviation from 
 the true principles of commerce and credit. 
 
 But let us take a fti'ther view of its difadvantages. 
 
 A nacicn, in cafe of war, is under no refponfibility for the 
 delinquencies or frauds of its citizens, who are debtors to th 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXT. ?! 
 
 is ericmy, if it does not fpecially interfere With the pay-* 
 Mient of the debts which they owe. But, if it inncrpofes it;; 
 authority to prevent the payment, it gives a claim of indemni- 
 fication to its adverfary, for the intervening loftes whicn thofc 
 delinquencies or frauds may occanori. — Whefher, on the mak- 
 ing of peace, this would be infilled upon or waved, mi;;ht depend 
 much on the good or ill fuccefs of the war; bat every thing wnicH 
 adds to the catalogue of our enemy's jult pretentions, t(f>C" 
 cially when the fortune of war has been pretty equal, is an 
 evil, either as an additional obltacle to fpeedy peace, or as an 
 ingredient to render the terms of it lefs advantageous to our- 
 felves. And it is, therefore, unwife in a government to in- 
 creafe the lift of fuch pretenfmns, by a meafure, which, with- 
 out utility to itfelf, adminifters to the indolence of negligent, 
 and to the avidity of fraudulent, individuals. 
 
 Further— Every fpecies of veprifai or annoyance, which A 
 power at war employs, contrary to lib 'lie:-, of 
 
 doubtful propriety, in the estimation cf the law of nations, 
 departing from that moderation., which, in latter times, ferves 
 to mitigite tlie feverities of war, by furmfhing a pretext or 
 provocation to the other fide to refort to extremities, fefves to 
 embitter the fpirit of hoflinties, and to extend its ravines. 
 War is then apt to become' more fanguinarv, more wailing, 
 and every wry more dc flruclive. This is a ground of ur 
 reflection to every nation* both as it regards hmo. .-.-.:y and 
 policv ; to this country it preferits itfelf, accompanrd with 
 fcohfi derations of peculiar force. A vaftly-exrended fea-coaft, 
 overipre.id with defencelefs towns, would offer an abundant 
 prey to an incenfed and malignant eriemy^ having the power 
 to command the fea. The uiages of modern war forbid, hofti- 
 li tics of this kind ; and though they are not always refpected, 
 yet, as they are never violated, unlefs by way of tetaliation ror 
 a violation of them on the other fide, without exciting the re- 
 probation of the impartial part of mankind, fuiiying the glory, 
 and blading the reputation of the party which difreg.irds them, 
 this Cbnfideration has, in general, force fuihcieiit to induce an 
 ohfervance of them. But the Confifcation or fcq'ueitration of 
 private debts, or private property in public fund", now gene- 
 rally regarded as an odious and unwarrantable meaUire, would, 
 as between us and Great Britain, contain a poignant Uing. Its 
 tiFeci to ev iperarc, in an extreme degree, both the nation and 
 government of that country, cannot be doubted. A difpohtioil 
 to retaliate, is a natural coniequence ; and it \vi uhl not be 
 difficult for us to be made to fuffer beyond any poffible degree 
 of advantage to be derived from the oecalion ol the retaliation. 
 
 Vo L . hl tt 
 
11 Ca MILL us— No. XXf. 
 
 It were much wifcr to leave the property of Britifh fubjects, 
 an untouched pledge for the moderation cf its government, in 
 mode of profecuting the war. 
 
 ;as, if requifite, might be proved fr< m the records 
 of hiftory) in national controverGes, it is of real importance 
 to conciliate the good opinion of mankind •, and it is even ufe- 
 ful to prrferve or gain that of our enemy. The latter facili- 
 tates accommodation and peace ; the former attracts pood of- 
 fices, friendly interventions, fometimes direct fupport, from 
 others. — The exemplary conduct, in general, of our country, 
 in our corned for independence, was probably not a little fer- 
 viceable to us in this ways it fecured, to the intrinfic goodnefs 
 of cur cauie, every collateral advantage, and gave it a popu- 
 larity among nations, unalloyed and unimpaired, which even 
 fto'.e into the cabinets of princes. A contrary policy tends to 
 contrary confequences. Though nations, in the main, are go- 
 verned by what they fuppcfe their intereft, he muft be imper- 
 fectly verfed in human nature, who thinks it indifferent, whe- 
 ther the maxims of a Hate tend to excite kind or unkind dif- 
 pofitiens it! others, or who does not know, that thefe difpofi- 
 tions may inlenfibly mould or bias the views of felf-intereit. — 
 This were to fuppofe that rulers only reafon — do not feel j in 
 other words, are not men. 
 
 Moreover, the meafures of war ought ever to look forward 
 to peace. The conhfeation or fequeftration of the private pro- 
 perty of an enemy muft always be a point of ferious difculfion, 
 when intereft or neceffity leads to negociations for peace. Un- 
 lefs when ahfolutely prcftrate by the war, reftitution is likely 
 to conftitute an ultimatum of the fuffer.v; party. It muft be 
 agreed to, or the war protracted, and at laft, it is probable, it 
 muft ftill be agreed to. Should a refufal of reftitution prolong 
 the war for only one year, the chance is, that more will be 
 loft than was gained by the confifcation. Should it be neceffary 
 finally to make it, after prolonging the war, the difadvantage 
 will preponderate in a ratio to the prolongation. Should it be, 
 in the firft inftance, aflented to, what will have been gained ? 
 The temporary ufe of a fund of inconfiderable moment, in 
 the general iffue of the war, at the expenle of juftice, cha- 
 racter, credit, and, perhaps, of having fharpened the evils cf 
 war. How infinitely preferable to have drawn an equal fund 
 from our own refourceSj which, with good management, is 
 always practicable ! — If the reftitution includes damages, on 
 account of the interference, for the failures of individuals, the 
 loan will have been the mod coftly that could have been made. It 
 has been eifewhere obferved, that our treaty of peace with 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXI. 23 
 
 Great Britain gives an example of reftitution. The late one 
 between France and Piuffia gives another. This mud become 
 every day more and more a matter of courfe, becaufe the 
 immunity of mercantile debts becomes every day more and 
 more important to trade, better underftood to be fo, and 
 more clearly confidered as enjoined by the principles of the 
 law of nations. 
 
 Thus we fee, that in reference to the Gmple question of war 
 and peace, the meafure of confifcation or fequeftration is mark- 
 ed with every feature of impolicy. 
 
 We have before feen, that the pretenGons of a right to 
 do the one or the other, has a moft inimical afpeft towards 
 commerce and credit. 
 
 Let us refume this view of the fubject. The credit, which 
 our merchants have been able to obtain abroad, effentially in 
 Great Britain, has, from the firft fettle ment of our country to 
 this day, been the animating principle of our foreign com- 
 merce. This every merchant knows and feels; — and every in- 
 telligent merchant is fenfible, that, for many years to come, 
 the cafe mull continue the fame. This, in our fituation, is a 
 peculiar reafon, of the utmolt force, for renouncing the pre- 
 tenfion in queftion. 
 
 The exercife of it, or the ferious apprehenfion of its exer- 
 cife, would neceffarily have one of two effects. — It would deprive 
 our merchants of the credit, [0 important to them, or it would 
 oblige them to pay a premium for it, proportioned to the opi- 
 nion of the ritlc. Or, to fpeak more truly, it would combine 
 the two effects; it would cramp credit, and fubjeel what was 
 given to a high premium. The moil obvious and familiar prin- 
 ciples of human action eilablifh, that the confuleration for 
 money or property, lent or credited, is moderate orotherwife, 
 according to the opinion of fecurity or hazard, and that the 
 quantity of either to be obtained, on loan or credit, is in a great 
 degree contracted or enlarged by the fame rale. 
 
 Thus fhould we, in the operations ot our trade, pay ex- 
 orbitantly for a pretention, which is of little value, or rather, 
 which is pernicious, even in the relations to which its uti.it v 
 IS referred. What folly to cherifii it ! How much greater the 
 folly ever to think of exercifing it ! It never can be exer- 
 cife d hereafter, in our country, without great and laitin^ 
 mifchief. 
 
 Inltead of cherifhing fo odious a pretenfion, as " our beft, 
 our only weapon of defence," — wifdom admonilhcs us to be 
 eager to call it from us, as a weapon moft dangerous to the 
 
jty Camillus— No. XXif. 
 
 wearer, prokribed by the laws of nations, by die h\v3 of ho* 
 nor, and by every principle of found policy. 
 
 Every mere! a it ought to uefire thac the mod perfect tran- 
 quillity, on : t, in foreign countries, fhould facilitate 
 to him, on the beft and cheapeit terms, the credit for which 
 he has cccafion. And every other citizen ought to defire, that 
 he may be thus freed from a continual contribution, in the 
 enhanced priced every imported commodity he confumes, to r 
 wards defraying the premium which the want of that traiupiil- 
 lity is calculated to generate. 
 
 CAMiLLUS. 
 
 No. XXII. 
 
 THE analogy of the ftipulation in the icth article, with 
 flipulations in our other treaties, and in the treaties be- 
 tween other nations, is the remaining topic of difcuffion. Af- 
 ter this, attention will be paid to fuch obfervations, by way of 
 objection to the article, as may not have been before exprefsly 
 or virtaaihj anfwered. 
 
 The 20th article of our treaty of amity and commerce with 
 France, is in thefc words: 
 
 " For the betier promoting of commerce, on both fides, it 
 is agreed, that if a war fbaii break out between the fa id two 
 nariom, fix .months, after the proclamation of war, lhall be 
 allowed to the merchants in the cities ;\v\i\ towns where they 
 live, for felling and tranfporting their goods and merchandizes ; 
 and if any thing be taken from them, or any injury be done 
 them within that term by either party, or the people or 
 fubjects of either, full fatisfaction (hall be made for the fame." 
 
 The 1 8th article of our treaty of amity and commerce with 
 the United Netherlands, is in thefe words; 
 
 u For the better promoting of commerce, on both fides, it 
 is agreed, that if a war fhouid break out between their high 
 mightinefies, the States General of the United Netherlands, 
 and the United States of America, there (hall always be granted 
 to the fubjecls on each fide, the term of nine months, aftei the 
 date of the rupture or the proclamation of war, to the end 
 that they may retire with their effects, and tranfport them 
 where they pleafe, which it fhail be lawful fur them to do, as 
 well as to fell and tranfport their effects and goods, with all 
 freedom and without any hindrance, md without being able 
 
Ca mill us — No. XXII. 25 
 
 to proceed, during the faid term of nine months, to any arreft 
 of their effects, much lets of their perfons ; on the contrary, 
 there- (hall be given them, for their veffels and effects which 
 they would carry away, paffports and fafe conduces for the 
 ncareft ports of their refpetlive countries, and for the time 
 neceffary for the voyage." 
 
 The 2 2d article of our treaty of amity and commerce with 
 Sweden, is in thefe words : 
 
 " In order to favor commerce, on both (ides, as much as 
 poffible, it is agreed, that in cafe war fhould break out between 
 the two nations, the term of nine months after the declara- 
 tion of war (hall be allowed to the merchants and fubjects 
 refpectively, on one fide and on the other, in order that they 
 may withdraw with their effects and moveables, which they 
 fhall be at liberty to carry off or to fell where they pleafe, 
 without the leait obfeaele — nor (hall any feize their effects, and 
 much k-fs their perfons, during the faid nine months; but on 
 the contrary, paffports, which (hall be valid for a time necef- 
 fary for their return, ihrdl be given them for their veffels and 
 the effect s which they (hall be willing to carry with them — and, 
 if any thing is taken from them, or any injury is done to them 
 by one of the parties, their people and fubjects, during the 
 term above prefcribed, full and entire fatisfaction (hall be made 
 to them on that account." 
 
 The i^d article of our treaty of arnity and commerce with 
 PruiTia, contains this provifion : 
 
 " If war (hould arife between the two contracting parties, 
 the merchants of either country, then redding in the other, 
 (hall be allowed to remain nine months, to collect their debts 
 and fettle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all 
 their effects without moleftation or hindrance." 
 
 Thefe articles of four, and the only commercial treaties we 
 had with foreign powers, prior to the pending treaty with 
 Great Britain, though differing in terms, agree in fubitance; 
 except as to time, which varies from fix to nine months. And 
 they clearly amount to this, that upon the breaking out of a war 
 between the contracting parties in each, cue, there iha'.l be, for 
 a term of fix or nine months, f 1 t protection and fecurity 
 to the perfons and property of the (ubjects of one, which are 
 then in the territories of the other, with liberty to collect their 
 debts,- to fell their goods and merchandizes, and to remove, 
 
 • The term " debts," is only exjm fTc<! in the Pruflian treaty, but there are 
 in the oilier treaties, terms which include debt;, and tins ib the manifci) fpirit 
 and intern of all. 
 
26 Cam ill us— No. XXII. 
 
 with their effects, wherefoever they plcafe. For this term of 
 fix or nine months, there is a complete fufpenfion of the pre- 
 tended right to confifcate or fequelter, giving, or being defign- 
 ed to give, an opportunity to withdraw the whole property 
 which the fubjedts or citizens of one party have in the country 
 of the other. 
 
 The differences between thefe flipulations and that in the 
 article under examination arc chiefly thefe : the latter is con- 
 fined to debts, property in the public funds and in public and 
 private banks, without any limitation of the duration of the 
 protection — The former comprehends, in addition, goods and 
 merchandizes, with a limitation of the protection to a term of fix 
 or nine months; but with the intent and fuppofition that the 
 term allowed may and will be adequate to entire fecurity. The 
 principle, therefore, of all the flipulations is the fame ; each 
 aims at putting the perfons and property of the fubjedts of one 
 enemy, efpecially merchants, being within the country of the 
 other enemy at the commencement of a war, out of the reach 
 of confifcation or fequeftration. 
 
 The perfons whofe names are to our other treaties, on the 
 part of the United States, are Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, 
 Arthur Lee, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferfon. The three 
 firft are to the treaty with France — Mr. Adams is fingly to that 
 with the United Netherlands — Dr. Franklin fingly to that witli 
 Sweden, and thefe two, with Mr. Jefferfon, are jointly to tliat 
 •with Pruflia — The treaty with Sweden was concluded in April, 
 17S3; that with Pruffia, in Augull, 1785. Thefe dates repel 
 the idea, that confederations of policy, relative to the war, 
 might have operated in the cafe. 
 
 We have, confequently, the farichon of all thefe characters 
 to the principle, which governed the ftipulation entered into 
 by Mr. Jay, and not only from the ratification of the former 
 treaties at different periods, diftant from each other, by differ- 
 ent defcriptions of men in our public councils, but alfo from 
 there never having been heard, in the community, a lifp or 
 murmur againft the ftipulation, through a period of feventeen 
 years, counting from the dare of the treaty with France, there 
 is juft ground to infer a Coincidence of the public opinion of 
 the country. 
 
 I verily believe, that if, in the year 1783, a treaty had been 
 made with England, containing an article fimilar to the 10th 
 in the prefent treaty, it would have met with general acquief- 
 cence. The fpirit of party had not then predifpofed men's 
 minds to eflimate the propriety of a meafure according to the 
 agent, rather than according to its real fitnefs and quality. 
 
Camillus — No. XXII. 27 
 
 What would then have been applauded as wife, liberal, equita- 
 ble, and expedient, is now, in more inflances than one, under 
 the peftilential influence of that baleful fpirit, condemned a9 
 improvident, impolitic, and dangerous. 
 
 Our treaty with Pruflia, the 23d article of which has been 
 cited, is indeed a model of liberality, which, for the principles 
 it contains, does honor to the parties, and has been in this 
 country a fubject of deferved and unqualified admiration. It 
 contradicts, as if lludioufly, thole principles of reftrictien and 
 exciution, which are the foundations of the mercantile and na- 
 vigating fyltem of Europe. It grants perfect freedom of con- 
 fcici.ee and worfhip to the refpective fubject s and citizens, 
 with no other reftraint than that they (hall not infult the reli- 
 gion of others. Adopting the rule, that free (hips (hall make 
 free goods, it extends the protection to the perfons as well as 
 to the goods of enemies. — Enumerating, as contraband, only 
 " arms, ammunition, and military floies," it even provides that 
 contraband articles fliall not be confifcated, but may be taken 
 on the condition of paying for them. It provides againft embar- 
 goes of veiTels and effects. It exprefsly exempts women, chil- 
 dren, fcholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, arti- 
 zans, manufacturers, and fifliermen, unarmed and inhabiting 
 unfortified towns, villages, and places, and in general, all 
 others whofc occupations are for the common fubfiltence and 
 benefit of mankind, their houfes, fields, and goods, from mo- 
 leiiatiwH in their perfons and employments, and from burning, 
 waiting, and deftruction, in time of war; and ftipulates pay- 
 ment at a reafonable price for what may be necetiarily taken 
 from them for military ufe. — It like wife protects from feizure 
 and conhfeation, in time of war, veflels employed in trade, 
 and inhibits the granting commiflions to private armed veflels, 
 empowering them to take or deftroy fuch trading veflels, or to 
 interrupt their commerce; and it makes a variety of excellent 
 proviiions to feeure to prifoners of war, a humane treatment. 
 
 Thcfe particulars are ftated as evidence of the temper of the 
 day, and of a policy, which then prevailed, to bottom our fyf- 
 tem with regard to foreign nations upon thofe grounds of mo- 
 deration and equity, by which reafon, religion and philofophy 
 had tempered the harfh maxims of more early times. It is pain- 
 ful to obferve an effort to make the public opinion, in this re- 
 fpect, retrograde, and to infect our councils with a fpirit con- 
 trary to thefe falutary advances towards improvement in truf 
 civilization and humanity. 
 
 l!i we pafs from our own treaties, to thofe between other 
 nations, we find that the provifions, which have been extracted 
 
28 Cam ill us— No. XXII. 
 
 from ours have very nearly become formulas in the conven- 
 tions of Europe. As examples of this may be confulted, the 
 following articles of treaties between Great Britain and otl 
 powers (to wit) the XVlIlth article of a treaty of peace and 
 commerce with Portugal, tin 1642 — the XXXVIih article of a 
 treaty of peace, commerce, and alliance with Spain, in 1067 
 — theXIXth article of a treaty of peace, and the lid of a treaty 
 of commerce with France, both in 17 13, and the Xilt 
 cf a treaty of commerce and navigation with Ruffia, in i~66. 
 The article with Porcugal provides, that if difficulties and 
 doubts fhali arife between the two nations, which give reafon 
 to apprehend the interruption of commerce, public notice of it 
 fhall be given to the fubjects on both fides, and rfter that no- 
 tice, two years fhall be allowed to carry away the merchandizes 
 and goods, and in the mean time, there fhall be no injury or 
 prejudice done to any perfons or goods on either fide. 
 
 The articles with France, in addition to the provifions com-, 
 mon in other cafes, particularly ftipulate, that during the term 
 of the protection (fix months) " the fubjecls on each fide fhall 
 enjoy good and fpeedy juftice, (o that during the faid fpace of 
 fix months, they may be able to recover their goods and effects, 
 entrulled as well to the public, as to private perfons." 
 
 The aricle with Ruffia, befidesftipulating an exemption from 
 confirmation for one year, with the privilege to remove and 
 carry away in fafety, provides additionally, that the fub- 
 jecls of each party " fhall be further permitted, either at or 
 before their departure, to confign the effects which they fhall 
 not as yet have difpofed of, as well as the debts that mall be due 
 to them, to fuch perfons as they fhall think proper, in order to 
 difpofe of them according to their defire and for their benefit; 
 which debts, the debtors fhall be obliged to pay in the fame 
 manner as if no fuch rupture had happened." 
 
 All theft articles' are, with thofe of our treaties, analagous 
 in principle, as heretofore particularly explained, to the ioih 
 article of the treaty under difcuffion. That of the Briiifh treaty 
 with France designates exprefsly debts due from the public as 
 well as thofe due from priva.e perfons. That with Ruffia goes 
 the full length of cur tenth article; empowering the creditors 
 on each fitie to nifign the debts, which they are not able to col- 
 lect within the term cf their refidence, to whomfoever they 
 think, fit, for their own benefit, and declaring that thefe debts 
 fhall hi paid to the affigns in the fame manner as if no rupture 
 rtad happened. 
 
 There is a document extant, which may fairly be fuppofrd 
 to exprefs the {crfc of the government of France, at the period 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXII. 29 
 
 to which it relates, of the foundation of thefe ftipulations. It 
 is a memorial of Mr. Bufly, miniller from the court of France 
 to that of London, for negotiating peace, dated in the year 
 1761, and contains thefe paffages : " As it is impracticable for 
 two princes, who make war with each other, to agree between 
 them which is the aggrefjbr with regard to the other * equity and 
 humanity have dictated tliefe precautions, that where an unfore- 
 feen rupture happens fuddenly and without any previous decla- 
 ration, foreign veflels, which, navigating under the fecurity cf 
 peace t and ot treaties, happen, at the time of the rupture, to 
 be in either of the refpedtive ports, (hall have time and full 
 liberty to withdraw themfelves. 
 
 " This wile provifion, fo agreeable to the rules of good 
 faith, conjhtutcs a part of the laiv of nations^ and the article of 
 the treaty, which fanctihes thefe precautions, ought to be faith- 
 fully executed, notwithstanding the breach of the other articles 
 of the treaty which is the natural confequence of the war. 
 
 '* The courts of France and Great Britain ufed this falutary 
 precaution in the treaties of Utrecht and Aix la Chapelle." 
 
 Thefe paflagts place the fecurity ftipulatec! in the treaties for 
 the perfons and property of the fubjecls of one party found in 
 the country of another, at the beginning of a War, upon the 
 footing of its conjlituting a part of the law of nations, which may 
 be confidered as a formal diplomatic recognition of the princi- 
 ple for which we contend. As this pofition was not itfelf in 
 difpute between the two governments, but merely a collateral 
 inference from it, applicable to veflels taken at fea, prior to a 
 decl. nation of war, it may be regarded as a refpectable telli- 
 mouy of the law of nations on the principal point. 
 
 If the law of nations confers this exemption from feizurc 
 upon veflelsj which, at the time of the rupture, happen to be 
 in the refpedYive ports of the belligerent parties, it is evident 
 that it muft equally extend its protection to debts contracted in 
 a courfe of lawful trade. Veflels are particularly mentioned, 
 becaufe the difcuilion turned upon vefleis feized at fea. But the 
 reference to the treaties of Utrecht and Aix la Chapelle fhows, 
 that the minifter, in his observation, had in view the whole 
 fubject matter of the articles of thofe treaties, which provide 
 for the fecurity of merchants and their effects in the event of 
 war. 
 
 Vol. III. E 
 
 * Thus we find it the fentimem cf this minifter, that it is impoJJSblc tot tvo 
 princes who make war with e ich other, to agree which is the aggrijfor tvitb t 
 to tie other. And yet Mr. f.y was to extort from Great Britain an acknowledg- 
 ment, that foe iv :s tie aggrrjj'ji -with regard tt us, and was guilty of pufillaaimity m 
 waving the quellion. 
 
^o Cam ill us — No. XXII. 
 
 This con form ft y in principle, of the article under exami- 
 nation, with the proviiions in (b many treaties of our own and 
 of other nations, taken in connexion witli the comment of Mr. 
 Buffy, brings a very powerful fupport to the article. It is addi- 
 tional and Full evidence that our envoy, in agreeing to it, did 
 not go upon new and untrodden ground ; that, on the con- 
 trary) he was in a beaten track j that, in purfuing the dictates 
 of reafon, and the better opinion of writers, as to the rule of 
 the law of nations reletting the point, he was, at the fame 
 tirr.e, purfuing the examples of all the other treaties, which 
 we had ourfelves made, and of many of thofe of other 
 countries. 
 
 It is now incumbent upon mc to perform my promiie of 
 rcp'ving to ifuch objections to the article as may remain unan- 
 swered by the preceding repiarks. It is with pleafure I note 
 that the fiAd is very narrow — that, indeed, there fcarcely re- 
 mains any thing which is not fo frivolous and impotent as al-. 
 mod to forbid a ferious replication — It will therefore be my 
 aim to be brief. 
 
 It is faid, there is only an apparent reciprocity in the ar- 
 ticle, millions being due on our fide, and little or nothing 
 on rhe other. 
 
 The anfwer to this is, that no right being relinquished, on 
 either fide, no privilege granted, the ftipulation amounting 
 only to a recognition of a rule of the law of nations, to a pro- 
 mife to a.bitain from injuftice and a breach of faith, there is 
 no room for an argument about reciprocity further than to re- 
 quire that the promiie fhould be mutual, as is the cafe — 
 This is the only equivalent which the nature of the fubjecl: 
 demands or permits — It would be dishonorable to accept a 
 boon merely for an engagement to fulfil a moraj obligation — 
 Indeed, as heretofore intimated, the true rule of reciprocity in 
 ftipulations- of treaties, is equal right, not equal advantage from 
 each feveral ftipulation. 
 
 But it has been fliown, that the ftipulation will be beneficial 
 to us, by the confidence which it will give on the other fide, 
 obviating and avoiding the obftruttions to trade, the injuries 
 to, and incumbrances upon, credit, naturally incident to the dif- 
 truft and apprehenfion, which, after the queftion had been 
 once moved, were to be expecled — Here, if a compenfation 
 were required, there is one — Let me add as a truth, which, 
 perhaps, has no exception, however uncongenial with the 
 fafhionable patriotic creed — that, in the wife order of providence, 
 Rations, in a temporal fenfe, may fafely truft the maxim, that 
 
Ca MILL us — No. XXII. 
 
 3* 
 
 the obfervancc of juilicc carries with it its own and a full 
 reward. 
 
 It is alfo faid, that having bound ourftlves by treaty, we 
 mall hereafter lofe the credit of moderation, which would 
 attend a forbearance to exercife the rieht. But it having been 
 demonstrated, that no fuch right exitts, we only renounce a 
 claim to the negative merit of not committing injuflice, and 
 we acquire the pofitive praife of exhibiting a willingnefs to 
 renounce explicitly a pretenfion, which might be the inftru- 
 rnent of opprefhon and fraud — It is always honorable to give 
 proof of upright intention. 
 
 It is further faid, that under the protection cJ this ftipula- 
 tion the king of Great Britain, who has already din 
 
 cur funds (the affertors would be puzzled to bring ; 
 the fact) may engrofs the whole capital of the bank of the 
 United States, and thereby fecure the uncontrouled direction 
 of it — that he may hold the ftock in trie name of his ambaf- 
 fador, or of fome citizen of the United States, perhaps a fe- 
 nator, who, if of the virtuous twenty,* might be proud of 
 the honor — that thus our citizens, in time of peace, might 
 experience the mortification of being beholden to Britifh di- 
 rectors, for the accommodations they might want — that, in 
 time of war, our operations might be cramped at the pleafure 
 of his majelty, and according as he fliould fee fit or not to ac- 
 commodate our government with loans — and that both in 
 peace and war we may be reduced to the abject condition of 
 having the whole capital of our national bank adminiftercd by 
 his Britannic majeity. 
 
 Shall I treat this rhapfody with ferioufnefs or ridicule ? 
 
 The capital of the bank of the United States is ten millions 
 of dollars, little fhorf, at the prefent market price, of three 
 millions of pounds fterling ; but, from the natural operation 
 of fuch a demand, in railing the price, it is not probable that 
 much lefs than four millions fterling would fulhce to complete 
 the monopoly. I have never underftood, that the private purfe 
 of his Britannic majefty, if it be true, as aiTevted, that he has 
 already witnefled a relilh for fpeculation in our funds (a fact, 
 however, from which it was natural to infer a more pacific difpo- 
 fition towards us) was fo very ample as conveniently to fpare an 
 item of fuch fize for a fpeculation acrofs the Atlantic. But, 
 perhaps, the national purfe will be brought to his aid — A* 
 this fuppofes a parliamentary grant, new taxes and new loans, 
 it does not feem to be a very manageable thing, without difr 
 
 * Thofc who a4?ifc<J to a ratification ci :iu- freafy, 
 
32 Gam ill us— No. XXII. 
 
 clofure of the object, and, if difclofed, fo very unexampled 
 an attempt of a foreign government would prefent a cafe com- 
 pletely out of the reach of all ordinary rules, juflifying, by 
 the manifeft danger to u?, even war and the confifcation of all 
 that had been purchnfed. For let it be remembered, that the arti- 
 cle does not protect the public property of a foreign government, 
 prince, or ft ate, independent of the obfervation juft made, 
 that fuch a cafe would be without the reach of ordinary rules. 
 It may be added, that an attempt of this kind, from the force 
 of the pecuniary capital of Great Britain, would, as a precedent, 
 threaten and alarm all nations. Would confequences like thefe 
 be incurred ? 
 
 But let it be fuppofed, that the inclination {hall exift, and 
 that all difficulties about funds have been furmounted — Still, 
 to effect the plan, there mufl be, in all the ftockholders, a 
 willingnefs to fell to the Britiih king or his agents, as well as 
 the will and means, on his part, to purchafe. Here, toOj 
 fome impediments might be experienced : there are perfons 
 who might choofe to keep their property in the {hape of bank 
 flock, and live upon the income of it, whom price would not 
 readily tempt to part with it. Befides, there is an additional 
 obilacle to complete fuccefs : — The United .States are themfelves 
 the proprietors of two millions of the bank (lock. 
 
 Of two things, one, either the monopoly of his Britannic 
 majefly would be known (and it would be a pretty arduous 
 ta(k to keep it a fecret, efpecially if the fleck was to (land, 
 as fuggefled, in the name of his ambaffadcr) or it would be 
 unknown and concealed under unfufpecled names : In the 
 former fuppofition, the obfervations already made recur. There 
 ■would be no protection to it from the article; and the extra- 
 ordinary nature of the cafe would warrant any thing — Would 
 his majefty or the parliament choofe to trufl fo large a property 
 in fo perilous a fituation ? 
 
 If, to avoid this, the plan fbould be to keep the operation 
 unknown, the mod effectual method would be to place the 
 flock in the names of our own citizens. This, it feems, would 
 be attended with no difficulty; fince even our fenators would 
 be ambitious of the honor : and if they lhould have qualms 
 and fears, others more compliant could, no doubt, be found 
 amongft the numerous fecretaries or adherents of Great Bri- 
 tain in our country : probably fome of the patriots would not 
 be inexorable, if properly folicited. Or, in the lalt refort, per- 
 fons might be fent from Great Britain to acquire naturalization 
 for the exprefs purpofe. 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXII. 33 
 
 In this fuppofition, too, the article would be at the leaft in- 
 nocent. For its provifions are entirely foreign to the cafe of 
 ftock {landing in the names of our own citizens. Tt neither 
 enlarges nor abridges the power of the government in this 
 refpect. 
 
 Further, how will the article work the miracle of plactncf the 
 bank under the management of Britifh directors ? It gives no 
 new rights, no new qualifications. 
 
 The conftitution of the bank (fection the 5 th» 7th of the 
 act of incorporation) has provided, with folicitude, thefe im- 
 portant guards, againft foreign or other finifter influence — I. 
 That none but a citizen of the United States fhall be eligible as 
 a director. 2. That none but a ftockholder, act u -ill v refident 
 within the United States, fhall vote in the elections by proxy. 
 3. That one fourth of the directors, who are to be elected annual- 
 ly, muft every year go out of the direcfh >n. 4- That a director 
 may, at any time, be removed and replaced Hy the llockholders 
 at a general meeting. <;. That a fingle (1: ire flu 1 1 give one 
 vote for directors, while any number of fhares, in the fame 
 perfon, co-partnerthip or body politic, will not give more than 
 thirty votes. 
 
 Hence it is impoflible, that the bank can be in the manage- 
 ment of Britilh directors — a Britifli fubject being incapable of 
 being a director. It is alfo next to impoffible, that an undue 
 Britifh influence could operate in the choice of directors, out 
 of the number of our own citizens. The Britifh king, or Bri- 
 tifh fubjects out of the United States, could not even have a 
 vote by attorney, in the choice. Schemes of fecret monopoly 
 could not be executed, becaufe they would be betrayed, unlefs 
 the fecret was confined to a fmall number. A fmall number, 
 no one of whom could have more than thirty votes, would be 
 eafily over-ruled by the more numerous proprietors of fingle or 
 a fmall number of fhares, with the addition of the votes of the 
 United States. 
 
 But here again it is to be remembered, that as to combina- 
 tion with our own citizens, in which they were to be oftenfi- 
 ble for any pernicious foreign project — the article under con- 
 iideration is perfectly nugatory — It can do neither ;;ood nor 
 harm, fince it merely relates, as to the exemption trom con- 
 fiscation and feizure on our part, to the known property of 
 Britifli fubjects. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the dangers pourtrayed to us 
 from the fpeculating enterprizes of his Britannic majefty, are 
 the vagaries of an over-heated imagination — or the contrivances 
 of a fpirit of deception — and that fo far as they couLi be fup- 
 pofed to have the lead colour, it turns upon circumftances, 
 
34 Cam ill us— No. XXII. 
 
 upon which the treaty can have no influence whatever. In 
 taking pains to cxpofe their futility, 1 have been principally 
 led by the ciefire of making my fellow-citizens fenfrble, in this 
 inflance, as in others, of the extravagancies of the oppofers of 
 the treaty. 
 
 One artifice to render the article unacceptable has been to 
 put cafes of extreme mifconducl, on the other fide, of flagrant 
 violations of the law of nation:., of war, of juftice, and of 
 humanity •, and to afk, whether, under fuch circumftances, the 
 confifcation or fequeflration cf debts would not be juftifiable? 
 — To this the anfwer is, that if circumftances fo extraordinary 
 fhould arife, as, without the treaty, would warrant fo extra- 
 ordinary an act, they will equally warrant it under the treaty. 
 For cafes of this kind are exceptions to all general rules. They 
 would excufc the violation of an exprefs, or pofitive, as well 
 as of a tacit or virtual pledge of the public faith : which de- 
 fcribes the whole difference between the exiftence and non T 
 exiftence of the article in queftion. They refembie thofe cafes 
 of extreme neceflity (through excellive hunger, for inftance) 
 which, in the eye of the law of nature, will excufe the taking 
 of the property of another, or thofe cafes of extreme abufe 
 of authority of rulers, which, amounting unequivocally to ty- 
 ranny, are admitted to juftify forcible refiftance to the efta- 
 blifhed authorities. Conftitutions of government, laws, treaties, 
 all give way to extremities of fuch a description — the point 
 of obligation is, to diftinguifh them with G peer it y, and not 
 to indulge our paflions and interefts, in fubftituting pretended 
 for real cafes. 
 
 A writer, who difgraces by adopting the name of Cicero, 
 makes a curious remark by way of objection. He affirms that 
 the article is nugatory, becaufe a treaty is diffolved by a (late of 
 war, in which flate the provifion is defigned to operate. If this 
 be true, the article is at lead harmlefs, and the trouble of 
 painting it in fuch terrific colours might have been fpared. But 
 it is not true. Reafon, writers, the practice of all nations ac- 
 cord in this pofition, that thofe ftipulations, which contemplate 
 the flate of w?.r, in other words, which are defigned to operate 
 in cafe of war, preferve their force and obligation when war 
 takes place.* To what end elfe all the ftipulations which have 
 been cited from fo many treaties P-j- 
 
 * Vattel, B. iii ch. x. 
 
 f Thii writer is as profligate as h-: is abfurd— Befides imputing to Camillas, in 
 general terms, a number of thi:i^> of which he never dreamt, he has the 
 efiromcry to forge, as a literal quotation from him (caJdiiig it hi» twa language and 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXII. 
 
 35 
 
 Previous to a conclufion I fhall obferve, barely with a view to 
 accuracy, that the article leaves unprotected all veflels, goods 
 and merchandizes, every fpecies of property, indeed, except 
 debts between individuals and the property of individuals in the 
 public funds and in public and private banks. With this excep- 
 tion, whatever before may have been liable to confifcation or 
 fequeftratiou, (till remains io, notwithitanding any thing con- 
 tained in this article. 
 
 To over-vate the value and force of cur own arguments is a 
 natural foible of felf-lovc — to be convinced without convincing 
 others, is no uncommon fate of a writer orfpeaker — but I am 
 more than ordinarily miftaken if every mind open to conviction, 
 will not have bcerffatisficd by vttfiat has been offered — that the 
 tenth article of the treaty lately rtegtjciatctl with Great Britain, 
 does nothing but confirm, by a pofitive agreement, a rule of the 
 law of nations — indicated by region, fupported by the better 
 opinion of writers, ratified by modern ufage, dictated byjuf- 
 tice and good faith, recognized by formal atlsand declarations 
 of different nations, witnetTed by diplomatic teftimony, fano 
 tioned by our treaties with other countries, and by treaties be- 
 tween other countries — and conformable with found policy and 
 the true interefts of the United States. 
 
 The difcuflion has been drawn out to fo great a length, be- 
 caufe the objections to this article arc amongft thofe which have 
 been urged with the greateft warmth and emphafis againft the 
 treaty, and its vindication from them, if fatisfaclory, mud go 
 far towards fecuring to it the public fufFrage. Citizens of Ame- 
 rica ! it is for you to perform your part of the talk, it is for you 
 to weigh with candour the arguments which have been iub- 
 mitted to your judgments; to confulr, wit'iout bias, the integrity 
 of your hearts; to exile prejudice and to immolate on the altar 
 of truth, the artifices of cabal and falfehood ! There can then 
 be no danger that patriotifm will have to lament, or national 
 honor toblufh at, the fentence which you fhall pronounce. 
 
 The articles, which adjuft the matters of controverfy between 
 the two countries, all thofe which are permanent, have now- 
 been reviewed. Let me appeal to the confeiences of thofe who 
 have accompanied me in the review — if thefe articles were all 
 
 defignating it by inverted commas) a paffage reflecting the impreffingof feamen, 
 which certainly not in terms, nor even in fubftance, u 4^n fair conftru&ion, is to 
 be found in any thing he lias written — Not having all the numbers of Cicero at 
 hand, I may mi flake, in attributing to him the principal fentiment, which i* 
 from memory hut I have under my eye the number which witneiles his fw- 
 
36" Cam ill us— No. XXIII. 
 
 that compnfed the treaty, would it be the better, that they 
 fhould exift — or that all the fources of rupture and war with 
 Great Britain fhould have furvived the negociation to extinguifh 
 them, and fhould ftill actually fubfift in full vigour ? If every 
 enlightened and honest man muff, prefer the former — then let 
 me make another obfervation, and put another queition. The 
 remaining articles of the treaty, which conftitute its com- 
 mercial part, expire by their own limitation at the end of twelve 
 years. It is in the power of either party, confiftently with the 
 instrument, to terminate them at the end of the expiration of 
 two years after the prefent war between France and Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Is it at all probable that they can contain any thing fo inju- 
 rious, confidenng the fhort duration, which may be given to 
 them, as to counterbalance the important consideration of pre- 
 ferving peace to this young country j as to warrant the excef- 
 five clamours which have beenraifed : as to authorize the hor- 
 rid calumnies which are vented; and to juftify the fyftematic 
 efforts which are in operation to convulfe our country and to 
 hazard even civil war?* 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXIII. 
 
 TH E preceding articles having adjusted thofe controversies 
 which threatened an open rupture between the two coun- 
 tries, it remained to form fuch difpofitions relative to theinter- 
 courfe, commerce, and navigation, of the parties, as fhould 
 appear moft likely to preferve peace, and promote their mutual 
 advantage. 
 
 Thofe who have confidered with attention the interests of 
 commerce, will agree in the opinion, that its utility, as well as 
 general profperity, would be mod effectually advanced by a total 
 abolition of the restraints and regulations with which the jea- 
 loufies and rival policy of nations have embarraffed it. But 
 though we are not chargeable with having contributed to the 
 eftabhfhment of thefe errors, fo difcouraging to the industry 
 and perplexing in the intercourfe of nations, we found them 
 fo deeply rooted and fo extensively prevalent, that our voice 
 
 * In applying the character of difhonefty and turpitude to the principle of 
 confifc.tion or fequeftration— I am far from intending to brand as difhoncft men 
 all thofe whofe opinions favour it— I know there are fome ardent Spirits charge- 
 able with the error, of whofe integrity I think well. . 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXIIl. 37 
 
 and opinions would have been little regarded, had we expreffed 
 a defire of a fyftem more liberal and advantageous to all. 
 
 The rights of commerce among nations between whom exift 
 no treaties, are imperfect. 
 
 " The law of nature," fays Vattel, 'b. I. f. 89) " gives to no 
 perfon whatever, the lead kind of right to fell what belongs Hi 
 him, to another who does not want to buy it ; nor has any na- 
 tion that of felling its commodities or merchandize to a people 
 who are unwilling to have them. Every man and every nation 
 being perfe&ly at liberty to buy a thing that is to be fold, or 
 not to buy it, and to buy it of one rather than of another." — 
 " Every Hate has conftantly," continues the fame author, " a right 
 to prohibit the entrance of foreign merchandize, and the peo- 
 ple who are interefted in this prohibition have no right to com- 
 plain cf it." btates by convention may turn thefe impericct 
 
 into perfect rights, and thus a nation, not having naturally a 
 perfect right to carry on commerce with another, may acquire 
 it by treaty. A fimple permiffion to trade with a nation, gives 
 no perfect right to that trade •, it may be carried on fo long as 
 permitted ; but the nation granting fuch permiffion is under 
 no obligation to continue it. A perfect right in one nation to 
 carry on commerce and trade with another nation can alone 
 be procured by treaty. 
 
 From the precarious nature of trade between nations, as 
 well as from the defire of obtaining fpecial advantages and 
 preferences in carrying it oil, originated the earlieft conventi- 
 ons on the fubject of commerce. The firit commercial treaty 
 that placed the parties on a more fecure and better footing in 
 their dealings with each other than cxifted in their refpective 
 intercourfe with other nations, infpired others with a defire 
 to eltablilh, by fimilar treaties, an equally advantageous ar- 
 rangement. Thus one treaty was followed by another, until, 
 as was the cafe when the United States became an independent 
 power, all nations had entered into eXtenfive and complicated 
 ftipulations, concerning their navigation, manufactures and 
 commerce. 
 
 This being the actual condition of the commercial world, 
 when we arrived at our ftation in it, the like inducements to 
 Tender certain that, which, by the law of nations, was preca- 
 rious, and to participate in the advantages fecured by national 
 agreements, prompted our government to propofo to all, and 
 to conclude with feveral, of the European nations, treaties of 
 commerce. 
 
 Immediately after the coriclufion of the wr\r, congrefs ap- 
 pointed Mr. Adams, Doctor Franklm, and Mr. Jefferfcra, joint 
 Vol. ill. F 
 
38 Camillas— No. XXIII. 
 
 commiffioners, to propofe and conclude commercial treaties 
 with the different nations of Europe. This commiflion was 
 opened at Paris, and overtures were made to the different 
 powers (including Great Britain) through their minifters redd- 
 ing at Paris. The bafis of thefe numerous treaties, which 
 congrefs were defirous to form, was, that the parties fhouki 
 refpe&ively enjoy tlie rights of the moil favored nations. Va- 
 rious anfwers iy< r< given by the foreign miniflers, in behalf of 
 their feveral nations. But the treaty with. Pruflia was the only 
 one concluded, of the very great number propofed by the Ame- 
 rican commifiioners. Mr. Adams, in 178^, was removed to 
 London, Dr. Franklin foon after returned to America, and 
 Mr. JelTerfon fucceeded him as minifter at Paris. Thus failed 
 the project of forming commercial treaties with almolt every 
 power in Europe. Treaties with Ruilia, Denmark, Great 
 Britain, Spain and Portugal, would have been of importance ; 
 but the fcheme of cx;ending treaties of commerce to all the 
 minor powers of Europe, not omitting his holinefs the pope, 
 taaSj it muft be acknowledged, fomewhat chimerical, and could 
 r.ot fail to have call an air of ridicule on the commiffions that 
 with great folernnity were opened at Paris. 
 
 The imbecility of our national government, under the arti- 
 cles of confederation, was underftood abroad as well as at 
 home ; and the opinions of characters in England, moft in- 
 clined to favor an extenfive commercial connexion between the 
 two countries, were underftood to have been oppofed to the for- 
 mation of a commercial treaty with us; fince, from the defects 
 of our articles of union, we were fuppofed to be deftitute of the 
 power requifue to enforce the execution of the (tipulations that 
 fuch a treaty might contain. 
 
 We mull all remember the various and ill-digefted laws for 
 the rcg'.darion of commerce, which were adopted by the fe- 
 veral ftates as fubtlitutes for thofe commercial treaties, in the 
 conclufion of which cur commilhoners had been difappointed 
 ■ — the embarrali'ments which proceeded from this fource, join- 
 ed to thofe felt from the derangement of the national treafury, 
 were the immediate caufe which aflembled the convention at 
 Philadelphia in 1787. The refult of this convention was the 
 adoption of the prefjnt federal conftitution, the legiflative and 
 executive departments of which each poillfs a power to regu- 
 late foreign commerce; the former, by enacting laws for 
 that purpofc, the latter, by forming commercial treaties with 
 foreign nation"}. 
 
 The opinion heretofore entertained by our government, re- 
 ling the Utility of commercial treaties, is not equivocal; 
 
Ca mill us — No. XXIII. 39 
 
 and it is probable that :hev will, in future, deem it expedient 
 to adjuft their foreign trade by treaty, in preference to legiila- 
 tive provifions, as far as it (hall be found practicable, on terms 
 of reafonable advantage. In the formation of the reiruLtions 
 that are legislative, being ex part;, tl:c intereft of thofe w 
 eitablifh them is fccn in its ftrongett light, while that of the 
 other fide is rarely allowed its juil weight. Pride and paflion 
 too frequently add their influence to carry thefe regulations 
 beyond the limits of moderation : reftraints and cxclulions, on 
 one fide, beget reftraints and exclufions on the other, and thefe 
 retaliatory laws lead to, and often terminate in, open war: 
 While, on the other hand, by adj ailing the commercial inter- 
 courfe of nations by treaty, the pretenfions of the parties are 
 candidly examined, and the refult <u the difcuffion, it is fair 
 to prefume, as well from the experience of individuals in pri- 
 vate affairs, as from that of nations in their more important 
 and complicated relations, eftablifhes thofe regulations which 
 are belt fuited to the interests of the parties, and which alone 
 afford that liability and confidence fo effential to the fuccefs of 
 commercial enterprize. 
 
 That our prefent government have thought a commercial 
 treaty with Great Britain would be advantageous, is evident, 
 not alone from the fpecial and dillincl: commiilion given to 
 Mr. Jay to form one ; but likewife from the letter of Mr. 
 Jefferfon to Mr. Hammond, of the 29th November, 1791, 
 which was the fir ft letter to that minilter after his arrival ; in 
 which the executive fays : " with refpect to the commerce of 
 the two countries, we have fuppofed that we faw, in fevev.d in- 
 stances, regulations on the part of your government, which, 
 if reciprocally adopted, would materially injure the intereits .A 
 loth nations ; on this fubject too, I mult beg the favor of 
 you to fay, whether you are authorized to conclude or to 
 negociate arrangements with us; which may fix the com- 
 merce between the two countries on principles of recipro- 
 cal advantage." 
 
 Further, from the fi r(t felTion of ccngrefs, to that during 
 which Mr. Jay's appointment took place, efforts were made 
 to discriminate, in our revenue and commercial laws, bsfwee'n 
 thofe nations with whom we had, and thofe with whom we 
 had not, commercial treaties — The avowed object of which 
 difcrimin a'.ion was, to place the latter nations on a lefs advan- 
 tageous commercial footing than the former, in order to induce 
 them likewife to form commercial treaties with us; and it can- 
 not be forgotten by thofe, who affect to fuppofe that it was 
 not expected that a treaty of commerce v. ould be formed by 
 
40 Ca MILL us- No. XXIII. 
 
 Mr. J.iy, that Mr. Madi fan's commercial refolutions, whicq 
 
 were under confideration at the time of Mr. Jay's appointment, 
 grew out of, and were built upon, a claufe of Mr. Jeflerfon's 
 report of the 26th December, 1793, which afievts that Great 
 Britain difcovercd no difpofition to enter into a commercial 
 treaty with us. The report alluded to is explicit in declaring a 
 preference of friendly arrangements, by treaties of commerce, 
 to regulations by the acts of our legifiature, and authorizes the 
 inference, under which the commercial refolutions were brought 
 forward, that the la'ter fhould be refovted to, only when the 
 former cannot be effected. 
 
 The power of the executive to form commercial treaties, and 
 the objection againlt the commercial articles before us, as an un- 
 confiiiurionai interference with the legiflative powers of con* 
 grefs, will, in the fequel, be diftinctly examined, together with 
 other objections on the point of conftitutionality. 
 
 Againit the policy of regulating commerce by treaty, rather 
 than by acts of the legifiature, it is faid, that the legiflative acts 
 can, but that a treaty cannot, be repealed. This remark is 
 true, and of weight againft the formation of commercial trea- 
 ties which are to be of long duration, or, like our commercial 
 treaty with France, which is permanent. For, as we are year- 
 ly advancing in agriculture, manufactories, commerce, naviga-r 
 tion, and ftrength, our treaties of commerce, efpecially fuch 
 as, by particular ftipulations, fhall give to the parties other 
 rights than thofe of the molt favored nation, ought to be of 
 fhort duration, that, like temporary laws, they may, at an early 
 day, expire by their own limitation, leaving the intercfts of 
 the parties to a new adjuftment, founded on equity and mutual 
 convenience. 
 
 Of this defcription are the commercial articles of the treaty 
 with Great Britain •, for none of them can continue in force 
 more than twelve years ; and they may all expire, if either 
 party (hall choofe it, at the end of two years after the peace 
 between France and Great Britain. 
 
 Did the limits affigned to this defence admit a review of the 
 commercial and maritime codes of the principal European na- 
 tions, we fhould difcover one prevailing feature to characterize 
 them all ; we fhould fee the general or common intereft of 
 nations, every where, placed in a fuhordinate rank, and their 
 feparate advantage adopted, as the end to be attained by their 
 refpective laws — Hence, one nation lias enacted laws to pro- 
 tect their manufactures, another to encourage and extend their 
 navigation, a third to monopolize fome important branch of 
 trade, and all have contributed tQ the creation of that compli- 
 
Ca mill us — No. XXIII. « 41 
 
 czted fyftem of regulations and reftraints, which we fee eftabliih- 
 ed throughout the commercial world. 
 
 One branch, and a principal one of this fyftem, that which 
 eftablifhes the connexion between the feveral European nations 
 and their colonies, merits our particular attention. An exncl: 
 knowledge of this connexion would aflift us in f juft 
 
 eftimate of the difficulties that (land in opnofition to our 
 claim of free and full participation in the colony trade of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Unlike the plan of colonization adopted by the ancient go* 
 vernments, who, from the crouded population of their cities, 
 fent forth and eftabliflied beneath their aufpices new and inde- 
 pendent republics, the colonies of modern times have been 
 planted with entirely different views ; re t..iiied in a ftaie of de- 
 pendence on the parent country, their connexion has been made 
 fubfervient to that fpirit of monopoly, which lias fhown itfelf 
 among all the commercial powers. Every European nation has 
 its colonics, and for that realbn prohibited all foreigners from 
 trading to them. 
 
 Important political events arife and pafs in fuch quick fuc- 
 ceilion, that we are liable to forget facts and opinions familiar 
 to us in periods within the ordinary powers of recollection. — 
 No fubjett was more critically examined, or generally under- 
 ftood before the American revolution, than that which refpedted 
 the connexion between Great Britain and her colonies! all 
 were then agreed, that the colony trade and navigation were 
 fubjecl to the reftraints and regulations of the parent ftate. It 
 was not againft this dependence and commercial monopoly that 
 the colonies complained ! They were willing to fubmit to 
 them. It was the unjuft attempt to tax them, to raife a reve- 
 nue from them, without their confent, which combined that 
 firm and fpirited oppofition, which effected a divifton of the 
 empire — thus the congrefs of 1775, in their laft addrefs to the 
 inhabitants of Great Britain, fay, " We chearfully content to 
 fuch acts of the Britith parliament as mail be reftrained to the 
 • regulations of our external commerce, for the purpofe of fecuring 
 the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother cam- 
 try, and the commercial benefit of its refpe&ive members! ex- 
 cluding every idea of taxation internal or external for the pur- 
 pofe of raifing a revenue on the fubjecls in America without 
 their confent." The " colonial codes of other nations are marked 
 With the fame fpirit of monopoly: — thus Portugal fliutsout all 
 foreigners from the Brazils as well as from her Afiatic po. 
 ons, Spain from South America and her ,We(t India iflands, 
 France excludes all foreigners from her Afiatic dominions, and 
 
42 Cam ill us— No. XXIII. 
 
 limits within narrow bounds their intercourfe with her colonics 
 in the Well Indies. Holland guards, with the mifer's vigilance, 
 the accefs to her fpice iflands, anil imitates, though with fome- 
 what lefs rigour, the policy of the other powers in her Weft 
 India poffeffions. — And England, by her act of navigation, 
 which has been in operation for more than a century, afferted, 
 and hitherto has uniformly adhered to the like fyftem of exclu- 
 fion and monopoly. 
 
 Notwitliftanding the intimate alliance, the family compact, 
 between France and Spain, the former has not been able to 
 procure admiffion into the Spanifh colonial territories where 
 fhe might have acquired immenfe wealth by the fale of her 
 manufactures, her wines, and her brandies. — Holland, though 
 a part of the Spanifh monarchy long after the difcovery of 
 America, and the eftablifhment of the Spanifh power in that 
 quarter of the world, was unable after her feparation from 
 .Spain, and the acknowledgment of her independence, even 
 in the zenith of her fplendid power upon the ocean, to obtain 
 by force or treaty a fhare in the Spanifh colony trade to South 
 America — The rival wars between the Englifh and the Dutch 
 towards the clofe of the laft century, which originated in com- 
 mercial competition and jealoufy, were fucceflively terminated 
 without England yielding the fmalleft departure from the ex- 
 clufive commercial fyftem, contained in her act of naviga- 
 tion. 
 
 Great Britain, though maintaining her exclufive laws againft 
 other nations at different periods, has fhown the ftrongeft de- 
 fire to fhare in the rich trade of Spain with her colonies — The 
 war that commenced in 1739, was occafioned by the firm, but 
 irregular, oppofition of Spain to the contraband efforts of the 
 Britifh traders. 
 
 The impediments Great Britain has uniformly met in her 
 attempts to extend her fettlement in the Bay of Honduras, 
 to form eftablifhments at Faulkland Ifland, and more recently 
 at Nootka Sound, afford additional proofs of the fixed policy of 
 Spain on the fubjett of her colony trade. 
 
 Portugal, whole political fafety more than once has appeared 
 to depend on the efficacious aid of Great Britain, does not yield 
 to her ally any portion of her valuable colonial commerce. 
 
 So uniform and perfevcring has been the practice of nations 
 on this point, that in the lateft treaties of commerce between 
 France and Spain, between each of thefe powers and Great 
 Britain, between Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, 
 and Portugal, we do not difcover, that any one of thefe powers, 
 has confented to admit the others to a participation in the trade 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXIII. 43 
 
 and navigation to their refpective colonies — the Affiento con- 
 tract for the fupply of negroes to the Spanifh colonies, which 
 has been made by Spain with feveral powers, is an unimport- 
 ant and folitary exception to this rule. 
 
 Montefquieu calls this law appropriating the colony com- 
 merce to the benefit of the parent ftate, " A fundamental law 
 of Europe." " It has been efbbliihed," fays this enlightened 
 Frenchman, — " That the metropolis or mother country alone 
 (hall trade in the colonics, and that for very good reafuns; be- 
 caufe the defign of the fettlement, was the extension of com- 
 merce, not the foundation of a city or new empire. Thus it 
 is (till a fundamental law of Europe, that ail commerce with 
 a foreign colony (hall be regarded as a mere monopoly, punifli- 
 able by the laws of the country; and in this cafe we arc net to be 
 directed by the laws and precedents of the ancients, which are 
 not at all applicable." 
 
 " It is likewife acknowledged that a commerce eftablifhed 
 between the mother countries, does not include a permifiion to 
 trade in the colonies ; for thefe always continue in a ftate of 
 prohibition." [Montefquieu, Liv. xxi. chap, xvii.] 
 
 This fubject is of too great importance not to be purfued a 
 little further. Principles connected with it, and fuch as will 
 continue to operate whether we fanction or condemn them, re- 
 main to be difclofed. It is true that the principal end of the 
 dominion that the European powers have held over their colo- 
 nies, has been the monopoly of their commerce, " fince in 
 their exclulive trade (as has been obferved by a fenfible writer 
 on the fubject) confifts the principal advantages of colonies, 
 which afford neither revenue nor force for the defence of thu 
 parent country ;". but this is not the fole object. Some nations, 
 and among them Great Britain, have viewed the exclufive na- 
 vigation and trade to their colonies, in the light in which they 
 have feen their coafting trade and fifheries ; as a nurfery for 
 that body of feamen, whom they have confidered not only as 
 neceflary to the profperity and protection of commerce, but as 
 cflential to the defence and fafety of the ftate. 
 
 The fituation of Great Britain in this reipect is peculiar : 
 when compared with feveral of the neighbouring powers, her 
 numbers and military forces are manifeitly inferior. The armies 
 kept on foot in peace, as well 3s thofe brought into the field 
 in war, by the great nations in Europe, are fo decidedly lupe- 
 rior to thofe of Great Britain, that were flic a continental 
 power, her rivahwould eafily be an overmatch for her. The 
 ocean is her fortification, and her feamen ak ne are the fol- 
 diers who can defend it. When Great Britain {hall become an 
 
44 Camillas— No. XXUI. 
 
 inferior maritime power, when her enemy fhall acquire a deci-* 
 five fuperiority on the fea, what will prevent a repetition of 
 thofe conquefts the examples of which we find in her early 
 hiftory ? No fubject has been more profoundly thought on than 
 this has been in Great Britain. Her policy, from the date of 
 her navigation act, has been guided by thefe confiderations — ' 
 that her national fafety depends on her wooden walls, is a max- 
 im as facred in Britain, as it once was in Athens. Her ftatef- 
 men, her merchants, her manufacturers, and her yeomanry, 
 comprehend and believe it. 
 
 Is it then furprifing, that we fee her fo anxious to encourage 
 and extend her navigation, as to exclude as far as practicable, 
 foreigners from any (hare of her fifheries, her coafting, and her 
 colony trade ? Does not candour require us to admit, fince her 
 national defence refts upon her navy, which again depends on 
 her feamen, which an extenfive navigation can alone fupply, 
 that Great Britain having more to rifk, is among the lalt 
 powers likely to break in upon or materially to felinquifh that ' 
 fyltem of exclufive colony trade, that has fo long and uniformly 
 prevailed among the great colonizing powers ? 
 
 America has her opinions, perhaps prejudices, on the fubje£fc 
 of commerce : fhe is, and, at leatl until fhe (hall become a 
 naval power, will continue to be, without colonies. But her 
 laws manifeft a fimilar fpirit with thofe of other nations, in 
 the regulations which they prefcribe for the government of her 
 fifheries and her coafting trade. The object of thefe laws is an 
 exclufion of foreign competition, in order to encourage and in- 
 creafe her own navigation and feamen ; from which refources, 
 not only in wars between other nations, but likewife in thofe in 
 which fhe may be engaged, important commercial and national 
 advantages may be expected. Thefe opinions deferve attention ; 
 they have already had and will continue to have a fuitable in- 
 fluence with her government. But we ihould remember, that 
 other nations have likewife their opinions and prejudices on thefe 
 fubj^cts ; opinions and prejudices not the lefs ftrong or deeply 
 rooted for having been tranfmitted to them through a feries of 
 pad generations. Thus in England, not only the public opinion, 
 "but what is more unconquerable, the private interejls of many 
 individuals will oppefe every change in the exifting laws that 
 nay be fuppofed likely to diminish their navigation, to limit 
 their trade, or in any meafure to affect difadvantageoufly their 
 pftablifhed fyftem of national commerce. 
 
 It cannot have efcaped notice, that we have among us cha- 
 racters who are unwilling to lec (tated the impediments that 
 itand in of the commercial arrangements, which they 
 
Oa MILL us — No. XXiV, 4$ 
 
 end, fhcu'd be conceded to us by foreign nations, and who 
 are ready to charge thofe who faithfully expofe them, with an 
 inclination to excufe or vindicate the unreasonable denials of 
 our commercial rivals, and with a defire toyieIduptliej.fi 
 pretentions of our country. The artifice feems too grofs to be 
 dangerous with a fenfiblc people, but the public fhouid notwith- 
 standing be on their guard again ft it. — They lhould difpaflion- 
 atcly examine the real difficulties to be encountered in the form- 
 ation of our commercial treaties. They fhouid enquire and 
 afcettain how far other nations, feeking the fame advantages, 
 have been able to fucceed. They fhouid further compare the 
 treaty in quetlion with thofe we have before made with other 
 nations. — the refult of fuch inveftigation fo far from warranting 
 the condemnation of the commercial articles of the treaty before 
 us, it is believed would demonflrate that thefe articles make a 
 wider breach in the Britifh commercial fyftem than has ever 
 before been made; that on their commercial difpofitions they 
 are preferable to any treaty we have before concluded, and that 
 there is rational ground to believe that the treaty will have a 
 tendency friendly to the agriculture, the commerce, and the 
 navigation of our country. 
 
 CAMILLUS, 
 
 No. XXIV. 
 
 HO tV E V E R uniform may have been the law of Europe 
 in relation to their colonial eflabliihments, no pains have 
 been fpared to create an opinion that France has been guided by 
 a more liberal policy than the other colonizing powers, and 
 that the regulations of her colony trade were eflentially diffimi* 
 lar from theirs; moreover that her difintereflednefs was fo great, 
 that (lie not long fince propofed to our government to eftablifh 
 by treaty, a trade between us and her Weft India colonies 
 equally free with that which prevails in her own intercourfe 
 with them. The object of thefe attempts is readily perceived. 
 
 As there was no probability, that Great Britain would con- 
 fent to our trading with her Weft India colonies on the fame 
 lerms as fhe herfelf does, as it was forefeeri that limitations and 
 conditions would accompany any agreement that fhouid be made 
 on this fubje^c ; to extol the liberty of Fiance, and exclaim 
 ag; nit the monopolizing view; of Great Britain, wore deemed 
 fait ible n :.ins to ie : ."/ iiiift the expected adj ift- 
 
 KVOL. III. - G 
 
46 Cam ill us— No. XXIV. 
 
 ment of the commercial intercourfe between us and the Britifli 
 Weil India colonies. 
 
 A comparifcn of the footing by which our trade flood with 
 the French and Britifh Weft India colonies, after the com- 
 pletion of our revolution, and before the prefent war in Eu- 
 rope, with a concife expofition of the real views of France on 
 the fubjcct of a new commercial treaty, will bed demonitrate 
 the want of candor and patriotifm in thofe Americans, who 
 have fubmitted to become agents in propagating thefe errors 
 
 France, like England, has endeavoured to fecure the great eft 
 pofllble portion of advantage to herfelf, by her colonial laws, 
 and the conceffions yielded to foreigners have been only fuch 
 deviations from an entire monopoly, as her own intereft has 
 rendered inififpen fable — France, in imitation of the Englifh na- 
 vigation law, as early as 1727, eftablifhed an ordinance, con- 
 firming to the mother country the monopoly of the trade to 
 her 10'onies, and excluding thereby all foreigners — Experience 
 proved the neceility of moderating the rigour of their ordinance, 
 and relaxations in favor of a limited foreign intercourfe exifted 
 at the time when our commercial treaty with France was con- 
 cluded, by the thirtieth article of which, it is agreed, that 
 France will continue to the citizens of the United States, the 
 free ports, which have been and are open in their Weft India 
 iflands, to be enjoyed agreeable to the regulations which relate 
 to them — A fyflem of regulations relative to the trade of fo- 
 reigners with the French iflands, was promulgated in J 784: 
 Tins ordinance eflablifhed one free port at St. Lucie, another 
 at Martinique, another at Gaudaloupe, another at Tobago, and 
 three others at St. Domingo, to which foreign veiTels of the 
 burthen of fixty tons and upwards might carry for fa!e, woods 
 of all forts, pit coal, live animals, fatted beef, faited fifh, rice, 
 Indian corn, vegetables, green hides, peltry, turpentine, and 
 tar — This was followed by the arrets of September, 1785, 
 which by impofing heavy duties on foreign faited fifli, and efta- 
 blifliing large bounties on thofe of the national or French fifh- 
 ery, materially affected the foreign commerce with the French 
 iflands in this important article of fupply and confumption. 
 
 Such were the duties on the foreign, and the premiums on 
 the national fid-, that together they would have been equivalent 
 to a prohibition of the former, had the national fifhery been 
 able to fupply tht- confumption. 
 
 In return for thefe articles which alone were permitted to be 
 Imported by foreigners into the French iflands, and which it 
 will be obferved excluded fome of our principal ftaples efpeci- 
 
Ca mill us— No. XXIV. 47 
 
 ally fiour, they were allowed to purchafe and bring away of the 
 productions of the iflands, only melafTes and rum. 
 t All cotton, coffee, fugar, and other productions (rum and 
 melafTes excepted) were prohibited; and we could, except oc- 
 cr.fionally by local relaxations of the general law, rightfully 
 obtain none of them from the French Welt India iflands — 
 This was the footing of our trade under our treaty and the 
 {landing edict which preceded the French revolution, and even 
 this was hable to ft:ll further limitations, whenever France 
 fliould think proper to impofe them ; the treaty feeuring only a 
 right to as free a commerce as France fliould grant to other 
 foreign nations. 
 
 Great Britain has permitted the importation info her Well 
 India colonies of all the foreign articles, allowed by France to 
 be imported into her iflands (failed fifh and falted beef ex- 
 cepted) and me moreover permitted the importation of foreign 
 tobacco, flour, meal, bifcuir, wheat, and various other grains 
 which France prohibited — In return for thefe commodities, 
 Great Britain permitted the exportation from her iflands to our 
 country, of rum and melafTes, and moreover of fugar, coffee, 
 cocoa, ginger, and pimento, together with fuch other articles 
 as are allowed to be carried from their iflands to any other 
 foreign country. 
 
 Great Britain prohibited the importation and exportation of 
 molt of thefe articles to and from all foreign nations, except the 
 United States — France permitted the intercourfe with her colo- 
 nies, under the fame limitations to us in common with all other 
 foreign nations. 
 
 The articles received from us by Great Britain, for the fup- 
 ply of her Weft India iflands, exceeded in variety thole re- 
 ceived from us by France for the fupply of her iflands, the Bri-* 
 tiih Welt Indies were, therefore, in the ordinary and eftablifhed 
 courfe more extenfive cuftomers to us than the French Welt 
 Indies. Again, the articles which we received from the Britifh: 
 Weft Indies and which we were prohibited from receiving from 
 the French Weft Indies, were among the molt valuable of their 
 productions, and, from the force of habit, fome ot them .ne 
 included in the catalogue of articles of the firft neceihty in our 
 confumption. In point of fupply, therefore, the Britifh were 
 better furnilhers, their colonial laws being much lefs reltrictive 
 than thofe of France. 
 
 Though the regulations of the Britifh Weft India trade were 
 more favorable to our agriculture than thole of France, and 
 though the articles wirti which we were fupplied from the Bri- 
 tifh illands were more numerous and valuable than thofe ob- 
 
48 Camillus— No. 
 
 tained from the iflands of France, the colony fyftem or 
 latter was preferable to that ci the former in relation to our 
 navigation. France permitted our veffels of and above lixty 
 tons burrhen, to carry and bring away the articles, no: prohi- 
 bited in the foreign trade with her iflands, while Great Britain 
 confined the trade to her own veflels and excluded thofe of at! 
 foreign nations. 
 
 Difference of fituation, and not of principle, produced this 
 var.ety or diftinclion in the colony fyftem of the two nati< 
 France being able from her refources to fupply moll of the 
 articles requifite for the confumption of her Weft Indies, and 
 from her great population, having a proportionate demand for 
 the productions of her iflands, fhe has been carefully reflnclive 
 in the trade between her colonies and foreign countries as to the 
 articles of import and export. 
 
 All the productions of her iflands, muft go to the mother 
 country, except rum and melafles ; thefe articles were not coiir 
 fined to France, beeaufe they would have diretlly interfered 
 •with the valuable manufacture of her brandies. On the other 
 hand, Great Britain, being lefs able from her internal refources 
 to fupply the articles neceiTary for the confumption of her 
 "Weft Indies, and her population, or home demand not requir- 
 ing the whole productions of her iflands, fhe has been more 
 liberal in the trade allowed to be carried on between her colo- 
 nies and foreign countries as to the articles of import and export. 
 But her navigation being adequate to the whole trade of all her 
 dominions, while that of France required the addition of fo- 
 reign bottoms, Great Britain has excluded entirely from her 
 colony trade the foreign velTels of all nations, while France has 
 admitted them to fhare in the foreign trade permitted to her 
 Weft India iflands. 
 
 Both France and Great Britain relax their colonial laws, in 
 times of occafional fcarcity and when they are engaged in war $ 
 during which, the intercourfe with their Weft India pofleffions 
 is laid mere open to foreigners. The catalogue of fupplies is 
 fometimes enlarged, and Great Britain, as well as France, 
 during thefe relaxations} permits American velTels to refort to, 
 and engage in the commerce of, their iflands. 
 
 Jt is notwithflanding from the permanent laws alone of thefe 
 nations, that we. are able to infer their views in relation to their 
 colony trade ! the exceptions and deviations that become necef- 
 iary by reafon of accidental fcarcity or the embarrafiments of 
 war, ferve only to explain mere clearly the principles of the 
 permanent fyftem. 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXIV. 49 
 
 The refult of this companion affords no fupport for theaffer- 
 tion rhat France has been Jefs exclufive, or more liberal in her 
 colony fyftem, than Great Britain — both thefe nations have in 
 the eftablifhment of their colonial laws alike difregarded the 
 interelts of foreign nations, and have been equally under the 
 controul of the principles cf felf-intereft, which ever have, and 
 ever will govern the affairs of nations.* • 
 
 Nothing can be more erroneous, than the opinion that any 
 nation is likely to yield up its own intereft, in order, gratuitoufly, 
 to advance that of another. Yet we frequently hear declarations 
 of this kind, and too many honeft citizens have furrendered 
 ihemfelves to this delufion — Time and experience will cure us 
 of this folly. 
 
 Equal artifice has been practifed, and no lefs credulity dis- 
 played, on the fubject of a new treaty of commerce, which it 
 is boldly aliened, France from rhc molt diftnterefled motives 
 has offered to us. It ihould be recolle&ed that France already 
 has a treaty of commerce with us, a treaty that is not limited 
 to two years, nor twelve years, but one that is to endure for 
 ever — This treaty is as favorable to Prance as lh.e can defire, or 
 we in our utmoft fondnefs be dif] ifed to make — It fecures to 
 her our acquiefcence in an exclufion from her Aliatic dominions, 
 and in frelh regulations as her intereft fliafl dictate relative to 
 our intercourfe with her Welt India poffi ilions — It excludes us 
 from her fiflieries on the banks of Newfoundland, which fhe 
 was unwilling to ftiare with us, and ir gives to her every com- 
 mercial favor or privilege which by treaty we may yield to any 
 other nation, freely when freely granted, and when otherwife 
 on yielding the fame equivalent — her productions, her manu- 
 factures, her merchandizes, and her fhips may come into all 
 our ports to which any other foreign productions, manufac- 
 tures, merchandizes, or fhips may come — they ate feverally to 
 pay only the loweji duties paid bv any other nation, and no other 
 nation in its intercourfe and trade with us, is, in any inltance, 
 to have a preference over her — A variety of other regulations 
 are inferted in this treaty ufeful to France and not particularly 
 differviceable to us. 
 
 This treaty has been religioufly obferved and executed o\\ our 
 part; France has repeatedly violated it in the article which 
 makes enemy goods free in neutral bottoms, while it is under- 
 
 * The opinion heretofore cited of M"~t'f.juicu y a Frenchman, agreeing- with 
 fuels, is a pofitive teiliniory that the principle of the French fyftem, like th2 
 t^glifh, \% monopoly. 
 
So Camilla— No. XXIV. 
 
 Hood (he has faithfully obfcrved it in the article, that makes 
 neutral goods lawful prize when found in enemy bottoms. 
 
 If it be true, that nations in jultice to thcmfelves are bound 
 to decline the abandonment of their own intereft, for the pur- 
 pofe of promoting at their own expenfe and detriment, the 
 intereft of others, ought we too readily to credit an oppofite 
 opinion? Ought we not to expect full proof of the fmcerity of 
 thofe declarations, that are intended to produce a belief of this 
 difinterefted and (elf-denying courfe ? Ought not the very pro- 
 pofal of fuch a meafure, from its extraordinary nature, infpire 
 circumfpection, and put a prudent nation on its guard ? If 
 moreover, the overture mould occur at a moment when we are 
 afcertained that thofe who make it, defire, and are, in fact, 
 purfuing objects incompatible with the difintereftednefs which 
 it avows ? If while it is faid we with that you fhould remain in 
 peace with thofe who hold this language, neglect no means to 
 engage our citizens to violate their neutral duties and thereby 
 expofe their country to war; if when we are told " we rejoice 
 in the freedom of a filter republic," all the arts of intrigue, fo 
 much more dangerous by our unfufpicious temper, and unli- 
 mited affection for thofe who practife them, were employed to 
 alienate our attachment from our own government, and to 
 throw us into a ftate of anarchy ; if when the facinating propo- 
 fal of opening new channels of commerce, which were to give 
 unbounded riches to our merchants was received with more cau- 
 tion than was deli red, we are told that in cafe of refufal, or 
 evafion (mark the generofity) France would repeal her exitting 
 laws which had been dictated by an attachment to the Ame- 
 ricans. What mud have been our infatuation, what the meafure 
 of our folly, had we given implicit credit to words fo much at 
 variance with cotemporary actions ? But it is aiked, do not the 
 letters of Mr. Genet to Mr. Jefferfon, which have been pub- 
 lished, prove that France defired and offered to enter into a new 
 difinterefted and liberal treaty of commerce with us : The que- 
 ftion fhall be fairly examined. 
 
 There are two letters from Mr. Genet on this fubject — Imme- 
 diately after his arrival at Philadelphia, in a letter to Mr. Jeffer- 
 fon of the 23d May, 1 793, he fays — " The French republic has 
 given it in charge to me to propofe to your government to con- 
 fecratc by a true family compact,. by a national covenant, the 
 liberal and fraternal bafis, on which it wifhes to eftablifh the 
 commercial and political fyftem of two people, whofe interefls 
 are infepara'oly connected." 
 
 If the object of this propofal was a revifion of our commer- 
 cial treaty, in order to render the intercourfe between us more 
 
Ca MILL us — No. XXIV. 51 
 
 free and advantageous, this minrfter was Angularly unfortunate 
 in his exprdlions — He might have employed the fine phrafe of 
 confecrating by a true family compact, by a national covenant, 
 the liberal and fraternal bnfis on which it was wifhed to efta- 
 blifli the commercial fyftem of the two countries, and have been 
 intelligible ; but when he tells us, that he is inftructed to open 
 a negotiation with our government, for the purpofe of eftablifh- 
 ing the commercial and political fyftem of the two countries, 
 what are we to underftand ? That trade and its regulations are 
 alone in view? Or that a family compact eftablifhing the poli- 
 tical, as well as the commercial fyftem of the two nations, 
 muit include likewife the league cr treaty of alliance, whereby 
 the ftrength and wealth of the two nations, (bould be clofefy 
 united in the profecution of a common object ? 
 
 This ambiguous overture, if its meaning is not too plain to 
 allow the epithet, was received in the mod friendly manner by 
 our government, and on the fuggeftion that the fen ate are 
 united with the prtfident in making treaties, it was underflood 
 between Mr. JeiTerfon and Mr. Genet, that the fubjeCt fliould 
 be deferred till the meeting of congrefs. 
 
 Before that period, however, Mr. Genet, in a letter of the 
 30th of September, 1 793, renews the propefal to open the ne- 
 gotiation relative to the propofed family compact between us 
 and France ; and proves to us that our benefit was its principal 
 exclufive object, by affectionately intimating in the conclufion, 
 of his letter, that he is further inftructed to tell us, in cafc of 
 rcfufal or evafion on our part to enter into this family agree- 
 ment, that France will repeal the laws dictated by the attach- 
 ment of the French for the Americans. 
 
 Had it before been doubted whether political engagements 
 relative to war, were intended to be connected with the pro- 
 pofed treaty, thefe doubts muft have difappeared on the receipt 
 of this fecond letter from Mr. Genet; the intimation that the 
 laws of France which operated favorably to our trade with 
 their dominions, would be repealed, in cafe we refufed or 
 evaded the conclufion of a new treaty, cannot be reconciled, 
 with the belief, that this treaty was fought for from motives 
 purely commercial, or folely to enlarge and add profperity to 
 our trade. 
 
 Mr. Genet at this time had (n outraged cur government afl 
 to have compelled them to requcft his recall, he mud, rhere- 
 f re, have been convinced, that no conference would be held 
 with him except on points of urgent importance, and fuch as 
 would not admit of delay — He was, therefore, anfwered by 
 My. Jefferfon on the 5th of November, that his 'otter had been 
 
52 Ca MILL us— No. XXIV. 
 
 laid before the president, and would be confidered with all the 
 refpeel and intereft that its objitls neceflarily required ; and in 
 Mr. Jefferfon's letter to Mr Morris of the 23d of Auguft, we 
 are informed that our government were defirous to go into a 
 commercial negociation with France, and, therefore, requested 
 that the powers given to Mr. Genet on that fubjecl ffiould 
 be renewed to his fucceflbr — It has not appeared that this was 
 ever done — His immediate fucceflbr, Mr. Fauchct, it is be- 
 lieved, gave no evidence of his having any powers relative to a 
 commercial treaty ; and if reports, which arrived with the prc- 
 fent minilter, having great marks of authenticity, may be cre- 
 dited, he h:i^ power only to digejl the articles of fuch a treaty, 
 not to conclude one. 
 
 Notwithstanding the internal evidence contained in the two 
 letters of Mr. Genet was fuffictent to have fatisfied a fenfible 
 people, that fomething beyond a commercial treaty was con- 
 nected with the proffered negociation, and though this con- 
 jecture acquired ttrength from the cautious procedure of our 
 government on the occafion : yet thefe letters, and that proce- 
 dure, have been prefTed upon the public as conclufive evidence, 
 that France had offered, and our government refufed, to enter 
 into a new treaty of commerce, that would have been highly 
 beneficial to our trade and navigation. 
 
 The refutation of this opinion fo injurious to a reafonable 
 and falutary confidence in the integrity and patriotifm of our 
 own executive government, and which the agents of its propa- 
 gation, had fpread far and wide, might have been more diffi- 
 cult, had not the miniiter of France for the purpofe of juitify- 
 ing his own conduct, publifhed his hitherto fecret inftructions. 
 
 By thefe inft ructions it appears, that the effential object of 
 this proffered negociation, was to engage the United States to 
 make common caufe with France in the war then forefeen, and 
 which foon broke out with Spain and England— That the advan- 
 tages to be yielded by a new commercial treaty were to be pur- 
 chafed by our uniting with France in extending the empire oj 
 liberty, in breaking up the colonial and mcnop'sliziug-fyjlejiis of all 
 nations , and finally in the emancipation of the new world* — Fhi( 
 was laying out a large and difficult work, in the accomplishment 
 whereof arduous and numerous perils mud be met, to en- 
 counter which we were called by no obligation to others, to 
 avoid which we were admonilhed by all the duties which re- 
 
 * This iv & fcheme, the joining in which was to be the price of the proffered 
 
 nee herfelf as a political chimera. 
 
Camillus — No. XXIV. eg 
 
 quire us to cherifh and preferve our own unparalleled freedom $ 
 profperity and happinefs. 
 
 However contradictory this extraordinary project may appear 
 to the friendly communications that had been made by the 
 French government to ours, however repugnant to the fuothing 
 declarations pronounced by Mr. Genet, of the fraternal and 
 generous fentiments of his country towards ours, and of the 
 republican franknefs and fincerity that mould chnracterife his 
 deportment ; — let the following extracts from his inftructions 
 publilhed by himfelf in December, 1793, be confulted in con- 
 firmation of this ftatement, and as an authentic exposition of 
 the genuine views of the French executive council in the mil- 
 lion of Mr. Genet — viz. 
 
 " The executive council have examined the inftructions given 
 to the predeceflbrs of the citizen Genet in America, and they 
 have feen with indignation, that while the good people of Ame- 
 rica have exprcjpd to us their gratitude in the mojl lively manner ', 
 and given us every te/limony of their friend/hip, both Vcrgen nes 
 and Montmorin have thought that the interefts of France re- 
 quired, that the United States Jhould not obtain that political 
 order and confiflency of which they were capable, becaufe they 
 would thereby quickly attain a itrength, which they might pro-* 
 bablv be inclined to abufe. Thefe minifters, therefore, enjoined 
 it upon the reprefentatives of Louis XVI. in America, to hold 
 a paflive conduct, and to fpeak only of the pcrfonal vows of 
 the king for the profperity of the United States. The fame 
 machiavelifm directed the operations of the war of indepen- 
 dence, the fame duplicity prefided in the negociations of the 
 peace. The deputies of congrefs had expreffed a defire that 
 the cabinet of Verfailles fhould favor the conquefls of the Flo- 
 ridas, of Canada, of Nova Scotia : but Louis and his miniiters 
 conftantly refufed their countenance — regarding the poffellion 
 of thofe countries by Spain and England, as ufeful fources of 
 dilquietude and anxiety to the Americans." 
 
 After declaring that the executive council propofes to itfelf a 
 different courfe, and that it approves of the overtures, which had 
 been made as well by General Wafhington, as by Mr. Jefferfon, 
 to Mr. Ternant, relative to the means of renewing and confo- 
 lidating the commercial regulations between the two countries, 
 they proceed to declare further " that they are inclined to ex- 
 tend the latitude of the propofed commercial treaty (obferve, the 
 firlt propofal of a new commercial treaty came from us, and 
 not from France) by converting it into a national compact, 
 whereby the two people mould combine their commercial with 
 their political interejls, and mould eltabhih an intimate concert 
 
 Vol. III. H 
 
54 Cam ill us—No. XXI V*. 
 
 to befriend, under all circumdances, the extenuon of the empire 
 of liberty, to guarantee the fovereignty of the people, and to 
 punifh the nations who fhall continue to adhere to a colonial 
 fyftem, and an exclufive commerce, by declaring that the vef- 
 fels of fuch nations fliould not be received into the ports of the 
 two contracting parties. This agreement which the Ftench peo- 
 ple will fupport with all the energy that diftinguifhes them, 
 and of which they have given fo many proofs, will quickly con- 
 tribute to the emancipation of the new world. However vail 
 this project may appear, it will be eafily accomplished, if the 
 Americans will concur in it, and in order to convince them of 
 this, no pains mud be fpared by the Citizen Genet. For inde- 
 pendent of the benefits that humanity will draw from the fuc- 
 cefs of this ncgociation — France, at this moment, has a parti- 
 cular intereft that requires us to be prepared to act with elficacy 
 againd England and Spain, if, as every circumllance announces, 
 thefe powers, in hatred of our principles, (ball make war upon 
 us." In this date of things, we ought " to employ every means 
 to re-animate the zeal of the Americans, who are alfo intered- 
 ed that we fhould difappoint the liberticide defigns of George 
 the third, of which they likewife may poffibly be an object.'' 
 " The executive council has reafon to believe, that thefe re- 
 flections, yc/wo/ to the great commercial advantages, which we arc 
 difpofed to grant to the United States, will decide their govern- 
 ment to agree to all that the Citizen > Genet fhall propofe to 
 them on our part — But as from the rumours refpecting our 
 interior, our finances, and our marine, the American admintjlra- 
 tion may obferve a wavering timid conduct: ! The executive 
 council, in expectation that the American government will 
 finally decide, to make common caufe with us, charges the 
 Citizen Genet to take fuch deps as fhall be mod likely to ferve 
 the caufe of liberty and the freedom of the people." 
 
 In a fupplemental indruction, the executive council fay, " as 
 foon as the negociation concerning a new treaty of commerce 
 ihall be practicable, Citizen Genet mud not omit to dipulate 
 a pofitive reciprocity of the exemption from the American ton- 
 nage duty." The mutual naturalization of French and Ameri* 
 can citizens, fo far as reflects commerce, that has been 
 propofrd by Mr. Jefferfon and approved by the executive coun- 
 cil (this it is prelumcd, in the eyes of certain characters, would 
 be free from objection, though the naturalization by treaty, of 
 the fubjects of any nation but France, would be treafon againft 
 the conditution and againd liberty) " will render this exemp- 
 tion from the tonnage duties lefs ofFenfive to the powers who 
 have a right by their treaties to claim the fame exemption, for 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXIV. 55 
 
 the cafus foederis by this mutual naturalization will be entirely 
 changed in refpect to them — The reciprocal guarantee of the pof- 
 feffions, of the two nations, ftipulated in the Xlth article of the 
 treaty of 1778, muft form an efTential claufc in the new treaty 
 to be concluded ! The executive council, therefore, inltructs 
 Citizen Genet early to found the American government on this 
 point, and to make it an indifpenfable condition of a free trade to 
 the French Weft Indies, fo interefting for the United States to 
 obtain. It concerns the peace and profperity of the French na- 
 tion, that a people whofe refources and Strength increafe in a 
 ratio incalculable, and who are placed fo near to our rich colo- 
 nies, fliould be held by explicit engagements to the prefervation 
 of thefe iflands — There will be the Ids difficulty in making 
 thefe proportions re.hfhed by the United States, as the great 
 commerce which will be their price, will indemnify them be- 
 fore hand for the Sacrifices they muft make in the fequel — 
 Befides, the Americans cannot be ignorant of the great difpro- 
 portion between their means and thofe of the French republic! 
 that for a long time the guarantee will be merely nominal for 
 them, while it will be real on the fide of France. And more- 
 over that we fhall, without delay, take meafures to fulfil it on 
 our part, by fending to the American pofts, a force fufficient to 
 flicker them from all infults and dangers, and to facilitate their 
 intercourfe with our iilands and with France" — " and to the 
 end that nothing may retard the conclufion of the negociations 
 of Citizen Genet with the Americans, and that he may have 
 in his hands all the means which may be employed in forward- 
 ing the fuccefs of his exertions to fcrve the caufe of liberty, the 
 council, in addition to the full powers hereunto annexed, has 
 authorized the minifter of marine to fupply him with a number 
 of blank letters of marque, to be delivered to fuch Frenchmen 
 or Americans, as fliould equip privateers in America — the mi- 
 nifter of war will likewife fupply him with commiilions in blank 
 for the different grades in the army."* 
 
 Thefe were extraordinary means to enable the French mini- 
 fter to conclude with our government a pacific treaty of com- 
 merce. The above extracts, though not an entire tranllation of 
 the whole of Mr. Genet's inftructions, many parts of which 
 are foreign to the point in difcuffion, are a faithful abltracf. of 
 fuch parts of them, as relate to the principles and conduct of 
 
 * This meafure countenances 3 concluiion, that it was the intent of the in- 
 Itmetious, he fliould take the meafures he did with regard to priva'cering and 
 military expeditions from our territories, to force us into the war in fpite of tr.c 
 " wavering and timid conduct of our adminiftratiorj." 
 
5* Ca mill us— No. XXV. 
 
 the French monarchy towards us, and are as explanatory of 
 the views of the executive council on the fubject ot a new- 
 treaty of commerce — it will, 1 think, prove, if the afl'ert.ons 
 of that council are to be credited, that the gratitude, of which 
 we have henrd fo much, ought not to be demanded en account of 
 the principles that influenced the monaichy of France during our 
 war, or fubfequent to the peace — and furthermore it \* ill pr- ve 
 that the real view of the French executive council in the mifli- 
 on of Mr. Genet, was to engage us by advantages to be conceded 
 in anew commercial treaty, to make common caufe with France, 
 in the expecled war with Great Britain and the coalefced pow- 
 ers. If then the eltabliihed footing of our trade with the 
 French Weft Indies, like that of our trade with the Britifli 
 iflands, has been dictated by that colonial fyltem of monopoly, 
 which forms a fundamental law in Europe — and if moreover 
 the opinion that we could have piocured a new and more liberal 
 treaty of commerce with France, without plunging our coun- 
 try in the preient war, is an error, that has been artfully im- 
 pofed on the public — by expofing thefe truths, the examination 
 ot the treaty with Great Britain is at once freed from the ob- 
 jections and afperfions that have proceeded from thefe errors. 
 
 CAM ILL US. 
 
 No. XXV. 
 
 IT will be ufeful, as it will fimplify the examination of the 
 commercial articles of the treaty, to bear in mind and pre- 
 ferve the divifion, that we find eftabhfhed by the 12th, 13th, 
 ami the 14th and 15th articles; each refpe£ts a particular 
 branch or portion of the trade between the two countries, the 
 regulations whereof differ from, and are feverally independent 
 of, each other — Thus one is relative to the Weft Indies — ano- 
 ther to the Eaft Indies — and the third, diftincl from both the 
 former, refpecls our trade with the Britifti dominions in Eu- 
 rope. 
 
 That Great Britain will confent to place our trade with her 
 Weft India colonies upon an equally advantageous footing with 
 her own, is improbable; this would be doing what none of the 
 great colonizing nations has done, or is likely to do — it would 
 be to relinquifh the principal ends of the eftablifhment, and 
 defence of her colonies; it would be equivalent to making her 
 iflands in the Weft Indies the common property of Great Bii- 
 
Camillus — No. XXV. 57 
 
 tain and America for all commercial and profitable purpofes; 
 and exclusively her own in the burden of fupport and defence. 
 
 The fenate have, however, and, I chink, wifely, considered 
 the terms and conditions, on which it is agreed by the 1 2th 
 article, that we Should participate in the trade of the Bri th 
 Well Indies, as lefs liberal than we may, with reafon, expert — 
 The exclufion of all veflels above the burden of fevt ns, 
 
 would diminifh the benefits and value of this ' md 
 
 though we cannot calculate upon obtaining by r - rela- 
 
 tion a total removal of a limitation on this .uojett, it is t 
 altogether improbable that a tonnage fomethjng larger ma be 
 procured. 
 
 Thole who are converfant with our prefent intercourfe with 
 the Weft Indies can bi.lt determine whether many veflels under 
 feventy tons burden are not, at this time, profit. tbl> employed 
 in that trade : it is believed to be true, that previous to our 
 independence, vefTcls of this burden were much engaged 111 
 that employ as well in the fouthern as in the eaftem itates. 
 
 This limitation, though disadvantageous, is not the ftrongeft 
 objection to the 1 2th article : the restraining or regulating of a 
 portion of our trade, which does not proceed ftom, and is inde- 
 pendent of the treaty, forms a more decifive reafon againSt the 
 article than any thing elfe that it contains. 
 
 The caufe of this reftraint is found in the commercial jea- 
 loufy and fpirit of monopoly, which have fo long reigned over 
 the trade of the colonies — Under oui treaty with France and 
 the French colonial laws, it has been ihown that we could not 
 procure from the French iflands fugar, coffee, cocoa, cotton, 
 or any of the other productions, melaffes and rum excepted. — 
 Great Britain has feen it to be compatible with her intercft to 
 admit us to (hare more extensively in the productions of her 
 iflands; but (he has defired to place limitations on this inter- 
 courfe. To have left it entirely open and free, would have been 
 to have enabled us not only to fupply ourfelves by means of our 
 own navigation, but to have made it an inftrument of the fup- 
 ply of other nations with her Welt India productions. 
 
 When we reflect upon the eitablifhed maxims of the colony 
 fyltem, and moreover when we confider, that an entire freedom 
 of trade with the liritilh Welt Indies might, at times, mate- 
 rially raife the price of Weft India productions on the Britilh 
 coniumers, the Supply of whom is eflentially a monopoly in the 
 hands of the BritiSh planters, we ill a 1 1 be the lefs inclined to be- 
 lieve that Great Britain will yield an unreftrained commerce with 
 her Welt India poSTellions to any nation whatever. 
 
58 Ca mill us— No. XXV. 
 
 But if this was the object of the reftraint, it may be afked, 
 why it was not confined to fuch enumerated articles as were of 
 the growth or production of her own iflands, infteud of being 
 fo extended as to comprehend all melaffes, fugar, coffee, cocoa, 
 and cotton, including even the cotton of the growth of our 
 own country ? It is very poffible that the circumltances of our 
 native cotton's becoming an article of export to foreign markets 
 might not have occurred to our negociator — This would be the 
 iefs extraordinary, as heretofore it has not been cultivated, ex- 
 cept in a very limited degree, and as an article of export rather 
 in the manner of experiment than otherwife ; and, as moreover, 
 from the expenfe and difficulty of feparating the feeds from the 
 cotton, we have been hardly able hitherto to clafs cotton among 
 our exports. Its cultivation is faid latterly to have become an 
 object, of attention, in Georgia and South Carolina — flill how- 
 ever it cannot yet be confidered as a ftaple commodity — But 
 from the recent ingenious and fimple machine for fpinning cot- 
 ton, it is hoped that the cultivation may be extended, fo that 
 not only our own domcttic manufactures may be relieved from 
 a dependence on foreign fupply, but the catalogue of our valu- 
 able exports enriched by the addition of this ineftimable pro- 
 duction. 
 
 In anfwer to the queftion that has been ftated : it may be 
 further obferved, that thefe enumerated articles, though the 
 productions of different territories, being fo much alike as not 
 cafily to be diftinguifhed, it is probable that the difficulty in 
 difcriminating the productions of the Britilh iflands from thofe 
 of a different growth, was fuppofed to be fo grear, that an ap- 
 prehenfion was entertained that the prohibition to re-export the 
 former would be eafily evaded and Hlufory, while the latter 
 remained free. 
 
 This apprehenfion, however, it is believed, was carried too 
 far; as, on a minute examination of the fubject it will be found, 
 that our laws relative to drawback, with a few analogous pro- 
 vifions in addition, can be made fufficiently to difcriminate and 
 identify on re-exportation, all fuch articles of the growth of 
 the Britifh iflands, as may be within our country, and that they 
 will afford the fame fecurity for a faithful and exact execution 
 of the prohibition to re-export fuch articles as that on which 
 our own government relies againft frauds upon the revenue. The 
 application of thefe laws, with the requifite additions and fanc- 
 tiens, may be fecured by a precifc ftipulafion for that purpofe 
 in the treaty, in fuch manner as would afford an adequate 
 guard againft material evafions. 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXV. 59 
 
 But though the conduct of the fenate in withholding their 
 aflent to this article, is conceived, upon the whole, to be well 
 judged and wife, yet there were not wanting reafons of real 
 weight to induce our negociator to agree to it as it ftands. 
 
 The inviolability of the principles of the navigation act had 
 become a kind of axiom, incorporated in the habits of thinking 
 of the Britiih government and nation. Precedent, it is known, has 
 great influence, as well upon the councils as upon the popular 
 opinions of nations ! — and there is, perhaps, no country in which 
 it has greater force than that of Great Britain — The precedent 
 of a ferious and unequivocal innovation upon the fyltem of the 
 navigation act, dUTolved as it were the fpeli by which the public 
 prejudices had been chained to it. It took away a mighty argu- 
 ment derived from the pall inflexibility of the fyitem, and laid 
 the foundation for greater inroads upon opinion, for further and 
 greater innovations in practice. It ferved to ltrip the queftion of 
 every thing that was artificial and to bring it to the fimple te(t ot 
 real national intereft, to be decided by that bed of all arbiters, 
 experience. 
 
 It may, upon this ground, be ftrongly argued that the pre- 
 cedent of the privilege gained was of more importance than 
 its immediate extent — an argument certainly of real weight, 
 and which is fuiEcient to incline candid men to view the mo- 
 tives that governed our negociator in this particular, with favor, 
 and the opinion to which he yielded with refpect. It is perhaps 
 not unimportant by way of precedent, that the article, though 
 not eftablifhed, is found in the treaty. 
 
 Though the 1 2th article, fo far as refpects the terms and con- 
 ditions of the trade to the Britiih iilands, forms no part of the 
 treaty, having been excepted, and made the fubject of fur- 
 ther negociation, it may neverthclefs be uieful to take notice of 
 fomc of the many ill-founded objections that have been made 
 againlt it : of this character, is that which afierts, that the ca- 
 talogue of articles, permitted to be carried by us to the Britiih 
 iilands, may be abridged at the pleafure of Great Britain, and 
 fo the trade may be annihilated. 
 
 The article ftipulates that we may carry to any of his majef- 
 ty's iflands and ports in the Welt Indies, from the United 
 States, in American veflels, not exceeding feventy tons, any 
 goods or merchandizes " being of the growth, manufacture or 
 production of the faid ftates, which it is or may be lawful to 
 carry to the faid iilands, from the laid ftates, in Britiih vef- 
 fels;" not all fuch articles as it is and may be lawful to carry, 
 but in the disjunctive, all fuch as it is or may be lawful to carry ; 
 in other words, all fuch articles as it is now lawful to carry, 
 
6* Cam ill us— No. XXV. 
 
 together with fuch others as hereafter it may be lawful to 
 carry ; the catalogue may be enlarged, but cannot be diminifh- 
 ed. It may alfo be remarked incidentally, that this objection 
 founds ill in the mouths of thofe who maintain the effeuriality 
 of the fupplies of this country, under all poflible circum- 
 ftances, to the Britilh Weft Indies; for if this pofition b^ 
 true, there never can be reafonable ground of apprehenfion of 
 too little latitude in the exportation in Britifh vefTels, which is 
 to be the ftandard for the exportation in ours. 
 
 This article has been further criticifed on account of the 
 adjuftment of the import and tonnage duties payable in this 
 trade, and it has been attempted to be fhown that the footing 
 on which we were to fhare in the fame would, on this account, 
 be difadvantageous, and the competition unequal. What is the 
 adjuftment ? The article propofes that Britifh veffels employed 
 in this trade fhall pay, on entering our ports, the alien ton- 
 nage duty payable by all foreign veffels, which is now fifty- 
 cents per ton ; further, the cargoes imported in Britifh bottoms' 
 from the Britifh Welt Indies, (hall pay in our ports the fame 
 impoft or duties, that fhall be payable ^n the like articles im- 
 ported in American bottoms ; and on the other fide, that car- 
 goes imported into the Britifh iflands, in American bottoms, 
 fhall pay the fame impoft or duties that fhall be payable on the 
 like articles imported in Britifh bottoms — that is to fay, the 
 cargoes of each fhall pay in the ports of the other only native 
 duties, it being underftood that thofe impofed in the Britifh 
 Welt Indies, on our productions, are fmall and unimportant, 
 while thofe impofed in our ports, on the productions of the 
 Weft Indies, are high, and important to our revenue. — The 
 veffels of each fhall pay in the ports of the other an equal alien 
 tonnage duty, and our ftandard is adopted as the common rule. 
 
 Is not this equal ? can we expect or afk Britifh veffels fhould 
 pay an alien tonnage duty in our ports, and that American vef- 
 fels fhould enter their ports freely, or on payment only of na- 
 tive tonnage duties? can we in equity require them to pay, on 
 the importation of their cargoes in Britifh veffels, an addition 
 of ten per cent, on the duties payable on the importation of 
 the like articles in American veffels, and at the fame time de- 
 mand to pay no higher or other duties on the cargoes carried 
 in our veffels to the Britilh iflands, than thofe payable by them 
 on the like articles imported in Britifh veffels ? the very Itating 
 of the queftion fuggefts to a candid mind an anfwer, that de- 
 monftrates the injuftice of the objection. To expect more, 
 were to expect that in a trade in which the opinions and prac- 
 tice of Europe contemplate every privilege granted for a foreign 
 
Gamillus— No. XXV* <5t 
 
 nation as a favor — we were by treaty to fecure a greater ad- 
 vantage to ourfelves than would be enjoyed by the nation which 
 granted the privilege. 
 
 But it is added, that our laws impofe a tonnage duty of fix 
 cents per ton on the entry of American vefiels engaged in fo- 
 reign trade, and it is not known that Britifh vefiels pay any 
 tonnage duty on their entry in their ports in the Well Indies — 
 awd fo uniting the two entries, that is, the entry in the Weft 
 Indies, and the entry on a return to our ports, an American 
 veffel will pay fifty-fix cents per ton, when the Britifh 
 vefTels will pay only fifty cents per ton — If the Britifh govern- 
 ment impofe no tonnage duty on their own vefl'eis, and we do 
 impofe a tonnage duty on ours, this certainly cannot form an 
 objection againit them. They are as free to refrain from the 
 impofition of a tonnage duty on their own fhips, as we are to 
 impofe one on ours — If their policy is wifer than ours in this 
 refpeel, we are at liberty to adopt it, by repealing the tonnage 
 duty levied on American navigation, which, if we pleafe, may 
 be confined to the particular cafe ; the efTedt of fuch a meafure 
 as far as it fhould extend, though the duty is fmall, would be to 
 add a proportionable advantage to our {hipping in foreign com- 
 petition. But the objec't of the articles in this particular is to 
 equalize, not the duties that each may choofe to impofe on their 
 own vefiels, but thofe that they fhall impofe on the vefiels of 
 each other: and in this refpect the article is perfectly equal — > 
 It is perhaps the fivft time that the objection of inequality was 
 founded on a circumftance depending on the laws of the party 
 affected by it, and removeable at his own option. 
 
 This view of the fubjett authorizes a belief, that, in the 
 revifion of the article, a modification of it may be agreed to 
 that will prove fatisfaclory. Indeed, from the fhort duration of 
 the article, taken in connexion with the exprellions made ufe 
 of towards the clofe of it, relative to the renewal of the ne- 
 gotiation, for the purpofe of fuch further arrangements as lhall 
 conduce to the mutual advantage and extenfion of this branch 
 of commerce, we may infer that Great Britain contemplates 
 a more enlarged and equal adjuftment on this point. 
 
 The relaxations which now exift in the colonial fyftems, in 
 confequence of the neceflities of war, and which will change 
 to our difadvantage with the return of peace, have been confi- 
 dered by fome as the permanent ftate of things. And this 
 error has had its influence in mitleading the public in refpeft 
 to the terms and conditions on which we may reafonably expect 
 to participate in trade to the Well Indies — But lee it be remem- 
 ber d, that the restoration of peace will bring with it a reitor- 
 
 Vol. III. I 
 
62 C A M 1 L L u s— No. XXV. 
 
 ation of t Jie laws of limitation and exclufion, which conftitute 
 the colonial fyftem. Our efforts therefore fliould be directed to 
 fuch adjuftment with Great Britain on this point, as will fe- 
 cure to us a right after the return of peace, to the greateft 
 attainable portion of the trade to her iflands in the Weft 
 Indies. 
 
 It has been alleged, fhouid the expected modification of 
 this article retain its prefent ftipulation on the fiibject of import 
 and tonnage duty, that as France by treaty may claim to enjoy 
 the rights and privileges of the moll favored nation, (lie would 
 demaud an exemption from the ten per cent, on the duties up- 
 on the productions of the Weft Indies imported in foreign 
 bottoms, and would moreover be free to impofe an alien ton- 
 nage on our veffels entering her ports in the Well Indies, 
 equal to that impofed on her veffels in our ports. This is true 
 — But in order tu make this demand, France muft agree, by 
 treaty, to open all her ports in the Weft Indies, to give us -a 
 right to import into them, flour, bread, tobacco, and fuch 
 other articles as Great Britain fliould permit, and which France 
 by her permanent fyftem prohibits ; fhe muft alio concede to 
 us a right to purchafe in her iflands, and bring awav, fugar, 
 coffee, and pimento, which by the fame fyftem fhe alfo prohi- 
 bits ; fne muft do all this, becaufe, by our treaty with her, fhe 
 can only entitle htrfelf to a fpecial privilege granted to another 
 nation, by granting on her part to us the equivalent of what 
 was the confederation of our grant. Should France be inclined 
 to arrange the trade between us and her iflands, we certainly 
 (hall not object ; becaufe, befides the right to fuch an arrange- 
 ment, it would be more advantageous to us than that which 
 now regulates cur intercourfe with her Weft Indies. 
 
 So much of the twelfth article as refpedls its duration and 
 the renewal of the negociation previous to the expiration of 
 two years after the conclufion of the war, in order to agree in 
 a new arrangement on the fubject of the Weft India trade, as 
 well as for the puvpofe of endeavouring to agree whether in 
 any, and in what cafes, neutral veflels fhall protect enemy's 
 property, and in what cafes provifions, and other articles not 
 genc:raiiv contraband, may become fuch, form a part of the 
 treaty as ratified by the prefident. Thefe claufes fufficiently ex- 
 plain themielves, and recpiire no comment in this place. They, 
 however, prove one point, which is, that after every effort on 
 the part of our negociator, the parties were not able to agree irv 
 the doctrine that free bottoms (hould make free goods, nor in 
 the cafes in which alone provifions and other articles not gene- 
 rally contraband, fliould be deemed fuch. Leaving, therefore, 
 
Cato— No. XVI. 63 
 
 both thefe points precifely as they found them (except in refpect 
 to provifior.s, the payment for which, when by the law of na- 
 tions liable to capture as contraband, is fecured) to be regulated 
 by the exiting law of nations, it is ftipulated to renew the 
 negociation on thefe points at the epoch affigned for the future 
 adjuftment of the Weft India trade, in order then to endea- 
 vour to agree in a conventional rule, which, in (lead of the Jaw 
 of nations, fhould thereafter regulate the conduct of the par- 
 ties in thefe refpects. 
 
 The eleventh article has been paiTed over in fileucc as being 
 merely introductory and formal. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 [to be continued.] 
 
 Obfervations on Mr. Jay's Treaty. 
 
 [CONCLUDED FROM VOL. 2. PAGE 13.] 
 
 No. XVI. * 
 
 TH E 9th article ftipulates that fuch Britifh fubjects as 
 now hold lands in the territory of the United States, 
 (hall continue to hold them according to the tenure and nature 
 cf their refpective eftates, and may fell, grant or devife them 
 as if they were natives, and renders this ftipulation mutual. 
 Though this article may not be extenfively dangeroj.is, yet it 
 merits our attention, as it appears to infringe the conftitutictial 
 independence of the refpective ftates. — Congrefs alone have the 
 power to naturalize ; but neither congrefs, nor any member of 
 the federal government, appear to me to have any right to de- 
 . dure the tenure by which lands (hall be holden in the territories 
 of the individual Hates, without naturalization. This is an act 
 of fjvereignty which is confined to the (late legislatures, and 
 which they have not ceiled to congrefs, about which, there- 
 fore, I am led to doubt the right of the preiident and fenate to 
 treat — " Powers not delegated to the United States, being cx- 
 prefsly referved to the States or the people thereof." — Is this 
 right of the dates abridged by the power of the prefident and 
 fenate to make treaties ? Are not their powers to treat confined 
 to fuch objects as the conftitution eutrufts to the federal go- 
 
64 Cato— No. XVI. 
 
 vernment ? Had they ftipulated that the governor of New York 
 fhould always be a native of Britain, or that Britifh fubjedts 
 fhould, on their arrival, be members of the city corporation or 
 freemen of the city ; we fhould, I believe, have pronounced 
 this article void, as an intrufion upon the rights of the ftate, 
 and an affumption of powers not vcfted in the parties treating. 
 Is it lefs fo to declare the terms on which individuals fhall hold 
 lands in the territories of the refpective dates — to give rights 
 to ftrangers which citizens cannot enjoy, the rights of land- 
 holders without the burdens — the right of holding real pro- 
 perty without being bound to defend it — ihe right to be pro- 
 tected in the pofieffion of that property by dates to whom 
 they owe no allegiance, and againit whom they may even make 
 war without incurring a foifeuurc? 
 
 Happy Britilh fubjects ! As merchants you may enjoy in 
 every part of our country, all the privileges of our fellow citi- 
 zens. — As creditors, you are entitled to recover your debts - , 
 without being compelled to fubmit to the forms of fuits, or the 
 ufual rules of evidence. — As officers, you are to command our 
 refpe&ful homage.' — As land-holders, you are to poffefs our lands 
 in peace, while the burden of defending them devolves on us, 
 your former equals, your prefent vaffals — The produce of our 
 foil is to be diverted from every other port but yours. — Our fea- 
 men are to fight your battles, but to be treated as pirates if 
 they appear in arms againft you. — Our ftatefmen condefcend to 
 be your apologifts, and our legiflatures are bound in future to 
 do no a& which may affect your interefts ! While congrefs 
 only are entrufted with the power of declaring the rules of na- 
 turalization, lelt one ftate by making the terms too eafy, 
 fhould intrude citizens upon others, can it be conftitutional 
 for the prefident and fenate to exercifc the more dangerous 
 power of inverting the lands of the refpective ftates in foreign- 
 ers who fhall not be compelled to defend them ? If the right 
 exifts as to Britifh fubjects who now hold lands, it may be ex- 
 tended, on fome future occafion, to all who may hereafter 
 choofe to purchafe. It is' true the article does not go that 
 length j but the principle, that juftifies it, as far as it has gone, 
 will apply equally to every extenfion of it. It may not be im- 
 proper to remind thofe who view this article with indifference, 
 of the quantity of land held in Georgia, by companies whofe 
 avowed object is to fell it in Europe. If I am rightly informed, 
 it greatly exceeds all the land retained by the ftate. In New 
 York, the lands commonly called Morris's, M'Comb's, and 
 Scriba's purchafes, equal in quantity all the remaining lands of 
 the ftate. They have had agents for fome time paft in England 
 
Cato— No. XVI. 6 5 
 
 for (ale of thefe lands. If it was effected before the ratifica- 
 tion, or at lead before the fignature <>f the treaty, as much 
 land may be held in this Ita'e by Bri'idi fubjedts as by Ameri- 
 can citizens. If they were held in tiuft, which is highly pro- 
 bable, the perfoti in whofe favor the rruft was created, is now" 
 fecured from forfeiture, fince they are to hold " according to 
 the nature and tenure of their refpeBive eflates and titles" C5V. 
 The Britifh conllruction of this article will give them the full be- 
 nefit of their purchafes; it may then happen, even under the 
 prefent treaty, as it now (lands, that the grea'er part of the 
 latuis of the two dates, at lealt, belong to britifh fubjects, who 
 may look to their own favereign for protection, even againft 
 the date whofe lands they hold. What dangers and difficulties 
 may not this expofe the dates to? If it is admitted that the pre- 
 fident and fenate can by treaty dipulate without the conient of 
 a date, that their lands may be held by Britifh fubjects, 
 what principle is there in the conditution which prevents their 
 making the fame dipulation. in favor of the Britifh king, or 
 their transferring all the vacant lands in everv Hate to him? 
 ■Thefe were formerly invefted in him, and I doubt not that if 
 he were to fet up a claim under this article, that he would 
 find advocates among us to fupport ir. Let it be remembered 
 that the exercife of thefe powers by the preiident and fenate is 
 only derived from an implication founded on their right to make 
 treaties, i would afk, whether a (tronger implication in favor 
 of an exclufive right in the date governments to make regula- 
 tions relative to this object, is not found in the third fecYion, 
 fourth article of the conditution — " Congrefs (hall have the 
 power to difpofe of and make all needful rules and regulations 
 refpecttng the territory, or other property of the United States ; 
 and nothing in this conditution ihall be fo conltrued as to pre- 
 judice any claims of the United States, or of any particular 
 Jlates." The claim of dates to declare the tenure, on which 
 their lands (hall be held, has never been difputed ; and fo jea- 
 lous have fome of them been of it, that they have repeatedly 
 refufed to admit foreigners to hold lands without naturalization. 
 Several articles, which appear to me exceptionable, remain 
 to be difcufl'ed j but, circumilances, arifing from the prefent 
 unhappy fituation of the city, compel me to lay afide my pen. 
 When thele cireumdances ceafe to operate, I may again relume 
 it. I trud, however, that enough hat> been faid to (how, that 
 the treaty has obtained no adequate compenfation for the inju- 
 ries we have differed. That it has relinquifhed important claims 
 that we had upon the Britifh government. That it has given no 
 protection to ourfeamen. That it is injurious to our commerce, 
 
66 Cato— No. XVI. 
 
 and ruinous to our navigation. That it takes from us the means 
 we poffeiTed of retaliating injuries without the hazard of a war. 
 That it pledges the country for immenfefums of money, which 
 it does not owe, while it curtails our demands upon Britain. 
 That it gives the Britifh fubjecls a variety of privileges in our 
 country, which are but partially returned to us. That it coun- 
 teracts the exifting laws, and violates the federal conltitution, 
 and that it infringes the rights of individual Hates. It is poffi- 
 ble, that in (fating my idea of the treaty, I may have run into 
 errors ; all I can fay, is, that if I have, none of them were 
 intentional ; that having no party to ferve, no perfonal intereft 
 to promote, I have only fpoken fentiroents, which an ardent 
 love for a country, which I have long ferved, has inipired, 
 without wiftiing to miflead. I beg my fellow citizens to recol- 
 lect, that if the treaty will bear the conftruclion I have given 
 it, though an ingenious commentator may put a different ienfe 
 upon feveral articles ; that (till the objections I Hate will remain 
 in force, fince it is not the weakefti but xhcjlrongcjl nation that 
 conftfues the articles that admit of doubts, of which we have 
 a ftriking inftance in this very treaty. — In the treaty of peace, 
 the words of the article relative to the taking away negroes, &c. x 
 areexprefs, the intention was acknowledged at the time by the 
 commiflioners on both fides, and not doubted by either govern- 
 ment; yet we find that Camillus has, by implications, &c. 
 given it a meaning, which he fays renders it doubtful ; he 
 justifies Mr. Jay in relinquishing our claim. — If this is juft rea- 
 foning in the mouth of an American writer, it will Hill be more 
 fo in that of Britain ; and the moll unfavorable construction 
 of the treaty, will be the true one with refpect to us ; becaufe 
 every doubt is to be conflrucd againft us. This argument is ren- 
 dered much ftronger from the circumftances under which Mr. 
 Jay treated; for if when they were-inore unfavorable to Bri- 
 tain, than we can again hope to find them, doubtful construc- 
 tions were to be conitrued to her advantage, by the admihior. 
 of our envoy, they muft, in future, be fo. Let us not then 
 form our opinions of the treaty from diftant implications, or re- 
 mote deductions, drawn from fanciful reafonings on the laws 
 pi nations. 
 
 The exprefs words of the treaty are our only true guide. 
 Where they contain unfavorable ftipulations, or where they 
 neglecl explicitly to declare our rights, their plain and obvious 
 meaning is to enforce the firit, and to abridge the lalt. Of this 
 we have already fufficient proof iu the conttru&ion they have 
 put on fome parts of the treaty by their late instructions. I 
 ihouid, before I clofe, apologize for many errors, either of the 
 
Atticus — No. VI. ' 6y 
 
 copyid or the prefs, or both. It has fo happened, that mod of 
 the copies were made under fuch circumdances as not to have 
 been fubmitted to my infpection, which, together with the er- 
 rors of the prefs, multiplied by the different impreffions it has 
 gone through, have introduced many midakes, which the can- 
 did reader will correct. It is alfo proper that I fhould mention 
 an error of my own in the feventh number, which has not been 
 noticed : but which, as I have no wifh to miilead, I am bound 
 to correct. In enumerating the impositions of Britain, I dated, 
 that (he laid heavy duties on our commodities, rice and tobacco 
 particularly, and added, that ive laid none upon her, but fuch as 
 by treaty ive alloived her ic equalize — '1 lie lad part of this arti- 
 cle is an error, which the hally manner in which thefe papers 
 hive been written, betrayed me into, and which I take thefe 
 means to acknowledge, kll (though of no great importance) 
 it might tend to deceive thofe who had not at hand the proper 
 means of correcting the midake. 
 
 C A T O. 
 
 — < «€!^<€$< ->^$»^>- » — 
 A T T I C U S— No. VI. 
 
 [CONTINUED FROM VOL. 2. PAGE 228.] 
 
 THE hero of the funding and excife fydems, the parent of 
 that immaculate axiom, which would do honor to Con- 
 dantinople, that a public debt is a public blejfmg, has entered the 
 llifts as the champion of his darling brat, The Treaty. He is 
 brandishing his ufual weapons, fcphiftry and feduclion, but 
 not with his accudomed fuccefs -, for fince his character has 
 been fully underdood, he has become as harmlefs, as to his 
 influence upon the people, as a toad or a cock-roach; and, like 
 thofe animals, he excites fenfations which are thofe of aver- 
 fion more than of dread. Divetted of that inllrumentality 
 which he employed but too fuccefsfully againd his countrv, 
 the circle of his corruptions mull be narrowed, and the whips 
 and dings of an accufi.ng conscience mud now be fubliituted 
 for the fupreme agency in the affairs of the United States. — « 
 The political herefies which he labuured to cdablifh, with all 
 the zeal of a fanatic, have unfortunately acquired an influence 
 where they may dill prove dangerous, and the unlimited 
 afcendency that lie feems yet to maintain ever minds, which 
 
68 Atticus — No. VI. 
 
 ought to be free from fuch flavifh fhackles, fhadows the prof- 
 pects that are opening to the American world. 
 
 He has again raifed the war whoop, an^ expects, by his 
 hideous yells, to terrify you, fellow citizens, into an abandon- 
 ment of your rights, a prostitution of the firit bleflings of a 
 free people. Have the funding and cxcife fyftems paralized 
 your energies, that, like children, you are to be terrified by 
 icare crows ? No ! For whatever calculations he may have 
 made in this refpect, his public blefBngs have not yet trans- 
 formed you into the eunuchs of liberty, and as you were not 
 to be intimidated by the roaring of the Britifh lion during the 
 revolution, you cannot be alarmed at the brayings of an ani- 
 mal, who has only covered himfelf with his flcin. 
 
 The war-whoop of " Cnmi/lus" begat the negociation, and 
 benumbed the faculties of our country ; and he expects, by 
 the magic of his yelpings, to give life to an abortion, that, 
 like the fabled Bafilifk, would look liberty tcyieath. If the 
 threat of war is to produce a renunciation of our rights as a 
 nation, and of our freedom as a people, we had better diveft our- 
 felves of the trouble of our independence, and place ourfelves 
 formally under the guardianfhip of a foreign power ! — Did the 
 cry of war terrify us into a compliance with the dictum of 
 Great Britain, to bind us in all cafes whatever? Did it make 
 us fwallow the tea, which, like the treaty, was to have palfied 
 us into flavery ? Did it make us cringe to his Britannic ma- 
 jefty, and " lick the hand, juft raifed to ihed our blood r" Were 
 our energies greater at the commencement of the late revolution, 
 than they are now ! Or have we become more corrupt ? This 
 is the rub, fellow citizens — the inftrumentality of a funding 
 fyjlem, aided by BritiJJj influence and directed by another Wal- 
 pole, had not then enervated us. We were ftrangers to corrup- 
 tion, and principle incited us to the maintenance of our rights. 
 Is the queltion war or flavery ? War is the alternative annexed 
 to a rejection of the. treaty by Camillus, and flavery the alter- 
 native of its acceptance, in the mind of every we 11- wither to 
 his country. If war or flavery is then the quellion, rather let 
 the temple of Janus be forever open, than that liberty fhould 
 be made a peace offering to a Britilh tyrant. But will that fo- 
 vereign, upon " whofe goodnefs and juftice," we have placed 
 fuch reliance, let loofe the clogs of war, if the " deteftable 
 faction," the people, refufe his frienrifhip, as exprefied by the 
 treaty? Should they be hardened, will not twenty righteous bs 
 found, twenty who are uncontaminated with rcpublicanifm, to 
 fave Sodom? Stern, indeed, mull be that juliice, inflexible 
 
Atticus — No. VI. 69 
 
 that goodnefs, which would not fave a finking land on account 
 of a few righteous, that might be found within it ! ! 
 
 No ! No ! " Camillus" — your " great, gocd, and dear friend," 
 is too much occupied with his neighbours on the other fide the 
 channel, to find time to attend to us — Like the bear who was 
 furrounded by hornets, he is too bufy to be attracted by any 
 thing at a diftance. The plethora of his body politic has been 
 too much reduced by the French bayonet, to be in vigor to 
 attack men who once treated him fo roughly. We fear him 
 not — we want no proxies to fight our battles ; and if your nerves 
 are too weak, or your reverence for majtfty too great, ceafe 
 your attempts to communicate your weakneffes to the athletic 
 freemen of America. Confine your feduitions to ycur prcfent 
 circle ; for by keeping them within thofe limits, you may 
 efcape, for a time, the contempt and deteftation which me- 
 nace you. 
 
 But if war is fuch a dreadful calamity, fo much to be de- 
 precated, that the phantoms of it alone Of) (bring the cob-web 
 nerves of " Camillus," what will be our condition, when the 
 grifly moniter Mars, arrayed in all his terrors, rufhes to re- 
 venge the injuries and perfidies done to the French republic ? 
 Does he fuppofe, that war can become an evil only when 
 waged againft his idol, Great Britain ? Would the part which 
 we (hould take in the league of defpot6, fhould the treaty ob- 
 tain, foften the horrors or mitigate the diftrefies of w ir ? 
 Would a war with the French republic prop a funding Jyfiem, 
 that he feems fo careleis about it ? Should his bafLard be legi- 
 timized, there can be little doubt, that France would confider 
 it as an infraction of our neutrality, as a fupercefiion of our 
 engagements with her, and as a virtual, though not formal, 
 accellion to the confederacy of tyrants againll her. Circum- 
 flances, my fellow citizens, will juftify the fufpicion, that a 
 war with the French republic would be confidered as a thing 
 devoutly to be wifhed by Camillus and his friends, and that 
 the treaty was formed with a folicitude for that event. There 
 feems to have been a deliberate plan to exterminate liberty, 
 and this was to have been effected by throwing oiY the connex- 
 ion with France, and confolidating ourfelvcs with Great Bri- 
 tain. — In the arms of defpotifm, liberty would have been fuf- 
 focated ; and in the arms of a Britifh tvrant I.^r iate would 
 have been inevitable. 
 
 The increafe of affection for France, in the breads of the 
 
 American citizens, fwe Jbw became a rtpublic, iceins to have 
 
 produced a ferious alarm among the Atifkftratxa faftion of the 
 
 "United States ; and hence the repugnance to treat with her 
 
 Vol. III. £ 
 
70 At tic us — No. VII. 
 
 anew — hence the Machiavelian conftruclion of every thing 
 which was due to her — and hence the folicitude to form the 
 unnatural alliance that has manifefted itfelf in the treaty. That 
 the government of the United States has been making rapid 
 flrides towards ariftocracy, no unprejudiced man, at this time 
 of day, will deny ; and that a connexion with Great Britain 
 was fought for, to facilitate this object, no one, who has no- 
 ticed the fteps of our adminiftration, and has read the treaty, 
 unbiafled by party fpirit, will controvert. If there was not an 
 extraordinary predilection for Great Britain, would the United 
 States have been pafTive under the many outrages they have 
 fuituined< — would they have fufFered, in filence, their feamen 
 to be imprefTed, like flaves, on board Britifh (hips of war, and 
 would they have beheld the unparalleled infult, without emo- 
 tion, that has been offered to our nation, in the attempt to 
 feize a minifler of France, within the limits of our own terri- 
 tory ! ! Heaven, earth, and hell, would have been conjured, if 
 an attempr of the fort had been made upon the minifler of 
 Great Britain: and yet thofe fiends are by treaty " to be treat- 
 " ed with that refpecl which is due to the commiflions which 
 *' they btarj and if any infult fhould be offered to them, by 
 *» any of the inhabitants, all offenders, in this refpecl:, (hall 
 " be punifhed as difturbers of the peace and amity between 
 «* the two countries" ! ! 
 
 Fellow citizens, I have digrefled from the treaty ; but you 
 will think it excufable, as you know the caufe ; for the man 
 who can behold the bare-faced attempts upon our rights, and 
 the audacious outrages upon our country, without the ilrongeft 
 emotions, is unworthy of the freedom and inheritance of the 
 revolution. 
 
 Augufl 8th, 1795. 
 
 ATT I C US. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 A SOLEMN, an awful filence pervades the world of 
 American politics, portentive of fome great event. The 
 fignature, the unexpected fignature of the prefident to the 
 treaty, has momentarily paralized the American mind, as if by 
 etherial impulfe ; and it has not yet recovered from the incubus 
 of aftonifhment and grief, with which it was oppreffed. The 
 omnipotence of truth will, however, at laft prevail ; and 
 though the Americans are grateful, they are juftj and that 
 
Atticus — No. VII. 71 
 
 fenfe o( juflice will prevent a barter of their own rights and 
 their own happinefs for the gratification of any individual, h< ••- 
 ever high his oivn claim to an unlimited contrul over his coun- 
 try. The conflict, of jarring feelings, the ftrife between grati- 
 tude and felf-love, has, for a moment, fufpended the voice of 
 injured freemen; but the feeble mound of gratitude will not 
 long refill the impetuous and imperious ca:ar.cl < c felf-prefer- 
 vation. — Gratitude ! What means it when in contact with poli- 
 tical judice! What means it, when thrown in the oppofite 
 balance of our happinefs ! Does an individual claim more feel- 
 ing than ourfelves, our families, our country! Does he demand 
 fentiments in hoftility to our own repute ! Human nature mult 
 undergo a revolution before this can come to pafs, and virtue 
 yield its throne to vice. 
 
 The fervices of the prefident, during the revolution, are 
 decked in all their charms, to feduce us from a queftion of his 
 prefent motives. He is held up to us as the high pried of liberty, 
 to give abfolution to our own fenfaiions. The amiable virtue, 
 gratitude, is appealed to in our bolbms, to neutralize ir indig- 
 nation, at hib having figned the treaty, after the general fenti- 
 ments of his country had been made known to him, in oppofition to 
 it. Had his fignature been given immediately after the adjourn- 
 ment of the fenate, and before an umverfal expv ffion of dif- 
 approbation of it had taken place, ingenuity might have found 
 a cover for him ; but the public mind feems to have been 
 defignedly wrought up to the highelt key of expectation, that 
 the contempt of it might be more drongly difclofed. Is grati- 
 tude to put a feal upon our lips under fuch circumdances ? Are 
 freemen to be treated with the mo ft marked contumely, and :> 
 be paffive under it like flaves ? Is the prefident to receive in : 
 reverence than our constitution, and more devotion than liber- 
 ty I Let us be confident, and either renounce our conditu - :, 
 and our pretentions to freedom, or rally round them in c 
 tradiction to the will of an individual. I will endcavoui > 
 prove to 4 you, my fellow citizens, in the courfe of thefe letters, 
 that our conditution has been totally difregarded, and that the 
 prefident has fubdituted his will, for the will of the people — 
 that he has thwarted the affections of the people, an i 1 con- 
 tempt of their attachment to the republic of France, and aver- 
 fion from Great Britain, has deceived the one, and crouched to 
 the other. If gratitude is due to the prefident, has not France like- 
 wife a claim to it? Shall he prove ungrateful to her, and nve 
 prove grateful to him ? Shall he pracr. ;ce deception upon the 
 belt friend of our country, a friend to whole generous aid he 
 owes his prefent greatnefc, — aud (halt we prove perfidious 
 
72 Atticus — No. VII. 
 
 enough to give it our countenance? Shrill he take Great Bri- 
 tain into hit bofom, Great Britain who fought to enflave us, who 
 has been guilty of every bafeneis and every outrage againft u?, 
 and Hull we be obliged to fmile upon the monfter, and receive 
 the kifs of Judas ? Shall he greet the tyrant George, as his 
 " great, good, and dear friend ;" and fhall we be obliged to 
 recognize fuch facrilege of liberty ? Shall he colonize us anew, 
 and fhall we be obliged to fubferibe the fhameful compact ? 
 Shall that independence, which he affifted to eftabhfh, be pro- 
 llrated by him at the feet of Great Britain — fhall that tonltitu- 
 ticn, the facred bond of union and dear bought inheritance of 
 the revolution, be trampled under foot by him, and gratitude 
 ftill be chaunted in our ears ? Was the revolution defigned to 
 make him a monarch, and a few fpcculators noblemen ! Is this 
 the gratitude that is demanded? Are we to eftabhfh a political 
 infallibility, and confecra'e a political pope in our country ? 
 Is it longer to continue impious ro arraign prefidential meafures*? 
 if lo, I will preach up a reformation, and dare to be a Luther in 
 politics. — I will ftrive to unmalk the idoi we have fet up, and 
 {how him to be a man — and a man too, not fafhioned accord- 
 ing to the model of liberty. In figning the treaty, the prefident 
 has thrown the gauntlet ; and fhame on the coward heart, 
 that refufes to take it up. He has declared war againft the peo- 
 ple, by treating their opinions with contempt — he has forfeited 
 his claim to their coniidence, by adting in oppofition to their 
 will, — and fhall we not dare to fpeak our injuries, and proclaim 
 our wrongs ! 
 
 Fellow citizens, we are on the eve of fome great event — our 
 liberties are in jeopardy, and we mult cither refcue them from 
 the precipice, or they will be loft to us for ever. One hope offers 
 itfeif to us, and a coufolatory one too, the hoitfe of reprefe Mo- 
 tives of tlw United Sates. As we. have looked in vain for patri- 
 otifiri from the prefident, let us turn our eyes towards that 
 body— :'., \ are our immediate representatives — they feel our 
 wants, participate in our injuries, and fympathize in our dif- 
 trefies. They never will fubmit to having our country degraded 
 — they never wili be pallive under the outrages upon our con- 
 ilitution — thev never will be the inftruments of voting away 
 their own and the people's rights. As our application to the 
 prefident has been treated with (corn, let us make our appeal to 
 that body, which has the power of impeachment — and we fhall 
 not hnd in them the ftep fathers of their country. A treaty 
 which has bartered aw;.y their rights, cannot, will not be fub 
 mitred to — Let us, then, my fellow citizens, rally round our 
 representatives, and we may itill be lree ! 
 
 ATTICUS 
 Auguft 2 1 ft, 1795. 
 
[No. X.> 
 T H £ 
 
 American Remembrancer; 
 
 AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION 
 
 O F 
 
 ESSAYS, RESOLVES, 
 
 SPEECHES, & 
 
 RELATIVE, OR HAVING AFFINITY, TO THB 
 
 TREATY with GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRINTED BY RICHARD FQLWELL, 
 FOR MATHEW CAREY, NO. I I 8, M ARK ET-STREET, 
 
 •BFCEMBER l6, 1 795'""^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pag$ 
 
 |. Cinna, No. I. 
 
 13 
 
 2. No. //.--- 80 
 
 3. No. III. - - 89 
 
 4. No. IV. - 9 6 
 
 *;. Refolutions of the Franklin Society m - 102 
 
 6. Refections on Mr. Jay's Treaty No. I. - - 114 
 
 7. Afo. //• - - 122 
 
 8. American Appeals - - - - 132 
 
 p. Obfervations on Mr. Jays Treaty - - 136 
 10. Obfervations on the XlVth article of Mr. Jays Treaty 138 
 
 XI. Cc -lillus refuted by Alexander Hamilton - 140 
 
 12. Rfiarks on do. - - - 141 
 
 13. Addrefs of the Citizens of Charlefown to the Prcftdcnt 143 
 
 14. Prefdent'sAnfiocr - - - ibid. 
 T5. Proceedings of the Citizens of Frederic County, Virginia 1 44 
 
 
American Remembrancer, &*c. 
 
 From the New-York Arcus. 
 CINN A.— No. I. 
 
 GfcizeH Grcrnh'af, 
 
 TO expatiate on the juilice, power, and refources of 
 Great-Britain — to jellify all her a. Is, however wanton 
 and unjuft — to depreciate his own country, and to place bef 
 in the wrong upon every occafion, are favourite themes with 
 CAMILLUS. Hence it was no matter of furprizeto find him 
 in his third number, attempting a formal vindication of GrejL- 
 Britain for carrying away the negroes, and ridiculing ,our claims^ 
 on that fubject,. As this is the firlt number thai contains any 
 thing like argument, it ought not to paffi unnoticed. By the 
 treaty of Paris, his Britannic mnjeiry agreed " not to carry 
 away any negroes from the United States." This, lav- C •■- 
 milius, mult mean either negroes which h&d been, or which 
 at the ceflation of hoftilities continued to be American proper- 
 ty. When the meaning of an inftrument is doubtful, there 
 cannot be a fafer or fairer way to obtain its true lenlc, than bv 
 coniiucrmg its circumftances, and the views oi the parties at 
 the time of making the contra-.!, and that they acted with 
 good faith to each other. To apply this rule ; during the late 
 war, many negroes had been taken by, or had voluntarily 
 joined the armies or gone into the garrifons of Great-Britain. 
 To reclaim them, and prevent their being carried awav, was 
 an object which our commillioners had much at heart ; and 
 it is noi eafy to conceive how this obje<fr. could have been cx- 
 p re fled in plainer or lefs ambiguous terms. It Will 15 
 bered, that Franklin had an a^ n. v in that treaty ; and per- 
 haps no man ever excelled hi « perfpicuity and pertinency 
 "of expreifkin •, that thoie negri^.- aid thofe alone were in thfc 
 contemplation of both parties, refuhs from the very nature of 
 the cafe. It could not be ncccflary t<> gud 
 predations of this kind — peace being made, all ! 
 every kind ceafed. As v ell might a claufe hive been iti4 
 io prohibit fhips of war, ot the different p. ».n natcnv* 
 
*6 ClNNA XO. I. 
 
 prizes during the peace; as the captains of fuch veiicis would 
 have been treated like pirates, (o might every negro, or his va- 
 lue, been recovered by a regular courfe of law, irom any per- 
 fon who had taken him after the peace, without any imputa- 
 tion in the treaty for that purpofe. To confine this article, 
 therefore, to an engagement to abitain from further plunder, 
 is rendering it altogether negative and ufclefs -, which is never 
 to be fuppofed, and cannot be prefumed to have been the inten- 
 tion of either party. The reafoning of Camillus is conltrain- 
 ed and contradictory -, in one breath, he likens the negroes 
 to " horles, cattle, and other moveables., and as fuch liable to 
 become booty ;" in the next confidering them " as rational 
 beings* and as entitled to liberty under llritiiii proclamations, 
 he concludes it would have been odious and i tumoral to let 
 them pafs ag-in into flavcry." Let us bellow a moment, for 
 a moment will fuilice, to detect the fophiitry of each of thefe 
 arguments. 
 
 "Admitting that flaves may become booty, and that their 
 property becomes vetted in the captor, has he not a right to 
 reitove them, if he pleafes, at a peace? did not this city belong 
 to the king of Great-Britain by conquelt ? and did he not 
 agree to evacuate it, rather than continue an unequal war? 
 did not the American artillery, which he found in our forts, be- 
 long to him by the fame right ; yet he agreed to leave it be- 
 hind ? when he finds how ably his infractions of the treaty 
 are defended by our own citizens, he will, no doubt, regret 
 that he evacuated New-York as foon as he did ; for the fame 
 argument ufed by Camillus to juflify his detention of the 
 rn pods, would apply equally (trong to his having kept 
 rarrifons till this time in our fca-ports, the prompt evacuation 
 of which this writer confiders rather as a matter of grace in 
 his majefty, than of Uriel: obligation on his part. To return — 
 as the negroes which were taken, belonged to the king, he 
 mi<dvt prefer reftoring them to their former owners, rather 
 than be encumbered with their maintenance, which would 
 probably have been the confeeuence of giving them freedom j 
 to have fold them, would have, ill comported with his dignity. 
 It mud be considered alio, . ^ t in reftoring them to their maf- 
 ters. he would take care to receive an equivalent for fuch con- 
 ceflion. "What this equivalent was, none but the. commiffion- 
 crs can know ; perhaps they agreed to recommend the tories to 
 mercy in confideration of his rnajefty's reftoring thie negroes ; 
 whatever the inducement may have been, he promi.es, oy an 
 •expreffion as latitudinary as can well be devifed, not to carry 
 
ClNNA No. 1\ — 
 
 away &nf of them, that is, he will leave them a)l whether ac- 
 quired by capture or enticed away by his royal offers. If an ex- 
 ception had been intended) ill favor of any clafs, it would have 
 found its way into the treaty : none being made, the descrip- 
 tion muft cither be nugatory, or extend to all the blacks, who 
 Were then living, and in the power of his troops, arming 
 them againft their matters, and not in making amends for fuch 
 an abominable warfare, by fending them home again. But if 
 fuch promifes were really made, or if a treaty of amity and 
 -alliance, offenfive and defenfive, actually exiited between his 
 Britannic majelty, and who had not been actually carried from 
 the continent before the treaty, the other pofition cannot be 
 Hlpported without charging the king with the greateft du- 
 plicity and want of good faith, which I fhall not offend Ca- 
 millus fo much as to fuppofe his majefty Capable of. It would 
 be odious and immoral, fays he, to return to their former maf* 
 ters, riegroes who had joined them on a promifc of liberty* 
 Any Other but Camillas would have thought the immorality 
 cor. tilled in alluring away the lwarthy domeftics of America* 
 Why not be explicit, and explain with good faith, to the ple- 
 nipotentiaries, the folemn engagement he was under •> inftead 
 of Ripulating a fpecilic return, an equivalent might then have 
 been .'.greed upon ; or if faith muft be broken, either with the 
 begroes, or with the United States, would it not have been 
 a lets reflection on Great-Britain, to give up the former, whom 
 (he was no longer able to protect, (as the did the tories) and 
 to whom fhe was probably under no other than immoral en- 
 jtgements. contained in proclamations, iffued upon the fole 
 authority of fome lavage officers, than to break, in the very 
 moment of Ilgning, a folemn compact, formally and delibe-i 
 lately entered into with the latter? was (lie not under as folemn 
 engagements to the toties who had efpoufed hzx caufe, and 
 received protections from her generals; yet their perfons and 
 properties were abandoned, or, which was the fame things 
 placed upon the precarious footing of a recommendation on 
 the part of congrefs, for favor and pardon to the legiflatures 
 :of the different itates. Not a man of this description who had 
 'been banifhed, cotfld return without a law for the purpofe. 
 Does Camillus imagine that the interefts of thefe Africans lay 
 nearer the heart of their gracious monarch, whofc virtues ar,d 
 humanity he takes fo <i\Vi:h pleafure in blazoning, than thofe 
 of his own deluded fubje&Sj who s notwithltanding his deli- 
 berate facriliec of them, continue as firmly a; ever devoted 
 to him. 
 
 Vol. III. M 
 
-S C:\NA — No. I. 
 
 ijefty be really (what no one but Camillu 
 
 fufp. .bout doing an odious acYion, or break* 
 
 ted faith to his black allies, why juftify him for 
 
 • our expenfe ? If he he- as jujt, magnanimomi^ 
 
 .r envoy has reprcfented him, why docs he 
 
 ty for the liberty which he thought it his duty to confer 
 
 his majelty's abhor- 
 rence of I luced him to c people away ? The 
 
 It him — his majciiy, like 
 noong oUrfelves (I do not mean the quakers, tor I 
 believe them to act from principle) is a greal advocate for 
 irunumiflion, when his own intereitsor thoie of Lis fubjects 
 are not affected by it, or when the Uni , notwithstand- 
 
 ing his unbounded affection for them) are alone injured by it. 
 As foon, then, as the Britiih king found that his recent en- 
 ments with this country could not be executed fj 
 without violal i .uecedent promifes to the negroes, 
 
 ad of quibbling, and putting on his agreement a conduc- 
 tion which rendered it a ch\i. be would have acted more 
 confident with the character afcribed to him by the friends of 
 the prefent treaty, by candidly communicating his embarrafl- 
 ments to our government. We thould readily have contented 
 to a pecuniary compenfation ; Camillus, it is true, averts, 
 that " when a party promifes a fpecific thing, nothing but the* 
 thing itfelf will fatisfy the promiie." — If Camillus be a lawyer, 
 he certainly knows that nothing is more common than a fa- 
 tion in damages for the breach of a promife to do a fpecific 
 thing j and that in a great variety of cafes it h the only fatisfac- 
 tiun to which the law can or will compel the deliquent party ; 
 and that fuch damages being paid, tlie promife is as completely 
 fatisfied as by doing of the fpecific thing. Thus, if a perfon con- 
 tract to deliver me a fhip, or a horfe which he afterwards fells 
 to another, or to come nearer to the cafe before us, he engages 
 to reilore me a negro which he afterwards tends away, and 
 thus puts a fpecific performance out of his power, my only 
 claim againft him is for a compenfation commenfurate to the 
 injury lultained by his breach of promiie. It would be abfurd 
 in the extreme ie. - America, at this time, to infill upon a re- 
 turn of thole negroes. Many are dead ; and of thofe who fur- 
 \ ne, the greater part mult be in the decline of life, and would 
 be of little ufe to their former matters. A compenfation then is 
 all that can be silked ; this is precifely the controverfy betweeri 
 the two governments. The United States (and Camillus will 
 nut contend againft their right fo to do) relcafe G. Britain from 
 
Cinna — No; I. 7y 
 
 afpccific compliance, and infifb upon an equivalent in money. 
 With what other view, then, but to deceive, does Camillus ob- 
 ferve, that " the party 'to whom a promife is made, cannot be 
 required to accept in lieu of it an equivalent ? Did he not know 
 that the United States were willing to receive] and afic< 
 nothing more than an equivalent, fo that there could be no 11c- 
 ceffity of enquiring into the right of Great-Britain to force 
 them to it ? 
 
 It is proper to fubjoin, that the conftruclion of this article 
 by Camillus, is oppofed to the interpretation which our go- 
 verment have uniformly put upon it, i:. contrary to the expla- 
 nation of it by mr. Jefferfon, whofe correfpondence with mr. 
 Hammond is recommended, as the bed antidote againft the 
 mifchievous and humiliating doctrines, fo warmly inculcated 
 by this writer. Every American will turn witb pleafure from 
 a laboured panegyric of the Britifh government, a ttrenuous- 
 and uncandid vindication of all its arbitrary proc* dings to- 
 wards this country, and from the degrading representation of' 
 the United States, which fill fo many columns of Camillus, L-> 
 the manly, energetic, dignified, and yet candid examination o£ 
 Jefferfon. In the writings of this invaluable datefman, he will 
 difcover the true lource of controverfy between the two coun- 
 tries. He will be (hocked at the perfidy and duplicity of Great- 
 Britain, and will be aftonifhed at the forbearance of the United 
 States, under the molt aggravated and unprovoked infults and 
 injuries. It is a work which fhould be in the hands of every 
 man. It will teach us to love and relpecl: our country, a duty 
 which cannot be too lirongly inculcated, when pains are taken 
 to infufe a contrary fentknenfc 
 
 • I {hall only afk. if Camillus is right; haw happened it, that 
 a majority of the Senate, at their late feffion. agreed to advife 
 the Prefideot to renew negotiations with his majefty for a 
 compenfation for the negroes who had been carried away con- 
 trary to the 7th article of the treaty of peace ? When fo many 
 refpcftable authorities concur reflecting this aggreffion, it 
 would evince a becoming modefty in Camillus to retract an 
 opinion which ought to find advocates only in the Britifh Cabi- 
 net. 
 
 July 29, 1704. CINNA, 
 
[ 8o ) 
 
 C 1 N N A.— No. II. 
 
 FAITHFUL to his promife, and meditating an attack vrpoa 
 mr. Jefferfon, whofc arguments have hitherto been un- 
 anfwered ; CAM1LLUS, in his 4th eflay, proceeds to inltance 
 certain infractions of the treaty of peace on our part •, — an ac- 
 curate enumeration of thefe breaches would require, fays he, a 
 tedious refearch : and who, fir, has impofed upon you this odi- 
 ous tafk ? Dees the duty of a patriot, or a citizen, demand it of 
 you ? Would not your talents and ingenuity he better employ- 
 ed in vindicating the injured honor and rights of your coun- 
 try ? Does it become you to rack invention to cover her with 
 obloquy, and to hold her up as a faifhlefs. and treacherous na- 
 tion ? Does it comport with the character of a citizen of the 
 United St i s, after their minifter had filenced the objections 
 of the Britiih ambafiador, to juftify a perfidious prince for his 
 breaches of faith and his violences towards America ? will it an- 
 fwer any valuable purpofe to ftigmatife the Legiflature of your 
 own date, for a£ts which preceded the treaty, and which were 
 fuggefted by the fpur of the occafion, and by 2 regard to felf-de- 
 fence ? Will the recollection produced by a review of the con- 
 duel of the different parties during the war, be profitable,. or 
 conciliating ? Will not every American recur to the hiftory of 
 thofe times to difcover, net only the reafons which dictated,. 
 but a juitification of the acts of which you complain ? If he 
 purfues the enquiry with pure motives, he will be attoniihed, 
 sot that the (late of New- York did fo much, but that her mo- 
 deration was as great as it was. He will recollect, with emo- 
 tions of pain and indignation, that the ftate was not only in- 
 vaded, and its capital, and fome of its moll fertile diilricts in 
 poiicffion cf a foreign enemy ; but that fhe had alfo to encoun- 
 ter a more fangainary foe, in thofe, from whofe birth, fituation* 
 and connection, me was entitled to expe£t fupport and fuc- 
 cour, in her arduous conflict for independence. Thefe men not 
 only turned their arms againil their country, but, outi'tripping- 
 Britiih cruelty, they introduced a warfare, which would have: 
 difgfaced the favages of our wildernefs. The peaceful farmer — > 
 the aged inhabitants of either fex, whofe years and infirmities 
 were refpected by the troops of Great-Britain, and her merci- 
 lefs auxiliaries of Germany, found no quarter from this im- 
 lacable and interline foe. Their depredations were cireum- 
 cribed by no principle or rule of war — thiriting, for revenge* 
 
 I 
 
OtfNA — No. If. Si 
 
 rapine, plunder and fecret de*.th were their purfuit. Their fuc- 
 ccis was proportionate to their malice. America being unable 
 to extend her protection to an immenfe frontier, her citizens 
 were driven from their farms — their property made a prey of-, 
 and they deemed themfelves happy, when they could eicane 
 from aflaffination into exile and penury. Our leas and coaits 
 fwarmi'd with privateers, fitted out by thefe internal enemies ; 
 and even the Indians of America were piloted by them, to the 
 peaceful dwellings of her citizens, and fcm.de and infants' 
 fcalps wire often difplayed as the joint triumph of thole mon- 
 gers of the human race ! Who then can be zftonifhed, that 
 thefe provocations, which were repeating every day, fliould 
 excite the mod lively fenfations of indignation and refentment ? 
 Who then can wonder, that our legislature fhould puis an act, 
 which was not only extorted by a fenfe of injury, and th 
 igencies of the times, bur was peculiarly calculated to protect 
 our citi'/ens from future plunder, and held cut a gleam of 
 hope to thofe who had already been ftripped of their all, by 
 this ruthlefs and unfeeling band ? Forgive me, fir. if I defcribt 
 your prefent friends in glowing colours. Humanity wifhed to 
 forget forever, deeds of cruelty and horror, at the bare men- 
 tion of which, the moft obdurate and rugged heart rovolts. 
 America was content to drop the curtain on a tragedy, the 
 cataltrophe of which had confounded the adversaries of he; 
 m and fovereigrtty. This itate in particular, fjNeW-York 1 
 although her trade and frontiers had fuffered the molt, early 
 manifested a conciliating and forgiving fpirit. Peffons who 
 had betrayed the moil rancorous temper, and had beer 
 nifhed for their <jnmity arid poverty of fpirit, were permitted 
 to return to the bofom of their offended country. Men who 
 had evidenced not only in principle, but in action, the molt 
 rooted hoflility to our freedom and government, were permit 
 ted to remain, and to become a part of the great bodv politic. 
 In fiances, without number, of forbearance, lenity, and even 
 of tendernefs, forgivenefs, and fincerc reconciliation, mi^ht be 
 produced ; even rewards and public honors and offices have- 
 been bellowed on thefe men. Far from condemning a policy, 
 to which, however, there were many objections, I glory in the 
 liberality and munificence of my country. Nor was it my 
 wifh to refcuc from oblivion, a memorial of the conduct of 
 thofe who have been objects of their country's generofity and 
 forgivenefs. Camillus has courted, nay provoked the difcuffion. 
 When it becomes neceilary to exculpate our country from the 
 reproach of cruelly and breach of faith, we mult be permitted 
 
?2 Cxna-W. M 
 
 to the tim Inch, if I* 
 
 lli^nia upon her. If L 
 
 lina- 
 rion, 1 of thcfe unhappy men, 
 
 >rnc lorn, animadverfioi 
 
 duel ot* this Hate. 
 Haying dated fome of the provocations and inducement?, 
 now to the law itfelf, in which Camillas difcerns one 
 : reaches of the treaty of peace, on our part; Ca- 
 not more unhappy in reminding us of the conduct 
 of the tories, than he is unfortunate in this firit proof which 
 lie inflauces of cur breach of faith. The Jaw to which 1 
 fersj is well known by the appellation of the trefpafs acl. This 
 the I -tii Marchj 178^. A mind, not warped by 
 difpqfed to deceive itfelf, is at fome difficulty to 
 , pa fled fix months before the definitive 
 ned, and more than a year, according to Camil- 
 las, before .: binding on the king, can be tortured in- 
 to an infraction of that very treaty. At the time of parting. 
 this '."•••, the legislature had a perfect right fo to do ; nay^ 
 it was part cf their duty, — the war yet raged with unabated ri- 
 gor : as the royal caufe became more and more defperate, its- 
 friends became proportionally alert in their efforts to revenge 
 a fuccefs, to which they could not reconcile themfelves. Their 
 • ! airs exceeded any of a former date. Every meafure. 
 nv, which tended to curb the liceni f cur do- 
 ., to mitiga,te,or check the horrorsof a civii war, and 
 to protect thole o-f our citizens whole remote refidence pre- 
 iviug an,y, adequate fecuricy from tlic Ameri- 
 can army, was not only prudent, but neceflary, juftifiable, and 
 hum a ■ alio believed, that :c\v, if any, of the depreda- 
 and robberies, which were committed by the new levies 
 ere at the time lV.iietioncd by any military or- 
 r owq fury, and a thirlt for plunder and revenge led' 
 them on ; ypt if a military order was admitted to juiiify their 
 
 n to obtain cue ? Every 
 man who had iiolen a horfe, a cpw, or 
 any authority, and converted the proceeds to his owii uf. 
 there w. re thoufands who pur'fuc,d no other b v. ould 
 
 have fl lrom.ajun.com] »n, under an or- 
 
 der, wbicli ijvghj 'ime have been procured. The legif- 
 
 I w (for it • tl of the me't enlighten- 
 
 .'!" t'e day, notwithiiaudir 
 ■ which ii i -f the p;o- 
 
Ci : I —No. II. 
 
 , i of the act fhould clafh or interfere with any treaty 
 made with Great-Britain, they would of eoarfe ceafe to 
 
 ind that our courts would give effeel to thofe ciauf 
 ly which might not undergo fuch repeal. 
 ( imillus, it is true, does not admit that 
 
 ..• confederation, were paramount to iheai 
 oS tin . 
 
 y the pofi 
 , that it was a " que tiro n e. about 
 
 which thei this country did c ...... much 
 
 diverfity of opinion." What is >•/ any 1 v. 
 
 queftion of theory, I Bo not well comprehend. Wl 
 law in any particular cafe, in n country; wc 
 
 itto conlider a bueftionoi fa£t and not of tli 
 and k that fuch (t be pro\ 
 
 What the law may be, in any given c fe, may 
 tor < f unc and not known to every one, but it i. fY.ll 1 
 
 .'.ion of iacl, whether it be, as dated by one pcrfon or 
 
 ■-. Where tl itv of opinion prevails, coU 
 
 tie the queftibn ; and until tliis is do:: 
 muil I l information, to our net 
 
 {he opinictasxjf pi •:■■■ liotwf] men. I do not mean to adms 
 our coerrs ha\ lined the queiifiO'n •, for it will bo 
 
 feen'inthel | rid it *a fomewhat myfterious tfeut it fhould 
 
 have c leaped the p. nervation of Camillus) that our court6 have 
 Solemnly adjudged iii iavourof the trc.uy, when interfering 
 with a contrary numieipa! regulation. 
 
 ■ queftion a move minute exam: 
 
 it can be Ihown, th.u all il.it." laws, contravening the treaty of 
 peace, were thereby repealed, and rendered null as to their fu- 
 ture operation, all the elaborate reafoning of Camillus, and its 
 fuperltrutture, will be overthfOWn, and he himfelf be c. 
 led, however relu£Untty, to impute the firft infliction to the 
 account of Great-Britain. The pror Gtion is fo felf-evident to 
 an American lawyer, that without any proof, it forces the fame 
 conviction on his mind, as the plained axioms of Euclid, 
 M that the whole is greate* than a part," or, " that all tight* 
 equal to one another," do upon that cf a mathema- 
 tician. To prove either, appears a work of iupererogatkni j 
 however, as the doutf* is railed, we will attempt a folution 
 of ir. 
 
 By the 9th article of the confederation, " the United ' 
 in congrefs aflembled, have I {Wright of en- 
 
 tering I 
 
$4 CInmi — N6. 
 
 to by this Hate, by a folemn act of its legislature, paSTed the 6th 
 of February, 1778. The people, therefore, of this lute were 
 r.s much parties to the treaty of i I they had been pre- 
 
 dentin their proper perfons, and individually affixed their fig- 
 natures to it. How then could its binding force upon them 
 ever become a queflion ? Has ( ireat-Britain ever entertained 
 a doubt on the fubject ? Can one party to a contract annul it 
 without the other's conftnt ? Hence it follows, not only that 
 treaties made under the confederation, were fupreme laws of 
 the land, but that they were fo in a fenfe much more exten- 
 sive and emphatical than could be applied to an act of the legif- 
 lature. While the latter could be repealed or altered, the for- 
 mer could no wife be effected by a legislative act. Of little 
 force, therefore, is the cbfervation of Camillus, that " in the 
 opinion of the legislature of Virginia, there were acts which 
 had prevented, and might prevent the recovery of debts, accor- 
 ding to the treaty." The legislature of Virginia may make, but 
 cannot expound even its own laws, much lefs laws or compacts 
 to which that (late was only oneoi many parties. Their exposi- 
 tion belongs folely and exclufively to the judicial department. 
 Thefe (but perhaps it was unknown to Camillus) are the fenti- 
 ments of the legillature of that very Slate. In an act of October, 
 1787, it is declared, " that it does not belong to the legifla- 
 ture to decide particular quellipns, of which the judiciary have 
 cognizance, and that therefore it was unfit for them to deter- 
 mine on the validity of certain payments." The opinion, there- 
 fore, of any legislature on laws which already exiSl, is entitled 
 to no attention ; much lefs does fuch an opinion diminish the 
 obligation or clhcacy of them. Even in paSfing laws, if they 
 exceed their authority (which may be the cafe) courts of jus- 
 tice will difregard and refufe to carry them into effect. If a 
 cafe had been cited, of the fupreme judicial tribunal of Virgi- 
 nia rendering a judgment conformable to what is Slated as the 
 minion of its legillature, it would have been in point, and not 
 cafy to reconcile to the injunctions of the treaty. 
 
 After producing this opinion, Camillus demands, with an air 
 of triumph and fatisfaction, as if he had detected mr. JefFcr- 
 fon in a mifreprefentation ; " with what truth has it been aflert- 
 <-:J, that it was at all times perfectly underllood, that treaties 
 c mtrouled the laws of, the Hates? Ianfwer,becaufeitcouldnotbc 
 otherwife, and that not only mr. Jetferfon, but feveral profef- 
 lionai «vid other characters of eminence, whom he confulted, 
 (for extennve as his own experience was, he did not think it 
 derogated from a mipifler of a free nation to collect informa- 
 
ClNNA— No. If, §5 
 
 li'On from his fellow citizens) concurred in this opinion. It may- 
 Well be doubted, whether any lawyer has ever ferioully advo- 
 cated a contrarv proportion* " It refulted," fays mr. Jeffer- 
 fon, " from the in liniment of confederation, among the ilates, 
 that treaties made by congrefs, according to the confederation, 
 Were fuperior to the laws of the ftates. He adds, "we may 
 fafely affirm this to have been the general fenfe of thofe at lead 
 who were of the profeffion of the law." Mr. JeiVcrfon, we (hall 
 fee, did not fpeak at random, nor without authority, nor is he 
 chargeable with the fmalleft mifreprefentation- It gives me 
 plcafure, I confefs, to refcue the character of this gentleman, 
 which has forced the admiration of America* from the afper- 
 fions of an anouimous writer, whofe lucubrations hitherto may 
 be regarded rather as a formal cenfure of his official conduct, 
 than a vindication of the Englifh treaty. Docs it excite fur- 
 prize, that Camillas wilhss to render him odious ? In his own 
 writings the reafon may be discovered- " Mr. JefTerfon," fays 
 he, " is a candidate for the presidential chair!" 
 
 Governor Collins, mr. Channing, diitric.l attorneyfor Rhode* 
 ifland, governor Huntington, mr. Lewis, ui Uriel attorney for 
 Pcnnfylvania, mr. Monroe, a fenator from Virginia, and now 
 minilter in France, and mr, Harrifon, our diflricl attorney, 
 and a gentleman of well earned legal reputation, have all 
 functioned an opinion, which Camillas would fain pcrfuade us 
 is a matter of doubt. The name of Hamilton, whofe legal ac- 
 quirements, and other fplendid talents, have fo often aftonifh- 
 ed his fellow citizens, and whofe authority it is prefumed, 
 will not be difputed by Camillus, may alfo be added to a lilt 
 already refpectable. In the cafe of Waddington and Rutgers, 
 which has been oftener mentioned than its importance defer- 
 ved, he was council for the defendant, and advifed his client to 
 rely on the treaty of peace, which pica was allowed by the 
 court. It will not be impertinent here to notice a remark of 
 Camillus, not as a proof of candour, but of his folicitude to 
 miflead ; " though," fays he, " there may have been no formal 
 decii'jon oi our court*, enforcing the exceptionable principles 
 of the trefpafs act, yet there never was a decifon of a fupreme 
 court againtt it." Did not Camillus know, that the fupreme 
 court had decided againfh principles as exceptionable in other 
 acts, merely becaufe they were at war with the treaty of 
 peace r 1 le knew it, and it would have been no reflection on 
 his candour to have (tated the inltances. Not having done fo, 
 the following extract of a letter from mr. Harrifon to mr. 
 JefTerfon, v. ill remind him of fomc cafes in which he was pro- 
 
 Vol. III. N 
 
%6 Cimxa— No. I!. 
 
 bably concerned as counfel for one of the parties. — " Thk 
 operation of tins aft," fays he, fpeaking of the a£t relative to 
 debts due to perfons within the enemy's line*', «' became fooa 
 after the peace, :i fubject of much complaint, grounded upon 
 tint article of the treaty which forbids any impediment to the, 
 recovery of the full value in iterling money of all bona fide 
 debts, and that which declares that no perfon fhall fuffer any 
 future lofs in his peribn, liberty, or property. With regard to 
 Britifh creditors, who were fuppofed to be the proper objects 
 of the 4th article of the treaty, the fitperior courts of the ftate 
 foon retrained the operation of the act, and I do not know of a fingle 
 infar.ee w here they have been held to be affected by it." Here 
 then we have not only decifions of our fuperior courts in point, 
 but are told, by a gentleman of great accuracy, that there i.» 
 not one inftance to the contrary. Plow powerful is truth ! 
 deception may continue for a day, but the veil will foon be rent, 
 and fallacy and error, however fophiitically arrayed, will be 
 dripped of their ornaments, and expoied to public view. Let 
 this be a caution to all who read Camillus, to fufpend their 
 opinion until his aiTertions are examined. I forbear, for the 
 fake of brevity, to tranferibe the opinions of the other gentle- 
 men who have been named, although they are equally ftrong, 
 and more direct in point than that of mr. Harrifon. They arc 
 all as pofitive as language could render chem, and bear ho- 
 norable teftimony in favour of America. They mould be con- 
 fulted by thofe, who, like mr. Jefferfon, '* will be glad to find 
 an exculpation of our conduct," which is glanced at by this 
 writer as a difmgenuous trait in his minifterial career. Gover- 
 nor LivingltuM alfo, in a letter dated 15th June, 1789, to the 
 fame minifter, declares, that " he does not know 2. fugle in- 
 ftance, in which the ftate of New-Jerfey had contravened the 
 treaty." It would be endlefs to cite proofs on this fubject. 
 
 Treaties, then, from the very nature of our union, being the 
 fupreme l:\ws of the land, it refults neceflarily, that its provisions 
 could not be controuled by the laws of any ftate, and that no one 
 could reafonably complain of the exiilence of fuch acts, which, 
 bv the treaty, were rendered nugatory, until obedience to them 
 was enforced by the courts to whom the expofition of fuch 
 acts and treaties was delegated. Let Camillus produce a fingle 
 inftance of the fupreme judiciary of any ftate rendering judg- 
 ment contrary to the plain fenfe of the treaty — until fuch ex- 
 amples are produced, it becomes us to defend our country from 
 the unjult imputations of the Britifh miniitry and their agents, 
 and not by iubtile and fine-fpun diftin&JQUS and doubts, give 
 
Cinxa — No. II. 
 
 «Jiicacyto their calumnies. Among the fubterfuges, calculated 
 to fix a reproach upon the United Str.tes, may be clafied die 
 remark of Camillus, that, « under the confederation, they 
 had no courts of their own to expound and enforce their trea- 
 ties as laws." We are at a lofs which to cenfure molt in this 
 obfervation; its want of candour, or the unqualified reflection 
 it carries with it on the ftate judiciaries. If treaties were laws 
 of the land, which, perhaps, was never ferioufly doubted, were 
 not the ftate judges, then, as much as the federal judges are 
 now, fworn and bound to conform to, and make them the rule 
 of their decifions ? He fubjoins, with becoming delicacy, "it 
 was believed that a majority of our fupreme court bench would 
 over-rule the plea of a military order." How was this difcoyery 
 made? did the judges favour him v. ith an extra-judicial * 
 nion ? or was he gifted with the fpirit of divination ? Thus, be- 
 lief, furmifes, and fufpicions mult be reforted to, to fix upon 
 our ftate, the ignominious charge of breaking her folemn cv 
 ments with foreign powers. To the credit of our bench, it 
 ought to be mentioned, that it has, ever fince the peace, been 
 filled with characters of the molt unblemifhed reputation and 
 integrity, and that the confidence infpircd by their decifions, 
 has been fo great, that perhaps in no Hate in the union, is lefs 
 bufinefs done in the federal court, than in New- York. It 
 would hardly receive credit, was I to mention how very few 
 civil actions have been commenced in thefe courts, fince their 
 organization in this ftate. 
 
 It cannot be necefiary to follow Camillus through his in- 
 vidious enumeration of the other acts of this, and other ll, res, 
 which he confiders as violations of the treaty ; the fame anfwer 
 applies to all. The treaty could not be controuied by any (tare 
 law ; but it is alleged, that in fome cafes, repealing acts were 
 deemed nccefTary by the legiflatures of the different ftates. 
 This does not alter the cafe. It was done for the greater cau- 
 tion, and furnilhcs proofs of a fincere fpirit of accommodation. 
 In fome ftate-, a repeal would probably not have taken place, 
 if their legiflatures had not obferved the laws in queftion had 
 already yielded to the fuperior mandates of the treaty. 
 
 But admitting, for a moment, that legal impediments once 
 cxilted to the recovery of Eritiih debts, will it be contended 
 that they continued to operate at the time of the negociation 
 between mr. Jay and lord Crenville ? if not, why fear to meet 
 the queftion, and difcufs the reipcclive claims of the two coun- 
 tries ? If America had done wrong, what could Great-Britain 
 deure more, than a- rcdrefs of die injury which had already 
 
85 Cimna— No. II. 
 
 uken place? mr. Jay could have informed lord GrcnvinV, with 
 confidence, that for fix years paft, our courts were open to ' 
 Britiih creditors, and that probably few, if any, remained un- 
 fltisfied. This would not have pleafed his lordlhip. Knowing 
 that Great-Britain had nothing at pre fen t to complain of, and 
 that our demands were of the molt ferious and extenfive na- 
 ture, he feduloufly avoided a difcuffion, which a mere novice 
 in diplomatic controverfy, could have managed on our part, fo 
 as to refute every poflible objection of his lordfliip. livery " en- 
 lightened American," therefore, cannot but regard the pre- 
 tended apprehenfions of our envoy to meet fo plain a queition, 
 as a bafe dereliction of his country's honor, as a mean facri- 
 fice of her rights 5 as an ill-timed delicacy, and as a moil 
 unwarrantable conceffion to Great-Britain. 
 
 New~Ybri, Auguf 9M, 1795. CINNA. 
 
 P. S- It has been thought belt to fubfoin the opinions of the 
 gentlemen above referred to; they harmonize, anil are (o much 
 in point, that we fhall find it impofiible to withhold our aileni 
 from mr. Jefferfon's propofition in its gpeatoft latitude, " that 
 treaties made by congrefs, according to the confederation, 
 were fuperior to the laws of any Itate." 
 
 Governor Collins fays, " the treaty, in all its abfolute parts, 
 has been fully complied with ; and to thofe parts that are 
 merely recommendatory, and depend upon the legifative Jifcretion-, 
 the mod candid attention has been paid •" plainly implying, 
 fays mr. Jefferfon, that the abfolute parts did not depend upon 
 the legislative discretion, 
 
 Mr. Channing, fpeaking of an act pafled before the treaty, 
 fays, M this act was conhdered by our court, as annulled by the 
 treaty of peace. 
 
 Governor Huntington fays, " the courts of juftice adopted 
 the treaty as a principle of the law." 
 
 Mr. Lewis — " the judges have uniformly and without hef* 
 tntion declared in favour of the treaty, on the ground of its be- 
 ing the fupremc la<w of the la7id." 
 
 Mr. Monroe — " both court and counfel, in Virginia, avow- 
 ed the opinion, that the treaty would eoutroul any law of the 
 ftate oppofed to it." 
 
 The fenators and reprefentatives in congrefs from Maryland* 
 in a note to mr. Jefferfon, inform him, " that the legiflature 
 of Maryland, enacted a law declaring the treaty the fuprcme laiu 
 of the land, which was/' they add, *' but a compliance in form 
 
ClNXA — No. in. &> 
 
 with what had, \r\ effect, taken place, immediately after ths <rif- 
 change of the ratifications of the definitive treaty." 
 
 William Tiighman, a lawyer of Maryland, writes as follows : 
 " we have recognized the treaty as the law of the land, by a 
 particular act of aflembly \ and our judges have given one vcrv 
 linking proof of their impartiality in the contraction of it. I 
 allude to the decifion of the general court in favor of Britifh 
 creditors, againft a number oi Maryland citizen 1 ?, who, during 
 the war, depofited paper money in the trcafury, under the fanc- 
 tion of a law, at that time exiiting, in fatisf action of their debts: 
 whether the treaty fhould have fuch rctrofpecr, as to avoid thefc 
 payments, was certainly a doubtful point." 
 
 If theft inftances, an enumeration of which would have Ou- 
 cahoned no "tedious refearch," (mr. Jefferfon having been at 
 the pains of collecting them) do not diffipate the doubts of 
 Camillus, if he realiy entertains any, neither will he believe, 
 rf one rife from the dead. It affords matter for ferious reflec- 
 tion, that the talents of this gentleman, fhould be lb Itrenuoully 
 e-xerted to traduce his country, when ample materials, were at 
 hand, not only for exculpation, but for eulogy and commen- 
 dation. 
 
 Augift, toffy i-o?. CINNA» 
 
 — >®><^-S>>S>^><S> *><s><^ — 
 
 C I N N A— No. IU. 
 
 IF Camillus, inftead of vindicating mr. Jav, at the expenfe 
 of his country's faith, had recurred to his oilicial reports, 
 while fecretary for foreign affairs, an apology would have pre- 
 fentcd itfelf, not quite lb grateful perhaps to the pride of his 
 friend; but lefs conftrained, and more agreeable to truth, than 
 the one which he has afligned. It is well known that mr. Ja\ , 
 while at the head of that department, either from want of in- 
 formation, or from taking a lefs comprehenfive view of the 
 fubject than his fucceliur did, or from fome other lefs pardon- 
 able motive, in very unqualified language, not only excufed 
 Great-Britain for her infraction of the treaty, but threw the 
 whole cenfure on this country. It was cafily foreleen that the 
 ncgociation in die hands of a man, thjis committed, muile'- 
 
fO ClNN'X-— Nc. III. 
 
 if 
 ther prove abortive, or terminate, as it has done, ciifiiom 
 ro America. A virtuous minority in the Senate, vemonftrated 
 ill v.iin againft an appointment which was not only a direct 
 attack upon the conititution, by deftroying the independence 
 of the judiciary, but which, from the character of the en 
 gured nothing but difappointment and ignominy. Mr. j 
 hoflility to the French revolution was alio well known. This 
 enmity betrayed itfelf, not only in his more private fentiments 
 and converfation, but was molt confpieuoufiy difpiayed in the 
 libel, which lie, in concert with one of our fenators, publifii- 
 eft againft the minider of that republic. The man if eft object 
 of that too-celebrated certificate was to difcredit the French 
 caufe, and to cxtinguifh that euthufiaftic ardour for its fuccpfs, 
 which had become almoft univerfal in the United States. The 
 attack upon mr. Genet terminated unfortunately and difrepu- 
 tably for the contrivers of it : it was not therefore to be expected 
 that a man (whofe very friends impute to him, a temper border- 
 ingon the vindictive) ftiould ever forgive the triumph of a mi~ 
 nifter, who not only exonerated himfclf from the charge, but in 
 a manner the moil public and unequivocal, convicted his an« 
 tagonifts of having propagated a deliberate mifreprefentation. 
 It will be recollected, that mr. Jay's civti witnefs proved the 
 innocence of mr. Genet. What could America look for from 
 an envoy, whofe mind had been recently embittered againft 
 the French, by a perfonal defeat, but as many marks of animo- 
 fity towards that people as could decently be inferted in a pub- 
 lic treaty. Thefe observations may at firit appear impertinent, 
 and nowife connected with the merits of the treaty; but when 
 Camillas, and every other writer in favor of it, uniformly re- 
 prefent mr. Jay as the propereft man in America to have been 
 entrufted with the negotiation, and hence infer that it" cannot 
 be bad, it becomes ufeful to examine the pofition, and to {how, 
 as has been done, that a more unfit character could not have 
 been lent upon fo important an embafjy. 
 
 It may be f.iid, the documents afterwards collected by die 
 induftry of mr. Jcfferfon, and his maiterly reafoning upon 
 them, placed the queflions, which had been conceded by mr. 
 ]av, in alight which diflipated all objections, and carried con- 
 viction to every unprejudiced mind. That mr. Jay, therefore, 
 ,-ould have nothing to do but to bring forward the argumei 
 which had already been managed with fo much fuccefs by the. 
 American fecre'.ary. But thoic who reafon in this way, for 
 how difficult it is for a man who {lands committed on record, 
 to renounce lus errors. From pride of opinion,, and inordinate 
 
ClN^A— No. Ill $t 
 
 felf-eiteem, no one is exempt ; how then were we to hope that 
 mr. Jay, after hazarding opinions on this fide of the Atlantic, 
 which had already proved the bane of his country, in all her 
 fubfequent negociations with Great-Britain, mould recede im- 
 mediately on his arrival at the court of St. James's, where every 
 pains and flattery would be praetifed, to keep him in good hu- 
 mour ? Befules, his fentiments being in poffellion of the Biitiih 
 miniftejr, might be ufed to great advantage, if he attempted to 
 change his ground. Rather, therefore, than recede at the ex- 
 penfe of his reputation, and at a certainty of being (elf-convic- 
 ted of contradiction and inconfiftency, every fubtility and fi- 
 nefle would be put in ufe, and in the lafl refort, the interefts 
 • of America would be regarded as a fmall facrifice to perfonal 
 honor. The envoy well knew, that however important thefe fa- 
 crifices might be, men would not be wanting to applaud the 
 wicked deed, and to blazen to the world his palt fervices and 
 patriotifm. The event has correfponded with his expectation?. 
 Inftead of declaring, which would have been the language of 
 finccrity and candor, that it was impoffible for mr. Jay, who 
 was already committed, to invite a difcuffion with the Bricifh ca- 
 binet, every deception is praetifed to impofe upon the public, 
 a belief that fuch difcuffion, in the hands of any one, muft 
 have been inaufpicious to the United States, and the efforts of 
 mr. Jeflerfon, to refcue us from the bafe imputation of his prc- 
 decetlor in office, are contemptuoufly ftiled " a mere effay of 
 polemical ilcill, or a convenient ingredient of negociation." 
 
 Citizens of America! be on your guard. Since the epoch ot 
 your independence, a more important crifis than the prefent, 
 never prefented itfelf. To entice you into an approbation of a 
 compact too degrading to be vindicated, arts, as bafe as the 
 inftrument itfelf, are put in practice — your confidence in a 
 miniftcr, who never cftafed to defend your rights, and who 
 was forced from his high ftation by the prevalence of a Britifh, 
 faction, is attempted to be fhaken. His manly and energetic 
 expcfition of your violated rights is turned into ridicule — his 
 candor is impeached, and his patriotic labours in your fervicq 
 are branded as the offspring of" hollowncfs and fallacy." Men, 
 like thefe, are, if you follow the pernicious counfel of Camillus, 
 to be '« expelled from your confidence." Thefe are the men a- 
 gainft whom you are cautioned, as laying " artful fnarcs for 
 your peace !" Are unfupported fuggeltions, like thefe, the e flu - 
 lions of patriotifm and virtue ? Do they not betray, notwiths- 
 tanding a thfcrofartd profeflions to the contrary, a mind hoilile 
 to your internal peace, and tainted with the corruptions of 4 
 
£2 - GfttXJ — No. III. 
 
 Bitirti court! If you purfue fuch intemperate advice, and 
 from your confidence, men of the defcription glanced at by 
 Camillus, where will the cxpulfion end? a profcription more 
 dreadful than that of Robefpierre will fucceed. The firft and 
 beft patriots of America will fall victims, and all to gratify the 
 infatiablc ambition of a few afpiring individuals, who can 
 brook no oppofition, and unlefs they can controul public af- 
 fairs, are perpetually duTeminating calumnies, and fowing the 
 feeds of civil diffention and difcord. This i". remarkably the cafe 
 with the writer, whofe defence, as it is hitherto ludicroufly 
 termed, has occafioncd thefe remarks. His preliminary obfev- 
 vations, and but little elfe has yet appeared in his firft fix 
 numbers, are calculated to imprefs a belief, that an oppofi- 
 tion to the treaty originated with the perfonal enemies of mr. 
 Jay, or with thole who have been uniformly oppofed to the 
 general government. Thefe remarks partake more of intempe- 
 rance and illibcrality than of argument. As an addrefs to the 
 paiTions, they may be overlooked, but if they are defigned to 
 convince our reafon, we turn from them with pity and con- 
 tempt. "What, fir, are the perfonal enemies of mr. jay difperf- 
 ed from one end of the continent to the other ? Many refpee- 
 table names, who (land foremoft in the oppofition, are, or have 
 been, his friends. They regret the wounds which his feelings 
 muft fuftain by their oppofition to an alTociation in which he 
 '«as borne fo confpicuous a part ; but the calls of patriotifm have 
 ftifled thofe of friendfhip, and it is a circumftance, certainly 
 not favourable to the treaty, that many men, who had been in 
 the habits of intimacy, and of thinking well of mr. Jay, have 
 been moft undifguifed in their expreffions againfl it. That mr. 
 Jay has his perfonal enemies, is not doubted ; no man is with- 
 out them ; and perhaps it would be difficult to affign any good 
 reafon why he fho ild be exempt from this common lot of hu- 
 manity : but that thefe enemies have invariably arrayed them- 
 fclves under the banners of oppofition, remains for Camillus 
 to prove. 
 
 The other aflertion is lefs excufable, becaufe Camillus well 
 knew, that among thofe who oppofed the treaty, were fome 
 of the belt friend- to the national government j fome who- 
 had not only figned, but had ever warmly fupported the con- 
 stitution of the United States. The names of Langdon, Pinck- 
 ney and Rutledge, appear to the conftitutiou of the United 
 . I ihou'td preve is tedious as Camillus, were I to enu- 
 merate all the ixa/bai "n occur of the mod zealous fe- 
 ifts, who hare every where appeared among the oppofcrs 
 
CiNNA— No. III. 
 
 93 
 
 *f this infamous compact. Not only the political characters, 
 but the meafures purfued by thofe who condemn the treaty, 
 have fallen under the laih of his pen. No excufe can be offer- 
 ed for his mifreprefentations on this fubject — -That the town 
 meeting of Bolton denounced it the very day after its arrival, 
 and, without a reading, is an aflertion directly oppofed to all 
 the teftimony we have of their proceedings. The account of 
 our own town-meeting, and of the manner in which it was 
 obtained, is too grofs to impofe on any of the citizens of New- 
 York. Who are intended by the " leaders of the clubs" who 
 were feen harranging at every corner, to ftir up the citizens o£ 
 to imitate the example of Boiton, I am at a lofs to afecrtain. 
 Some of the moll active enemies of the treaty belong to ncr 
 club at all ; and inftead of taking pains to induce the citizens 
 •to aflemble. fuch was the univerfal execration in which the 
 treaty was regarded in New- York, that it was with fome dif- 
 ficulty the meeting was poftponed to fo late a day. That a 
 refpcTiable kdy of the merchants endeavoured to moderate 
 this violence, and promote a fpirit favourable to difcuffion, 
 comports as little with the fact as fevcral of the aflertion* 
 which have been already noticed. The truth is, that two or 
 three zealous partifans, alarmed at the increasing oppofition, 
 and jealous of the effect which a legal and peaceable expref- 
 fion of our fentiments might have on the prefident, collected* 
 in great hafte, and at a late hour of the night, a few merchants', 
 refpeetable neither for their numbers, their patriotifm, nor 
 abilities. It is in the power of Camillus to give their names 
 to the public, who will then judge between him and me. Thefe 
 merchants lent their names to an addrefs prepared, probably 
 by their leader, and containing a proportion as abfurd as it 
 was irifiduous. The citizens of New-York had too much, 
 good fenfe to be the dupes of it ; they difcovered, in the pro- 
 pofal to difcufs, not only a reflection on their understandings, 
 but a jefuitical contrivance to procraftinate, until it became 
 too late, a decifion on a fubje£t too momentous to their in- 
 terefts, to be longer delayed. When would the difcuflion have 
 ended? A few days after this meeting, the defence of Camillus 
 appeared, and he has not yet finifhed the firfl article ! — The 
 citizens, therefore, after having maturely confidered the trea- 
 ty, and attended to a difculfion which it had undergone for 
 more than three weeks in the public prints, affembled, it is 
 true, not to liften to a " refpettable body of lawyers or tiwr- 
 mants" but to unite with their-fellow citizens of Bolton in 
 Vol. Ill, ' O 
 
54 Cinna — No. III. 
 
 an addrefs to the prefident againft its ratification. In num- 
 bers, refpectability, good order, and decorum, no aflembly in 
 this city ever exceeded the one which took place on the day 
 when the refolutions were agreed to. 
 
 Before this meeting is difmifled, I muft be permitted to 
 advert to certain mealures which have been purfued by a par- 
 ty in this city in confeque.^cc of it. The refolutions were 
 fcarcely fent on to the prefident, before ferious attempts were 
 made, not only to reprefent the meeting as illegal, turbulent, 
 and unconltitutional, but to incite our fellow-citizens to n 
 belief, that meafures were adopting to overthrow the govern- 
 ment, and to introduce anarchy and confufion. With this 
 view, invitations were fecretly diftributed among the iriends 
 of order, to meet privately and in the night. The firft meet- 
 ing was fo very thin, that it was thought prudent not to pro- 
 ceed to bufinefs — a fecond attempt was made, which fucceed- 
 ed but little better. After fending away thofe who were lup- 
 pofed not to harmonife in fentiment with the leaders, the 
 bufinefs was opened — Philippic fucceeded philippic againft: 
 thofe who had exerciled a right, fecured to them by the con- 
 ftitution of the United States, of " afilmbling peaceably, and 
 petitioning government." Every art, feconded by all tht pow- 
 ers oi eloquence, was praclifed to infufe the molt horrid luf- 
 picions into their minds againft their abfent fellow-citizens. 
 The refult was, as has been afierted, and not contradicted, 
 a determination to fign an inftruir.ent, pledging thr.mfelves to 
 each other to fupport the government and conftitution of the 
 United States. — To carry into effect fo laudable an aflbciation, 
 committees are to be appointed in each ward, to call upon 
 the citizens for their fignature. 
 
 Citizens of New- York ! be not rafh or precipitate — this 
 aflbciation, which at firft view appears harmlefs and even 
 praife-worthy, is big with confequences, fatal to your inter- 
 nal peace and happinefs. Are we not already under the folemn 
 tics of an oath to fupport the conftitution and laws of ouV 
 country ? Is it not our intereft fo to do ? Notwithftanding 
 the wicked calumnies of our enemies, have we ever discover- 
 ed in our words or actions, a fpirit hoftile to the one or the 
 other ? Have we ever fince the adoption of the conftitution, 
 oppofed any laws of the United States? Have we not, on the 
 contrary, manifefted a patriotic jealoufy, upon every occafion, 
 when attempts have been made to violate its facred injunctions? 
 Becaufe then, in thi< awful crifis, we came forward, and united 
 #ur warning voice with that of America, againft a compact 
 
 
ClNNA — No. III. P5 
 
 fraught with deftruction, are we to be ftigmatifed as anar- 
 chilts ? — are we to be feparated from our feiiow-citizens, and 
 pointed at as feditious enemies of our country ? Can thofe 
 who advife you to ib invidious a proceeding, be actuated by 
 friend ihip for you, or a zeal for the public good ? Are not ra- 
 ther perlonat aggrandizement and importance, their real ob- 
 jects ? Uuaccuftomcd to the fmalletl controul, they had ra- 
 ther arm citizen againft citizen, than fink peaceably into ob- 
 fcurity, or experience a difappointment in a fingle icheoie of 
 their projection. Let thofe, therefore, who wifh to increafe 
 the diflention which already unhappily prevails in this city, 
 and ih ric only, countenance this affociation. To aflc a fellow- 
 citizen to fig;, it, carries with it an infult, and will probably 
 be regarded and refentcd as fuch by the greater part oi die 
 community. Such a requeft muft proceed from fuipicions of 
 their patriotism or honefly. Goc 1 men want no additional 
 lie, b I men will difregard any. To t;ie honor of mr. Will- 
 cocks, it ought to be mentioned, that he vcncmently oppofed, 
 but without effect, noclurni.il meetings of that nature, and ex- 
 patiated, at fome length, on their dangerous tendency. 
 
 Alter unwearied pains to prejudice his readers againft the 
 advciiaries of the propofed treaty — Camiilus proceeds to 
 alarm our fears, and to compel us {to ufe his own expreffipn) 
 to " furrender our reafon to the empire of our paflions." The 
 horrors of war are prefented to the affrighted imagination, ng 
 the certain confequences of a rejection of thi* treaty by Ameri- 
 ca. What, fir ! is the treaty fo fundamentally bad, that nothing 
 but an apprehenficn of the wafte of war, and a dilplay of tor- 
 rents of human blood, can reconcile us to it? but whence the 
 probability of a war? will Great-Britain, exhaufted as fhe is by 
 her eonteit with France, be anxious to make new enemies ? 
 Will herfubjecls urge her to the conflict? Will they not rather, 
 as they have already done, take the part of America and en- 
 deavour to compel the miniltry to reafonable terms of accom- 
 modation ? Is our commerce an object of no importance to 
 Great-Britain ? Is the aid we could furnifli to the French in 
 the reduction of the Welt-India iflands, a matter of no mo- 
 ment ? But if a war muit take place, before our differences 
 can be adjufted, will it be an advantage to America to poit- 
 pone it until a general peace takes place in Europe ? Will not 
 Great-Britain alone gain by the delay ? Nothing but our ex- 
 treme pulillanimity will ever involve us in a war with Great- 
 Britain. We ihall permit her, by our tamenefc and fubmiifidn 
 to proceed ib far that ihe will hardly know how to recede with 
 
gfi ClNNA — No. TV. 
 
 honor. It is a fact, that at this moment, iue experience more 
 than one half of the evils of a fate of iiuir, without deriving 
 from it any one of its advantages ,• patience under our accumu- 
 lated infult and injuries, is magnified by Camillas into a 
 " dignified moderation," and our " government," by its 
 mean fubmiflion to a licentious tyrant (whole depredations 
 on the ocean exceed thofe of the pirates of Barbary) has " ac- 
 quired," according to this writer, « a new elevation." Would 
 to heaven the evils we have to complain of, were paft ! we 
 might then eftimate the cofts, and it might be prudent not 
 to hazard a war for the fake of compenfation. But the inju- 
 ries we have remonftratcd againft, are repeating and incrcaf- 
 ing every day. Our {hips are daily captured, oar feamen im- 
 preflcd, our public difpatches opened, and our very harbours 
 afford no protection to the minifter of an ally •, and yet with 
 this defpot we are to form an unequal treaty. Our blood 
 freezes with horror, at a bare mention of the unnatural con- 
 nection ; and yet to bring it about, our constitution muft be 
 violated, our characters and rights proftrated — outrage and 
 infult muft be ignominioufly fubmitted to — American honor 
 muft receive a ftain too foul ever to be effaced — and public 
 confidence a wound which will baffle the healing powers of 
 time. Rouie, then, citizens of America ! exercife, before it 
 be too late, an alienable right. Convey to the prefident, in 
 fair, but refpectful language, your fentiments on the impend- 
 ing danger. He will liften to the voice of his fellow citizens, 
 and paufe beiore he barters away their dear-bought privi- 
 leges. 
 
 Auguflu, 1795. CINNA. 
 
 CINN A.— No. IV. 
 
 CAN there be a flrongcr proof of the demerits of the trea- 
 ty, than the mode which is purfued by Camillus in its 
 defence? Inftead of proceeding directly to a difcuffion of the 
 different articles, his readers are not permitted to form a judg- 
 ment until they are fatisfied that Britain has been as imma- 
 culate as fhe IS haughty and powerful — That America, Inning 
 been treacherous, ought to be as humble and fubmifliveas fhe 
 is weal; and defencelefs — That the opponents, to a man, an: 
 
CiNKA — No. IV. 97 
 
 nchiated By perfonal malignity towards mr. Jav, or a wicked de- 
 fire to overthrow the government, and introduce dtiarchy and 
 civil difcord — and, that a war with Grear'-Britain will be the 
 inevitable confcquence of a rejection. Thcfe remarks h.w 
 ready been oppofed by others, which, unlefs I miilake, have 
 not only detected their fophiftry, but expbfed their pernicious 
 fendeucv. Admitting all thefe matters to be ex,' .ted 
 
 by Camillus, how do they juftify an inference that the treaty 
 is a good one ? They may prove that Great-Britsfin cannot be 
 expecled to make an equal commercial connection With this 
 country ; but will it thence follow, that we are bound to make 
 a difadvantagcous one with her ? No opinion is better found- 
 ed, or prevails more univerfally, than that the fewer European 
 connections wc form the better. We pdflefs the means of a 
 growing and extenfive commerce. The articles we export, 
 •particularly proviiions and rav materials, being of the firft nc- 
 cefTity towards the fupport and manufactures of other coun- 
 tries, there is no danger of not finding a market for them. To 
 Britain, in particular, our commerce is of the highell impor- 
 tance. In return for the manufactures which we take from 
 her European dominion's* wc fend her proviiions and raw ma- 
 terials. Th ! balance, which is generally againft us, we pay in 
 fpecie. It will, therefore, certainly be her interelt ami policy 
 to continue and extend a trade fo lucrative and important, 
 without a treaty. If flie choofes to keep all her WefWndia 
 ports Ihut againlt us we Can obtain from the illands of other 
 powers the fame articles which they produce ; and. in times 
 of fcarcity, which very frequently occur, they mull: have re- 
 courfe to America for proviiions and lumber. In ev< ry rJpcci: 
 they are more dependent upon us, than we are upon them ; 
 and we fhall foon force from them a much more advantage- 
 ous trade than we can expect to obtain by treaty. 
 
 Thus circumftanced, America fhould keep the ftaffof com- 
 merce in her own hands. She ought not, except in very par- 
 ticular cafes, to form treaties of commerce. If ilie remains un- 
 fettered, Ihe may avail herfelf of any advantage which may of- 
 fer from the imprudence or fituation of other countries. Let 
 .her make fuch regulations as are belt calculated to promote a 
 fpirit of enterprise — to add to her riches, and to increafe the 
 induitry of her inhabitants, and let her have courage and 
 conltancy enough, never to depart from them in favour of 
 itrangers. In her prefent defencelefs and infant ftate, it is next 
 to madnefs to attempt forming a connection with this nation, 
 hoi;t making facrifices, and confenting to rcftraints far be- 
 
«?8 Cinna— No. IV. 
 
 yond thofe which the laws of nations impofc, which ought per- 
 haps to form the only rule between two commercial powers. 
 But if a treaty with Great-Britain, under any circumitances, 
 be proper, why infer* in it matters which have no relation to 
 commerce, and which properly form materials for a feparate 
 connection? I mean the rcfpe£tive complaints of the two go- 
 vernments againlt each other. By inferring provifions for an 
 adjustment of thefe complaints in a treaty of commerce, Great- 
 Britain has not only exacted unreasonable concefhons for 
 them en our part ; but if a ratification docs not eventually 
 take place, the \rhole ground mufl be again travelled over, and 
 probably at a time when Great-Britain wijl be in a fituation to 
 hold a tone ftill more haughty and imperious than fhe now 
 does. Perhaps, indeed, this was one reafon which induced the 
 advfersof the meafure to keep from the fenate the real ob- 
 ject of mr. Jay's million; certain it is, thacfrom the presi- 
 dent's meffage, they had as much reafon to believe that an 
 alliance, ofleufive and defenfive, was in agitation wilh c- 
 
 Britain, as a treaty of commerce ; and yet by the conftitu- 
 tion all treaties are to be made " by and with the advice and 
 content of the fenate." The plain meaning of this claufe is, 
 that no treaty fhall be negociated without the advice, nor ra- 
 tified without the confent of the fenate. This conftruttion ha$ 
 been fanclioned on ether occafions, by the prefident himfelf. 
 Even with Indian treaties, he has, previous to negociation, 
 fubmitted to them the contents and taken their ad\ ice on every 
 part. 
 
 The term, advice refers naturally an 1 obvioufly to negoci- 
 ntion. Would it not be abfurdto fay, that advice was necefla- 
 rv after a thing was done ? Confent alcne could then be re- 
 quired. There is, befidesj a rr anifeft propriety in the prefident'* 
 confulting the fenate before hand. The perfon employed to 
 negociate would then act with the greater confidence, know- 
 ing, that his inllructions proceeded not from the prefident 
 alone, but were the refult of the accumulated wifdom of the 
 fenate : there would be lefs danger, alio, of a refufal to ratify 
 on their part, which may fonietin.es be productive of nation- 
 al jcaloufies, wars, and other calamities, it being unufual not to 
 ratify a treaty made with a minuter properly appointed and 
 inftructcd. Thus, whether we confider the policy of making 
 r.ny treaty with Great-Britain, as an abftract queltion, or the 
 t and ckindettine manner in which the prefent one origi- 
 nated, we ihall lind much room for doubt and cenfure. But it 
 will be faidj we have already treaties of commerce with France 
 
ClNN'A — No. IV. 0£ 
 
 and other nations ; true, and the one with France, though in 
 everv refpect more favourable than the one under confedera- 
 tion, has been the occafi -n of much perplexity and cmbarrafl- 
 ment to our government in the prefent war. Let ever fo much 
 can" be ufed to make them explicit, and leave no room for 
 Con'dvu&ion, dill doubts will arife, in the folution of which, 
 not only the parties immediately concerned, but other na- 
 tions, become deeply interefted. This has been the cafe with 
 the French treat,. v \. Genet, in behalf of his republic, con- 
 tended that the right ot arming privateers in our ports, and 
 other privileges, we r e fee tired to it by the trenty ; all the other 
 belligerent nations became parties to, or were interefted in the 
 controve'fy ; and had not our government oppofed a claim, 
 ■which was certainly ill-founded, a war with them might have 
 been the confequence. But if we had no treaty at all with 
 France, we might, as a neutral nation, have opened our ports 
 to the privateers and prizes of all the powers at war, without 
 giving offence to any. Our other treaties, therefore, inftead of 
 militating in favour of fuch conceptions, furnifh very ftrong, 
 and, if I may ufe die expreflion, vcxy feeling arguments againit 
 them. 
 
 While on this fubje£t, I cannot forbear to remark, that a 
 nation weak at fea, as America now is, and mult ever conti- 
 nue, unlefs a different fyitem is fpeedily adopted, can never 
 promife herfelf any good from the ftricteft commercial itipula- 
 tions on the part of a nation which is emphatically become 
 miftrefs of the ocean. With fuch a power we had better have 
 no connections, except fuch as arife out of the laws of nations. 
 We (hall not only be inclined, but compelled to obferve our 
 engagements, while Great-Britain will regard them only as 
 long as (he finds it her intereft, and will laugh, if not infult us, 
 when we complain of her infractions. 
 
 I come now to the fixth number of Camillus, in which he 
 accounts for no provifion appearing in the treaty againft the 
 prefiing our feamen. The object is admitted to be of the lafl 
 importance to the United States ; but Camillus is at a lofs to 
 know how it could have been done. " A general ftipulation 
 againft it," fays he, " would have been nugatory, if not de- 
 rogatory." Could there be any thing derogatory in Great- 
 Britain faying {he would abltain from an infamous practice, 
 which perhaps no nation but America ever fubmitted to fo 
 long and fo patiently. If her exiltence and fafety depend up- 
 on her maritime fuperiority, is this fuperiority to be maintained 
 at our expenfe ? Is one of our molt ufeful dalles of citizen* 
 
103 ClNNA — No. IV. 
 
 to be forced into her fervicc, and add to her aggrandizement* 
 to the ruin of our own commerce ? ami when we a Ik her to 
 stipulate againft fuch outrages in future, is infult to be added 
 to injury r Are we to be told, that until the Americans change 
 their language and looks, it is impofiible to diferiminatc be- 
 tween the feamen of the two nations ? Mcthinks every fea- 
 man found on board of an American veiTel, and fpcaking 
 Englilh, fliould be, prima facie, deemed a citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States, and fhouid be protected as fuch, until he was prov- 
 ed a deferter from, or a fubject of Great-Britain. If the cap- 
 tain of an American frigate fliould take it into his head to 
 prefs into our fervice the crew of an Englifh merchantman, 
 merely becaufe they fpoke Englifli, and looked like Ameri- 
 cans, would Great-Britain fubmit to the indignity ? but it 
 our ilag is not to protect them, where is the difficulty of each 
 man being furnifhed with a certificate of his birth or citizen- 
 fhip, authenticated acccording to a prefcribed form? No, fays 
 Camillus, who has always an anfwer ready, when Great- 
 Britain is to be exculpated, this mode is liable to deception, 
 and therefore cannot be relied on. Truly, fir ! your ingenuity, 
 aitonifhes me. Becaufe, now and then, an impofition may be 
 practifed, becaufe a perjury may fometimes be committed, all 
 our mariners arc to be at the mercy of Great-Britain. Why 
 not be explicit, and tell the truth at once. Great-Britain find- 
 ing it very convenient to man her navy with our feamen, and 
 her national fafety being at ftake, infills upon, and will exer- 
 cife, the right of taking them wherever fhe finds them. She 
 would not, therefore, confentto abltain from a practice which 
 fhe well knows we dare not to relent. Our miniller would 
 have a£ted with becoming dignity, if he had broke off the 
 negociation, until fhe had con fen ted to an article of more 
 importance to this country than all the others put together, 
 and which would have made fome amends for the innume- 
 rable advantages which Great-Britain derives from the treaty. 
 The rights and fecurity of thefe much-injured and ufeful 
 men have been molt wantonly abandoned : nor do they alone 
 feel the effects of this abominable fpecies of depredation. 
 The merchants, too, by the exorbitant rife of wages, which 
 muft advance in proportion to the numbers of feamen loft 
 in this way, fuffers mo ft feverely — and, in a little time, if the 
 practice continues, the United States will hardly be able to 
 man a fmgle frigate. Humanity pleads as loudly as intereft, 
 in favor of the ftipulation ; but alas! we find few articles in 
 
Cinna — No. IV. roi 
 
 %rie whole inftrument, which, as they affect America, have 
 been dictated by either of thofe lentiments. 
 
 Another part of the reafoning of Camillus muft not be 
 overlooked. ft Our right to an exemption," lays he, '« is per- 
 fect by the laws of nations -, and a contrary right is not even 
 pretended by Great-Britain." It were to be wiihed that Great- 
 Britain would reft contented with a bare pretention to this 
 light. Unfortunately, {he cxercifes it every day-, and thou- 
 fends of our h'llow-citizens, notwithltanding the exemption to 
 which they are entitled, are dragged from their own veffels 
 .into a fervice which they execrate. If the laws of nations (c- 
 cure us an exemption, where could be the harm of a de- 
 claratory a. title to that effect ? Other parts of the treaty, 
 when againlt America, have been jultified by fome, and pro- 
 bably will be by Camillus, becaufe of their conformity to the 
 laws of nations. Thus it has been faid, and no doubt will be 
 repeated, that by thofc laws, free vcffels do not make free goods, 
 and that therefore, mr. Jay yielded nothing, when he content- 
 ed to an article of that kind. Yvhy then fhould not Great- 
 Britain humour ns in our turn ? If mr. Jay is judicable for 
 doing us a greater injury with one ftroke of his pen, than 
 he can repair if he lives to the age of Methufalem, becaufe 
 the law of nations was on his fide, why not expect, nay, in- 
 fill upon the fame complaifance from Great-Britain ? to what 
 inconih'tencics and fhifts are fenfible men driven, when they 
 vindicate a bad caufe ! to what an abject ftate, my country- 
 men, are you reduced ! Great-Britain is become folc arbiter 
 of your rights, and the men whom you have loaded with ho- 
 nors and offices, and who for years have drawn all their fup- 
 port from your coffers, and who ought in gratitude to defend 
 you, not only confent to furrender your pcrfons and liberties, 
 but infult your underftandings by an attempt to make you be- 
 lieve that they have ftudied your true intercfts in fo doing — 
 God forbid ! that fome dark and wicked project fhould lurk 
 behind all this myfterious conduct. Time alone can difcovcr, 
 whv Americans are to be dragooned juft at this time, at the 
 evident hazard of a rupture with Fiance, into this new and dis- 
 graceful connection. Events, yet in the womb of time, muft 
 develope whether Great-Britain has promifed any, and what aid 
 to a certain party, in the attempts it may make, to ftreflgthen 
 the government, and give it, as it is modeftly called, a little 
 more energy. In the mean while, let us be vigilant, and we 
 (hall defeat every attempt upon our independence, md cover 
 
 Vol. III. P 
 
Resolutions or the 
 
 nith confufioh thofe who dare to raife a facrilegious hand 
 ;(t our free and happy conftitution. 
 
 We are now arrived with Camillus at the firfl: article of 
 the treaty. The way has been tedious and difagreeable. He 
 has told us, out of pure patriotifm, many unpalatable truths. 
 Thank God, notwithftanding all his pains and eloquence (for 
 even his enemies mult allow him to write well) my former 
 good opinion of my country is unfhaken. Her conduct, with 
 refpect to Great-Britain will bear the ftridtefl: fcrutiny. She 
 has, indeed, been more finned againft than finning. If I am 
 miihiken, the dclufion is plcafant, and I hope Camiilus will 
 not think me obllinate, when he is allured, that hitherto I 
 have not difcovered the ftrength of any ground he has thought 
 proper to take. 
 
 In difculfmg the firfl: article, Camillus encounters an ob- 
 jection, Hated by the Charlelton committee. It mud be con- 
 fefled, there does not appear to be much force in the objec- 
 tion, and yet, as fome Britilh fubjects were profcribed during 
 the war, it may be a doubt whether thofe of that defeription 
 will not be permitted to return under the treaty. It was, at any 
 rate, hardly worth while to find fault with this article, and 
 perhaps fomewhat puerile in Camillus to take fo much trou- 
 ble, ferioufly to combat, what the objectors themfelves could 
 not have laid much ftrefs on. The committee had, perhaps, 
 difcovered fo many faults in the other articles, they thought 
 it impoflible there fhould be an innocent one in the whole 
 treaty, whatever its appearance might be. 
 
 Augujl 13, 1795. CINNA. 
 
 [to be continued.] 
 
 SOU TH-C AROLIN A— WASHINGTON DISTRICT. 
 
 'September 16, 1 795. 
 
 THE Franklin, or Republican Society of Pendleton coun- 
 ty, having, by the watchful vigilance of their Handing 
 committee, on a molt prefling occafion, been called together 
 to give their opinion on a public meafure — a right they will not 
 tamely relinquilh, nor refign but with their lives ! — having ta- 
 ken into confideration the ruinous treaty propofed and figned by 
 John Jay, the American ambaffador, with his Britannic ma- 
 
Franklin Soar 
 
 jefty — a treaty as deteftable in its origin, as contemptible ii\, < 
 its event ! — a treaty which can never be enforced but by the 
 bayonet ! — having fully weighed it in all its articles — and tak- 
 ing into view, that when the complaints of a brave and pow- 
 erful people are obferved to increafe in proportion to the 
 wrongs they have fuffercd ! — when, inftead of finking into fub- 
 mifnon, they are rouzed to refiftance ! the time mult conic 
 at which every inferior confideration will yield to their iecu- 
 rity — to the general fafety of the empire ! 
 
 There is a moment of difficulty and danger, at which Bri- 
 tifh flattery and falfehood can no longer deceive, and fimpli- 
 city itlelf can be no longer mifled ! — that period has at length 
 arrived. 
 
 "When we fee a man improperly appointed to negociate one 
 of the molt important treaties, becaufe not properly, not con- 
 ftiutionally advifed — that this man was the molt improper, 
 becaufe his attachment to Britain, and averfion to France, 
 v ere notorious ! — and that he was altogether an objectionable 
 character, becaufe, (in admitting doubts to be flatted by Bri- 
 tain about our line, and to which he acceded !) — inftead cjT 
 ihowing a thorough knowledge of his country — appears to 
 have been wretchedly ignorant, and confequcntly either fharrte- 
 fully impofed on, or corruptly influenced ! — who, inftead ot 
 ufing that policy which fhould have " extorted from Britain, 
 in her prefenc ftate of humiliation, (and which could not be 
 hoped from her juftice)" a reparation of reiterated wrongs ! — 
 was the jirjl man to propofe to fubmit to a treaty, which, it 
 adopted, mult blait us in the opinion of Europe as the mod 
 pufillanimous nation that ever exifted ! — a treaty which, in 
 all its hardened features, betrays infult and contempt ! — a 
 treaty, not only thus made odious, but which abridges, in eve- 
 ry refpett, our rights, and which fports with our juft claims 
 and interclts ! — we demand, that when fuch glaring, ruinous 
 conduct: appear \r, is permitted, is /auctioned ! have not the 
 people juit grounds of complaint — would not filence be cri- 
 minal ? 
 
 Therefore refolved, That when a public meafure dares not 
 I be arraigned, " becaufe it is the offspring of the higheji public 
 CI \ra£ier" — then liberty lies proilrate — then deipotifm be- 
 gins ! — and heartily adopting the fentiments of our fellow- 
 citizens of Camden, (at the fame time veprobating denuncia- 
 tions again/} orderly afjociations J with them we do infill, that it 
 is both the duty and right of freemen, on ail great, public oc- 
 • i, in which the honor and welfare of the republic :s 
 
io4 Resolutions of the 
 
 concerned, to come forward and declare their fentiments with 
 freedom andfirmnefs — that thole who are entrufted with pow- 
 er, may be admonifhed to ufe that power only for the good of 
 the people, who placed it, for that efpecial purpofe, in their 
 hands*, and to teach them to be cautious how they violate the 
 precious, the facred truth 
 
 Refolded, That on the appointment of John Jay as an <\v- 
 traordinary ambaflador to Britain, we were led to believe that 
 our rights would h ive been vindicated with firmnefs, a repa- 
 ration of our wrongs obtained ! — on the contrary, even after 
 the figning of a treaty of amity, our flag is the common /port of 
 Britain, and our failor fellow-citizens and property at their 
 mercy. 
 
 Refolved, That we were induced by prof 'effort to believe our 
 administration fympathized in the caufe of an ally wreftiing; 
 for liberty — a great and regenerated people, who cherifh in} 
 their utmoft purity thofe facred principles which have laid the 
 foundation of our freedom in the blood of our dearefl citizens .'— 
 but that ally has been treated with infmcerity, even at the moM 
 ment our inveterate enemy, and the foe of human happinefs, has 
 been invited to our bofom ! and ivhen Brhijh tyranny and bafenem 
 can leave not a doubt, on a Jingle unprejudiced mind, that ive ari 
 about to give that nation a footing in laiu among us which ivill h 
 converted to our ruin ! 
 
 Refolved, That by the constitution of the United States, al 
 treaties are to be made " by and with the advice and confeni 6 
 the fenate" — that is, no treaty (hall be negociated without 
 advice firfl taken, nor accepted without the confent ot the fenate 
 — But the fenate, as fuch, were ignorant of the principle a 
 bafis of the treaty itfelf. We admit they were made acquainte 
 with the appointment of Jay, but did not instruct him, nor we* 
 informed of his instructions. He was injlrutled, or he was not .'- 
 if he was! ive ivill drop the curtain ! if not, and acted of.xndfro 
 himfelf, wc ihall lament the want of a guillotine ! For when wi 
 it ever conceived to bepof/ible that America could entertain the at] 
 i'urd and dangerous idea of trusting any man, (but efp< cially 
 Jay) to negociate vrithfucb a government as Britain — witho 
 explicit inl'iructions! — The obvious conltruction of the claufe i 
 the conititution, which makes the advice of the fenate neceila 
 has been given by thePrefulcnt himfelf, when a treaty was pn 
 pofed byFrance. Mr. Genet was empowered to propofe a trea: 
 " on liberal principles, fuch as might Jl lengthen the bonds of good- 
 ivhich unite the two nations," but on making his proposal to 
 executive, lie was informed " that the participation 'in mat 
 :j treaty, given by the conjlitution to that branch of govcrntn 
 
Franklin Society. 105 
 
 rfwer to ! ion, the 
 
 fa:,!, r, andjiot to meet ag, il the fall." — In 
 
 the negotiation with Great-Britain, the fenate was in ctjfi<m % 
 ami yet were they called on to advife ? Did they give inftruc- 
 r They did not! We allow this moil intereiling huli- 
 nets was taken up in the fenate by our patriotic citizen But- 
 ler — but, from a want of formality, he was oppoied — and 
 this important matter died away, becaufe it was not orderly I 
 — In the treat) alio with the Creeks, the prefident required 
 the advice of the fenate befort he began to treat, and actually 
 laid the outlines of a treaty before them previous to the nego- 
 tiation. 
 
 Refolded, Thnt we confider it becoming in a high degree 
 the duty of the houie of representatives of the general govern- 
 ment, to enquire into Co bold an attack on the palladium of 
 our rights — 'tis mipollible they can futler fo flagrant a breach 
 in the constitution to pafs unnoticed ! — The- prefident and 
 fenate will certainly endeavour to reconcile their conduct to 
 the wounded feelings of their fellows-citizens. 
 
 Refolvtd % That fo far as is depending on \\\$oivn integrity 
 and good wifhes to the United States, we are Hill willing to 
 behold in Wafhington the fame good and great nun: I But is it 
 not podible, at leaft refpec'ting Jay's treaty, that lie may have 
 been wrongly advifed ? 
 
 Refohed, That it is highly probable our generous and brave 
 ally, however well-difpofed towards us, viewed, with fome 
 emotion of indignation, at the lead, the ui lanner hi 
 
 which their propofition for a treaty was rtaeived and rejeHed 
 by our government \ and no v find themfelves under the ne- 
 cellity of calling on us to declare honefli) and openly^ our inten- 
 tions towards them — whether we will adopt thefrji fuprtme 
 law of the land under the patrotu ge cj J .</ ? 
 
 The period has at length arrived to know our ultimatum — 
 the mail: has been ftrippen off by mr. jay — and the majority 
 of twenty in the fenate, we conjecture, will be cautious how 
 far they pledge themfelves to their conltituents on the utility 
 of an Englifn. treaty, provided France mould Iho.v her disap- 
 probation, or confider herfclf neglected. 
 
 Refolvedy Thar admitting (what is infinuated by a member 
 of congrefs for this (late, the advocate .v>\d defender of Britilh 
 fyltems and Britifh tyranny !) that the treaty propofed by 
 France, he iufpects, could not be obtained on eligible terms, but 
 at the price of joining with her in the war — we do infill, that 
 at the time alluded to, the honor, the intereft of America ear- 
 
ic6 Resolutions of the 
 
 neftly called onus, to enter heartily into meafurcs oppofed \<% 
 the dreadful league formed again ft a generous and natural al~ 
 Jy, whofe welfai and niuji he infeparable from our own ! 
 
 The moment Britain openly declared againft Frame, fhould 
 have been our fignal for action !— The united voice of the 
 continent proclaimed the general, the generous fentiment ! — 
 But the grateful feelings of a •whole people hverefunk in the timi- 
 dity of its government ! 
 
 Refclved, That (reflecting on the prefent interefting mo- 
 ment, when an eventual war with Britain may be reafonably 
 expected from a \ further difcufjiou of mr. J ay's friendly treaty) we 
 deprecate, with the ftrongeit emotions of apprehenfion', a dif- 
 ference betiveen America and France .'-—'War with England, 
 will be war with Spain ! Our government knows it ! Even 
 the neutrality of France, under fuch circumltances, can be an- 
 ticipated but with very unpleafmg fenfations. 
 
 Refclved, That we view with furprize the induflry ufed not 
 to dilclofe the articles of mr. Jay's treaty — affecling and prac- 
 tifwg all the fecrecy of monarchy, fo oppofite to open and republican 
 principles. — Will it, dare it be contended, that the people have 
 no right to afk, nay, to demand information on the poftureof 
 their affairs ? — Secrecy robs them of this right, and makes 
 twenty greater than the whole. Is this republicanifm ? — Is this 
 liberty ? — Monarchs and conclaves make a trade of fecrecy — 
 itfuits their defgns — but neither monarchs nor conclaves ire, 
 as yet, in unilon with the fentiments, nor the wifhes of the 
 American people. There is no authorized fecrecy in our go- 
 vernment, and to infer fuch a right from the practices of other 
 nations, is a proftitution of republican principles. The confti- 
 tution of the United States gives to the prefident and fenatc 
 the power of making treaties, but it communicates no ability 
 to hatch thufe things in darknefs. A treaty ! which is to be the 
 iuprcme-law-of-the-land ! and yet the people not to be inform- 
 ed of the terms of this law until binding upon them i until the 
 opportunity for amendment is pait ! — Secrecy and myftery 
 marked the conception, birth, and parentage of this lump of 
 abortion and deformity. — The prefident received the treaty in 
 January, when congrefs were fitting, and did not iubmit it to 
 the fenate rill June! — when it was impoffible any one legifla- 
 ture in the union could be in feffion to give the alarm ! — The 
 prefs alone had the glory of the difeovery and reprobation of 
 this horrid political monfter ! — It is alfo worthy of note, that 
 oa the 29th of laid month (January) the prefidei 
 « an act of cemgrefs to cftablifh an uniform 1 
 
Fr'amklin Society. 107 
 
 m," and that a few months afterwards \\xtfenaie (atone) np~ 
 /a treaty which renders faiil ae"t null and void, in favour 
 of " all fettlers and traders (the rooted enemies of America) 
 within the precin£ts or jurifdiction (a large extent of country) 
 of the potts." — Should this treaty be ratified, 'twill be out of 
 the power of congrefs to remedy its evils without hazarding a 
 war — And it may with lafety be prefumed, that nine-tenths, 
 at leall, of the citizens of America, look with indignation and 
 abhorrence on the inglorious attempt made by mr. Jay, and his 
 ndvifers, to chain fifteen independent ftates as a dangling ap~ 
 hkndagt tc the crown cf Great-JB retain! 
 
 Rejblved, That infurmountable objections lie againil the trea- 
 ty, were there no others, while the value of the negroes and 
 other property carried away contrary to the feventh article of the 
 treaty of 1 783 ; and the lofs and damage in blood and treaiure fuf- 
 tained by the United States, from the detention of polls, re- 
 main unfatisfied for by the Britifh government — the amount of 
 which mould have been afecrt.iincd by the commiffioners to be 
 appoint! il to liquidate the claims of Britifh creditors, and let 
 ofFagainfl the principal of their debt; for, as to interclt, dur- 
 t lie war, they have not the fhadow of a claim. — No man 
 t mi rtain a <!oubt, (even the Britifh, not the governor of Cana- 
 da himfelf, have been fufTipiently hardy to deny it) that the In- 
 dians were excited to war again (t us, — and that the fupplics 
 for their warfare were derived from a trade authorized by tkk 
 Britijh government) and protected by thofe pojk which of right 
 ivei\ our'.,, and ought to have been njrdfor cur defence — This v 
 lias coll us, annually, calculating the loi's of the fur trade de- 
 pending on the pofts, above one million three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, more than would have been fufTicient for the de- 
 fence of our frontiers if the polls had been in our poileflion. Let 
 this fum, and the amount of their piratical depredations, the 
 whole continent fays, be made a fet-off with Britifh claims. 
 
 Refolved, That by the article regulating the Well-India trade, 
 nothing can be more evident than that Britain meditated to 
 wreit from America the carrying-trade, an immenfe ihare of 
 which fhe has lately pofiefled, as appears by the aftonifhing in- 
 creafeof our feamen and fhipping ; but we trull 'twill never 
 be forgotten that the protection of a free carrying-trade was 
 one of the primary ©bjects for which the federal government 
 was eftablifhed. — Let not, then, our national government have 
 the difcredit of doing any thing by which the limits of our na- 
 vigation may be fettered. — Let us not concur with the Britifh 
 miniftry, in eminently promoting the Britifh commerce at the 
 
ie3 Resolutions or- the 
 
 cxpenfe of our own ! — Not fatisfied with innumerable depre- 
 dations on our fhippfrig, the Britifh government wants their 
 total destruction by this infidiou- onfining our veffels 
 
 to lev , mere boats, whilft they referve to then 
 
 the right of navigating in any fize veflels they pleafe, in the 
 fame purfuit of trade. By this deceptive article, we alone gran- 
 ted — have been prevented from exporting in our own bottoms 
 any articles of Weft-India produce, a ( cotton , an arti- 
 
 cle of our own and becoming a very important one 
 
 in this zmd the iifrer itat<* of Georgia (even in our o\\ n dillrict) 
 — while the veflels of Britain and every other nation, would 
 be at liberty to export from American ports every article of 
 Weft-India, and fome of our own produce, to all parts of the 
 world. 
 
 Refolded, That the adopters and warm advocates for this 
 treaty muft have regarded a favourite policy, a clofe connection 
 with Britain and Britifh fyftems, more than pecuniary benefit 
 or national dignity ; for, fetting afide all reciprocity, no one 
 advantage can we gain by any regulation in the treatv, diftintr. 
 from a much greater to be obtained by the Britifh nation. 
 
 Rcfolvedy That the article reftricling the fubjecls or citizens 
 of either party from accepting com millions in the army or na- 
 vy of nny foreign power, is a grofs violation of the natural 
 rights of man — and, as fuch, fhould have been indignantly 
 fpurned at! 
 
 Refolved, That we join heartily in fentiment with that truly 
 patriotic and {launch republican, the chief juftice Rut] edge, 
 that mr. Jay mould have demanded an unconditional relin- 
 quishment of the Weftern Polls as a right, until- which had been 
 granted, and until the Britifh miniller had given orders to that 
 effect, mr. Jay mould not have opened his lips about a treaty ! 
 What amity could be expected from a government, at thy in- 
 flant of negociation, forcing the tomahawk and fcalping-knife 
 into the hands of favages, to the deftruclion of great num- 
 bers of our immediate frontier fellow-citizens ! It was. truly, 
 proflituting the deareft rights of freemen, and laying them prof- 
 trate at the feet of royalty. In 1703, the executive prcfied thg 
 demand of the Weftern Polls, with a fpirit becoming the repre- 
 fentativeofanationof freemen, an ultimatum wacrequiredon the 
 fubjecl, by December of that year, and how were we treated ? 
 With a contcptuous fdence, and frelh injuries heaped upon us, 1 
 depredations on our property, as unwarrantable as the robbe- 
 ries of an Algerine, or the plundering of a favage ! And, were 
 it pollible to fully the name of the Britifh government with an 
 additional (hade, of infamy, the fame would be afforded by the 
 
Franklin Society*. 109 
 
 Hircumftance of their treatment to this country, involving in it 
 the black defgn ofjlarving a people^ ivhofe only crime has been the 
 defence of freedom. Such treatment, it was natural to imagine, 
 would have roufed us to retaliate; and the immediate reprcfen- 
 tatives of the people, according with the Sentiments of their 
 conitituents, made an attempt to extort redrefs by means of a 
 provifional retaliation* But, in one inftance. the fenate, in 
 anclhi'v the fupreme executive, checked them in their honorable. 
 Career ; and the energetic portion of the government, with un- 
 paralleled ivcakncfs, humbly fued for the friendfhip of a nation 
 which ever treated us as foes ; rejecting, at the fame time, (the 
 better tofecure her /miles J the proffered amity of another nation, 
 to which, in a great meafure, we owe our exiftence, as a free 
 people, and which has alfo other ftrong claims to our gratitude 
 and friendfhip ! 
 
 Refolved, With that tried veteran and patriot, the venerable 
 Gadfden, That we confider all connections by treaties with 
 Great-Britain, equally impolitic and dangerous. Dangerous* 
 becaufc ( whilft her government is monarchical and unregene- 
 rated^ we fhall infenfibly give her fuch a footing among us, 
 and confequently fo great an afoendancy over our councils and. 
 government, as may eventually fap our independence, and 
 fubvert our conftitmtion ! And impolitic, becaufe 'tis our in- 
 terest, by the utmoft individual and national exertions, (parti- 
 cularly our fouthern ftates) to arrive at an independent tranf- 
 jjortation of our commodities — to become the carriers of their 
 Own produce, for, 'tis an alarming fact, eftablifncd on the belt 
 authority, that by the almolt constant wars in which Britain is 
 engaged ({behaving had in the laft one hundred years, forty-two 
 of war, and fifty-feven years and nine months of peace, which ia 
 three of war to every four of peace) and that by being fo large- 
 ly the exporters of our produce, fhe carrying two-fifths of the 
 whole exports of the United States, the difference of freight, 
 tnfurance and charges, amounts, on an average of peace and 
 war, to one million, three hundred and ninety-two thoufand, 
 right hundred and fifty-feven dollars, taxed annually on our 
 Agriculture by Britifh wars, during their continuance, and our 
 dependence on Britifh bottoms, and fo much more than we 
 (hould pav did we but raiie our own (hipping to be competent 
 :o the carriage of all our own productions, and that, befide this, 
 . nany of our bulky articles, not bearing a war freight, cannot 
 )c exported. While Britain, then, is the carrier of two-fifths of 
 )ur produce, our independence is incomplete, and ever will be, 
 f we tamely fuller fuch, negociators as mr. Jay, to form trea« 
 
 Vol. III. O 
 
1 10 RESOLUTION'S OF THE 
 
 ties with that nation, calculated to keep up a fervile and ruin- 
 ous dependence, by the immoderate, the exceflive ufe of her 
 manufactures. Let us wear nothing but what is American— 
 eat nothing, drink nothing but \' hat is American — this would 
 foon raife the head of America. Let the people of Britain be 
 driven to poverty and dcfpair by acts of their oivn government t 
 and what would be the conicquence ? An acquisition of ten9 
 of thoufands of really uieful citizens to the United States, 
 which iorm the natural afylum to the people of the old world, 
 to faatch them from a wretched exiftence, from flavery— to the 
 enjoyment of plenty, happinefs — to liberty ! 
 
 Refolved, That we ever confidered the appointment of John 
 Jay, as extraordinary as it was unconftitutional; extraordinary, 
 becaufe underrating the abilities of our then ambaffador : a man, 
 in every refpetl, juftly poffeffing the confidence of the union— 
 efpecially, as there is good ground for afferti-ig, that major 
 Pinckney's energetic and firmreprefentation hadinfured the im- 
 mediate ceffion of our Weitern Pofts — and a treaty, at leaft as 
 favorable as any nation could have expected from England. 
 
 Refo/vedy That roufed at length into a fenfe of our danger, 
 we pronounce for war, with all its horrors, rather than fee out 
 country approve of meafures which will effedt, her annihila- 
 tion. A treaty ! to be bought at the expenfe of infamy ! pur- 
 chafed at the lofs of the affection of an ally, as generous- in 
 friendfhip as glorious in arms! No! magnanimous nation! 
 truly worthy of liberty! we will chert/b, we will refpecl thy opi- 
 nion J ive nuill not fuffer thy ejleem to be taken from us! we will 
 prove to the world, and, above all, to the Englifh government, 
 that we will not be the dupes of their infidious policy — their 
 craft — their ambition ! — Oh, ye Jays of America, who boaft 
 of wifdom fo exalted, penetration fo profound — how is it pof- 
 fible you have not yet lifted up the veil \ hich hides from your 
 eyes the low iinifter politics of the Englifh government ! How 
 is it ye do not fee to what a degree it abufes ye ! and what a 
 trick it has put upon the " folcmnity" of your folemn am- 
 baffador ! 
 
 Refolvedy That the much-efteemed names of Langdon, of 
 New-Hampfhire ; Robinfon, of Vermont; Burr, of New- 
 York; Brown, of Kentucke ; Mafon and Tazewell, 6V Virgi- 
 nia ; Bloodworth and Martin, of North-Carolina ; Butler, our 
 fellow-citizen, of South-Carolina ; and Jackfon, of Georgia— 
 the patriotic fenators — be held in our higheft veneration and 
 molt marked efteem. 
 
 Refolvedy That the public report, not contradicted, fixes oa 
 
Franklin Society. ill 
 
 Jacob Read, our unworthy Jenator — corrupt motives for his ac- 
 quiefcence in a treaty which would have made his country in- 
 famous ! — would have reflored her back to Britain ! We there- 
 fore do not hefitate to declare him, (with his nineteen quon- 
 * dam coadjutors) undeferving of any further public confidence : 
 And, guided by an opinion founded in a knowledge of human 
 nature, we do infill, that if not loft to all the fine feelings of 
 the heart, 'twill be impofiible they can withftand that immenfe 
 torrent of opprobrium which will rufh upon them ; they mull 
 refign ! they cannot, in future, tranfact any public bufinefs ! 
 
 Refolved, That as the power of finally making and ratifying 
 treaties by the prefident and two-thirds of the fenate alone, 
 has, in the prcfent cafe, been proved to be of a moft alarming- 
 ly dangerous nature ; that our very exiftence as a free people, 
 had been put at ftakc ; that had not a good providence influen- 
 ced even the twenty of the fenate to reject one article, which, 
 from necejfity, mult arrell the hand of the prefident from fign- 
 ing it, we fay, that had not the providential care, which we 
 have fo often experienced, interpofed, we had been a loft, an 
 undone people, without pity, and without friends ! 
 
 Therefore, Refoivcd, That our members be earneftly called on, 
 at the next meeting of the aflembly, topropofe an amendment 
 to the federal conllitution, fo far as refpedts the power of mak- 
 ing treaties. That a prefident, and twenty fenators, perhaps 
 fourteen (for that number makes a quorum) {hall have the 
 fole power of making treaties, which mult be, neceiTarilv, the 
 fupreme law ; mult be binding on every individual, which 
 fwallow up the fovereignty and independence of each ftate ! 
 No ! the people now fee the folly of giving fuch a power into 
 the hands of fourteen men, which, at all times, mayfupercede 
 every exifting law in the union ! 'tis too much ! "Without a 
 difpofition to judge uncharitably ot men, we fay 'ris poilible 
 that twenty or fourteen men may be tempted, may be bribed 
 to betray the precious truft repofed in them by their fellow- 
 citizens ! And we repeat, that as it is notorious Britain carries 
 f all her points by corruption, (look in lord North's eftimate 
 during the American war ; you will there find one million for 
 contingents or fecret fervice ! Has not France, throughout her 
 ftruggle, complained (lie felt Britifh corruption in her very vi- 
 tals ! and {hall America expect to efcape her baneful influ- 
 ence !) then 'tis pojjihle that twenty or fourteen men may be led 
 to fell even their country ! We, therefore, again urge it ou our 
 reprefentatives, to bring forward an amendment, by which 
 iongrefs at large, and congrefs alette, {hall have the power of 
 
lix Resolutions of the 
 
 forming treaties, at lead of ratifying them. Wc venture to pro* 
 nounce the people will not be latishcd fhort of this : from onq ^ e 
 extreme of the continent to the other, this will be the univerfal sj ( 
 language. We know, in framing the federal conftitution, the 
 objection to giving the houfe of rtprefentatives this power, 
 jointly with the fenate and prdidcnt, was, that negotiations ge-i 
 nerally required the grwtejl Jeer -cry, and that was not to be expefl-i 
 edfromfo large a body. Curftr on fuch fecrecy! it lias undone 
 our country ! An American aflembly, aloof from the combina- 
 tions of Europe, mould have no fecrets ! No government in 
 the known world, like our's, ever gave fuch an extenfive lati-- 
 tude as we allow to the prefident and fenate •, even the molt ar- 
 bitrary kings never pofTefTed any thing like it ! In France, un- 
 der the old government, appearances at leaft, were kept up ; the 
 king's edi£ls were never of force until regiltered in parliament. 
 In England they proceed with diffidence in making treaties— < 
 far from being confuiered as legal without a parliamentary 
 fanclion, the preamble always ftates that " his majefty ivould en- 
 deavour to obtain a law for ratifying the treaty." Such is the 
 language and conduct of monarch s, and what is our's ? we 
 bluih! weblufh! 
 
 Refohedy That while we ftigmatize the man, and execrate his 
 conducl:, (John Jay) we rejoice he has been made an inffrument 
 to draw forth the whole united voice of the people of America 
 in detcftation of his treaty ! "We congratulate each other, that 
 from this truly marked circumftance, our great, our generous 
 ally, will form proper, a true judgment of the difpofition of 
 the United States ! that fhe will diftinguifh between the peo-r 
 pie and a part of its government! that they will fee our hearts 
 never ceafed to beat in unifon with their's ! — of all poflible 
 temporal evils which could ever fall upon us, we deprecate a 
 difference with France ! 
 
 Refolvedy That we pledge ourfelves to our brethren of the 
 republican focieties throughout the union, as far as the ability 
 and individual influence of a moft numerous fociety can be 
 made to extend, that we will promote every conflitutional 
 means to bring John Jay to a trial, and to juflice. He lhall not 
 efcape', if guilty, that punifliment, which at once will wipe of? 
 the temporary itain laid on us, and be a warning to traitors, 
 hereafter, how they fport with the intercft and feelings of their 
 fellow-citizens ! 
 
 Rffofvedf That every compliment is due to the watchful 
 zeal of our fellow-citizens of Charlefton ; to the great abili- 
 ty fhown bv their committee in their elucidation of the treaty.. 
 
Franklin Society. 113 
 
 Wc warmly embrace and adopt their report: it demonstrates 
 great moderation ; but, with fuch provocation ! we would not 
 have been quite fo tender ! 
 
 Refolved, That we heartily approbate the reprefentation of 
 our wrongs made by our own district (Washington-) it proves 
 that we are neither defective in knowledge, nor deficient in 
 duty ; that we know our intereft as citizens, that we feel a 
 tender concern lor the whole commonwealth of America : 
 this we will teach as the firft of principles to our children; 
 we will endeavor to imprefson them th* nonfenfe and folly of 
 involving themfelves with the people of Europe, eternally cut- 
 ting each other's throats ; we will urge to pofterity, that 
 America need only lie Hill ; that let her markets be but well 
 fupplied, all Europe will be the buyers ; that they cannot do 
 without us ; to have no connection with the old governments 
 by treaties, no written agreements; for the omillion of a com- 
 ma may involve us in a war ! In this happy, but envied Situ- 
 ation, had a gracious providence placed us; and, guided by 
 thefe principles, we Should have had no wars. But, the dae- 
 mon of difcord entered into a Jay, and He Hew to England to 
 blaft our riling hopes, to involve us with compacts and trestles 1 
 Rgjblved, That in the investigation of this buflnefs, not to 
 have difcovered warmth — a warmth refulting from the glowing 
 piclure of danger which our country exhibits, by a tame fub- 
 miffion in its government, to the molt flagrant and daring out- 
 rages ! would have betrayed a ftoicifm unworthy of the fub- 
 jccl, unworthy of the fons of 1776 ! And fhould it be corifi- 
 dered that unnecessary afperity has difcovered itfelf to a na- 
 tion, of whom we ought and mutt be jealous while the crown 
 is upon its prefent head, we wilh to make known to the world, 
 and to Britain and Ireland in particular, that we difcriminate 
 between the honeft. and the flavifh parts of their people; between 
 the two nations and their governments ! Yes, congenial and 
 generous fouls ! we know you always longingly anticipated 
 our welfare and rank among nations, and ever participated in 
 our diitreiTes, and in our happinefs. No ! 'tis your government 
 that we hold in abhorrence ! — a government, with, one excep- 
 tion, fmgularized from all the nations of the world by the 
 number and extravagance! by the foulnefs and bJacknels oi 
 its crimes ! 
 
 Refclved, finally , That the vice-moderator, the correfponcC 
 ing fecretary, and Secretary of the fociety, do !ign the foregoing 
 relolutions; and that they be generally printed, asexpreShveoFoui 
 abhorrence and deteftation of a treaty, which giv«a to the Engr 
 
H4 Reflrctions os 
 
 lifli government more power over us as ftates, than it ever 
 claimed over us as colonies, and which, if Britain had been 
 left to her gencrofity, Jhe ivould have been ajhamed to propc/e ! — 
 a treaty, involving in it pufillanimity, ftupidity, ingratitude, 
 and treachery ! to blaft the riling grandeur of our common, 
 country, of our infant empire ! 
 
 SAMUEL LOFTON, fen. Vice-moderator. 
 
 J. MILLER, Correfponding Secretary. 
 
 Ed. TATE M'CLURE, Secretary of the Society. 
 
 Some ohfervations on a letter faid to be written by a gentleman of 
 character and information in Vermont s and bearing date the 
 iZtbJulylaft*. 
 
 I Will not venture to afcertain what was the real view of 
 the letter writer •, he is, at all events, very wroth with 
 the citizens of great cities, principally, as it appears to me, 
 becaufe be fufpects they will dare to intermeddle in poli- 
 ties, without obtaining his permiflion, or at leaft without 
 being on his fide. It is impoffible, however, to avoid obferving, 
 
 * From the Minerva. 
 
 The following is an authentic extract of a letter from a gentleman of cha- 
 racter and information in Vermont; for the truth of which we pledge our- 
 iclves It conies from a man of fevcnty-/ix, and is dated July 18, 1795. 
 
 " The treaty of peace has now become a general fubjevEt of converfation ; 
 but is wot as yet enough known to form the public mind. It is impoffible 
 fertile madmen in politics to communicate their madnef* to the fubftantial and 
 numerous body of c< untry farmers. They do not reverence the cufloms, man- 
 ners, or violent party, inflammatory writings of your zealous political fa- 
 natics. And while thofe kind of writers pleafe thcmfelvei with the conceit 
 that they are enlightening the age and the world, they have no idea in what 
 contempt their productions are viewed in the country. In fentiment and in- 
 formation, l!iey are below the understanding of every country farmer; and 
 the declamatory, violent ftile finks them fliJl lower, in rural eftimation. Wt 
 arc apprehenfirve that fome of the large cities will endeavour to fct their mobs 
 in motion, with a view to dictate to the prefident and fenate. Be aiTured wc 
 ■will reject the federal union, before we will be governed in the country, by 
 the- r.iobs of Philadelphia, New- York, or Boflon. Moderation, in fuch a cafe, 
 would be an error ; — and the moment your mobs arc let agoing, you eflab- 
 Jilh a distinction between town and country, which you will not eahly get rid 
 of. The greatefl and worfl of all political events that the country would fuf- 
 fcr would be to have the government of it, under the direction of fuch tumul- 
 tuous, outrageous, latvlefs aflemblies. 
 
 " The aboVfe is to carry to you fome idea of the horror we entertain of a 
 xnnb-ijovcrnmcnt. Be lb good as to remember the articles of bufinefe." 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 115 
 
 that without his knowing what had really happened in thefe 
 cities, the obvious errors in the treaty are fo conspicuous, and, 
 in contradiction to his will, obtrude themfelves fo forcibly on 
 his brain, as to compel on his mind a fufpicion, that mobs will 
 be raifed, while his wifh appears clearly to be, that no oppofi. 
 tion fhould be made againfl its obtaining the prefident's figna- 
 ture j Ihould even its commercial errors be ruinous to the 
 trade, and its political errors deft.ru6t.ive to the liberties and. 
 peace of this country. 
 
 I know the people of Vermont well — they are quite good 
 citizens ; but they are likewife firm and inflexible patriots. 
 
 They know the value of their rights, and they will, if necel- 
 fary, maintain them at every rifque. 
 
 I will firlt, therefore, make a few obfervations on fuch 
 parts of this extraordinary inftrument, as appears to me moft 
 «vidently wrong, and molt pointedly demonftrative, that ei- 
 ther the head or the heart of the man who framed it, was ill 
 calculated for executing the high truft repofed in him. 
 
 And fecondly, aiiign fome reafons why the people of Ver- 
 mont, as well as of other parts of this extended country, will 
 purfue every conflitutional method in their power, to prevent 
 its becoming the fupreme law of the land. 
 
 The fecond article is, in my opinion, an indelible (lain up- 
 on the honour and dignity of the nation; for, by agreeing 
 that the ports (hall not be delivered up till the firft of June 
 1796, without any ilronger obligation on the part of the Bri- 
 tifli for the furrender of them at that period, than we had at 
 the treaty of peace, it is tacitly agreed, that the unjuft reten- 
 tion of them was no infraction of that treaty. 
 
 Where was that genius of America, which governed its 
 councils at the termination of the war ? who, in a firm and 
 manly tone, told this haughty and imperious government of 
 Great-Britain, that, " we will not fpeak on the fubjedr. of 
 peace till you have firft acknowledged our independence." 
 
 Or are our prefent claims to thefe pofts, after being abfolute- 
 ly ceded to us bv a former treaty, made with that very govern- 
 ment, lefs valid or lefs conclufive, than a claim to that inde- 
 pendence which we then, in fuch unqualified terms, declared, 
 ihould actually form the bafis of the treaty ? No, but our 
 then minifters were different men, and had very different views 
 from v/\\ztfome of them have at prefent. 
 
 If the third article is conftrued literally, it certainly does not 
 provide for a free trade between Vermont and Canada, by the 
 way of Lake Champlain. The words are, " but it is under* 
 
U 6 Reflections otf* 
 
 flood ihit this article does not extend to the admiffiori of vcf* 
 of the. United States, into the fea-ports, harbours, bays 
 or creeks of his majeity's faid ten itches ; nor into fuch parts 
 of the rivers in his majeity's laid territories, a? are between the 1 
 m rath thereof and the higbefi port of entry from the fea, except 
 in fraall velfels, trading bona fide between Montreal and Que- 
 bec." 
 
 St. John's, at tke bottom of Lake Champlain, is, ftrictly 
 fpeaking, a Britifh port of entry, -where the American veffelsy 
 as well as ;:)1 craft horn Canada, for any part of that Lake^ 
 have entered and cleared out. ever fince the peace ; the Ver-^ 
 mont trade, therefore, by this ufeful lake, mult, on a rigorous 
 conftructaon of that article, flop at that port. 
 
 Hon- far the people of that Hate may cfleem themfelves 
 obliged to mr. Jay, for leaving fo beneficial a branch of their 
 trade, fubject to fuch an indefinite, uncertain conftrudhon, 
 I will not fay. 
 
 The actual evil whicli may arife from the ninth article, de- 
 pends in a great degree, upon the quantity of land now held by 
 Britifh fubjects. If, as is faid by many, they at this moment 
 hold feveral millions of acres, the prefent proprietors may, ei- 
 ther on their leafe or lale thereof, to actual fettlers, make it a 
 condition, thai they pall remain Britifh fubjecls ; in this cafe* 
 a fhort time would probably difcover the benefits which would 
 accrue from having one or iivo millions of Britifh fubjecls actual 
 fettlers en our frontiers, v. ho, the treaty declares, " fhall not, as 
 far as may relpecl the faid lands, and the legal remedies in- 
 cident thereto, be regarded as aliens ;" a due attention to the" 
 twenty-fixth article of the treafy, will poffibly enable many 
 good republicans to difcover mr. Jay's real intentions; for 
 even in cafe of ivar, though they fhall remain Britifh fubjectSy 
 they cannot be compelled to quit the country as long " as they 
 behave peaceably, and commit no offence againfl the laws." 
 Many of us remember the diitreffes fuffered by the patriots 
 of this country lafl war, by only a few of fuch men being 
 amongll us. It was beft, perhaps, not to have thefe two arti- 
 cles of the treaty too near each other. 
 
 But 1 would afk " the gentleman of character and infor- 
 mation in Vermont." by what part of the conltitution of the 
 United States, congrefs at large, much lefs the fenate and preft- 
 dent, have the power of declaring that aliens fhall, in any in- 
 Jlatce, have a right to hold lands within any one flate i 
 
 I am fafe in averring, that each flate has hitherto claimed 
 1ihe excluftve privilege of granting or prohibiting that right. 
 
 And the third fechon of the fourth article of the conftitu- 
 
Mr. Jav's Treaty. 117 
 
 •lion, after granting to congrefs, " power to difpofe of and 
 'make ail needful rule» and regulations refpecling the territo- 
 ry or other property belonging to the United States" explicitly 
 declares, that " nothing in this confhtution fhall be fo conftru- 
 ed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any 
 •particular (late" 
 
 Docs die letter writer imagine, that the people of Vermont, 
 bccaule they arc known to be truly federal, will tamely fubmit 
 •to fee their ftate deprived of a privilege fo important and ex- 
 *enfiv«, :md fo pointedly guarded to them by the conftitution 
 of the United titites, Without ever remonftrating againft it ? 
 
 I wifh to heavens that the letter writer was the only man in 
 America, who would facrificc the rights of his J- ate, to the pre- 
 dominancy of his party. 
 
 The tenth article, which declares, that " neither the debts 
 •due from itulividu.ds of the one nation to the individuals of 
 another, nor (hares, nor monies vhich they may have in the 
 public funds, or in the public or private banks, fhall ever, in 
 any event of war, or national ditfcrences, be fequeftered or con- 
 fifcated,"carrics,Ireadily acknov. ledge, the appearanceof honor 
 nnd honefty, on the very face of it; but unfortunately in mak- 
 ing the diftribution of the confequences of that ftipulation, en- 
 tered into between the contracting parties, all the benefits arif- 
 ing therefrom go td the fide of the Britifh only, and all the 
 difadvantages to the fide of this country; we having fcarce any 
 money in their funds, or any debts due by them to us ; while 
 they have immenfe fums under our controul, which ought to 
 have been maintained in that fituation, for the exprefs purpofe 
 of being a preventative againtt fuch a predatory, difgracefuL 
 warfare, as they have waged againlt us, nvith impunity, for up- 
 wards of two years. 
 
 Far am I from thinking, that either a fequeftration or coh- 
 fifcation ought to take place on any flight or frivolous occafion. 
 May the honor and integrity of the United States become 
 proverbial throughout the habitable world. 
 
 To explain myfelf by a homely, but I think, ftriking fimile, 
 
 I will fuppofe that our friend, mr. , who is a man 
 
 twice as flrong as I am, had frequently met me in the high- 
 Way, and had fometimes feverely drubbed me, at other times, 
 had thrown me in the mud, and ruined my clothes ; that I had 
 made frequent remonftrances againlt this ill treatment, but in 
 vain, having, to all my mild remonftrances, and humiliating 
 petitions, received from him, nothing butvindi&ive, and fuperci- 
 lious replies ; that at lult I loaded a piftol of his, which happen* 
 
 Vol. Ill, R 
 
rig REFLECTIONS ON 
 
 ed to be in my houfe, put it into my pocket, and threatened t# 
 blow his brains out the next time he ever attacked me on the 
 Highway -, that I then fern a friend, on whole good fenfe and 
 integrity I ftrongly relied, for the purpofe of adopting l'ome 
 mode for terminating all our difputes. 
 
 That this friend, after having fettled on terms in many rc- 
 
 fpecls very favourable to mr. , ftipulated, in the moll 
 
 pofitive manner, that, though it was profitable and convenient 
 for him flill to leave his piflol with mc, I lhould never attempt 
 to ufe it in my own defence againlt him, even to fave my own 
 life, notwithstanding a future attack, on his part, ihould tue 
 equally violent, virulent, and unprovoked, as thofe which he 
 Jiad formerly made on me, my friend obtaining at the lame 
 
 time, a promife from mr. , equally obligatory on him, that 
 
 he would never ufe againlt me, a little popgun, which my 
 friend very well knew could not poihbly injure me more thau 
 by taking a button off my coat. 
 
 In this ftate of the cafe, ought I to retain a good opinion of 
 either my friend or of any other perfon who advifed him to 
 the meafure ? I hefitate not to anfwer that I never would place 
 the leaft confidence in him again, but {houid ever look upon 
 him, and them, with a jeaiouseye, as men, who, from iome 
 iiniller and wicked motives, were meditating my deftruction, 
 efpecully as they were perfectly fenfible, that both my intcreft 
 and inclination would prevent me from ever beginning an 
 attack upon him, or even from intentionally giving him 
 offence. 
 
 The 17th article declares, that the goods of iemy to 
 
 Great-Britain, fouadon board any of ourveikls, liiaii be le 
 
 prize of. 
 
 This, it is admitted, is agreeable to the common law oi na- 
 tions, as that law formerly itood; for Vatel lays, page 507, t^.at 
 «' effects, belonging to an enemy, found on board a neutral 
 ihin, are feizable by the rights of war •, but, by the law of na- 
 ture, the mailer is to be paid his freight, and not to fuffer by 
 the feizure." 
 
 Mr. Jay carefully adhered to the firft part of this maxim. It 
 is certainly very favourable to the Britifh. The fecond part, 
 which refpe£ls the payment of the freight, is negletted: it cer- 
 tainly would have been very favourable to the people of the 
 United States. 
 
 But, when our worthy prefident iffued his proclamation of 
 neutrality, he predicated it upon the modern law of nations : 
 an adherence to which would have prevented our minifter 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 119 
 
 from entering into a pofitive (lipulation for fuch an ignomi- 
 nious conceffion. 
 
 The twenty-third article of our treaty with France, the 
 tenth with Holland, the feventh with Sweden, the twelfth 
 with Pruffin, and the third with the emperor of Morocco, all re- 
 spectively flipulate. in the molt exprefs terms, that free mips 
 fhall make free goods, though thefe goods fhould belong to the 
 tfn'-my of either of thofe nations. Though I am not a mer- 
 chant, common fenfe points out to me, on the firlt blufh, the ex- 
 tenlive advantages which mult have accrued to our carrying- 
 trade, by an adherence to the fame plan in our prefent treaty 
 with Great-Britain. Did the recollection of the innumerable 
 favours which Great-Britain has heaped on us from the 
 nineteenth April, 1775^0 the very moment at which he fign- 
 ed the treaty, overwhelm our ambaflador with neck-loads of 
 gratitude, that he forgot that this article was diametrically op- 
 pohte to our ftipulation with every other nation with whom 
 we had a treaty ? 
 
 I do not mean, that our ot1i«r treaties precluded him from 
 the right of entering into this ftipulation. I only wifh to fhow, 
 that, while France and other friendly nations had voluntarily 
 granted to us this ineftimable pririkge in our very indigent 
 <lays, our ambaffador, though to the higheft prejudice of 
 that nation, meanly and cringingly ceded it to Great-Britain, in 
 the height of our profperity ! Or did he imagine it would 
 pleafe his countrymen, to proclaim to the world, chat, like true 
 fpaniels, they fawned molt on thofe from whom they had the 
 feverelt whippings ? 
 
 I feel for the honor of my country, and prav to my God, 
 that, though fhe is fallen, it may not be for ever. 
 
 But perhaps this part of the treaty, as well as feveral other 
 parts, were entered into for the exprefs purpofe of diftreflin<r 
 • the French nation, and thereby occafioning a rupture between 
 them and us. IF this was really mr. Jay's policy, I think it is 
 far from being improbable, that we may foon reap the fruits of 
 ins labour, by fully experiencing the good or bad erfedta 
 thereof. 
 
 The eighteenth article, regulating what is in future to be 
 •deemed contraband, is fo Superlatively humiliating and degrad- 
 ing to oirrfolves ; fo plainly and unequivocally levelled againfr 
 che fuccelsof our ally, that even Camillus rinds himfelf com- 
 pelled to make a wayward apology for it. 
 
 Poor Camillus, thou watt then driven to thy laft fhift in- 
 d"cd, and heaven knows that thou art pofTelt of more of them 
 
120 Reflections on 
 
 "in the defence of a bad caufe, than any man of thy country wn 
 ever before. 
 
 In this, as in the former article, our extraordinary ambajja* 
 dor has (Updated, that naval flores, &c. (hall be deemed con. 
 traband, and liable to capture; though it will appear by the 
 twenty-fourtharticleofour treaty withFrance,the twenty-fourth 
 with Holland, the tenth with Sweden, the thirteenth with Ptul 
 fia, and the third with the emperor of Morocco, that we have 
 contracted, that they mail not be contraband. Nay, what, as fay, 
 as is poflible, adds to the difgrace of this part of the treaty^ 
 even Great-Britain herfelf, in her commercial treaty, with 
 France, declares that they (hall not be contraband. 
 
 What opinion our ally will entertain of our friendship for 
 her — what opinion the world at large will entertain of our mag* 
 nanimity, good fjjth, an d gratitude as a nation, and in what dc* 
 gree of eftimation our minifter will be held by his fellow citw 
 zens at fome future period, time only can fully unravel. 
 
 If even theextacy of joy, upon being permitted the honor of 
 kifhrtg the queen's hand, was fo exceflive, as to obliterate from 
 his mind, that cotton was a branch of the produce of his coun- 
 try, it is fcarcely poflible to fuppofe, that the pleafure conti- 
 nued fo extremely ravifhing during the whole ntgociation, as. 
 to make him forget that there were two fuch dates as Virginia 
 and North-Carolina^ a great proportion of whole trade, by this, 
 ihameful conceiTion, he was facrificing at the fhrine of their;- 
 bittereft enemy. 
 
 The twenty-firft article defines what piracy is, and deter-, 
 mines what the punifhment thereof fhali be, by faying, *' that 
 if any fubject or citizen of the laid parties reipeciively, (hall 
 accept any foreign commiflion or letters of marque, for arming 
 any veflel to a£t. as a privateer againft the other party, and be 
 taken by the other party, it is hereby declared to be lawful for 
 the laid party y to tre?.t and punifh the fajd fubject or citizen, 
 having fuch commiflion, or letters of marque, as a pirate." 
 
 The eighth fection of the constitution of the United 
 States, declares, that " congrefs fhall have the power to define 
 and puni/Jj piracies and felonies committed on the high feas, and 
 offences againft the law of nations." 
 
 The curfe of oblivion feems to have pervaded our minifter's 
 brain in every part of this treaty, which did not embrace fome 
 point favourable to the Britifh ; foe here again, he has forgot 
 that the houfe oj ' reprefeni l aiivt s are an abfolute (though in his 
 opinion, probably a very trifling) part of congrefs; and as they 
 were not to be confulted about the propriety or impropriety of 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. \z\ 
 
 this treaty, he ought to have fcen that he was entering into an 
 agreement which the fenate could not approve of, nor the pre- 
 sident ratify, without a palpable breach of the conftitution. 
 
 But for argument's fake, I will for a moment fuppofc it con- 
 stitutional, and I will likewife acknowledge, that by the twen- 
 ty-firft article of our treaty with France, the nineteenth with 
 Holland, and the twenty-chird with Sweden, the lame crime was 
 by our then congrefs ( not bv apart of it J deemed a piracy ; but 
 muft, at the fame time, infift, that the manner of punilhmcnt 
 is defcribed in a very different way. In each of thefe treaties 
 the words are thefe, « and if any perfon of either nation lhall 
 take fuch commiflions or letters of marque, hejljall be pumjbed 
 as a pirate." 
 
 In our treaties with Pruffia and the emperor of Morocco, ir 
 is ftipulated, that «' fubjetts, nor citizens of either party, {hall 
 take commifH>ns from any power with whom either of the 
 contracting parties may be at war*," but no punifhment whate- 
 ver is affixed to the breach of that article. 
 
 By our treaty, then, on this head, with the firft three nations 
 above mentioned, the offender againlt the article was, 1 con- 
 ceive, upon complaint made, or information lodged, to 
 be tried, as the conftitution directs, by a jury of his countrymen 
 confpicuous for their moderation, lenity and jufticej and, if 
 ftrong extenuating circumftances appeared in his favour, fhould 
 even the jury efteem themfelves obliged to condemn him, 
 agreeable to the letter of the lav , they might, nevertheless, for- 
 cibly recommend him to that branch ot the government, in 
 whole hands the pleafing power of Ihowing mercy is fo wifely 
 placed. 
 
 As no punifhment is annexed to the crime by our treaty 
 with the other two powers, the offender muft have been tried 
 upon common principles. 
 
 Mr. Jay has the honour of being the firft American minifter, 
 who ever had the courage by public act, to declare, in exprefs 
 terms, that his fellow-citizens are liable to be condemned as 
 pirates, by a Britifh court of admiralty, for an atlt of which the 
 law of nations renders even the criminality doubtful. 
 
 What does he really fay on this head of the treaty ? Kxer- 
 cifinghis molt inventive talents to enrage his fellow-citi/.en- 
 to fome improper unconltitutional a£t, he virtually tells tHem, 
 I fee that you it ill remain equally attached to, equally ena- 
 moured with the principles of liberty, as you did when I wa« 
 a pacific bcllower in that caufe, and therefore, that your attach* 
 jnent to the French nation, in her prefent conteft, may lead fome 
 
121 "UtrLrcTTbNS Ov 
 
 of you to engage as volunteers in her fervice, depending upon 
 that principle in the laws of nations, declared by Vatel, page 
 594» in the following words, " volunteers taken by the enemy 
 are treated as if part of the army in which they fight." No- 
 thing can be more reafonable. They, in fael, unite themfelves to 
 this army. They fupport the fame cauie, no matter whether it 
 befrom obligation or free will. 
 
 But, continues Mr. Jay, I will rifle deviating materially from 
 the words of every treaty hitherto entered into by the United 
 States, ihould my ad even be an unconftitutional one, and de- 
 ehreth.it, if fighting in this caule you are taken by the Englifh, 
 it ih.-M be in their power '.o hang you as pirates. 
 
 Gracious God ! ye heroes who were the glorious copartners 
 of the brave little French army at the fiege of York-Town, and 
 fhared with thtm the honor of fighting, bleeding and conquer- 
 ing hi the cauie of freedom ! can you believe, that your old 
 commander in chief will ever give hra fan&ion to fuch an adl: 
 as this? The queftion, I acknowledge, is unneceffary •, for (the 
 It w who wifli to embroil us wih that nation excepted) you will 
 •miverfally exclaim — he never — never will do it. 
 
 Permit me only to add, that it is an infult even to afk him.. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 "W I LL now beg leave to recapitulate the p?.rts of thi» 
 treaty, which I have deemed reproachable : let my obfer- 
 vattons thereon fpeak for themfelves. 
 
 iff. The furrender of the pofts ought to have been made 
 the bafis of the treaty ; inflead of which they are to be held 
 until the firit of July, 1796. 
 
 id. The third article, amonft other obje&ions to it, is (o 
 wonk'fl, fti to auor^ ar lead ftrong pretentions for preventing 
 the people oi Vc; Wont from any inland trade with Canada, 
 farther than St. John's at the bottom of the Lake Champlairu 
 
 3d. The ninth article allowing Britifh fubjecls to hold lands, 
 is not only unconftitutional, but, as by the 16th article, they 
 may, even in cofe of a war; remain dill as Britifh fubjefts, 
 provided t!:cy brhave pencer.bly, we may have within our very 
 bowels one ( >r two millions of Britifh fubjecls, whom we can* 
 not, ithout a breach of faith, evpcl from this, during the time 
 "we are engaged in a war with their country. 
 
 The tenth article yields up the only fhield of protec- 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 1.23 
 
 tion we arc poffcfTed of againft fuch a predatory war as Great- 
 Britain has carried on againft us for thefe two years paft - y 
 while our minifter (as fhall hereatter be ihowed) lias neglect- 
 ed to ltipulate in return iormanyot thefe advantages granted 
 to us in our other treaties. 
 
 5th. The Seventeenth article (hamefully furrenders to the 
 wanton plunder oi Se fJiuil'u robber, the right of capturing 
 thepropertv if ur ally when found in our vcfllls, though our 
 treaty witn every other nation, particularly with that very 
 allv, for the purpofe of fottening the rigours of w ur, declares 
 that " free flaps fhall make tree goods." 
 
 Surely our minifter might at leaft have permitted this part 
 of the treaty to have flood on the cxilthig principles of the 
 law of nations, without fanctitying a Britifh right in the 
 plunder of our ally's property, and the deltruclion of a moil 
 beneficial part of our own trade. 
 
 6th. The eighteenth article, which permits naval fibres, 
 &c. to be deemed contraband, though all our other treaties ex- 
 prefsly Jlipulate that they fliall NOT be tleemed cotitrabdful, meets 
 with a much more fevcre chaitifement, than it could pollibly 
 receive from any observation of mine, through the pen of the 
 partial, and probably well-paid Camillus, who admits, " thai 
 it is the mojl indcfenftble part of the treaty." 
 
 7th. The twenty-firit article, which fubftantially delivers 
 to the fangs of a Britifh tyrant, to be punifhed by him as a 
 pirate, every citizen of the United States, whole heart, throb- 
 bing for an opportunity of dii covering his love of freedom, 
 may lead him to rifque his lite in the defence of " the rights 
 of man," merits, aud mull meet with the execration of every 
 man who loves this country, and the rational liberty hitherto 
 enjoyed therein. 
 
 Having now pointed out, from the many, a few of the mod 
 glaring exceptionable features of the treaty, the well-known 
 children of our minifter, by the actual fin of commillion, I 
 will next endeavour to exhibit fome of thofe, which are equal- 
 ly diftinguifhablc, but have arofe from the fin of omiilion. 
 
 In the fixth article of the treaty, a circumfped: care is taken 
 «' that full and complete compensation is to be made, to Bri- 
 tilh merchants, and others his majclty's fubjeds, who had 
 debts due from citizens 01 the United States, and who, by the 
 operations of various lawful impediments lincethe peace, Sec. 
 have not received full and adequate compenfation for their 
 loffes and damages." But how muck greater have the loffes 
 and damages been to the United States by the detention of 
 4hc polls i When we take into view ail the coufeauences of 
 
124 Reflections on 
 
 the Indian war nnd the lofs of the fur trade, how are we fur* 
 prized to find, that not a word is lifped about « a full and 
 COI plcte compenfation" to be made on that account ! 
 
 If, agreeable to mr. Jay's opinion, both parties have broke 
 rhe treaty, is it reasonable, or juft, that the one fhould be paid 
 for the damages arifing therefrom, and the other fhould not ? 
 especially as mr. Jcfferfon has proved the breach did not com- 
 mence with us. 
 
 Our mir.ilrer, too, had forgot to obtain payment for the 
 negroes which Great-Britain promifed, in the treaty of peace, 
 fhould not be " carried away," and yet were carried away to 
 the amount of many thoufands! 
 
 The Bnt'iJJ) Camillas, it is true, endeavours to (how, that 
 they ought not to be paid for ; but I well remember to have 
 feen in the journals of congrefs, a pointed motion of the uime- 
 rican mr. Hamiltoiis (foon alter the peace) remonftrating 
 ngainll their being carried away ; and molt men believe, that 
 mr. Hamilton was then a man oi equal good fenfe, and much 
 more friendly to the interefts of the United States, than Ca- 
 millus is now. 
 
 As Great-Britain is admitted, by all parties, to be the great- 
 eft maritime nation in the world, itmuft likewifebe admitted, 
 that our minilter fhould have been equally guarded in procur- 
 ing for u:., as far as he pofhbly could, the fame favourable, Iti- 
 pulations, in cafe of a rupture with her, or any other power, 
 as we have entered into with other nations. 
 
 Mr. Jay's friends fay, that he is a man of firmnefs ,- I am 
 Aire that, as an ambafiador, he has proved himfelf a conjijlent 
 man ; for it will appear, that he has been equally negligent 
 in this part of his duty as in others already pointed out. 
 
 By the fixth article of our treaty with France, the fifth with 
 Holland, the twenty- fecond with Pruflia, and the third fepa- 
 rate article with Sweden, each of thefe powers refpectiveiy 
 agrce, in cafe of their having a common enemy with us, that 
 they will take our veffels, whenever demanded, and defend them 
 in the fame manner as they would their oivn. 
 
 Has Great-Britain made any fuch provifion ? — No. 
 
 By the fourteenth article of our treaty with France, goods 
 belona'imf to us, loaded on board their cnemy : s veffels, at any 
 time previous to two months after the declaration of war, if 
 taken by them, Jhall be reflored to us ; and by the fifth article of 
 our treaty with Holland, and the fourteenth with Sweden, 
 our goods taken by them in the fame fituation, fhall be reftor- 
 ed, provided they were loaded at any time previous to fix 
 months after the declaration of war, and the owner of the 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 125 
 
 £t eels did not know of the war being declared. Has Great- 
 Brit un made any fuch promife ? — No. 
 
 The twenty-fourth article of our trenty with Pruflia makes 
 provifion for the kind and hofpitable treatment of prifoners, 
 in a manner which docs honor toiiuman nature, and ftandfc 
 as an eulogium on that philanthropy of difpofition, which has 
 fo conlpicuoufly mined in all the acts of a Franklin and a 
 
 Is there any fuch flipulation with Great-Britain ? — No. 
 
 Was it neceffary r 
 
 Let the hiltory of the fugar-hotife at New-Fork and Jerjiy 
 prifon ftjip> during the laft war, determine this queftion. 
 
 I will at the fame time confefs, that if mr. Jay is equally- 
 careful of the pcrfon of the prefent governor of this ftate, [New- 
 York] as he was of Ids own at the time Elopus was burnt, 
 by the marauding army of his favourite nation, there is no 
 riik that his excellency will fuffer from this neglect, as he 
 wiil not become a prifoncr till the Britifh reach the mountains 
 of Kent. A defire to obey his excellency's orders will produce 
 an explanation ol this, whenever he is pleafed to require it. 
 
 I am aware, that it will be obferved, that as there were 
 two parties to the treaty, it was impoflible for. mr. Jay to ob- 
 tain all he o-ilhed — Granted — But, does it fellow from thence, 
 that in the humiliating manner he has done, we were to yield 
 Up to the ambitions and fupcrciiious arrogance of the other 
 partj-, whatever flic, in the agonizing frenzy of departing great* 
 nefs, might think proper to require. 
 
 What opinion mult the other nations entertain of either our 
 honor or independence, whole treaties with us arc demon- 
 (Irated to be fo much more in our favor, than the one mr. Jay- 
 has thought proper to fubmit to ? 
 
 We boalt of our increafe in wealth, in numbers, in refpec- 
 tability as a nation, all ariGng from the good management of 
 the political machine, by thofe who have the prefent direction 
 thereof : and yet this treaty mud give the lie direct to that af~ 
 fertion in the opinion of every man, not intimately acquainted 
 with our true lituatio_n ; becaufe it abjectly crouches beneath 
 the galling yoke of Great-Britain, and fervilely grants to her 
 what no other nation, in the hour of our greateft diftrefs, 
 before we had even thrown off our fwaddling bands t ever at- 
 tempted to demand of us. 
 
 I will quit this firil part of my promife, and proceed to my 
 fecond, by mowing fome reafons, why the people in Vermont, 
 as well as in other parts of this extended country, will purfive 
 
 Vol. III. S 
 
ii6 Reflections oh 
 
 every legal method 'in their power, to prevent- its becoming 
 the fuprcme law of ti'.xe land. 
 
 It is well known, *hat there has been, for many years, 
 throughout the yeomanry of this country, a fettled lpirit of 
 enmity againft the liritifh government, ariiing, anion gft other 
 caufes, from the remembrauce of their favage and a&ive cru- 
 elties, during the lait war, the hatred difplayed to us during 
 the peace, and their unpar.-.i.eled depredations on our trade, 
 fmce the commencement of thsir war with France. 
 
 And as this treaty entitles the yeople of that nation to rights 
 and liberties within each Mate, which" cannot be conftitution- 
 ?lly granted but by the it are itfelf •, that part of the yeomanry 
 who wifh not to fee the conftitution infringed on, or the power 
 of their refpe&ive ftates fritter'd down to that of f'mall cor- 
 porations, will univerfally oppofe it. 
 
 It is intended to difunite us from our ally, to whom the 
 yeomanry of this country get every day more and more at* 
 tached ; and they will therefore oppofe it. 
 
 It fubje&s them to unconititutioal punilhment, for efpouf- 
 ing the Gaufe of freedom, by granting their alrdtance to this 
 very ally ; and they will therefore oppofe it. 
 
 It was formed in contradiction to the cxpreffed wiihes'of 
 their immediate representatives in congrefs ; ami they will 
 therefore oppofe it. 
 
 They will reflect, that the Britifh Y/cft- Indies are dependent 
 onus for their veryexiftenee,as is fullydem migrated by the fre- 
 quent petitions of their inhabitants to the Britift parliament— 
 That we confume upwards of two-fifths :>f al aasufac- 
 
 tures exported from Great-Britain — that ihe bal in radc 
 
 with us it about twelve millions of dollars yearly in her . r.vor — * 
 That had ihe compelled us to war, our privateers would have 
 diftreffed her trade in a degree exceeding the bounds of calcu- 
 lation; of which opinion, the number of Britifh prizes brought 
 into our ports lafr. war, affords undeniable proof — and that in 
 a very fhort time ihe muft have loft all her poffcinons on the 
 continent of North-America — That,under thefe confidcrations, 
 a wife, a firm, an hone ft: minifter could not have failed in 
 pr« taring us terms at lectji reciprocally beneficial. And there- 
 fore, they will oppofe this heterogenous treaty, begot in the 
 dark, and ufhered forth to pubkc view, againft the exprefs 
 will of its legitimate parents, who, confeious of its deformi- 
 ty, wiflied to conceal it from the penetrating eye of their 
 countrymen as long as poffible. 
 
 But it will be objected, that twenty fenators having given 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 12? 
 
 their ianction to its adoption, is prima facie evidence that ir 
 mud be a moil excellent treaty — Granted. 
 
 And it will be anfwered, that ten fenators being warmly op- 
 Ipofed to it, and every tory hi the country extolling it as the 
 greatell pro >f tl ' ven ever furaiihed, of its watchful at- 
 tention over th< :rty, peace, profperity, welfare, 
 and independence of the United States, is likewifc prima facie 
 (evidence that it is a moft d — n — able treaty. And the fenfible 
 yeomanry of this country, after fubtracting the one evidence 
 jfrom the other, and undine the balance greatly againft the 
 treaty, v. ill therefore more firmly oppofe it. 
 
 Man) other arguments might be produced ; but I (hall flop 
 here, and affign fome additional reafons, why I am of opinion, 
 that the yeomanry of Vermont will, in a particular manner, 
 oppofe it. 
 
 Their connection with Canada has given them frequent 
 Opportunities c'i viewing the fupercilious, haughty deport- 
 ment of many of the Bri , to whom the etiquette 
 of that government led them to make application ; and they 
 have obferved their deep-rooted contempt of republicanifm 
 and republican manners. They will, therefore, oppofe ait 
 intimacy of national connection. 
 
 That nate has been fuperior to moft, and inferior to rione, 
 in point of fcderalifm ,■ and they will, therefore, be delicately 
 careful in preventing their darling conftitution from being, 
 in the fmalleft decree, impaired or infringed on. 
 
 The citizen; - , of that itatc, even their profeftional men of 
 all defcriptions, are (fpeaking generally) warm admirers of 
 the French caufe, though they do not attempt tojuftiiyall 
 their actions : and as many of the leading features of this 
 treaty have a ftrong tendency to diftrefs that caufe, they will 
 oppofe it with an energy, proportionate to their love of ration- 
 al liberty, and of the rights of man. 
 
 But taking for granted, what the editor of the Minerva af- 
 (erts, that the unknown letter-writer in Vermont, is, " A 
 gentleman of character and information," I will oppofe his 
 fentimeuts by thofe of another citizen of that ftate, known 
 by his writings and his pleadings to be really " a genii 
 of character and information." — I mean judge Chipman, who, 
 in tlie vcr 1793, previous to this budle about French and 
 Englifh politics, wrote " Ikctches on the principles of go- 
 .cnt," in which he exhibits maxims, perfectly conio- 
 inant with thofc maintained by the prefent oppofers to the trea- 
 ty, and equally repugnant to thofe difplayed by the learned 
 
^2$ Reflections on 
 
 letter writer, whofe principal aim, as far as he chooi 
 explain himfelf, appears to be a llrong defire cf proving 
 it is improper for the people to inveftigate the treaty, bui to 
 trull to the well-known abilities and integrity of the com'ti? 
 tuted authorities — and in attempting this, his language is ex-| 
 tremely indecorous, and even indecent ; indeed, lie feems tq 
 have borrowed much of his ftile from the editor of the Mi- 
 nerva. 
 
 The letter-writer fays, in great heat, {< we arc apprehen T | 
 five that fome of the large cities will endeavour to let theitl 
 tytohs in morion, with a view to dictate to the prefident and 
 ftnate. Be alTured" we will reject the federal government, be- 
 fore we will be governed in the country by the mobs of Phi- 
 ladelphia, New- York, or Bofton." 
 
 And does it comport with thy opinion of the people of 
 ihefe cities, mr. letter writer, that they cannot meet quietly 
 nnd form refolutions on a fubjec~t, not only of the utmolt im r 
 portance to themfelves, but their pofterity, without becoming 
 jioters ? Has your vanity, on being permitted to correfpondi 
 ivith the editor of the Minerva, fo milled your underilanding, 
 as to make you fuppofe the citizens of Vermont could be fa> 
 far duped as to believe, that a riotous mob, and a Bolton town 
 meeting) were fynonimous terms ? 
 
 Are you fo extremely credulous, my little lord pompofty, a? 
 to imagine, that this, thy pigmy threat, u of feparation from 
 the federal government," will intimidate the freemen of Ver- 
 mont, from fearcbing into the caufe of the prefent agitation 
 of the public mind, which has taken place from the one 
 end of this extenuve continent to the other, or that it will 
 deter them from giving their opinion thereon, in a firm, man- 
 ly and decent manner ? 
 
 Or do you believe, my little difappointcd fnippcr-fnapper, that 
 the additional yelping of a half a dozen more fuch whiffets 
 us thyfelf, would meet the fame attention and refpecf, as the 
 folid, ferious and patriotic advice given by your fellow-citizen, 
 the j udge ? 
 
 Let us fee then what he fays : — 
 
 In page 77, he obferves, " that when we find an infringe 
 ment on the liberties of the people, admitted in the adm'wijlr* 
 lion, ive ought not to c.^cufe ourf elves from fearching the caufe: 
 
 The fame worthy patriot, in fhowing the advantages whi 
 arife from the diflemination of ufeful knowledge, in page 15 
 makes ufe of this remarkable expreflion : " let there be nc 
 restraint on the liberty of the prefs, no check upon ru3i.K 
 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 129 
 
 t.i private difcujfon, but what is impofed by the manners, 
 morals, tafte, and good fenfe of the age." 
 
 Thefe two are the exprefs fentiments^of thofe who oppofe 
 the treaty ; — but, poiTibiy, my little ivtld politician t you will 
 jnlift that the judge meant to confine u public difcuffion" to 
 the countrf only ; and yet I fufpect, that it would bring a 
 blufh even into thy face, to be called on for a good argument 
 to fhow caufe why the citizens of great mercantile cities 
 fhould be prevented from " difculling publicly," an inftru- 
 me ;t, chriftened under the title of treaty of commerce and 
 navigation. 
 
 Our letter writer is for trufting every thing to the conftitu- 
 ted authorities. 
 
 The worthy judge on the other hand, in page 159, makes 
 an obfervation which we can have no i-eaibn to doubt is 
 ftrongly imprefled on the president's mind, in tlie prefent bu- 
 fmefs — « In the inaking of laws, a great regard muft be had 
 to the circumitances, manners, and fentiments of the people, 
 as well as to the principles of the con'titution — the laws 
 mult be the beft which tlu' people can bear." 
 
 To fuppofe, therefore, after admitting this principle, that 
 the prefident would ratify the prefent treaty, in contradiction 
 to the fentiments of fo refpectable and (o decided a majority 
 of the people, is fuppofing that he would gratify his own in- 
 clination, at the hazard of commotions, which would not 
 only be extremely dangerous to the community, but would 
 
 {>robably be attended with his own political destruction. And, 
 iow could the prefident have known, that the people were 
 fo univerfally oppofed to this treaty, provided, as our letter 
 writer feems to wifh, they had been perfectly filent on the 
 fubjech 
 
 Was this treaty to be ratified, I am well convinced that the 
 citizens of Vermont would almoit univerfally oppofe it, from 
 a hearty concurrence with their worthy judge, in the follow- 
 ing fentiment, for thev cannot be ignorant, that this treaty is 
 in direct oppofition to the exprefled will of the h'oufe of repre- 
 sentatives", who wifhed to obtain juftice from Great-Britain, 
 not by the fawning flattery and cringing fubmiffion of a grovel- 
 ing, proftituted mind, but by that calm, deliberate, but Item 
 firmnefs, in fupport of our natural rights, necefiary for main- 
 taining that refpect and attention which our licuation, our 
 growing greatnefs, and the extenfive advantage- of our trade 
 and commerce gave us a right to claim from the nations of the 
 world. Was, then, the prefident to give his fan&ion to this 
 treaty,- we fliould have the fenate in favour of, and the hoi: r e 
 
130 Reflections on 
 
 6f rcprcfentatlves, our beji guardians, oppofed to, the hi 
 mcnc, which (if it i^ not uncpnftitutional) would become thefu- 
 hreme law oj the land% 
 
 The citizens oj Vermont, in that cafe, would draw many 
 of their arguments from the pure republican fountain v Inch 
 thejudgc has laid open to them,, in page 140, where he fays, 
 " Public difcufV.on, and mature deliberation, in the making of 
 
 laws, are indifpenfibly necefl'ary. The fen.tte and houfe 
 
 Df reprefentatives fhould have equal powers. No law Jhould 
 without the concurrent* ofboih. 
 Are we to fuppofe, then, that the prefulent will join the fe- 
 nate in fancliohthg a kw, fuppofing it even conftiuitional, 
 which he knows to be repugnant to the wilhes of the houfe 
 of reprefct::. :s, ajnd nine-tenths of the people ? Curfed be 
 he who entertains fuch an opinion of him. Such an act would 
 not be an error, it would be a crim?. 
 
 1 be poffibly afked — Should the prefidont 
 
 th' ik himfelf jufiifiable in ratifying the treaty, ought not the 
 v eft contented, and view it as the fuprcme law of the 
 
 Jan ■ ? 1 hefitate not to anfwer, They ought not. 
 
 It will th leir duty to convoke town-meetings, anjl 
 
 petition their immediate reprefentatives in congrefs to n 
 e f that houfe have not been grol ; 
 
 d en ? ^Vhethcr, in certain parts of that tr< it , : : 
 . e not exceeded their conftitutional powers ? 
 For I pcrfe£Hy agree with the learned judge, whom I have 
 fg 1 [ten quptedj in his opinion, page 1 i~ t , iC That the govern- 
 fnent,that is, tbofe organized bodies who are entrufled with 
 government, are bound by the conftitution, but have 
 no p wer in themfelves, to male, alter or a ntroul auy cf its laws" 
 rs to me vevy clear, thai the power granted to 
 the prcfident, by and with the advice and confentof two-thirds 
 of the fenatfc prefent, to make treaties, could never, by the 
 framcrs of the conftitution, have been intended to controul 
 ihcfe important and extenfive rights, entrufted to congrefs at 
 , it) two precedent claufes of that fame conftitution, 
 viz. " The powers of regulating commerce with foreign na- 
 ! "of defining and punilhing piracies," which 
 ire granted in the mod exprefs terms, and not, there- 
 1 yield to mere implication, efpecially when the admif- 
 fiorj of that implication would be contradictory to the genius 
 t f the whole conftitution. 
 
 ,nle to fuppofe, that it was intended to authorize 
 . of the fenate, with the prefident, legally to re- 
 
Ma. Ja\'.-. Treaty. r^t 
 
 gulate the commerce of fuch an extenfive mercantile counts 
 as this, and that theirregulatidn was to be binding 0:1 the pec'- 
 pie, without a poffibility ofconilitutional redfefs, however dis- 
 agreeable it might be to them, to the majority of the fenate, 
 and to the whole houfe oF representatives r And yet thismighi 
 happen, if the power of [flaking treaties embraces arj.1 the ob- 
 jects our prefent treaty makers wilt;. For the po. er is granted 
 to the president, and two-thirds of the fenatprs prejent. As the 
 fenate cpnfifts of only thirty men: I ,is ic is provided by 
 
 the conftitutioh, that a majority of therri Khali form a quorum, 
 it is in the power of fixteen members to conclude a treatv -, 
 and as eleven members make more than tvo-thirds of tb.ofe 
 fixteen, they, with the prefiderit, would Fully be empdwereflj 
 by the cohftitutton, to have formed the pre fen t pending treaty, 
 momentous as it is, in contradiction to the willies, irtforitotlM 
 declared, though in the moll '.erms, of nineteen fac- 
 
 tors, the whole houfe of representatives, and the whole of die 
 people. 
 
 I again afk, is it poffiblc our conftitutien could have intend- 
 ed to clothe any twelve men with Inch immenfc, fuch uncon-» 
 troulable, fuch irrevocable powers ? 
 
 But I hear fome people fay — Should the prcfident ratify thi* 
 treaty, and fhould the houfe of representatives, regard lefs of 
 the petition of the people, permit it to roll; o\\ itsprefent foot- 
 ing, unnoticed by them, what are the people to do in that 
 cafe ? 
 
 It muft be acknowledged, that, in fuch a cafe, we mould be 
 placed, not onlv in a difficult, but a very difmal fituation : It 
 fwould be the crifis for determining, whether the term, 
 tfthe people, was, like the children's rattle, ufed merely to Keep 
 them from murmuring and complaining; or whether, in this 
 land of liberty, it had an abfolute and real exiftenco, calcula- 
 ted for much more important purpofes. 
 
 But it is improper even to fuppofe, what there is fo little 
 probability of ever experiencing; for I again repeat, that the 
 prefulent never will give his fanclion to an irrevocable act, 
 which he has the moit convincing proofs of the great body of 
 his fellow citizens viewing with hatred, horror, and contempt. 
 
 I fhall conclude with calling heaven to witnefs, that no mail 
 more fervently wifhes than I do, to fee the citizens of the 
 United States unanimous in their obedience to the laws of the 
 land, as long as thofe laws are founded on the immutable prill* 
 eipics of jultice, good faith, and national honor. 
 
i 12 
 
 American Appeals. 
 
 K thej I ■ ont cafe of the Brigantine Betfey, \V. K. 
 
 mq/hr, ivi s heard, and determined :n London ^ by the lords 
 twenty-fifth J"'), 179$« 
 
 FROM the (hip's papers and depositions of the captain and 
 crew, produced in evidence on this caufe, it appears that 
 tlic brigantine Bet fey, belonging wholly to mr. George Patter- 
 fon, of Baltimore, cleared out from that port on the nineteenth 
 December, 1793, for the ifland of St. Bartholomew's and a 
 market. That inqueft of a market fhe went directly to Guadaloupe, 
 where (lie arrived on the eighth of January following. Here 
 fhe discharged her cargo of provifions, and took in one; ol Weft- 
 India produce. With this c.irgo fhe was proceeding to Balti- 
 more, when fhe was met, and captured by the piiv tver floop 
 of war, Agenoria, Willis Morgan, commander, and taken in- 
 to Bermuda. 
 
 Her cargo confined of fugar, coffee, and other goods, be- 
 longing, in certain fpecified proportions, to the captain William' 
 Furlong, and to meiirs. George and William Patterfon. 
 
 On the fourth of April, 1794, proceedings on behalf of the 
 captors were commenced. On the twenty-third of April fol- 
 lowing, the veffel Was claimed by captain Furlong, on behalf 
 of mr. George Patterfon, and the cargo on behalf of himfcify 
 a citizen of the United States, and of meflrs. George and 
 William Patterfon, both alfo lawful citizens of the United 
 s, and who had been for many years before refident in 
 Baltimore, in the ftate of Maryland, where their families and 
 houfe* of trade were. Mr. George Patterfon has been alleg- 
 ed to be a native of Ireland — there is fome doubt as to this 
 - it is not contended, however, hut that he was actually a 
 citizen of the United States. It appears thathewentover to Gua- 
 deloupe lor a fpecial purpofe, as the agent of Ids brother, and 
 jk t with the view of refiding there — on the contrary, that he 
 prcpofed returning without delay to Baltimore, as his place of 
 nee. 
 
 On the twenty-firfr. of May, 1794, the caufe was brought on 
 for a hearing, before John Green, efq. judge of the vice ad- 
 miralty court of Bermuda; and on the twenty-third of faid 
 month, the veflel with her " boat, tackle, apparel and furni- 
 ture, and all and fingular her cargo and lading, were adjudged 
 and condemned as lawful prize to the captors by the faid judge: 
 
American Appeals. 133 
 
 &fid the claimant, captain Furlong, ordered and directed to 
 pay the taxed cofls of fuit." 
 
 The true ground of judge Green's decree appears to have 
 been, according to his own words, becnufe " fhe had come im- 
 mediately from a French port, declared by authority to have 
 been blockaded by his Britannic majefty's fleets and armies." 
 It feems the " authority" that "declared" die French iflands 
 in a it ate of blockade, was admiral fir J. Jervis ; and the evi- 
 dence of this act before the court was a copy of a letter from 
 this officer, to Thomas Griffith, efq. of Barbadoes, of which 
 the following is an exa£t tranfcript : 
 
 ft Boyne, in Fort*- Royal Bay, ALirtinico, l2th March t 1794. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 THE feveral French Weft-India i (lands are to be confider- 
 ed as under blockade from the arrival of the armament at 
 Barbadoes, the fixth of January : therefore all neutral veffels, 
 trading with thefe iflands wiihin that period, arc clearly in- 
 tended to come within the king's order in council, dated the 
 fixth November, 1793. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your humble fervant, 
 
 J. J ERVIS." 
 Thomas Griffith, cfq. 
 
 THE veilel and cargo condemned, on the twenty-third of 
 April, were delivered to the captors by order of the judge, at 
 an appraifement of four thoufand fix hundred and ninety-eight 
 pounds, fix (hillings and feven-pence, Bermuda currency ; 
 which is itated to have been far below the actual value of the 
 faid vefTel and cargo. 
 
 An appeal was immediately entered from this fentence, and 
 the claimants prayed the restitution of their property, for the 
 following reafon, afhgned by their counfel, fir William and fit 
 John Scott. 
 
 " Becaufe the fhip and cargo were clearly and indubitably 
 the property of American fubjecls, engaged in a fair and licit 
 trade." 
 
 On the part of the captors, the reafons affigned by theii 
 counfel, mr. Erikine and dr. Nicholle, for fhe affirmance of the 
 
 Vol. III. T 
 
134 American Appeals. 
 
 i<: nt en cc pafled by the jut! ge of the vice-admiralty court, It 
 Bermuda, were as follows : 
 
 «' Ucciuic the proprietors of Chip and cargo nre natural or 
 Britifh fubjfach -, fupplviug the enemy with provisions. 
 
 " Becaufc the vciicl, under a pretended delFmatioYi : 
 neutral port, had gone direct !v to an enemy'-, port, then in a 
 itate of blockade, and was r n;-ning from thence at the time of 
 the capture, with a Cargo the produce of fuch blockaded pert, 
 width ihe had taken in barter for the cargo of provifions fhe 
 liad carried thither. 
 
 u Becaufe the fole owner of the (hip and cargo, was at the 
 time of the capture, an inhabitant of the enemy's territory." 
 
 On Saturdav, the twenty-fifth of July laft, the lords com- 
 miihoners of appeals, heard counfel in behalf of the appellant 
 and refpondent. 
 
 Sir William Scott, on the part of the claimant and appel- 
 lant, Hated, that American (Lips in the time of peace, • 
 the conitant practice of, carrving ilour and provifions to the 
 French Wcil-Jndia iflandfr. It is true, that an order of council 
 was made on the fixthoi November, 1793, and an inltruction 
 an it, directing nil (hips carrying fupplies to, or bringing pvc- 
 duce from the French Weft-India iflands, to be brought in for 
 adjudication. But this order was never considered to extend to 
 a condemnation, and it was revoked, ami another inir.ruc.ticn 
 iflued on the eighth of January, 1794. 
 
 Sir William Scott here referred to the cafes of the Fair La- 
 dy, the Hetty, the Liberty, and the Effex, as tending to eita- 
 blifh the free trade of the Americans to the French Weil-In- 
 dia iflands. 
 
 Lord Mansfield exprefi'cd Ins doubts as to this broad 1 
 tion of fir William Scott. And 
 
 Sir W. "Wynne called the attention of the board, to the pro- 
 clamation made by general Rochambeau, the governor of 
 Martinique, that he ihould, under the circumitances of the 
 iiland, permit the importation of provifions for a limited time, 
 but otherwiic woukl adhere to the French colonial laws. 
 
 Mr. Erlkine, the refpondent's counfed, agreed to argue the 
 <\\(-c on its particular circumitances. 
 
 Sir W. Scott in continuation contended, that as to the 
 blockade, the Britifh arms had not inverted the iiland, in a 
 way to thow their intention to make it the primary object of 
 their attack, at the time of the capture of this veilel. 
 
 Sir John Jcrvi;,'; letter, introduced into the caufe, furniflies 
 10 fuiheirnt fnggeftibn to induce the court to concede the af» 
 ' blockade to be well founded. 
 
Amf.RicAs Appeals. 
 
 As to mr. George Patterfon, the owner of ilrt 1 flup, and 6i 
 ft moiety of the cargo, it is contended that he is a native of Ire- 
 land, and ihe doctrine of inalienable allegiance, as it formerly 
 itood, is fet up as a bar to his claim. 
 
 The independence of the American ftates has done a'way 
 that doctrine, as to all perfons fettled there at the time offuch 
 independence; and the great number of perfons who have emi- 
 grated to America fince the independence, will require a 
 moll ferious confideration before the doctrine will be applied 
 to them. 
 
 Lord prcfident Mansfield afked fir William Scott, if he 
 meant to contend that an Englishman could get rid of his 
 allegiance by going to America more than he could by going 
 to Ruffia, or any other country in Europe ? 
 
 Sir William Scott declined the enquiry, but repeated his 
 afl'ertion that the magnitude of the queltion from the number 
 of perfons gone to America from this country, would require 
 the moft ferious deliberation of this board, before the doctrine 
 alluded to, was enforced to their prejudice. 
 
 The mailer of the rolls obferved, that the queftion would 
 probably require fome underftanding between the two 
 countries. 
 
 Sir William Scott proceeded; he remarked, that as to mr. 
 George Patterfon's birth and refidence* the third witnefs con- 
 tradicts the other two, and fays, lie believes mr. Patterfon was 
 born in America •, fo that the fact is not proved ; and as to his 
 rchdence, he appears to have gone to Guadaloupe on the pre- 
 feilt occafion only, and to have had no refidence there ; and 
 ns to the clearing out for St. Bartholomew, upon which much 
 ilrefs is laid, the fact is, the (hip was cleared out for that 
 ifland, (which is Daniih) and for a market. 
 
 Mr. Erlkine in reply, declared he was more convince 1 than 
 ever that he was founded in alking for confirmation of the fen- 
 tence of condemnation, as it is evident that the urgent want 
 of provitions was the fole inducement to let the drip take back 
 the cargo of (agar and codec, without which fhe could only 
 have taken melafies. 
 
 He contended that the voyage may flrictly be confidered as 
 inafked, the ifland of St. Bartholomew being a kind of empo- 
 rium, and the words " for a market," a mere cover \ and as to 
 the feizure of the cargo by the French, it is evident that the 
 owner was fo well reconciled as to talk of fending a further 
 cargo. He did not alk for condemnation on the letter of fir 
 John Jervisj lie admitted the afl'ertion o\' lir William Scott, as 
 
136 Observations on 
 
 to its want of logical accuracy. Self-prcfervation, however, was 
 eflential, and as much a principle with nations as with indivi«- 
 duals, and the political cxiflence of this country juflified his- 
 expectation of condemnation. 
 
 Martinique was then reduced; and mr. Patterfon muft have 
 known it, and been well a flu red that Guadaloupe was an im- 
 mediate object of the Britilh arms. 
 
 America, he contended, was entitled to no more and nolefs 
 than other nations; and he had no doubt but that if mr. Pat- 
 terfon fhould, on further enquiry (if it mould be thought ne- 
 ceflary to make it) appear to be a Britifh fubject by birth, his 
 property would be liable to condemnation. 
 
 The counfel having clofed their arguments, the lords, viz. 
 the earl of Mansfield, lord prefident of the council ; fir R. P. 
 Arden, knight, mafler of the rolls; fir W. Wynne, knight \ 
 Silvefter Douglas, efq. and Charles Grenville, efq. took the 
 fame into coniideration, and made and declared their decree 
 in the following words : 
 
 " The lords having heard the proofs read, and advocates and 
 pro6tors on both fides, under all the fpecial circumftances of 
 the cafe, by their interlocutory decree, pronounced againft the 
 appeal, affirmed the fentence appealed from, and remitted the 
 caufe." 
 
 (Signed) ARDEN, 
 
 Regifler of his majejlys high court of appeals for prizes .** 
 
 From the above ftatement and decifion, it appears that the 
 profpect of an indemnification by appeal, is delufive. The cir- 
 cumflances attending this capture, are as favourable as any 
 that can be brought before " his ma jelly's high court of ap- 
 peal for prizes." To look for indemnification from this quarter, 
 is nothing more nor let's, than expofing ourfelves to have mi 
 fult added to sutrage. 
 
 At this early period of the bufinefs, we find the operation 
 of the treaty. The property of the American merchant is 
 become the mere fport of the lords of the admiralty. If this 
 is the effect in this inftance even before the complete ratifi- 
 cation of the treaty, what may we not expect when it becomes 
 in full force ? Does this decifion exprefs the temper and feel- 
 ings of the citizens of the United States, which mr. Jay was 
 exprefsly commiffioned to reprefent ? Are thofe captures the 
 amount of claims to be fet off againft the (i legal in 
 
Mk. Jj.w'^ I*REATT. 137 
 
 Stents" of the Britifh? If they are, what balance will bo o-t 
 the fide of the Americans ? Not a JhiUtng — but the amount 
 of millions will become a clear debt againit the United States. 
 Thus, by mr. Jay's treaty, we have fubmitted our claims to 
 the decifion of the lords of the admiralty, who, no doubt, 
 will decide in every cafe as they have in the preceding ; while. 
 the claims of the Britifh are admitted to be fettled by com- 
 miffioners, who, no doubt, will draw an immenfe balance in 
 favor of the Englifh. Who then is to difcharge this debt ? The 
 American citizens. The merchant who has already loft his 
 property mult be further taxed to pay Britifh fubjects. The 
 farmer who lias had nothing to do in contracting it, muft be 
 called on by a land tax. The fact is, we had better have 
 waved our claims for indemnification, and quietly, paffively, 
 and fubmiffively, like good fubjeBs of Britain, have acouiefced 
 in their depredations. By mr. Jay's negotiation, we not only 
 lofe our property by Bermudian piracy, but have brought on 
 ourfclvcs Britifh claims — which were never contemplated by 
 the miniftry, till they found that mr. Jay was difpofed to ad- 
 mit them. 
 
 The infults offered to ibis country, are without parallel. We 
 mult be held in abhorrence by all European nations, and def- 
 pifed for our pufillanimity even by the Britifh themfclves. Our 
 friends in England pity us, and our enemies laugh at us. The 
 former pity us, that we have not maintained our national cha- 
 racter, by thofe weapons of commerce and fequeflrationy which 
 we to fully poffefs, and which would have made Britain more 
 cautious in her conduct towards us. The latter laugh at us„ 
 that: we have fo foon become the dupes of the Britifh nation 
 by negociation. God only knows what will be the event; bur 
 this is certain, that the ftrides of Britain to again poffefs them- 
 felves of this country, are too alarming not to awaken the fears 
 of every patriot. Their connections in America, the refidents 
 already among us, and thofe we may expect: within a few 
 years, it is to be feared will become too ftrong a phalanx to be 
 baffled by the exertions of the honeji yeomanry oi the i 
 States. 1 lie freedom, fovereignty and independence of our 
 country are proitrated to Britain. Not a trai mains, 
 
 and the fourth of July (unlefs prevented by the vigilance of 
 the citizens) will be obliterated as a day of feftival, in Ame- 
 rica. [Baltimore Telegraphe.~\ 
 
I i.;8 ] 
 
 Objcr r c aliens c?i the 'fourteenth article nf 
 ;//;*. Jafs Treaty. 
 
 BY the fourteenth article of the treaty concluded between 
 our government ami that of Great-Britain, the fubjcrU 
 pftke king of Greatr Britain may be brought to America when 
 they arc fucking babies, and remain in the country till they are 
 grey-headed, and (till bcBritifh fubje&s; as it is being born 
 in the king's dominions, which constitutes them Britith fub- 
 jccls, and that they cannot alienate their allegiance, is a point 
 fully eltablifhed in the twenty-firft article of the treaty, where 
 it is agreed, " That if any fubject or citizen of the faid parties 
 refpedlively, fliall accept any com mi (Con, or letters of marque, 
 fur arming any veflel to act as a privateer againft the other 
 party, and be taken by the other party, it is hereby declar- 
 ed to be lawful for the faid party, to treat and punifh the 
 fviid lubjccTt, or citizen, having fuch commiflion, or letters 
 pf marque, as n pirate." By the principle lately eftablilh- 
 ed, thofe who are born in the dominions of the king of 
 Great-Britain, and thofe. bom within the limits of the United 
 States, cannot alienate their allegiance. For if a man born 
 in the United States, may go to France, alienate his alle- 
 giance, become a French citizen, engage in their navy, and be 
 Taken by the Engliih, by what law of nature or nations, doe* 
 our executive pronounce it lawful to treat and pnni/h a French 
 citizen as n pirate ? If it be acknowledged, that the intention of 
 fhe trainers of the treaty, was to prevent the citizens of the 
 United States from entering into the fervice of foreigners*, 
 would it not have been fufneient to have declared them aliens, 
 w, they expatriated thcmfelvcs by their own voluntary aclr But 
 if they are (till to be deemed American citizens, it only remains 
 to enquire by what conjlitutional or legal authority did the au- 
 thors of the, late treaty, prefume to pafs fentence upon, and 
 give up an American citizen to foreigners, to iulter an ignomi- 
 nious death by their hands ; when it is declared, in the leventh 
 article of the amendments to -the federal conflitution, "That 
 r.operfon fliall be held, to anfwer for a capita', or other wife in- 
 famous ci ime, unlefs on a prefentment or indictment of a grand 
 jury, except in rales arifing in the land and naval forces, or in 
 the rriiliiia, wlien in actual fervice, in time of war or publii 
 danger. Nor fliall be compelled in any criminal cafe to be a 
 
 ;j 
 
Mr. Jay's Treaty. 139 
 
 ktncfs again ft hunfelf, nor be derived of life, //.V,-/) 1 arproptttfi 
 without dite procefs oi Amu, &c.'' 
 
 Article eighth; " In ill criminal prtj/l'cittionfi *h* aecufed (hsAi 
 enjoy Che right to a fpeedy and public trial, by an '::;:: . 
 of the /late ami diltrici wherein the crime (hill have been com- 
 mitted, which '.lilh-ioi (hall have been previouliv a/certaincd by 
 law-, and to be informed of the nature and eaui'e or' the accu-. 
 lation i to be confronted with thewitnenea agaihlt him; tn 
 have compulfcry procef, for obtaining witiieiles in his favor*; 
 and to h.ive the atliUance of council for h 
 
 Tlicfe are clear and pointed ttipulations, in favour of the 
 conitituiion.d privileges at every American citizen, of which 
 thev I ir.uot be diverted, even bv .m act of congrefc, who alone 
 have the cxclulive authority to defitit and punijh piracies and/.'. 
 /;.'/.,\r committed on the high leas, and odences againlt the: 
 laws of tuitions .• fee the eighth fedio-n of the firft; article of the 
 Conltitution. 
 
 This being a fair 'date of facts, it only remains to enquire, 
 lurj}, Whether congrefs have ever prefumed to make a lino to 
 Wgtence an American citizen to fuller death as a piratt for at- 
 tempting to alienate his allegiance by entering into the fervicc 
 If another nation, and acling againlt any other foreign na- 
 tion, being enemies ot the nation of winch he became a mem- 
 ber ? Secondly i If congrefs have never made fuch a. are, and 
 it be granted that thole which affect, the life of a citizen, arc 
 the molt important ami foleinn parts of Jcgiilatioil — ean.it be 
 rationally fuppofed, that the fenate and executive of tlie 
 United States, can have a right to lcgiflate, hi this rnoft im- 
 portant cafe, p'aninwmt \Q tiie whole legiilative body? 'T'.vrd/;, 
 Has it ever been conftituted felony, by the !d\> of mtims, for 
 a fabjicl or citizen, to emigrate in time of peace, to another 
 countrv, lwear allegiance to Inch (rate, and become a fu 
 or citizen, provided, the perfon fa emigrating, never acts inU 
 rnicallv agiintt his parent llatc ? fourthly, When tiie dacham 
 of inalienable allegiance, as agreed upon in the late tr 
 ccme. to be fairly eftablilhed, and acted upon, will not many 
 poufands who migrated to the United States from Great-J3ri T 
 tin iaiee our treaty oi peace, who hive been naturalized, and 
 taken the oath of allegiance, be distrar.chifed? Fpr if their fjril 
 allegiance be indifloluble, the lalt of courfe mult be nugatory; 
 as they cannot be bona fid: Hritifh lubjects, and American ci- 
 ij/ens at tlie fame time. So that meffrs. George and William 
 btterfon, of Baltimore, in Maryland, may yet fall into the 
 l.'2ud;- of the incenfed Britons, and be tried, convicled, and e\- 
 
14-0 
 
 Camilixs re; i rati 
 
 ecuted for high trei that they, the faid George and 
 
 'William, beitig both Britifh fubjecrs by birth, and not having 
 the fear of God before their eves, had attempted to alienate 
 ihciraliegiance, by emigrating to Maryland, in the United Slates 
 oF America, ami tl en and there, did telonioufly, with malice. 
 aforethou bet the enemies of their moil gracious 
 
 law ful fovcreign, bv furniihing them with provifions, notwith- 
 standing all the Trench Welt-India iflands were under fen- 
 tence of fhrvation. and were clofely blockaded by a procla- 
 mation of fir John Jtrvis, for more than two months before 
 faid proclamation was i;Tued, and while he was yet a great dif- 
 rance from them ; fo that his majesty's Britifh American fub- 
 jetts, might have timely notice of his gracious intention to- 
 waTds the inhabitants of the French Weft-India iilands, and 
 not involve themfelves in the crime of high treafon, by feeding* 
 thole whom his molt humane and gracious majefty intended 
 to ftarvc. 
 
 A. Z. 
 
 iV. B. The proclamation was iflued on the eighth of March, 
 and the farcical paper blockade, commenced cm the 6th of Ja- 
 nuary preceding. 
 
 From the Argus. 
 
 Camillas refuted by Alexander Hamilton. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 '< TT is true, as fuggefted, that our government has coll- 
 ie ftantly charged as breaches of the treaty by Great-Britain, 
 the two particulars that have been Hated ; but it is believed to 
 be not true, that it has uniformly charged them nsjirjl breach- 
 es of the treaty — individuals may have entertained this idea — 
 ihe ft ate of Virginia feems to have proceeded upon it, in fome 
 public atfts ; but, as far as it is recollected, that ground ivas 
 never formally or explicitly taken by the government of the Utii- 
 ted States, till in the abovetnentioned letter from mr. Jefferfon 
 to mr. Hammond, when for the firft time an attempt was 
 *o vindicate or excufe the wh^le conduct of this coun- 
 
By A. Hamilton. 141 
 
 %ry in regard to the treaty of peace, contrary, I will venture 
 to fay, to the general fenfe of well informed men." 
 
 ALEXANDER HAMILTON. 
 /// Congrefsy Monday, May 26, 1783. 
 On motion of tnr. Hamilton, feconded by tnr Izard. 
 
 "Whereas, by the articles agreed upon on the 30th of No- 
 vember laft, by and between the commiilioners of the Uni- 
 ted States of America for making peace, and commiilioners 
 on the part of his Britannic majefty, it is ftipulated, that his 
 Britannic majefty ihall, with all convenient fpeecf, and with- 
 out caufing any dellruc~lion, or carrying away any negroes, or 
 other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all lis 
 armies, garrifons and fleets, from the faid United States, and 
 from every port, place, and harbour within the fame : — and 
 whereas, a confiderable number of negroes belonging to citizens 
 of thefe dates have been carried off therefrom, contrary to the 
 true intent and meaning of the faid articles : 
 
 Refolved, that the copies of the letters between the com- 
 mander in chief, fir Guy Carletort, and other papers on this 
 fubjec~r, be tranfmitted to the minilters plenipotentiary of 
 thefe dates for negociating peace in Europe ; and that they 
 be directed to remonltrate thereon to the court of Great- 
 Britain, and take proper sneafures for obtaining fuch repara- 
 tion, as the nature of the cafe will admit. 
 
 Ordered, that a copy of the foregoing refolve be tranfmit- 
 ted to the commander in chief ; and that he be directed to 
 continue his remondrances to fir Guy Carleton, refpecting the 
 permitting negroes belonging to the citizens of thefe dates 
 to leave New- York, and to infid on the difcontinuance of 
 that mtafure. 
 
 Remarks on the above. 
 
 If, then, congrefs, as early as May 1783, complained of 
 this infraction, they mud have regarded it as the/r/? breach ; 
 for Great-Britain had not yet had time to hear of what was 
 bafllng in this country on the fubjecl: of the trcsty, much lets 
 
 Vql. HI. V 
 
141 Camillas refuted - 
 
 to complain of any violation on our part. It will be recollec- 
 ted, that the treaty had been received by ccngref* early in 
 the preceding month. 
 
 By this refolve, it alfo appears, that colonel Hamilton 
 thought the treaty binding from the fignature of the provi- 
 fional articles •, but Camillus contends, that it was not fo un- 
 til the exchange of the ratification of the definitive articles 
 which took place more than one year later. 
 
 Nor is this the only inftance in which our government 
 formally ahd explicitly tcck this ground, although one would 
 be ltd to conclude from Camillus, that to mr. Jefierfon alone 
 belonged the credit of discovering it. 
 
 On the i ith April, 1783, congrefs agreed to a proclama- 
 tion, declaring a ceiiation of hoflilities ; and only four days 
 alter, 
 
 Refolvcd, that the commander in chief be inftruQed to 
 make the proper arrangements with the commander in chief 
 of the Britifh forces, for receiving pofTeflion of the pods in 
 the United States occupied by the troops of his Britannic 
 majelty, and for obtaining the delivery of all negroes and other 
 property of the inhabitants of the United States in pofftffion of tlie 
 J ritifhforceSi or any fubjeEl oj\ or adherent to his f aid Britannie 
 tnaje • 
 
 Again, on the yth Auguft, 1 78c*, congrefs refolvcd, that 
 the iceretarv for foreign affairs caufe to be made out icparate 
 lilts of the numbers, names, and owners of the negroes be- 
 longing to the citizens of each ibte, and carried away by the 
 Bruiih, in contravention of the treaty, and that he tranfmit the 
 laid lifts to the executives of the ltates to which they refpec- 
 tively belong. 
 
 Will not Camillus have the candour, after thefe concurring 
 proofs, to retract fo much of his affercion as is oppofed to them ? 
 Such conduct is the only amends he can make for the mifap- 
 prehenfion he has excited on a fubje£t which may ftill prove 
 of great importance to America, the negociations between 
 •her and Great-Britain not being yet finifhed. 
 
 The above relolves, and particularly the firft, prove un- 
 ecuivocally, that col. H. cannot be the author oi Camillus, 
 an imputation which his enemies are indefatigable in fixing 
 on hi m — No man who knows that gentleman can believe, 
 that he fhoiild fo foon forget an adt of which he himfelf was 
 the mover, and to which, as a public character, lie muft fre- 
 quently have recurred. This is not the only inftance in which 
 the opponents of the treaty have attempted to afperfc his 
 character. PH1LO-C1NNA. 
 
( »43 ) 
 ADDRESS 
 
 Of the Citizens of Charlefioivn to the Preftdctit. 
 
 To GEQRGE WASHINGTON, 
 
 P reft dent of the United-States. 
 
 Commowcalth of MafTachufetts. 
 Charlejhivn (near BoftonJ July 22, 1795. 
 Sir, 
 
 THE treaty now pending between the United States of 
 America and Great-Britain, having much engaged the 
 Attention of this part of the country j the inhabitants of this 
 to n have been led legally to convene in their corporate ca- 
 pacity, agreeable to the conftitution of the commonwealth, 
 for the purpofe of taking the fame into consideration — and 
 have 
 
 Voted, That this town do difapprovc of the treaty now 
 pcnling between the United States, and Great-Britain, as it 
 has been read. 
 
 Voted, That this town do difapprove of the treaty as modi- 
 fied by the fenate of the United States. 
 
 Voted, That the Selectmen be requefted to tranfmit the 
 doings of this meeting to the prefident of the United States. 
 
 In compliance with the laft mentioned vote, we have the 
 honor to tranfmit faid votes, and to fubihit them to your con- 
 sideration ; fully ] rfuaded, that every fentiment of your 
 heart, with every action of your life, are directed toward the 
 bublic good. Wc arc, J 
 
 With the profoundeft efleem and refp?c~i:, &c. ^ 
 
 Signed by the rjipectable the fele&men of Charlcftown. "' 
 
 m 
 
 PRESIDENT'S ANSWER. 
 
 To Richard Devens, David Gordivin, Jofeph Adams, RicMfdl 
 Frrthinghkm\ John Carter , and Eliphalet Neve//, Se/eflfoeH 
 of Char/tfloivn. 
 
 Gfntlemen, 
 
 I Received your letter of the 22d of July, containing the 
 votes of the inhabitants of the town of Charleftown, who 
 were convened to take into confideration the treaty pending 
 between the United States and Great-Britain. 
 
 My aflent to the treaty, as advifed and confented to by bhe 
 
t44 PRGCEEDINS OF THE &Ci 
 
 fenate, and the principles which governed my determination^ 
 are now publicly known. In this, as in every other exercife of 
 the powers committed to me by the conftitution, I have aimed 
 to promote the public good, and to merit thofe fentimentg 
 of perfonal confidence which are exprefled in your commu- 
 nication. 
 
 With due refpect, 
 
 I am, gentlemen, your obedient, 
 
 G. WASHINGTON. 
 United States, Avgujl 31ft, 1795. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 Of the Citizens of Frederic Conniy, Virginia* 
 
 At a numerous and refpettable meeting of the citizens of 
 Frederic county, held agreeably to notice given in the public 
 papers, at the court-houfe of faid county, on Tuefday, the 
 1 ft of December, 1795. 
 
 General Daniel Morgan being appointed chairman, and 
 having taken his feat, th« citizens preicnt, with one diflenting 
 voice only, after mature deliberation* and hearing the fubjeel: 
 fully difcuffed ; came to the following refolutions, to wit: 
 
 1 ft. Refolved, that the conduct of the prefident of the: 
 United States, in ratifying, agreeably to the advice of twefc- 
 thirds of the fenate 01 the United States, the treaty of amity, 
 commerce, and navigation, between the United States of 
 America and Great-Britain, negociated by John Jay, efq. is 
 entitled to, and meets with, the entire approbation of this 
 meeting. 
 
 2d. Refolved, that Daniel Morgan, Charles Minn Thrnjlon, 
 Robert White, jun. Charles Magill and Jofeph Caldwell, be 
 appointed a CQmmittee, for the purpofe of tranfmitting to the 
 prefident the fentiments and proceedings of this meeting. 
 (Signed.) 
 
 Daniel Morgan, Chairman* 
 
 
[No. XL} 
 THE 
 
 American Remembrancer ; 
 
 O R, 
 
 AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION 
 
 O F 
 
 ESSAYS, RESOLVES, 
 SPEECHES, Qfe 
 
 RELATIVE, OR HAVING AFFINITY, TO THE 
 
 TREATY with GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRINTED BY HENRY TUCKNISS, 
 FOR MATHEW CAREY, NO. Il8, MARKET-STREET, 
 
 DECEMBER 28, 1795- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 ATTIC US, No. VIII. - - 147 
 
 No. IX. - - - 150 
 
 Camillus, No. XXVI. - - - 153 
 
 No. XXVII. - - - - 162 
 
 No. XXVIII. - - -170 
 
 No. XXIX. - - - 1 So 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10. No. XXXIII. - - - 211 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^ ; 
 
 ■No. XXX. - - - 188 
 
 -No. XXXI. --. - 1 95 
 
 -Afo. XXXII. - - 204 
 
American Remembrancer, &c. 
 
 ATTICU S— No. VIII. 
 
 [continued from page 72.] 
 
 To the Freemen of lie United States. 
 
 Fellow Citizens, 
 
 IT was my intention when I began thefe letters, to confider 
 the treaty in all its relations ; but as the merchants and 
 traders of Philadelphia, and the chambers of commerce of New- 
 York and Bofton have held up the idea of unimportance to our 
 commerce, have deemed it a thing unworthy the attention of 
 any other people than merchants, and not worth the rifk of 
 difpleafing Great Britain, I will not differ with them, more 
 efpccially as the prefident has given them an exclufive privilege 
 to think on this fubjtct ; but I will proceed to examine the 
 conflitutional and political features of this monfler of '• hcrrid 
 mien, that to be hated needs but to be feen." Not being in the ha- 
 bit of weighing my rights and my happinefs in a gold f coles, I 
 can the more readily difmifs the commercial conlideratic:> 
 the treaty ; and as a few merchants and traders have infolently 
 and prefumptuoufly monopolized the right to judge of things 
 relating to commerce, they certainly will not deny others the 
 exclufive privilege of deciding upon the conflitutional and po- 
 litical parts, of which they fecm to be wholly ignorant. This 
 is a quid pro quo, and has more reciprocity in it than the wiftit 
 and moft profound of the addrefiers can point out in the treaty. 
 The unconititutional origin of the treaty, has been already 
 fhown in the "letters cf Franklin," to which I lake the liberty 
 to refer you, my fellow citizens, while I proceed to fhow the 
 unconstitutionality of the inftrument itfelf. The treaty lias 
 eftabliflied a rule of naturalization, within the precincts or ju- 
 rildiction of the wefterh polls, by which Britilh fubjects can 
 become American citizens within any term of one year. The 
 conftitution exprefsly declares, that cpngrefs fhali have power 
 '* to eflablifh an uniform rule of naturalization, throughout the 
 United States." Here then the prefident and fenate have not 
 only ufurped the power of congrefs, to eftablifli a rule of natu- 
 ralization, but they have been guilty of a two-fold breach of the 
 conftitution, by making that rule not " uniform*' During the 
 laft feffion of the federal legiflature, an uniform law of natural- 
 
148 Atticus — No. VIII. 
 
 ization war, pafled, by which a five years refidencc is made ne^ 
 ceflary to obtain citizenfhip; but this law has been fuperfeded 
 by treaty ; am! a Britifh fubjeck may become an American citi- 
 zen in one iveek alter the furrendcr of the pofts ! The molt def- 
 perate " Antifderalift" could not have aimed a more deadly blow 
 at the conftitution than the tre.uy has done; and if rendering 
 the conftitution a nofe *f wax, can be called diforgamzation, Ja~ 
 cobinifm, or anarchy, the prefident and fenate are the greateft 
 diforganizers, the moft furious Jacobins, and moll violent 
 anarchifts, in the- United States. If a compact, which ought 
 to be held facred, and which ought to be conftrued and exe- 
 cuted ftriclly, can be interpreted to mean any thing that floats 
 in the mind, or flutters in the heart of the prefidenr, the fecu- 
 rity which we promifed ourfelves is at an end, and we are lite- 
 rally in the fituation of our new allies. Great Britain; we have 
 a conftitution in the clouds. 
 
 The coriilitution declares, that " Congrcfs fhall have power to 
 difpofe of, and make all needful rules and regulations ref peeling the 
 territory or ether property belonging to the United States, or of any 
 particular fate." By the treaty, the prefident and fenate, in- 
 ltead of " congrcfs," have made rules and regulations refpedling 
 the territory of the United States, and have prejudiced their 
 claims, as well as the claims of individual llates. The 2d arti- 
 cle of the treaty guarantees to " all fettlers and traders, within 
 the precincts or jurifdiclion of the pofs, all their property of every 
 kind." Part of this property belongs to the United States, and 
 parr to individual fates ; and, notwithftanding, the prefident and 
 fenate have made rules and regulations refpecling it. The con- 
 ftitution is folemnly prohibitory upon every department of the 
 government, with refpect to the claims of the United States, 
 or of individual Hates, when it declares, that" nothing in this 
 conftitution fall be fo confrued as to prejudice any claims of the 
 United States, or of any particular fate " and in defiance of this 
 folemn prohibition, this article was formed and ratified ! The 
 treaty of peace ftipulatcd, that the pofts fhould be furrendered 
 ■with all convenient lpeed ; and from the date of the ratification 
 of that treaty, all real property, not actually held by Britifh 
 fubjects there, became veiled in the United States, and of in- 
 dividual ftates ; now, as a confiderable part of the territory 
 Comprehended in the precincts or jurifdiclion of the pofts was 
 taken poiTeffion of by the Britifh fubjecls fnce the treaty of 
 peace, no department in the government could guarantee fuch 
 poiTeffion ; as the claims of the United States, and of individu- 
 al ftates, became prejudiced thereby. Admitting a right to make 
 
Attic us — No. VIII. 149 
 
 rules and regulations refpe£ling the territory of the United 
 Stares, that right appertains exclufively to congrefs. 
 
 The conftitution declares that n congrefs fhall have power to 
 regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the feveral 
 flates, and •with the Indian tribes." By the 3d article of the 
 treaty this power is affumed by the prefident and fenate; for it 
 declares, that " no duty of entry fhall ever be levied by either 
 party on peltries brought by land or inland navigation into the 
 faid territories refpcctively, nor /ha// the Indians, pajfing or te- 
 pafftng -with their own proper goods and effects, of whatever nature, 
 pay for the fame any impofl or duty whatever." The power of 
 congrefs to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, is thus 
 deftroyed by a fingle coup of the preiidential and fenatorial 
 hands. 
 
 By the conftitution " the judical power of the United States 
 fhall be veiled in one fupreme court, and in fuch inferior courts 
 as the congrefs may from time to time ordain and eftablifh." By 
 the 6th article of the treaty, a judicial power is given to five 
 commiffioners, two of which are to be appointed by Great Bri- 
 tain, and iV the award of the faid commiffioners is to be final and 
 conclufive, both as to the juflice of the claim, and the amount of the 
 fuin to be paid to the creditor, or claimant." Here is a judicial 
 power given by the prefident and fenate to five commiffioners, 
 two of whom arc to be fifreigners t and a third may alfo be a fo- 
 reigner ; and thefe commiffioners are to have a final decifion. 
 upon the property of the people of the United States. To con- 
 grefs alone is given the eftablifhment of a judicial power; but 
 even congrefs would hardly adventure fo to profane the confti- 
 tution, as to eftablifh a mongrel tribunal of foreigners and citi- 
 zens. The prefulent and fenate t in the name of the United 
 States, undertake " to canfe the fum awarded by the commiifi- 
 oners to be paid in fpecie to fuch creditor or claimant without 
 deduction, and at fuch time or times, and at fuch place or 
 places as fhall be awarded by the faid commiffioners." The 
 conftitution declares, that " all bills for raiftng revenue fhall ori- 
 ginate in the houfe of reprefentatives," and that " no money fhall 
 be drawn from the treafury, but in confeauence of appropriations 
 made by law." The fituation in which the prefident and fenate 
 have placed the United btates by this article, give them the 
 power of raifing revenue, and of making appropriations of mo- 
 ney according to their whim; for as a treaty is a folemn ftipu- 
 lation between Rati m and nation, every infraction of tint 
 treaty is a ground cf war. If then the houfe of reprefentatives 
 refufes to originate a revenue to carry this ftipulation m the 
 treatv, into effect, it may be confidcred as an infraction of the 
 Vol. III. Y 
 
150 Atticus — No. IX. 
 
 fca^v, and 1 war may be the confluence. Was the conftitu- 
 t n uide when he formed fuch an article? 
 
 D J lie neao by it to brow-beat the houfe of reprefentatives into 
 1 . fures ? Did he flatter himfelf that the freemen 
 
 1 America would confent to any thing, to a proftitution of 
 th< ir constitution, to a dereliction of every thing valuable to 
 tli> oi, rather than unlheath the fword againft his "great, good, 
 and . 13-jt the commiilioners are to fix the time 
 
 ., ami the place where, the monies awarded are to be paid. 
 Do not the prelident and fenate undertake to raife a revenue, 
 when they agree to pay the award of the com.niffioners at the 
 time they fhall agree upon ? Is this leaving the raifing of reve- 
 nue to congrefs, as pointed out by the conftitution ? The pre fi- 
 dent and fenate have agreed to appropriate the monies of the 
 United States without any law but their own will ! ! 
 
 Fellow citizens, thefe are not imaginary things, conjured up 
 bv a diltempered or difcontented mind — they are plain facets, 
 which are comprehenfible to every capacity, and merit the fe- 
 rious attention of every man who feels an intereft in the wel- 
 fare of his country. If the prefident can torture the conftituti- 
 on into a juftifkation of fuch conduct, it lives but in name, it 
 is an ideal exigence, which can be fafhioned according to the 
 whim or caprice of the man who adminifters it. Such a mock- 
 ery of republicanifm muit roufe the indignation of every un- 
 corrupt citizen, and animate him to an endeavour to fix his 
 rights upon a more certain and permanent bafis. If a fubmif- 
 iion can be had to fuch a ftate of things as the prefident has 
 o'.ited, at this moment, when our conftitution has fcarcely 
 rifen from its cradle, we may bid adieu to liberty, and the 
 philofopher and the patriot may bemoan the degraded ftate of 
 human nature, that has fuffered the faireil profpects of happi- 
 nefs to be overfhadowed by a pretended man of the people. 
 
 ATTICUS. 
 
 Auguft 28, 1795. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 A MISTAKE has happened in the vocabulary of our 
 country, and inltead of Jaccbinifmy Jacobitifm has reared. 
 its ln.iky creft among us. PaJJive-obedience and non-refijlance arc 
 now the order of the day, and he who will not fubienbe to the 
 divine attributes of the prefident is excommunicated, and the 
 
Atticus — No. IX. 151 
 
 dire interdict of Anarchift, Antifederalifr. and Traitor is ful- 
 minated againft him with all the fury which characterized the 
 Vatican of Hildebrand. But if fuch appellations are bellowed, 
 and with fuch liberality, on the friends of the confb'tution, on 
 thofe who wifh its chaftity preferved, and with a vefHI nurity 
 fecured from the rude attacks of the ravilher-, by what charac- 
 ters fhall we dcfignate thofe, who with unfeeling heart mike 
 their barbarous afi'aults, as if liberty's goddefs had fumed har- 
 lot ? Can language be too ftrong, or acumen too poignant to 
 defcribe or to punilh the incendiaries oi virtue ? 
 
 1 he Knights of the funding fyfem, the Jartizaries of govern - 
 went, the Jacobites and their Pretlnder, are in alarm — they 
 have founded the toefin, and have pronounced 1 woe iipbri 
 thofe who do not fall down and worfnip the golden image 
 which Nebuchadnezzar has fet up. Pompey's entrance into tne 
 fanchim fantlorum did not excite more horror and difmay in 
 the Ifraelites, than lifting the mafk from the prefident, and 1 !- 
 playing his natural vifage, have rr.ifed in the noble orders of oiu 
 country. To touch the hem of the garment of this fabled h 
 prieft of liberty would beget diftrefs in fuch interefted bi\ ois ; 
 but to llrip him of his pontifical robes, and (how him un wor- 
 thy of them, would be in their eftimatfon, to drefs na; i r e in 
 mourning, and extinguifh the lamp of liberty f r ever. When 
 men have purpofes to anfwer, nothing can h 00 .ihfurd "or 
 them to pratfife ; and hence the Egyptian pr eft, to fa* >t his 
 own views, had conferred divinity upon an ox. it is! igh ' • e 
 that a fuperftitious veneration for a num. a-nl a I o\ 
 
 fhould be exiled from the manfion of liberty. Ir is high • me 
 the temple of freedom fhould no longer be >r raned bv I 
 trous worfhip, and be ufurped by ufut* , 1 
 
 jobbers, and (peculators. When men are fubttitutec for pritic ■'« 
 pies, liberty is as much outraged, as rirhen the Deity is u 
 planted by a prieft. No longer the dupe of the art fi e < 
 has been pra£f.ifed but too fuccefs folly upon the honed a 
 fufpec'ting American, he has at length (hakeu oil" the 
 of confidence that made him (lumber over his wrong 
 now carries his crimination to the fource of all his evil 
 his difgraces. There is jultice in this, there is mai 
 he who (brinks from fuch a talk, or feels terror at its perfoi 
 is unworthy the name oi freeman. What ! .Shall th c t 
 of Hamilton deter freemen from fpeaking their fei tir : 
 the crv of " treafon P" 1^ the Jacobite language of 
 dent's new ally already legitimifed among us, that it ha I 
 treafon to pubhlh our fentiments? Alas! what irtl 
 
 nerve among the Jacobites, when a yihijjfett is deputed to ao 
 
1^2 Atticus— No. IX. 
 
 the duty of a fturdy maftiff ! Let fuch animals bark, my fellow 
 citizens, while we proceed to the confideration of the uncon- 
 flitutionality of the treaty, and trace in it the real " traitors" 
 of our country. 
 
 The 8th article of the treaty is a further interference with 
 the conftitutional power of Congrefs to raife money, and make 
 appropriations; for it declares, that " the commiihoncrs fhall 
 be relpectively paid in fuch manner as fhall be agreed upon between 
 the parties ; and all ether expenfes attending the /aid eowmfjiotif 
 Jha/I be defrayed jointly by the two parties, the fame being previ- 
 oujly afcertained and allowed by a majority of the commiffi oners. ". 
 Who are " the parties" in this cafe? The king of Great Britain, 
 the prefident and the fenate. Who agree to pay the expenfes 
 of this commiffion ? The king and the prefident and the fenate. 
 Do not the prefident and fenate pledge themfelves by this arti- 
 cle to raife and appropriate money to fatisfy the expenfes of the 
 commiflion? Does the constitution recognize a right in them to 
 make monied contracts? From whence did they derive this pre- 
 rogative ? Did they receive a new commiflion of powers from 
 the pr eft dent's new ally ? If the prefident and fenate can con- 
 tract debts for one dollar , they can do it for a million, the right is 
 the fame in extent thai it is in degree; and by treaty they 
 may mortgage the United States. Is this prefidential and fena- 
 toriai contract the conflitutional mode of " raifing and appropri- 
 ating money according to law?" The conduct of the prefident in 
 this cafe, in point of ufui nation, is not unlike that he purfued in 
 1776, when he was only the officer of congrefs, in raifing men 
 and increafing their pay without any authority from that power 
 under whom he acted, and from whom he held his commiffion. 
 The necejjjty of this cafe cannot be pleaded in extenuation of a 
 breach of a folemn contract. 
 
 In the amendments to the conflitution we find the following 
 article : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the con- 
 futation, nor prohibited by it to the fates, are referred to the Jlates 
 refpeElively, or to the people." The 9th article of the treaty con- 
 tains the following extraordinary ftipulation ; " It is agreed 
 that Britifh fubjects who now hold lands in the territories of 
 the United States, and American citizens who now hold land* 
 in the dominions of his majefty, fhall continue to hold them 
 according to the nature and tenure of their refpective eftates 
 and titles therein: and may grant, fell and devife the fame to 
 whom they pleafe, in like manner as if they were natives; and 
 that neither they nor their heirs or affigns fhall, as far as may 
 refpect the faid lands, and the legal remedies incident thereto, 
 be regarded as aliens," By what part of the conftitutionhave the 
 
Camillus— No. XXVI. 153 
 
 prefident and fenate the power of regulating the tenure of 
 real eftates ? We look in vain for fuch a grant in the conltitu- 
 tion, even to congrefs itfelf ; this right then, not being delegated 
 to the United States, nor " prohibited" by the conftitut: ' 
 the dates, is " referved to the jlates rejpeclive/y, or to the p ' 
 
 Shall the prefident dare to invade the chartered righ 
 ftates ? Shall he not only expunge the letter and I f 
 
 the conititution, but (hall he add to it fuch parr> 1- 
 
 incidence with his arbitrary views ? Shall the c ->e 
 
 converted into wax by him, ready to receive the ira fa 
 
 Ciejhr or a Cromiuell? 
 
 This article has a reciprocity in ivords ; but let n what 
 
 number of American citizens hold real property • IJii- 
 
 tannic majefty's dominions? Can figures calculate , number 
 of acres which Briti/h fubjecls hold in the United Stat* \ r Li ;ir 
 patents fwarm over our country like the lecufts of ^gyp'» a d 
 in a little time not a fhrub or a plant wili be feeu in n-^jbhc- 
 anifm or morals that lhall have efenped their ravages. 
 
 Fellow citizens, when we confider thefe things, on whom 
 does the charge of ingratitude reft ? On the people w'>o have 
 idolized the prefident, and have advanced him to the greased 
 honors and the utmoft powers which can be communicated by 
 freemen, or on the prefident, who has abandoned the people, 
 and has confidered the voice and the interelt of a faction, inltead 
 of the voice and the interelt of his country ? 
 
 ATTICUS. 
 
 [TO BE CONTINUED.] 
 
 Defence of Mr. Jay's Treaty. 
 
 [CONTINUED FROM PAGE 63.] 
 
 No. XXVI. 
 
 THE Britifti trade to their pofTeffions in their Eaft Indies, 
 as well as to China, is a monopoly veiled by the legif- 
 lature in a company of merchants. No other perfons in Great 
 Britain, nor in any of her dominions or colonies, can fend a 
 
1 54 „ Camillus — No. XXVI. 
 
 veflel to, or profecute trade independent of the company, with 
 any part of Afia. The right to trade with their pofleflions in 
 India is not onlv refufed to all Britifh fubje£ts, the India com- 
 pany excepted, but is one, that Great Britain has never before 
 yielded by treaty to any foreign nation. By the terms of the 
 charter to the India company, among a variety of limitations, 
 they are reflrained and confined to a direct trade between Afia 
 and the port of London ; they are prohibited from bringing 
 any of the productions of India or China directly to any part 
 of America, as well to the Britifh colonies as to our territories ; 
 and moreover they are retrained from carrying any of the pro- 
 ductions of Afia, directly to any part of Europe, or to any 
 port in Great Britain, Scotland, or Ireland, except the fingle 
 port of London. 
 
 The 13th article ftipulates, that our veflels (hall be admitted 
 in all the fea ports and harbours of the Britifh territories in the 
 Eafl Indies, and that our citizens may freely carry on a trade 
 between faid territories and the United States, in all fuch arti- 
 cles, of which the importation or exportation fhall not be en- 
 tirely prohibited ; provided only, that when Great Britain is at 
 war, we may not export from their territories in India, without 
 the permiffion of their local government there, military (lores, 
 naval (lores, or rice. Our veflels fhall pay in this trade, the 
 fame tonnage duty as is paid by Britifh veflels in our ports ; and 
 our cargoes on their importation and exportation fhall pay no 
 other or higher charges or duties than fhall be payable on the 
 fame articles when imported or exported in Britifh bottoms; 
 but it is agreed that this trade fhall be direct between the United 
 States and the faid territories ; that the article fhall not be deem- 
 ed to allow the veflels of the United States to carry on any 
 part of the coafting trade of the Britifh territories in India, nor 
 to allow our citizens to fettle or refide within the faid territo- 
 ries, or to go into the interior parts thereof, without the per- 
 milTion of the Britifli local government there. 
 
 The Britifh trade to their territories in the Eaft Indies is car- 
 ried on by a corporation, who have a monopoly againft the great 
 body of Britifh merchants. Our trade to the fame territories 
 will be open to the (kill and enterprize of every American citi- 
 zen. The Britifli trade to thefe territories is direct, but confined 
 to the port of London ; our trade to the fame muft likewife be 
 direct, but may be carried on from and to all our principal 
 ports. 
 
 The article gives us a right in common with the India com- 
 pany to carry to thefe territories, and to purchafe and bring 
 from thence, all articles which may be carried to or purchafed 
 
Camillus — No. XXVI. 155 
 
 and brought from the fame, in Britifh veffels : our cargoes 
 paying native duties, and our (hips the fame alien tonnage as 
 Britifh fhips pay in our ports. Th;s trade is equally open to both 
 nations; except when Great Britain is engaged in war, when 
 the confent of the Britifh local government is required in order 
 to enable us to export naval itores, military fibres, and rice ; a 
 limitation of fmall confequence : none of the articles except 
 nitre being likely to form any part of our return cargoes. 
 Though this article is one agaiuft which the objection of a want 
 of reciprocity (fo often, and fo uncandidly urged againfl other 
 parts of the treaty) has not been preferred, it has not however 
 efcaped cenfure. 
 
 It is faid that we are already in the enjoyment of a lefs re- 
 trained commerce with the Britifh territories in India, and 
 that the treaty will alter it for the worfe : in as much as we 
 thereby incapacitate ourfelves to carry on any part of the coaft- 
 ing trade of the Britifh territories in India, and as we relinquilh 
 the profitable freights to be made between Bombay and Canton, 
 and likewife thofe fometimes obtained from the Englilh territo- 
 ries in Bengal to Oitend. 
 
 It would feem a fufficient anfwer to fay, that this trade has 
 heretofore exifted by the mere indulgence of thofe who per- 
 mitted it, that it was liable to variations, that a total exclufion, 
 efpecially had it been of us in common with other foreign na- 
 tions, could have afforded no juft ground of complaint : That 
 the relaxation which has hitherto given us admilhon to the 
 Britifh India territories, was not a permanent, but a mere tem- 
 porary and occafional regulation, liable to alteration, and by no 
 means to be demanded as the bafis of an intercourfe to be ad- 
 jufted by compact, with a foreign nation, which would no long- 
 er leave the power of alteration in either of the parties. 
 
 But in refpedl to the firit objection, the article amounts to 
 this, that the rights which it does grant, fhall not by implica- 
 tion be conftrued to give a right to carry on any part of the 
 Britifh coafting trade in India. 
 
 If we have before lhared in this trade by permiffion, nothing 
 in the article will preclude us from enjoying the fame in future. 
 If we did not participate in it, nothing in the article impairs 
 either the authority of the Britifh local government to permit 
 our participation or our capacity to profit by fuch permiffion — 
 1 is objection, therefore, falls to the ground, fince the coafting 
 trade i 1 nains as it was before the treaty was formed. * 
 
 * rhc terms ufed clearly denote this and nothing more; they are — " It is 
 alfo un Titood that the perrr.'jfion granted by this at '.id* is not to extend to alleiv." 
 This does not negative any urc-CJUiting indulgence, but merely provides that the 
 
156 Camillus — No. XXVI. 
 
 Further, according to my information — It is not the trade 
 between the Eaft Indies and China, as has been erroneoufly 
 fuppofed by fome perfons, but the exportation of rice and other 
 articles, which are exchanged between the Britifh territories 
 ifl the hither and further Indies, that is denominated the coaft- 
 ing trade of the Britifh territories in India. The importance 
 of this trade is not well underftood ; nor am I able to fay whe- 
 ther we have heretofore been allowed to carry it on. If we 
 have, the little that we have heard of it, leads to an opinion 
 that it is not an object of much confequence. Let it, however, 
 be granted that hereafter we fhall not be allowed to engage in 
 it. Shall we have more reafon to complain of this exclufion, 
 than we have that we are refufed a fhare in the coafting trade 
 of the European dominions of Great Britain ? or that we are 
 excluded from the coafting trade between their iilands in the 
 Welt Indies ? Or than the Britifh themfelves have, that by our 
 prohibiting tonnage duty (being fifty cents per ton on entry of 
 a foreign vefTel, when our own coafting veffels pay only fix 
 cents per ton, for a year's licenfe) they are excluded from fharing 
 in our coafting trade ; a branch of bufinefs that already em- 
 ploys a large proportion of our whole navigation, and is daily 
 increafing. 
 
 In refpett to the fecond and third objections, it may be re- 
 marked, that fo far as the trade has been heretofore enjoyed, 
 it has been in confequence of an exception from, and relaxati- 
 on in, the fyftem by which the European commerce has been 
 regulated *, that having depended on the mere occafional per- 
 miffion of the local government, we may fafely infer (though 
 it may have been fuppofed incompatible with the difcretionary 
 powers, vefted in that government, to confer by treaty a pofi- 
 tive right to carry on the trade in queftion) that fo long, 
 and as often as the inteveft that has heretofore induced the grant 
 of this permiflion fhall continue or exift, the permiffion will be 
 continued or renewed. The ftipulation, reftraining the trade, 
 may, if the parties fee fit, be difpenfed with, and the trade 
 may be enlarged, or made free : — It being a contract only be- 
 tween them and us, the parties are freo to remodify it ; and 
 without a formal alteration, if thofe in whofe favor the reftraint 
 is made, confent to remove it, the other party is releafed from 
 the obligation to obferve it.* 
 
 main grant mall not convert the revocable Indulgence, if any there was in this par- 
 ticular, into an irrevocable right by treaty. 
 
 * This has hecn affected to be qucftiohed on accost of what is called the 
 r>< remptorinefs of tbc expreffiotis (to wit) " It is exbrefdy agreed that the veffels 
 «f the United States Jkall not carry, fcrV," But there is no real room for the 
 
Camillus— No. XXVI. 157 
 
 Again — Surat, which is in the neighbonrhood of Bombay, 
 is the emporium of the Guzeat, and of the northern portion 
 of the Malabar coaft ; the cottons (hipped from Bombay to 
 Canton, are frequently firft fent from Surat to Bombay. Surat 
 belongs to the native powers to which we have free accefs. If 
 the tranfportation of cotton ami fome few other commodities 
 from the coaft of Malabar to Canton is an important branch 
 of our commerce, what will prevent our proiecuting it from 
 Surat or any other free port in the hither Indies ? 
 
 That it may be undertaken from the ports of the native pow- 
 ers is rendered probable, by the circumftance, that thefe freights 
 are fupplied principally or alone by the native or black mer- 
 chants, whofe refidence would naturally be in the ports under 
 native jurifdiclioti more frequently than in thofe under the ju- 
 rifdittion of any of the foreign powers. 
 
 But is it not true (and will not candour admit it) that the 
 trade to the Afiatic dominions of the European powers lias ufu- 
 ally been confined to the nation to whom fuch territories be- 
 long ? In our treaty with Holland, have we not even ftipulated 
 to refpett their monopoly of this trade ? And by our treaty 
 with France, a nation whofe liberal policy is faid to have laid 
 us under eternal obligations of gratitude, have we acquired the 
 flighted: pretentions, much left a right, to refort to, or trade 
 with any part of their Afiatic territories ? 
 
 A late decree of the convention which opened to us the ports 
 in their Weft Indies, LikewHe laid open their remaining terri- 
 tories in Afia — But this meafure proceeding from the necefft- 
 ties of the war and their inability to (tarry on their foreign 
 commerce, will change hereafter, as heretofore it has done, 
 with the eftabliihment of peace — Did this opinion require to 
 be ftrengthened, it is abundantly confirmed by the navigation 
 ac"t, decreed by the convention : The operation whereof is fui- 
 pended for the fame reafon that induced tlie opening to foreign- 
 ers that trade to their colonics and territories in the Weft and 
 Eaft Indies. 
 
 The Britiih for more than a hundred years excluded foreign- 
 ers from a (hare in their Eaft India trade ; for a few years pari 
 Vol. III. Z 
 
 •queflion — In 3 contract between two parties, whether individuals or nation', 
 where a reftraint is impofed upon one for the benefit <>f another, it is always an 
 implied condition of the reftrain: that it ftir.ll continue, unlefs di/ferfed teiti hy the 
 party for whole hen-slit it is impofed — Thus :he Britifh government in India may 
 remove the reftraint, by continuing the indulgence in this refpect heretofore 
 granted — And it feems to me clear that the laws which the United Stares are 
 to pafs, for enforcing the prohibition, may, with good faith, be ija.'.liried with 
 this provifion, u unleft by pcfpiijftoit »/ tic Britfi government m h liii" 
 
i j 8 Ca MILL u s — No. XXVI. 
 
 they relaxed in the rigour of this fyftem. We have availed 
 ourfelves of this ciricumftanee, and fhared with them in their 
 India commerce. But this permiffion can be viewed only as an 
 occaiional departure from a general law; which may be arrett- 
 ed by a change of circumftances, the duration of which, there- 
 fore, is uncertain. The lofs and inconvenience to which our 
 merchants may be expofed from the profecution of a trade, 
 depending on regulations arifing fcom inconftant circumftances, 
 and which frequently vary, may, in fome meafure, be guard- 
 ed againft, where the fcene is not remote, and the alterations 
 in the laws can be known foon after they are made. But in 
 the Afiatic and our other diftant commerce, it is of importance 
 that the laws under which an adventure is begun, fhould be 
 permanent. Loills to a considerable amount have been expe- 
 nd bv fome of our merchants, who have undertaken dif- 
 tant voyages in the expectation of the continuation of thefe 
 temporary regulation's. The trade, for example, to the Cape 
 of Good Hope (Which the Dutch government ordinarily mo- 
 nopolize to their own people) was fome time fince opened to 
 foreigners, and fome of our citizens profited by it ; bur others, 
 who had engaged in large adventures to that market, fuffered 
 no fmall difappointment and lofs in finding themfelves excluded, 
 upon their arrival by a repeal of the permiffion to foreigners to 
 trade there. It mult then be considered as an important objecl: 
 fecured, in refpecl to the principal proportion of our India 
 trade, that alone which is capable of being purfued as a branch 
 of our commerce, that the treaty turns a favor into a right, 
 and that our direct intercourfe with the Britifli territories in the 
 Eaft Indies, in all refpects as broad as that of Great Britain 
 herfelf (except in the articles of rice, naval and military ftores, 
 when Great Britain is engaged in war) inftead of being an un- 
 certain and hazardous trade, as heretofore, from its precarious 
 nature, it has been, will, hereafter, be as certain as any in 
 which our merchants lhall engage. 
 
 It is further alleged, by way of objection to this article, that 
 it does not fectire to our citizens a right to refide and fettle in 
 the BriiiMi territories in India, without the confent of the Bri- 
 tifli local government. The obfervation that has been made on 
 a fimilar objection, in reipect to the coafting trade in India, is 
 equally applicable to this. The article leaves fubjecls nrecifely 
 in the (kuation in which it found them. But let it be remem- 
 bered that the difproportion between the numbers of the native 
 Indians and the foreigners inhabiting their country, is more 
 than one thoufand of the former to one of the latter — that the 
 moft exact; discipline and fubordination among the foreigners 
 
Ca MILL us — No. XXVI. I59 
 
 are therefore efiential to the preservation of the Britifii authori- 
 ty over that country — that no foreigner, or even a Britifii fub- 
 ject, is allowed to refide there, except in the character of a 
 fervant of the company, or of a lice n fed inhabitant — that it has 
 Jong been held as a found opinion, that unreftrained liberty to 
 the Europeans to emigrate to, and fettle among the Indians, 
 would, in a fhort time, overturn and dellroy the Biiiifii empire 
 in India — This danger would by no means be diminiflied by 
 conferring a right upon the Americans, freely to refide and let- 
 tie in India — that we fliall be allowed to refide and fettle there 
 by permifiion of the local Britifii government, is fairly to be 
 inferred from the article. But an abfolute right to an entire 
 liberty on thefe points, might evidently be dangerous to the 
 Britifii government over India — and in prudence could not I 
 been ftipulated. 
 
 The advantageous footing on which the trade is placed, is 
 fo evident, that thofe who had no reliance on the objections 
 urged againft it, but who, neverthelefs, have been unwilling tq 
 allow the treaty any merit on the fcore of this article, have en- 
 deavoured to fliow that our India trade is of little importance^ 
 and of fmall value. 
 
 Whatever article can be fupplied by the India company, may 
 likewife be fupplied by us, and fome of them on better terms 
 by us, than by them : The reports of the committee of the 
 rectors of the Eafh India company, published in 1793, 
 their charter was renewed, afford ufeful information on this. 
 fubject, and difclofe facts which ihow the advant iges thai 
 fliall pofiefs in this trade over the company. They admit, that 
 in the articles of iron, wines, canvas, co'dage, arms, and n f- 
 val and military ftores, foreigners can enter into a beneficial 
 competition with them, and that canvas and cordage, and wo 
 may add, all naval (tores and feveral other articles, can al« 
 be furniihed in India by foreigners, ehe ■ by the com- 
 
 pany. 
 
 If we appreciate the advantage we have over thorn, in fuch 
 articles of fuppiy as are of our own growth or production, as 
 well as in the wines not unufually procured by touching at Ma- 
 deira on the outward voyage to India, and compare it with the 
 advantage that they have over us 111 the few articles, oi choice, 
 which they purchafe at the (hit hand;,, and which we oiuft im- 
 port in order to re-export to India, it is probable that our car- 
 goes to India, will, on the whole, be laid in as advantageoufly, 
 if not more fo, than thofe of the India company. If we con- 
 lid, r the valf. extent of territory, the numer >us population* 
 and the cllabliflied manufacture fuppqfing 
 
16& Camillus — No. XXVI. 
 
 that a free trade to that country will be pf little value to a 
 young and enterprifing nation, whole manufactures are flill in 
 their infancy, we ought rather to conclude that it is a. country 
 with which we fhould be folicitousto eftab'ifh a free trade and 
 intercourfe. 
 
 Every one who has beftowM tiie flighted attention upon the 
 foreign manufactures confumed in our country, muft have ob- 
 ferved the general and increafing u(e of thofe of India, owing 
 to the better terms on which they can be procured from Aha 
 than from Europe. Though no document is at hand that will 
 Ihow the value of the annual importations from India, it is 
 ftated by Mr. Coxe, in his View of the United States, that 
 the amount in value of our importations from AGa is more 
 than one fifth of the value of our whole annual confumption 
 of foreign commodities. It is true that the porcelain, filks, 
 nankeens, and teas of China, form a large portion of this an- 
 nual importation. But, after a full deduction on this account, 
 a great and profitable branch of our commerce will be found 
 in our trade to the Eaft-Indies. It fhould be remembered, alfo, 
 that it is not the confumption of our own country that regulates 
 the quantity of India goods that we import j other countries 
 have been fupplied through us with the fabrics and productions 
 of both India and China. The treaty will enlarge this demand.* 
 Several circumftances calculated to give our trade with Afia, 
 an advantage again ft foreign competition, and a preference to 
 our trade with Europe, are deferving of attention. 
 
 Firlt. The dire£t trade between us and Afia, including the 
 Eaft Indies as well as China, cannot be profecuted by the Bri- 
 tifh Eaft India company, their fhips being obliged to return to 
 the port of London* and there to difcharge. 
 
 Second. The difference between the duties on Afiatic goods 
 imported in American bottoms direct from Afia, and the duties 
 impoied on the fame goods in foreign bottoms from Afia or 
 from Europe ; being on all articles a favorable difcrimination, 
 and in the articles of teas, the duties on thole imported in fo- 
 reign bottoms being fifty per cent, higher than on thofe import- 
 ed in American bottoms. 
 
 The particular difference of duties on Afiaticgoods import- 
 ed in American and in foreign bottoms, fo favorable to our own 
 navigation, will not be affected by the right referved by Great 
 Britain to impole countervailing duties in certain cafes; that 
 
 • Perhaps from the certainty of the rights which it confers, it may invite a 
 foreign capital tocxtenfive enterprizes, in which (he linked States will be an tn- 
 ircpot between India and a great prt of Eur 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXVI. 161 
 
 right being relative to the intercourfe between the United States 
 and the Britifh territories in Europe. 
 
 Third. The European intercourfe with Afia is, in mod cafes, 
 conducted by corporation or exclufive companies — and all expe- 
 rience has proved that in every fpecies of bufinefs (that of bank- 
 ing and a few analagous employments excepted) in conducting 
 of which, a competition fhall exiit between individuals and cor- 
 porations, the fuperior economy, enterprize, zeal, and perfe- 
 verance of the former, will make them an overmatch for the 
 latter; and that while individuals acquire riches, corporations, 
 engaged in the fame bufinefs, often fink their capital and become 
 bankrupt. The Britifh Eaft India company are more overbur- 
 dened with various terms and conditions, which they are re- 
 quired to obferve in their Afiatic trade, and which operate as 
 fo many advantages in favor of their rivals in the fupply of fo- 
 reign markets. The company, for example, are obliged annu- 
 ally to inveft a large capital in the purchafe of Britifh manufac- 
 tures to be exported and fold by them in India ; the lofs on 
 thefe investments is confiderable every year, as few of the ma- 
 nufactures which they are obliged to purchafe, will fell in India 
 for their coft and charges — Befides, from the policy of protect- 
 ing the home manufactures, the company are, in a great mea- 
 fure, fhut out from fupplying India goods for the home con- 
 fumption of Great Britain. Moll of the goods which they im- 
 port from India, are re-exported with additional charges, incur- 
 red by the regulations of the company, to foreign markets, in 
 fupplying of which we fhall be their rivals, as from the infor- 
 mation of intelligent merchants, it is a fact that Afiatic goods, 
 including the teas of China, are on average, cheaper within 
 the United States than in Great Britain. 
 
 Fourth. The manufactures of Afia are not only cheaper 
 here than in Europe, but in general they are cheaper than goods 
 of equal quality of European manufacture — So long as from 
 the cheapnefs of fubnftence and the immenfe population of In- 
 dia (the inhabitants of the Britifh territories only being eftimated 
 at forty millions) the labour of a manufacturer can be procured 
 from two to three pence fterling per day, the fimilar manufac- 
 tures of Europe, aided with all their ingenious machinery, is 
 likely, on a fair competition, in almolt every inftance, to be ex- 
 cluded by thofe of India. So apprehenlive have the Britifh go- 
 vernment been of endangering their home manufactures by the 
 permifhon of Aiiatic goods to be confumed in Great Britain, 
 that they have impofed eighteen per cent, duties on the grofs 
 fales of all India muflins, which is equal to twenty-two per 
 cent, on their prime colt: The duties on coarfer India goods 
 
162 Ca mill us— No. XXVII. 
 
 are (till higher, and a long catalogue of Afiatic articles, includ- 
 ing all Stained and printed goods, is prohibited from being con- 
 sumed in Great Britain. 
 
 The Britifh manufacturers were not Satisfied even with this 
 prohibitory SyStem — And on the late renewal of the company's 
 charter, they urged the total exclufion from Britifh confump- 
 tion of all India goods, and moreover propofed that the com- 
 pany fhould be held to import annually from India a large 
 amount of raw materials, and particularly cotton, for the fup- 
 ply of the Britifh manufacturers. 
 
 Thofc facts are noticed to (how the advantages to be derived 
 from a free accefs to the India market, from whence we may 
 obtain thofe goods which would be cxtenfively confumed even 
 j;i the firft manufacturing nations of Europe, did not the Se- 
 curity of their manufactories require their exclufion.* 
 
 CAMILLUS, 
 
 No. XXVII. 
 
 r ■""'HE third article contains the terms and conditions of the 
 JL trade and intercourfe that it authorifes between us and 
 the Britifh colonies on the American continent. The twelfth 
 article was intended to adjuit the trade between us and the Bri- 
 tifh iflands in the Weft Indies. The thirteenth article Secures 
 to us a direct trade with the Britifli territories in the Eaft In- 
 dies ; and it is the office of the fourteenth and the fifteenth ar- 
 ticles, toafcertain and eitablifh the terms of the intercourfe and 
 trade between the territories of the United States and the Bri- 
 tifh dominions in Europe. 
 
 The fourteenth article eftablifhes a perfect and reciprocal li- 
 berty of commerce and navigation between the territories of 
 the United States and of the Britifh dominions in Europe; fti- 
 pulates that the people and inhabitants of the two countries re- 
 spectively, namely, of the United States, and of the Britifh 
 dominions in Europe, Sliall have liberty to come with their 
 Ships and cargoes to the ports, cities, and places of each other, 
 within the territories and dominions aforefaid, to re fort and re- 
 
 • Oreat Britain has made it a ferioii9 point, in which fhe has in more than 
 one inftancc fucceeded, to engage foreign powers (the emperor was one) to re- 
 nounce cftabliflimenxB lor carrying on the trade with India, from their own 
 territories: yet thi* treaty opens all her territories to us. And yet i: is n< I 
 ly daiied merit, but criminated, in this Very particular. 
 
Camillus— No. XXVII. ^3 
 
 ilde there, without limitation of time, to hire houfes and (lores 
 for the purpofe of commerce; and that the merchants and tra- 
 der.' on each fide {hall enjoy, for their commerce, the fulled 
 protection and fecurity, fubject, notwithstanding, in refpect to 
 the flipulations of this article, to the laws of the two nations 
 refpedtively. 
 
 As this article, in the cuftomary language, employed in the 
 introductory articles of commercial treaties, fpeaks of a per- 
 fect liberty of commerce and navigation, without excepting 
 any commodity, or fpecifying any import: or duty, it was poih- 
 ble that a latitude or freedom of trade, inconfifter.t with the 
 revenue laws, and policy of the two nations, might have been 
 claimed under it ; hence the propriety of the pro vi (ion with 
 which the article concludes, and which referves to the parties 
 refpectively, the power of avoiding this inconvenience, by con- 
 tinuing and enacting fuch laws as may be proper for the pur- 
 pofe. 
 
 But as under this power again, partial duties, and even par- 
 tial cxclufions, might have been eflablifhed, whereby (hips and 
 merchandizes, as well as the articles of the growth, produce, 
 or manufacture of one of the parties, might have been made 
 liable to higher duties and imports in the territories of the 
 other, than the ihips and fimilar merchandizes, and articles of 
 the growth, produce, or manufacture of other nations; or 
 whereby one of the. parties might prohibit the importation or 
 exportation, by the other, of any article to and from his terri- 
 •tories, the importation or exportation whereof was at the fame 
 time free to fome other nation : In order to prevent fuch ine- 
 qualities, and to fecurc effectually to the parties, a right to car- 
 ry on their trade with each other on terms equally advantage- 
 ous and extenfive, with thofe eitabliihed by either, with any 
 other nation : The fifteenth article Itipulates — 
 
 1. That no other or higher duty (hall be exacted or paid, 
 en the (hips and merchandizes, nor on the articles of the 
 growth, produce, or manufacture of one of the parties, on their 
 entry or importation into the territories of the other, than (hall 
 be payable on the like (hips, and merchandizes, and on (imilar 
 articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other 
 nation. 
 
 2. That no article, the importation or exportation of which 
 by' either party, to or from the territories of the other, is pro- 
 hibited, (hall be imported or exported to or from the lame by 
 any other foreign nation ; and that every article allowed to be 
 imported or exported to or from the territories ot either party, 
 
164 Cam ill us — No. XXVII. 
 
 by any foreign nation, may be imported or exported to or from 
 the fame, by the parties refpeclively. 
 
 By thefe Itipulations it is agreed, that the people and inha 
 bitauts of the United States and of the Britifh dominions in 
 Europe, fhall have the right to carry on trade between the faid 
 territories in all articles and commodities in which any other 
 foreign nation may trade with either of the parties ; that the 
 impoft or duties on any article in the courfe ot'fuch trade, fhall 
 be no other or higher than the lowelt impoils or duties paid by 
 any other foreign nation on the like article ; that both parties 
 fhall remain free, totally to prohibit the importation or export 
 ation, to or from their refpeclive territories, of any fpecies o 
 goods or merchandize, or to increafe the exifting duties, or to 
 impofe new ones on the importation of any fpecies of goods or 
 merchandizes, into their refpeftive territories ; fuch prohibit! 
 ons and duties operating equally againfl all foreign nations. So 
 far as refpects the interchange of commodities between the par- 
 ties, thefe itipulations breathe the fpirit of reciprocity : the re- 
 fulue of the fifteenth article principally relates to the navigati- 
 on which the parties fhall employ in this trade. 
 
 The firft claufe of the :5th article, in the fpirit of thofe 
 treaties which mutually confer the right of the mod favored na- 
 tions, ftipulates that no other or higher duties fhall be paid b 
 the fhips of the one party in the ports of the other, than fuel 
 as are paid by the like vefTels of all other nations. 
 
 By our laws, a difference exifts between the tonnage dut 
 paid by an American veflel, and that paid by a foreign veflel in 
 our ports — the American veflel pays only fix cents per ton on 
 her entry — the foreign veflel, on her entry, pays fifty cents pe 
 ton, and about twenty per cent, more duties on all teas import 
 ed from Europe, and ten per cent, more duties on the importa« 
 tion.of other goods, than are payable on the importation of th 
 fame goods, in an American veflel. 
 
 By the Britifh laws, the differences between the duties pai 
 by Britifh and foreign veffels in the Britifh ports in Europe, 
 lefs than that which exifts in our ports : — the confequence 
 that a Britifh veflel, of a given burden, pays confiderably m 
 tonnage duties in the trade between our territories and the B 
 tifh ports in Europe, than is paid by an American veflel of t 
 fame burden, engaged in the fame trade. 
 
 The trade being laid open to both parties, the principle oj 
 equalization of duties was very naturally deemed an equitabfl 
 bafis of treaty. This could be effected by lowering -the Amfl 
 xican alien dutiqsto the Britifh ftandard, or by raifing thofe 0) 
 Great Britain to the American ftandard. The former migl 
 
 'o' 
 
 
Ca mill us— No. XXVII. t6j 
 
 have been inconvenient to our revenue, efpecially fince", if it 
 Was not general, it would have formed, in refpect to foreign 
 nations, an unpleafant difcrimination in our laws. 
 
 The American tonnage duty, therefore, was left to operate; 
 and by the 15th article is is agreed, that the Britifh govern- 
 ment (hall referve a right to raife the tonnage duty on our vefl 
 entering their ports in Europe, fo as to make it equal to the 
 tonnage duty payable by their veffels entering our ports : And 
 in order to balance the difference of duties on goods imported 
 into our ports by American or by Britilh veffels, the effect 
 whereof is the fame as that which proceeds from an alien ton- 
 nage duty, the article further agrees, that the Britifh govern- 
 ment fhall referve a right to impofe fuch duty as may be ade- 
 quate to effect this end. The preceding claufe of this article 
 fiipulates, that the veffels and cargoes of each ihall pay no high- 
 er, or other duties, than thole impofed on the like veffels and 
 cargoes of all other nations 5 it was, therefore, neceffary to re- 
 ferve a right to increafe againft us, their alien tonnage duty, 
 and to impofe the countervailing duty in queftion j as, without 
 fuch reservation, the fame could not have been done, unlcfs by 
 laws equally operating againit all other nations — which would 
 have been unjult in reference to fuch of them as might not, 
 like us, have difcriminated in their duties between their own 
 and foreign veffels. 
 
 Two methods have been fuggefted, by which this counter* 
 vailing power might be executed. 
 
 One by impofing a pro rata duty on the importation of goods 
 into the Britilh ports in Europe by American veffels, equal to 
 the difference between the duties payable in our ports on the 
 importation of goods by American or Britifh veffels. 
 
 The other, by impofing the identical duty on the exportation 
 of goods from the Britilh ports in Europe, by American veffels, 
 which forms the difference between the duties payable on the"" 
 importation of the lame goods into our ports by American or 
 Britilh veffels. 
 
 As the articles imported by our veffels into the Britifh porta 
 in Europe, are diilinuiar from thofe imported from the fame 
 into our ports, one rule of difference Would not effect the equal- 
 ization fought for; and as our difference of duties is not the 
 fame on all articles, being higher on fome than on others — and 
 as, moreover, the quantities and amount of different articles 
 differ widely, and are liable to continual proportional variations, 
 no uniform average rule of countervailing thefe differences can 
 be devifed ; the correct execution, therefore, of this power, in 
 Vol. III. A a 
 
1 66 Ca m i l L u s— No. XXVII. 
 
 the method firft fuggefted, is impracticable, and, it is prefumed, 
 muft be difcarded. 
 
 The power, then, it would feem, can only be equitably ex- 
 ercifed by impofmgon the articles which we fliall export in A- 
 merican veffels from the Britifli ports in Europe, a duty iden- 
 tically the fame as that which conftitirtes, in any cafe, the dif- 
 ference of dutv, payable in our ports, on the fame articles im- 
 ported from the Britiih ports in Europe, by a Britilli or Ame- 
 rican veffel. Thus they may impofe on tea and other Afiatic 
 goods, as well as on the European goods, which we fhal! x- 
 port from the Britifli ports in Europe, the identical duty or the 
 fame fum which conftitutes the difference of duties payable in 
 our ports on the importation from thence of the fame artices 
 by an American or a Britifli veffel. 
 
 The right to countervail our alien tonnage duty by impofing 
 an alien tonnage duty on our veffels entering the Britiih ports 
 in Europe, equal to that which lhall be payable on their veffels 
 entering our ports, will continue fo long as the commercial 
 treaty fhall endure, and will apply to any future increafe of 
 the tonnage duty on foreign veffels that we may eftablifh ; it 
 is however ftipulated in the conclufion of the fifteenth article, 
 that we fhzll abftain from increafing the tonnage duty on Bri- 
 "tiih veffels, and alio from increafing the difference that now 
 exifts between the duties payable on the importation of any ar- 
 ticles into our ports in Britiih or in American veffels, until the 
 expiration of two years after the termination of the war be- 
 tween France and Great Britain. But we are free to increafe 
 the one cr the other, after the expiration of that period ; and 
 though the Britifli government will have a right to countervail, 
 by additional tonnage duties, on our veffels, any increafe of 
 that duty on their veffels •, yet they will have no right to coun- 
 tervail any increafe of the difference between the duties payable 
 on the importation of any articles into our ports, in Britifli or 
 in American veffels, unlefs by a duty common to all foreign 
 nations ; the right referved on this fubjecf, being confined to 
 the difference that noiv exifts, will not reach fuch future in- 
 creafe.* 
 
 From this analyfis of the 14th and 15th articles, we are the 
 better enabled to perceive the truth of the following propofi- 
 tions. 
 
 • How rAl'ctilou-, thin, rhc argument, if the bafis of it were othcrwifc true, 
 that the treaty, by tying up the government from iotnre discrimination, has 
 proflrated our navigation b( fore Great Britain ? can a reftraint which is only to 
 operate the fhort term of two years after the termination of the prelent war, 
 Jiavt the mighty eff.ct of facriiking our navigation ? 
 
Camillus— No. XXVII. z6~ 
 
 I. As, for the purpofe of encouraging or protecting the agri- 
 culture and manufactures of Great Britain, feveral of our pro- 
 ductions, in common with fimilar productions of the other na- 
 tions, are prohibited from being imported into the Britifh 
 ports in Europe ; we are free, whenever our intereft fhall re- 
 quire it, alfo to exclude any of the productions of the Britifh 
 dominions from being imported into our ports, extending fuch 
 exclusions, as they do, to the like manufactures and producti- 
 ons of foreign nations. 
 
 Should that part of the twelfth article, which has not been 
 ratified, in its modification retain the Stipulation relative to the 
 importation of coffee, fugar, and the other productions of the 
 Welt Indies, it would constitute an exception to this propofiti- 
 on. But as the Well: India productions are difiimilar to thofe 
 of our own country, they would not fa!! within the reafon of 
 thefe prohibitions, and, therefore, the exception would be of 
 no confequence. 
 
 2. As, for the like reafons, fome of our productions are 
 fubject, in common with the like productions of other nations, 
 to high, or prohibitory duties in the Britifii ports in Europe, 
 we are free, likewife, to impofe fimilar duties on any of the 
 productions or manufactures of the Britifii dominions, extend- 
 ing fuch duties, as they do, to the like productions and manu- 
 factures of other foreign nations. 
 
 3. As the navigation act of Great Britain, in order to ex- 
 tend their own fhipping, has heretofore confined the importati- 
 on of foreign productions into the Britifh ports, to Britifii Ships, 
 and to the Ships of the country producing the Same ; the 15th 
 article appears to contain an important innovation- on this ce- 
 lebrated act ; inafmuch as, by the molt obvious construction of 
 the terms, it gives us a right to import from our own territo- 
 ries into the British ports in Europe every article and defcripti- 
 on of goods and merchandizes, which any nation in their own 
 Ships is allowed to import — In coniequence whereof, while all 
 other foreign nations are prohibited and restrained from import- 
 ing in their own veffels into Great Britain any goods or mer- 
 chandizes, except thofe of their own particular growth, pro- 
 duce, or manufacture, wc, by the treaty, have a right to carry 
 from our ports to the British ports in Europe, not only goods 
 and merchandizes of our own growth, produce, or manufac- 
 ture, but alfo all fuch goods and merchandizes, the growth, 
 produce, or manufacture of any foreign nation, as a nation 
 producing or manufacturing the fame, would import in their 
 velTels into Great Britain. 
 
J 6*8 Ca mill us— No. XXVII. 
 
 4. Should it ever be politic to exclude all foreign veffels. 
 from importing, or exporting, any fpecies of goods, wares, or 
 merchandizes, by confining their importation or exportation 
 to our own veffds ; we are perfectly free to do fo j with the 
 exception, relative to the Weft India productions, referred to 
 under the firft proposition ; thus, for example, we may prohi- 
 bit the importation of all Afiatic goods, except in American 
 bottoms. 
 
 That thefe articles of the treaty leave our navigation and 
 commerce as free, and fecure to us as extenfive advantages as 
 have before been procured by our commercial treaties with fo- 
 reign nations, will be feen by the following comparifon : 
 
 1 . By the articles before us, the parties reftrain themfelves 
 from impofing any other or higher duties on the veflels and 
 cargoes of each other, than they impofe on the vefTels and car- 
 goes of all other nations \ and alfo from impofing a prohibiti- 
 on of the importation or exportation of any article to or from 
 the territories of each other, which fhall not extend to all other 
 nations. By the third and fourth articles of our treaty with 
 France, and by the 2d and 3d articles of our treaty with Pruf- 
 fia, it is ftipulated, that the fubjecls and citizens of the re- 
 fpeftive parties, fhall pay, in the ports, havens, and places of 
 each other, no other or greater duties or imports, of whatfoe- 
 ver nature they may be, than thofe which the nations moft fa- 
 vored fhall be obliged to pay : and moreover, that they fhall 
 enjoy all the rights, liberties, privileges, and exemptions in 
 trade, navigation and commerce, which the faid nations do, 
 or fhall enjoy : and by the 2d article of the former, and the 
 26th article of the latter treaty, the parties agree mutually, 
 not to grant any particular favor, in refpedl: to navigation or 
 commerce, which fhall not immediately become common to 
 the other party, who fhall enjoy the fame favor, if freely grant- 
 ed, or on allowing the fame compenfation, if the conceffion 
 was conditional. 
 
 The Stipulations in the three treaties are, on thefe points, 
 equivalent. 
 
 The 2d and 3d articles of our treaty with Holland, and the 
 3d and 4th of our treaty with Sweden, likevvife contain mutu- 
 al ftipulations, that the fubjecls and citizens of the feveral par- 
 ties fhall pay in the ports, havens, and places of their refpecl- 
 jve countries, no other or higher duties or impofts than thofe 
 which the nations moft favored fhall pay j and that they fhall 
 enjoy all the rights, liberties, privileges, and exemptions in 
 trade and navigation, which the faid nations fhall enjoy. 
 
Camillus— No. XXVII. 169 
 
 2. The articles before us, after ftipulating that there (hall 
 be between our territories and the Britith dominions in Europe, 
 a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce, declare, that the 
 fame (hall be fubjeet always to the laws of the refpettive coun- 
 tries. The introductory articles of our treaties with France, 
 Holland, and Sweden, after aflerting the intentions of the par- 
 ties to take equality and reciprocity as their bafis, likewife leave 
 each party at liberty to form fuch regulations reflecting com- 
 merce and navigation as it (hall find convenient to itfelf — and 
 the 2d and 3d articles of our treaty with Pruflia, after ftipulat- 
 ing the rights of the parties, refpecting the duties and imports, 
 and the freedom of their navigation and trade, likewife require 
 their fubmiflion to the laws and ufages eftablifhed in the two 
 countries. 
 
 3. The articles before us, in their provifions relative to na- 
 vigation, ftipulate, as has been already obferved, in common 
 with our other treaties, that the (hips of the parties (hall not 
 be fubjecr. to higher or other duties, than thole paid by all o- 
 ther nations. They go farther, and agree to vary this rule, fo 
 far as (hall be neceffary to equalize the tonnage duty impofed 
 by the parties on the ihips of each other. Our treaty with 
 France is the only one in which we difcover a fimilar ftipulati- 
 on. — France had a high alien tonnage duty on all foreign vef- 
 fels tranfporting the merchandize of France from one port to 
 another port in her dominions. We had a lefs alien tonnage 
 duty on foreign fhips employed in a fimilar trade : though not 
 equally extenlive ; the cafe is parallel to that which exifts be- 
 tween us and Great Britain. We have a high alien tonnage 
 duty on all foreign vefTels entering our ports ; Great Britain 
 has a lefs alien tonnage duty on foreign vefTels entering her 
 ports. In our treaty with France we referve a right to coun- 
 tervail the alien tonnage duty impofed by France; and in like 
 manner, in our treaty with Great Britain, fhe referves a right 
 to countervail the alien tonnage duty impofed by us. The ob- 
 ject, in both inftances, has been to place the navigation of the 
 parties on the footing of exact equality. 
 
 The preceding expofition of thefe articles, illuftrated by the 
 comparison of their provifions, with the analagous articles of 
 our other treaties, would be fuilicient to vindicate them againft 
 the objections to which they have been expofed. — It is, howe- 
 ver, thought advifeable to take notice of fuch of thefe objecti- 
 ons as are likely to have any influence on the public opinion — 
 This will be done in a iubfequen? number. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
t «7° ] 
 
 No. xxvnr. 
 
 AN extraordinary conftru&ion of the laft claufe of the 
 fourteenth article has been ailumed by the writer of Ca- 
 to *, bit miftake in this inftancei'has been the foundation of ma- 
 ny of the errors with which that performance abounds. The 
 article (lipulates that there fhall be a perfect and reciprocal li- 
 berty of navigation and commerce between our territories and 
 thofe of Great Britain in Europe, fubject a/ways to the laws 
 and ftatutes of the two countries, refpectively. This naviga- 
 tion and commerce, fays Cato, muft be fubje£t to, and defined 
 and regulated by the laws and ftatutes of the two countries, 
 which exifted at the time of making the treaty, all future laws, 
 that either party might be difpofed to make, relative to the 
 fame, being excluded. 
 
 The reafon affxgned, in fupport of this interpretation, is, 
 that the article would be nugatory, did not the laws and fta- 
 tutes alluded to, mean only thofe in existence at the making 
 of the treaty ; fince future Jaws might impair or deftroy what 
 the article confers. 
 
 Nothing in the expreffions themfelves requires this inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 The cuftomary and eftablifhed meaning of them in other 
 treaties would lead to a rejection of it. — The object of the 
 claufe is not the limitation of the legislative power of the par- 
 ties, but the fubjection of their mutual navigation and com- 
 merce to their refpeelive laws. — This end is molt fully attain- 
 ed by underftanding the parties to mean their future as well as 
 their cxiftiug laws. Befides, the interpretation muft be fuch 
 as will not deftroy the ufe and meaning of other parts of the 
 treaty. If this conftruction is juft, fome of the molt import- 
 ant itipulations of the fifteenth article would really become 
 ufelefs. For inftance, if the laws, exifting at the time of making 
 t. treaty, are alone to prevail, the articles of commerce, ad- 
 mitted or excluded by thofe laws, muft remain entitled to ad- 
 miffion or liable to e.xclufion. Why then fay in the fifteenth 
 article " that no prohibition fhall be impofed on the exportati- 
 on or importation of any articles to or from the territories of 
 the parties refpectively, which thall not extend to all other na- 
 tions." If a prohibition, applying to all foreign nations, may 
 be impofed (as the claufe allows) this would be a new or fub- 
 fequent law, varying the law exilting at the time of making 
 the treaty, and confequently defeating the conftruction in ques- 
 tion. 
 
Ca MILL us—No. XXVIII. i 7 i 
 
 The reafon adduced by Cato to fupport his confiruetion is 
 equally defective with his interpretation irfelf. The fourteenth 
 article is in general terms, and fimilar, as has been fhown, to 
 the introductory articles of other treaties ; fo far from the laft 
 claufe thereof being capable of deltroying the preceding ftipu- 
 lations ; it is the peculiar province of the next article to afcer- 
 tain the points which the parties mutually agree to except from 
 their legillative power. In all cafes not thus excepted, the na- 
 vigation and commerce of the parties is fubject to their exifting 
 or future laws. 
 
 It is not neceflary to remark en the feveral objections which 
 have proceeded from the opinion that the treaty retrains us from 
 impofing prohibitory duties and exclufions : they are but fubdi- 
 vifions of the error that has been juft cornbarted. 
 
 Another objection which has been Itated by feveral writers, 
 and much laboured by Cato, is, that under the right referved 
 to the Britifh government to countervail an alien tonnage duty, 
 by the impofition of an equivalent one on our veilels entering 
 their ports, they would gain and we fhould lofe. 
 
 Several methods are adopted to prove this opinion. The ob- 
 fervation that we have a tonnage duty on our own veflels, and 
 that Great Britain has none, is repeated by way of objection 
 againfk this as well as againft the propofed adjuftment contain- 
 ed in the 12th article. The fame reply already given might 
 be fufficient in this place. 
 
 But is it true that Britifh fliips entering their own ports in 
 Europe are wholly free from a tonnage duty ? the contrary is 
 the fact ; fince it is underitood, that they pay a tonnage duty for 
 the fupport of light houfes, and fome other inltitutions, con- 
 nected with their navigation, which, in all their ports, exceeds 
 the tonnage duty of fix cents per ton, that we levy on the en- 
 try of our own veflels employed in foreign trade. But Great 
 Britain (it is alleged) will not only impofe in virtue of this re- 
 ferved right, fifty cents per ton on our veflels entering her 
 ports, but in every port except that of London, fhe will further- 
 more exact one (hilling and nine pence fterling, or thirty nine 
 cents per ton, for light money and Trinity-dues more than is 
 paid by her own veflels •, this, added to the difference before 
 itated, would have, it is faid, a very difcotiraging effect upon 
 our navigation. Our tonnage duty is a tax not divided and 
 appropriated, like the light money, or Trinity-dues, in Great 
 Britain, to fpecific, and particular objects — but when levied, 
 goes into the treafury with the duty of import, and ftands ap- 
 propriated to the various objects to which that duty is appropri- 
 ated — among thofe objects is the fupport of light-houfes — it is 
 
172 Ca MILL us — No. XXVIII 
 
 not the object to which the tax is applied that gives a denomi- 
 nation ; whether it goes to fupport the civil lift, or to pay an- 
 nuities, or to maintain light houfes, or to fupport hofpitals, 
 it is equally a tonnage duty. A tonnage duty then of a cer- 
 tain amount, is now paid by American veffels entering the 
 ports of Great Britain. This duty is not uniform, being lefs 
 in London than in the other ports, and, in fome inftances, 
 lefs than the tonnage duty paid by Britifh fhips entering our 
 ports — The object of this claufe (8th of the 15th article) is to 
 equalize the alien tonnage duties of the parties. Hence the 
 refervation of a right to the Britifh government, to impofe on 
 our veffels entering their ports in Europe, a tonnage duty 
 equal to that which fhall be payable by Britifh veffels in our 
 ports. It would be againft the manifeft views of the parties 
 as well as againft the explicit terms of the article, to impofe 
 a tonnage duty (whether for light money, Trinity dues, or any 
 other purpofe) which fhould exceed that which fhall be paya- 
 ble by Britifh veffels in our ports. 
 
 The right referved is exprefsly to impofe on our veffels an 
 equal, not a greater tonnage duty than we fhall impofe on their 
 veffels. This objection, therefore, muft be abandoned. 
 
 But again, it is urged, that our navigation, fhould it wea- 
 Scylla, muft perifh on Charybdis: for we are gravely told by 
 Cato, that under the right referved to the Britifh government 
 to impofe fuch duty as may be fufficient to countervail, or, 
 which is equivalent, to balance the difference of duty payable 
 on the importation into our ports of Afiatic or European goods 
 by American or by Britifh veffels, our fhips will be thrown out 
 of the trade with the Britifh European dominions ; becaufe un- 
 der this right, the Britifh government will impofe a duty on our 
 productions carried to their ports in our own fhips, equal to 
 the whole duty payable on the goods and merchandizes import- 
 ed into our ports by Britifh fhips ; and as the goods and 
 merchandizes which we receive from them exceed in value thofe 
 that they receive from us by one-third, and as the duty to be 
 countervailed is at leaft ten per cent, ad valorem on the goods 
 received from them, the confequence will be, that the counter- 
 vailing duty mult amount to fifteen per cent, on the value of 
 all our productions carried in our own fhips to the Britifh ports 
 in Europe, while the fame will be free in Britifh fhips. A more 
 extravagant conllruction,* or an argument more inaccurately 
 formed can fcarccly be imagined. 
 
 • If I miftake not, the affertion of Cato, as to the whole duty, has been retract- 
 ed; but the reiidue of his error on this point rjmuias unrecalled. 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXVIIL 173 
 
 The countervailing right is not applicable to the whole duty 
 
 !) lyable on goods and merchandizes imported into our ports m 
 iritilh flii ps, but exprefsly confined to the difference of* duty 
 now payable on the fame when imported by America a or by 
 Britiih veflels — This difference is one-tenth part of the duty 
 upon all European goods, that is to fay, thefe goi o\:c- 
 
 tcntli part more duty when imported in Britiih vefleJs than is 
 paid on the fame when imported in an American veffel i in all 
 cafes, therefore, where our import is ten per cent, a'.! valorem,, 
 the difference of duty to be countervailed amounts to cniy one 
 per cent, on the value of the goods, inilead of ten per cent, as 
 is alleged by Cato ; in the inltance of teas imported from Eu- 
 rope the difference is greater: again it is not an aggregate fum, 
 that is to be apportioned under this countervailing right, for 
 this fum would be liable to conftant variation according to the 
 quantity and fpecies of gopds imported into, our ports from time 
 to time by Britiih veflfels \ and betides, the Bnnlh government 
 poiiefs no means whereby the amount thereof could be aieer- 
 tained. 
 
 Cato feels and admits the force of thefe remarks as decifive 
 againit an average duty, without perceiving that they pofTefs equal 
 flrength againit his project of countervailing the whole duty 
 paid on the importation of goods ami merchandises into our 
 ports by Britiih veflels ; for the fame variation in the amount, 
 and the fame want of the means to afcertain it, will operate in 
 both cafes. The reaiV.ns which he himfelf employs to prove 
 that an average duty cannot be ascertained, equally fhow the 
 impracticability of the method which he confiders as the one 
 that will be employed in the execution of the countervailing 
 right referved 10 the Britifh government. It has before been 
 fratcd, that the natural as well as the equitable mode of exe- 
 cuting tins power will be to impofe a duty on the goods im- 
 ported by us from their European ports exactly the fame as 
 makes the difference of duty on the importation thereof into 
 our ports by American or by Britifh veflels. 
 
 Admitting that the execution of the countervailing right 
 referved to Great Britain will do no more than place the navi- 
 gation of tire parries ou an equal footing in their mutual inter- 
 courfe, (till we are told that for this, likewife, the treaty is 
 blameable, becaufe even equality will be fuch an advantage to 
 our rival, that we fliall be unable to maintain the competition. 
 
 This objection brings with it a quality rarely to be difcovered 
 in the opinions of the cavillers againit the treaty. Their ufual 
 error is a falfe and magnified eitimate of the comparative re- 
 fources, flrength and importance of our country ; in this inflance, 
 
 Vol. III. B b 
 
174 Cam ill us— No. XXVIII. 
 
 fluffing their ground, they fall into ( the oppofitc extreme, and 
 contend for our inferiority in a branch of bufinefs in the pro- 
 fecution of which, we are unquellionably able to meet a fair 
 competition with any nation. 
 
 With what propriety could we have propofed or expected an 
 adjustment of our intercourfe by which our veffels fliould have 
 been placed on a better footing than thofe of the other party ? 
 As the trade was mutually beneficial, why could we, more than 
 Great Britain, aik for an arrangement that fhould fubject our 
 rival to comparatively heavier burdens ? Does any confiderate 
 man believe, that it would have been proper for us to afk, or 
 that there is the lead probability that Great Britain would have 
 acceded to, an arrangement on the fubject of our mutual na- 
 vigation, that fliould have fecured to us advantages denied to 
 them ? To place the navigation of the parties on an equal foot- 
 ing, was all that could be rationally expected by either — and fo 
 far from fuch a fettlement being injurious to us, the contrary 
 
 has Jong been the opinion both here and in Great Britain. 
 
 If it is true, that we are unable to maintain a competition with 
 the Britifli navigation, how are we to account for the jealoufy 
 that is underftood to have fhown itfelf on their part on this 
 fubject? 
 
 But the fact is otherwife — Britifh fhips cannot be built and 
 equipped as cheap as American fhips, nor are they victualled 
 and manned* on as good terms. Our country abounds with 
 excellent materials for (hip-building. Great Britain is in a great 
 meafure dependent upon other countries for a fupply of them. 
 The materials for the construction of fhips are much cheaper 
 in America than in Great Britain; and intelligent characters 
 
 in Great Britain as well as in America have affirmed, that an 
 American merchant (hip of any given burden, can be built and 
 equipped for fea one-third cheaper than a Britifh, Dutch, or 
 
 French (hip of equal goodnefs. Mr. Coxe informs us, that the 
 coft of an American (hip, built of our live oak and cedar, is 
 from 36 to 38 dollars per ton, completely finifhed ; while an 
 oak ihip in the cheapeft part of England, France, or Holland, 
 fitted in the fame manner, will coit from 55 to 60 dollars per 
 ton. The capital employed on the American merchantmen is 
 therefore one-third lefs on any given amount of tonnage than 
 that employed in the fame amount of Britifli tonnage ; or 
 the money requifife to build and equip for fea two Britifli 
 
 • In the companion in this particular, we muft combine the number of hands 
 with the terms, of computation according to which the veffels of the two coun- 
 tric are navigated. 
 
Ca m i l l u s— No. XXVIII. 1 75 
 
 merchant fhips, will be fufficient to build and equip for fea 
 three American merchant (hips of the fame burden and of 
 equal goodnefs. It is not only the difference in the firft coll, but 
 to this mould be added the difference of interefr. and infurance, 
 the annual amount whereof. is afcertained by the value of the 
 fhips. 
 
 If we add to this, the comparative advantages that we pof- 
 fefs in victualling and manning our veffels, independent of the 
 acknowledged and diftinguifhed fkill and enterprize of our fea- 
 men, it may be fafely affirmed, that no American who knows 
 the character of his countrymen, and who is not ignorant 
 of our peculiar refources for (hip-building, will doubt our 
 fuperiority in an equal and fair competition with any other 
 nation. 
 
 It is further alleged, that the treaty wants reciprocity, inas- 
 much as the whole territory of the United States is laid open 
 to the Britifh navigation and commerce, while, in return, the 
 Britifh territories, /'/; F.urcpe only, arc opened to us. The fhort 
 anfwer to this allegation is, that it is not true. — All the Bri- 
 tifh territories in Europe are laid open to us; all their territories 
 in Aha are alfo opened to us ; the treaty likewife opened all 
 their territories in the Weft Indies. The article relative to this 
 branch of trade, as has already been obferved, is excepted from 
 the ratification of the treaty, and made the fubjcot of future 
 negociation. The Britifh territories on our continent, that of 
 the Hudfon's Bay company excepted, are alfo opened to us in 
 like manner as ours are opened to them. The intercourfe is con- 
 fined on both fides to the interior communications, the inha- 
 bitants nf thofe colonies being equally deftitute of a right to 
 refort, by fea, with their fhips to our ports and harbours as we 
 are of the right to refort, by fea, with our fhips to their ports 
 and harbours. 
 
 The territory of the Hudfon's Bay company, the ifland of 
 Newfoundland and the eftablifhments on the coaft of Africa, 
 are the only Britifh dominions to which the treaty, in its origi- 
 nal form does not give a right of intercourfe and trade. 
 
 The fettlement in the Bay of Honduras is onSpanifh lands, 
 and the right of precedence is conceded for fpecitied objects, 
 beyond which the Spanifh government are vigilant to reuYain 
 the fettlers. 
 
 Spain may pefftbly be induced to allow us a right in common 
 with Great Britain, to cut mahogany and die woods in this 
 region \ but Great Britain cannot, confiftently with her con- 
 vention with Spain, ihare with us the privilege that (he enjoy?* 
 
176 Cam ill us— No. XXVIII. 
 
 Newfoundland is a mere eftablifhment for the Britifh fifheries. 
 The African trade has been, and might hereafter be purfued, 
 if our humanity and the force of public opinion did not im- 
 pede it, without procuring a right to reiprt to the Britifh ports 
 in that quarter; and in refpect to the unfettled territory of the 
 Hudfon's Bay company, about which fo much has been noticed 
 and written, it is of no fort of importance, except in a i'mall 
 Indian trade that employs two or three annual fhips which ar- 
 rive there in Augult, and efcape in September; befides, that 
 this trade belongs to a company who poffefs a right to the ex- 
 clufive enjoyment of it even again ft their fellow citizens. It is 
 finally alleged that the treaty will bind up and reftrain our go- 
 gernment from making more fpecific and beneficial treaties of 
 commerce with other nations. 
 
 Thofe who urge this objection, have generally placed great 
 reliance on another objection, which aflerts that the treaty with 
 Great Britain violates the conflitution, becaufe it amounts to a 
 regulation of commerce, the power to regulate which is vefted 
 in congrefs and not in the executive. — Yet thefe very charac- 
 ters, in the next breath, maintain that the treaty is bad, be- 
 caufe it precludes our executive government, (for no other 
 power can make treaties) from making more minute and benefi- 
 cial commercial treaties with other nations. — If thefe obferva- 
 tions can be reconciled, it rnuft be thus— The conltitution does 
 not authorize the executive, with the aid of the fenate, to 
 make a commercial treaty with Great Britain, having veiled 
 in congrefs the power to regulate the trade between us and that 
 nation ; but it allows the executive to make commercial treaties 
 with any other nation, which may eftablifh the molt material 
 and minute commercial and revenue laws, without affecting 
 the power veiled in congrefs to regulate trade. — That we may 
 have characters among us fufficiently intemperate to wilh that 
 fuch was the conltitution, I am not prepared to deny; — but 
 that fuch a conftrucftion can be made out, yet remains to be 
 proved. 
 
 The objection, as ufual, is made in a loofe and inaccurate 
 manner; literally interpreted, we fhould infer that the treaty 
 contained an article, whereby we had agreed with Great Bri- 
 tain, that we would not form any future treaties of commerce 
 with any nation: But no fuch ftipulafion exifts. 
 
 Is it meant by the objection to be alleged, that we can form 
 no commercial treaty, whereby for an advantage yielded on 
 our part, we may acquire a privilege in return, unlefs we yield 
 the fame advantage to Great Britain gv.ituitoufly and without 
 receiving from her the ecjuivaleut ? 
 
Ca mill us— No. XXVIII. 177 
 
 Admitting the truth of this objection, it might be replied: 
 So on the other hand, Great Britain can form no commercial 
 treaty, whereby, for an advantage yielded on her part, ihe may 
 acquire fome privilege in return, unlets (he yields the fame 
 advantage to us gratuitoufly and without receiving from us the 
 equivalent; and as Great Britain, whofe commercial relations 
 are equally extenfive with ours, and whole capital far exceeds 
 ours, is equally reilrained on this point, our chance ot gain 
 would be fully equal to our chance of lofs. 
 
 But the allegation is not generally true, and the objection, 
 when examined, will be found to be of little weight, even 
 with thofe who may imagine that nations do fometimes make 
 good bargains by the purchafe of privileges and exemptions in 
 their foreign trade. The cafe that has been chofen to enforce 
 the objection, ihall be employed to invalidate it. 
 
 Admit that the treaty with Great Britain is in operation — 
 that the oil and provifion merchants of the United States, and 
 the wine and brandy merchants of France are delirous of a 
 treaty between the two countries, whereby thofe commodities 
 fhall be received from each other on low duties or freely — ad- 
 mit farther, that the governments of the two nations are dif- 
 pofed to make fuch a treaty .this is the cafe again put by the 
 oppofers of the treaty as impracticable) what will rettrain the 
 concluHon of this treaty ? The difadvantage that will arife from 
 our treaty with Great Britain ? No, fur Britain produces nei- 
 ther wines, nor brandy made from wines, with which Ihe could 
 fupply us ; (he therefore could gain nothing, nor (hould we 
 lofe any thing by the conclufion of fuch a treaty. All that will 
 be requifite, therefore, in the formation of fuch treaties, will 
 be to choofe for the purpofe fuch articles of the growth, manu- 
 facture, or produce of any country with whom we delire to 
 treat as are not common to it and the Britifh dominions, and 
 any ikilful merchant will quickly make the feledtiou — Hence 
 it appears that the objection is not well founded in point of 
 fact. 
 
 But though it may be practicable, will it be politic in us to 
 conclude no commercial treaties of this character with any na- 
 tion ? If we refort to precedents as guides, we Ihall difcover 
 few, the hiftory of which wouid encourage us. Indeed they 
 are a defcription of conventions not often formed between na- 
 tions. 
 
 They are of difficult adjuftment, and necefTarily increafe the 
 provifions of the commercial code, lufficiently intricate, when 
 only one rule prevail;) in relpcct to all nations. Belides, how- 
 ever perfect may be the right of nations in this refpcCt, yet 
 
178 Ca MILL us— No. XXVIII. 
 
 when the productions of one nation are received at lower du- 
 ties, than the like productions of another, the difcrimination 
 will fcarcely fail to awaken defires and to produce difiatisfac- 
 tion from their difappointment. 
 
 Again, unlefs we are prepared, at the expenfe of the whole 
 to procure advantages or privileges for a part of the community, 
 we (hall doubt the policy of fuch ftipulations. Between two ma- 
 nufacturing nations, in each of which the manufactures have 
 attained to great perfection — a tariff of duties may be efta- 
 blifhed by treaties, in the payment of which the manufactures 
 of the two countries might be freely exchanged and mutually 
 confirmed ; fuch was the commercial treaty between France 
 and Great Britain in the year 1786. But the fubject was fo 
 intricate and involved fuch a variety of apparently independent 
 circumftances, fuch as the price of provifions, the amount and 
 the manner of levying of the taxes, and the price of the raw 
 materials employed in their refpective manufactures, that nei- 
 ther part felt entire confidence in the equity and reciprocity of 
 the treaty : and with all the (kill in negociation, that France 
 in a fuperior degree has been fuppofed to have poffeffed, the 
 opinion of that nation has finally been, that the treaty was bur- 
 denfome and difadvantageous to them. 
 
 We have another fpecimen of this fpecies of treaty in a fhort 
 convention between England and Portugal, concluded in 1703 — 
 the object was to procure a favorable market for diffimilar com- 
 modities, and fuch as were not the common production of the 
 two countries. But this treaty, which has been fo much applaud- 
 ed, is eflentially defective in point of reciprocity. England agrees 
 to admit the wine of Portugal on payment of two-thirds of the 
 duty that fliall be payable on French wines — and in return, Por- 
 tugal agrees not to prohibit the Englifh woollens. She does not 
 agree to receive them exclufively of the woollens of other coun- 
 tries, nor to admit them on payment of lower duties. The ad- 
 vantage therefore is manifeftly on the fide of Portugal. By the 
 treaty of commerce between France and Great Britain, con- 
 cluded in 1786, it was agreed, that the wines of France im- 
 ported into Great Britain iliould pay no higher duties than thofe 
 which the wines of Portugal then paid: The confequence mud 
 have been a reduction, without compenfation or equivalent 
 from Portugal, of the exiiling duties on the wines of that 
 country brought into Great Britain, equal to one-third of the 
 amount of fuch duties. This is an inltance of inconvenience 
 and lofi;, refulting from the fpecies of treaties, which it is 
 alleged as an objection to the treaty concluded between us and 
 
Ca mill us — No. XXVIII. 179 
 
 Great Britain, that we are prevented by it from making with 
 other nations. 
 
 A fmall compact nation, likewife, who excel in fome one fpe- 
 cies of manufacture, that is eitablifhed throughout their ter- 
 ritory, and in the conducting and fuccefs whereof there is a 
 common intereft, may find it ufeiul to procure the exclufive 
 fupply of fome foreign market : provided, in this as in all 
 other bargains, the compenfation fhall not be too high. But in 
 a nation like ours, compoled of different ftatcs, varying in cli- 
 mate, productions, manufactures, and commercial purfuits, it 
 will be more difficult to enter into treaties of this kind. Should 
 Great Britain, for example, be inclined to admit our fifh-oils 
 freely, or on payment of low duties on condition that we would 
 receive their woollens or hardware freely or on payment of 
 low duties — would the middle and fouthern ftates be fatisfied 
 with fuch a treaty ? — would they agree to a tax on their eflates 
 fufficient to fupply the deficiency in the revenue arifing from 
 the relinquishment of the impoit on Britifh woollens or hard- 
 ware ? Would it not be faid, that fuch a tax was a bounty out 
 of the common treafury, on a particular branch of bufinefs 
 purfued alone by a portion of the citizens of a fingle ftate in 
 the union ? Inftances might be multiplied in the illuftration of 
 this fubjcct 5 but they will readily occur to every man who will 
 purfue a little detail in his reflections. We have once made an 
 experiment of this kind — its fate ihould ferve as a caution to us 
 in future. By the eleventh and twelfth articles of our treaty 
 with France, it was agreed, that France fliould never impofe 
 any duty on the melafles that we fhould export from the French 
 Weil Indies; and in compenfation of this exemption, that w6 
 fhould never impofe any duty on the exportation of any kind 
 of merchandize by Frenchmen, from our territories, for the 
 ufe of the French Welt Indies. Thefe articles produced much 
 difTatisfaclion in congrefs : It was laid to be a benefit that 
 would enure to the ufe and advantage of only a part, but which 
 mult be compenfated by the whole. Thofe arguments which 
 will fhow themfelves in future, ihould fimilar conventions be 
 formed, were difplayed on this occafion. The treaty was rati- 
 fied, congrefs applied to the king of France to confent to annul 
 thefe articles — this requeft was granted — and the articles were, 
 by the feveral acts of the parties, annulled, 
 
 Not only the few inftances of the exillence of thefe treaties 
 
 I among the nations, added to the peculiar difficulties which we 
 
 mult meet in their formation, fhould lead us to doubt their 
 
 utility, but alfo the opinion of our own country, which, if ex.- 
 
i8» CamiLlus — No. XXIX. 
 
 plicir on any point, has been repeatedly fo in the condemnation 
 of this fpccies of national compact. 
 
 The introductory article of our commercial treaty with 
 Fra.-ce, afferts, that the parties willing to fix on an equitable 
 and permanent manner, the rules which ought to be followed 
 relative to their cor refpo Defence and commerce " have judged 
 that the faid end could not be better obtained, than by taking 
 for the bafis of their agreement the moft perfe£l equality and 
 reciprocity, and by carefully avoiding all thofe burden fome pre- 
 ferences which are ufually fources of debate, embarraflment and 
 difcontent." 
 
 The fame language is employed in our fubfequent treaties 
 with Holland and with Sweden ; the public voice is unequivo- 
 cal on this fubjecl. 
 
 On the whole, the more clofely this queftion is examined, 
 the more doubtful will the policy appear of our entering into 
 treaties of this defcription. We fhall have to encounter not 
 only the intrinfic difficulties thac always attend a fair and precife 
 adjuflment of the equivalents, together with the. national dis- 
 contents that proceed fromerrorson this point; but moreover a 
 Hill greater embarraffment from the circumftance that our 
 great ilaple exports are not the common productions of the 
 whole union, but different articles are peculiar to different parts 
 thereof. If, notwithstanding, our government fhall difcover an 
 inltance in which, confident with the common intereft and found 
 policy, fuch a treaty might be defirable, we have fcope fuffi- 
 cient to form it without 'incurring lofs or difadvantage by the 
 operation of our treaty with Great Britain. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXIX. 
 
 TH E fixtecnth article is entirely conformable to the ufage 
 and cullom of nations. The exchange of confuls had 
 already taken place between us and Great Britain ; and their 
 functions and privileges being left to rjie definition of the law 
 of nations, we fhall be exempt from thofe unpleafant contro- 
 verfies that too often arife from fpecial conventions, which 
 enlarge the confular privileges, power, and jurifdiclion. 
 
 The agreement that either party may punifh, difmifs, or 
 fend back a conful for illegal or improper conduct, is calculated 
 to prevent national mifunderitandings, and to fecure a refptct- 
 
Ca MIL!. US— No. XXIX. i8t 
 
 iai deportment in the confular corps. I have not ohferved that 
 this article has been difapprovcd of from any quarter. 
 
 The feventeenth article which rcfpctU the capture arid deten- 
 tion of the vellels of the parties on jull fufpiciort of having on 
 beard enemy's property, or contraband of War, has been the 
 object of intemperate cenlure— with how much jultice il thai I 
 be the bufinefs of this paper to examine. 
 
 The principal complaint, is nor, that the article expofed out* 
 own property to lofs by capture, for this is not the cue, but 
 that it doss not protect enemy's property on board out vcffels. 
 The defence of the article will roll upon the proofs which fhall 
 be exhibited, that it is in conformity with, and fupported by, 
 the clear and acknowledged law of nations — that law which 
 pronounces that enemy's goods on the high feas are liable to 
 capture, and as a necefiary mean to this end, that neutral ihips 
 are there liable to examination or fearch. 
 
 The law of nature (as heretofore obfefved) applicable to in- 
 dividuals in their independent or unfocial Hate, is what, when 
 applied to collections of individuals in fociety, conftitutes the 
 natural or necefiary law of nations. An individual in a ftate of 
 nature, for reparation of injuries, or in defence of his perfon 
 and property, has a right to feize the property of his enemy, 
 and to deftroy his perfon. 
 
 Nations always fucceed to the rights that the individuals who 
 competed them enjoyed in a itate of nature: and hence it is 
 that by the law of nations, from the carliett annals of fociety, 
 the goods or property of one enemy has been confidered as 
 liable to be fei'/ed and applied to the ufe of another. This right 
 mutt be fo ufed as not to injure the rights of others: Subject 
 to this limitation, it is perfect, and an interruption of it by 
 another is an injury. As in a conteft between two individual 
 in a ltate of nature, no third has a right, without becoming a 
 party in the controvetfy, to protect the property, or defend the 
 .perfon of either of the parties: So in a war between two na- 
 tions no third nation can act out of its own jurifdiction, con- 
 fiftent with the duties of neutrality ; or, without becoming a 
 party in the war, protect, the property of, or defend either of 
 the parties. Though nations are, in refpect to each other, like 
 individuals in a ftate-of nature, the refemblanee is not in every 
 particular perfecf .—individuals in a ttate of nature have not 
 only the inferior dominion or private ownership of property, 
 but the entire and perfect dominion over it. In fociety the lat- 
 ter right belongs excluflvely to the nation, while the former 
 belongs to the feveral members that compofe it. Immoveable 
 things, fuch as lands, which are denominated the territory 
 
 Vol. 111. C c 
 
1 82 Camillus— No. XXIX. 
 
 of a nation, are the immediate and fpecial objects of this per- 
 fect dominion or paramount property. Moveable things are the 
 proper objects of inferior dominion or private ownership, and 
 are no otherwife the objects of the national or paramount pro- 
 perty than as they happen to be within its territorial hmicb. The 
 perfect dominion, or jurifdiction of a nation, in refpect to pro- 
 perty, extends over, and is bounded by, the lands thereof and 
 the waters appurtenant to the fame. 
 
 As foon, therefore, as moveable things pafs out of thefe 
 limits, they ceafe to be under the dominion or jurifdiction of 
 the nation, the private property of whofe members they may be. 
 
 This private property, in moveable things, may be enjoyed 
 within the territory of a nation, by thofe who are not mem- 
 bers thereof. Hence in a war between two nations, a member 
 of one of which owns moveables within the territory of a third 
 or neutral nation, fuch moveables or property are not liable to 
 feizure by reafon of the war; becaufe, being within and under 
 the exclufive jurifdiction of a third nation, it would be an 
 injury to the right of fuch nation to go there and feize the fame. 
 So long as fuch moveables remain within a foreign territory, 
 they are objects of its dominion and protection; but as foon as 
 they are carried out of the fame, they ceafe to be any longer 
 under its jurifdiction or protection. 
 
 In a war between two nations, all the members of each 
 are enemies to the other, and all the property of the feveral 
 members, as well as the ftrictly national property, is liable to 
 feizure. In general the character of the owner, whether ene- 
 my or friend, decides whether property is liable to capture by 
 reafon of war ; but the validity of the capture depends not only 
 on the goods being enemy's property, but likewife on the fact 
 that the place of capture is one in which the right may be ex- 
 ercifed without injury to the rights of a neutral nation. Hence 
 the property of an enemy is liable to capture only within the 
 refpective territories or jurifdiction of the belligerent nations, or 
 in a place not within the territory or jurifdiction of any nation. 
 In either of thefe places the right may be exercifed without 
 injury to the rights of neutral nations — The limitation of this 
 right, lb far as refpects enemy's property found within the 
 territory of one of the parties on the breaking out of war, has 
 before been difcufled and placed, I flatter myfelf, on folid prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 The main ocean not being within the territory, or fubject 
 to the exchifive dominion of any nation, is a place, where 
 enemy goods may lav/fully be captured. An impediment by 
 
Camillus — No. XXIX. 183 
 
 any third nation to the exercife of the right of capture on the 
 ocean by either of the belligerent parties, would be an injury. 
 
 As the goods of an enemy, within the territory of a neutral 
 ftate, are under the protection thereof, the law of nations, for 
 the reafons that have been dated, will not permit us to take 
 them : in like manner, we have no right to take them if they 
 are on board a (hip, whilft the fhip is in a neutral port, whe- 
 ther the (hip itfelf is a neutral one, or belongs to an enemy, 
 becaufe the port is a part of the territory. — When the goods of 
 an enemy are on board the fhip of an enemy, and the (hip is 
 in the main ocean, there is no doubt of our right to capture 
 both the goods and the (hip, becaufe they are then in a piace 
 which is not the territory of any nation. But when the goods 
 of an enemy are on board a neutral (hip, and the (hip is in the 
 main ocean, though we have a right to take the goods, we 
 have no right to take the (hip, or to detain her any longer, than 
 is neeeflary to obtain pofietlion of the goods — for the ocean 
 itfelf is no territory — and neutral (hips, as they are moveable 
 goods, can not be parts of the neutral territory ; and confe- 
 quently are no more under the protection of the neutral itate, 
 than the fame goods would be, if they were palling through 
 an unoccupied country in neutral carriages, or on neutral 
 horfes. 
 
 A neutral fhip (fays Rutherford in his inftitutes, whofe rea- 
 foning on this queition I adopt) may indeed be called a neutral 
 place ; but when we call it to, the word place does not mean 
 territory, it only means the thing in which the goods are con- 
 tained. Though the goods of the enemy had been on board a 
 fhip belonging to the enemy, we might have faid, in the fame 
 fenfe, that they were in a neutral place, if they had been lock- 
 ed up there in a neutral cheft. But no one would imagine, that 
 fuch a neutral place, as a cheit, can be confulered as a part of 
 the territory of the neutral (late, or that it would protect the 
 goods. Notwithstanding, a neutral cheft is as much a neutral 
 place as a neutral fhip. 
 
 A (hin, though a moveable thing, is under the jurisdiction 
 of a nation whilll it continues in one of its ports- — but as foon 
 as it is out at fea, only the private owneithip, or inferior do- 
 minion, of the (hip remains, and it ceafes to be under the \ 
 dominion or jurifdiction of the nation. The cafe will be the 
 fame, if, inftead of fuppofing the (hip to be the property of 
 a merchant, we fuppofe it to be the property of the nation. 
 
 For though we cannot well call the property which the nation 
 has in fuch a (hip, by the name of private ownerihip: yet, 
 when the (hip comes intp the main ocean, the jurifdiction or 
 
184 Cam ill us — No. XXIX. 
 
 paramount property ceafes, and the right that remains is an 
 interior kind of property, which has the nature of private 
 ownerfhip. If the jurifdiction, which A neutral (late has over 
 the ihips of its members, or even over its own (hips, ceafes 
 when the (hips are out at fea ; the goods of an enemy, that 
 are on board fuch (hips, cannot be under the protection of the 
 nation, in the fame manner as if the fhips had been in one 
 of its ports, or as if the goods had been on its land.* 
 
 Notwithftanding a neutral nation, when its ihip is in the 
 main ocean, has no jurifditlLcn over the ihip itfelf, as if it was 
 a part of its territory, yet the nation, or fome of its members, 
 which is the fame thing, will continue to have the inferior fort 
 of property, or ownerfhip in it. This fpecies of property will 
 protect the ihip from capture, though the enemy's goods on 
 board her (nay iawfully be taken. 
 
 But here a difficulty occurs — This inferior kind of property, 
 Called private ownerfhip, to diltinguifli it from the jurifdiction 
 over things, is an exclufive right ; thofe who have fuch owner- 
 fhip in things, whether private or public perfons, have a right 
 to exclude all others from making ufe of fuch things; and by 
 this means, the rights of others are often hindered from tak- 
 ing effect. 
 
 Wild beads, birds, and fifbes, are, till they are catched, in 
 common to all mankind; and I, in common with others, have 
 a right to take them, and thereby to make them my own — But 
 I cannot hunt, or (hoot, or fifh, ^vithout perhaps fometimes 
 ufing the foil or water of another man ; and as I have no right 
 to ufe thefe without his eonfent, he may juftly hinder me from 
 doing any of thefe acts, as far as his right' of property extends. 
 Thus by private ownerfhip I am prevented from taking fu'ch 
 things, as I fhould otherwife have a tight to take, if they did 
 noc happen to be in tuch places as he" had an exclufive right to. 
 In like manner, though I have a right to take the goods of my 
 enemy, when they are out at fea, yet may net the effect of 
 this right be prevented by the inferior property or ownerlhip, 
 which a neutral nation, or its member;,, have in the fhip in 
 which the goods axe? If the law of nations is nothing but the 
 law of nature applied to the collective perfons of civil locieties, 
 jnftead of faying that the law of nations has decided otherwife, 
 we mould difclofe a natural rtafon why it fhould determine 
 
 * The iu:ifdic?jon here fpoken of is relative to property, and altogether 
 diftinft from wliat is termed perfonal jurisdiction, which refpects the relations 
 between the fociety and its members — This latter Ipecies of jurifdiilien is not 
 confin.d to the territorial limits of a nation. 
 
Camillus— No. XXIX. **5\ 
 
 otherwlfe. When I have merely a right to acquire property irt 
 a thing that is common to all mankind, but cannot do it without 
 the ufe of what is already the property of fome other man; 
 this man neither does me an injury, nor encourages or pro- 
 tects others wh© have injured me, by excluding me from the 
 ufe of what belongs to him. But when we have a right in war, 
 upon account of the damage which the enemy has done us, 
 to take goods of the enemy, and thefe are in a neutral fliip: 
 if the neutral Hate, though it has property in the Ihip, 
 Ihould make ufe of its right of properly to protect the goods 
 againft us, this protection makes it an acceffary to the injury, 
 which is the foundation of the claim upon the enemy to obtain 
 reparation of damages, and confequently is inconfiftent with 
 the notion of neutrality. 
 
 But whilft this anfwer removes one difficulty, it brings ano- 
 ther. If a neutral nation makes itfelf acceffary to the damages 
 done by the enemy, by protecting fuch enemy goods as fhe has 
 a right to take for reparation of damages, when thefe goods 
 are out at fea in one of its (hips : Why might the fame nation, 
 Without becoming in like manner an acceflary, protect the fame 
 goods when the ihip is in one of ito ports, or when the goods 
 are on land within its territory ? A law of nations, which is 
 natural as to the matter of it, and pofuive only as to the objects 
 of it, will furnifh an anfwer to this queftion. 
 
 Every Hate has, by univerfal acknowledgment and content, 
 by the law of nations, an exclufive jurifdiclion over its own 
 territory. As long, therefore, as a ftate keeps within 1 its own 
 territory, and exercifes its jurifdiclion there, the protection in 
 queftion is not a violation of our rights — but when its Chips 
 are In the main ocean ; as they are then in a place out or its 
 territory, where, by the law of nations, it has no jurikv.'tion, 
 this law will allow us to take notice of the protection, which it 
 gives to the goods of an enemy, and to confider it as art 
 acceflary to the damages done by the enemy, if it gives them 
 protection. 
 
 In refpect to the right of examination or fearch, if the end 
 is Iv.vful, and the examination or fearch a neceflary mean to 
 attain this end, the inference is inevitable, that the examination 
 oj fearch is likewife lawful. 
 
 ^f the queftion, whether enemy goods are feizable on board 
 a neutral (hip, were really doubtful ; yet the right to fearch 
 neutral fhips muft be admitted for another reafon. All agree 
 that arms, ammunition and other contraband articles, may not 
 be carried to an enemy by a neutral power — without fearching 
 veflels at fea, fuch fupply could not be prevented. The right 
 
1 86 Cam ill us— No'. XXIX. 
 
 to fearch, therefore, refults, like wife, from the right to feizc 
 contraband goods. Again, the (late of war authorizes the cap- 
 ture of enemy (hips and goods — But on the main ocean, which 
 is the great high-way where the (hips and goods of all nations 
 pafs ; how are the (hips and goods of an enemy to be diftin- 
 guifhed from thofe of a friend ? No other way than by exami- 
 nation and fearch. Hence then the right of fearch is deducible 
 from the general right to capture the (hips and goods of an 
 enemy. 
 
 It would undoubtedly difembarrafs the commerce of neutral 
 nations were paiTports and (hips papers received, in all cafes, as 
 conclufivc evidence of the quality and property of the cargo. 
 And did treaties, in fact, effectually fecure an exemption from 
 rude and detrimental inquifitions upon the ocean, they would 
 become objects of ineftimable worth to the neutral powers. 
 But, notwithftanding the exiftence of (lipulations in our 
 other treaties which aim at giving fome force to fimilar creden- 
 tials, can it be faid, that our (hips have been vifited with lefs 
 ceremony, by one party, than by the other? And may not the 
 experience of other nations, as well as that of our own, be 
 appealed;,to, in proof of the opinion, that thefe (lipulations, 
 however exact and pofitive, are too little regarded by that 
 clafs of men, to reftrain and govern whofe conduct they are 
 inftituted ? 
 
 The right of fearch ought to be ufed with moderation, and 
 with as little inconvenience as poffible to the rights of nations 
 not engaged in the war. And the law of nations, on the other 
 hand, requires the utmoft good faith on the part of the neu- 
 tral powers. They are bound not to conceal the property of the 
 enemy, but on the contrary, to difclofe it when examination 
 fhall be made ; in confidence of this impartiality, the law of 
 nations obliges the powers at war to give credit to the certifi- 
 cates, bills of lading and other inllruments of ownerfhip, pro-r 
 duced by the matters of neutral (hips, unlefs any fraud appear 
 in them, or there be goofl reufon for fufpeEling their validity. The 
 right of fearch is always at the peril of thofe who exercife it ; 
 the right, notwithftanding, muft be acknowledged to be jndu-r 
 bitable. 
 
 The reafoning employed to prove that all neutral (hips, on the 
 main ocean), are liable to fearch, and enemy goods on board 
 them o capture, is fupported by the ablell writers on public 
 law, am; the i is believed to be unanimouily in its 
 
 favor. 
 
 The Italian flat, s were the firft among modern nations, who 
 cultivated the m.- (It or commerce, and before the paflage of 
 
Ca MILL us— No. XXIX id? 
 
 the Cape of Good Hope, Venice and Genoa, diftributed the 
 manufactures of Afia throughout Europe. They, therefore, 
 firft defined the rights of navigation. Their maritime regula* 
 tions are collected in a work called " Confolato del Mare;" I 
 do not poflefs the collection, but find the following quota- 
 tion from it in Grotius.* 
 
 " If both the (hip and freight belong to the enemy, then, 
 without difpute, they become lawful prize to the captor ; but 
 if the (hip belong to thofe that be at peace with us, and the 
 cargo be the enemy's, they may be forced by the powers at war, 
 to put into any of their ports, and unlade ; but yet the mafter 
 muft be Satisfied for the freight of them." 
 
 Grotius, that learned, and perfecuted friend of liberty, 
 whofe life and great talents were dedicated to the fervice of 
 mankind, and who difplayed fo much ability and learning in 
 defending the freedom of the feas, and of commerce, is clearly 
 of opinion, that enemy goods are not protected by neutral bot- 
 toms; he even goes farther, and allows that fuch property oc- 
 cafions great preemption, that the veflel is, Jikewife, enemy 
 property. f Bynkerfhook is of the fame opinion. | Puffen- 
 dorf|| and Heinecius § agree in this law, and Vattel who is 
 the latefl: writer, is explicit in his opinion; " without fcarching 
 neutral (hips at lea," fays he, " the commerce of contraband 
 goods cannot be prevented — There is then a right of fearching. 
 Some powerful nations have, at different times, refufed to fub- 
 mit to this. At prefent a neutral (hip refufing to be fearched, 
 would, from that proceeding alone, be condemned as lawful 
 prize." " Effects belonging to an enemy, found on board a 
 neutral fhip, are feizable by the rights of war; but by the law 
 of nature, the mafter is to be paid his freight, and not to fuffer 
 by the feizure. The effects of neutrals, found on board an 
 enemy fhip, are to be reftored to the owners, againft whom 
 there is no right of confiscation." 
 
 Other authors of refpcctability might be quoted ; but thofe 
 already named will be acknowledged as the ableft, and their 
 authority the moft decifive of any that can be cited — fo ftrong, 
 clear and uninterrupted, are the authorities of the writers oa 
 
 • Grotius. Book 3, chap, t, feci. 5, Note. 
 
 f Grotius. Book 3, chap. 4, fc.it. 8 — Book 3, chap. 6, fe<3« 6. 
 
 I Bynkerfhook, queft. jur. pub. lib. 1, cap. 13 and 14. 
 
 H Puffendorf. 
 
 § Hciaccius de navibus cap, 2 k-oT. 114, U.j, 116. 
 
1 88 Camillus— No. XXX. 
 
 public law in relation to thefe points, that the advocates of aa 
 eppofite rule, may be challenged to produce a Angle authority 
 of approved respectability in fupport of their opinion. * 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXX. 
 
 ADMITTING that it was the law of nations that ene- 
 my's goods might be feized in neutral mips, it is alleged 
 by Cato and other writers, who have appeared on the fame 
 fide, that the treaties which have been formed between nations 
 have annulled this law, and eftablifhed another in its {lead, 
 equally extenfive and binding on the whole civilized world* 
 
 In difcuffing this allegation, we fhould remember, that all 
 nations are in a ftate of equality, and independent of each 
 Other. No law, other than the neceffary or natural law of na- 
 tions, is binding on any nation without its confent, exprefsty 
 Or tacitly given. A law among nations cannot, like a civil ot 
 municipal law, be annulled, or enacled by a majority, or any 
 portion fhort of the whole. By agreement between two or more 
 nations, the operation of a law already in exiflence, may be 
 fufpended fo far as refpecls themfelves '■> but fuch agreement 
 works no change of fuch law, in relation to the rights or du- 
 ties of other nations. The fame is true of any rule of action, 
 eftablifhed by convention between two nations ; fuch rule is 
 obligatory on the parties that form the contract, but is wholly 
 without effect and nugatory in refpedt to all other nations. Un- 
 lefs then all nations have concurred in the defign to annul 
 this law, it mull ilill exift ; and treaties containing oppofite lti- 
 pulations, can be confidered in no other light, than as excep- 
 tions to the fame, in which certain nations have feen it their 
 intereft to agree. 
 
 Tho' one nation may have agreed with another to fufpend the 
 operation of this law, and to iubftitute the rule that free (hips 
 make free goods, and enemy (hips enemy goods, there may 
 have been fome peculiar reafon that induced the parties to form 
 this convention with each other, that would not apply in re* 
 fpec~l to any other nation. 
 
 A nation may advance its intereft perhaps by forming fuch 
 a treaty, with one nation, and injure it by forming it with 
 
 * This fubjedt will be refumed and purfued under different afpc<5b in another 
 number. 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXX. 189 
 
 another — Becaufe a nation has, in feme inftances, or for a 
 Jimited time, formed ftipulations of this fort, it cannot from, 
 thence be inferred, that it has thereby, in any fenfe, expreffed 
 its confent to a total repeal of a law, the operation of which 
 it has agreed to fufpend only for a limited time, and in refpect 
 to a particular nation. Commercial treaties, in which we dis- 
 cover thefe ftipulations, though not always, are commonly 
 limited in their duration. This limitation is a ftrong argument 
 againlt the doctrine which thefe treaties are cited to cftablifh. 
 For fo many years, fay the parties, we will fufpend the opera- 
 tion of the law. When the treaty expires by its proper limita- 
 tion, or is diflblved by war, the rule of the treaty ceafes, and 
 the law is again in force between the parties, and prefcribes to 
 them, in common with other nations, their rights and duties 
 in this refpecl. 
 
 The law of nations, that authorizes the capture of enemy 
 goods in neutral fhips, requires the refloration of neutral goods 
 captured in enemy fhips : The treaties, which ilipulate that 
 free fhips make free goods, ftipulate alfo that enemy ihips make 
 enemy goods. I have discovered no inlt nice of the former fti- 
 pulation, that has not been accompanied by the latter : though 
 I have found inftances of the latter ltipulation unaccompanied 
 by the former. — This is the cafe in the treaty of peace, com- 
 merce and alliance between Spain and England, concluded at 
 Madrid in 1667. Thofe, therefore, who contend that the. law 
 of nations has been repealed id one inftance, mult alfo infift 
 that it has been repealed in the other. — If the number of fti- 
 pulations is to be received as evidence, the proof is ftronger of 
 a repeal in the latter than in the former cafe. — But will any one 
 feriouily maintain, that a nation would have a right to confif- 
 Gate the goods of a neutral power found on board an enemy 
 fhip, without an exprefs ftipulation on the parr of fuch neu- 
 tral Itate confenting to the fame ? Would England or Spain, 
 
 for example, have a right to confifcate American property 
 captured in a French (hip ? Would America, if at war, have a 
 right to confifcate the neutral property of Spain, Portugal, 
 Denmark, or Ruffia, iov.m\ on board an enemy Chip - ? Has any 
 nation ever confifcated property under this circumftance ? If 
 not, the inference is clear, that thefe ftipulations are exclufively 
 relative to the parties who form them, and that the rights or. 
 other dates remain under the protection of the law of nations. 
 
 But according to Cato, this reafoning may be juft, yet in- 
 applicable •, for he maintains that ail ria. contented to 
 the eftablrfhment of tiiis conventional iaw. " As far back as i 50 
 years," fays this writer, " and ever fi nee, I t'fhecom- 
 Vol. III. D d 
 
ipo Camii,lus— No. XXX. 
 
 mercial nations have flipulated in their treaties, that free (hips 
 (hall make free goods, that full credit (hall be given to (hips' 
 papers, and that armed vefTels (hall not come within cannon 
 (hot of a neutral (hip, but fend their boats on board with 
 only two or three men at molt, to examine papers, but not to 
 fearcb) and that the treaties (by which is underltood all the 
 treaties) for 150 years back, relative to this object, are drawn 
 in the words of the treaty between the United States and 
 France." 
 
 Struck with the fulnefs of this afiertion, I have carefully 
 examined fuch collections of treaties, as I have been able to pro- 
 cure, and going back to the year 1645, I have given a patient 
 fearchto all the public conventions between Great Britain and 
 the feveral powers of Europe fince that period. I find, that 
 fince that epoch, Great Britain has concluded commercial trea- 
 ties with Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, Dantzic, Den- 
 mark, Sweden, and Rullia. 
 
 In the treaties with Holland and with France, (he has agreed 
 to the (tipulation, that free (hips (hould make free goods, and 
 enemy (hips, enemy goods. In Chalmers's collection of treaties, 
 a fimilar (tipulation is contained in the 23d article of the treaty 
 of alliance, concluded in 1564, between Oliver Cromwell and 
 the king of Portugal ; but in other collections, in which that 
 treaty is found, it does not contain a (tipulation that free (hips 
 (hall make free goods; and it has been denied, from a rep'"^- 
 ble quarter on the part of Great Britain, that (he has e 
 ceded to this principle, except in the instances of her t 
 with Holland and France ; neither of which exift any I 
 the former having expired long fince, and the latter beii 
 folved by the prefent war. Her treaties with Spain, D; 
 Denmark, Sweden, and Ruflia, do neither of them c 
 this (tipulation. On the contrary, the 12th article of the 
 with Sweden, and the 20th of the treaty with Denmark, 
 of which is now in force, and has been fo for more than 
 tury, as likewife the 14th article of the treaty with Da 
 declares, that " le(t the enemy's goods and merchandize 1 
 be concealed under the difguife of the goods of friends, it is 
 (tipulated, that all (hips (hail be furnifhed with paflports and 
 certificates, by which it (hail be manifeft to whom the articles, 
 compofing the cargoes, belong ;" and the two firft of thefe trea- 
 ties, moreover, declare it " to be injurious to protect the pro- 
 perty of enemies," and eftabliih fpecial guards to prevent the 
 fame. 
 
 In relation to the full credit to be given to (hips' papers, and 
 the manner of boarding neutral veilels, — in the treatits with 
 
Ca mill us — No. XXX. ipi 
 
 Spain, France, and Holland, it is ftipulated, that full faith fhall 
 be given to the paflports, and that the boarding (hall be by two 
 or three men only. But the treaties with Portugal and RufTia 
 are destitute of any ftipulation on this fubjecl, except that in 
 the latter it is agreed,* that " the fearching of merchant (hips 
 (hall be as favorable as the reafon of the war can poflibly 
 admit, toward the mod favored neutral nation, obferving, as 
 near as may be, the principles of the law of nations that are 
 generally acknowledged." f In the treaties with Dantzic, Den- 
 mark, and Sweden, palTports are required for the purpofe of 
 diftinguifhing, according to the folemnities of thoie treaties, 
 the enemy property on board the (hips of the parties; and it is 
 ftipulated, that credit (hall be given to fuch paflports, except 
 in cafes of juft and urgent caufe of fufpicion, when, fay thefe 
 treaties, the (hip ought to be fearched ; an exception, that fully 
 recognizes the right to fearch, eflentially does away the fecu- 
 rity intended by the paflports. But neither of thefe treaties con- 
 tain any regulation relative to the manner of boarding neutral 
 veffels. 
 
 This refearch, though made with care, may have been im- 
 perfect j the refult thereof is, that there are only two, pofhbly 
 three, of thefe eight nations, with whom Great Britain has 
 ever agreed to the ftipulation, that free (hips (hall make free 
 goods j only three of them with whom (lie has ftipulated, that 
 full credit fhall be given to paflports or (hips' papers, or with 
 whom the manner of boarding is fettled. Inftead, therefore, 
 of that uniformity and univerfality in the ftipulations in the com- 
 mercial treaties, concluded within the laft 150 years, fo confi- 
 dently aflerted by Cato, we fee that in five inftances out of 
 eight, of treaties concluded between Great Britain and the 
 principal powers of Europe, within that term, they have on 
 each of thefe points, given their fan&ion to a law directly in 
 oppofition to the afiertion of this adventurous writer. 
 
 Yet, fays Cato, " the principles of the armed neutrality, 
 by the general con fen t of the great community of the civilized 
 world, changed the law of nations." — It is a fingular logic that 
 proves the agreement of nations by their difagreement, and 
 their confent to a principle, by their drawing forth their fleet 
 to difpute it. The armed neutrality, with thoie who under- 
 itand its hiftory, will not be relied on by way of proving a. 
 change in the law of nations, brought about by univerfnl con- 
 fent. 
 
 * Treaty of 1776, article 10. 
 
 •j- Treaty with Dantzic of X706, article ; ■ 
 
192 Camillus— No. XXX. 
 
 It will not be denied that this league, which was aimed prin- 
 cipally againft Great Britain, failed to accomplish its purpofe, 
 and that it expired with the American war. Nothing Iras been 
 heard of it during the prefent war ; and it is notorious, that 
 Ruflia, and Holland before its conqueft, were under agreements 
 incompatible with the views of that affociation. The northern 
 powers of Europe under the countenance of France, united to 
 fupport the principles of the armed neutrality; but the league 
 did not include all the neutral powers ; and of the powers en- 
 gaged in the war, at that period, Spain confented to obferve 
 the principles contended for by the confederacy, on condition 
 that Great Britain would agree to them, who, fo far from agree- 
 ing, openly refilled them. 
 
 On the fame principle, by which it is contended that this 
 aflbciation introduced a new law of nations, might the armed 
 leagues between certain nations to prohibit all commerce what- 
 ever with an enemy, be appealed to in proof of an alteration 
 of the law of nations in this refpecl. England and Holland en- 
 tered into fuch a league againft France, in the year 1689; and 
 other inftances are mentioned by Grotius ; yet no one has ever 
 imagined that thereby any change was wrought in the law of 
 nations. 
 
 The objection that has arifen from the diffimilarity between 
 this article and thofe relative to the fame fubjedt in our other 
 treaties, is equally defective with thofe already confidered. The 
 objection proceeds from an opinion that the law of nations has 
 been changed, and that the flipulations in our other treaties 
 are evidence taereof. The obfervations that have been offered 
 on this fubject, are equally applicable to this objection, and it 
 is therefore unneceflary to repeat them. 
 
 Not only reafon, and the authority of juiiUs, but likewife 
 the practice of nations, where they have been unreftrained by 
 particular conventions, may be appealed to in fupport of this 
 doctrine- 
 
 The practice of France, of Holland, even fubfequent to 
 particular flipulations, regulating this fubject between them- 
 ieives, has, in refpect to other powers, been conformable to 
 the law of nations — The ordinances and maritime decifions of 
 France may be confulted to (how what her practice has been, 
 and that of Holland is evident by the convention of 1689, be- 
 tween her and England. The practice of Spain is underftood 
 to be the fame ; and in an inllance that occurred during the Ame- 
 rican war, flie carried the law to its utmoft rigour, in affigning 
 as a caufe of condemnation of a neutral Tufcan fhip, her forcible 
 refiflance of the right of fearch. Her capture of American 
 
Oamillus — No. XXX. 193 
 
 fhips, during the prefent war, on fufpicion of their cargoes 
 being enemy property, affords additional evidence of her pT - 
 tice and opinions on this fubjecl. In refpecl to Great B itain, 
 from rhe general notoriety of the fadl, it feems, in ; ", 
 
 unneceflary to add, that fhe has immemorially adhered, er 
 
 general practice, to the law of nations in its wider! interp 1- 
 tion on this fubjecl. In a few inftances, and perhaps fo e*- 
 cial reafons, as was the cafe in refpecl to the treaty with Hol- 
 land, concluded in 1667, flie has entered into oppofite ftipula- 
 tions; but at this time, unlefs it may be with Portugal, Great 
 Britain has no fuch treaty with any nation. 
 
 So undifputed was the law on this fubjecl, and fo uniform 
 the practice of nations in cafes, not governed by a conventional 
 rule, that congrefs, in the commencement, and through the 
 greater part of our revolution war, authorized our fhips of 
 war and privateers, to capture enemy property on board neu- 
 tral (hips, and our admiralty courts uniformly reftored neutral 
 property found on board enemy fhips. This praclice continued 
 years after the conclufion of our treaty with France, which 
 contains a ftipulation, that free fhips lhall make free goods, and 
 enemy (hips enemy goods; no perlon, during that period, hav- 
 ing fuppofed that thereby the law was altered in refpecl: to 
 other nations. 
 
 Towards the clofe of the war, to favor the views of the 
 armed neutrality, in which league the United States were not 
 a party, but whofe oppofition to Great Britain they naturally 
 approved ; congrefs, in an ordinance on the fubjecl of captures, 
 ordained that neutral bottoms fhould protecl enemy goods — 
 but here they flopped. Thus far the authority was indubitable, 
 becaufe it was exercifed only in abridgment of their own rights. 
 Being engaged in war, they could not by their own acl, enlarge 
 their rights, or abridge thofe of neutral fhips ; the extent of 
 both being defined and fettled by the public law of nations. 
 They, therefore, never authorized the capture and condemna- 
 tion of neutral goods found in enemy fhips, nor could they have 
 authorized the fame, without a manifeft violation of the rights 
 of the neutral powers. 
 
 It is finally alleged that the article, if found in its principles, 
 is defective in thofe provifions which are requifite to protecl 
 and fecure the neutral rights of the parties ; inaiinuch as it does 
 not contain an explicit fh'pulation for the payment of freight 
 on enemy goods, nor for the payment of damages for the deten- 
 tion or lofs of neutral fhips taken without juft caufe. I do not 
 reccllecl to have met with any precife ftipulation on thefe points, 
 in the commercial treaties between other nations. — None fuch, 
 
1 94 Cam ill us— No. XXX. 
 
 if my recollection be right, are found in any of our other trea- 
 ties; and I think it would be fomewhat difficult to form fuch 
 as would afford to the parties a more fatisfadtory fecurity than 
 that which arifes from the law of nations — a neutral fhip is 
 entitled to freight for enemy goods captured on board her ; but 
 this right, if fo admitted, may be forfeited by the irregular 
 conduct of the neutral, by the poflcffion of falfe or double pa- 
 pers, by the deftruction of papers, or by thofe fraudulent con- 
 cealments and evafions, which are inconfiltent with fair and 
 impartial neutrality. A fhip taken and detained without juft 
 caufe, is, together with her cargo, at the rifk of the captors 
 from the moment of capture -, and in cafes of partial or total 
 lofs, or of damages by detention, the owner is entitled to full 
 and complete indemnification. But in cafe the neutral (hip is 
 under fuch equivocal and doubtful circumftances, as afford 
 probable caufe to believe that either the fhip, or cargo, is ene- 
 my property, a fituation not to be reconciled with an open and 
 fair neutrality, in fuch cafe, though on trial both fhip and car- 
 go fhould turn out to have been bona fide neutral property, 
 yet the captors may avail themfelves of her equivocal fituation 
 and character, in mitigation, if not, under very peculiar cir-" 
 cumftances, in total difcharge of damages. No ftipulation, there- 
 fore, without thefe exceptions, would have afforded to the 
 parties adequate fecurity againft fuch irregularities, and with 
 them, its want of precifion would have left the fubject as it now 
 ftands, to be regulated by the known and approved provifions 
 of the law of nations. 
 
 Thefe provifions being well underftood, the article concludes 
 with a ftipulation againft delays in the admiralty, and in the 
 payment and recovery of the damages it fhall decree. 
 
 This examination, I flatter myfelf, has fulfilled its object, 
 which was to prove, that the article relinquifhes no right that 
 we poffeffed as a nation, that it is agreeable to, and fupported 
 by, the law of nations. A law in relation to this fubject, coeval 
 with the origin of maritime commerce, and the principles 
 whereof have immemorially operated among nations. 
 
 It was defirable that a ftipulation, fimilar to that contained 
 in our other treaties, fhould have been obtained, But the time 
 was unfavorable to the attainment of this object : and, as with 
 great propriety has been obferved by Mr. Jefferfon, in behalf 
 of our government — " fince it depends on the will of other 
 nations as well as cur own, we can only obtain it, when they 
 fhall be ready to confent." By the 1 2th article, the parties 
 agree to renew the negociation on this point, within the com- 
 
Ca MILL us— No. XXXI. 
 
 l 9S 
 
 pafs of two years after the conclufion of the prefent war ; when 
 perhaps the reftoration of peace, and other circumftances, may 
 prove more propitious to our views. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXXI. 
 
 IR E S U M E the fubjecl of the two laft papers for the fake 
 of a few fupplementary obfervations. 
 
 The objections to the treaty> for not containing the principle, 
 ** that free mips make free goods," as being the relinquifhment 
 of an advantage, which the modern law of nations gives to 
 neutrals, have been fully examined, and, 1 flatter myfelf, com- 
 pletely refuted. 
 
 I mall, however, add one or two reflections by way of fur- 
 ther illuftration. A pre-eftablifhed rule of the law of nations, 
 can only be changed by their common content. This confent may 
 either be exprefs, by treaties, declarations, &c. adopting and 
 promifing the obfervance of a different rule, or it may be im- 
 plied, by a courfe of practice or ufage. The confent, in either 
 cafe, muft embrace the great community of civilized nations. 
 If to be inferred from treaties, it muft be mown that they are 
 uniform and univcrfal. It can, at leaft, never be inferred, 
 while the treaties of different nations follow different rules, or 
 the treaties between the fame nation and others, vary from 
 each other. So alfo as to ufage. It muft be uniform and uni- 
 vcrfal, and, let it be added, it muft be continued. A ufage 
 adopted by fome nations, and refifted by others, or adopted by 
 all temporarily and then difcontinued, is infufBcient to abolith 
 an old, or fubftitute a new rule of the Jaw of nations. It has 
 been demonftrated, that no confent of either defcription has 
 been given to the rule, which is contended for in oppofition to 
 the treaty. 
 
 The armed neutrality, fo much quoted, is entirely deficient 
 in the requifite characters. Its name imports that it was an 
 armed combination of particular powers. It grew up in the 
 midfl of a war, and is undeiftood to have been particularly 
 levelled againfl one of the belligerent parties. It was refifted 
 by that power. There were other powers, which did not ac- 
 cede to it. It is a recent tranfadtion, and has never acquired the 
 confirmation of continued ufage. What is more, it has been 
 virtually abandoned by fome of the parties to it — and among 
 
196* Cam ill us— No. XXXI. 
 
 thefe, by the principal promoter of it, the politic and enter- 
 prifing Catharine. It is, therefore, a perverfion of all juft ideas, 
 to afcribe to fuch a combination the effect of altering a rule of 
 the law of nations. 
 
 In mod important queftions, it is remarkable that the op- 
 pofers of the truth are as much at variance with each other as 
 they are with the truth they oppofe. This was ftrikingly exem- 
 plified when the prefent conftitution of the United States was 
 under deliberation. The opposition to it was compofed of the 
 moft incongruous materials— the fame thing is obfervable in 
 relation to the treaty. — And one inftance of the contrariety 
 applies to the rule cited above. 
 
 While fome of the adverfaries of the teeaty complain of the 
 admiffion of a contrary principle by that inflrument, as the 
 abandonment of a rule of the prefent law of nations ; others, 
 conceding that there is no fuch rule yet eftablifhcd, cenfure 
 that admiffion as a check to its complete and formal ejlablijhmenty 
 and as a retrograde ftep from this defirable point. 
 
 The objection in this form is more plaufible than in the 
 other, but it is not lefs deftitute of fubftance. If there has been 
 any retrograde ftep, it was taken by the government prior to' 
 the treaty — authentic documents, which have been communi- 
 cated by the executive to congrefs, contain the evidence of this 
 fact. 
 
 Early in the year 1793, fome Britifh cruifers having {topped 
 veffels of the United States, and taken out of them articles 
 which were the property of French citizens, Mr. Genet, the 
 then minifter of France, in a letter of the 9th of July of that 
 year, made a lively reprefentation upon the fubjedt to our go- 
 vernment, infifting, in a fubfequent letter of the 25th of that 
 month, in which he recurs to the fame point, that the princi- 
 ples of neutrality eftablifhed, that friendly veffels make friendly 
 goods ; and in effect, that the violation of this rule by Great 
 Britain was a violation of our neutral rights, which we were 
 bound to refent. 
 
 The reply of our government, is fecn in a letter from our 
 fecretary of ftate to that minifter, of the 24th of July — It is 
 in thefe terms — " I believe," fays Mr. Jefferfon, " It cannot 
 be doubted, but that by the general law of nations, the goods 
 of a friend, found in the veffel of an enemy, are free, and the 
 goods of an enemy, found in the veffel of a friend, are lawful 
 prize. Upon this principle, I prefume, the Britifh armed vef- 
 fels have taken the property of French citizens found in our 
 veffels in the cafes above mentioned ; and, I confefs, I fhould 
 be at a lofs on what principle to reclaim them. It is true that 
 
Ca MILL us— No. XXXI. 19} 
 
 fundry nations, defirous of avoiding the inconveniencies of hav- 
 ing their veffels flopped at fe'a, ranfacked, carried into port, 
 and detained under pretence of having enemy goods on board, 
 have, in many inftances, introduced, by their fpecial treaties, 
 another principle between them, that enemy bottoms fhall 
 make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a 
 principle much lefs embarraffing to commerce, and equal to all 
 parties in point of gain and loftr, but this is altogether the effect 
 oi particular treaty, controuling, in fpecial cafes, the general 
 principles of the law of nations, and, therefore, taking effect 
 between fuch nations only as have fo agreed to controul it.'' 
 
 N irhing can be a more explicit or unequivocal abandonment 
 of the rile, that free (hips make free goods, and vice verjh, 
 titan is ( ontained in this communication. But this is not all : In 
 the letti 1 from Mr. Jefferfon to our minifter in France, of the 
 26 -'-uft, 1793, inftructing him to urge the recall of 
 
 3V- t, the fubject is refumed, the pofition afferted in an- 
 
 f\ Mr. Genet, infifted upon anew, and enforced by addi- 
 
 * rations: Among other fuggeftions, we find thefe, 
 
 *' We fuppofe it to have been long an eftablifhed principle of 
 the law of nations, that the goods of a friend are free in an 
 enemy's veffel, and an enemy's goods lawful prize in the veffel 
 of a friend. The inconvenience of this principle has induced 
 feveral nations latterly to ftipulate againft it by treaty, and to 
 fubftitute another in its ftead, that free bottoms fhall make free 
 goods, and enemy bottoms, enemy goods. We have introduced it 
 into our treaties with France, Holland, and Ruffia ; and French 
 goods, found by the two latter nations in American bottoms, 
 are not made prize of. It is our wifh to eftablifh it with other 
 nations : — But this requires their confent alio, is a work of time, 
 and, in th : tl • hi r e a right to act on the general 
 
 principle, wii fe of complaint. 
 
 , that France can lofe by it on the whole — For though 
 ihe lofes her gooc's, when found in our veffels, by the nations 
 ■with whom we have no tr^atievS — yet fhe gains our goods when 
 found in the veflels of the fame and all other nations ; and we 
 believe the latter mafs to be greater than the former." 
 
 Thus, then, Hood the bufinefs antecedent to the treaty. 
 Great Britain, adhering to the principle of the general and long 
 eftablifhed law of nations, captures French property in our vef- 
 fels, and leaves free our property in French veffels. We acqui- 
 efce in this practice, without even a remonftrance or murmur. 
 The French minifter complains of it, as contrary to the princi- 
 ples of neutrality — We reply, that, in our opinion, it is not 
 contrary to thofe principles — that it is fully warranted bv the 
 Vol. IH. E e 
 
lg% Camillus — No. XXXI. 
 
 general law of nations — that treaties, which eftablifh a different 
 rule, are merely exceptions to that law, binding only on 
 the contracting parties; that having no treaty of the fort with 
 Great Britain, we fhould be at lofs on what ground to difpute 
 the legitimacy of her practice. We do not (imply forbear to op- 
 pofe — We do not offer to France as an excufe for our forbear- 
 ance, that it is inconvenient to us, at the moment, to affert a 
 questionable right at the hazard of war — But we tell her pe- 
 remptorily, that, in our opinion, no fuch right exiits, and that 
 the conduct of Great Britain, in the particular cafe, is juitified 
 by the law of nations — neither do we wrap the motive of our 
 forbearance in iilence, nor content ourfelves with revealing ic 
 confidentially to France alone ; but we publifh it without referve 
 to the world, and thus, in the prefence of Great Britain, a nd 
 of every other nation, make a formal renunciation of the pre- 
 •tenfion, that " free ihips (hall make free goods, and enemy 
 lhips enemy goods :" no counter declaration is heard from ei- 
 ther houfe of congrefs. 
 
 It was impoffible to give a more full fanclion to the oppofite 
 principle than was given by this conduct, and thefe public and. 
 pofitive declarations of our government. It was impoffible more 
 completely to abandon the favorite ground. It is puerile to at- 
 tempt to difcriminate between the force of this fpecies of 
 renunciation and that of an admiflion of its propriety by treaty. 
 The conduct: of a government avowed and explained, as to 
 motives, by authentic public declarations, may afTertor renounce 
 a pretenfion as effectually as its compacts— Every nation, with 
 whom we had no contrary Stipulation, could fay to us as well 
 before as fmce the treaty with Great Britain, " your govern- 
 ment has explicitly admitted that free (hips do not make free 
 goods, and you have no right to complain of our not obferving 
 that rule towards you." Candour, therefore, would oblige us 
 to fay that the treaty has left this point where it found it — that 
 it has only not obtained from Great Britain a conceifion in fa- 
 vor of an innovation upon the law of nations, which it is defir- 
 able to eftablifh, but which cannot be claimed as matter of right. 
 Though, therefore, it may not have the merit of (trengthening, 
 it has not the demerit of weakening the ground. 
 
 The difference in our pofition, in this refpect, before and 
 finee the treaty, amounts to this, that before the treaty the go- 
 vernment had abandoned the ground through one organ, Mr. 
 Jefferfon; by the treaty, it continued the abandonment through 
 another organ, Mr. Jay — if we coulider the organ as the vo- 
 luntary caufe in each cafe, (the prefumption of which is equally 
 fair in both cafes) and if there be any blame, it falls more hea- 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXI. 
 
 199 
 
 viJy on Mr. JefFerfon than on Mr. Jay, for the former founded 
 and made the retreat, and the latter only did not advance from 
 the disadvantageous poft to which he had retreated. In other 
 words, Mr. Jay did only not recover the ground which Mr. 
 JefFerfon had loft. And we know that, in general, it is a far 
 more difficult talk to regain than to keep an advantageous po- 
 fition. 
 
 But, in truth, no blame can juftly be imputed in either cafe. 
 The law of nations was againlt the rule which it is defired to 
 introduce. The United States could not have infilled upon it as 
 matter of right; and in point of policy it would have been 
 madnefs in them to go to war, to fupport an innovation upon 
 the pre-ellablifhed law. It was not honorable to claim a right, 
 and fufier it to be infracted without refiftance. It is not for 
 young and weak nations to attempt to enforce novelties or 
 pretenfions of equivocal validity. It is ft i 1 i lefs proper for them 
 to contend, at the hazard of their peace, again ft the clear right 
 of others. The object was truly not of moment enough to 
 rifle much upon it. To ufe a French proverb, " The p/av icas 
 not ivorth the candle." In every view, therefore, it was wife*- to 
 defert the pretenfion. 
 
 So alfo, in the midft of war, like that in which Great Bri- 
 tain was engaged, it were prepofterous to have expected, that 
 (he would have acceded to a new rule, which, under the cir- 
 cumftances of her great maritime fuperiority, would have ope- 
 rated fo much more conveniently to her enemy than to herfell. 
 And it would have been no lefs abfurd to have made her accef- 
 fion to that rule thej/ne qua non of an arrangement, otherwife 
 expedient. Here again the play would not have been worth the 
 candle. 
 
 The importance of the rule has artfully been very much mag- 
 nified, to depreciate proportionably the treaty, for not eftablifh- 
 ing it. It is to be remembered, that if fomething 19 gained by 
 it, fomething is alfo given up. It depends on incalculable cir- 
 cumllances, whether, in a particular war, molt will be loft or 
 gained. Yet the rule is, upon the whole, a convenient one to 
 neutral powers. But it cannot be pretended that it is of fo great 
 a value, as that the United States ought to adopt it as, a maxim, 
 never to make a treaty of commerce, in which it was not re- 
 cognized. They might by this maxim forego the advantages of 
 regulating their commercial intercourfe in time of peace with 
 feveral foreign powers, with whom they have extenfive relations 
 of trade, by fixed and ufeful conventional rules, and (till re- 
 main fubject in time of war to the inconveniences of not li.iv. 
 
loo Camillus — No. XXXI. 
 
 ing eftablifhed, with thofe powers, the principle to which they 
 make that facrifice. 
 
 Though, therefore, it be a merit to a certain extent in a treaty 
 to contain this principle, it is not a pofitive fault or blemifh, 
 that it does not contain it. The want of it is not. a good caufe 
 of objection to a treaty otherwife eligible. 
 
 Let me add, too, in the fpirit of Mr. Jefferfon's letter, that 
 however it may be our wifh to eftablifh the rule with other 
 nations befides thofe with whom we have already done it, this 
 requires their confent alfo, of courfe their conviction, that it 
 is their intereft to confent ; and that, confidering the obftacles 
 which lie in the way, the attainment of the object muft be " a 
 ivork of time." It pre-fuppofes, in fome of the principal mari- 
 time powers, a great change of ideas, which is not to be looked 
 for very fuddenly. It was not, therefore, to have been expected 
 of our envoy, that he was to have accomplifhed the point at 
 fo premature and fo favorable a juncture. 
 
 The affertion, that he has abandoned it, is made in too un- 
 qualified a manner. For while he admits the operation for the 
 present, of the general rule of the law of nations, he has, by 
 the 1 2th article, engaged Great Britain in a fhipulation, that 
 the panics will, at the expiration of two years after the exist- 
 ing u^r, rtueiv their dijorjjituy and endeavour to agree whether 
 in any, and what cal"e& neutral veffels fhali protect enemy's 
 property. It is true, it will be in the option of Great Britain 
 then, to agree or not : but it is not lefs true that the principle 
 is n h confent of Great Britain in a negotiable ftate. 
 
 So tar , ne ground has been retrieved. 
 
 I c .vevev, that I entertain much doubt as to the 
 
 a fpeedy general efhiblifhment of the rule, 
 
 Vndly ihips (hall make friendly goods, and enemy (hips 
 
 .. It ib a rule again ft which, it is to be feared, the pre- 
 
 naritime power, to whatever nation this character 
 
 g, will be apt to ftruggle with perfeverance and effect, 
 
 fi-nce it wouki tend to contract materially the means of that 
 
 power to annoy and diftrefs her enemies, whofe inferiority on 
 
 the lea would naturally caufe their commerce, during war, to 
 
 be carried on in neutral bottoms. This confideration will account 
 
 for the refiltance of Great Britain to the principle, and for the 
 
 endeavours of fome other powers to promote it — and it deferves 
 
 notice, that her laft treaty with France was feverely affailed by 
 
 fome of the chiefs of opposition, for containing a Stipulation 
 
 in favor of that principle. The motive for confenting to it, in 
 
 this inftance, probably was, that the ftipulation was likely to 
 
 be rendered, in a great degree, nugatory by the relative Situation 
 
Camillus— No. XXXI. 201 
 
 of the two nations, which, in almoft any war in which one of 
 the two was engaged on one fide, would probably render the 
 Other a party on the oppofite fide. 
 
 If thefe conjectures be right, there is a reflection which 
 leffens much the value of ftipulations in favor of the rule ; that 
 fo long as one or more of the maritime powers difavow it, 
 there will be a ftrong temptation to depart from a fcrupulous ob- 
 fervance of fuch ftipulations, as we, in relation to France, 
 experienced in the prefent war. 
 
 In the courfe of trte arguments againft the 17th . I . r 
 virtually admitting the right of fearch in time of >- 
 
 jecTLors have had the temerity to cite the opiti ig 
 
 being oppofed to that right; and a mutilated qui n 
 
 an appearance of truth to the affertion. It has ben re 
 
 lhown, by paffages extracted from his work, thai lion, 
 
 fo far from denying explicitly, fupports the rig v fo fearch. 
 But it may be ufeful to examine the part of ic whicii lias been 
 tortured into a contrary inference. 
 
 After affirming the right of fearch (B. 3. chap. 7, 8. 14) 
 he proceeds thus, " but to avoid inconveniencies, violence, and 
 every other irregularity, the manner of the fearch is fettled in 
 the treaties of navigation and commerce. According to the pre- 
 fent cujfam, credit is to be given to certificates and bills of lad- 
 ing produced by the matter of the fliip." Hence it is alleged 
 the right to fearch is turned into the right of infpedting the 
 {hip's papers, which, being entitled to credit, are to preclude 
 further fcrutiny. 
 
 But what immediately follows, deftroys this conclufion ! the 
 words " unlefs any ground appear in them, or there be very 
 good reafons for fufpecling their validity," are fubjoined to the 
 claufe juft quoted. This admits clearly, that the fhip's papers 
 are not to be conclufive — But that, upon jult caufe of fufpicion, 
 the papers may be difregarded, and the right of fearch may be 
 exercifed. 
 
 Who is to be the judge of the credit due to the papers and 
 of the juft caufe of fufpicion ? Manifestly the officer of the 
 belligerent party, who vifits the neutral veffel. Then what does 
 the whole amount to ? — Merely this — That fhip's papers are 
 entitled to a certain degree of refpect and credit ; how much, is 
 left to the difcretion of the officer of the belligerent party ! — who, 
 if he be not fatisfied of the fairnefs and validity ot the papers, 
 may proceed to their verification, by a more itrict. and particular 
 fearch, and then if he ftill fees, or fuppoles he fees,juli caufe of 
 fufpicion, he may carry the veffel into a port of his own country, 
 for judicial investigation — In doing this, he acts at his peril, 
 
202 Ca MILL us — No. XXXL 
 
 and for an abufe of his difcretion expofes himfelf to damages 
 and other puniihment. 
 
 This is the true and evident fenfe of Vattel, and it agrees 
 with the doctrine advocated in thefe papers, and, I will add, 
 with the treaty under examination. 
 
 The 17th article admits, that the veflels of each party for 
 jujl caufe of fufpicion of having on board enemy's property, 
 or of carrying to the enemy contraband articles, may be cap- 
 tured or detained, and carried to the neareft and molt conve- 
 nient port of the belligerent party, to the end that enemy's pro- 
 perty and contraband articles on board may become lawful 
 prize. But fo far from countenancing any proceeding without 
 jajl caufe of fufpicon, or from exonerating the officer of the 
 belligerent party from a refponfibility for fuch proceeding, 
 it leaves the law of nations, in this particular, in full force, 
 and contemplating that fuch officer ihallbe liable for damages, 
 when he proceeds without jufl caufe of fufpicion, provides that 
 all proper meafures (hall be taken to prevent delay in deciding the , 
 cafes of fhips or cargoes brought in for adjudication, or in the 
 payment or recovery of any indemnification adjudged or agreed to be 
 paid to the mafters or owners offuchfjips. Befides which, the 19th 
 article ftipulates, in order that more abundant care may be taken 
 for the fecurity of the refpe&ive fubjects and citizens of the 
 contracting parties, and to prevent their fuffering injuries by the 
 men of war and privateers of either party, that the command- 
 ers of fhips of war and privateers, lhall forbear doing any da- 
 mage to thofe of the other party, committing any outrage 
 againft them •, and that if they acYto the contrary, they ft hall be 
 pumped, and (hall alfo be bound in their perfons and eftates, r /<? 
 make fatisfablion and reparation for all damages, and the interejl 
 thereof, of whatever nature the f aid damages may be. And further, 
 after eftablifhing that the commanders of privateers (hall, be- 
 fore they are commiflioned, give fecurity to fatisfy all damages 
 and injuries, it adds, that in all cafes of aggreffions their com- 
 miffions fhall be revoked and annulled. 
 
 Thefe provifions not only conform to, and corroborate the 
 injunctions of the laws of nations: but they refute the afTertion, 
 that the treaty is altogether deficient in precautions for guard- 
 ing neutral rights ; fince thofe above-mentioned are among the 
 mod efficacious. — It is not prefumable that any ftipulationshave 
 been or can be made which will take away all difcretion from 
 the marine officers of the belligerent parties; for this would 
 be a total furrender of the rights of belligerent to neutral na- 
 tions, and fo long as any difcretion is left, its right or wrong 
 exercife will depend on the perfonal character of each officer: 
 
Camillus — No. XXXI. 203 
 
 and abufes can only be reftrained by the penalties that await 
 them. Thole ftipulations of treaties, then, which re-inforce the 
 laws of nations as to the infliction of penalties, are the molt 
 effectual of the precautions which treaties can adopt for the 
 fecurity of neutral rights; and in this particular the treaty with 
 Great Britain is to the full as provident as our other treaties. In 
 one point I believe it is more (o ; for it exprefsly ftipulates a 
 revocation of the commiflions of the commanders of privateers, 
 for the aggreffions they may commit. 
 
 Is not the palTage lafl cited from Vattel a true commentary 
 on thofe ftipulations, for regulating and mitigating the right of 
 fearch, which are found in our own and other treaties ? Do 
 they not all intend to referve to the belligerent party a right of 
 judging of the validity and fidelity or the papers to be exhibited, 
 and of extending the fearch or not, according to the circum- 
 ftances of juft fuipicion which do or do not appear ? and if this 
 be their true conitruction, as it certainly is their conftruclion in 
 practice, which our own experience teftifies, to what, after all, 
 do they amount, more than without them the laws of nations, 
 as univerfally recognized, of themfelves pronounce ? What 
 real fecurity do they afford more than the treaty with Great 
 Britain affords ? 
 
 It is much to be fufpedted, that there will always be found 
 advantages effentially nominal, operating or not according to 
 the itrength or weaknefs of the neutral party ; which, if llrong, 
 will find abundant foundation in the acknowledged laws of 
 nations on which to reft the protection of its rights* 
 
 It has been faid to be juft matter of furprize, that thefe pre-» 
 cautions fhould have no place in a treaty with Great Britain, 
 whofe conduct on the feas, fo particularly fuggefted and en- 
 forced every guard to our rights that could be reafonably infilled 
 on. Obfervations of this kind a flume conftantly the fuppofition, 
 that we had it in our power to fafhion every provision of the 
 treaty exactly to our own talte, and that the ideas of the other 
 contracting party were to have no influence even upon the mi- 
 nor features of the contract. But this fuppofition isabfurd; 
 and a treaty may ftill be entitled to our approbation, which 
 adjufts acceptably the great points of interelt, though in fome 
 of its details it falls fhort of our defires. Nor can anv well-in- 
 formed man fincerely deny that it was to have been expected, 
 that an adjuftment of the particulars in queftion, wtTuld fall 
 Ihort of our ideas. It may be anfwered, that we were then at 
 liberty not to make the treaty ; fo we were ; but does it follow 
 that it would have been wife to fplit on fuch points ? — upon a 
 juft eftimate, their intrinfic value i$ very moderate. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
C 204 3 
 
 No. XXXII. 
 
 TH E eighteenth article of the treaty, which regulates 
 the fubjett of contraband, has been grievouily mifrepre- 
 fented ; the objections uied agamft it with moft acrimony, are 
 difingenuousand unfounded! Yet while I make this afiertion, 
 which, I flatter myfelf, I fhall be able to prove, I fhall not pre- 
 tend to maintain that it is an article completely fatisfattory. I 
 even admit that it has one unpleafant ingredient in ic, and I am 
 convinced that our envoy muft have confented to it with re- 
 luctance. 
 
 But while candour demands this conceffion, it equally admo- 
 nifhes us, that, under the circumftances of the moment, the 
 points in this refpect to be adjufted were peculiarly unmanage- 
 able — that the pofition of the other party rendered an arrange- 
 ment, entirely agreeable to us, impracticable ; that without 
 compromise nothing could have been regulated ; that the article 
 made no change for the worfe in our prior fituation, but in 
 fome particulars made our ground better ; and that eftimating 
 truly the relative circumftances of the parties, there is no pro- 
 bability that any thing more acceptable could have been efta- 
 blHhed. 
 
 I will add, that a degree of imperfection, which may fairly 
 be attributed to this article, is far from being of fuch import- 
 ance, as, on folid calculations, ought to defeat the treaty — No 
 clear right is abandoned, no material intereft .of the nation 
 injured. 
 
 It is one thing, whether every part of the treaty be fatisfac- 
 tory — .another, and a very different thing, whether in the ag- 
 gregate it be eligible or not, and ought to be accepted or re- 
 jected. Nations could never make contracts with one another, 
 if each were to require that every part of it fhould be adjufted 
 by its own ftandard of right and expediency. The true quef- 
 tion always is upon the collective merits of the inftrument; 
 whether, upon the whole, it reafonably accommodates the 
 opinions and interefts of the parties. Tried by this teft, the 
 treaty negociated with Great Britain, Fully juft — s the ■ . jpt- 
 ance of it by the Conftituted aumorities of our country, and 
 claims the acquiefcence of every good citizen. 
 
 The moft laboured, and, at ti. { .. time, the moft falfe of 
 
 the charges againlt the eighte* aruae is, that it allows pro- 
 
 vifions to be contr?.K, d in cafes not heretofore warranted by 
 the laws of rial ^us, and refers to the belligerent party, the 
 decifion of what thofe cafes are. — This is the general form of 
 
Ca mill us— No. XXXII. 205 
 
 the charge. The draft of a petition to the legifiature of Virgi- 
 nia, reduces it to this fhape. The treaty " exprefsly admits, 
 that provifions are to be held contraband in cafes other than 
 when bound to an inverted place, and impliedly admits, that 
 fuch cafes exiil at prefent." 
 
 The firft is a palpable untruth, which may be detected by a 
 bare perufal of the article.— The laft is an untrue inference, 
 impregnated with the malignant insinuation that there was ;•» 
 defign to Sanction the unwarrantable pretenfion of a right to 
 inflict famine on a whole nation. 
 
 Before we proceed to an analyfis of the article, let us review 
 the prior Situation of the parties. Great Britain, it is known, 
 had taken and acted upon the ground, that the had a right to 
 Hop and detain, on payment for them, provifions belonging to 
 neutrals, going to the dominions of France. For this violent 
 and impolitic meafure, which the final opinion of mankind 
 will certainly condemn, fhe found colour, in the fayings of fome 
 writers of reputation, on public laws. 
 
 A paffage of this kind, from Vattel, has been more than 
 once quoted, in thefe terms, " Commodities, particularly ufed, 
 in war, and the importation of which, to an enemy, is prohi-» 
 bited, are called contraband goods. Such are military and naval 
 (lores, timber, horfes, an d even provifions in certain junctures, 
 iv I: en there arc hopes of reducing the enemy by famine." Heine- 
 cius* countenances the fame opinion, and even Grotius feems 
 to lean towards it.f 
 
 The United Stater, with reafon, difputed this conftrutliori 
 of the law of nations ! restraining the general propositions 
 which appear to favor it, to thofc cafes in which the chance o£ 
 reducing by famine was manfefled and palpable, fuch as the 
 Cafes of particular places, bona ride, befieged, blockaded or in- 
 verted. Fhe government accordingly remonltrated againit the 
 proceeding of Great Britain} and made every effort againll it 
 which prudence, in the thert pofture of affairs, would permit. 
 The order for feizing provifions^ was, after a time, revoked. 
 
 In this State our envoy found the bufinefs, pending the very- 
 War in which Great Britain had exercifed the pretenfion, with 
 the fame administration which had done it, was it to have been 
 expected that fhe would, in a treaty with us, even virtually or 
 impliedly have acknowledged the injuftice or impropriety of 
 the conduct ? Here was no efcape, as in the inltance of the 
 Vol. III. Ff 
 
 * Law of nature and nations. B. Z t C. 9. S. 201. Navibus ob ve£h 
 t Book III. Chap. I. and V. .^. Chap. I. and X, 
 
So6 Cam ill us— No. XXXII. 
 
 order of the 6th of November, 1 793> in the mifconceptions of 
 her officers. The queition was to condemn a deliberate and un- 
 ambiguous a£t of the administration itfelf. The pride, the 
 reputation, and the interefl of that adminiflration forbade it. 
 
 On our fide, to admit the pretenfions of Great Britain was 
 ftill more impoihble. — We had every inducement of character, 
 right, and intereit againft it. What was the natural and only 
 iffue out of this embarraffment ? Plainly, to leave the point 
 unfettled ; to get rid of it; to let it remain fubftantially where 
 it was before the tieaty. This, I have good ground to believe, 
 was the real underflanding of the two negociators ; and the 
 article has fulfilled that view. 
 
 After enumerating fpecifically what articles fhall be deemed 
 contraband, it proceeds thus, " And whereas the difficulty of 
 agreeing on the precife cafes, in which alone provifions and ether 
 articles, not generally contraband, may be regarded as fuch, 
 renders it expedient to provide againit the inconveniencies and 
 mifunderftandings which might thence arife : It is further 
 agreed, that whenever any fuch articles, fo becoming contra- 
 band according to the laws of nations, fhall, for that reafon, be 
 feized, the fame fhall not be confifcated, but the owners thereof 
 ill all befpeedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or, 
 in their default, the government under whofe authority they 
 act, fhall pay to the mafters or owners of fuch veflels, the full 
 value of all articles with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon* 
 together with the freight and alio the demurrage, incident to 
 fuch detention." 
 
 The difficulty of agreeing on the precife cafes in which arti- 
 cles, not generally contraband, become fo, from particular cir- 
 cumstances, is cxprefsly affigned as the motive to the Stipulation 
 which follows. — This excludes the fuppoiition that any cafes 
 whatever were intended to be admitted or agreed. But this dif- 
 ficulty rendered it expedient to provide againit the inconvenien- 
 cies and mifunderftandings which might thence arife — a provi- 
 sion, with this view, is, therefore, made, which is that of 
 liberal compenfation for the articles taken — The evident intent 
 of this provifion is, that in doubtful cafes, the inconveniencies 
 to the neutral party being obviated or leffened by compenfation, 
 there may be the lefs caufe or temptation to controverfy and 
 rupture— the affair may be the more fufceptible of negociation 
 and accommodation. More than this cannot be pretended ; be- 
 caufe it is further agreed, " that whenever any fuch articles, 
 fo become contraband, according to the exifling laws of nations, 
 fhall, for that reafon, be feized, the fame fbull not be confif- 
 
Cam ill us— -No. XXXIL 207 
 
 <ated, but the owners thereof fhall be fpeedily and completely 
 indemnified," &c. 
 
 Thus the criterion of the cafes, In which articles, not gene- 
 rally contraband, may, from particular circumstances, become 
 fo, isexprefsiy the exi/Iing law of nations ; in other words, the 
 Jaw of nations at the time the tranfuction happens. When 
 thefe laws pronounce them contraband, they may, for that rea- 
 ion, be feized ; when otherwife, they may not be feized. 
 Each party is as free as the other to decide whether the laws of 
 nations do, in the given cafe, pronounce them contraband or 
 not, and neither is obliged to be governed by the opinion of the 
 other. If one party, on a falfe pretext of being authorized by 
 the laws of nations, makes a feizure, the other is at full liberty 
 to contelt it, to appeal to thofe laws, and, if it thinks fit, to op- 
 pofe, even to reprif.ils and war. This is the exprefs tenor of the 
 provifion — there is nothing to the contrary ; nothing that nar* 
 rows the ground ; nothing that warrants either party in mak- 
 ing a feizure, which the laws of nations, independent of the 
 treaty, permits; nothing which obliges cither party to fubmit 
 to one, when it is of opinion the Jaw of nations has been vio- 
 lated by it. 
 
 But as liberal compenfation is to be made in every cafe of 
 feizure, whereof difference of opinion happens, it will become 
 a queflion of prudence and expediency, whether to be fatis- 
 fied with the compenfation, or to feek further redrefs. The 
 provifion will, in doubtful cafes, render an accommodation of 
 opinion the more eafy, and, as a circumitance conducing to the 
 prefervation of peace, is a valuable ingredient in the treaty. 
 A very different phrafeology was to have been expected, if the 
 intention had been, to leave each party at liberty to feize, agree- 
 ably to its own opinion of the law of nations, upon the condi- 
 tion of making compenfation — The Stipulation would thus 
 have been: " It is agreed, that whenever either of the contract- 
 ing parties fhall feize any fuch articles (o becoming contraband, 
 and which fliall, for that reafon, be feized j" this makes, not the 
 opinion of either party, but the fact of the articles having become 
 contraband by the laws of nations, the condition of the fei- 
 zure. 
 
 A cavil has arifen on the term " exiting" ™ ^ lt had the 
 effect of enabling one of the parties to make a law of nations. 
 for the occafion. But this is a mere cavil. 
 
 No one nation can make a law of nations; no pofaiverregu- 
 lation of one ftate, or of a partial nomination of ilates, can pre- 
 tend to this character. A law of nations is a law which A 1 ■ 
 turc, agreement, or ufrge has eftabJifhed between nationo ; Di 
 
2oS Cam ill us— No. XXXII. 
 
 this may vary from one period to another by agreement or 
 ufage, the article very properly ufes the term "exifting," to denote 
 that law, which at the time the tranfa&ion may happen, (hall 
 be then the law of nations. This is a plain and obvious ufe of 
 the term, which nothing but a fpirit of mifreprefentation could 
 have perverted to a different meaning. 
 
 The argument againrt the foregoing conrtru£tion is in fub- 
 ftance this (viz.) it is now a fettled docftrine of the law of na- 
 tions, that provifions and other articles, not generally contra- 
 band, can only become fo when going to a place befieged, 
 blockaded, or inverted — cafes of this kind are fully provided for 
 in afubfequentpartof the article; the implication therefore is, 
 that fomething more was intended to be embraced in the ante- 
 cedent part. 
 
 Let us firfh examine the fact, whether all the cafes of that 
 kind are comprehended in the fubfequent part of the article. I 
 fay they are not — the remaining claufe of the article divides 
 itfelf into two parts. The firft defenbes the cafe of a veffel fail- 
 ing for a port or place belonging to any enemy, without know- 
 ing that the fame is ei'her befieged, blockaded, or inverted; and 
 provides, that, in fuch cafe, the veiTelrnaybe turned away, but 
 not detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, confifcated, 
 unlefs after notice fhe fhall again attempt to enter: The fecond 
 defcribes the cafe of a veffel, or goods, which had entered into 
 fuch port or place before it was befieged, blockaded, or inverted, 
 and declares that the one or the other fhall not be liable to confif- 
 cation, but fhall be reftored to the owners thereof. Thefe are 
 the only cafes defcribed or provided for. A third, which occurs 
 on the flighted reflection, is not mentioned : the cafe of a vef- 
 fel going to a port or place which is befieged, blockaded or in- 
 verted, with notice of its being in that ftate when fhe com- 
 mences her voyage, or previous to her receiving notice from 
 the befieging, blockading, or inverting party. This is left to the 
 operation of the general law of nations, except fo far as it 
 may be affected in refpecSt to compenfation by the antecedent 
 claufe. Thus the facT:, which is the foundation of the argument, 
 fails, and with it, of courfe, the argument itfelf. 
 
 But had this been otherwife, the conclufion would ftill have 
 been erroneous — the two claufes are entirely independent of 
 each other, and though they might both contemplate the fame 
 cafes in whole, or in part, they do it with an eye to very dif- 
 ferent purpofes. 
 
 The object of the firft is to lefTen the danger of mifunder- 
 ftanding, by eftablifhing this general rule, that wherever articles, 
 wot commonly contraband, become fo from particular circum- 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXXII. 209 
 
 (lances, according to the law of nations, they (hall (till not be 
 confifcated, but, when feized, the owners of them (hall be in- 
 demnified. 
 
 The object: of the laft is to regulate fome fpecial confe- 
 quences with regard to veffels and goods going to, or which 
 had previously gone to places befieged, blockaded, or inverted; 
 and in refpect to which the difpofitions of the laws of nations 
 may have been deemed doubtful or too rigorous. Thus iris, 
 held, that the laws of nations permit the confiscation of (hips 
 and goods going to places befieged, blockaded, or inverted ; but 
 this claufe decides, that if going without notice, lb far from 
 being confifcated, they (hall not even be detained, but fhail be 
 permitted to go whitherfoevcr they pleafe. If they perfitt after 
 notice, then the contumacy fhalt oe punifhed with confiscation. 
 In both initances the confequence is entirely different from 
 every thing in the antecedent claufe. 
 
 There, there is feizure, with compenfation. Here, in one 
 inltance, feizure is forbidden, and pcrmilfion to go el fe where ia 
 enjoined. In the other initances, the offending things are con- 
 fifcated, which excludes the idea of compenfation. Again, the 
 laft part of the lail claufe. ltipulatcs in the cafe, which it fup- 
 pofes, the refloration of the property to its owners, and fo ex- 
 cludes both feizure and compenfation. Hence it is apparent the 
 objects of the two claufes are entirely foreign to each other, 
 and that no argument nor inference whatever c2.11 be drawn 
 from the one to the other. 
 
 If it be afked, what other cafes there can be, except thole 
 of places befieged, blockaded, or invelted ? and if none other, 
 what difficulty in defining them ? why leave the point fo vague 
 and indeterminate? One anfwer, which indeed has already 
 been given in fubflance, is, that the fituation of one of the 
 parties prevented an agreement at the time ; that not being able 
 to agree, they could not define ; and the alternative was to 
 avoid definition — The want of definition only argues want of 
 agreement. It is ftrange logic to aflert, that this or that is ad- 
 mitted, becaufe nothing is defined. 
 
 Another anfwer is, that even if the parties had been agreed 
 that there were no other cafes than thole of befieged, block- 
 aded, or invefted places, ltill there would have remained much 
 room for difpute about the precife cafes, owing to the imprac- 
 ticability of defining what is a befieged, blockaded, or invciled 
 place. About this there has been frequent controverfy; and the 
 fact is to complicated, puts on fuch a variety of fhapes, that no 
 definition can well be devifed, which will fuit all. Thence na- 
 tions, in thfir compacts with each other, frequently do not 
 
2io Ca mill us— -No. XXXIL 
 
 attempt one ; and where the attempt has been made, it has 
 left almolt as much room for difpute about the definition as there 
 was about the thing. 
 
 Moreover, is it impoflible to conceive other cafes than thofe 
 mentioned above, in which provifions and other articles not 
 generally contraband might, on rational grounds, be deemed 
 l'o ? What if they were going exprefsly, and with notice, to a 
 befieging army, whereby it might obtain a fupply effential to 
 the fuccefs of its operations ? Is there no doubt that it would 
 be juftifiable in fuch cafe to feize them ? Can the liberty of 
 trade be faid to apply to any inftance of direct and immediate 
 aid to a military expedition ? It would be at leaft a fingular 
 effect of the rule, if provifions could be carried without inter- 
 ruption for the fupply of a Spanifh army befieging Gibraltar, 
 when, if deftined for the fupply of the garrifon in that place, 
 they might, of right, be feized by a Spanifh fleet. 
 
 The calumniators of the article have not had the candour to 
 notice that it is not confined to provifions, but fpeaks of provi- 
 fions and other articles. Even this is an ingredient which com- 
 bats the fuppofition that countenance was intended to be given 
 to the pretenfion of Great Britain with regard to provifions', 
 which, depending on a reafon peculiar to itfelf, cannot be deem- 
 ed to be fupported by a claufe including orther articles, to which 
 that reafon is entirely inapplicable. 
 
 There is one more obfervation which has been made againft 
 this part of the article which may deferve a moment's attention. 
 It is this, that though the true meaning of the claufe, be fuch 
 as I contend for, ftill theexiftence of it affords to Great Britain 
 a pretext for abufe which fhe may improve to our difadvantage. 
 I anfvver, it is difficult to guard againft all the perverfions of a 
 contract which ill faith may fuggeft. But we have the fame 
 fecurity againft abufes of this fort, which wc have againft 
 thofe of other kinds, namely, the right of judging for ourfelves, 
 and the power of caufing our rights to be refpected. We have 
 this plain and decifive reply to make, to any uncandid construc- 
 tion which Great Britain may, at any time, endeavour to raife, 
 «' The article pointedly and explicitly makes the exifting law of 
 nations, the ftandard of the cafes in which you may rightfully 
 feize provifions and other articles not generally contraband. 
 This law does not authorize the feizure in the inftance in que- 
 stion ; you have confequenrly no warrant under the treaty for 
 what you do.'' 
 
 The fame difingenuous fpirit which tinctures all the conduct 
 of the adverfaries of the treaty, has been hardy enough to im- 
 
Camilltjs— No. XXXIH. ut 
 
 pure to it the lafl order of Great Britain, to feize provifions go- 
 ing to the dominions of France. 
 
 Strange, that an order iflued before the treaty had ever been con- 
 fidered in this country, and embracing the other neutral powers 
 befides the United States, fhould be reprefented as the fruit of 
 that inftrument !* The appearances are, that a motive no lefa 
 imperious than that of impending fcarcity, has great fhare in 
 dictating the meafure, and time, I am perfuaded, will prove 
 that it will not ever be pretended to juitify it by any thing in 
 the treaty. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXXIH. 
 
 TH E courfe thu9 far purfued in the difcuffion of the 1 8th 
 article, has inverted the order of it, as it (lands in the 
 treaty. It is compofed of three claufes ; the two lad of which 
 have been firft examined — I thought it advifeable, in the outfet> 
 to difpofe of an objection which has been the principal fource 
 of clamour. 
 
 The firft claufc of that which remains to be examined, enu- 
 merates the articles, which, it is agreed, fhall be deemed contra- 
 band of war. Thefe are, " all arms, and implements ferving for 
 the purpofe of war, fuch as cannon, mufquets, mortars, pe- 
 tards, bombs, grenadoes, carcafes, faucifles, carriages for can- 
 non, mufquet-refts, bandoliers, gunpowder, match, falt-petre, 
 balls, pikes, fwords, head-pieces, cuirafles, halberts, lances, 
 javelins, horfe furniture, holders, belts, and generally all other 
 implements of war; as alfo timber for {hip-building, tar or 
 rofin, copper in iheets, fails, hemp, and cordage, and generally 
 whatever may ferve diredlly to the equipment of vedels, un- 
 wrought iron and fir planks only excepted." 
 
 All which articles are declared to be jult object's of confifca- 
 tion, when attempted to be carried to any enemy of either 
 party. 
 
 It is well underftood, that war abridges the liberty of trade, 
 of neutral nations; and that it is not lawful for them to fupply 
 either of two belligerent parties with any article deemed con- 
 traband of war ; nor may they fupply any article whatever to a 
 
 • As rcafonable would it be to place to its account the fimilar order whic'k 
 was ifiuad before ;he million of an envoy was thought of. 
 
-.a Cam ill us— No. XXXItt. 
 
 place befieged, blockaded or inverted. The former cafe includes 
 a fpecial catalogue of articles which have an immediate refer-" 
 ence to war — Hie latter extends to all kinds of goods and 
 merchandize. The penalty in both cafes is confifcation. . 
 
 Thefe pofitions have not been difputed. The only queftion 
 which has been or can be railed, mult refpetl the enumeration 
 of the articles which are to be confidered as contraband. 
 
 In comparing the enumeration in the prefent treaty, with 
 that of our former treaties, we find the differences to be thefe. 
 Our former treaties include " horfesj' and one of them " fol- 
 diers," which our prefent does not ; but our prefent includes 
 •* timber for (hip-building, tar or rofin, copper in fheets, fails, 
 hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may ferve directly 
 to the equipment of veffels, unwrought iron and fir planks 
 only excepted," which are not to be found in our former treaties. 
 
 It is alleged that the including of thefe articles is an exten- 
 tion of the lilt of contraband beyond the limit of the modern 
 law of nations ; in fupport of which allegation, it is affirmed, 
 that they have been excluded by the uniform tenor of the trea- 
 ties which have been formed for more than a century paft. 
 
 Though this pofition will not, upon careful examination, ap- 
 pear correct ; yet it is fo far founded, as to claim an acknow- 
 ledgment, that the article under confideration has, in this in- 
 ftance, purfued the rigor of the law of nations. It was to this, 
 I. alluded, when I obferved that it contained one unpleafant 
 ingredient. 
 
 It is a fact, that far the greater proportion of modern trea- 
 ties exclude naval ftores or articles for fhip-building; yet this 
 is not univerfally the cafe. 
 
 By the third article of the treaty of alliance and commerce 
 between Great Britain and Denmark, in 1670, the parties 
 agree " not to fumifh the enemies of each other with any 
 provifions of war, as foldiers, arms, engines, guns, fhips or 
 other neceffiries for the ufc of war, nor to fuffer the fame to 
 be furniihed by their fiibjects." An explanation of this article 
 was made by a convention, dated the 4th of July, 1780, 
 which, after enumerating as contraband, the ufual catalogue 
 of military implements, adds, in the precife terms of our arti- 
 cle, " as alfo timber for fhip-building, tar, rofin, copper in 
 fheets, fails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may 
 ferve -directly to the equipment of veffeis, unwrought iron, and 
 fir planks only excepted." 
 
 In a feries of treaties between Great Britain and Portugal, 
 down to the year 1 703, I do not difcover that there has ever 
 
Camillus— No. XXXIII. 213 
 
 been a regulation of the articles which arc to be treated as 
 contraband, between thefe powers. 
 
 And between Sweden and Great Britain, the 1 ith article cf 
 a treaty, entered into in 1661 (and dill in force unaltered, 
 though a fubfeouent commercial treaty was made between 
 thofe powers as late as 1776) fubjcclsto confifcation equally all 
 articles called contraband, and especially money, provifions, &fc. 
 The fpeciMcation not being complete, naval ftorea are left upon 
 the open ground of the law of nations -, but money and pro- 
 vifions are fuperadded — This latitude would bear little doubt 
 as to the intention to include naval ftoi 
 
 It appears from thefe fpecimens, that there is not a perfect 
 uniformity in the conventions between nations; and that no 
 purely pofitive law of nations can be deduced from that fourcej 
 
 If we call to our aid the principles of reafon and natural 
 juflice, which are the great foundations of the law of nations, 
 we fliall not difcover, in tins inftance, data as certain as could be 
 wifhed, for a fatisfa£tory conclufion; and the founded determi- 
 nation, which we can adopt, will be, that beyond a certain point, 
 I the queftion is in a great degree arbitrary, and mult depend 
 materially upon conventional regulation between nation and 
 
 Vol. III. G g 
 
 * An opinion lias been propagated that Sweden armed in concert with Den- 
 mark, in order to maintain the neutral right of carrying corn and flour to 
 France, in oppofition to the convention of March, 1793, between Great Bri- 
 tain and Riifiia ; and that, in confequence of this procee 
 
 of thefe powers have proved more fuccefsful than we have been in obtaining 
 fatisfaction from Great Britain. 
 
 This opinion is, throughout, an error, made ufe of by thofe whofe perfevering 
 aim has been, by GJencing truth, reafon, and moderation, and inflaming the angry 
 paffions of the community, to involve the country in anarchy and war — The 
 authors of this impofture, as well as the exalt:,! patriots who have feen in the 
 memorial of our envoy, the humiliation of our country, are . n :d to " col- 
 lection of ftate papers relative to the war againft France," pub! (he 1 by I 
 in 1794. The perufal of the Swedifh flsre papers, as well as the memorials of 
 the able and prudent Bcrnftorff, may teach thefe gentlemen a little of what is 
 I manners on tlnfe occafions. 
 
 So far from even rcmonftrating, much lefs arming on account of the Britifh 
 inftruetion of June, 179.1, when that order was notified at Stockholm, by the 
 Britifh refident there, the government-of Sweden, by their refident at London, 
 acknowledged, in terms too refpcctful to be repeated in the hearing of our ex- 
 clufive patriots, that Sweden was perfectly fatisfied with the inftrucYion ; Di 
 
 der i'iiured, ail proviGons, in virtu-, ol an ex- 
 treaty ,betwe< 11 the two nations, were liable to confifcation when feized, on 
 their way to an enemy. 
 
 This note is added for of refuting a popular error, and not to 
 
 vindicate the infiru&ion allud< 1 to, which 1 confid r; jury to the righj 
 
 neutral nations, that has not been juftified by the infwers thai have been given 
 
 ind Danifh n 
 
214 Ca MILL us — No. XXXIII. 
 
 nation. — Hence it is there is fo great a diverfity in. the ftipula- 
 tions of different parties on this point; indicating that there is 
 no abfolute rule. Hence alio it is, that feveral nations, at dif- 
 ferent times, being at war, have thought themfelves authorized 
 to regulate and announce, by public declarations, the article 
 which they would confider and treat as contraband. 
 
 The opinion of writers will be found to fupport the article. 
 as it (lands, in the particular, which is now the fubjedf, of dif- 
 cuffion. 
 
 Vattely we have before feen, (B. B.C. 3. 6, 7. f. 11 2) exprefsly 
 ranks naval /tores and timber under the denomination of con- 
 traband goods. 
 
 Hienecius ( de navibus, Sec, Chap. I. S. 10, 11 and 14) ac- 
 cords in the fame pofition to the extent of whatfoever apper- 
 tains to the equipment of veffels.* 
 
 Bynkerfhsok is lefs explicit. After laying it down as the gene- 
 ral rule that naval (lores or the materials of (hips, are not con- 
 
 >and, he proceeds thus — "Yet it fometimes happens that 
 the materials of (hips may be prohibited, if an enemy is in 
 great ivani of them, and without them cannot conveniently carry on 
 the ibdi ,-'f and he afterwards cites, with approbation, feveral 
 e icls or proclamat is, which the dates general, in different 
 with different nations, have publifhed, declaring thofe 
 id — thus referring it to the belligerent party 
 to judge ot\ and pronounce the cafes when they may right- 
 full) be deemed fo — And the fame idea feems to have been 
 adopted by Gi otiusjj. and fome other writers on public law — I 
 not met with one whofe opinion excludes naval (lores from 
 the lift of contraband. 
 
 Grotius, in dHcufling this queftion, divides goods into three 
 claffes, I. Thofe which are of ufe only in war, as arms. Sec. 
 2. Thofe which ferve only for pleafure; 3. Thofe ufeful for 
 peaceable as well as for warlike purpofes, " as money, provjfiom t 
 ihips and naval fores" — concerning which he argues in fub- 
 flance, that the fir ft clafs are clearly contraband ; that the fe- 
 cond clafs are clearly not contraband ; and that the third clafs 
 may or may not be fo, according to the (late and circumflances 
 of the war; alleging, that if neceffary to our defence •, they, may be 
 intercepted, but upon condition of reftitution, unlefs there be 
 
 * Vela, Reflet et ft quae alia ad apparatum rrautieurn pertinent. 
 
 •{■ Quandoque tanun accidit ut et navium materia prohibeatur, fi hoftis ea 
 quam maxime indigeat at abfque ea commode bellum Gt — Qua?fti. 
 
 onum juris Publici L. 1 chap, X. page 8c. 
 
 J B. iii. C. I. V. 
 
Cam ill us — No. XXXIII. 21* 
 
 juft caefe to the contrary ; which juft ca'i )lained by the 
 
 examples of fending them to a befieged, 01 ace. 
 
 The reafoning about the third ry inconvenient 
 
 latitude. It fubj.cis the trade or ively 
 
 to the difcrerion of belligerent powe; •, there is a feri- 
 
 OU6 embarraffment about drawing the • . hich will 
 
 duly conciliate the fafety of the be . the 
 
 neutral, party. 
 
 What definition of contraband, confuting reafon alone, 
 ihall we adopt? Shall we lay, that none but artie ar to 
 
 war ought to receive this denomination? Jjuc is even pc-rder 
 excluftvely applicable to war ? Are nitre aiul fulphur, its chief 
 ingredients, peculiar to war? Ave they not all ufeful for other 
 purpofes; fome of them in medicine, and ether important 
 arts ? Shall we fay, that none but articles prepared and organ- 
 ized for war, as their primary object, ought to have that charac- 
 ter? But what fubllanti.il difference can reafon know, between 
 the fupply to our enemy of powder, and that of fulphur and 
 falt-petre, the ealily convertible materials of this mifchievous 
 compound ? 
 
 How would either of thefc definitions, or any other, comport 
 with what thofe of our treaties which are thought unexception- 
 able, in tliis particular, have regulated, or with what is com- 
 mon in the treaties between other nations? Under which of 
 them fhall we bring horfes and their furniture ? 
 
 If we fay, that in wars by land, thefe are instruments little 
 lefs important than men, and, for that reafon, ought to be 
 comprehended; it may be aiked in return, what can be more 
 neceffary in wars by fea, than the materials of hops, and why 
 mould they not, for the like reafons, I .■ comprehended ? 
 
 In wars between maritime nations, who transfer it., calami- 
 ties from the land to the ocean, and wage their moii: furious 
 conflicts on that element, whole dominions cannot be attacked 
 or defended without a fuperiority in naval ftrength, who more- 
 over poflefles diftant territories, the protection and commercial 
 advantages of which, depend upon the exigence and fupport 
 of navies, it is difficult to maintain, that it is aga-inlr. reafoq, or 
 againft thofe principles which regulate the defcription of con- 
 traband, to confide r as fuch tl: materials which appertain to 
 the eonllruclion and equipment of (hips. 
 
 It is not a Sufficient objection, that thefe articles are 1 
 for other purpofes, and especially for thofe ot n 
 merce — Horfes are of primary util rricul ure 
 
 has been feen that there are other articles indifputab'y 
 
116 Ca MILL us— No. XXXIII. 
 
 lift of contraband, which are entirely within the principle of 
 that objection. 
 
 Rutherforth, a fer.uble modern writer,* after truly obferv- 
 ing, " that the notion of contraband goods is of fome latitude, 
 fo that it is not eafy precifely to determine what are and what 
 are not of this fort — that all warlike fiorcs are certainly contra- 
 band, but that (till the queftion returns, what arc to be reckoned 
 warlike ftores f" — after noticing the divifion of articles by Gro- 
 tius and the difficulties with regard to the third clafs — draws 
 this conclufion, that " where a war is carried on by jea as well 
 as by land, not only fhips of war which are already built, but 
 the materials for building or repairing of fhips, will come un- 
 der the notion of ivarlihe Jlores" This is a precife idea, and, 
 it mult be confefled, on principle, not an irrational one. 
 
 If we refort to the opinions which have been entertained and 
 evidenced in our own country, they will be found to have given 
 great extent to the idea of contraband — Congrefs, by an act 
 of May the Sth, 1777, cftabliflung the form of commiffions 
 for privateers, authorize them " to attack, fubdue, and take 
 all fhips and other veffels whatever, carrying foldiers, arms, gun- 
 powder, ammunition, provifions> or any other contraband goods, 
 to any of the Bntifh armies or (hips of war, employed againft 
 the United States. And in their acl of the 27th of November, 
 1780, acceding, in part, to the rule of the armed neutrality, 
 they declare, that contraband (hall be thereafter confined to the 
 articles contained under this character, in our treaty with 
 France; indicating, by this, their opinion that the lift of thofe 
 articles is abridged by that treaty. If the firft mentioned act 
 was well founded (and there are ftrong reafons for it) it efta- 
 blifhes that even provisions may be contraband, if going directly 
 to invading fleets and armies; which affords an inftance of their 
 being fo (analogous to the cafe heretofore put of a befieging 
 army) in addition, to the cafes of places befiegeci, blockaded, 
 or invefted. And as to naval ftores, I aflert a belief, that the 
 common opinion of thofe perfons in this country, whofe con- 
 templation had embraced the fubjeel, included them in the ca- 
 talogue of contraband. 
 
 * Infringes of Natural Law, book II. chap. x. xix. 
 
 [TO BE CONTINUED.] 
 
t.No. XII.] 
 THE 
 
 American Remembrancer 5 
 
 AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION 
 
 O F 
 
 ESSAYS, RESOLVES, 
 
 SPEECHES, 8fc 
 
 I 
 
 RELATIVE, OR. HAVING AFFINITY, TO THE 
 
 TREATY with GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 — < << ^«<-^^-»>- >•— 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 
 — < «€J^<€$<^^>0>>§*> ► — 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRINTED BY HENRY TUCKNISS, 
 
 frOR MATHEW CAREY, NO. lid* MARKET-STREET. 
 
 •"—JANUARY 20, 179^. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 i. CINNA, No. V, - - - 219 
 
 2. No. VI. 226 
 
 3. Addrefs to the Citizens of New York - 233 
 
 4. 2\tew jHw*£ Reprefentation and Petition - 236 
 
 5. Camillas, No. XXXIII. — concluded - - 238 
 
 6. TV*. XXXIV. . . . 240 
 
 7. iV*. JLIXF. - - - 245- 
 
 8. No. XXXVI. - - - a 253 
 
 9. M Zl'177/. - 259 
 
 10., , No. XXXVIII.—and laf - - 266 
 
 1 1 . Remarks on the Treaty of Amity, Navigation, 
 and Commerce, &V. By a Citizen of the United 
 Stales - 276 
 
 12. Plymouth Proiefl - - - - 310 
 
 } 3. Reflations adopted at a Meeting of the Inhabi- 
 tants of Weftmoreland County (Virginia) Septem- 
 ber 25th, 1795 - - .. 31 r 
 
 1 4. Anfiucr of the Prefdent of the United States 3 1 2 
 -siiS. jftrit jiitfc ;i«. jijn. jiufc. Ji*t j<i«. jsiik jbfl>_ AAlm _«- 
 
American Remembrancer, (fcfc< 
 
 C I N N A.— No. V. 
 [continued from PAGE 102.] 
 
 CAMILLUS, and all thofe who have preceded him, in 
 conudering the fccond article of the treaty, aiTert that 
 it accomplijbes a primary objedt of the envoy's miflion, and one 
 of great importance to the United States. He then details, 
 at fome length, the important advantages which muft refult 
 from an acquiiiticn of the weftern pods. Although there be 
 nothing new in thefe details, I am glad he has gone into them, 
 as fuch a view will enable us properly to appreciate the article 
 in qucllion. 
 
 Ca mill us dates, that a recovery of thefe pods will extin- 
 guish a fource of controverfy between the two countries — will 
 enable us to controul the hodilitics of certain Indian tribes, 
 which have already cod four millions — will extend our trade — 
 will prevent Great Britain from contracting our boundaries — 
 and will promote an harmonious and permanent connexion 
 between the weftern and Atlantic countries. 
 
 That all thefe benefits would have accrued to the United 
 States from an unconditional furrender of thefe pods, cannot 
 be doubted. I fay, unconditional, becanfe when we come to 
 the third article, we fiiall find, that as far as an extenfion of 
 trade is concerned, Great Britain has taken care not only tu 
 come in for a participation of the fur trade, but that this 
 claufe is fo conftrucled, as to feeure to her, efpecially when 
 her local fituation is conGdered, an almod exclufive right to 
 this lucrative branch of it. If the furrender of thefe pofts will 
 be of fuch immenfe moment to the United States, and their 
 detention a proportional detriment, how happens it that the 
 acquifition is not better fecured than it is ? You fay, it is true,- 
 that the objecTt is " accompliped " from which expreffion, tak- 
 en by itfelf, it might be inferred, that a redoration had aclu* 
 oily taken place, that being the natural and obvious meaning 
 of the word which is here made ufe of. It is not intended in 
 this place to charge Camillas with an intention to deceive, be- 
 caufe from other parts of this number, the period limited for 
 this purpofe is afcertained. But he will allow me to afk, as has 
 often been done already, why the differences between the two 
 countries could not have been a Ijuded in a feparate indiu- 
 
2 20 ClNNA — No. V". 
 
 mtnt .' and why i'u remote a period is fixed for an evacW* 
 tion, which might certainly have been made in a much ihortef 
 time ? 
 
 Great Britain and the United States mutually complained 
 of infractions of the treaty of peace. The former charged U3 
 with impeding the recovery of debts; and we, on the other 
 hand, remonflrated, among other things, agaihft her detenti- 
 on of the vveftern polls. Without reviving here the queftion 
 of, who was firft in fault ? which would only lead to repetiti- 
 on, and does not admit of much new light, it may be demand- 
 ed, as tl d States have, by the 6th article, not only 
 admitted the truth of the allegation againfl them, but provid- 
 ed for, and actually afTumed, and pledged their faith for pay- 
 ment of the principal and intereft of all the Brinlh debts of 
 this defcription -, why, after fo folenin and entire removal or 
 the fole ground of complaint, did not our envoy infill upon 
 a more prompt execution of thole parts of the treaty which 
 had been violated by Great Britain ? It is evident that actual 
 payment was not made by her a Condition precedent ; for no 
 lefs than eighteen months are allowed for the exhibition of 
 claims after the commiffioners meet. She, therefore, confider- 
 ed the promife on the part of our government as equivalent 
 to a complete performance of fuch parts of the treaty as fhe 
 alleged had been infringed by us. It became her duty, then, 
 the moment this dbllacle was removed, to withdraw her gar- 
 rifons, in the words of that treaty, " with all convenient /peed." 
 Tliefe terms have been called ambiguous, although Great 
 Britain herfelf, by her conduct immediately fubfequent to the 
 treaty, affigned to them a meaning which they plainly import, 
 and which none but a fceptic would ever have called in 
 queftion. If we may judge by the time employed in remov- 
 ing from other parts of the United States, and particularly 
 from this city (New York, whofe evacuation was completed 
 in the fall of 1783) we may conclude, that the garrifons from 
 thefe pofts might have all been withdrawn in fewer weeks than 
 our envoy has granted months for the purpofe. 
 
 Taking together this article, io far as it refpects the contem- 
 plated evacuation, and the fixth article, abilracted from other 
 parts of the treaty, perhaps no other reafonabie objection can 
 be offered againlt chem, except the unreafonable time allowed to 
 Great Britain to perform her part of the ftipulation. But when 
 it is confidered, that this article makes part of a treaty of com- 
 merce, replete with the moft injurious concdlions from the 
 United States, fome of which have undoubtedly been infilled 
 upon as C^nfiJefJticns For it j who will b; h:.rdy en :ugh to ex- 
 
ClNNA — No. V. 221 
 
 patiate upon advantages which bear no comparlfon with the 
 Sacrifices which have been incurred to obtain them ? It will rea- 
 dily occur, to every reader, that if America refufes to ratify a 
 Tingle article, this one which has been excepted as the chef 
 d'eeuvre of our negociator, mud alio become a dead letter. 
 Every friend to his country muft fervently willi either that the 
 prefident will have virtue and firmnefs enough to refufe it lu3 
 fan£tion, or that the king, in a fit of pride, will not confent to 
 the modification propofed by the fenate. That honorable body 
 may yet, without intending it, have promoted the falvation o£ 
 their country. 
 
 But admitting a ratification to take place, is not every page 
 a fruitful fource of doubts and altercations ? If about fo plain 
 and {hort an inltrument as that which gave us peace, difputes 
 immediately arofe between the two countries, and continued 
 without adjuftment for more than ten years — if the plained 
 exprefiions, and one of the moll important articles, were quib- 
 bled into unmeaning and nugatory itipulations — if the con- 
 ductions of Great Britain, although manifeftly repugnant to 
 the fenfe of the contracting parties — to the fubjecl matter of 
 the compact, and to the plain import of the terms, has been 
 warmly fupported by men of talents and character among our- 
 felves, who can fay that fimilar difcuflions and difficulties will 
 not very foon take place refpecling an agreement, containing 
 as many pages as the other does fentences, and embracing a 
 much greater variety of matter? In fuch an event, the charge 
 that we have Jirfl broken the treaty will be renewed ; we may 
 retort it if we plcafe ; but the polls will be detained until the 
 differences are fettled, for which purpofe another embafiy 
 extraordinary muft be recurred to j and who can infure that we 
 (hall then be able to command the diplomatic fkill and talents o£ 
 Governor Jay ? Notwithftanding, therefore* Camillus confiders 
 this object as accomplished, it may fairly be regarded as diftant 
 as ever, or at leall depending on fuch a variety of intervening 
 incidents, as may probably defeat it altogether. It has frequently 
 been urged, that nothing but a defire to procra(tin:ite, and 
 finally to break her engagements, if circumffaiKC? render it 
 prudent, could have induced Great Britain to infill upon {o 
 up -.^afonable a time to perform what good faith demanded o£ 
 her, the moment we fatisfied the breach, alleged to have been 
 made by us, and which (he could have no interelt in deferring 
 to a remote day, if fhe ultimately intended to comply with her 
 promife. To garrifon fo many forts mud be a great expenfe, 
 to fay nothing of the troops who might be much more profita- 
 bly employed elfewhere. The views, therefore of the Britifh 
 
 Vol. Ill, I i 
 
222 ClNNA — No. V. 
 
 cabinet in retaining them fo long, can neither be honorable, 
 nor of the molt pacific nature. They forelee, that if any con- 
 troverfy arifes between the two governments, which is almoft 
 unavoidable, Great Britain will have a pretext for not carrying 
 into effect this ftipulation. They alfo forefee, or hope, that 
 peace will, in the mean time, be reftored to Europe, and that 
 the king will have it in his power to make fuch ufe of interven- 
 ing occurrences as circurnftances may render prudent. On the 
 part of America, no propitious event can reafonably be ex- 
 pected. Determined as fhe is to abide by all her engagements, 
 which fhe has evinced in every trying fituation, hers was the 
 preient moment ! It is almoft paft ; if fhe neglects, as an in- 
 confiderate individual, to improve it, which has too long been 
 the cafe, years of remorfe and regret muft follow. 
 
 If America could have commanded events, a more fortunate 
 coincidence could not have occurred than thofe which fucceeded 
 each other, in rapid and aftonifhing progrefs, during the whole 
 of her negociation ; a more brilliant campaign, than the one 
 on the part of our ally, is not furnifhed in the annals of hiftory. 
 Succefs every where crowned her arms — although fingly op- 
 pofed to the coalefced powers of Europe, fhe not only expelled 
 the enemy from her own territory, but made foreign conquefts 
 which furpafs belief. Great Britain, wich an obftinacy bordering 
 on defpair, expected her fate, which all Europe confidered 
 inevitable. Could a more aufpicious feafon for negociation have 
 been defired ? Our information from Great Britain correfponded 
 with the languine expectations which the reiterated defeats of 
 the combined armies, compoied in part of Britifh regiments, 
 could not fail to excite. Every letter from London was replete 
 with the fuccefsful career of our envoy. He was reprefented as 
 obtaining every thing he afked; the mercantile intereft of that 
 country had arranged itfelf on his fide. Difgufted with the con- 
 duct of their own court, and alarmed at the probable confe- 
 quence, the merchants, in a body, or by deputation, even 
 before Mr. Jay's arrival, waited on Mr. Pitt, and extorted, from 
 his fears, or a fenfe of jullice, a relaxation in the predatory 
 fyftem, which was purfuing towards the United States. Nothing 
 was talked of on either fide of the Atlantic, but the gracious 
 reception of the American minifter, and the diftinguifhed at- 
 tentions which he received. Even the royal family vied with the 
 minifters in their efforts to render his vifit as pleafing as poffi- 
 ble ; and when intelligence arrived, that a treaty was figned, not 
 a man doubted but the terms of it correfponded with this fortu- 
 nate concurrence of circurnftances. The effect of thefe exag- 
 gerated accounts upon a late election is well known. Who, 
 
ClNNA — No. V. 223 
 
 after all this, can believe that this golden opportunity has been 
 permitted to efcape, and that the fears of Great Britain have 
 been allowed to fubfide without our compelling her to do us 
 juftice? Who can believe that (he has had addrefs enough to 
 ifend our envoy home with a treaty which has kindled through- 
 out the continent a flame greater than any excited by her former 
 indignities or vexations? Camillus will fmile, as he always does, 
 at the idea of addreiTing the apprehenfionsof Great Britain, or 
 laying hold of her fears to extort from her that redrels which a 
 fenfe of juftice fhould long fmce have induced her to grant. 
 Philo-Camillus has refented, in very intemperate language, 
 my calling Camillus an apologitt of Great Britain. I mult be 
 excufed for not retracting an appellation, which is not lefs 
 courted by Camillus, than deprecated by his friend. 
 
 Does not the 7th number of the Defence furnifh new proofs 
 of the epithet which has been applied to Camillus ? Every 
 picture which reprefents the fituation of Great Britain as criti- 
 cal, is termed by him " exaggerated or falfe." If her armies 
 and thofe of her allies have been defeated by land, the is, not- 
 withstanding, ** triumphant on the ocean." If (lie owes an im- 
 menfe debt, " her credit is unimpaired" and " her refources are 
 prodigious" If fome difcontents prevail, " her government is 
 vigorous^ and was never better fupported." If her manufactures 
 are injured, " they are Jlill in a jlourifljing fituation." If her 
 commerce is annoyed, " it »/, notivithjlanding, extenftve, and 
 profperous." If {he is in difficulties or diftrefs, " fie is jlill 
 haughty and overbearing." Truly, fir! while you thus ring 
 changes on the ftrength and refources of Great Britain, who 
 can be blamed for fufpecting your motives? Injured as we are, 
 would it not have been a better proof of your amor patria?, if 
 you now and then brought into view, and no one can do it 
 better, fome of the refources of your own country? Your lan- 
 guage conftantly reminds us of the conduct of the royalills at 
 the commencement of the late war. They expatiated, in very 
 fimilar terms, on the folly, and even madnefs, of oppofmg 
 by force, acts of the Britiih parliament. They aflerted, and 
 with too much truth, that we were without men, without 
 arms, without military knowledge, without money, without 
 fhips, without forts, without credit, and without any of the 
 common means of defence •, that our commerce would be ru- 
 ined, our towns reduced to allies ; and our country laid wade. 
 America, although the evils which (lie then complained of 
 were inconfiderable, when compared with the aggravated in- 
 fults and wrongs (he is now fubmitting to, fpurned at the thou- 
 fand dangers which awaited her. Difdaining to fubmit, Ihe 
 
224 ClNNA — No. V. 
 
 rifked all to obtain redrefs. Heaven fmiled on her god-\ike 
 efforts, and the bloody and unequal corned terminated in free- 
 dom and independence. 
 
 It will not be without ufe to take a curfory view, in thi» 
 place, of fome of our refources, in cafe we are forced into 
 war with a nation whofe vexations, want of faith and juftice, 
 will fcavcely leave us any other alternative. War, at any time, 
 and under any circumflances, is an evil to be ierioufly depre- 
 cated ; but it is a calamity, againft which no human prudence 
 or forefight, can, at all times, guard us. It is profitable, there- 
 fore, to know our own ftrength and importance, not that we 
 may become infolent, and provoke aggreffions, but that we may 
 refent, in a dignified manner, thofe to which we may be expofed 
 from the injustice or pride of other nations. It is not by tamely 
 crouching to infults and indignities that we can long hope for 
 the invaluable bleffings of peace; it is by being juft to others, 
 and compelling others to be juft to us. We may fufFer in the 
 conflict; but while our condudt is remembered, our public cha r 
 rafter will command refpect, and no nation will gladly feek 
 occafions to quarrel with us. The conceffions we have been in 
 a habit of making to Great Britain, and the returns wc have 
 received, have not only debafed us abroad, but have damped 
 the ardour of our youth, who cannot too early be taught to 
 refpedl their country, and to refent the injuries fhe may receive. 
 The pufillanimcus language with which our public prints 
 abound, would better fuit the minions of an arbitrary defpot, 
 t: i:i me cit ; z . pi a free and enlightened nation. Patriotifm 
 &nd the love liberty are almoft extinft, and we muft not be 
 furprized, if ine virtuous and heroic deeds of our countrymen 
 who conduced us to the temple of freedom, and gave us a 
 feat among the nations of the earth, are foon ftigmatized as the 
 Jacobinical efforts of difcontented Democrats and Anarchifts. 
 Thefe are the mild epithets which are conftantly applied by a 
 certain party, to the beft patriots among us, for no other reafon, 
 than becaufe, feeling for the proftrated honor and violated rights 
 of their country, they urge the government to a more manly 
 expreflion of their fentiments, and a more fpirited vindication 
 of their wrongs. 
 
 In cafe of war with Great Britain (which is by no means 
 probable, if we a£l with becoming fpirit) what are the evils to 
 be apprehended ? — Her moft zealous partizans ridicule the idea 
 of her ever obtaining a footing in this country. At the diftance 
 of a thoufand leagues, reduced as her army already is, and at 
 war with a great maritime power, it cannot be dreaded that fhe 
 will be able to tranfport to this country, troops adequate to fuch 
 
ClNNA — No. V. 225 
 
 an attempt. If (he had the means, her experience in thr laft 
 war mull fatisfy her, that no conqueft (he can attempt will be 
 an equivalent for the enormous expenfe of making and holding 
 it. During the laft war, although (lie recruited her armies in 
 this country, although (he fubfidized feveral German princes, 
 yet, with all this ftrength, added to her own, the only perma- 
 nent acquifitions (he made were a few acres on our fea coafts. 
 Many of the difadvantages with whirh America then ha o 
 contend exift no longer. Among thefe may be reckoned, a cruel 
 internal foe, whom, for a long time, we did not dart- to punifh 
 •as traitors. Yet many well-intentioned, weak-minded Jf 
 
 whofe opinions and wiflies were on the fide of their < y, 
 
 but dreaded too much the power of Great Britain, a ne 
 punifhment which invariably follows an unfuccefsful rel oil, 
 openly to efpoufe her caufe, total want of military fki no 
 regular government or conflituted authorities, for committees 
 pnd conventions could hardly be deemed fuch, no arms, a weak 
 and undifciplined militia, no credit, nor any other means of 
 reprefenting money but by the pernicious circulation of a pa- 
 per currency. Great Britain, it will alfo be remembered, was 
 then in the zenith of her power, and at peace with all the 
 world, which {he had enjoyed without interruption fince the 
 treaty of Paris, in 1763, a period of more than twelve years. 
 Under all thefe difcouraging circumttances, America unfheath- 
 ed the fword. She fuffered, it is true j but in the midft of 
 calamities, which (he can never experience again, Ihe achieved 
 prodigies of valour ; and a fuccefs exceeding her molt fanguine 
 hopes, finally crowned her arms. What is our fituation at pre- 
 fent ? We have conltitutions and governments of our own 
 choice — Our general government is as well obeyed, notwith- 
 standing daily allegations to the contrary, as any in the world 
 — We Ihall no longer fight with halters about our necks, or 
 with a gibbet in view — We have men, whofe military fkill and 
 experience, acquired in the late war, will be ineftimable — We 
 have not only credit, but other means of railing a revenue, 
 without again recurring to the depreciating and fluctuating me- 
 dium of paper-r-We have a militia exceeding half a million 
 of men, well disciplined and accoutred, and officered, in ma- 
 ny inltances, by perfons who have received military leflbns in 
 the field of danger and of death — -Great Britain has added 
 millions to her debt ; her commerce, if not ruined, has greatly 
 fuffered by the French privateers; her manufacturers are out of 
 employ, and clamorous, and, what is no unimportant confi- 
 deration, we (hall have a powerful ally in France, who has 
 ftemmed the united force of Europe, has conquered fome of 
 
226 ClNNA— No. VI. 
 
 her enemies, and compelled others to fue for peace. This fub- 
 ject will be refumed in my next number, and further notice 
 taken of the feventh eflay of Camillus. 
 
 C I N N A. 
 New York, Auguft 15, 1795. 
 
 P. S. I am abufed for my intemperate expreffions with re- 
 fpect to Camillus. I neither know him, nor does he know me. 
 My conclufions are drawn from his writings. If he be a patriot, 
 he takes uncommon pains to make the world think otherwife. 
 He calls me a Jacobin for defending my country ; and he and 
 his friends are angry with me when I fufpect his patriotifm 
 for making fuch defence neceflary. No good will refult from 
 being perfonal. Let principles, and not men, be our objects. 
 Againft arguments, and not motives (except when they may 
 be fairly inferred from our public conduct or writings) be our 
 attack. By his defence (for I know nothing more of him) fhall 
 my judgment be formed of Camillus. By my reply (which is 
 all he will probably ever know of me) he is at liberty to make up 
 his opinion of me. Ridicule and abufe are no more tefts of 
 truth, than flowing numbers or fine-turned periods. A queftion 
 more momentous, than the one in which we are engaged, has 
 not been agitated fince our exiftence as a nation ! Let us be 
 warm, but not rude. With the talents of Camillus, the talk 
 would be eafy to convince any unprejudiced perfon, that our 
 very independence hangs on a rejection of the treaty. But na- 
 ture is feldom as lavifh of her gifts as fhe has been to Camillus ; 
 I muft be content, therefore, to purfue, in plain and unadorned 
 language, a duty which birth and citizenfhip impofe upon me, 
 and in which I have no object unconnected with the welfare 
 and happinefs of my country. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 IT is objected by fome, who are for enduring every extre- 
 mity, rather than incur the hazards of war, that our trade 
 will be ruined by Britifh cruifers, and that the revenue arifing 
 from it will fail. That our intercourfe with foreign nations 
 will undergo fome interruption, and our commerce be expofed 
 to confiderable rifle and injury, cannot be denied ; but let us 
 not look only at the dark fide of the picture; if our trade to 
 other nations is impeded, their fnips will find no difficulty in 
 obtaining accefs to us ; they will aflert their neutral rights ; and, 
 being no longer colonies, Great Britain will have no preten- 
 
ClNNA— No. VI. 227 
 
 tions to interdict this communication, unlefs, indeed, (he 
 fhould attempt to ftarve the United States, and by proclamation 
 blockade every port in the union. Such of thefe nations, as have 
 not had the weaknefs or complaifance of America, to facrifice 
 to Great Britain, the protection which neutral bottoms mould 
 over afford, even to enemies' goods, may tranfport our property 
 in fafety to any part of the globe. It may well be doubted, then, 
 whether our imports will be much lefs in times of war than at 
 prefent, and even our exports in neutral veffels, and our own, 
 will be confiderable. Our merchants often mention, with afto- 
 nifbment, the number of veffels, which arrived fate during our 
 revolutionary contelt-, when even neutral bottoms could not 
 reach us without the fame hazard of being captured and con- 
 demned as our own. But the commerce we fhould carry on, 
 and that of neutral countries, would not be the only fources of 
 revenue •, our privateers would cover the ocean. Does not the 
 commerce of Britain hold out allurements, and afford an exten- 
 five fource of wealth to our enterprizing merchants and mari- 
 ners ? The duty on prize goods, added to that on the impor- 
 tation of goods in the ordinary way, would not only prevent a 
 diminution of the revenue, but carry it beyond its prefent point. 
 "Who would believe, that in the maritime courts of only three 
 of the counties of Maffachufetts, namely, of Suffolk, Effex, 
 and Middlefex, there were libelled, during the laft war, no 
 lefs than one thoufand and ninety-live veffels, with their car- 
 goes, and thirteen cargoes which had been taken from veffels 
 abandoned after their capture, making in the whole eleven hun- 
 dred and eight! Mr. Coxe, in his View of the United States, 
 affures us, that the records of thofe counties authenticate the 
 fact. He alfo adds, that the number of veffels belonging to 
 Great Britain, in 1774, as ftated by a Britilh premier, in his 
 place in parliament, was, 6219, whereof 3908 were Britiih 
 built, and 2311 were American built. " What havoc then," 
 exclaims Mr. Coxe, " did thefe fifhermen make among the Bri- 
 tifh merchantmen ? above a fixthof all their vfffels, were brought 
 by thefe people as prizes into the markets of the United States, 
 with cargoes to an immenfc amount, compofed of every fpecies 
 of military and domeltic fupply, in a feafon of the utmoft 
 emergency : it appears too, that thefe prizes were no lefs than 
 a fourth part of all the Britifh built (hips of that nation. The 
 opinion of the molt candid and beft-informed cftimaters, 
 founded on careful enquiry, countenance the prelum pt ion, that 
 fifty five per cent, of all the veffels, captured by the people of 
 Maffachufetts during the war, were taken before their arrival ; 
 fo that there is the utmofi; probability, that the whole number 
 
2 28 ClNNA— No. VI. 
 
 of veflelsj which were captured by the {hipping rf thefe three 
 counties, was 2450 fail. How great a derangement was this to 
 the Britifh commerce ; and how heavy muft have been- the ex- 
 penfe of falvage paid to the re-captors; how , a: the number 
 of marine piiloneif, how ferious the interruption to the man- 
 ning of the navy ? " It would appear," fays Mr. Coxe, « that 
 the armed veffels of our principal fiihing ftate, captured, in 
 thecourfe of the late war, near one half of the merchant (hips, 
 ordinarily belonging to Great Britain, and above three-fourths 
 of the number of her native built (hips." 
 
 A ftriking proof is exhibited, in what precedes, of the feri- 
 ous impreflion made by our veffels on the navigation of Great 
 Britain, at a time too, when it might reafonably be thought 
 {he had nothing to fear from us. The fource from which this 
 information is drawn, precludes the poflibility of error. It 
 may be added, that fuch were the apprehenfions then enter- 
 tained of American privateers, that infurance of Britifh mer- 
 chantmen was more exorbitant than in any war, in which that 
 kingdom had been engaged for fifty years part, although no ma- 
 ritime nation, with whom (he had contended during that period* 
 had been fo deficient in {hips of war, as the United States. If 
 America, then, in her very infancy, when (he had to contend 
 with a thoufand difficulties* which are now furmounted, and 
 can never occur again, was able thus to annoy the greatefl na- 
 val power in Europe— who can eftimate the wounds which (he 
 may now inflict on her commerce, in the prefent advanced ftate 
 of her population and (hipping ? She would indeed find us an 
 unprofitable and troublefome enemy , without the means of 
 retaliation, fhe would have every thing to apprehend from 
 America. Her trade, as well as that of Spain, Holland, and 
 Portugal, pallcs by our coafts; and the injury and lofTes tv 
 which it would be expofed, are incalculable. 
 
 But not in her trade alone, would Great Britain be vulnera- 
 ble , her colonial pofleffions on the continent, muft fall into 
 Our hands. If the gallant Montgomery, at the head of a few 
 hundred men, railed in hafte, badly armed, and although brave, 
 mere novices in difcipline, reduced, in an inclement feafon, the 
 whole province of Canada, except its capital, which, but for 
 his unfortunate and much-lamented death, would alfo have 
 opened its gates to the American arms , what may we not ex- 
 pect from the formidable force we fhould now be able to fend 
 againfl it ? The inhabitants of Vermont alone, which was 
 then but beginning its fettlement, would more than fufEce for 
 its conqueft. I make no account of the difpofition of the inha- 
 bitants, who are repreiented as highly incenfed againfl the Bri- 
 
ClNNA— No. VI. 229 
 
 tifn, and anxioufly waiting a favorable ocoafion to (liake off 
 their yoke, and become part of the United States. Nova Scotia 
 too, and the adjoining fettlements, would be an eafy prey to 
 the militia of Maflachufetts and the Province of Maine. Thefe 
 important acquifitions to the United States would more than 
 countervail any lofs they could poflibly fuftain. Nor would any 
 part of the Weft Indies, in cafe of an American war, long 
 continue colonies of Great Britain. France, with the aid fhe 
 might derive from this country, could not fail to reduce them. 
 Her fleets and armies, deftined for fuch an expedition, after re- 
 cruiting in the United States, might proceed, full of health and 
 well-provifioned for the iflands. 
 
 The evils to Gteat Britain would not flop here. Her Subjects 
 hold great part of the public debt of the United States, and 
 our citizens are indebted to them, to the amount of many 
 millions fterling. Britain being the aggreffing nation, and the 
 war^not only of her feeking, but manifestly unjuit on her part, 
 the principles of felf-prefervation would dictate, and her own 
 conduct, and the laws of war juftify, the fequeftration of this 
 property. Mr. Jay, it is true, with more complaifance to Lord 
 Grenville, than delicacy to his own government, has declared 
 fuch conduct impolitic and unjuft. Congrefs, and in particular 
 Mr. Dayton> who moved the meafure, will not foon forget fo 
 handfome a compliment from a minifter, whofe refpect for the 
 legiflature of his own country, whatever his private fentiments 
 might be, ought to have checked this intemperate efFufion, Mr. 
 Jay appears to have thought an excufe neceflary for an article, 
 by which we yield much, without gaining any thing ; and was, 
 therefore, determined to infert one even at the expeufe of con- 
 grefs and the honour of his own country. 
 
 The tenth article will probably undergo an inveftigation here- 
 after ; we proceed, therefore, to enumerate fome other dif- 
 t refit: s to which an American war might expofe Great Britain. 
 The injury to her trade, from our privateers, has already been 
 Stated; but if not a Tingle veffel of this description was fitted 
 out, ftill her commerce would Suffer beyond estimation. The 
 interruption of her trade to this country, would be an evil 
 which admits of no alleviation. In the year one thoufand {e\en 
 hundred and ninety one, we took from Great Britain, exclud- 
 ing Ireland and the BritiSh Ealt Indies, in Britifh manufactures, 
 to the immenfe value of very near four millions of pounds fter- 
 ling. It alfo appears, from authentic public documents, that 
 the vefTels of Great Britain, loaded in the United States, in 
 1 79 1 and 92, were about equal in tonnage to all the Britifh 
 veflels, cleared out of that kingdom for Ruflia, Denmark, Nor-' 
 
 Vol. III. Kk 
 
230 ClNNA— No. VI. 
 
 way, Sweden, Pruffia, Poland, Hamburgh, Bremen, and 
 Germany in general. Will a nation, not infatuated, readily 
 plunge into war with America, nr.d encounter fo great a lots 
 as mult inevitably enfue from a ftagnation of trade ; foT the 
 uncertain and precarious advantages to be reaped from fuch a 
 ftate of things ? If we have no fecurity in her wifdom or juf- 
 tice, may we not place fome reliance on her intereft, which 
 will be fo fenfibly and directly affected by a ceflation of all in- 
 tercourfe between her and the United Stares ? what will be 
 the clamours of her manufacturers, many ot whom are already 
 idle and ftnrving, when fuch valuable confuniers, as the Ame- 
 ricans, are compelled, by the injufhee of their own govern- 
 ment, to withdraw their cuftom ? What muft be the difficulties 
 and difcontents of the merchants, when ali remittances from 
 this country not enly ceafe, but when their debtors here may 
 be rendered unable, in the courfe of the war, to pay any 
 part of their dues, even on the return of peace ? What, but 
 an universal fpirit of diftrult and diffatisfaction muft pervade 
 the whole kingdom, which is now panting for peace, when it 
 is difcovered, that the minilter, by his violence and rafhnefs> 
 inftead of restoring to it lo great a boon, has precipitated it 
 into a new war, which cannot fail to be unpopular, and as 
 long as fuch extenfive commercial connexions fubfift between 
 the two countries, muft be execrated in proportion to the ruin 
 and diftrefs which will ever accompany it? Thofe who affect to 
 «riefpife the public opinion of Great Britain, betray an ignorance 
 of the hiitory of that kingdom. However (trong the prefent 
 attachment to their conltitution — however well fupported the 
 crown may be — whatever backwardness or apprehenfion may be 
 difcovered at the mention of a revolution, after fome of the 
 unfortunate excefles which have been perpetrated in France, the 
 voice of the people, in much more arbitrary reigns, has made 
 itfelf heard, and minilters, who have been favorites of the crown, 
 and fupported with all the patronage and weight of royalty, have 
 been compelled to yield to the imperious torrent, or have been 
 brought to the block in their attempt to withltand it. 
 
 To conclude, from what happened in England in the laft 
 war, that one with America at prefent will be popular, would 
 be to reafon from miltaken premifes. At that time an act of 
 parliament had declared us in rebellion, and the general accep- 
 tation and belief correfponded with the declaration. The very 
 term carried with it fomcthing that enlifts the feelings of man*- 
 kind againlt thofe, who are branded with the odious epithet. 
 Manvwife men in England, were in fentiment with this coun- 
 ty, while fhe confined her object to redrefs of grievance, and 
 
ClNNA — No. VI. 23X 
 
 fought it by petitions and addrefTes ; but when fhe took up 
 arms, and more cfpecially when (he declared herfelf independ- 
 ent, views, hoftile to the mother country, were imputed to 
 her from the beginning, and a meafure, extorted by dire ne- 
 cefhty, and a (en(e of felf-prefervation, was confidcred, as 
 full evidence of an original and early defign to feparate the 
 colonies from the mother country. Although nothing could be 
 more fallacious, and, in point of fact, more erroneous than 
 fuch an inference, it had its eSc£k \ and either from real abhor- 
 rence of its attempt, or from a fear to avow their real fuuiments, 
 the American caufe, for fome time, loft ground in England. 
 
 At prtient, we arc not only an independent people, but have 
 been formally recognized in that character by the king and 
 parliament of Great Britain. The juftice or injuftice, a-s well 
 as the advantages and injuries of the war, would, therefore, 
 become objects of enquiry in England, the refult of which 
 could not fail to be favorable to the American government and 
 character. It could not efcape the molt curfory obferver, that 
 with a fincere difpofition to cultivate peace, juftice, and good 
 underftanding with all mankind, we had been moft cruelly in- 
 fulted and outraged by the Britifh cabinet. Corresponding fen- 
 timents would take place, and the throne and parliament would 
 be environed with petitions for peace ; for, even in that coun- 
 try, it is yet lawful for the fubject to convey, in refpectful 
 language, his complaints to the fupreme authority of the na- 
 tion, without incurring the appellation of Jacobin or Anar- 
 chift. What would be the effect of a war on the public debt 
 of Great Britain, befides a prodigious accumulation, cannot 
 be afcertained. Its prefent enormous bulk muft fill thinking 
 men with ferious apprehenfions for the confequences of a fur- 
 ther increafe. It already exceeds what the moft intrepid 
 financier would dare to call a public blefiing. When we confi- 
 der what an enormous fum was added to it by her attempt to 
 reduce this country to unconditional fubmiffion, arid the im- 
 rnenfe expenfe attending the operations of war, whole feenc is 
 fo diftant as America, it would excite no furpvize, fhould a 
 national bankruptcy be the confequence of another fimilar ex- 
 ertion. Private bankruptcy muft follow, and public, as well as 
 individual ruin muft enfuc. No man yet has forgotten tlv; 
 numerous failures and private diXtrefs which UnjoodiateJy iuc- 
 cecded the late rupture with Fiance, the (hock of which mult 
 have been inconfuierahle, compared with what would happe.i 
 on a breach with this country. 
 
 But, fay thofe, who are, at all events, for peace! ul meafurej., 
 your fea ports arc defencelefs, and will be laid ip allies. l>c- 
 
232 ClNNA — No. VI. 
 
 grading as my opinion is of the public conduct of Great Britain, 
 I cannot bring myfelf to believe, that fhe will pay fo little 
 regard to the laws of war and humanity, as to conduct it in a 
 ■way fo totally repugnant to both. The burning of defencelefs 
 towns, or even thofe which are fortified, unlefs in attempts 
 to reduce them, is an imputation fo horrid, that it can only be 
 made to excite our alarms. It is an evil not to be ferioufly appre- 
 hended. It is a poffibie, but not a probable danger. Defolating 
 as the laft war was, which raged with all the bitternefs of civil 
 fury, when neither principles, character, nor humanity were 
 refpecled, how few of our towns were confumed : If then this 
 calamity was but partially experienced during a controverfy, in 
 which a breach of faith and humanity towards rebels, was 
 deemed no (tain on the national character of Great Britain, 
 why are we to apprehend this mercilefs warfare at prefent ? It 
 will neither be the policy nor intereft of our enemy to conduct 
 it in this way. The fea ports are emphatically the refidence of 
 their beft friends. Deftroy them, and by whom will the injury 
 be felt ? Principally by the advocates, not the enemies of Great 
 Britain ; by her apologifts, not by our friends. Burn the fea 
 ports, and what becomes of the Britifh debtors? Set fire to 
 our cities, and America, having loft all, fhe will become a def- 
 perate and implacable foe. But has Great Britain no defence- 
 lefs towns? If jufticeand humanity have loft their influence on 
 her councils, ftill motives of intereft will not be wanting to re- 
 ftrain her from fuch barbarous difplays of her fuperiority. Will 
 fhe not dread retaliation ? If America cannot, will not France 
 be able to return the infamous warfare in kind ? Will not all 
 Europe applaud a deed provoked by her own cruelties and wan- 
 tonnefs ? Let us turn then from the difgufting apprehenfion, 
 chimerical in the extreme. While France is at war, fhe can 
 always, and it will be her intereft to, furnifh a fleet fuffici- 
 ent for the protection of thofe of our towns which are mod 
 expofed. Twelve fhips of the line and as many frigates, which 
 we ought to have of our own, will more than fuffice for the 
 purpofe. Many of them are capable of fortification, and it 
 would be nodifcredit to the government to employ more activity 
 in putting them in a better ftate of defence. It is become fo com- 
 mon, to attribute every effufion of patriotifm to the word of 
 motives ; that it is with fome reluctance I dare to remind my 
 fellow citizens, of the united voice of America, when fimilar 
 apprehenfions were excited to deter her from any oppofition to 
 the claims of the Britifh parliament. I mull, however, be fo 
 confonarit to the feelings of many of the patriots of that day 
 xvho yet furvive, and whofe principles are not adulterated by 
 
New York Address. 233 
 
 penfions and offices, that I cannot withhold the pleafure it mud 
 afford them. " No, firs," fays congrefs, with one voice, ad- 
 dreffmg themfelves to the people of Great Britain, " we never 
 will, while we revere the memory of our gallant and virtuous 
 anceftors, we never can furrender thefe glorious privileges for 
 which they fought, bled, and conquered ; admit, that your 
 fleets could deitroy our towns, and ravage our fea coaftsj thefe 
 are inconfiderable objects ; things of no moment to men, whofe 
 bofoms glow with the ardour of liberty. We can retire beyond 
 the reach of your navy, and, without any fenfible diminution of 
 the neceffaries of life, enjoy a luxury, winch, from that 
 period, you will want; the luxury of being free ! n This was the 
 language of America, when (lie had infinitely more to appre- 
 hend than at prefent. Whither has the fpirit, that dictated it, 
 taken its flight ? Where is now that public virtue, which not 
 only manifelted itfelf by thole folemn cxprelfion , which are 
 now ridiculed as the frantic ravings of a diftempered imagina- 
 tion, but carried into exercife, refolutions which aftoniihed 
 thofe to whom they were addreffed, and which, any but men 
 flruggling to be free, would have fhuddered to adopt? What, 
 I repeat, is become of this fpirit and patriotifm ? Are they 
 laughed to fcorn ? Or do they ceafe to warm and animate the 
 fons of Columbia ? Heaven forbid ! A few years of peace and 
 luxury cannot have enervated their limbs, extinguilhed their 
 martial fire, or itifled, in their generous brealts, fentiments 
 which were once efteemed their ornament and pride. They 
 want but to be rouzed into action. Should a neceflity euft, 
 and the gallant youth of America be fummoned to their coun- 
 try's ftandard, may we not indulge the fond hope, that they 
 will pant to entwine their brows with laurels, garhered in the 
 walks of glory and honor, and burn to emulate, if not fur- 
 pafs, their illuftrious fathers in heroic efforts, to avenge the 
 public caufe ? 
 
 C I N N A. 
 New York, Auguft 18, 1795. 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 To the Citizens of New York. 
 
 IF ever a period exifted in the hiftory of any people, in 
 which great prudence and circurhfpe£tib'ri were (Tenttal 
 to the prefervation of public liberty, that period is now corn- 
 
234 New York Address. 
 
 pletely realized in the affairs of this country. To preferve our 
 conftitution of government in its prefent limited, and happy 
 form ; to guard againft the encroachments, and the ambitious 
 views of men, with whom the arm of power is entrufled ; to 
 prevent the executive magiftrate from interfering with and 
 exercifmg legiflative authorities; to maintain inviolate our na- 
 tional independence, and to give (lability and energy to thofe 
 political rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the firft 
 terms of the fociai compact ; is indeed an arduous, but it is a 
 neceflary duty ; a taflc which requires the moll intimate union 
 of patriotifm and talents, of deliberation and caution, with 
 fortitude and firmnefs. 
 
 Shall we ever remain embarraffed, as we hitherto have been, 
 by the unhappy diffentions which fo long have enlifled us under 
 the dangerous banners of party? Subdued by prejudices, and 
 governed by delufion, fhall we ever continue unmindful of the 
 dictates of truth and realon ? Shall refentment and paffion be 
 always fubftituted ior folid argument, and the invidious tongue 
 of calumny be permitted to ftifle enquiry? If we really, with 
 fmcerity, regard our own rights and liberties, if we are, in 
 truth, attached to the conftitution of our country, the refolu- 
 tion mud be formed to defend them from all invafion, from 
 whatever quarter the attack may originate. 
 
 The late treaty with Great Britain has long been tranfmitted 
 to public difcuilion ; already we perceive the undifguifed aver- 
 fion of our countrymen to that molt odious of inftruments : In 
 vain do we fearch for its admirers among the fteady patriots of 
 our country. They are only to be found among the miflionaries 
 of Britain, and among the advocates of unlimited authority. 
 Thefe, indeed, have attempted to influence your prejudices, in 
 favor of particular men, to excite your apprehenfions, to feduce 
 your umierftandings, and betray your judgments, into a com- 
 pliance with the unnatural compact; but all in vain. Truth is 
 omnipotent, and will, eventually, difcomfit their infidious at- 
 tempts. 
 
 Were we not told, and did we not believe, that the fole ob- 
 ject of negociation was " a friendly adj uftmcnt of our complaints ?" 
 wa? it not officially intimated, that our envoy would « carry 
 with him a full knowledge of the exijling temper and fenfibility of 
 our country, and thus be taught to vindicate our rights with fir m- 
 tiefs ?" Were we apprized, or who of us had reafon to imagine, 
 that the fecret views and real intentions of our cabinet, was to 
 ftrengthen the bands of political connexion, between this coun- 
 try and the monarchy of Great Britain ? At the moment the 
 property of our induftrious merchant was wrelted from his 
 
New York Address. 
 
 235 
 
 pofTeffion by the rapacious hand of violence; when our rights, 
 as a neutral nation, were invaded, and the honor of our iiag 
 nioft bafely injured and infulted , in fhort, when all the finer 
 feelings of the American people were kindled into indignation 
 at the perfidious combination againll the common rights and 
 liberties of mankind ; the executive part of our government, 
 regardlefs of the dignity of their country, and unmindful of 
 the fentiments of the people, have concluded a treaty of amity 
 and commerce with the molt unprincipled of nations — Yet 1 ,s 
 is not all. We fee in that baneful inltrument, our commercial 
 interefts abandoned to Britifh rapacity.," our conftitution vio- 
 lated, and its fecurity fubmitted to the mercy of future admi- 
 niftrations ; we perceive a branch of the government attempt- 
 ing to bind us in particulars to which we had never, either 
 exprefsly, or virtually, given our aflenr, and endeavouring to 
 ettablilh, as a confti:utional principle, its unlimited right to 
 bind us in all cafes whatfoever.— -With pain we view that branch 
 attempting to draw the peculiar powers of the legiflature within 
 the vortex of its own authority , to invade the fovereignty of 
 the conftituent members of our union ; to difpenfe with the 
 exifting laws and itatutcs of our country; to deftroy the per- 
 fonal fecurity and liberties of our fellow citizens, and, in time, 
 to diftort every feature that has either proportion, fymmetry, 
 or beauty, in our federal conjlitution. Such is the operation and 
 nature of the prefent treaty. Such the injuries for which the 
 American people unite to obtain redrefs. 
 
 To the Houie of Reprefcntatives of the United States — to 
 the conftitutional organs of the people, aiTembled in their legif- 
 Jative capacity, competed of men freely chofen from the body 
 of the people by the voice of their country — actuated by their 
 commcii fentiments, impelled by their general feniibilities, and 
 authorized to declare the public will, we muft fubmit our re- 
 prefentations, in them repofe our hopes of redrefs ; in thas 
 high deliberative affembly we muft place our truft,/<?r the prefer va- 
 tion of public liberty, and the fafety of the conflttution. 
 
 Citizens cf New Tori! your countrymen throughout the 
 United States have adopted a memorial to be transmitted to 
 their public reprefentaiives. To that memorial they have affixed 
 their fignatures. — Their attention is placed upon you with ail 
 anxious folicitudc that plainly befpeaks the importance of the 
 occafion. Remember, that the prefervarion of public liberty i* 
 one of the molt eflential duties of focial life. It remains then for 
 you to evince to the world, that while you arc zealoully anxi- 
 ous to preferve the bieflings of peace and order, and civil go- 
 
236 New York Representation, &c. 
 
 vernment, you are equally determined to preferve the liberties 
 and conflitution of your country. 
 
 Form of the petition, to be tranfmitted to Congrefs. 
 
 ?To the Speaker and Members of the Houfe of Reprefentatives of 
 the United States of America, in Congrefs affembled: 
 
 The Reprefentation and Petition of the Subfcribers, Inhabi- 
 tants of the State of , and Citizens of the United 
 
 States, 
 
 Refpeclfully Shewed, 
 
 THAT, viewing, with deep and anxious concern, the 
 prefent awful crifis in the affairs of our common coun- 
 try, and influenced by an equal folicitude for the fecurity of 
 our rights and liberties, and the prefervation of peace with all 
 the world, we hereby exercife our conftitutional right of peti- 
 tion, on a fubjeci: as momentous as any that has ever agitated 
 the feelings, or affected the interefts, of a free people. 
 
 The treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between the 
 United States and Great Britain, lately negociated by the au- 
 thority of the prefident of the United States, and conditi- 
 onally ratified by the fenate, has been fubmitted to, and un- 
 dergone a full and public difcuflion : And your petitioners, 
 having given to it an impartial and deliberate consideration, 
 feel it a folemn and paramount duty, which we owe to our- 
 felves and our posterity, to convey to you our free and unbi- 
 afled opinion thereon; in doing which, with due deference to the 
 constituted authorities of our country, whofe fan£tion to the 
 instrument in queftion, has been, in any manner, expreffed, 
 we declare, that to your refpeclable body alone we now look 
 up, as that great and dernier conftituted authority, which, 
 having a more general and equal participation than any other 
 department of the government, in the common interefts and 
 feelings of the people, and, moreover, poffefling a conftituti- 
 onal controul and decision on all questions of peace and war, 
 are peculiarly the guardians of the public peace, liberty, and 
 welfare. 
 
 "We regard, with the mod lively apprehension, all rhofe fti- 
 pulations in the faid treaty, winch, being of a political nature, 
 have a tendency, directly or iuJirectly, to involve us in the 
 
New York Representation, &c, 237 
 
 political intrigues of European nations, to infract the treaty of 
 alliance with France, and to give occafion for, and produce the 
 fad fpeiftacie of war, between that magnanimous republic, and 
 the republic of the United States; flipulations with which, in 
 our judgment, the faid treaty unhappily too much abounds — 
 And we cannot be lefs apprehenfive, under thofe direct and 
 manifeft encroachments on the conltitutional powers of con- 
 grefs and the rights of the people, which, in the exercife of an 
 aflumed power on the part of the prefulent and fenatc, have 
 been made by the faid treaty, in the following instances: 
 
 1. In the regulation of commerce with a foreign nation : 
 
 2. In the regulation of trade and intereourie with the In* 
 dian tribes ; 
 
 3. In regulating the territory of the United States, and of 
 individual lhites ; 
 
 4. In eitablifhing duties and imports; 
 
 5. In eitablifhing a rule of naturalization; 
 
 6. In conflituting a tribunal of appeal, paramount to thfi 
 fupreme judicial court of the United States ; 
 
 7. In changing the tenure of, and eftabHlhing a rule to hold, 
 real eflates; 
 
 8. In defining piracies, committed upon the high feas, and 
 declaring the punilhment thereof; 
 
 9. In depriving free citizens of the privilege of the writ of 
 habeas corpus, in the cafe of piracy, as defined ana punifhed 
 by the faid treaty; and, 
 
 La/Hy, in attempting, in various other inftances, to reftrairt 
 and limit the legislative authority of congrefs. 
 
 Wherefore, folemnly protefting againit the exercife of power 
 by the prelident and fenare, in any of the foregoing cafes, 
 without the concurrence of congrefs, as manifestly tending to 
 abforb ail the powers of government in that department alone; 
 to ettablifh, as the fole rule of legifiation over all the great 
 foreign and domeitic concerns of the United States, the mere 
 will anil abfolute discretion of the prefulent and fenate, in con* 
 junction with a foreign power ; and finally to overturn and 
 effect a total change in the prefent happy conftitution of the 
 United States. VVe, your petitioners, molt earneftly pray, 
 that the reprcfentatives of the people, in congrefs affembled, 
 will, in their wifdom, adopt fuch melfures, touching the faid 
 treaty, as (hall molt effectually fecure, free from encroachment, 
 the conltitutional delegated powers of congrefs, anil the rights 
 of the people, and preferve to our Country an uninterrupted 
 jionti nuance of the blellings of peace. 
 
 Vol. HI. L 1 
 
[ 2 3 S ] 
 
 Defence of Mr. Jay's Treaty. 
 
 [continued from page 216.] 
 No. XXXIII.— Concluded. 
 
 NEVERTHELESS, from the number of modern treaties, 
 which exclude from that lift naval flor ■ .., and moreover 
 from the manifell intereft of nations, truly coniidcred, to nar- 
 row the rights of war in favor of thofe of peace; this claufe of 
 the treaty, which takes a different route, is to be regretted as 
 purfuing the rigour of the law of nations — Still, however, it 
 cannot be objected to, as a departure from the law; and agreeing 
 with the courfe obferved by Great Britain antecedent to the 
 treaty, it does not place our trade in thefe articles upon a 
 worfe footing than it was, independent of the treaty. 
 
 The period of the negociation was molt unpropitious to a 
 change fqr the better — in the midft of any maritime war, a 
 belligerent nation, enjoying a naval fuperiority, was like to have 
 been tenacious of a right which fhe fuppofed herfelf to pofTefs to 
 intercept naval fupplies to her enemy — But in a war, in which 
 it was more than ordinarily pofhble that the independent exig- 
 ence of a nation might depend on the retaining a naval fuperi- 
 ority, it was to have been forefeen that fhe would not confent 
 to relinquish fuch a right. The alternative was, to infert the ar- 
 ticle as it ftands, or to omit it wholly. 
 
 Had it been omitted, the condition of naval (tores would 
 have been the fame as with it. But our merchants would then 
 have continued to be expofed to uncertain riiks, which is always 
 a great inconvenience, ft is defirable, in fimilar cafes, to have 
 a fixed rule. Merchants can then accommodate their fpeculations 
 to the rule ; and caufes of national contention are avoided. 
 
 It is in this view to be regretted, that the cafes when provi- 
 fions may be treated as contraband, could not have been agreed 
 upon ; but ;'S this was impracticable, the next belt thing has been 
 dene, bv eftahlifhing the' certainty of compenfation in all fuch 
 cafes. This gives one important fpecies of fecurity, obviates 
 one fource of contention. And if really there may be other 
 cafes than the univerfally admitted ones, in which provihons 
 can fairly be deemed contraband (as that defignated by the acT 
 of congrefs of May '"777; the fecuring of compenfation was 
 truly a point gained by the article. 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXIII. 239 
 
 But while I confefs, that the including of naval (tores, among 
 contraband articles, is an ineligible feature of the treaty, I 
 ought to declare, that its confequcnccs co the interefts of the 
 United States, as it regards the trade in thofe articles in time 
 of war, do not appear to me important — War between other 
 nations, when we are at peace, will always increafe the demand 
 for our bottoms, Co as to require much additional building of 
 veffels, and probably in that way to produce a move beneficial 
 fpecies of employment of the naval itores our country affords, 
 than that of their exportation for fale. 
 
 The adverfaries of the treaty are eagle-eyed to fpy out in- 
 fiances in which it omits any favourable minutes which are 
 found in our other treaties ; but they forget to balance the ac- 
 count by particulars which diftinguiih it favorably from thofe 
 treaties. Of this nature is the omifhon of horfes from the lift 
 of contraband, and flill more the falutary regulations with re- 
 gard to veffels and their cargoes going to places befieged, block- 
 aded, or inverted. I do not difcover that I ,ul provilions 
 or their equivalents, are in either of our treaties with France, 
 Holland, or Sweden. 
 
 It has been faid, in reference to this article, " whenever the 
 law of nations has been atopic for confederation, the refult of 
 the treaty accommodates Great Britain, in relation to one or both 
 of the republics at war with her, as wed as in the abandon- 
 ment of the rights and interefts of the United States," — And 
 the following examples are given, to each of which wdl be an- 
 nexed a reply. 
 
 I. " American veffels, bound to Great Britain, are protect- 
 ed, by fea-papers, againlt. French and Dutch fearehes : but 
 when bound to France or Holland, are left expofed to Britifh 
 fearehes, without regard to (hips' papers." The truth of this 
 proportion depends on another, which is, that the fea-papers 
 are to be abfolutely conclufive ; but reafons have been given for 
 doubting this conlLruclion, which, it has been remarked, does 
 not obtain in practice. And it is certainly a violent one, inaf- 
 much as it puts it in the power of the neutral, to defeat the 
 rights of the belligerent party, in points of great cor.fcquence 
 to its fafety. 
 
 II. " American provilions, in American veffels, bound to 
 the enemies of Great Britain, are left by the treaty to the feiz- 
 ure and ufe of Great Britain ; but provilions, whether Ameri- 
 can or not, in American veffels, cannot be touched by the e- 
 nemies of Great Britain." The conftruction of the treaty, up- 
 on which this difference is fuppofed, has been demonft rated to 
 be erroneous. — The difference, therefore, does not cxift. 
 
24© Ca mill us— No. XXXIV. 
 
 III. " Britifli property, in American veflcls, is not fubject 
 to French or Dutch confiscation. — French or Dutch property 
 in American veflcls, is fubject to Britifli confifcauon." This 
 was the cafe before the treaty, which makes no alteration in 
 the matter. — Moreover, it is counterbalanced by this circum- 
 flance ; — That American property, in Britiih veffels, is fubject 
 ta confiscation by France or Holland; but American property, 
 in French or Dutch veffels, is not fubject to confiscation by 
 Great Britain. 
 
 IV. " Articles of fhip-building, bound to the enemies of 
 Great Britain for the equipment of veffels of trade only, are 
 contraband. — Bound to Great Britain, for the equipment of vef- 
 fels of war, are not contraband." This, alio, was the cafe before 
 the treaty, which, confequently, has not in this particular more 
 than the former, produced any benefit to one party, to the pre- 
 judice of the other. I forbear to dwell upon the article of 
 horfes, as falling under a contrary difcrimination ; — nor fhall I 
 infift on the additional circumftance, that all American goods 
 not generally contraband, if going to a place befieged, blocka- 
 ded, or inverted by French or Dutch forces, arc liable to coniif- 
 cation by France or Holland ; if going to a place befieged, 
 blockaded, or invefted by Britifli forces, are not liable to con» 
 iifcation by Great Britain. 
 
 Differences of thefe feveral kinds are the accidental refults 
 of the varying views of different contracting powers, and form 
 flender grounds of hlame or praife of the refpective contracts 
 made with them. 
 
 The form of the criticifms laft dated, leaves little doubt that 
 it was defigned to infinuate an intention in this article to favor 
 the Monarchs of Great Britain, at the expenfe of the Re- 
 publics of France and Holland. The candor of it may be judg- 
 ed of by the two facts, firit, that it makes no alteration, in 
 this view, in the antecedent ftate of things ; and fecondly, that 
 the relative fituation of Holland, as the enemy of Great Bri- 
 tain, is fubfequent to the adjuftment of the article. 
 
 C A M I L L U S. 
 
 No. XXXIV. 
 
 TH E remaining articles of the treaty principally relate t( 
 thofe maritime regulations, that are ufuaily iuferted ir 
 modern treaties between commercial nations — and on that con- 
 sideration, as well as from their evident utility in enabling us tc 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXIV. 241 
 
 diftinguifh with precifion between what is, and what is not 
 lawful, in relation to thole points — they are entitled to our ap- 
 probation ; ftill however even fome of thefe cuftomary articles, 
 whofe object and meaning are fo well understood, have been 
 deemed exceptionable. 
 
 The fir ft paragraph of the nineteenth article, in order to 
 prevent injuries by men of war, or privateers, enjoins (as be- 
 fore noticed) all commanders of fhips of war and privateers, 
 and all other citizens or fubjects, of cither party, to forbear 
 doing any damage to thofe of the other, or from committing 
 any outrage againtl them : and decleres, that il they art to the 
 contrary, they (hall be punifhable, and moreover bound in their 
 pcrfons and eftate6 to make full fatii, faction and reparation for 
 all damages, of whatsoever nature the fame may be. 
 
 Thefe prohibitions are conformable with the laws of the U- 
 nited States: If under colour of authority, thofe to whom the 
 fame does not relate, fhali receive injury, the att, according to 
 its circumfb.nces, is an offence, for which the offender ;s not 
 only anfwerabie to his own country, but moreover to the injur- 
 ed party, to whom he is bound to make full and complete re- 
 paration. 
 
 The open and explicit views of the parties, and their mu- 
 tual engagement to put this law in execution againft all offend- 
 ers, will be a falutary check upon the too frequent irregulari- 
 ties that occur in the courfe of war between maritime nations. 
 The paragraph is a copy of a fimilar one contained in the fif- 
 teenth article of the commercial treaty between France and 
 Great Britain, concluded in 1786, and agrees with the four- 
 teenth article of our treaty with Holland. In order to guard 
 ftill more effectually againft the injuries to which the citizens 
 and fubjects may be expoled from the private ihips of war of 
 e^ch other, the next paragraph ftipulates, that ail commanders 
 of privateers, before they receive their commiihons, fhall be fub- 
 jetted to give fecurity, by at leaft two rciponfible fureties, who 
 have no intereft in the privateer, in the fum of fifteen hundred 
 pounds ftcrling, or fix thouland fix hundred and fixty-fix dol- 
 lars ; or, if the privateer is manned with more than one hun- 
 dred and fifty men, in the fum of three thoufar.d pounds fter- 
 ling, or thirteen thoufand three hundred and thirty-three dol- 
 lars, to fatisfy all damages and injuries committed by fuch pri- 
 vateers, her officers, or any of her men, againft the tenor of 
 the treaty, or the laws and inftru£tions for the regulation of 
 their conduct •, and in cafe of aggreffion, the coinmiffion of 
 fuch privateer (hall be re-called and made void. 
 
242 Camillus— No. XXXIV. 
 
 This particular regulation has been frequently introduced in 
 modern treaties, and exifts in this precife fhape in the lafl trea- 
 ty of commerce beeween Fiance and Great Britain; I have 
 found no initance where a larger fum has been mentioned. It 
 has, with little confideration, been made an objection to this 
 regulation, that the amount of the bonds are not adequate to 
 compenfate or fatisfy the damages that may be committed by 
 thefe privateers. 
 
 The preceding part of the article gives the injured party a 
 remedy agaiml the pcrfons and eftates of the aggreffors ; the 
 bonds are not required for the exelufive purpofe of being the 
 fund, to which the injured may have recourfe for fatisfaclion ; 
 but principally for the purpofe of excluding from the command 
 of priw.teers, thofe difiblutc and irregular characters, who are 
 not retrained by either moral or political tics, and for whofe 
 good behaviour, refponfible and difinterefted men would not 
 become bondfmen. The fame principle is developed in the civil 
 adminiftration of every nation. In cafes of pecuniary trull, it 
 is a common and ufeful precaution, to require furety for the 
 faithful difcharge of the office ; and the principal advantage of 
 this regulation is to fecure the employment of virtuous and up- 
 right officers. The amount of the bonds required on thefe oc- 
 cafions is fufficient for this purpofe, though inferior to the pro- 
 perty confided to them. 
 
 Thus the treafurer of the United States, who has the cuf- 
 tody of millions, gives bonds for only one hundred and fifty 
 thou fa nd dollars, the collectors of New York and Philadelphia 
 for fifty and fixty thoufand dollars; fums very far fhort of the 
 public money of which they are in the receipt, yet fufficient to 
 fecure the public againfr. characters of doubtful integrity. The 
 adequacy of the fums, in the particular cafe, is moreover evi- 
 denced by the law and practice of our own country. In the re- 
 folution of congrefs, of the third of April 1776, which, fo 
 far as regards this point, remained in force throughout the A- 
 merican war, congrefs required that the commander of every 
 privateer, before his commiffion fhould be delivered to him, 
 fhould give bonds, with fureties, to the prefident of congrefs, 
 in the fum of five thoufand dollars, if '.he veffei was of or un- 
 der one hundred tons; and of ten thoufand dollars, if the vef- 
 fei was upwards of one hundred tons, to obferve the rules and 
 inftructions prefcribed for their government. Thefe fums are 
 one quarto; iati thefe required by the ;rt ; <.le before us. 
 
 The latt par3giaph requiring the judges of the admiralty 
 courts to furniih formal and duly aurhenticat : copies of their 
 proceedings in caf( s of the cu: ireflels or cargoes, 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXIV. 243 
 
 belonging to the citizens or fubjeots of the parties, is purfuant to 
 that reafonable courfe of proceeding, which ought always in 
 this and fimilar cafes to prevail. 
 
 The twentieth article, which is in prevention of piracy, ha 
 the fanclion of numerous precedents. A pirate is the common 
 enemy of all mankind. — All, therefore, fliould unite in refuting 
 him alhftance and refuge, and in the eltablifhmcnt of fuch re- 
 gulations relative to the fale of his plunder, as, by (hutting 
 againft him every market, may thereby annihilate the motives 
 to his piracy. 
 
 The twenty-firft article fiipulates, that the citizens and fub- 
 jecls of the parties, (hall do no acls of huflility or violence 
 againft each other, nor accept commiffions or inftrucYions fo 
 to act from any foreign ftate being an enemy to the other par- 
 ty. — That the enemies of either nation (hall not be allowed to 
 invite, or endeavour to enlift, in their military fervice, any of 
 the citizens or fubjecls of the other ; and the laws, prohibit- 
 ing fuch offences, are to be punctually executed. The article 
 farther ftipulates, if any citizen or fubjeel of either party, who 
 has accepted of a foreign commiffion to arm a privateer againit 
 the other, it fliall be lawful for the faid party to treat and pu- 
 nifh the faid citizen or fubjeel, having fuch c^nmiffcr.y as a 
 pirate. 
 
 The general tenor of this article is in comformity with the 
 fpirit of our preceding laws on this fubjeel ; it is moreover in 
 perfect unifon with the duties of neutrality ; thofe duties which 
 a jult regard to the principles of integrity, as well as our en> 
 lightened purfuit of cur own inierelt, require us faithfully to 
 perform. 
 
 Two objections have been offered againft this article ; one, 
 that it precludes fuch of our citizens as, with a view of acquir- 
 ing military knowledge, would otherwife engage volunteers in 
 foreign fervice — the other, that it makes every citizen ar.d fub- 
 jeel:, of either party, who has accepted a foreign commiffion to 
 arm a privateer againft the other, and who fliall be taken in 
 poffelfion of fuch commillion, liable to be punifhed as a pirate. 
 
 In refpecl to the firft objection, if, by a rigorous conftrucli- 
 011, the cafe is included within the prohibition, it fhould be re- 
 marked, that it is applicable only to fuch engagements as com- 
 mence and are made .in time of mutual war. If we have citi- 
 zens, who, with the view of military education, are inclined 
 to engage in foreign fervice, though from paft experience there 
 is not much reafon to conclude tl.at the examples would be nu- 
 merous, they have full feope, as 1 understand the article, in the 
 periods of peace, to enter into any of the regular armies of 
 
244 (JAMILLLtS— No. XXXI V* 
 
 Europe, that they may prefer ; and being thus engaged*, they 
 are free to make the campaigns of war againft Great Britain, 
 if that is their pafTion, without injuring this article. The pro- 
 hibition feems to be againft engaging in the military fervice of a 
 nation, previouily in the condition of " enar.y" to one of the 
 parties. 
 
 The fecond objection has even lefs planfibility than the firft) 
 the difingenuous means that have been ufed to excite a repro- 
 bation of thisclaufc of the article, manifeft the want of truth 
 and patriotism of thofe who have employed them: paflion and 
 the fpirit of oppofition have aflerted, that the provifion before 
 us is fo extenfive as to place the fubordinate officers and private 
 men, on board of a privateer, within the predicament of her 
 commander ; nay, that all perfons, citizens, or fubje£ts, of ei- 
 ther nation, who would accept commiflions, or enter, in any 
 capacity, in a foreign army or navy, would, in confequence 
 of this ftipuiation, be liable to be treated and punifhed as pi- 
 rates. It is fufficient, . after noticing thefe attempts to impofe 
 upon the public, to obferve that the ftipuiation exprefsly con- 
 fines the punifhment, in queftion, to the commanders of pri- 
 vateers, who, contrary to the laws of the land, and the clear 
 and equitable obligations of the members of a neutral nation, 
 (ball be taken with fuch com million; and that it does not ex* 
 tend to the under officers or crew, much lefs to fuch perfons, as, 
 contrary to the preceding inhibition of the article, fhould accept 
 commiifions in a foreign army or navy. In refpeel to fuch mif- 
 demeahors in all cafes (except that of equipping and command* 
 ing a privateer, which will cxpofe the commander, when taken, 
 to be punifned as a pirate) the offence is cognizable only by the 
 nation within whofe jurisdiction the -offence is committed, or 
 of which the offender is a citizen, or fubje6t ; and, by eur laws, 
 is punilhable only by fine and imprifonment. 
 
 A perverfion of the fenfe of the claufe, ftipulating, that 
 •' the law againft all fuch offences and aggreffions fhallbe punc* 
 tually executed," has been attempted, though nothing can be 
 be more innocent or unexceptionable. Its plain meaning is, that 
 each party, in the cafes falling within its jurifdiclion, fhall 
 faithfully put in execution its own laws againlt the offences and 
 aggreffions, in contravention of the article. A ftipuiation be* 
 tween the governments, to execute laws on a certain fubjeel, 
 can mean nothing elfe than that each fhall execute its own 
 laws on that fubject, in the cafes appertaining to its jurifdic- 
 tion. 
 
 Though moft of the objections preferred againft the treaty 
 are marked with that illiberal fpirit which characterises th« 
 
CA MILL us— No. XXXV* 
 
 =4^ 
 
 party who have unceafingly laboured to bring into difcredit the 
 government of the country* yet few of them have been lefs 
 veiled than this which condemns a ftipulation intended to curb 
 and reftrain the few diflbJute and daring characters, who, from 
 the leuit worthy of all motives that lend to military enterprize, 
 might otherwife engage in this piratical warfare. 
 
 What virtuous citizen would feel himfelf jufliued in accept- 
 ing fuch command ? What muft be the morals of thefe in- 
 flrudlors, who contend for a freedom to commit, what human* 
 ity and honor forbid ? Every treaty that we have concluded 
 with other nations, is enriched with this ftipulation ; not only 
 our own treaties but thofe between other nations contain it. 
 How is it that we no where difepver a trace of difapprobation, 
 either on the part of our ftatefolen, or from an enlightened 
 people, again ft a fefies of treaties, formed by different public 
 miniftcrs, and ratified by a fucceflion of congrefs, each of 
 which contains a provifion that the crime of accepting a foreign 
 commiffion to arm and command a privateer, againft a nation 
 with whom we arc at peace, fhall be treated and puniihed as 
 piracy ? Is it that our virtue has become lefs fevere ? our mo- 
 rality more indulgent ? or is it that our predecellbrs were lefs 
 vigilant in defending the rights of the citizens, than the often- 
 tatious patriots of the prefent day ? But it is time to difmifs an 
 objection entirely deftitute of integrity and decency. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXXV. 
 
 THE twenty-fecond article bears upon its face its own juf- 
 tification — It is purfuaot to thofe maxims which enlight- 
 ened moralifts recommend, and jult nations refpett. It pre- 
 feribes a courfe of conduct the molt likely to procure fatisfac- 
 tion for injuries, and to maintain peace, and is therefore enti- 
 tled to the approbation of all good men and real patriots — It is 
 particularly valuable to a weak nation, or a nation in its infan- 
 cy, as an additional guard againft fudden and untorefeen attacks 
 of more powerful rivals. 
 
 The firft paragraph of the twenty- third article, provides for 
 the hofpitable reception of the public, or national iliips of war 
 of the parties, in the ports of each other; and engages that the 
 officers of fuch (hips fhall be free from infult, and treated with 
 decorum and refped. 
 
 Vol. III. M m 
 
146 Camillus — No. XXXV. 
 
 The practice which our government has adopted in relation 
 to thefe points, independent of parties, is agreeable to this 
 provifion. * And though the flipulation will be of lefs import- 
 ance to us than it would be, were we pofleffed of a refpec"tab!e 
 tiaval force, yet it may be ufeful — By our treaty with France, 
 our (hips of war have a right to enter their ports only in cafe 
 of urgent neceffity, and not freely and for mere convenience. 
 
 With Spain and Portugal we have no treaties, and confe- 
 quently not an afcertained or perfeel right to ufe their ports — 
 Our navigation muft be protected from the Barbary powers by 
 force or by treaty. It is queftionable whether the latter mode will 
 prove effectual without the fupport of the former*, congrefs 
 have therefore refolved to equip a fmall naval force, for the 
 fpecial objecl: of protecting our trade againft the Algerines, 
 and the other Barbary powers. Some port convenient to the 
 fcene of its cruifing will be of effential advantage to the effici- 
 ency and fuccefs of its employment : not only the ports of 
 Great Britain, but likewhe the port of Gibraltar will, by this 
 article of the treaty, be open to us •, and our frigates will be 
 there entitled to a hofpitable reception, and their officers to 
 that refpecl which fhall be due to the commiffions which they 
 bear. 
 
 The other paragraph of this article, provides, in cafe an A- 
 merican veffel by ftrefs of weather, danger from enemies, or 
 other misfortune, fhould be obliged to feek fhelter in any Bri- 
 tifh port, into which, in ordinary cafes, fuch veffel could not 
 claim to be admitted, that fhe fhall be hofpitably received, per- 
 mitted to refit, and to purchafe fuch neceflaries as fhe may 
 ■want •, and, by permiffion of the local government, to fell fuch 
 pan of her cargo as may be neceflary to defray her expenfes — 
 Our treaty with France contains a fimilar provifion ; but the re- 
 ♦ilriclions with which it is guarded are lefs than thofe of the ar- 
 ticle before us. 
 
 The twenty-fourth article ftipulates, that it fhall not be law- 
 ful for any foreign privateers, commiffioned by any nation at 
 war with either of the parties, to arm the veflels, or to fell or 
 exchange their prizes in the ports of either of the parties ; and 
 that they fhall not be allowed to purchafe more provifions than 
 fliall be neceflary to carry them to the neareft port of the nati- 
 on from whem they received their cornmiflion j and the twen- 
 ty-fifth article ftipulates that the (hips of war and privateers of 
 either party, may carry whitherfoever they pleafe, the fhips 
 
 * See Mr. Jefferfon's letter of September 9th, 1*93, to Mr. Hammand; al- 
 f« his letter, of the fame date, to Mr. Van Berckel, 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXV. 
 
 247 
 
 and goods taken from their enemy ; and that fuch prizes, on 
 their arrival in the ports of the parties, (hall not be fearchcd, 
 fcized, detained, nor judicially examined touching the validi- 
 ty of their capture, but may freely depart — and furthermore, 
 that no fhelter or refuge fhall be given in the ports of one of 
 the parties to fuch as have made prizes upon the citizens or 
 fubjects of the other. Though the law of nations is explicit, that 
 one nation having formed a particular ftipuhtion with another, 
 is not capable, by a fubfequent treaty with a third nation, to 
 do away, or annul its former ilipulations, but that the elder 
 treaty, in fuch cafe, remains in full force, notwithftanding 
 fuch pofterior and contradictory treaty ; yet, in order to re- 
 move all cavil on this point, and to maintain a fcrupulous re- 
 gard to good faith, even in appearance as well as in reality, and 
 efpecially in relation to our treaty with France, the article fur- 
 ther declares " that nothing in the treaty contained fhall be 
 conftrued, or operate contrary to former and exiiiing public 
 treaties with other fovereigns or dates," and adds, that neither 
 of the parties, while they continue in friendfhip, will form 
 any treaty inconfiftcnt with this, and the preceding article — 
 this laft claufe has been cenfurcd as an undue reftraint ; while 
 it is in facT a mere redundancy, as long as a treaty between 
 two nations continues in force, it is againft good faith for ei- 
 ther to form a treaty with another nation inconfiftent with it — 
 if the treaty is once difclofed, by whatever mean?, no treaty 
 with another nation can be inconfiftent with it — The claufe, 
 therefore, only converts into an exprefs promife, what without 
 it is an implied one, that the parties will not contravene their 
 ftipulations with each other by repugnant engagements with a 
 third party — The difingenuity on this point has gone fo far as 
 to torture the claufe into a pofitive ftipulation againft any trea- 
 ty with another power conferring peculiar advantages of com- 
 merce upon that power. It is a fufficient reply to this, that the 
 claufe is exprefsly confined to the twenty-fourth and twenty- 
 fifth articles ; determining nothing as to the other articles of 
 the treaty. The general principle of this laft objection has been 
 fufficiently difcuilcd elfewherc. 
 
 The artiele concludes with a mutual engagement, that nei- 
 ther of the parties will permit the (hips, or goods, of the other 
 to be taken within cannon (hot of the coaft, nor in any of the 
 bays, ports, or rivers of their territories ; and in cafe of fuch 
 capture, the party, whofe territorial rights are violated, fhall 
 ufe his utmoll endeavours to obtain full f at is facl ion for the vef- 
 fels or goods taken. This llipubtion is conformable to the du- . 
 ty and practice of nations who have entered iato no fpeeul eu* 
 
248 Ca mill us- No. XXXV. 
 
 gagements requiring the fame, and agrees with a common pro* 
 virion in public treaties. 
 
 Hitherto we have prudently avoided granting to any nation 
 a right to arm their privateers or to fell their prizes in our ports; 
 our laws are explicit in prohibiting fuch equipments ; and the 
 exclufion thereof, contained in the twenty-fourth article, is 
 agreeable to the declared policy of the country. Wo have en- 
 gaged in our treaty with France to prohibit her enemies from 
 felling their prizes within our ports j but not having engaged 
 to permit France to fell her prizes therein, we were free to 
 agree with Great Britain, that her enemies fhali, iikewife, 
 be prohibited from felling their prizes within our territory. A 
 elaufe in the twenty-fifth article denies all refuge to the (hips 
 of war and privateers that have made prizes upon either of the 
 parties; and the lall elaufe of the twenty-fourth article ftipu- 
 lates, that foreign privateers, enemies to either of the parties, 
 fhall not be allowed to purchafe more provisions than iulHcient 
 to carry them to the neareft port of the nation from whom they 
 received their commilTions. 
 
 Thefe claufes will operate only againfl fuch nations as have- 
 not, by an elder treaty, fecured a right of reception in the 
 ports of the parties — Still, however, it is alleged that thefe 
 articles violate our treaty with France. It has already been ob- 
 ferved that the treaty contains a clear and explicit agreement 
 of the parties, excepting from its operation all former exiftirig 
 public treaties — Our treaty with France is an antecedent and 
 exifting public treaty, and confequently excepted, in all its parts, 
 from the operation of the treaty before us — Whatever right or 
 privilege, therefore, is fecured to France in virtue of that 
 treaty, (he will continue to enjoy, whether the fame refpects 
 the reception of her public (hips of war, privateers or prizes, 
 in our ports, or the exclufion therefrom of thofe of her ene- 
 mies. 
 
 Could there be a doubt on this point, the practice of other 
 nations, and ejpfecialjy that of France, on the very point, would 
 effectually remove it. — The fifteenth and thirty-fixth articles of 
 the commercial treaty of Utrecht, between France and Great 
 Britain, contain the fame Uipulations as the twenty-fourth and 
 twenty-lifth articles of the treaty before us. That treaty was in 
 exiftence and force, at the time of forming our treaty with 
 France, yet France found no difficulty in the infertion of the 
 fame Uipulations in her treaty with us. She could not have con- 
 fidered rheir infertion in the treaty wjth us as a violation of her 
 treaty with Great Britain, otherwife good faith would have re- 
 trained her — The war that foon after took place between 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXV. 249 
 
 France and Great E.itain, diffolved the treaty of Utrecht. Our 
 treaty with France remained in force ; yet, in the year one 
 thoufand feven hundred and eighty-fix, France and Great Bri- 
 tain entered into a commercial treaty, the fix tee nth and fortieth 
 articles of which renew the ftipulations contained in the fif- 
 teenth and thirty-fix th articles of the treaty of Utrecht. 
 
 If France was free, firfl to form thefe ftfpulations with us, 
 in 1778, notwithstanding her prior and ex 1 fling treaty wi h us- 
 we muft be equally free in a treaty with the fame, or any omer 
 power, to agree to fimilar llipulations. Both were free, and 
 neither violates their former en ts, hy afienting, as we 
 
 have done, to thefe tlipulations in a poftefibr treaty. 
 
 It is further alleged, that thefe articles are injurious to the 
 intereil of the United States, becaufe they prohibit, in certain 
 cafes, foreign privateers 10 rendezvous in our port*, and to fell 
 within cur territory, the prizes they may have taken. — If it is 
 deniable to render out principal fea ports and cities fcenes of 
 riot and confufion, if it is politic to divide our citizens, by in- 
 fufing into their minds the holt iie fp.irit with which the nations 
 at war are animated againft each other, if we are prepared to 
 fee the proflration of public authority, and to behold the laws 
 trampled upon by armed banditti, if we are r< ady to invite our 
 citizens to abandon their regular and ufeful employments, and 
 to engage, as adventurers, even againit each other, in the pur- 
 fuit of plunder, then is the objection well-founded, then is the 
 reflraint pernicious, then is the llipulatioh worthy of condem- 
 nation — But if to eftablilh tlie reverie of all this, is the effort 
 and aim of every wife and prudent government, the itipulation 
 in que ft ion demands the approbation of ail virtuous citizens. 
 
 But were none of thefe confeouenccs to be apprehended 
 from the free admiifion of the privateers of all nations engaged 
 in war, and the permiilion to fell their pirn: der, it would, not- 
 withstanding, be againlt the interells of the United States to 
 ailuw the fame. It is a found commercial principle, that the 
 interefl of buyers, as well as fellers, is bed promoted by a free 
 competition. — The great number of the fellers of foreign ma- 
 nufactures and productions, afford the belt market for the buy- 
 ers — The great number of buyers of oui productions, afford 
 the bed market for the fellers — foreign privateers are precari- 
 ous fellers, and buyers only for their own confumption — They 
 drive away and banifh from our markets, both buyers and fell- 
 ers. When our coafls axe lined with foreign privateers that 
 rendezvous in our ports, the merchant ihips of ali nations, not 
 excepting our own, will be liable to interruption, and difcou- 
 raged from coming to our markets; and thefe of the belligerent 
 
250 Ca MILL us — No. XXXV. 
 
 powers will be generally excluded — Our markets might, per- 
 haps, derive fupplies from the prizes thatfuch privateers fliould 
 take, fo as, in fome degree, to compenfatc fgr the deficiency 
 that would proceed from the exclufion of foreign merchantmen ; 
 but this fupply would be uncertain, irregular, ill-afforted, and. 
 partial, while the principal commercial detriment would exift 
 without mitigation, that of a ptrtial or total deftruction of fo- 
 reign competition in the purchafe of our agricultural and other 
 productions. 
 
 If, moreover, it is the duty, as well as the intereft, of the 
 United States, to obferve an exact and fcrupulous neutrality, 
 amidft the wars of other nations, one of the mod efficacious 
 means of effecting that purpofe, will be, to remove every temp- 
 tation that might lead our citizens to an oppofite courfe — No 
 allurement would be more likely to feduce them from their duty 
 than that which is offered by the expected gains of privateering 
 — no avenue of political mifchief mould, therefore, be more 
 carefully clofed. 
 
 If thefe articles are exceptionable, in any refpect, it is that 
 in imitation of the analogous articles in our treaty with France, • 
 they allow the privateers of the parties, in cafes not inconfiit- 
 ent with former treaties, to rendezvous in, and their prizes 
 to be brought into, each others ports and harbours : It would, 
 in my judgment, have been the true'policy of the United States, 
 as well as with the view of maintaining an impartial and de- 
 cided neutrality in the wars of Europe, from a participation in 
 which our remote fituation, with due prudence, is an exemp- 
 tion; as likewife, in order to promote, in the moft advantage- 
 ous manner, our national profperity, totally and for ever to have 
 excluded all foreign privateers and prize* from our ports and 
 harbours. 
 
 But having entered into thefe ftipulations with France, by 
 which {lie has the ufe of all our ports againft all other nations, 
 we having the ufe of her ports only againft thofe nations who 
 have not an elder treaty with her, it would have manifefted an 
 unwife partiality to have refufed to enter into fimilar ftipulations 
 with other nations who might defire them. 
 
 The twenty-fixth article provides, in cafe of a rupture be- 
 tween the parties, that the merchants and others of each 
 nation, refiding in the dominions of the other, may remain and 
 continue their trade during good behaviour? in cafe, however, 
 their conduct lhoukl become fufpicious, they may be removed, 
 and a twelvemonth after the publication of the order of remo- 
 val is to be allowed for that purpofe : But this term is not to be 
 granted to fuch perforis as" act contrary to law, or are guilty of 
 
Ca MILL US— No. XXXV. 25 1 
 
 any offence againft the government : all fuch perfons maybe? 
 Forthwith removed or fent out of the refpective dominions of 
 the parties. The refidue of the article is calculated to afcertain 
 the condition of the parties, when the rupture (hall be deemed 
 to exift — each nation remains the exclufive judge of the foreign- 
 ers among them, and will be able to decide from their behavi- 
 our, how far their refidence may be compatible with the public 
 fafety. In cafe of fufpicicn only, that their refidence will prove 
 detrimental, they may order them to depart, reafonable time 
 being allowed them to collect their effects — On the one hand, 
 the article affords to the parties perfect fecurity againft the irre- 
 gular and fufpicious conduct of foreigners, who may be among 
 them on the breaking out of war, and, on the other, confultj 
 with that liberality which the modern ufageof nations fanctions, 
 the fafety and convenience of thofe, who, under the faith of 
 the refpective governments, have chofen a refidence in the do- 
 minions of the parties. — Our treaties with France, Holland, 
 and Sweden, fecure to the merchants of the refpective parties 
 a limited period, after the commencement of war, within 
 which they may collect their effects, and remove ; and the arti- 
 cle before us relative to this fubject, is a tranfeript of the 
 fecond article of the treaty of commerce, of 1786, between 
 France and Great Britain — The objection, therefore, to there 
 being a certain term within which they cannot be removed up- 
 on bare fufpicion lies againft our other treaties and againft 
 alruoft all the treaties of Europe for many years— The pretence 
 to order away upon mere fufpicion would defeat all the llipuh- 
 tions, that allow a certain term to collect, fell, and remove" 
 debts and effects ; and for that reafon could net be fupported. 
 
 The remainder of the article which gives an option to each 
 party, either to requeft the recall, or immediately to fend home, 
 the ambaffador of the other without prejudice to their mutual 
 friendfhip and good underftanding, is a valuable feature — The 
 power " immediately to fend home" without giving offence, avoids 
 jnuch delicate embarraffment connected with an application to 
 recall — It renders it eafier to arreft an intriguing minifter in the 
 midft of a dangerous intrigue, and it is a check upon the mini- 
 fter by placing him more completely in the power of the go- 
 vernment with which he refides. — Thefe laft circumftances are 
 particularly important to a republic, one of the chief dangers 
 of which, arifes from its expofure to foreign intrigue and cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 The twenty-feventh article, which provides for the delivery 
 of all perfons, charged with murder or forgery committed 
 withio the jurifdiction of one party, and who have taken re* 
 
6fl Cam 1 1. 1. us— No. XXXV. 
 
 fuge within the territories of the.other, is a regulation at pccii-* 
 liar worth between nations whofe tcrrirories arc contiguous to 
 each other — Without fuch regulation, the eafe, with which the 
 perpetratdrs of thefe atrocious crimes, might efcape puniih* 
 ment, efpecially on the frontiers, by puffing out of one jurif- 
 dic~t n into the other, would, in a great meafure, deitroy the 
 fee ity agairiu thefe offences, that arifes from the fear and 
 certainty of punilhment — The provifion, that fuch delivery 
 fhall nor be made unlcfs upon the exhibition of fuch evidence 
 of cri ni > according to the laws of the place where 
 
 the fugitive (hall be found, would juftify his apprehenfion and 
 commitment for trial, if the crime had there been committed, 
 will prevent vexatious requifitions, and is a caution due to the 
 rights of individuals. 
 
 The twenty-feventh, and concluding article, ellablifhes, that 
 the firft ten articles of the treaty, fhall be permanent ; that the 
 remaining ones, except the twelfth, which, with the twenty- 
 fifth, conftitute the body of the commercial part of the treaty, 
 (hall be limited in their duration to twelve years ; and reciting, 
 that the twelfth will end, by its own limitation, at the end o£ 
 two years after the termination of the prefent European war, 
 further eftablifhes, that, within the laft mentioned term, and 
 in time to perfect the bufinefs by the expiration of that term, 
 the diicuffion of the fubjeel of the twelfth article (hall be re* 
 newed, and if the parties cannot agree on fuch new arrangement, 
 concerning it, as may be fatisfaclory, that then all the laid re* 
 gaining articles (in other words, all but the firft ten) fhall ceafe 
 and expire together. This article, which is an entirely inde* 
 pendent one, obviates the' doubt, affected to be entertained, 
 whether the exception in the ratification, with regard to the 
 twelfth article, did not do away the ftipulation by which the 
 continuance of the treaty, except the firft ten articles, beyond 
 the term of two years, after the expiration of the war, is made 
 to depend on a further arrangement of the Weft India trade. 
 This feparate article is pofitive and conclulive, abfolutcly an* 
 nulling the treaty at that time, if fuch an arrangement be not 
 made, and thereby places it in the power of either party fo to 
 manage the matter as to put an end to all the commercial part 
 of it, except what rehtes to inland trade and navigation with 
 the neighbouring Britifh territories, at the end of the lhort pe- 
 riod of two years from the termination of the exiftmg war. 
 This alone is fufficient to confound all the high-charged decla- 
 mations againlt the tendency of the treaty to ruin our trade and 
 navigation. 
 
 CAMILLU S. 
 
£ **3 J 
 
 fto, ■ . 1. 
 
 T T is now time to fulfil my promife of an examination of 
 A conftitutionality of the treaty. Of all the objections which 
 have been contrived again ft this inftrumt nt, thofe delating to 
 this point are the mod futile — If there be a 'political problem 
 capable of complete demonstration, the conftitutionality of thd 
 treity, in all its parts, is of this fort — It is even ciiihcult to be-» 
 lieve, that any man in cither houfe of congrefs, who values 
 his reputation for difcemment orGncerity, will publicly hazard 
 it by a ferious attempt to controvert the petition. 
 
 Ir is, neverthelcfs, too much a fashion with feme politicians, 
 when hard prefled on the expediency of a meafure, to entre 
 themfelves behind objections to its conftitutionality — Aw 
 that there is naturally in the public mind a jealous fcnfibiiity to 
 objections of that nature, which may predifpofe againft a thing 
 othervvife acceptable, if even a doubt, in this reipect, can be 
 railed — They have been too forward to rak« advantage of tins 
 propenfity, without weighing the real mifehief of the example* 
 For, however it may ferve a temporary purpole, its ultimate 
 tendency is, by accuftoming the people to obferve, that alarms 
 of this kind are repeated with levity and without caufe, to pre- 
 pare them for diftrufting the cry of danger, when it may bj 
 real : Yet the imprudence has been fuch, that there has fcarccly 
 been an important public queition, which has not involved 
 more or lets of tins fpecies of controverfy. 
 
 In the prefent cafe, the motivi . of ih • who may incline 
 to defeat the treaty, are unufually ill I creating, it poihble, 
 a doubt concerning its conftitutionality. 
 
 The trtaiy, having been ratified on both fides, the dilemma 
 plainly is between a violation of the conftitution, by the treaty, 
 and a violation of the conftitution, by obftructing the execution 
 of the treaty* 
 
 The Vlth. article of the conftitution of the United States, 
 declares, that " the conftitution and the laws of the United 
 States, made in purfuance thereof, ; <• which 
 
 /ball be made under the authority cf the U) ited States t Diall be tie 
 fupreme law of the land, anything in the conftitution or laws 
 of any ftate to the contrary notwithftanding. ' A law o( the 
 land, till revoked or annulled, by the authority, is 
 
 binding, not lefs on each branch of department of th< iment 
 
 than on each individual of the fociety— Each houfe of congrefs 
 collectively, as well as the members of it feparatelyj are undejf 
 a conftuutional obligation to obferve the injunctions of a pre- 
 
 Vol. lit. N n 
 
254 Ca mill us— No. XXXVI. 
 
 exifting law, and to give it effect. — If they act othervvife, they 
 infringe the confutation ; the theory of which knows, in fuch 
 cafe, no difcretion on their part — To refort to firft principles 
 for their juftifieation, in affuming fuch a difcretion, is to go 
 out of the conftitution for an authority, which they cannot 
 find in it — it is to ufurp the original character x:f the people 
 themfelves — it is, in principle, to pro (Irate the government. 
 
 The cafes muft be very extraordinary that can excufe lb vio- 
 lent an ailumption of difcretion. They muft be of a kind to 
 authorize a revolution in government; — for every refort to ori- 
 ginal principle?, in derogation from the eftablifhed conftitution, . 
 partakes of this character. 
 
 Recalling to view, that all but the firft; ten articles of the 
 treaty are liable to expire at the termination of two years after 
 the prefent war; if the objection to it in point of conftitution- 
 aiity cannot be fupported — let me afk, who is the man hardy 
 c::o'j i; h to maintain, that the inftrument is of fuch a nature as 
 to jultify a revolution in government ? 
 
 ii this can be anfwered in the affirmative, adieu to all the 
 f.: unties which nations expect to derive from conftitutions of 
 government. They become mere bubbles, fubject to be blown 
 away by every breath of party — The precedent would be a fa- 
 tal one — Our government, from being fixed and limited, would 
 become revolutionary and arbitrary — All the provifions which 
 our conftitution, with fo much folemnity, ordains " for form- 
 ing a more perfect union, eftablifhing juftice, infuring domef- 
 tic tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting 
 the general welfare, and fecuring the bleffings of liberty to our- 
 felves and pofterity," evaporate and difappear- 
 
 Equally will this be the cafe, if the rage of party fpirit can 
 meditate, if the momentary afcendency of party, in a particular 
 branch of the government, can effect, and if the people can be 
 fo deceived as to tolerare — that the prstcr.ee of a violation of 
 the conftitution (hall be made the inftrument of its actual vio- 
 lation. 
 
 This, however, cannot be — There are already convincing 
 indications on the very fubject before u9, that the good fenfe 
 of the people will triumph over prejudice and the acts of party 
 — that they will finally decide according to their true intereft, 
 •and that anv tranfient or partial fuperiority, which may exilt, if 
 abufed for the purpofe of infracting the conftitution, will con- 
 sign the perpetrators of the infraction to ruin and difgrace. 
 But alas! what confolation would there be in the ruin of a 
 party for the ruin of the conftitution ? 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXVI. 255 
 
 It is time to enter on the momentous difcuffion. The queftiou 
 {hall be examined in the four following views — 1. In relation to 
 the theory of the conflitution — 2. In relation to the manner in 
 which it was undcrftood by the convention who framed it, and 
 by the pcopie who adopted it — 3. In relation to the practice 
 upon a fimilar power in the confederation — 4. In relation to 
 the practice under our prefent conflitution, prior to' the treaty 
 with Great Britain — In all thefe views, the coiiftitutionalil 
 the treaty can be vindicated beyond the poflibility of a ferious 
 doubt. 
 
 1. As to the theory of the conflitution — The confutation of 
 the United States diftributes its powers into three departments, 
 legifiative, executive, judiciary. — The fir It article defines I 
 itructure, and fnecifies the various power?, of the legislative de- 
 partment — The fecond article eftablifhcs the orgai and 
 powers of the executive department — The third article dues 
 lair.c with refpect to the judiciary department — The fourth and 
 fifth, and fixth articles, which are the laft, are. a mifcellany of 
 particular proviiions. 
 
 The firft article declares that " ail legijlaiivp power granted 
 by the conftitution (hall be vefled in a congrefs of the Unhed 
 States, which Hull coufift of a fenate and a houfe of repre- 
 sentatives. '' 
 
 'The fecond article, which organizes and regulates the exe- 
 cutive department, declares that the " executive power fhall 
 be veiled in a prefident of the United States of America •" 
 and proceeding to detail particular authorities of the executive, 
 it declares that the t( prefident (hail have power, by and with 
 the advice and content of the fenate, to make treaties, provided 
 two-thirds of the fenators prefent concur." There is in no part of 
 the conftitution any explanation of this power to make treaties, 
 any definition of its objects, or delineation of its bounds — The 
 only other provifion in the conftitution refpecting it, is in 
 fixth article, which provides, as already noticed, that all treaties 
 made or which fhall be made under the authority of the United 
 States, fhall be the fupr'eme law of the land; — and this notwith- 
 standing any thing in the conftitution or laws of any ftate to 
 the contrary. 
 
 It was impoffible for words more comprehenfive to be ufed 
 than thole which grant the power to make treaties. They are 
 fuch as would naturally be employed, to confer a plenipotentiary 
 authority — A power " to make treaties," granted in thefe in- 
 definite terms, extends to all kinds of treaties, and with all the 
 latitude which fuch a power, under any form of government, 
 can poflefs — the power « to mohf n implies a power to act • ', 
 
*5<* C.\MTI.LUO— No. XXXVI. 
 
 ritaiively and conclujively^ independent of the after-claufe which 
 exprefsly places treaties among the fupreme laws of the land. 
 The thing to be made is a treaty. 
 
 ^Viih regard to the obj the treaty, there being no fpe- 
 
 (•ification, there is, of courfe, a cbarte blanche. The general 
 propofition mull, therefore, !>e, that whatever is a proper fub- 
 ject of compact, between nation and nation, maybe embraced 
 by a treaty between the prefident of the United States, with 
 the advice and confent of the fenate, and the correfponcjerit 
 enjan of a foreign ftate, 
 
 The authority being general, it comprizes, of courfe, what? 
 ever cannot be fhown to be neceffarily an exception to it. 
 
 The only constitutional exception to the power of making 
 treaties is, that it (hall not change the conftitution \ which 
 refults from this fundamental maxim, that a delegated authority 
 cannot alter the conftituting act, unlefs fo exprefsly authorized 
 by the conftituting power. An agent cannot new-model his own 
 COmmiflioh. — A treaty, for example, cannot transfer die I 
 lative power to the executive department, nor the power of this 
 laft department to the judiciary ; in other words, it cannot Hi* 
 pulate that the prefident, and not congrefs, fhall make laws for 
 the United States, that the judges, and not the prefident, fhall 
 command the national forces. 
 
 Again, there is alio a- national exception to the power of 
 making treaties, as there is to every other delegated power, 
 which refpecls abufes of authority in palpable and extreme 
 cafes. On natural principles, a treaty, which {liquid manjfeftly 
 betray or faenfice the private interefts of the ftate, would be null. 
 But this prefents a queltion foreign from that of the modifica- 
 tion or diitnbution of conftnutional powers. It applies to the 
 cafe of the pernicious exercife of a power, where there is 
 legal competency. Thus the power of treaty, though extend- 
 ing to the right of making alliances offenfive and defenfive, 
 might not be exercifed in making an alliance, fo injurious to 
 the ftate as to jellify the non-obkrvance of the contract. 
 
 Beyond thefe exceptions to the power, none occurs that can 
 be fupported. 
 
 Thole which have been infilled upon, towards invalidating 
 the treaty with Great Britain, are not even plaufible. They 
 amount to this, that a treaty can eita'olilli nothing between the 
 United States and a foreign nation, which it is the province 
 of the legislative authority to regulate in reference to the 
 United States alone. It cannot, for inftance, titablilh a parti- 
 cular rule of commercial intercourfe between the United 
 States and Great Britain j becaufe it is provided in the conilitu* 
 
Camillus— No. XXXVL 257 
 
 don, that congrefs " /ball have power to regulate commerce with 
 foreign nations." This is equivalent to affirming that all the ob- 
 jects upon which the legiflative power may aft, in relation to 
 our country, are excepted out of the power to make treaties. 
 
 Two obvious confederations refute this doctrine. One, that 
 the power to make treaties, and the power to make laws, are 
 different things, operating by different means, upon different 
 fubjects ; the other, that the conftruction refulting from fuch 
 a doctrine would defeat the power to make treaties, while its 
 oppofite reconciles this power with the power of making laws. 
 
 The power to make law;, is, " the power of pronouncing 
 authoritatively the will of the nation as to all perfons and 
 things over which it has jurifdiction:" or it may be defined to 
 be " the power of prefcribing rules binding upon all perfons 
 and things over which the nation has jurifdiction." It acts com- 
 pulfively upon all perfons, whether foreigners or citizens, and 
 upon all things within the i<'iritory of fuch nation, and alfo 
 upon its own citizens and their property without its territory 
 in certain cafes and under certain limitations. But it can have 
 no obligatory action whatfoever upon a foreign nation or upon 
 any perfon or thing withiq the jurifdi&ion of a foreign na- 
 tion. 
 
 The power of treaty, on the other hand, is the power by 
 agreement, convention) or cotnpacl, to eltablifh rules binding upon 
 two or more nations, their refpechve citizens and property. 
 The rule ettablifhed derives its reciprocal obligation from pro- 
 mife, from the faith which the contracting parties pledge to 
 each other — not from the power of either to prefcribe a rule 
 for the other. It is not here the will of a fuperior that com- 
 mands; it is the confent of two independent parties that con- 
 tract. 
 
 The means which the power of legiflation employs, are laws 
 which it enacts, or rules which it enjoins ; the fubjttl upon 
 which it acts is the nation of whom it is, the perfons and pro- 
 perty within the jurisdiction of the nation. The means, which 
 the power of treaty employs, are contracts with other nations, 
 who may or may not enter into them — The fubjecls upon which 
 it acts are the nations contracting and thofe perfons and things 
 of each to which the contract relates — Though a treaty may 
 effect what a law can, yet a law cannot effect what a treaty 
 does. Thefe difcriminations are obvious and decifive ; and how- 
 ever the operation of a treaty may, in fome things, refemble 
 that of a law, no two ideas are more diftin£tj than that of legif- 
 lating and that of contracting. 
 
2$S C A M I L L U S— No. XXXVI. 
 
 It follows thi t there is no ground foT the inference pretended 
 to be drawn, that the legiflative powers of congrefs are ex- 
 cepted out of the power of making treaties. It is the province 
 of the latter to do what the former cannot do — Congrefs (to 
 purfue {till the cafe of regulating trade) may regulate by law, 
 our own trade and that which foreigners come to carry on with 
 us ; but they cannot regulate the trade which we may go to 
 carry on inforeign countries; they can give to us no rights, no 
 privileges there. This mult depend on the will and regulations 
 of thofe countries ; and, confequently, it is the province of the 
 power of treaty to cftablifh the rules of commercial intercourfe 
 between foreign nations and the United States. The legiflative 
 may regulate cur own trade, but treaty only can regulate the 
 national trade between our own and another country. 
 
 The conititution accordingly confiders the power of treaty 
 as different from that of legiflation. This is proved in two 
 ways, J. That while the conftitution declares that all the legifla- 
 tive powers which it grants fhall be vefted in congrefs, it velts 
 the power of making treaties in the prefident with confent of 
 the fenate. II. That the fame article by which it is declared that 
 the ex cent he power ihall be vefted in a prefident, and in which 
 fundry executive powers are detailed, gives the power to make 
 treaties to the prefident, with the auxiliary agency of the fe- 
 nate. Thus the power of making treaties is placed in the clafs 
 of executive authorities; while the force" of laws is annexed to 
 its refults. This agrees with the diltribution commonly made 
 by theoretical writers, though perhaps the power of treaty, 
 from its peculiar nature, ought to form a clafs by itfeif. 
 
 When it is faid, that congrefs (hall have power to regulate 
 commerce with foreign nations, this has reference to the di£» 
 tribution of the general legiflative power of regulating trade 
 between the national and the particular governments ; and fcrves 
 merely to diftinguifh the right of regulating our external trade, 
 as far as it can be done by law, which is verted in congrefs, 
 from that of regulating the trade of a (late within itfeif, which 
 is left to each ftate. 
 
 This will the better appear from the entire claufe. * l The con- 
 grefs fhali have power to regulate commerce with foreign na- 
 tions and among the feveral ftates and with the Indian tribes," 
 which is the fame as if it had been faid, The whole powers 
 of regulating trade by law (hall refide in congrefs, except as to 
 the trade within a ftate, the power to regulate which lhall re- 
 main with fuch ftate. But it is clearly foreign to that mutual 
 regulation of trade between the United States and other nations, 
 which, from the neceflity of mutual confent, can only be per- 
 
CA MILL US— No. XXXVII. j ££ 
 
 formed by treaty. It is indeed an abfurdity to fay, that the 
 power of regulating trade by law is incompatible with the power 
 of regulating it by treaty ; fince the former can, by no means* 
 do what the latter can alone accomplifli ; confequently, it is an 
 abfurdity to fay, that the Iegi/?::tive power of regulating trade is 
 an exception to the power of making treaties. 
 
 Laws are the acts of legislation of a particular nation for 
 itfelf. Treaties are the acts of the legiflation of fevetal nations 
 for themfelvei jointly and reciprocally. The legiflative powers 
 of one (late cannot reach the cafes which depend on the joint 
 legiikition of two or more (tates. For this, refort mud be had 
 to the pnElitious power, or the power of treaty — This is another 
 attitude of the fubjecl, difplaying the fallacy of the proposition, 
 that the legiflative powers of congrefs, are exceptions to, or 
 limitations of, the power of the prefident, with the aid of the 
 fenate, to make treaties. 
 
 C A M I L L U S, 
 
 No. xxxvii. 
 
 T frr.ll now be fhown, that the objections to the treaty, 
 founded on its pretended interference with the power of 
 congrefs, tend to render the power of making treaties, in a 
 very great degree, if not altogether, nominal — This will be 
 belt fern by an enumeration of the cafes of pretended inter* 
 ference. 
 
 n't, The power of congrefs to lay taxes, is faid to be im- 
 paired by thofe Stipulations which prevent the laying of duties 
 on particular articles; which alfo prevent the laying of higher 
 or other duties on Britiih commodities than on the commo- 
 dities of other countries, and which reStri<ft the power of in- 
 creafing the difference of duties on Britiih tonnage and on 
 goods imported in Britifh bottoms. 
 
 2d, The power of congrefs to regulate trade is faid to be im- 
 paired by the fame restrictions refpetfting duties, in as much as 
 they are intended, and operate, as regulations of trade — by the 
 Stipulations againft prohibitions in certain cafes; and, in gene- 
 ral, bv all the rights, privileges, immunities, and restrictions 
 in trade, which are contained m the treaty; all which are fo 
 many regulations of commerce, which are faid to encroach 
 upon the legislative authority. 
 
 3d, The power of congrefs to eflablilh an uniform rule of 
 naturalization, is faid to be interfered with, by thofe pr oufiou 
 
z6o C.AM ILL us— No. XXX Vlf. 
 
 of the treaty which Secure to the fettlers, within the precincts 
 pt" the BritiSh pofts, the right of becoming citizens of the 
 United States, and thole which, in certain tafesj remove thd 
 disability of alieniSm as to property. 
 
 4th, The power of congrefs " to define and punifh piracies 
 and felonies, committed on the high feas, and offences againft 
 the law of nations," is faid to be contravened by thole parts of 
 the treaty, which declare that certain acts fhall be deemed pi- 
 racy, which constitute certain other things offences, and itipu- 
 late the reciprocal pumfhment of them by each. 
 
 5th, It is alfo faid that the conftitution is-violatedj in relation 
 to that provifion which declares, that " no money fhall be drawn 
 from the treafury but in confequence of appropriations made 
 by law" — by thole parts of the treaty which ftipuiate com pent 
 fations to certain commiffioners, and indemnifications to Great 
 Britain, in certain cafes to be adjufted and pronounced by the 
 commiffioners ; and generally, by all thofe parts which may 
 involve an expenditure of money. 
 
 6th, The conftitution, is faid to be violated in that part which 
 empowers congrefs to difpoie of, and make all needful rules 
 and regulations refpecting the territory* or other property of the 
 United States, by thofe provifions of the treaty which re- 
 fpect the adjuftment of boundary in the cafes of the rivers St. 
 Croix and Miiliffippi. 
 
 Laftly, The conftitution is faid to be violated, in its provi- 
 fions concerning the judiciary department, by thofe parts of 
 the treaty which contemplate the confiding to the dercrmina* 
 tion of commiffioners certain queftions between the two na- 
 tions. 
 
 A careful infpection of the treaty with thefe objections in 
 view, will dilcover, that of the 28 articles which compofe it, 
 at leaft Seventeen are involved in the charge o[ uncouftiiution- 
 alitv ; and that thefe feventeen comprife all the provifions which 
 adjuft pall controversies, or cStablifh rules of commercial inter- 
 course between the parties — The other eleven, which are the 
 ill, loch, 17th, 1 3th, 19th, 2Cth, 22d, 23d, and 24th, except 
 the lirlt, are made up of provifions which have reference 
 to war ; the firlt merely declaring that there fhall be peace 
 between the parties— And it is a queltion, even with refjjedt to 
 all oS theSe, except the id, and 10th, whether they alio are 
 not implicated in the charge-, in as much as Some of their dii- 
 pofitions have commercial relations. Is not this alone Sufficient 
 to bring under a ftrong fufpicion the validity of the principles 
 which impeach the conltitutionality of the instrument ? 
 
Camili.us — No. XXXYIL z6i 
 
 It mufl have been obferved that the argument in the lad 
 number is applicable to all the legislative powers of congress, 
 as wellj as to that of regulating trade, which was felected, by 
 way of illudration, on the ground of its being common to all 
 — Indeed the indance of the regulations of track is that which 
 is mod favorable to the oppofite doctrine — Since foreign na- 
 tions are named in theclaufe; the true intent of which, how- 
 ever, has been explained. 
 
 The fame reafoning, too, would extend the power of treaties 
 to thofe objects which are configned to the legiflation of indi- 
 vidual dates j but here the conditution has announced its mean- 
 ing in exprefs terms, by declaring, that the treaties which have 
 been and (hall be made under the authority of the United 
 States, (hall be the fupreme law of the land, any thing in the 
 conditution or Jaws of any date to the contrary notwithdand- 
 ing — This manifedly recognizes the fupremacy of the power 
 of treaties over the laws of particular dates, and goes even a 
 ftep farther. 
 
 The obvious reafon for this fpecial provifion, in regard to 
 ihe laws of individual dates, is, that there might otherwife 
 have been room for quedion — whether a treaty of the union 
 could embrace objects, the internal regulation of which be- 
 longed to the feparate authorities of the dates. But with regard 
 to the United States there was no room for a fimilar quedion. 
 
 The power of treaty could not but be fuppofed commenfuratc 
 with all thefe objects to which the legislative power of the uni- 
 on extended, which are the proper fubjedls of compacts with 
 foreign nations. 
 
 It is a quedion amomg fome theoretical writers — whether 1 
 treaty can repeal pre-cxijl'mg lows? This quedion mud always 
 be anfwered by the particular form of government of each na- 
 tion. In our conditution, which gives, ipfo faclo^ the force of 
 law, to treaties, making them equal with the acts of congrefs, 
 the fupreme law of the land, a treaty mult necelTarily repeal an 
 antecedent law contrary to it; according to the legal maxim 
 that " leges pofleriores priores ctntrarias abrogant." 
 
 But even in thofe forms of government, in which there may 
 be room for fuch a quedion, it is not underdood that a treaty 
 containing dipulations which require the repeal of antecedent 
 laws, is, on that account, unconstitutional and null. The true 
 meaning is, that the antecedent laws are not, ipfo fuffo, abro- 
 gated by the treaty — But the legislature is, nevertheless, bound 
 in good faith, under the general limitation, dated in another 
 place, to lend its authority to remove obllacles whicli previous 
 laws might onpofe to a fair execution of a treaty. 
 
262 Camillus— No. XXXVII. 
 
 One inftance of the inconfiftency, prevailing in the argu- 
 ments againft the treaty, negochted by Mr. Jay, is obiervable 
 in this point. To get rid of the infractions of our treaty of 
 peace with Great Britain by certain laws of particular dates, 
 it is flrenuoufly maintained that treaties controul the laws of 
 ftates. To impeach the conftitutionality of the treaty under 
 confideration, it is objected, that, in fome points, it interferes 
 with the objects of (late legiflation. The exprefs provifion of 
 the conftitution in this particular, quoted above, has not been 
 fufficient to check the rage for objection. 
 
 The abfurdity of the alleged interferences will fully appear, 
 by mowing how they would operate upon the feveral kinds of 
 treaties ufual among nations. Thefe may be claffed under three 
 principal heads, i. Treaties of commerce, 2. Treaties of alli- 
 ance, 3. Treaties of peace. 
 
 Treaties of commerce are, of courfe, excluded ; for every 
 treaty of commerce is a fyftem of rules devifed to regulate and 
 govern the trade between contracting nations ; invading directly 
 the exclufive power of regulating trade which is attributed to 
 congrefs. 
 
 Treaties of alliance, whether defenfive or offenfive, are eqully 
 excluded, and this on two grounds- — I. Becaufe it is their im- 
 mediate object to decline a cafe or cafes in which one nation 
 (hall take part with another in war, contrary, in the fenfe of 
 the objection, to that claufe of the conftitution which gives to 
 congrefs the power of declaring war; and 2. Becaufe the fuc- 
 cours ftipulated, in whatever fhape they may be, muft involve 
 an expenditure of money — not to fay, that it is common to fti- 
 pulate fuccours in money, either in the firit inftance or by way 
 of alternative. It will be pertinent to obferve incidentally, in this 
 place, that even ihe humane and laudable provifion in the 
 ieventecntli article, which all have approved, is within the fpi- 
 rit of the objection ; for the effect of this is to reftrain the 
 power and diferetion of congrefs to grant reprifals, till there 
 has been an unfuccefsful demand of juftice. Nothing can bet-* 
 ter illuftrate the unreafonable tendency of the principle. 
 
 Treaties of peace are alfo excluded, or, at the leaft, are fo 
 narrowed ns to be in the greatelt number of cafes impracticable 
 — The moll common conditions of thefe treaties are restitutions 
 or ceffions of territory, on one lideor on the other, frequently 
 on both fides, regulations of boundary — reftitutions and con- 
 firmations of property — pecuniary indemnifications for inju- 
 ries or expenfes — It will, probablv, not be eafy to find a pre- 
 cedent of a treaty oH peace, which does not contain one or 
 more of thefe provifions, as the bufis of the ceiiiiuon of hofti- 
 
Camillus— No. XXXVIL 263 
 
 Uties, and they are all them naturally to be looked for in an 
 agreement which is to put an end to the ilate of war between 
 conflicting nations. 
 
 Yet they are all precluded by the objections which have been 
 enumerated : pecuniary indemnifications, by that which refpects 
 the appropriations of money ; reftitutions or cefhons of terri- 
 tory or property, regulations of boundary, by that which re- 
 fpects the right of congrefs to difpofe of, and make all needful 
 rules and regulations concerning the territory and property of 
 the United States — It is to be obferved, likewife, that cefhons 
 of territory are almoft always accompanied with fiipulations in 
 favor of thofe, who inhabit the ceded territory, fecuring per- 
 fonal privileges and private rights of property ; neither of 
 which could be acceded to on the principles of that objection, 
 which relates to the power of naturalization ; for this power 
 has reference to two fpecies of rights, thofe of privilege and 
 thofe of property. An act allowing a foreigner to hold real 
 ellate is fo far an act of naturalization; fince it is one of the 
 confequences of alienifm, not to be able to hold real ellate. 
 
 It follows, that if the objections which are taken to the treaty, 
 on the point of conllitutionality, are valid, the prefident, with 
 the advice and confent of the fenate, can make neither a treaty 
 of commerce nor alliance, and rarely, if at all, a treaty of 
 peace. It is probable, that on a minute analyfis, there is fcarcely 
 any fpecies of treaty which would not chlh, in fome particu* 
 lar, with the principle of thofe objections ; and thus, as was 
 before obferved, the power to make treaties, granted in fuch 
 comprehenfive and indefinite terms, and guarded with fo much 
 precaution, would become eflentially nugatory. 
 
 This is fo obvioufly againlt the principles of found conftruc- 
 tion, it, at the fame time, expofes the government to fo much 
 impotence in one great branch of political power, in oppofition 
 to a main intent of the conftitution — and it tends fo directly 
 to fruftrate one. principal object of the fituation of a general 
 government, the convenient management of our external con- 
 cerns, that it cannot but be rejected by every difcerning man 
 who will examine and pronounce with fmcerity. It is againlt 
 the principles of found conftruction j becaufe thefe teach us, 
 that every instrument is (o to be interpreted, as that all the 
 parts may, if poflible, confift with each other, and have theiv 
 effect. But the conllruction which is combated would caufe 
 the legiflative power to deftroy the power of making treaties. 
 Moreover, if the power of the executive department be inade^ 
 quate to the making of the feveral kinds of treaties, which 
 have been mentioned, there is, then, no power in the gov 
 
2d4 Cam ill us — No. XXXVII. 
 
 ment to make them ; for there is not a fyllable in theconftitu-* 
 tion which authorizes either the legislative or judiciary depart- 
 ments, to make a treaty with a foreign nation. And our con- 
 stitution would then exhibit the ridiculous fpectacle of a 
 government without a power to make treaties with foreign na- 
 tions : a refult as inadmiSTable as it is abfurd ; fince, in fact, 
 our constitution grants the power of making treaties, in the 
 molt explicit and ample terms, to the preSident, with the ad- 
 vice and confent of the fenate. On the contrary, all diiliculty 
 is avoided, by distinguishing the province of the two powers, 
 according to ideas which have been always familiar to us, and 
 which were never expofed to any queftion till the treaty 
 with Great Britain gave exercife to the fubtilties of party 
 fpirir. ^ 
 
 By confining the power to make laws within its proper 
 fphere, and reftricting its actions to the establishment of rules 
 for our own nation and thofe foreigners who come within our 
 jurifdiclion — and by ailigning to the power of treaty the office 
 of concerting thofe rules of mutual intercourfe and connexion, 
 between us and foreign nations, which require their confent. 
 as well as our own ; allowing to it the latitude neceffary for 
 this purpofe, a harmonious agreement ispreferved between the 
 different powers of the government: that to make laws, and 
 that to make treaties ; between the authority of the legislative 
 and the authority of the executive department — Hence, 
 
 Though congrefs, by the constitution, have power to lay 
 taxes, yet a treaty may reftrain the exercife of it in particular 
 cafes. For a nation, like an individual, may abridge its moral 
 power of action by agreement j and the organ charged with 
 the legislative power of a nation may be restrained in its ope- 
 ration by the agreements of the organ of its federative power, 
 or power to contract : let it be remembered, that the nation is 
 the ccnjlituent) and that the executive, within its fphere, is no 
 lefs the organ of its will than the legislature. 
 
 Though cpngrefs are empowered to make regulations of trade, 
 yet they are not exclufively fo empowered— But regulations of 
 trade may alfo be made by treaty •, and, where other rations are 
 to be bouud by them, muit be made by treaty. 
 
 Though congrefs are authorized to eltablifh a uniform rule of 
 naturalization, yet this contemplates only the ordinary cafes of 
 internal administration, in particular and extraordinary cafes, 
 thofe in which the pretenfions of a foreign government are to 
 be managed — a treaty may alfo confer the rights and privileges 
 of citizens j thus the abfolute cellion and plenary dominion of 
 a province or diftritt, poffdTed by our arms in war, may be 
 
Camillds— No. XXXVII. 265 
 
 accepted by the treaty of peace, on the condition, that its inha- 
 bitants (hall, in their perfons and property enjoy the privileges 
 of citizens. 
 
 The fame reafoning applies to all the other infiances of fup- 
 pofed infraction of the legiflative authority : — with regard to 
 piracies and offences again ft the laws of nations ; with regard 
 to expenditures of money, with regard to the appointment of 
 officers, with regard to the judiciary tribunals, with regard to 
 the difpofal and regulation of the national territory and property 
 « — In all thefe cafe.;, the power to make laws and the power to 
 make treaties are concurrent and co-ordinate — The latter, and 
 not the former, mult act, where the co-operation of other na- 
 tions is requifite. 
 
 As to what refpects the commifTioners agreed to be appointed, 
 they are not, in a ftrict {en{e 3 officers. They are arbitrators 
 between the two countries. Though in the conftitutions, both 
 of the United States and of moft of the individual dates, a 
 particular mode of appointing officers is defignated — Yet, in 
 practice, it has not been deemed a violation of the provifion 
 to appoint commifTioners or fpecial agents for fpecial purpofes, 
 in a different mode. 
 
 As to the provifion, which reftricts the iffuing of money 
 from the treafury, to cafes of appropriation by law, and which, 
 from its intrinfic nature, may be confidered as applicable to the 
 exercife of every power of government, it is, in no fort, touched 
 by the treaty. In the conftant practice of the government, the 
 caufe of an expenditure, or the contract which incurs it, is a 
 different thing from the appropriation for fatisfying it. Thus 
 the falary of a public officer is fixed by one law, the appropri- 
 ation for its payment by another. So, the treaty only ftipulates 
 what may be a caufe of expenditure. An appropriation by law 
 will ftill be requifite for actual payment. 
 
 As to the difpofal and regulation of the territory and pro- 
 perty of the United States, this will be naturally underftood 
 of difpofitions and regulations purely domeftic, and where the 
 title is not difputed by a foreign power. Where there are inter- 
 fering claims of foreign powers, as neither will acknowledge 
 the right of the other to decide, treaty muft directly or indi- 
 rectly adjuft the difpute. 
 
 So far then it is from being true, that the power of treaty 
 can extend to nothing upon which, in relation to ourfelves, the 
 legiflative power may act— that it may rather be hid down as 
 a general rule, that a treaty may do between different nations 
 whatever the legiflative power of each may do with regard to 
 jtfelf. The exception? to this rule are to be deduced from the 
 
266 Cam ill us— No. XXXVIII. 
 
 unfitnefs and inconvenience of its application to particular cafes, 
 and arc of the nature of abufes of a general principle. 
 
 In confidering the power of legiflation in its relations to the 
 power of treaty, inftead of faying, that the objects of the 
 former are excepted out of the latter, it will be more corre<fr, 
 indeed it will be entirely correct, to invert the rule, and to fay, 
 that the power of treaty is the power of making exceptions, 
 in particular cafes, to the power of legiflation. The ftipulations 
 of treaty are, in good faith, reftraints upon the exercife of the 
 laft mentioned power. "Where there is no treaty, it is completely 
 free to act. Where there is a treaty ; it is (till free to act in all 
 the cafes not fpecially excepted by the treaty. Thus, congrefs is 
 free to regulate trade with a foreign nation, with whom we 
 have no treaty of commerce, in fuch manner as they judge for 
 the intereft of the United States ; and they are alio free fo to 
 regulate it with a foreign nation with whom we have a treaty, 
 in all the points which the treaty does not fpecially except. 
 There is always, therefore, great latitude for the exercife of 
 the legiflative power of regulating trade with foreign nations, 
 notwithftanding any treaties of commerce which may be- 
 formed. 
 
 The effects of a treaty to impofe reftraints upon the legifla- 
 tive power, may, in fome degree, be exemplified by the cafe 
 of the compacts which the legiflature itfclf makes, as with 
 regard to the public debt. Its own compacts are, in good faith, 
 exceptions to its power of action. Treaties with foreign powers, 
 for obvious reafons, are much llronger exceptions. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 No. XXXVIII.— AND LAST. 
 
 THE manner in which the power of treaty, as it exifts in 
 the conftitution, was underftood by the convention in 
 framing it, and by the people in adopting it, is the point next 
 to be confidered. 
 
 As to the fenfe of the convention, the fecrecy with which 
 their deliberations were conducted, does not permit any formal 
 proof of the opinions and views which prevailed in digefling 
 the power of treaty — But from the bejl opportunity of knowing 
 the fact, I aver, that it was underflood by all, to be the intent 
 of the provifion to give to that power the mod ample latitude 
 i — to render it competent to all the ilipulations, which the 
 
Camillijs— No. XXXVIII. 267 
 
 exigencies of national affairs might require ; competent to the- 
 making of treaties of alliance, treaties of commerce, treaties 
 of peace, and every other fpecies of convention ufual among 
 nations ; and competent, in the courfe of its exercife for thefe 
 purpofes, to controul and bind the legiflative power of congrefs 
 — And it was emphatically for this reafon, that it was fo care- 
 fully guarded ; the co-operation of two-thirds of the fenate, 
 with the prefulent, being required to make any treaty what- 
 ever — I appeal for this, with confidence, to every member of 
 
 the convention particularly to thofe in the two houfes of 
 
 congrefs. Two of thefe are in the houfe of reprefentatives, 
 Mr. Madifon and Mr. Baldwin: It is expecled, by the adver- 
 saries of the treaty, that thefe gentlemen will, in their places, 
 obftruCt its execution — However this may be, I feel a confi- 
 dence that neither of them will deny the affertion I have 
 made — to fuppofe them capable of fuch a denial were to fuppofe 
 them utterly regardlefs of truth. But, though direct proof of 
 the views of the convention on the point, cannot be produced j 
 — yet we are not wholly without proof on this head. 
 
 Three members of the convention difTented from the confti- 
 tutionj Mr. Mafon, Mr. Gerry, and Mr. Randolph. Among 
 the reafons for his diffent, pubiifhed by Mr. Mafon, we find 
 this claufe, " By declaring all treaties fupreme laws of the 
 land, the executive and fenate have, in many cafes, an exclave 
 fainer of legijlation, which might have been avoided by proper 
 diltmtlions with refpecl to treaties, and requiring the affent of 
 the houfe of reprefentatives where it could be done with fafety." 
 — This fhows the great extent of the power, in the conception 
 of Mr. Maion: in many cafes amounting to an exclufive power 
 of legiflation ; nor did he objeel to the extent, but only defired 
 that it mould have been further guarded, by certain diftincli- 
 ons, and by requiring, in certain cafes, the affent of the houfe 
 of reprefentatives. 
 
 Among the objections, to the conftitution, addreffed by Mr. 
 Gerry to the legislature of Mailachufetts, we find one to have 
 been, " that treaties of the (ngkejl importance might be formed by 
 the prefident, with the advice of two-thirds of a quorum of the 
 fenate." — This (hows his idea of the magnitude of the power ; 
 and impliedly admitting with Mr. Mafon, the propriety of its ex- 
 tent, he feems only to have defired that the concurrence of the 
 fenate fhcuid have embraced two-thirds of the whole body, inftead 
 of two-thirds of a quorum. But how fmall and how infignificaut 
 would the power of treaty be, according to the dottrine iatdy 
 promulgated, with regard to its cor.ftitutional limit ? 
 
268 Camillus-No. XXXVIII. 
 
 As to the fenfc of the community in the adoption of the cofl- 
 flitution, this can only be afcertained from two fourc.es, the 
 writings for and agninft it, and the debates in the feveral ftate 
 conventions — while it was under confideration. 
 
 I poffefs not, at this moment, materials for an inveftigation, 
 which would enable me to prefent the evidence they afford — But 
 I refer to them, with confidence, for proof of the fact, that 
 the organization of the power of treaty, in the cenftitution, 
 was attacked and defended with an admiificn on both fides, of 
 its being of the character which I have affigned to it — Its great 
 extent and importance — its effedl to controul, by its ftipul?.- 
 tions, the legislative authority, were mutually taken for granted, 
 and, upon this bafis, it was infilled, by way of objection — 
 that there were not adequate guards for the fafe exercife of fo 
 vaft a power ; that there ought to have been refervations of cer- 
 tain rights, a better difpofition of the power to impeach, and a 
 participation, general or fpecial, of the houfe of reprefenta- 
 tives in the making of treaties. 
 
 The reply to thefe objections, acknowledging the delicacy 
 and magnitude of the power, was directed to (how that its • 
 organization was a proper one, and that it was fufnciently 
 cuarded.* 
 
 * The Federalifl No. XL1I. has thefe paffages, a the power to make treaties 
 and to receive and lend ambaffadors, fpeak their own propriety — Both of them 
 are comprifed in the articles of confederation, -with tbe difference cu.'y that the 
 former is ri'ifem'oarraJf.-d by the plan of the convention, of an exception by which 
 treaties might be lubltantially frustrated by regulations of the flates." This 
 plainly alludes to the frov if which lias been cited and commented upon. " It i£ 
 true that when treaties of commerce Stipulate for the appointment of articles* 
 the admifiion of foreign confuls may fall within the power of making commer- 
 cial treaties." And in number LX1V. are thefe pafTages, " the power of making 
 treaties is an important one, efpccially as it relates to ivar^ peace and cothmerce ; 
 and it mould not be delegated but in fuch a mode and with fuch precautions as 
 will afford the b'gbefi ftcurlty^ that it will be exercifed by men the befl qualified 
 for the purpofe, and in the manner moll conducive to the public good." There 
 are few who will not admit, that the affairs of trade and navigation flionld he regu- 
 lated by a fyflem cautioufly formed and fteadily purfued, and that both our 
 treaties and our laws mould correfpond with, and be made to promote it." 
 " Some are difpleafed with it (that is, the power of treaty) not on account of any 
 errors or defects in it, but becaufe, as the treaties, when made are to have the 
 force of law?, they fliouH be made only by men invefled with legiflative autho- 
 rity ;" " others, though content that treaties mould be made in the mode pro- 
 posed, are avcrfe to their being the fupremc laiu of the land." 
 
 It is generally uiulerflood that two perfons were concerned in the writings of 
 thefe papers, who, from having been members of the convention, had a good 
 opportunity of knowing its views — and were under no temptation at that time, 
 in tl. is particular, to mifreprefent them. 
 
 In the addrefs and rtai'ons of diflent of the minority of the convention of 
 Pennsylvania to their constituents, " they ftate, that they had lu^'gefted the 
 following propofition, among other*, fur an ane.«di/icnt to thfc coaflitution, " Thar 
 
C' mi Li. us-No. XXXVITl. itp 
 
 The rhanner of e?;ercifing. a fimilar power under ihzeptifede* 
 ration fhall now be examined. 
 
 To judge of the fimihuity of the power, it will be ufeful td 
 quote the terms in which it was granted. They are tl, 
 " The United .States in congrefs aflembled, (hall have the fole 
 and exclufive right and power of entering into treaties and alli- 
 ances, provided that no treaty iff commerce thai] be made, whereby* 
 the legiflative power of the refpeclive Hates (hall be reftrained 
 from impofing fuch impofis and duties on foreigners as their 
 own people are fubjecl to, or from prohibiting the importation 
 or exportation of any fpecies of commodities whatfoever." (Ar- 
 ticle IX.) 
 
 It will not be difputed that the Words " treaties and alli- 
 ances" are of equivalent import, and of no greater force than 
 the fingle word " treaties." An alliance is only a fpecies of 
 treaty, a particular of a general ; — and the power of " entering 
 into treaties," which terms confer the authority under \\\. 
 the former government acted, will not be pretended to be 
 ftronger than the power " to make treaties," which are the 
 terms conftituting the authority under which the prcfent govern- 
 ment acts ; it follows, that the power, refpetting treaties, un- 
 der the former, and that under the prefent government, are 
 fimilar. 
 
 But though fimilar, that under the pvefent government is 
 more comprehenfive ; for it is diverted of the redaction in the 
 provifion cited above, and is fortified by theexprefs declaration, 
 that its acls fhall be valid notwithstanding the conititution or 
 
 Vol. III. P p 
 
 no treaty which fnall be dire&ly bppofed to the exifting laws of the Ui 
 States in congrefs afTembkd, fhall be valid until i'uch laws ihnll be repealed or 
 ktiade conformable to fuch treaty." This fhov.s that it was nnderftood that the 
 power Of treaty in the conftitution extended to abrogating even pre-exiftirig laws 
 of the United States, which was thought exceptionable; while no objection was 
 made to the idea of its controlling future exercifes of the legiflative power — 
 The fame addrefs dates, in another place, that the prefident and fencite " may 
 form treaties with foreign nation. 1 , that may controul and abrogate the conftitu- 
 tion and laws of the feveral ftates." 
 
 In the 2'1 volume of the debates of the convention of Virginia, which is tile 
 only part i polTels — there are many paffages that (how the gre.u extent of the 
 power of treaty ifi the opinion of the fpeakerson both fides — As quotation would 
 , f will content myfelf with referring to the papers where they will be 
 found (viz) 91, 99, 131, 137, 14/;, 147, 150, t$->. It will, in particular, 
 appear, tbbt while the oppofers of the conititution denied the powcf oi 
 bf rep reft ntatives to break in upon, or controul the power oi treaties, ; 
 of the conititution did not affirm the contrary; but merely contended, tfi it 
 honfe of representatives might I . I '• 
 ties. 
 
2~o Cam ill us— No. XXXVIII. 
 
 laws of any ftate. — This is evidence, (as was the fuel) of a 
 difpofiti<.n in the convention to difembarrafs and reinforce the 
 power of treaty. It ought not to pafs unnoticed, that an im- 
 portant argument remits from the provifo, which accompanies 
 the power granted by the confederation, as to the natural ex- 
 tent of this power. The declaration that no treaty of commerce 
 ftiall be made retraining the legiflative power of a ftate from 
 impoilng fuch duties and imports on foreigners as their own 
 people are fubjecr. to, or from prohibiting the importation or 
 exportation of any fpecies of commodities whatfoever is an 
 admiflion, i. That the general power of entering into treaties, 
 included that of making treaties of commerce, and 2. That 
 ■without the limitation in the provifo, a treaty of commerce 
 might have been made which would reftrain the legiflative au- 
 thority of the Mate in the points interdicted by that provifo. 
 
 Let it not be faid, that the provifo, by implication, granted 
 the power to make treaties of commerce, under which con- 
 grefs afterwards acled ; for befides that this is inconfiftent with 
 the more obvious meaning of the claufe, the firft article of the 
 confederation leaves to the (tares individually every power not 
 exprefsly delegated to the United States in congrels aliembled. 
 The power of congrefs, therefore, to make a treaty of com- 
 merce and every other treaty they did make — muft be vindicated 
 on the ground that the exprefs grant of power to enter into 
 treaties and alliances is a general, which neceffiirily included 
 as particulars the various treaties they have made, and the vari- 
 ous ftipulations of thofc treaties. 
 
 Under this power, thus granted and defined, the alliance 
 with France was contracted : guaranteeing, in the cafe of a 
 defenfive war, her Weft India pofTefTions, and when the cafus 
 foederis occurs, obliging the United States to make war for the 
 defence of thofe pofieffions, and confequently, to incur the ex- 
 penfes of war. 
 
 Under the fame power* treaties of commerce were made 
 with France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Pruflia — Befides 
 that every treaty of commerce is necefTarily a regulation of com- 
 merce between the parties, it has been fliown in the antecedent 
 eomparifon of thofc treaties,* with that lately negociated, that 
 th y pro luce the fpecific effects of reftraiuing the legiflative 
 power from irnpofing higher or other duties on the articles of 
 thofe natJoris than on the like articles of other nations, and 
 
 s :•!. 3d, and 4th of treaty with France, ad, 3d, and 20th of treaty 
 v.'ith Ruffia, . ', . 3d and 4th of treaty with 
 
 Sweden. 
 
Camillus— No. XXXVIIL 271 
 
 from extending prohibitions to them which fliall not equally 
 extend to other nations the mod favored; and thus abridge the 
 exercife of the legiflative power to tax, and the exercife of the 
 legislative power to regulate trade. 
 
 Thefe treaties likewife define and eftablifh the fame cafe of 
 piracy, which is defined in the treaty with Great Britain. More- 
 over, the treaty with France, as has been elfewhere fhown, with 
 regard to the rights of property naturalizes the whole French f 
 nation. 
 
 The confular convention with France, negeciated, likewife, 
 under the fame power, grants to the confuls of that country, 
 various authorities and jurisdictions, fome of a judicial nature, 
 which are actual transfers to them of portions of the internal 
 jurifdi&ion and ordinary judiciary power of the country ; the 
 exercife of which our government is bound to aid with its whole 
 ftrength. It alfo grants exemptions to French confuls from 
 certain kinds of taxes, and to them, and French citizens, from 
 all perfonal fervice; all which are extremely delicate interfer- 
 ences with our internal policy and ordinary jurifdiction. 
 
 Under the fame power, the treaty with Morocco was formed, 
 which, befides various other regulations relative to war, and 
 feveral relative to trade, contains the rule, that neither party 
 fhall make war without a previous demand of reparation ; in 
 reftraint of the general difcretionary power of congrefs to de- 
 clare war. 
 
 Under the fame power, the treaty of peace with Great Bri- 
 tain was made — This treaty contains the eftablifhment of a 
 boundary line between the parties, which, in part, is arbitrary, 
 and could not have been predicated upon precife antecedent 
 right. It alfo prohibits the future confiscation of the property 
 of adherents to Great Britain : declares that no perfon ihall, 
 on account of the part he took in the war, fuffer any future 
 lofs or damage in his perfon, liberty, or property, and provides 
 for the releafe of fuch perfons from confinement, and the dis- 
 continuance of profecutions againft them. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive a higher act of controul, both of 
 the legiflative and judiciary authority, than by tins article. 
 Thefe provifions are analagous in principle, to thofe flipulations 
 which, in the fecond and ninth articles of the treaty under ex- 
 amination, have given occafion to conftitutional objection. 
 
 Under the tunc power, various treaties with Indians, inha- 
 biting the territory of the United States, have been made; efta- 
 blifhing arbitrary lines of boundary with them: which determine 
 the right of foil on the one fide and on the other. Some of 
 thefe treaties proceed on the principle of the United Stla^ct 
 
%11 Camillus— No. XXXVIII. 
 
 having conquered the Indian country, and profefs to n 
 tuirous conctihVns to them of the hinds which are left to their 
 occupation. There is alfo a feature of iir.portai.ee common to 
 tbefe treaties, which is the withdrawing of the protection of 
 the United States from thofe of their citizens, who intrude on 
 Indian laws. Laving them to be punifhed at the pkafure of the 
 Indians. 
 
 Hence it appear?, that, except as to the ftipulations for ap- 
 pointing commiffioners, the treaties made under the confede- 
 ration, contain al! the features, identically or by analogy, 
 which create coniiitutionid objections to the treaty before us: 
 They rellrain, in certain inftaaces, the legiflative power to lay 
 taxes j they make numerous and important regulations of trade ; 
 they confer the benefit of naturalization as to property ; they 
 define cafes of piracy \ they create caufes of expenditure ; they 
 dire t and modify the power of war; they erect, within tea 
 fountry, tribunals unknown to our conftitutioris and laws, ia 
 cafes to which thefe are competent — whereas the treaty with 
 Great Britain only provides for the appointment of arbitrators 
 in cafes to which our tribunals and laws are incompetent 5 and, 
 they make difpofitions concerning the territory and property of 
 the United Stares. 
 
 It is true, that fome of the treaties made under the forme* 
 government, though fubfequent to the propofing of the arti- 
 cles of confederation to the Hates, were prior to the final a- 
 doption of thefe articles j but Hill it is prefumable that the 
 treaties were negotiated with an eye to the powers of the 
 fending national compact. Thofe with Great Britain, Sweden^ 
 tRuflia, and Morocco, and the convention with France, were, 
 pofterior to the completion of that compact. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be argued, that a more extenfive conftruc- 
 tipo of the power of treaty, in the confederation, than in our 
 prefent conltitution, was countenanced by the union in the 
 fame body of legiflative powers with the power of treaty. 
 But this argument can have no force, when it is confidered 
 that the principal legiflative powers with regard to the objects 
 embraced by the treaties cf congvefs, were not vetxed in that 
 body, but remained with the individual fiates — Such are the 
 power of fpecific taxation, the power of regulating trade, the 
 power of naturalization, &c. 
 
 It in theory the objects of legiflative power are excepted 
 put of the power of treaty, thij mutt have been equally, at 
 leafl, the cafe with the legiflative powers of the Hate govern* 
 ments as with thofe of the United States — Indeed the argu- 
 ment was much ftrongej for the gbjeftion, where diitinct go- 
 
C a m I l i. v s— No. XXXVIIf. 273 
 
 vernments were the depr.fitory of the legislative power, than 
 where the fame government was the depofitory of tlv.it p >wei 
 aiui of (lie power of treaty. — Nothing but th ific force 
 
 of the power cf treaty could have enabled it to penetrate the 
 fcparate fphcres of the ftate governments. The practice un- 
 der the confederation for fo many years, acquieiced in by all 
 the ftatcs, is, therefore, a concluiive illuilration of the power 
 of treaty, ami an irrefiiliblo refutation of the novel and pre- 
 posterous doctrine, which impeaches the constitutionality of 
 that lately negociated — It the natural import of the terms 
 ufed in the conftitution were lefs clear and decifive than they 
 arB, that practice is a commentary upon them, and fixes their 
 fenfe. For the fenfe m which certain terms were prattifed up- 
 on in a prior conftitution of government, mult be preiumed to 
 have been intended, in mini; the iike terms in a fubfequent 
 conftitution o( government for the fame nation. 
 
 Accordingly, the practice under the prefent government be- 
 fore the late treaty, has corresponded with that fenfe. 
 
 Our treaties with federal Indian nations regulate and change 
 the boundaries between them and the United .States — And in 
 addition to compenfations in grots, they flipulate the payment 
 of certain Specific and perpetual annuities. Thus a treaty in 
 Auguft, 179Q, with the Creeks (article 5) promifes them the 
 yearly fum o( one thoufand five hundred dollars — And fimi- 
 lar features are found in fubfequent treaties with the Six Na- 
 tions, the Cherokccs, and the North Weftern Indians — This 
 laSt has jujl been ratified by the unanimous voice of the fenate. 
 It Stipulates an annuity of 9500 dollars — and relinquishes to 
 the Indians, a large tract of land which they had, by pre- 
 ceding treaties, ceded to the United States. 
 
 Hence we find that our former treaties under the prefent 
 government, as well as one fubfequent to that under conside- 
 ration, contradict the doclrine iet up agninft its constitutional- 
 ity — in the important particulars of making difpofuions con- 
 cerning the territory and property of the United States, and 
 binding them to raife and pay money. Thefe treaties hive not 
 only been made by the prefulent, and ratified by the fenate, 
 without any impeachment of their constitutionality, hut the 
 houfe of representatives has heretofore concurred, and with- 
 out objection, in carrying them into eiicct, by the requifite 
 appropriation of money. 
 
 The ccnSuIar convention with France flar.t'.s in a peculiar 
 
 predicament. It was negociated under the former government, 
 
 and ratified under the prefent ; and fo may be regarded as 
 
 a treaty of both governments) illustrative of the extent of the 
 
 r power of. treaty in both. The delicate and even, the cmaordi- 
 
274 Ca mill us— No. XXXVIII. 
 
 nary nature of the provifions it contains, have been adverted 
 to. Though all reflecting men have thought ill of the proprie- 
 ty of fome of them, as inconveniently breaking in upon our 
 interior adminiftration, legiflative, executive, and judiciary; 
 only acquiefcing in them from the difficulty of getting rid of 
 ftipulations entered into by our public agents under competent 
 powers, yet no queflion has been heard about their conflituti- 
 onality. And congrefs have, by law, allifted their execution by 
 making our judicial tribunals, and the public force of the coun- 
 try, auxiliary to the decrees of the foreign tribunals which they 
 authorize within our territory. 
 
 It it mould be faid, that our conftitution, by making all 
 former treaties and engagements as obligatory upon the United 
 States, under that conftitution, as they were under the confe- 
 deration, rendered the ratification of the convention a matter 
 of neceflity — the anfwer is, that either the engagements, which 
 it contracted, were already conclufive, or they were not — if the 
 former, there was no need of a ratification ; if the latter, there 
 was no abfolute obligation to it. And, in every fuppofition, a 
 ratification, by the preiident, with the confent of the fenate, 
 could have been predicated only upon the power given in the, 
 prefent conftitution in relation to treaties -, and to have any va- 
 lidity, mui't have been within the limit of that power. 
 
 But it has been heretofore feen that the inference from this 
 inflrument is no lefs ftrong, if referred to the power under the 
 confederation, than if referred to the power under the prefent 
 conftitution. 
 
 How happens it, that all thefe invafions of the conftitution, 
 if they were fuch, were never difcovered, and that all the de- 
 partments of the government, and all parties in the public 
 councils fhould have co-operated in giving them a fanction ? 
 Does it not prove that all were convinced, that the power of 
 treaty, applied in our exterior relations to objects, which, in 
 the ordinary courfe of internal adminiftration and in reference 
 to ourfelves, were of the cognizance of the legrilative power? 
 and particularly that the former was competent to bind the lat- 
 ter in the delicate points of raifing and appropriating money ? 
 If competent to this, what legiflative power can be more facred, 
 more out of its reach r 
 
 Let me now aik (and a very folemn queflion it is, efpecially 
 for thofe who are bound by oath to fupport the conftitution) 
 lias it not been dernbnftrated that the provifions in the treaty 
 are jullified by the true and roanifsft interpretation of the i on* 
 ftitution — are fanctioned by the practice upon a fimilar power 
 under the confederation, and by the practice in other inftancqs 
 under the prefent government ? 
 
Cam ill us— No. XXXVIIL 275 
 
 If this has been demonftrated, what (hall we think of the 
 candor and fincerity of the objections which nave been erected 
 on the bafis of a contrary fuppofition ? Do they not unequi- 
 vocally prove, that the adversaries of the treaty have been rc- 
 folved to difcredit it by every artifice they could invent? that 
 they have not had truth for their guide, and confeqaently are 
 v§ry unfit guides for the public opinion, very uniafe guardians 
 of the public welfare ? 
 
 It is ready painful and difgufting to obferve fophifms (o mi- 
 ferable as thofe which queftion the conftitutionality of the trea- 
 ty, retailed to an enlightened people, and infilled upon with fo 
 much teeming fervency and earneltnefs — It is impoffible not to 
 beftow on fenfible men, who act this part, the imputation of 
 hypocrify — The abfurdity of the doctrine is too glaring to per- 
 mit even charity itielf to fuppofe it fincere — If it were poiiible 
 to imagine that a majority in any branch of our government, 
 could betray the conftitution, and trifle with the nation, fo far 
 as to adopt and all upon iuch a doctrine — it would be time to 
 defpair of the republic. 
 
 There would be no fecurity at home, no refpe&ability abroad. 
 Our conltitutional charter would become a dead letter. The or- 
 gan of our government for foreign affairs would be treated with 
 derifion whenever he ihould hereafter talk of negociation or 
 treaty. May the great Ruler of nations avert from our coun- 
 try fo grievous a calamity !,* CAM1LLUS. 
 
 * It is very probable, that a treaty with Algiers is now on its way to the Uni- 
 ted States, which may becxpeehd to contain fimilar ftipulationa with that with 
 Morocco — This treat)-, which will have coil the United States no trifling funi , 
 and will be of very great value to our trade, muft equally fall, on the doctrine 
 which I oppofe. 
 
 — < •«€K^<5<*^>>»^5>> > — 
 
 To the Editor of the American Remembrancer. 
 T II E following Remarks on the treaty lately concluded be- 
 tween the United States and Great Britain, ivere 'written very foon af- 
 ter that injlrument was made known to the public, and before ths 
 ratification of it, by the preftdent of the United States, took effctf. 
 The writer had not feen any of the voluminous productions in defence of 
 the treaty, which have appeared, in the different gazettes of the United 
 States, under the Jignatures of Camiilus, Curtius, A Citizen, ecc. &c. 
 And even had he feen them, he would not have though: it 
 cumbent on him, to anfioer or detect all the fophijlry and fallacious . 
 ments and jlatcments they contain. In the courfe of this , /■' 
 
 hath candidly endeavoured to w igh the real merits of, and objections to t 
 the treaty, with the impartiality of a J. r by party 
 
 nor any vvorfe motive, but by a fledfafl attachment to the United States 
 alone, the principles of the r:x... the prosperity of the g 
 
tj4 3 
 Remarks 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Treaty of Amity, Navigation, and Commerce} 
 
 'Concluded between Lord Grenvi'le and Mr. Jay, $n the Part y 
 Great Britain and the United States, refpcclively. 
 
 By a Citizen of the United States. 
 
 ok ves non vol'is. — Virgil. 
 
 Not for yourfelves, ye merchants, fliall ye toil, 
 
 Not for yourielvcs, ye farmers, plough the foil* 
 
 Not for yourfelvcs, ye ioldiers, laurels gain, 
 
 Not for yourfelves, ye failors, brave the main. — Anonymous. 
 
 ** By preferitihg many propofitions at orice, which are to be roteel 
 for in the lump, they hide what is deftined to promote their own 
 private views, or give a cbloftr to it by joining it <u)ith things which 
 they know will fdie he'd of the mind of the pcoph-." 
 
 De holme on the Britifb Coiflilu^ion, 
 
 THE treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, lately 
 concluded in London between Lord GrenviJle and Mr. 
 Jay, on the part of the king of Great Britain and the United 
 States, refpe£tively, is one of the moll important fubjects ever 
 agitated in America (ince fhe became an independent nation ; 
 h fcems, indeed, to 1 ave engrorled the public mind more than 
 any other, the adoption of the federal conftituticn, only ex- 
 cepted. — Reafon, prejudice, and pafllon, equally prompt to 
 the difcuffidn of it, and every individual cnlifts himfelf under 
 the banners of one or the other. This renders a temperate en- 
 quiry into its merits, without regard, either to the original 
 framers, or its fubfequent advocates or enemies, an object of 
 the firft importance. 1 (hall, therefore, leave it to others to dif- 
 cufs, whether the late envoy extraordinary entered upon, and 
 concluded it, in purfuance of general or particular inftructions, 
 either from the prefident of the United States alone, or by and 
 •with the advice and confent of the fenate ; or whether, he pur- 
 fued the dictates of his own better judgment, without any autho- 
 rity whatsoever. If, however, there mould appear any thing in 
 the treaty to condemn, decency, and ejlablifbed precedent, will re- 
 quire, that i: fhould he confidered as the acl of the minijler, only ; 
 more especially as the function of the fupfeme executive magif- 
 trate of the United States has been hitherto withheld, as we 
 have every reafon to believe. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, £;c. ijf 
 
 Si;?, before enterlftg into a ddouilion of the articles of the 
 treaty, it may nut be. improper to advert, not only to ex;! 
 circumiUnces at the time it was concluded, but to fome ante- 
 cedent events, which may be pre fumed to bare, had fome • 
 ration upon the mir.ds of the nations, whofe mutual Friendship 
 is, by this instrument, propofed to be conciliated, ?v{ perpe* 
 tuallv cemented. Fot a treaty (fo far as relates to a free republic? 
 at leaf*) ought to be confjd. I I of the nation, and not 
 
 merely of the government, only 3 or, hi other words, of (he 
 parties who conclude, fign, and ratify them. To this end, due' 
 attention fhould be paid to the prevailing Sentiment a£ the na- 
 tion, fo as to remove every obstacle, to that cordiality, and un- 
 feigned friendfhin, which treaties of amity are intended to pro- 
 mote. 
 
 It is juft twenty years fince the United States of Am 
 Stimulated by the tyrannical ufurpations of the prefenr king of 
 Great Britain, declared the good people of thefe ftates atbfnlted 
 from their allegiance to that prince, and that all political con- 
 nexion with Great Britain ought to be totally diflblved. A 
 cruel civil war was waged againlt them during a period of 
 eight years, the calamities of which were heightened by every 
 wanton act. of depfedation, opprelfion, and irrfuit, that rapa- 
 city, cruelty, and a vindictive fpirit couid prompt men to com- 
 mit. Our ilaves were excited to rebel againSt us; the favnges 
 on our frontiers were bafely Stimulated to add, to the fangui- 
 nary meafures of the BritiSh enemy, their own more inhuman 
 mode df wnrlare. Our towns were wanronlv confirmed to 
 alhes, and our country every where laid wafte. Our property 
 was feized for the ufe of the armies of our enemies ; or de- 
 itrcyed, without compenfation, and without compunction or 
 reitraint: Thoufands of our negroes, the cultivators of the foil 
 in the fouthern dates (and forming the greater part of the 
 moveable property of their matters) were enticed or forced away 
 from their fervice — Eighty thoufand of our fel ow citizens are 
 fuppofed to have fallen victims to the offended majefty of that 
 vindictive monarch, whofe name was more execrared amon* 
 us, than ever Nero's was at Rome. Inability to profceute the 
 war longer, produced a peace ; but it was 1 eaee without for- 
 gtvenefs, without friendship, and withfcut lir. erity. During 
 the long courfe of hostilities, everv fentiment of regard and of 
 mutual confidence had been extinguished on the part of both 
 nations, and the pe ;ce concluded between therri, waa raithef 
 calculated to perpetuate, t*ha*n to extinguish the remembrance 
 of their n;utual animofity. The citizens of the middle and 
 i'.ern llatct complained that thvir particular -mterefU had 
 
 Vol • HI. Q^n, 
 
 
•278 REMARKS ON THE TREATY, &C. 
 
 been overlooked, or facrificed, by iome of the articles of the 
 treaty. The northern dates found their trade abridged, by the 
 very inftrument which they fuppofed would have fecured its 
 unlimited extenfion. Thus even the treaty of peace had no other 
 recommendation, in the eyes of the people of America, than 
 the termination of hodility. His Britannic majedy, on the other 
 hand, appears not to have entered into it with good faith. The 
 wedern pofts, which were to have been delivered up " with 
 all convenient fpeed," were forcibly detained in the poffeffion 
 of his troops ; and the negroes and other property taken from 
 the people of America, were, in direct violation of the treaty, 
 carried away without compenfation. An equal difpofition to 
 evade, or violate fome of the articles of the treaty was attri- 
 buted to feveral of the dates, and mutual complaints and recii- 
 rninations took place between the two nations. The restraints 
 impofed upon our Weft India commerce by his Britannic ma- 
 jefty ; his fuppofed ill offices towards us, in exciting the depre- 
 dations of the Barbary dates upon our commerce; and in fo- 
 menting difcontems among the Indian nations, and even ilimu- 
 lating and aiding them in acts of hoftility againft us, occafioned 
 thofe wounds to inflame and feder anew y which had been, 
 at bed, imperfectly cicatrifed. 
 
 The averfion of his Britannic majedy to enter into any com- 
 mercial treaty with the United States, had manifelled itfelf, 
 in the rejection of* all overtures made for that purpofe by the 
 prelent vice-pTehdent of the United States, who was fent thi- 
 ther to effect iuch a negociation, not long after the conclufion 
 of the peace. — The adoption of the federal conditution re- 
 moved all thofe obdacics, which, it was pretended, prevented 
 the court of Great Britain from entering into negociations with 
 us. It did more. — It removed every barrier to the full and 
 complete execution of the treaty of peace, on the part of the 
 United States, by rendering that treaty a part of the fupreme 
 Jaw of the land : the federal courts, in their decifions, mani- 
 feded the mod unequivocal difpofition to give to the treaty the 
 mod favorable conltruetion on behalf of Britifh creditors. — It 
 was the expectation of all, that the energy of the federal go- 
 vernment would not fail to extort from his Britannic majelly 
 an equal compliance with the treaty on his part. 
 
 The conditution, at the time of its adoption, was regarded 
 as the guarantee of a free trade with the Wed Indies, anil 
 with every other part of the work! ; it fcon became matter of 
 wonder arid of diifatisfaction, that it had not produced thefs 
 effects. It was finally made known that the executive of the 
 15nited Sulci had taken meafurcs to difcover the fentiments of 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, Bed 279 
 
 ihe Britifh court on the fubjeeff. of a treaty of commerce, and 
 that the propofuion ftill continued to be treated with difrefpect. 
 — In the mean time, France was engaged in a revolution, the 
 principles of which were fuppofed to bear fo great an analogy 
 to our own, that every American felt himfelf intercfted in her 
 fuccefs. — Our prayers were continually offered up in her be- 
 half, and it was concluded that the cords of amity would be 
 drawn as clofely as poflible between the two republics. — His 
 Britannic majefty was not long in joining the alliance formed 
 among the enemies of the new republic. America foon found 
 herfelf made a party in the war, by bft faffierings : the fpoliati- 
 ons on our commerce are well known ; they have been felt 
 through every part of the United States. Not only our veffels 
 with their cargoes were feized and confiicated, becaufe engaged 
 in commerce with the enemies of his Britannic majefty ; but 
 our citizens were abufed in their perfons, imprifoned or im- 
 prefled into the fervice of a fovereign whom they derefted, un- 
 der pretext that they were his fubjects. Innumerable acts of 
 piracy were committed by a fwarm of privateers which infeft- 
 ed our coafts; nor was the infolence pratliftd by his Britannic 
 majetty's lea officers inferior to the depredations of the priva- 
 teers. Stimulated by refentment, and a defire of retaliation, 
 fome of the citizens of America took commilfions from, or 
 entered into the fervice of, their filler republic. They were 
 profecuted for exercifing a natural right, not repugnant to any 
 treaty, or known law of the land. Thefe profecutions were, by 
 the fufferers and their friends, considered as an act of fuper- 
 errogation in our government, founded on a partiality to Britifh 
 intereft, in oppofition to that of France. Every a£l of conoef- 
 fion or conciliation on the part of the United States, feemed 
 to give new life and vigour to the arrogance, infolence, and 
 depredations of the Britifh (hips of war and cruifers. The 
 Indians, whofe hoftile difpofition towards us was fuppofed to 
 be the effect of Britifh perfidy, profecuted the war again ft us 
 in a ftile altogether new, and gave reafon to prefume that tl y 
 were not only aided with arms, ammunition, and warlike ltor .-, 
 bv the Britifh government, but that they were ac.hr.lly aflG 
 bv the officers and militia, if not by the regular troops of that 
 nation. Congress, to whom it belongs to decide upon a ju/t 
 caufe of nutir, and to regulate commerce^ roufed bv fo many re- 
 iterated acts of aggrefhon, had refolved upon fome cautionary 
 meaiures to fecure indemnification for injury, and to retaliaie 
 upon a nation from whom fo. many vexations were daily receive 
 ed. The reprefentatives of the people concurred in the mea« 
 fures propofed, by a great majority — the fenate were divide. 
 
Jtfe) REMARKS ON THE TkLITY, fCCi 
 
 t))e vice-prefident held /Af balance in his hand, and the lcaic 
 preponderated againit the repn funativc? of the people. At 
 this moment of e fie we fee nee \\\ the public mind, the late en- 
 voy extraordinary was appointed ; the object of his milium was 
 fuppoled to be a demand of reparation of injuries, and a com- 
 pliance with the terms of the violated treaty of peace. 
 
 From this fnort recapitulation of preceding events, it will 
 r.ppear, that the public rnind was by no means prepared to en- 
 ter, with cordiality, into a date of amity with a nation whole 
 government had, for twenty year«, incefiantly perfecuted the 
 United States, eh her by open acts of hoflihty, or the iniidi- 
 ous arts of fecret animofity. It was, therefore, reafonably ex- 
 pected, that a treaty, whefe object was to bind the two nati- 
 ons in amify with each other, would contain within it every 
 thing neceflary to foften afperity — to fubdue refentment — to 
 fatisfy claims, and to conciliate affection. To determine how 
 far this expectation has been fulfilled by the prefent treaty, 
 it wiil be neceffary, not only to 11 ate what it contains, but alfo, 
 what it does not contain. 1 (hail begin with the former ; and, 
 in order to do it with the more regularity, I fhall take it article- 
 by article. 
 
 The preamble ftates the motives to the treaty to be, the de- 
 fire " of terminating the differences between his Britannic 
 majefty and the United States, in fuch a manner, as, with- 
 out reference to the merits of their refpeclitis cotupjaists and pre r 
 ten/ions, may be belt calculated to produce mutual fatisfaction 
 and good undcrilanding." Such a preamble would either lead 
 US to expect the moft liberal concejfions in favor of the United 
 Scares, or a total dere/iclion of their complaints by the envoy 
 e.\ raordinarv. On the part of his Britannic majelty fuch a 
 v :'. cr might be conndered, if not a mark of great magnani- 
 mity, at lealt, of ^vtat condefcenfion, whilft his (hips of war 
 an<' privateers were in the full career of plunder on the com- 
 n eree or our unreliliing citizens. Nor can it be altogether 
 denied, that his majefty, as well as the United States, had 
 fome caufe tp murmur at the events of his reign : — He had 
 iQ.t an immenfe territory, which he had regarded as his here- 
 ditary right, jure divino, and had fpent ahove an hundred mil- 
 lions fterling of his fubjects' money in the attempt to retain 
 it in fubjection to him. He might be compared to an unlucky 
 fporifman whofe over-charged gun had buifled, burnt his fin- 
 gers, given him a found doufe in the chaps, and knock'd out 
 half a dozen of his teeth, in attempting to lhoot a partridge : 
 — and America to the poor bird itfelf, which had got a griev- 
 pus, wound, in fpite of the unlkiifulnefs of the au^waid 
 
Rem^R^s on the Treaty, *£:c. 281 
 
 markl'man. Confidering, howeve- : the prefumable obi eel of 
 the million of the envoy efctraordin u y, it appears lomewhnt 
 unaccountable upon what grounds he could iuppofe himfelf 
 authorized to reiincjuifn the difcuffiun of the complaints of the 
 United States, unlefs indeed he apprehended that his Britan- 
 nic majefly's choier Blight be fo far roufed by it, as again to 
 KJe& a negociation, and compel him to return to America 
 re injeEla ;* or, perhaps, he was ienfible, that in the adjuft- 
 ment of fuch a variety of claims as America luas entitled to in- 
 fft on, the bufinefs might be fo far procraitinated as to leiTen 
 the glory of the achievement; or, perhaps, retard bis return 
 to his native country, in time to accent that accutnuUiiicn of ho~ 
 nor which there awaited him. But let us now proceed to exa- 
 micus eke treaty, fome of the articles of which I (hall pafs 
 over without obfervation, as being .-. ithcr of little moment, or 
 cuflomary in fimilar treaties ; whflft upon fome others I may 
 Willi to detain the reader's attention. 
 
 I. Of eight and twenty articles which the treaty contains, 
 the hrlt ten are declared to be fermanetrt 1 the remainder are 
 of limited duration. The fiili Itipulates, in the ordinary form, 
 that there (hall be peace, " and true and fincere friendihip be- 
 tween his Britannic majefty and his fucceffcrs, and the United 
 States, and between the people, refpecUvely, without excepti- 
 on of perfons or places." — To render this article cfTeclual, it 
 will be necell'ary that the fubfequent articles (hould contain all 
 Such things as '* are calculated to produce mutual fatisfaclion 
 and good under ft anding between the nations :" ocherwiie, thi3 
 article will ever remain in the fame ftate of inexccution, as thofe 
 relating to the negroes and the ivejlern poj'h, in the treaty of 
 peace. 
 
 II. The fecond article ftipulates that his Britannic majefty 
 will withdraw all his troops and garrifons from all polls and 
 places within the United States, on or before the fir It day of 
 June, 1796. This, by the treaty of peace, ought to have been 
 done, at leajl, a dozen years ago ; and it ap.pea.rs iomewhat 
 Urange that the immediate performance of it was not nu-lc a 
 condicion, precedent to any further negotiation, except! lor 
 reparation for the fpoliations on our commerce, ice. lor how 
 can we be allured that his Britannic majefty will obferve more 
 good faith in the performance of this treaty, than the former, 
 if an excufe can be found to evade it ? 'i he only difference 
 
 * Whilft the treaty was in difcu.Ti >n before the fcr.arc, 3 certain gentleman, 
 iii^h in office, who \\ as once ambaflador at the Britifl) court, to de- 
 clare, that It could have procured a better treaty, but de: lo, becaufe 
 
 \\r thought it uot iufikk'u:!)- advantageous to America. 
 
282 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 that this part of the fecond article makes between our prefent? 
 and former fituation is, that the detention of the polls, hitherto, 
 is evidently fanclioned by the prefent treaty; and all compenfation 
 for former breaches of faith, and aggreflions in this refpect, 
 moft genercujly waved, on the part of the United States *, it muft 
 be confefled, however, that this article furniflies an interpre- 
 tation of the words " with all convenient /peed," in the former 
 treaty •, which, in all future negociations, with his Britannic 
 majelty, may be understood to mean a dozen years. 
 
 The fame article provides that the fettlers and traders, with- 
 in the precincts or jurifdiction of the weftern ports, may con-' 
 tinue to reftde there, without being compelled to become citizens cf 
 the United States, or to take any oaths of allegiance to the govern- 
 ment thereof, or remove and difpofe of their lands and other 
 property, at their election. This, as it refpects traders, and 
 other tranjient perfons, is juft and proper : as it relates to land- 
 holders it will be made the fubject of future remark, when we 
 examine the ninth article. 
 
 III. The third article contains a variety of ftipulations, fome 
 of which appear to be reciprocally liberal, whilfl others mani- 
 feft a fpirit of accommodation and conceihon, on the part of 
 the United States, which very few are likely to feel, in any de- 
 gree, equal to the envoy extraordinary. — If it be true that the 
 moft important ftations for carrying on the fur trade, &c. are 
 within the territories of the United States, which, I am told, 
 is the cafe, Great Britain will be no fmall gainer by that equal 
 intercourfe, which this article permits upon the lakes and the 
 waters thereof, as alio the free ufe of the Miihffippi,* and the 
 portage places in the territories of the United States and Great 
 Britain, reflectively. But the total exciufton of American veJJils 
 from the fea-ports, harbours, creeks, and rivers of the Britifh 
 American territories on the Atlantic, gives to this article a very 
 difadvantageous turn for the commercial interefts of the U- 
 nited 'States; thereby fecuring to the Britilh nation a de- 
 cided and perpetual pre-eminence over them in the trade with 
 the north-weftern parts of the American republic ; fince all 
 articles for exportation to foreign parts, mull either go down 
 the St. Lawrence and be exported to Britain, in Britifh fhips, 
 or be brought over land to the head waters of Hudfon's river, 
 or fome other lefs convenient communication with the Atlantic 
 ports of the United States. — Foreign goods muft be tranfported 
 
 * It may, with no fmall propriety, be aflced, on what part of the eaftcrn 
 fide of the Miffiffippi his Britannic majtily poffvffcs any territory? 1 know u( 
 none; and it noujlttj perhaps, puzzle the envoy extraordinary himftlf to poitj^ 
 it out. 
 
ivF.MARKS ON THE TREATY, &C. 283 
 
 to the weftern territories in like manner. The communication 
 from the lakes to Quebec, by the river St. Lawrence, is fo 
 much eafierthan to New York, by the river Hudfon,* and the 
 advantages (if I am rightly informed) in every refpecl: fo 
 much greater, as to preclude all competition on the part of the 
 United States. Hence it feems probable that Great Britain will 
 continue to monopolize the trade on the lakes, and finally, the 
 whole trade of the American north weftern territory. Other 
 caufes than thofe already mentioned will contribute to promote 
 this. British traders are already fettled at the mofi advantageous 
 Jlations for carrying on commerce, and probably have pollen 1 ed 
 themftlvcs of all the land at thofe places, which the preceding 
 article fecures to them for ever. An American going there to 
 fettle would find himfelf under all the difadvantages of attempt- 
 ing to ellablilh himfelf in a foreign country, and expofed to all 
 the ill offices which jealoufy could fuggelt. 
 
 I fhall not here enquire how far the United States had a ri«ht 
 to infill on the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, at 
 kaft for their veftels bound from one part of the United States 
 to another, rsferving that quefiion for another place; but it is 
 obfervable, that while our veffels are totally excluded from the 
 Atlantic ports of Canada, &c. the vefTels of thofe countries 
 may freely navigate our rivers f as far as the highefc ports of 
 entry for foreign fhips, in any part of the United States. This 
 want of reciprocity will be excufed by the advocates for the 
 treaty, by a general reference to colonial laws ; to which I 
 fhall offer an anfwer in its proper place. 
 
 Commercial regulations, not founded in experience, can 
 never be adopted with too much caution. They ought never to 
 find a place in a perpetual treaty; lor whatever inconvenience 
 or difadvantage refult from them, it cannot be removed with- 
 out hazarding a war; iince it can never be expected that a com- 
 mercial nation, tenacious of her interefts, will ever refign an ad- 
 vantage that is once fecured by a perpetual treaty. Such a na- 
 tion is the Britilh. 
 
 * Nothing appears more qneftienabfe than that policy, which lays open the 
 navigation of our rivers to thole maritime powers with wh.irn we may be even- 
 tually engaged in war. Experience wugbt have taught us this truth in the courfe 
 of our war with O/eat Biitaiu. 
 
 f The vrittr, for want of a correct rup, ami ilt fcription of thofe parts of 
 the United States, is unable to dclccsdto luci; particulars a» would iliuurate this 
 
 l>aft ot flli Hi. j.ct. 
 
i§4 Remarks on the Treaty, £cc. 
 
 IV. ism V. As thefe articles relate altogether to an amicable 
 adjuftmi nt of fomt doubts refpedting our boundaries, I pie- 
 fume they are proper enough for that purpofe.* 
 
 VI. The fixth article recites, that it is alleged, bv divers of 
 his majcity's fubjects, that debts, bona fide contracted before 
 the peace, (till remain owing to them by the citizens of the 
 United .States, " and, that, by the operation of various lawful 
 impediments fir.ee the peace," the recovery lias been delayed, 
 and the value and lecurity of the debt leilcned. It ftipulate&, 
 therefore, for the appointment of a board of cotnmiiEon 
 part Brliijh and part American, to examine all complaints n 
 red to therri, " and to take into confider-aion all claims, whe- 
 ther of principal cr ifrt&eft', or balances of principal and bale* 
 reft, atid to determine the lame refpectively, according to equity 
 and juftice 5" they may alfo examine all per Jons th'dt may c<m 
 fore item, and receive in evidence written depofitions, books, or 
 papers, or copies or extracts thereof, duly authenticated ; and 
 their award Ihall, in all cafes, be final and ccnclnfive, both as 
 to the juiiice of the claim, and the amount to be paid to the 
 creditor; which amount the United States undertake to caufe to" 
 be paid in fpecie, on condition of fuch releafes, cr cjfignments 
 to be made by the creditor, as the commiffioners may direct. 
 
 I have been greatly at a lofs to fuppole a cafe to which this 
 article can apply ; at length, however, I think I have {tumbled 
 upon twoj perhaps a third — but I am not prefumptuous enough 
 to infift that I am right in either. The ih ft, I have fuppofed to 
 be the cafe of a debt confifcated or fequeitered during the U 
 where the debtor has pleaded fuch conlifcation or fequc.ftration 
 IH bar of the plaintiff's claim. When this queftion was difcufied 
 in the federal court of Virginia, the chief juitice of the United 
 .States gave it as his opinion, that the treaty of peace annulled ail 
 the acls of fequeftration pafTed by the feveral ftates, though, at 
 that tune fovereign and independent, and avoided all acls dene in 
 purfuance thereof.^ A majority of the court were of a different 
 opinion. Whether it was the intention of the envoy extraordi- 
 nary to reftore to the opinion of the chief juftiee that weight, 
 which it had loft on the occafion alluded to, 1 will not pretend 
 to decide; but if my conjecture be juft, the Britifli claimant 
 
 * See this fubj'etS properly difcufisd, in the American Remembrancer, vol. I!, 
 page 11 6. 
 
 f The political morality °f the ftates < :d for their coi 
 
 in confifcating and iequeltering Britilh property, debts, &e. It feems at this 
 day forgotten, that on the 27th o! November, J. 7 7 ; , concsrkss earmfly retain- 
 mended that meafure to the fcveral ftate.-, as appears by their joutnalt of that 
 date. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 285 
 
 Mafgre the decifion of a denftitutiona! court of judicature 
 may now reft fecurc of his claim, without any abatement. 
 The fecond cafe applicable to this article, I prefume, will arife 
 from the operation of an act of the legiflature of Virginia, 
 palled in the year 1787, repealing all acls of afiembly which 
 prohibited the recovery of Britilh debts, with a fulpcnding 
 claufe, until the Briitfh pojls in the United States firntld be deli- 
 vered up, and mealures taken for the further fulfilment of the 
 treaty, by delivering up the negroes of the citizens of that (late, 
 taken aivay contrary to the feveuih article of the treaty of pence. 
 How far this legal impediment might operate to delay ti>e debt 
 of a Britifh creditor, or to leflen its value, or fecurity, I cannot 
 prefume to fay ; yet I fiiould conclude that the adoption of tht 
 federal conftitution a few months after, did very efre&ually re- 
 move this legal impediment. The third cafe, I ;>;n i:ic i 
 from the fpecial wording of this article, to fjppof •', refers to 
 thofe cafes where fuits have been brought, and a verdict been 
 giv ;i for the defendant; or the principal debt n either 
 
 without intereft (if any fuch cafe has happened) rr with a de- 
 duction of intercjl during the tear. In thefe latter cafes, the chief 
 juftice of the United States had inftrucled the jury to give in- 
 tereft without any deduction. They uniformly difregarded the 
 inftruction ; it was neceffary to provide fome remedy in this, 
 as well as in the fir ft mentioned cafe, and it is probable that 
 the opinion of the chief juftice of the United States will be 
 paid due refpecr. to, by the commiflioners to be appointed in 
 virtue of this article. The liberality of the envoy extraordinary 
 in this article, evinces, at the fame time, the molt fcrupulous 
 regard to the punctual adherence to the fpirit of treaties, on the 
 part of the United States, and his extreme politenefs and gene- 
 rofuy in palling over in filence thofe caufes, which gave rife to 
 the legal impediments thus happily removed. Nothing renders a 
 treaty move refpectable than fuch exalted alliances 0/ mag- 
 nanimity in the framers of it.* 
 Vol. III. R r 
 
 * Since this pamphlet was transcribed for the prefs, I have had an opportune 
 ty of coiiverfing with an intelligent and well-informed gentleman, who has fag- 
 gcfled that an additional, an J even the prlniipal object of the Gxth article, proi>. - 
 My i c , to enable . wt to obtain compenfdtiqn from the governmei.i ef* 
 
 the United States, for the depreciation of money acluatty received by tlemfelvci or 
 their agenlt, during tit war , which payments, according r<> the genet uxlLfut oi ;he 
 land, as well between citizens as others, were. to be rati I iccording to the nomi- 
 nal amount, without any regard to the actual depreciation of money at the time 
 ef payment. Aivl further, to revive and eflablijb all claims on the part of Briirjh 
 », againfi citizens of the United States, at tiie commencement ol the re«»- 
 >\ recovery of Which »vatt fufpended, during the continuance ot the 
 
286 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 It has been hinted that this court of com mi (Ti oners (a part of 
 ■whom, as was before obferved, are to be Briiifh ) who are thus 
 to liquidate legal claims by one individual againft another, is 
 an encroachment upon the functions of the federal judiciary, 
 and a violation of the conltitution. The queftion is delicate and 
 important-, there is, moreover, an obfeurity in this article, 
 which makes it difficult to afcertain its real import. It may not 
 be improper to notice fome parts of it, with a view to the dif- 
 cuflion of this queftion. — ift, The award of the commiflioners 
 fhall befnal in all cafes, both as to the jujlice of the claim, and 
 the amount to be paid the creditor. 2d, The United States un- 
 dertake to ca ufe the fum awarded to be paid, &c. on condition 
 of fuch releafes or njfignments to be given by the creditor, as 
 the commiffioners may direct — Is it meant that the award fhall 
 be final and conclufive between the creditor, and the original 
 debtor? If fo, he mult be made a party defendant, and that, I 
 prefume, by regular procefs : he mult be heard in his defence; 
 he ought to have cotnpnlfory procefs to procure the attendance of 
 iv'itneffes ; the truth of the jacls put in iffue are to be tried and 
 determined by the com mi (Loners. It belongs to the con- 
 stitutional COURTS TO DO ALL THESE THINGSJ and 
 
 war, by the creditors thcmfelves, 'oeing then confidered ordechred alien enemie.«, 
 and, as fuch, incapable of fuing in our courts. This legal impediment having lefl- 
 entu the value, or diminifhed the fecurity of their debts, they now claim an in- 
 demnification, for the fame, againft. the United States. If thefe conjedures be 
 well-founded, and I fee no reafon to doubt them, hovv much better was i: to 
 have been a tory, at that time, than a whig ! ! ! How many American whigs 
 loft their debts, nay, their whole eftates, by the operation of thole very laws, which 
 eventually will have fecurrd tie debts of their enemies ! This article, it is fuppbfed, 
 was made a precedent condition to the admiflion of the fe-ventb, relating to com- 
 penfation to be made for fpoiiai ions upon our commerce, to which this countcr- 
 j.o'j'e was prrviotifly fecured. — When we recollect that nine-tenths of thefe laft> 
 mentioned claims, on tl.e part of Britifh creditors, reft upon no other evidence 
 than old mercantile ledgers and journals, often moji inaccurately, and not always moji 
 fairly he ft; that the commiflioners are not bound to proceed upon legal tefimony or 
 evidence, only, but according to circumjlances ; that they may receive copies or extratts, 
 even of books and papers, without producing either the original or a full copy ,■ that 
 the debtor, in thefe cafes (unlefs he be made a party defendant, 'as in cafe of a fuit) 
 will not appear (even if called upon, and, in moft. inftances, cannot be found) 
 to conteft the juftice of the claim ; and that there is an equal chance that a ma- 
 jority of thefe commiflioners will be Brit>Jh; there can be little reafon to doubt 
 that the operation of this article will be fully adequate to countervail (if I may be 
 permitted to borrow a diplomatic phrafefrom another part of the treaty,! all the 
 advantages which we arc flattered with the hopes of, from the feventh article. Add 
 to this, thai every conjecture, refpedting the intended operation and eflecl of thi* 
 article, authoriles the conclufion, that this court of commiffioners is to be paramount 
 to the conjlitulional courts, both of the feveral ftates, and of the federal government ; 
 that il HJdy examine matters offict without the aid oil, jury; and may re-examine 
 matters of fail tried by a jary, contrary to the rules of the common law, and centra- 
 rji to the t-u Hftli article of the ratified amtnJmtnti to the mnflitutioB. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 287 
 
 the trial of matters of fact put in iflue muft there be by a 
 Jury. Again, the United States undertake to caufe the money 
 awarded to be paid. How ? By procefs of execution againft the 
 defendant's body or eilate ? Or, out of the treafury of the 
 United States, trufti.ng for reimburfement to the alignment 
 from the creditor? How are they to recover in virtue of this 
 affignment? By harraffing the debtor with a new fuit, or is lie 
 bound to all intents and purpofes by the award of the Commif- 
 fioners ? Thefe things are difficult to be undenlood, and (till 
 more difficult to reconcile to that claufe cf the conltitution, 
 which declares that the judiciary power of the United States 
 fhall be ve/led in one fupretne court, and fuch inferior courts as 
 congrefs may, from time to time, eflablifj ; that the judges fhall 
 hold their offices during good behaviour ; that they fhall take an 
 oath tofupport the conltitution of the United States; ami that 
 the j'urifdiction of thefe courts mall extend to all cafes in law 
 and equity arifing under the constitution, or laws of the United 
 States, and treaties made, or which fhall be made under their au- 
 thority. The great tendernefs of the envoy extraordinary for the 
 cafe of Britilh creditors, feems to have made him forget that 
 he prefided in one of thofe courts, whofe jurifoiction extends 
 to all cafes arifing under treaties ; a circumttance which can only 
 be attributed to his being fo much engrofled by his tieiu office, 
 as not only to forget the functions and duties of that ivhich he 
 had left behind, but even the constitution of his country. 
 
 VII. The fueceeding article relates to the compenfation to be 
 made to the citizens of the United States, for the fpoliations 
 and depredations committed on our commerce, and to the fub- 
 jects of Great Britain for fuch captures as have been made 
 within the j'urifdiction of the United States, or by veflels armed 
 therein. For this purpofe a fimilar board of commiffioners, 
 with nearly fimilar powers, are to fit in London, who are to 
 decide the claims referred to them according to juftice, equity, 
 and the laws of nations; and the Britiih government under- 
 takes to pay the fum awarded to the claimants in fpecie, with- 
 out deduction. But it would feem that the commiffioners are 
 not to take cognizance of any cafes, but fuch wherein adequate 
 compenfation cannot be noiu aclually obtained in the ordinary 
 courts of /if ice ,■ with a further exception of fuch cafes, where 
 the lofles have been occafioned by the m.inifeft delay , negligence, 
 or wilful omiflion of the claimants. 
 
 Of all the injuries to which mankind are expofed, thofe 
 committed on the high feas are molt cafily perpetrated, and 
 moll difficult to be prevented, or punifhed. The conduct of 
 privatecrfmen differs in nothing from that of pirates, except in 
 
£S& Remakjcs on the Treaty, ccc. 
 
 the clrcumftance of obtaining a previous licence to excrcife 
 their nefarious practice*. That of the commanders of imps of 
 war bur too often partakes more of the : of a h.jjhniu 
 
 than the c~>urtefy of a foldier of lion. r. The fpoliationa com- 
 mitted on the property of the citizens of America by theft two 
 claries of men, rnult have been often, attended with circum- 
 ftances of inconvenience to the fuffcrers, far beyond the ap- 
 parent amount of the injury oilered. I have known a profitable 
 voyage defeated, and the veflel finally loit, by being plundered 
 of a few fail-needles, and twine, to the value of lefs than four 
 dollars. The detention of an hour, or being turned out of her 
 courfe for a day, may prove equally fatal to a merchant fhip. 
 Thefe are injuries for which no reparation in damages, efti- 
 mated merely according to the value of tin: thing taken, or the 
 time of detention, can make adequate latisfaclion •, acts of 
 depredation and violence committed by perfons unknown, to 
 whole refnience we are ilrangers, or whofe refidence is al too 
 great a diitance to follow them in hopes of fatisfaction, arc fre- 
 quently fubmitred tc, from defpair of obtaining any compenfa- 
 tion. Thus it will happen that a thoufand inftanees of opprtf- 
 iion will remain unaioned for, from the nature of the injury 
 itjclf, and the place where offered. The immenfe diitance to 
 which the claimants muft repair, to profecute their claims, whe- 
 ther by original action, by appeal, or by reference to this board 
 of com mi :Ii oners, will be found, in three cafes out of four, 
 an infurmountable obilacle to the full attainment of juftice. 
 Hid the commilfioners been appointed to fit in any part of the 
 United State?, or even in one of the Welt India iflands, in- 
 itead of London, the probability of reparation to the fuffei 
 would have been much increafed. Let the operation of this ar- 
 ticle be e^er fo favorable tq the claimants, tiiere mult always 
 remain a very confiderable balance unfatisfied. The liberality of 
 the United States in the cafe of captures made within their 
 junfdiclion, &c. feems to have been more readily accepted, 
 than copied by the Britifh negociator. 
 
 VIII. and IX. Article the eighth relating folely to the com. 
 pcnfation to be made to the feveral boards of commilfioners, I 
 {hall pafs it over without obfervation. The ninth, however, 
 deierves no frnall attention — Ic is thereby agreed, that Bri-» 
 tiih fubjects and American citizens who now hold lands in Ame- 
 nta, and Great Britain, rtfpectively, dial! continue to hold the 
 fame, and may grant, fell, or devife the fame to whom they 
 will, in like manner as if they were natives ; and that >. either they 
 nor their heirs or affigns (hall be regarded as aliens, io far as may 
 :Cx, the faid lands, and the legal remedies incident thereto, 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 289 
 
 According to the principles laid down in Calvin's cafe [Co. 
 rep. part 7.] when two countries, which have been under alle- 
 giance to the fame prince, feparate, all thofe of either country 
 born before the fepafation takes place, may hold, or inherit lands 
 in that cottfitry from which they are thus feparated. Upon thia 
 principle the treaty of peace fecured to the owners of lands in 
 America, being Britifh fubjects, all their poffeilions in lands at 
 that time held by than. And the realisable ccnflruchcn feemed 
 to he, th;.t they fhould have their whole lives to difpbfe of them, 
 or t' . American citieensj if they »! ; d neither, the lands' 
 
 tytiuld be liable to efcheat at theif deaili, for defedc of heir?, 
 
 efs fame ante- fiatus, or fume American citizen, could 1 
 blilh e:o, either a.- heir, or devifee. For it was. held, 
 
 that the common law, which excludes aliens from inheriting, 
 not altered) or intended to be altered, by that article. And 
 the reaforts for that opinion were not without weight in the 
 mind'; of thofe who maintained them; fince they conceived 
 that the principle of eiclu :ns from holding lands was 
 
 founded in found policy ; at! opting herein one of the reafons of 
 the common law ox England* " thai the nation might in time 
 be fubjetl to foreign influence." — In giving the moll liberal con- 
 ftruction to the treaty of peace, they did not apprehend it 
 was meant to contravene a principle fo long clcabiiihed among 
 their ancdlcrs, and lb generally underftood. As to acquifitions 
 of lands, made by Britiih fubjecrs, in America, fince the peace, 
 the queition, whether thefe are within the reafon of the cafe of 
 ante-nati, has not occurred : whenever it does, it is not imnof- 
 iible that a distinction may be taken between a title acquired 
 by difcent or devi/'e, and one by actual pur chafe, fince the com- 
 mune vinculum has been broken. But the treaty now under dii- 
 cuffion hath totally fubverted the wholefome maxims of the com- 
 mon law, and of found policy, both in the frond and the ninth 
 article, by virtue of which the fubjecls oi Great Britain, though 
 equally aliens as the fubjecis of China, may hold and tranfmit 
 to their latelt pofterity, " according to the nature and tenure of 
 their refpeclive ejlates and titles therein," lands lying in the 
 United .States, " and held by them at pcefent." — The fecond 
 article very liberally grants to Britilh fttbje&'s ail their ufurped 
 poffcffions in lands within the jurifdiclicn of the wejtern pofis. 
 How fat this undefined term may extend, it is difficult to con- 
 jecture, whether one, five, or fifty miles.* The claim of ju- 
 rifdiclkn, made by Governor Simcoe lad fummer, extended, 
 
 * The fume gentleman to whom I am int! ' Contained UP 
 
 note 0:1 article 6, informs me chit the ccfuou of territory to Britiju fnl 
 
290 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 if iftake not, a good way within the limits of Vermont, and 
 
 not !cfs than twenty miles from his nearefl pod. At this rate 
 the ceflion of foil made to the fubjects of Great Britain may 
 be very cxtenfive, and if they have been granted to hold by 
 fealty to the crown of Great Britain, the ninth article confirms 
 the tenure.* It does more; it exempts "their lands from the 
 operation of thofe laws which would limit the duration of ejlates, 
 if fuch be the nature of their eftates therein. It will be faid 
 that this article is reciprocal; nothing can be more fallacious: 
 it is probable that the fubjects of Great Britain at this day own 
 ten thoufand times as much land in America, as is owned by 
 American citizens in England. Under the fanction of this ar- 
 ticle, though not within the ftrict wording of it, it is probable 
 that the quantity of lands holdsn by Britifh fubje£ts in America 
 will be ten times as great, in a few years, as at prefent, fo that 
 America will, in great meafure, be tenanted by the vajjals of 
 Briiifo landlords.]- The high price of lands in England will, 
 probably, induce many land-holders there to exchange their 
 property for more extenfive eftates in America ; nor will there 
 be wanting temptations to the monopolizers of that article to. 
 cngrofs as large a portion of the foil as of die funds of the 
 United States. What influence this may have over the body 
 politic it is not hard to conjecture ; efpecially if his Britannic 
 majejly himfelf, who is reported to be a ccnfiderable ftock- 
 hold^r in the American funds, fhould feel the fame inclination 
 to fpeculate in lands : he might, probably, in a few years en- 
 grofs fo large a portion of them, as to revive his claim of fu- 
 preme lord of the United States of America. 
 
 X. The tenth article ftipulates that there (hall be no fe- 
 qudtration or confifcation of debts, or property in the funds, 
 or in public or private banks, in any event of war between the 
 two nations. — One of the reafons upon which this article was 
 probably founded, was flightly touched upon above — His Bri- 
 tannic majefty, it is faid, either allured by the profpe£t of 
 
 comprehended in the fecond article, will probably amount to a grant mors; 
 than equal to the fta;c9 of Virginia and Kentucky, in extent, and of the nwll 
 valuable lands in the United States. 
 
 * How far this article may tend to revive the proprietary rights of Lord Fair- 
 fax's heirs or devifecs, and the Maryland and Peonfylvania proprietaries, may 
 be worthy of more confederation than I have been able to bellow upon the fub- 
 jedt. 
 
 ■f The fettlement? now making in fome parr of the flate of New York by an 
 Englifh g. :,tlcmcn, whofe name, I thi '-, :':.'- ey, upon an t'late containing 
 a'lout half a million of acres, may ferve as ^n evidence of the probability of this 
 <onjceture. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, Sec. zyi 
 
 higher intereft, or alarmed for the fecurity of his immenfo 
 property in the European banks, has lately condefcended to In- 
 come a creditor of the United States. The word fob/eels is 
 dropped in this article, and the more comprehenfive term in- 
 dividuals, is fubflituted for it : this being nomen gemralijjtmum, 
 may be fuppofed to extend to the king himfelf ; for the rule 
 that the king is not bound by any law, unlefs he be fpecially 
 named therein, does not apply to thofe laws where he is CO 
 derive a benefit from general words. As tills article, therefore, 
 was not fo much calculated to bind, as to benefit him, it was 
 unneceflary, and would have been indecent to name him fpeci- 
 ally. His majefty's example has, there is great rcafon to be- 
 lieve, been followed by a number of his fubjects — I know a 
 gentleman who purchafed half a million of dollars in the three 
 per cents, in one day, for perfons refiding in London. The 
 effect of this article will probably be a confidcrable inereafe 
 of Britijh flockholders. 
 
 But this article deferves further confideration in another 
 point of view. When Great Britain, in the courfe of the late 
 war, began to exercife every a£t of depredation upon the pro- 
 perty of the people of America, as well as cruelty upon their 
 perfons, the ftates, then fovereign and independent, by way oil 
 retaliation, thought proper to fequeiter and confifcate Britii'h. 
 property in America.* And when his Britannic majefty's ihips 
 of war and privateers, commeneed their prefent fyftcm of 
 fpoliation and aggreffion on the commerce of the citizens ot 
 America, the houfe of reprefentatives in congrefs, by a very large 
 majority, rcfolved to fequeiter Britifli property in the United 
 State?, in order to fecure fome indemnification to their fuffer- 
 ing conttituents. This meafure, as was formerly mentioned, 
 was loll in the fenate by the cafiing vote of the vice-prefident. 
 The precedent was alarming, and might be renewed when the 
 vice-prefident might not hold the balance in his own hands. The 
 chief juftice of the United States had judicially declared (tho* 
 that opinion was over-ruled) that the flates had no right to 
 confifcate or fequeiler their enemies' property j the envoy ex- 
 traordinary made no difficulty in giving a diplomatic fanction 
 to thefe opinions, nor did he hefitate to remove all the horrors 
 which his Britannic majefty may be fuppofed to have felt, on 
 the feore of his money in the funds and banks of tho United 
 States. If national juftice were always adminiftered with- 
 out regard to the right of the firongejl, very far ihould 1 be 
 
 * This was done at the " earnrji rcccruutnJ-tiori" of Congrefs, November 27, 
 177;. — See their journals. 
 
2^1 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 from condemning an article intended Co feciire private proper- 
 ty, and to confirm private confidence. But, every ftipulation 
 mat abridges the exercife of defenfive mea/ures by a 'kn t 
 
 how repugnant foever fuch meafures may appear to the c 
 nary rules of juftice, in civil cafes, is, in fact, the fuSjection 
 of fuch a nation, and all its rights, to the infolence, injustice, 
 and rapacity cf the frengcr. — If a ftate of war between two 
 nations will juftify feizing the property of their refpe&ive peo- 
 ple, by violence, wherefoever it can be found, will not the 
 fame caufe juftify us in indemnifying ourfelves at the expenfe 
 of our enemy in any other mode ? And if the relative force 
 of the two nations renders this irnpoffible by other means, by 
 what refinement in political morality are we forbidden to av til 
 ourfelves of fuch means of retaliation or indemnification as the 
 nature of things permits ? Suppofe Great Britain ftill obttinate- 
 ly to perfift in her depredations on our commerce, and detenti- 
 on of the weft em polls; fuppofe her to renew the war which 
 flie formerly waged with fuch fury and cruelty againft Ameri- 
 ca ; what ac~t of retaliation could America commit, or how re- 
 compenfe herfelf for her lofles, but by confiscating the property 
 of Britifh fubjecls, or by carrying the war into Canada ? If hu- 
 manity were to decide which of thefe meafures ought to be 
 preferred, fhe would probably determine very differently from 
 the envoy extraordinary. — She would tell us, that if fatisfacti- 
 on could be obtained without the effufion of human blood, that 
 mode fhould be firft adopted, rather than to carry havoc, de- 
 valuation, and murder among a people whofe only fault confid- 
 ed in their being the fubjetls of our enemy, and our nearelt neigh- 
 bours. — Could we draw the lion's teeth and pare his nails, we 
 might treat on terms of mutual reciprocity and equality r but 
 till this can be effected, the ftipulation in this article muft re- 
 mind us of that league between the wolves and the flieep, 
 whereby the latter furrendered the dogs, their only defence, as 
 hoftages to the former. The balance of trade, already too great 
 in favor of Great Britain, will hourly accumulate: and if Bri- 
 tifh fubje£ts can hold lands, and poffefs property in our funds 
 snd banks, without danger cf lefs, we may reft allured that 
 thefe advantages will be turned to their proper account. — The 
 moment a man becomes a debtor, beyond his ability to pay, 
 his independence is totally loft. It is the fame with nations 
 that are, at the fame time weak and poor. Our commercial in- 
 tercourfe with Great Britain being renewed upon the moll 
 nefieial footing for her, will render the United States, with 
 •the aid of this article, and 'the preceding, a nation of dibt 
 
Remarks ort the Treaty, Sec. 293 
 
 \>X>ih public and private, to her merchants, her nrjnied k.w, her 
 ambitious land-hoiders, and even to her fovereign himf*lf. 
 
 The preceding articles, it will be remembered, are ail per- 
 manent. If once ratified) tney .-will be irrevocable ; for the ad- 
 vantages therebv fecured to Great Britain are i'o great, that fhc 
 mud be (truck with blindnefs, indeed, fhould Ihe ever agree 
 to refcind one of th:m. — The feventh, the only one which 
 promifes any thing for America, except admijjion into the ive/lern 
 pojls, has been fhown to be inadequate to a full and complete 
 indemnification of the citizens of the United States, for the 
 injuries they have fuftained. Nor has Britain yielded aqy thing 
 in any one of them, for which (he has not gained a ///// c<u<i- 
 valent and fomething more. — But though it requires very little 
 ikili in political arithmetic, to fee on which fide the balance lies, 
 it may require ages to calculate the amount. 
 
 XI. and XII. Though no temporary advantage can ever be 
 deemed an equivalent for permanent disadvantages, fuch as we. 
 have juft noticed, it might have been reafonably expected that 
 the fucceeding articles of the treaty would have procured fome 
 recompence to the United States for fuch important cone '(lions. 
 It is, however, doubtful whether any one of the remaining ar- 
 ticles (tipulates for a (ingle advantage on our behalf, for which 
 we do not facrifi.ee thrice as much as it is worth. — The eleventh 
 article (tipulates "that there (hall be reciprocal and entire per- 
 fect liberty of navigation and commerce under certain limitati- 
 ons and reftrictions," not one of which is either a limitation or 
 reduction upon Great Britain, but altogether upon the United 
 States. For example — (hips of any burden, belonging to Bri- 
 tain, may freely enter any of the ports of the United States, 
 and bring or carry away any commodities they pleafe, and whi- 
 ther they pleafe ; whtllt the freedom of navigation and com- 
 merce, by American citizens, is re (tricked to veffels not exceed- 
 ing feventy tons burden, if bound to the Britijfj IVejl Indies ; all 
 American veffels whatfoever being totally excluded from the 
 Britiih fea-ports on the continent, by the third article already 
 mentioned. This licenfe to trade with the Britiih Iflands, is by 
 lb me perfons reprefented as very import) at, even under this 
 redaction. From the nature of the cafe it can only extend to 
 the article of provifions, when they are not prohibited 1 for by 
 the laws of England, neither tobacco, nor any other production 
 of the United States, except proviftons^ lumber^ naval w res, 
 and horfes, can be imported into the illands trorr. the United 
 States, even in Britijb bottoms. Veffels of feventy tons burden 
 ;ire too fmall for the lumber trade. — The demand for naval 
 (Loirs and horfes ... . tiih iflands, is not likely to form any 
 Vol. . S s 
 
294 Remarks on the Treaty, &c.' 
 
 Very important branch cf commerce with them : the admiffion 
 or faitcd provifions is altogether tttbitrary t or, if you plcafe, 
 cretionary, depending upon the fuppliea which can be furnifh- 
 ed from Great Britain and Ireland j the treaty does not alter 
 the cafe in this refnecl — they may Hill be admitted or rejected ; 
 they have been often admitted, and as often prohibited, within 
 the lafc ten years; fometiir.es the admiffion lias been con- 
 fined to Britifh bottoms ; at others, extended to all vejjels what- 
 Jcever, Without limitation as to their burden. I appeal to the re- 
 peated proclamations authorizing the importation cf pro-.' fens in 
 foreign i:it:-ms, which have appeared in the gazettes of all the 
 iftandsj and of the United States, for a dozen years pad, to 
 prove this fa£fc. It is a moft important fact, and {hows that the 
 e.siftence of the Britifh fugar colonies depends upon the United 
 Stares of America. For the policy of Great Britain, ever fince 
 the p' :'cc, has been to exclude the citizens of America and 
 their vefli any lntercourfe or commerce with her fugar 
 
 . colonies ; a relaxation from this pclicy has never been produced 
 but by the moft cogent neceffity ; the frequent repetition of the 
 proclamations, inviting our vejfels into their ports, proves this 
 cogent neceffity to be very frequent, alfo ; which fully authorizes 
 '.'.: '; ccnclufion, that thofe colonies could not befubfijled -without the aid 
 of the United States. This being the cafe, it was in our power to die- 
 tale our oivn terms, inftead of fubmilting to fuoh as are at once 
 - .-ding and deflruclive to our commercial inter ejls. — We (hall 
 be told that the conduct of Britain is agreeable to the colonial 
 law of all nations. But this law prefuppofes that the parent 
 country is capable of fupporting her colonies without the aid of 
 any foreign country whatfoevcr. This is not the cafe with Great 
 Britain — She muft, therefore, fubmit to reafonatrle terms from 
 a nation abounding with thofe things, without which h?r colonics 
 cannot cxif, or facrifce I. tr colonics. This would be equally un- 
 wife, inhuman, and unjvj} on her part. The neceffity ot an in- 
 tereourfe between the United Stares and her colonies was, 
 therefore, altogether on her part, though the fubmiffton and re- 
 Jiriclion is upon ours, only. A ciccrepid veteran without any 
 weapon fdt his defence, dictating terms of fubmiiTion to a ro- 
 buft young fold et with arms in his hands, would fcarcely ex- 
 hibit a ; .aordinary initance of fuceefsful arrogance, or 
 ot abject: cvndeicehfion. — The commerce with the fugar Mauds 
 was one of '.hole ilrong holds of negociation, on the part of 
 tfee United Stares, which ought never to have been abandoned. 
 The envoy extraordinary could not have been ignorant of this, 
 of the fentiments of a large majority of that body to whom, 
 ill cenjunfiiou with the fenaie and the prfidtitt, it belongs, by the 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, Sec. 295 
 
 eonfiituiion, tp regulate commerce with foreign nations. His zeal 
 for uegoeiation' ieems to have made imri lofe fight pfevery ol 
 I: and no doubt, from > ejcpes&tipn with winch 1 
 important treaty was concluded, every pbftacle, which mi 
 for a moment retard its completion, was inii mtiy waved on 
 fide ol" the American negotiator. 
 
 Not lefs extraordinary is the ftipuhtion contained in the 
 fuccecding ciaufe of the fame article, iw.hich declares, | 
 during the continuance thereof} the United .States will pro r 
 hibit and retrain tl;e carrying any vic',:/^j, ccffee y coco::, . t . /- 
 /'■n, in American vcff.'ls, either her. :v ,./,,/.., or 
 
 United Suites, to any part of the \\^\<-'- I the U;; 
 
 States. Never was a more humiliating conceiTiQQ prop-.; d or 
 acceded to, in a commercial treaty. The intcrd; 
 not only 10 the produce ui the .Euglifh iugar ill? ftp 
 
 fimilar productions from any other part oi the gir.be. TJjjs was a 
 decided itrolec at the oornmttrce between America and the poi- 
 Xefaons of every other nation in the Welt Indies, whether 
 French, Dutch, Spanifh, Daniih, ©r Sw.ecUlb ! Britain i'V.jt- 
 •pofing the produce of her iflands fuffiuent for the confumpti- 
 on of the United Slates, or rather, determining, if 
 to limit their confumption to what her iiiands can fjjpj 
 thusfecures a monopoly by iiucrdieTng \)ic expQrl any 
 
 furplus of their productions, or fio Tel ions 
 
 countries; and moreover, lays a foundation fpr the 
 /catching all our veffels, a:ui, upon the 
 uining or carrying them into her own peris for 
 if it fhould appear that they ha"e on board any oi thefe .T- 
 cles beyond reafonable fea-flores. Surely by lorne ftramje % Feet 
 of magic, the envoy extraordinary had ioit alj memory 0/ 
 .events fubfequent to the year 1763, and conceived bvnafeW 
 bound to receive as law, whatever the Britifh fecreiaiy 0. iia'.e 
 was pheifed to dictate to him ! Or was this conce'.h n I 
 fult of his fears for the fate of the French colonies, that 
 would cither be defolated, or become an appendage to G 
 Britain ? Or did he conceive that fuch a njlriclcd commerc 
 lie has ftipulated far with the Britain colonies, clogged iuu/j 
 refriclions upon cur commerce ivith oil ether parts of the globe y 
 was more valuable thin all our .Veil India trade put together? 
 Surely the productions of thofe iilands mull have been re: 
 cd precious beyond meafure in the ( . . • oi the envoy extraor- 
 dinary when he con feu-ted to this article ! 
 
 There is yet another light in which this article inuft be 
 placed, to give us a full view of its merits. Covgtvfs, that is, 
 the botifc of repr.efentatives and fc{iate t \v:<h the concur re ace of 
 
296 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 the prejident of the United States, are the conflitutional organs 
 for the regulation of commerce. Here, the envoy extraordina- 
 ry undertakes to regulate it by means of the prejident and 
 filiate, only, without reference to the houfe of reprefentatives ; 
 thu< taking upon himfelf to ?ieiv-model the conflitution, or to 
 dictate a law to congrefs. For either the prefulent and fenate 
 mult regulate commerce, purfuant to this article, without the 
 concurrence of the houfe of reprefentatives, or that houfe is 
 bound, nolens •volens, to pafs a law purfuant to ibis article. 
 Whether that houfe will manifefl the fame compliance with 
 the opinions of the envoy extraordinary, as he apears to have 
 Ihown to thofe of the Britifh fecretary of ftate, remains to be 
 leen hereafter. 
 
 XIII. Weary of conceffions without confideration — of com- 
 pliances without oftenfible motives — and of humiliations too 
 degrading even for colonies, I turn my eyes towards that gleam 
 of iberality which appears, on the part of Great Britain, in 
 the 13th arricie, by which fome conveniencies have been pro- 
 cured for cur citizens trading to the Eaft Indies. Yet even here, 
 reitnetiens evince the jealoufy of that nation; no American. 
 citizen being permit:^ J to refide in any of her territories in that 
 quarter of the globe, in which (he has acquired fo extenfive an 
 influence j whillt Britifh fubjeBs may be lords of manors in the 
 
 ed Stares from generation to generation. The 15th arti- 
 cle: expn :.-. xrving to the Britifh government" the right 
 oi impofing inch a duty as may be adequate to countervail the 
 jrence of duty now payable on the importation of European 
 and Afiatic goods when imported into the United States in Bri- 
 tifh or in American veflels," has, in truth, frittered away the 
 commercial advantages to have been expected from this article, 
 to nothing more than a grant of the ordinary rights of hofpitality. 
 
 XIV. and XV. The 14th article, relating wholly to the in- 
 tercourfe between the Britifh European territories, and the 
 United States, reciprocally, fecures thofe rights whieh are 
 common between civilized nations in peace. But the 15th ar- 
 ticle virtually extends to Great Britain all the commercial ad- 
 vantages granted by America to the moft favored nations. The 
 favors of the United States, like thofe of a lady of pleafure, 
 have been granted to fo many, as to be from henceforth beneath 
 the folicitation of any. — The firfl grant of them to France 
 gained a cordial return of affection : The laft grant will pro- 
 bably annihilate the recollection, as well as the value, of the 
 firft. To detach the United States from the affectionate at- 
 tachment to that nation, which gratitude and a variety of con- 
 current caufes had produced, as it has been the conftant defirq. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, ice. 297 
 
 of Great Britain, was, unqueftionably, one of the great ob- 
 jects of the prefent treaty, as we ilialJ have occafion to obferve 
 hereafter. 
 
 XVI. and XVIL The former of thefe articles relating only 
 to the appointment of confuls, I (hall pafs it over. The latter 
 ilipulates, that veffels captured or detained on jult fufpicion of 
 having on board enemy's property, or contraband goods, (hall 
 be brought to the ne.ireft, or mojl convenient port for adjudica- 
 tion. The alternative leaves to the captor the right of determin- 
 ing between the nearejl and the mojl convenient port ; and the 
 latter will, in all cafes, be determined by the convenience cf the 
 captor, inftead of the party arretted. It fanctions the right of 
 < flopping) fearching, detaining, and carrying out of the courje of her 
 voyage, any veilel belonging to citizens of the United States, 
 during ami war that Britain may be engaged in; that is, upon 
 neral average, about one half her time and ours. It might 
 have been expe&ed that the envoy extraordinary in his great 
 ambition to meliorate the laws and utages of nations, would 
 have infilled, that free /hips Jhould make free goods; that the 
 commerce of a neutral nation fhould not be interrupted by thofe at 
 War, e.\ci.pt in the cafe of contraband good carrying to an ene- 
 n;y ; that no fcarch Jhould be permitted upon the high feas, under 
 any pretext whatsoever; that no fnp of war, or privateer 
 fhould approach ivithtn cannon foot ; nor chace nor turn any neu- 
 tral veflei out of her courfe ; nor fend more than two or three 
 men to enter on board of her; and that full faith and credence 
 fhould be given ;o the fea letters with which fueh veffels might 
 be fumifhed. Examples of fimilar Itipulations might be found in 
 our treaties with I 1 ranee, Holland, Sweden, and Pruffia ,• and 
 even his majejly of Morocco has condefcended to infert fome of 
 them in his treaty with us. But his Britannic majefty's fhips of 
 war and privateers are not to be refirained from any meafures 
 which their fufptcions may lead them to purfue, if they "forbear 
 doing any damage or committing any outrage •" words of fuch 
 latitude ol import, as to fanclify a thoufand injuries and pro- 
 vocations, fuch as were touched upon under the feventh article, 
 for which no compenfation can ever be obtained ; or even ex- 
 peeled, without purfuing the ofTender half over the globe. 
 Upon what ground, we may afk, was this diflin£tion made? 
 Are the officers and crews of his Britannic majefty's fhips of 
 war and privateers fo remarkably obiervant of the rights of neu- 
 tral nations, and the laws of courtefy, that we fhould trult 
 them more than any others? The envoy extraordinary muft: 
 furely have forgot, that to put a Hop to their infolence and rapa- 
 «>.'; was one of the moll important objects of his million. 
 
298 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 XVIII. Conceffion following conceffion fills up almoft the 
 • tl :t !(_ n ..ins to he conliiLred of this ill-favored treaty. 
 Ship-timber, tar, hemp, fails, fjcct-coppcr, and generally il. 
 fver ;} ; <y ferve directly for the equipment of vejjjels, un wrought 
 iron and fir plank excepted, are by this article added to the liit 
 of contraband good?, though exprefly excepted by, former trea- 
 ties with other nations. Upon what principle was this new con- 
 o.dfion made to Great Britain, in preference to all other nati- 
 ons ? Was it, becaufe thefe articles are deemed of the fir ft ne- 
 •y to France during the prefent war ? Did the envoy extra- 
 ordinary recoiled: that molt of thefe are flciple commodities of 
 the United Slates? That to make. them contraband amounts to 
 an aclurJ prohibition cf the exportation of them in cur own veffls, 
 whenever Great Britain choofes to go to war ? Will not die 
 powers at war with Great Britain, challenge an equal right to 
 confhler thefe articles as contraband, and feize and confiscate 
 them in their turn, if deftined for our new, favorite ally? 
 
 The fame article admits, that proviuons and other articles in 
 general not contraband, may, in certain cafes, become contra- 
 band, according to the exiitmg law of nations Until the prc : 
 icnt war with France, the right of interdicting commerce be- 
 tween a neutral nation and an enemy, was, by the modern /aw 
 cf nations (a term for which the envoy extraordinary in \\\$ judi- 
 cial capacity always affected great refpect) confined to the fingle 
 cafe of a place befteged, or blockaded* True it is, that England, 
 and the United provinces, Something more than a century ago, 
 agreed to notify to all ftates, net at war with France, that they 
 would attack, and previoufly declared every fhip bound to, or com- 
 ing out of the harbours of ihai kingdom, lawful prize. This prece- 
 dent was copied by the enemies of France in the prefent war. 
 Sweden and Dmmarh, on tiie former occafion, as well as on the lat- 
 ter, entered into a treaty for maintaining their rights, and obtain- 
 ing fat'tsfa&hn, and the) obtained it accordingly on both occafions. A- 
 merica, on the contrary, kifTes the rod, and crouches beneath the 
 lafh of the infolent di<5tat<efs of nations. The. effect of this 
 fubmiffion will probably amount to a total prohibition of the 
 trade of America, with all nations aeainft whom Great Brnniu 
 is engaged in a war. There is not in all Europe, and fcarcely 
 in the world, a country i\> little capable of being put into a 
 ftate of ficge, or blockade, as France. Yet we have feen her 
 
 * The rights of neutral nation? in refined to their commerce, and the fenfc 
 that our govo n-estt e| rs ago, are admirah y fhovn, 
 
 in a letter from Wr. . | ate, to Mr. Piackney our 
 
 then minifter at tl '-ember 7, 1793. See the 
 
 papers accompanying the prescient oi December 5, 1793, page 1 • 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &e. 290 
 
 formally declared to be in that (late ; we have, in confequence, 
 feen our commerce with her prohibited, our vefTeis lazed, 
 their cargoes converted to the ufe of the captors; and our en- 
 voy extraordinary has given Ins fandticn to all thefe proceed- 
 ings ; ftipulating only, that in future cafes, a t mercan* 
 tile profit (of which the owner has no right to ju !J be 
 allowed for the cargoes thus diverted from that channel, which 
 the profpeel of a beneficial voyage had induced the merchant: 
 to purfue ; and that the vefTeis ihaii be paid theii freight, Even 
 the governors of the little "Weil India lilands belonging to 
 Great Britain, aflume the right of cireumfcribing, and prohi- 
 biting the commerce of America, by declaring all the Freagh 
 iilands, in a (late of blockade, whilft they have not force enough 
 to protect their own govern menis.* How degraded K 
 nation be, whole commerce may be interdicted by the procla- 
 mation of a colonial governor, or a military commander in the 
 fcrvice of a foreign nation ! 
 
 XIX. The nineteenth article ftipulates, that the comr;.- 
 of (hips of war and privateers (hall forbear doing damage, or 
 committing any outrage on thofe of the other party ; and if 
 they act contrary, they (hall be punifhed and make reparation. 
 I have before noticed the probable effect of this flipuiation ) k 
 may prevent fome fenv enormcus :nj;:;us, bat will not in |he 
 leatt check Iftffer abufes. That infolencej and thofe lefs atroci- 
 ous acts ot vexation and opprelhon, which the bafbaws of the 
 
 1, and thofe licenfed pirates, privateerfajti* ar e fo prone to 
 commit, will (till continue to be exercifed with all the wanton- 
 nefs of eonfeious fecurity, and impunity* A cruifer belonging 
 to one of the Britifli iflandfr, ftops a (hip bound to Europe; 
 Searches her; rifles her; infults the captain; abufes his tea- 
 men ; impreffes fome of them, under pretext that they are Bri- 
 tilh fubjecls ; and after all thefe atrocities, permits the ihip to 
 proceed. What fatisfaction can be obtained in fuch a Cafe ? 
 Shall the mafter of the merchant Blip alter his voyage, and go 
 to the port to which the privateer belongs, to obtain reparation ? 
 The idea is abfurd. He mult fubmit to the ill treatment he has 
 received, and confider his deliverance from the hands of fuch 
 ruffians, as ample recompense for bis fufferings. Had the en- 
 voy extraordinary cdndefcended to look into our treaty with 
 France, or Holland, he might I tnd fl • li '..tional article-, 
 
 more effectually calculated to give fecurity to commerce, as 
 
 * And fuch a proclamation, ns appears by a late cafe, has been confidered by 
 the court of delegates in England, upon an a; pe; 1 fronS Bermuda, to be a fuffi- 
 cient ground to reh&Vr a tejfcl liable, in and 
 
 her paffage almoft firiifticd, before 
 
3co Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 well as to the pcrfons of thofe engaged in porfuit of it, by pro- 
 viding) '* That if the iliips of one of the parties (hall be met 
 with, cither failing along the coafls, or on the high feas, by 
 any Chip of war or privateer of the other, the faid (hips of 
 war or privateers^ for the avoiding any difordcr,y7W/ remain out 
 of canmnfljot, from the merchant fhip ; but may fend a boat on 
 board and may enter her, to the number of two or three men only, 
 to whom the mailer (hall exhibit his paffport ; and thereupon the 
 merchant (hip may purfue her voyage, fo as it fhall not be law- 
 ful to rnoleft, or fear xh her in any manner, or to give her chare, 
 or to force her to quit her intended courfe." One fuch article 
 Was worth a thoufand, (Updating for indemnification from ro- 
 vers, or the punifhment of rafcals whofe vagrant life effectually 
 fcreens them from the purfuit of juflice. Why then was fuch 
 an article omitted in a treaty with Great Britain ? We mull 
 feek the caufe in that fpirit of conceflion and fubmiffion, 
 which breathes through every article of this coup d'efiai of the 
 envoy extraordinary. 
 
 XX. The reciprocal exclufion of pirates, and punifhment of 
 fuch as may receive, harbour, or a (fill them, for which this 
 article (lipulates, is among the few unexceptionable articles of 
 this treaty. 
 
 XXI. How far the firfl part of this article, prohibiting the 
 people of either partv from accepting commiflions from the ene- 
 mies of the other, may be contrary to found policy, I will not 
 undertake to decide. I rather incline to the oppolite opinion; 
 yet I entertain fome doubt of its conftitutionality, in one re- 
 ipecl:. The prohibition as _to .privateers correlponds with our 
 treaties with other nations ; anil it is mod devoutly to be' 
 wifhed, that the civilized nations of the globe would agree to 
 fupprefs fo infamous a practice, as that of privateering, alto- 
 gether; had the envoy extraordinary introduced fuch a claufe 
 into his new diplomatic code, it would have done him no lefs 
 honor than he expected to derive from the fuppreffion of con- 
 fifcations, and fequeflrations. 
 
 XXII. Another article ftipulating for due forbearance from 
 reprifals, in cafe of injuries, forms a proper article in a treaty 
 of amity — but alar. ! what reprifals has the envoy extraordi- 
 nary left it in the power of the United States to commit, 
 in cafe of injuries from Great Britain, even after compenfarion 
 fhall be rcfufed ! 
 
 XXIII. Secures the rights of hofpitally to Britifh (hips of 
 war, in all cafes, in American ports, as alfo to American /Jjtps of 
 war (when fuch things (hall hereafter exift) in Britifh ports ; the 
 fame hofpitality is, in cafe ofdijlrefs, extended to any America* 
 
&EMABKS ON tkE TrEATY, &C. 30! 
 
 VelTel, in Britifb ports nor other wife open to them, under cer- 
 tain regulations and restrictions. 
 
 XXIV. and XXV. The former prohibits privateers belong- 
 ing to an enemy of either party, from arming themfelves, or 
 felling their prizes in the ports of the other. This is conform- 
 able to our treaties with other nations ; the latter ftipulates for 
 the admifiion of (hips of war, privateers, and their prlz :8j 
 into the ports of the refpeclive nations ; but thefe articles are not 
 to be conftrued, or operate contrary to former exifting treaties. 
 Similar provisions are contained in our treaties with France, 
 Holland, &c. It feems to me, however, to be very queftiona- 
 ble, whether good policy would not father have led the United 
 States to difcountenance, as much as pofhble, the practice of 
 privateers, at leall, reforting to their ports in any cafe, but 
 that of ab folate dijlrefs. The practice of privateering is a viola- 
 tion of the rights of humanity, and is pregnant with the de- 
 finition of every moral principle among individuals'. The de- 
 predations committed by thefe licenfed pirates, have no effect 
 upon the final iiTue of the war: they are attended with ruin 
 and diftrefs to thoufands of innocent individuals, without af- 
 fecting the ltreugth of the nation ; and the calamities they 
 biing upon peaceable and harmlefs men, are often more nu- 
 merous and destructive, than any of the national operations in 
 war. If they arc admitted ioto the ports of neutral nations, 
 their prefence is a restraint upon its commerce \ for it is well 
 known that the purpofe of their vific, is to act the fpy upon 
 their intended prey ; for which they often lie in wart even at 
 the entrance of the port where they have been hofpitably re- 
 ceived, and fupplied with the means of purfuing fo nefarious 
 an occupation. 
 
 The fame article alfo ftipulates for the protection of the fliip3 
 of each party within cannon (hot of the coaits, or within the 
 bays, rivers, or- ports of the other. This article is conforma- 
 ble to former teaties ; yet I doubt how far the United States can 
 otherwife comply with it, than by making fatisfaetion for what 
 they have no power to prevent. 
 
 XXVI. This article ftipulates for the fecurity of the perfons 
 and eilects of merchants, in the event of war between the two 
 nations \ in which cafe, while they behave peaceabh , and com- 
 mit no oifence againft the laws, they may continue to reticle and 
 carry on their trade ; bur if their conduct lhould render them \\\{- 
 pected, and the respective governments lhould think proper to 
 order them to remove, they thall be allowed twelve months to 
 do fo, with an exception, as to fuch as (hail act contrary to the 
 eitabliihed !awj. There is a fpirit of liberality in this article, 
 
 Vol. Ill, T t 
 
302 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 highly conformable to that policy which commercial nations 
 ought to promote. It is, moreover, in appearance, perfectly 
 reciprocal. The misfortune is, that America has fcarcely a 
 merchant refiding within the Britifh dominions, being excluded 
 from all her colonial territories, by Hat. 12. Car. 2. and from 
 the Eaft Indies by the prefent treaty; whilft out ports, our 
 tctvhSf nay, every part of our country, fwarms with Britifh 
 merchants. The benefit of this article to the citizens of the 
 United States, in comparison of thofe of Great Britain, is a9 
 a cent to an eagle. 
 
 XXVII. Murderers, and perfons guilty of forgery, are to . 
 be given up, on both fides. The prevention of moral evil is an 
 object worthy the attention of politicians, as well in their na- 
 tional compacts, as in their civil inftitutions. This article, 
 therefore, if it can be reconciled to the federal conltitution, 
 which is doubtful, muft receive our cordial approbation, and 
 together with the 20th and 21ft, may be confidered as founded 
 in perfect reciprocity and equality. Happy fhould I have been to 
 bellow the fame encomium upon oil the preceding. 
 
 XXVIII. The laft article provides for the duration of the. 
 former : the firit ten, as we have before obferved, are perma- 
 nent; the twelfth is to continue two years from the end of the 
 war, in which Britain 13 now engaged; the remainder are limited 
 to twelve years from, that period. Happily for the United States, 
 the article limited to the fhorteft duration, proved a (tumbling 
 block to the ratification of the whole. Should the prefident of 
 tin United &a c;; conceive himfclf to be bound by the act of 
 the: fenate, it has been fuppoied to be in the power of his Bri- 
 tannic majelty to ratify the perpetual articles, without acceding 
 to any amendment of the article objected to. Whether this 
 was forcieen cannot be known. It is, however, presumable that 
 tl. . ii'i -m of the prefident will guard him againft any act 
 which might commit the United States fo far. Whilft any arti- 
 cle of a tjeaty is under difcuilion, the w/W^ muft be confidered 
 as in a fhite of negociation and difcuilion; and for this reafon, 
 becaufe it is poffible the object of the one party in acceding to all 
 the other articles, was merely with a view of obtaining fuch 
 terms, as are in lifted on in that one article. Viewing the fubject 
 jn this light, and that it is Hill practicable, in the courie of 
 negociation, not only to obtain the refcillion of feme, but the 
 amelioration of feveral of thofe articles which the zeal of the 
 envoy extraordinary prompted him to accede to : and, more- 
 over, to procure the admifnon of fuch as appear to be indilpen- 
 frbly nec.-ir.iry to conftitute a part of the propofed treaty; and 
 that the fenate mult again ud upon the whole treaty fo formed, 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 303 
 
 I fliall notice fome things which it does not contain : and which, 
 to a lefs liberal negociator, might have appeared, not altogether 
 unworthy of attention. 
 
 1. It does not contain any (lipulaticn for compcnfation on ac- 
 count of the detention of the weltem pofts, twelve years after 
 they were to have been given up, by treaty. I have heard that 
 the value of the fur trade formerly carried on by the citizens 
 of the United States, amounted yearly to near a million dollars* 
 The Britifh magazines, fome few years paft, itated the value of 
 the Canadian fur trade at as many pounds fterlin^. I cannot 
 prefume to be correct in this, as I write from memory. But if 
 cither fum be near the truth, tins article would have amounted 
 to fome millions of dollars, in account againjl his Britannic ma- 
 
 2. It does not contain any flipulation of compcnfation on ac- 
 count of the negroes, and other property belonging to the citi- 
 zens of the United States, carried away in violation of the 
 feveuth article of the treaty of peace. The value of this con- 
 ceffion (I know not with what accuracy) has been eftimated at 
 two millions of dollars,* more, in favor of his Britannic ma- 
 jeay. 
 
 3. It does not Jlipulate for any compenfation to be made to the 
 citizens of the United State's, for the arbitrary, violent, and 
 infolent detention, imprifonment, and imprefpnent of their perjons 
 (while peaceably engaged in commerce) on board the fhips of 
 war, and privateers of Great Britain, during the prefent war 
 with France ; nor for the manifold other perfonal injuries re- 
 ceived from them. Were this article to be eftimated and affefled 
 by a jury of freemen, fuch, as to the honor of the Britifh na- 
 tion, have often appeared in their courts of judicature, the da- 
 mages would probably be more than commenfurate to thofe 
 which may be awarded for the fpoliations on our commerce. 
 
 4. It does not provide for the prevention of fuch nefarious acls 
 in future. Whillt Americans fpeak the fame language with the 
 fubjecls of Great Britain, there will not be wanting a colour 
 for fuch a£ts of violence and oppreffion. Our treaty with Hol- 
 land (tipulates, '* that merchants, captains and commanders of 
 vejj'els, public or private, may freely take into their fervice, and 
 receive on board their vejfils, feanien or others, natives or inhabi- 
 tants of the refpe&ive countries." The conceffions made to 
 Great Britain would furely have entitled us to expect ;. fimilar 
 
 * I have lately been informed, that this eftitnate, independent of twelve 
 years intereft, is too low. My authority add*, that this article, after 
 on, was entirely given up, hy the envoy txtrapr(Una>-y ! ! ! 
 
304 Remarks on the Treatt, &c. 
 
 claufe in the treaty with her — At any rate, fome Stipulation 
 which might fecure the citizens of America, whether on the 
 high feas, or on our coaSts, and even within our own bays and 
 ports, that per/anal liberty which hath been fo often violated, 
 with impunity, by Britifh fea officers and privateerfmen, during 
 the preSent war between his Britannic majefty and France, 
 Seems absolutely neceflary; otherwifc the citizens of America 
 will, by their fiffe rings, be made parties in every war in which 
 arrogance, ambition, revenge, or other motives, may prompt his 
 Britannic majefty to engage. 
 
 5. It does not Jlipulate that the Indians, inhabiting within the 
 territory, or on the borders of the United States, (hall not re- 
 ceive any aid or fupply, whatfoever, in arms, or other necef- 
 faries for war, from the Britifh government or their merchants, 
 &c. in cafe of war or hoftility between them and the United 
 States. 
 
 6 It doits not Jlipulate that Great Britain (inftead of exciting 
 the A;gerines to annoy our commerce, and enilave our citizens, 
 as we have too much reafon to believe (he has done) mould 
 life her good offices with ti>em in favor of the United iStates. 
 
 7. It does not Jlipulate for the free navigation from the lakes, 
 to the Atlantic, through the waters immediately communicating 
 therewith. 
 
 It may be afked — What right have we to require that Great 
 Britain Should accede to the three laft mentioned articles ? — 
 The anSwer is not difficult: 
 
 lit, The Indians within the territories of the United States, 
 are, in refpedr. to ait other nations, but more efpecially Great 
 Britain, who formerly claimed, and has now renounced, the 
 Sovereignty over them, fubjeB to the United States. The Indi- 
 ana themfelves, in thejr feveral treaties wih the United States, 
 recognize their fovereignty, and acknowledge themfelves under 
 their protection. As between the United States and all other 
 nations, the Indians are to be confidered as a tributary, depend- 
 ent people. Consequently the United States have a right to Sti- 
 pulate that other nations fhall not aid them againft the United 
 S'ates. They had good reafon to fufpect Great Britain of having 
 lately furnifhed them with fuch aid : they had good reafon to ful- 
 pecl that the hostilities lately practifed by thefc people, upon 
 our weftem frontiers, had been fomented, nay, even ccnduBed 
 by the agents of Great'Britain. — Let the letters of the prefent 
 Secretary of (late to Mr. Hammond, the Britifh minifter, and 
 the mefTage from the prefident of the United States to congrefs, 
 up )ii this Subject, be my vouchers. Having reafon to fuipe£l 
 fuch ill-offices to have been done us, wc had a right to inSiSt 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, &e. 305 
 
 that B nation to whom we were about to bind ourfelves, by more 
 than ordinary ties of amitv, fhould, with good faith, engage 
 rxulicr to repeat inch i//-ojfit:es, nor fuffer them to be repeated 
 by »rry of her fubjctb. We ha.! a right to expe£l an immedi- 
 ate aiient to iuch a proportion from a nation really difpofed to 
 enter into a ftatC of amity with vis. — Good policy would, more- 
 over, have cheated the refervation of the right of prohibiting 
 the importation oi anr/., ammunition, and warlike flores, 
 inio ihe United Slates bv way of the lakes, although fuch im- 
 povtro.ion v- ..-. not prohibited eilewhere. Under the exifting ar- 
 ticle no foch ptohftmrori can be made, uulcfs it be general. 
 Tile Britifh funnels, ftftted at the port:-, of the Uniied States, 
 on iiu: l;ikcs ; ii.ay now " freely, for the purpofes of commerce, 
 >rt all hub article.-, and tranfport them whithcifocver they 
 think proper, ami vend tl em to whomlbever they pleafe, with- 
 in (he territories of the United States" — that is, to Indians as 
 as others It is not improbable that a few years may fhew 
 us ivn-re clearly the fuli effect of this generous confidence and 
 indulgence. 
 
 2d, If the examples of France and Holland may be cited as. 
 precedents, it will be found that the treaties with b:tb, (Hpulate 
 for their good offices with the Hates of Barbary. — The ftrong 
 ground that there is to fufpeel his Britannic rrifcjefty's ill-offices, 
 in that quarter, as well as with the Indians, might have fug- 
 gctted to the envoy extraordinary the good policy of engaging 
 a monarch (o remarkable for his good faith, to defiit from his 
 perfections, and to promife ailiitance in procuring the enlarge- 
 ment of our fellow citizens who have been reduced to a ftute of 
 flavery by thole barbarians. 
 
 3d, '1 he navigation horn the lakes into ffiS Atlantic is a 
 conceffion which appears to hand nearly upon the lame ground 
 as the free navigation of the Miffiihppi. In a treaty, where, 
 among numberlefs advantageous couceffions, the free navigation 
 of all our tide-waters is granted, it might have been reafonably 
 expected that egrefs and ingrefs fhould have been permitted be- 
 tv i.eti the waters of the lakes, and thofe of the Atlantic. For 
 without fuch a communication between the different ports of 
 the United States on the wcflcrr, waters, and upon the Atlan- 
 tic, the refidems on the former muff be conitrained to export 
 all their commodities, which cannot be brought down the Hud- 
 fon, or other let's convenient rou'es, to Great Britain ; and that 
 too, in Britiih ihips : for the wilds of the United States not 
 being permitted to enter the St. Lawrence from the fea — and 
 no veiled being permitted to trade from Canada, except fuch as 
 are Britiih, the citizens of America (if any fhould ever obtain 
 
306 Remarks on the Treaty, &c. 
 
 a fettlemcnt on the lakes) muft export all their bulky commo- 
 dities, in the fhips of that nation, to Great Britain or her co- 
 lonies only. This, therefore, mult operate as a monopoly in 
 favor of Great Britain, in refpeCt. to all bulky articles, and gives 
 her a preference in every other: and though in this cafe we 
 had not the fame power of dictating our own terms, as in the 
 communication with the Well India iflands, fo able a negocia- 
 tor as the envoy extraordinary was fuppofed to be, might aflur- 
 edly have obtained a conceffion in this place, as a retribution 
 for the favors granted to Great Britain in the other. This was 
 the rather to have been expected, as the envoy extraordinary 
 could not but be aware that Spain would avail herfelf of fo 
 good a reafon for not yielding to our demand of the free navi- 
 gation of the Miiliffippi. Will not our conceffions in this trea- 
 ty, ftrengthen the tone of her refufal ? When the envoy ex- 
 traordinary, then minifter for foreign affairs, endeavoured to 
 perfuade congrefs to cede the navigation of the Miffiffippi to 
 Spain, for twenty-five years, he contended that the acceptance 
 of fuch a conceilion on the part of Spain, would operate as 
 a tacit acknowledgment of the right of the United States, 
 ever after. I will not controvert this diplomatic inference, 
 though, probably, the court of Spain would not have been fo 
 complaifant. — But in the treaty with Great Britain, we fee 
 nothing that could, either immediately or eventually, give us 
 the chance of a fimilar benefit. On the contrary, the fubject 
 is configned, in filence, to perpetual oblivion. 
 
 From the preceding inveftigation of this treaty, are we not 
 fully juftihed in drawing the following couclufion : That 
 
 As a treaty of amity, it is partial and defeBive ; 
 As a treaty of commerce, it is not reciprocal -, 
 As a treaty of navigation, it is humiliating ; 
 And it is, in other refpeEls, deflruBive to the profperity, 
 Jecurity, and independence of the United States ; znAfub- 
 verfive of the constitution ? 
 
 I. It h partial, and defective as a treaty of amity ; becaufe, 
 while it provides the fullejl fatisfaclion for the pretended caufes 
 of complaint, on the part of Great Britain*, no adequate repa- 
 ration is obtained for former injuries, and breaches of faith 
 towards the United Statesf, nor any fecurity againft a wanton 
 
 * See remarks on article 6. 
 
 f See remarks on article 7. See alfo page 303. 
 
Remarks 6n the Treaty, &c. 307 
 
 repetition of them* : and becaufe there is not that interchange 
 of good offices fecured in this, as in former treaties between 
 the United States and other nations.-f- 
 
 2. As a treaty of commerce it is not reciprocal j becaufe- it 
 concedes to the merchants, fubjects, and fhips of Great Bri- 
 tain, greater privileges than are granted to the citizens and fhips 
 of the United States within the territories of Grc it Britain. :£ 
 
 3. As a treaty of navigation it is humiliating ; becaufe it ex- 
 poles the veflels belonging to citizens of the United States, to 
 bejloppedy fearched y and turned out of their courfe upon fufpiciott, 
 in cafes where thofe of Great Britain cannot be expofed to 
 fimilar inconvenicncies|| ; and becaufe, by limiting the fize of 
 our veflels, in certain cafes, it has an evident tendency to de- 
 grade the maritime intereft and force of the United States. || 
 
 4. It is, in other refpecls, deftrudtive to the profperity, fecu- 
 vity and independence of the United States ; becaufe it cedes 
 to the fubjects of a foreign nation, the right of foil within an 
 undefined extent of territory, whole value and importance to 
 the United States is conceived to be immenfe§ : becaufe it ad- 
 mits aliens to hold and inherit lands within the United States, 
 and to refide therein, whilft they may be fubjecls, owing alle- 
 giance to a fovereign actually engaged in war with the United 
 States §; becaufe it tends to detach us from our ancient ally, 
 the French nation, by giving a preference to her moft inveterate 
 enemy if: and becaufe it deprives the United States of the 
 right of lelf-defence, and the means of retaliation in cafe of 
 hcilility**, or unjuft aggreffion from a nation whofe arrogance 
 and injuitice we have more than once experienced. 
 
 5. It is fubverfivc of the constitution of the United States; 
 becaufe it eftablifhes a tribunal imcompatible with tiie conftiru- 
 tion, and affigns to it jurifdiction in cafes exprefsly vetted by 
 the conltitution in the judicial courts of the United Statesff; 
 and becaufe the decifions of this tribunal are paramount to the 
 judgments of the conftitutional courtsff ; and becaufe it tends 
 to wrelt from the whole body of congrefs its conlluutional pow- 
 ers, and to transfer the fame to a part of chat body only ; or 
 
 * See remaks on articles 7. and 19. Sec alfo page 303. 
 
 f See page 303, 304, 305. 
 
 J See remarks 011 articles 3. 12. 13. 26. 
 
 \\ See remarks oa articles ia. 17. 
 
 § See remarks on article 9. 
 
 \ See remarks on article 18. 
 
 •• See remarks on arciclc 10. 
 
 \\ See remarks on uitiwle 6. and note thereon. 
 
~ 
 
 08 £l:;.*uKs 6n the Treaty, tec' 
 
 to fubject the mcafures of one of the component parts of coiv; 
 to the ablblute controul of the other two.* 
 
 A variety of other obfervatiotiSj equally important) might* 
 no doubt, have fuggdled themkrlvcs to a perfon who had full 
 Allure to examine this fubject, and may be met With in the 
 feveral publications that have already appeared. Without pre- 
 tending to abilities extenfive enough to embrace the whole, I 
 {hall now haiten to a conclnfion. 
 
 I am well aware that it will be contended by the advofc 
 for the treaty, that a refufal to ratify it will bring on a war; or 
 muft continue matters between us and Great u itairi, in their 
 prefent (tate of unredrefled wrong*, a;ul a paffive acquiefcence 
 therein. I (hall add a few words by way of anfwef. 
 
 1. As to the clanger of producing; a war. ill, Hie refufal to 1 
 enter into a (late of amity, or Unci commercial connexion, or 
 to form a treaty on any fubjecl, with a nation with whom w-s 
 are at peace, unlefs fuch refufal mould amount to a denial of 
 jull compenfition for injuries complained of, is no caufe of 
 war between nations. Whenever Great Britain may choofe to 
 commence a war with the United States, (lie will not want a 
 pretext. At prefent the treaty itfelf is the mo'l unequivocal 
 proof, that fhe hath fcarcely the (hadow of complaint-, for the 
 cafes to which the fixth article carl extend, even with all the 
 latitude which the liberality of the envoy extraordinary hath 
 given it, are not attributable to the want either of national 
 faith or juftice, but to the operation of thofe means of felf-de- 
 fence which the law of nations permits, or of general laws, 
 founded on the emergencies of the times. The detention of 
 the weftern pofis, alone, would more than balance the ac- 
 count, in a fmgle year, if (ia*«*i-accordiiig to the principles of 
 juftice. As to the captures made within the junfdiclion of the 
 United States, or by vefiels armed therein, Mr. Jefrerfon's 
 letter {hows the readinefs of our government to remove all 
 caufe of complaint, on that head. 2d, Great Britain derives 
 fuch immenfe advantages from her commerce with America, 
 that nothing fhort of a (late of lunacy could prompt her to in- 
 terrupt it, for the fake of reparation on either of the before 
 mentioned accounts. 3d, The immenfe property which her 
 merchants, her monied men, and even her fovereign holds in 
 the funds and banks of the United .States, or have due to them 
 from individuals, is, until the prefent treaty ffjail be ratified, a 
 further fecurity againft thofe hoitile aggreiiious, to which due. 
 
 * See remarks on ankle 12. laft part. 
 
Remarks on the Treaty, Sec. 307 
 
 fear of fequeftration, or confifcation, gave fo fudden and un- 
 expected a check. 4th, She has her hands fo full already, that, 
 much addicled as fhe is to hoftility, (he will, probably, for 
 the prefent, avoid inereafing the number of her enemies. 
 
 2. As to the redrefsof wrongs. This is fo partial and inade- 
 quate in the prefent treaty, that no great injury can accrue from 
 delaying to accept it; nor does the treaty contain fuch fecurity 
 againft the repetition of them, as fhould prompt us, on that ac- 
 count, to accept of the partial compenfation that it holds forth. 
 Much lefs are the compenfation and fecurity provided by the 
 treaty, fuch as ought to be accepted in lieu of th vj r e claims which 
 are palled over in filence. The furrender of the weftcrn polls, 
 were it not by the terms of this treaty an object greatly dimi- 
 niflied in its importance to the United States, is an event dill 
 fo remote (not to add uncertain) as not to jullify the precipitate 
 adoption of a meafurc calculated to impair the value of the ac- 
 quilition, or render it totally ufeiefs. 
 
 3d, The fufpenfion of the 1 2th article, by the advice of the 
 fenate, having effectually retarded the final ratification of the 
 treaty, the fame train of negotiation which mull be reforted 
 to, for the adjuilrnent of that article, fo as to be accepta! le o 
 the fenate, may doubtlefs be recurred to for adjujling other ob- 
 jectionable points. 
 
 No inconvenience, therefore, ean reafonably be appre ? ; 
 from the non-ratification of the treaty in its prefent ir>\'n. :s l :- 
 iqg been communicated to the people, the exec; tive a 
 better able to form a judgment of the public min I, an 
 weigh objections which perhaps had nor before occur. \ I ■ 
 the people of the United States with confidence hop., that 
 prefnient will not only attend to their reafons, but pay ref] 
 to the general will of that people, whofe afFe&ionat . ncc 
 
 r.nd authority he poflefTes on the prefent momentous occafion. 
 How far thefe remarks may accord with the general luijbes and 
 fentiiiicnts of the people, it remains for him to determine. 
 
 When the constitution of the United States was adopted in 
 Virginia, the convention, among the other amendments, pro- 
 pofed, " That no commercial treaty fliall be ratified without 
 die concurrence of two-thirds of the Whole number of the 
 members of the fenate; and no treaty, ceding* contracting, or 
 fufpending the territ rial rights or claims of the United States 
 or any of them ; or their or any of their rights or claims to 
 fulling in the American leas, or navigating the American rivrs, 
 fliall be made, bat in cafes of the moil urgent and extreme nc (li- 
 ty ; nor fliall any fuch treaty bs ratifi U th: concurrence of 
 
 Vol. III. Uu 
 
3i« Plymouth Protest. 
 
 three-fourths of the whole number of members oiboth houjes reipec-. 
 tiv. jy." — North Carolina propofed the fame amendment. On 
 the prefent occafion, the people of the United States will be 
 led to confider, how far fome amendment to this part of the 
 conititution is become neceiTary. 
 
 COLUMBUS, 
 Virginia, Auguft 6, 1795. 
 
 — < <<.^^.^^s»'id»^> •> ■<— 
 
 PLYMOUTH PROTEST. 
 
 WHEREAS at a meeting of the inhabitants of the 
 town of Plymouth, on the 28th clay of October inft. 
 << tor the purpofe cf taking into ferious confideration the treaty 
 entered into by the prefident, and twenty fenators, and the 
 government of Great Britain" it was hallily determined lo 
 difpenfc with the legal qualifications of voters ; in confequence 
 of which determination, a large number of the inhabitants 
 immediately withdrew themfelves, conceiving the meeting to be 
 no longer a legal meeting of the town. Notwithstanding which, 
 fundry perfons remained, and calling themfelves the town of Ply- ■ 
 tnouth, proceeded to pafs a refolution, reprobating in Itrong and 
 indecent terms, the conduct of the fupreme executive of the 
 United States. We, the fubferibers, inhabitants of the town of 
 Plymouthy holding in juft abhorrence fuch irregular proceedings, 
 think it our duty, publicly to manifelt our " marked and pointed 
 difapprvbation" of the fame, for the following reafons : — 
 
 Firjif Becaufe the treaty having received the fanction of tho 
 conllituted authorities (fo far as depends on the decifion of thofc 
 authorities) has become, in the language of the conititution, 
 ♦< the fupreme law of the land" — any attempts, therefore, to 
 counteract: its operation, is an open and avowed oppofition to 
 the general government, and highly alarming to the peace of 
 the community ; as the infurrection in the weftern counties of 
 Peunfylvania, probably originated in meetings conducted with 
 equal temper and moderation. 
 
 Second, Becaufe the perfons afTemble.l at this meeting were 
 incompetent to decide qn the merits of fo complex an initru- 
 ment, as the treaty, very few of them ever having feen or read 
 it ; and every thing relative to the whole bufinefs, being previcujly 
 prepared by the original movers of the meeting, who, in ail in- 
 itauces, have been hoftile to the federal conititution and the 
 fldminiftration pf it, from its firft eftabliflnnent. 
 
 Third, Bec^ui'c fuch meetings, and the efforts made to con- 
 vene them, by practicing on the paflious of the honest, though 
 uninformed, are, iu the ejtjrenjiej dangerous in a republic^ 
 
Westmoreland County Resolutions. 3H 
 
 government, having a direct tendency to introduce the empire 
 of liccntioufiirfs, which is only zfhort prelude to the more perma* 
 tjent one of defpetifm. 
 
 Fourth, Becaufe the Tinctures made on the treaty, in the 
 iforefaid refolutlbns, are a mere repetition of certain inflam- 
 matory fentiments, which have been echoed and re-echoed to 
 the public; and while they contain the mofl unfounded, indif- 
 criminate cenfure on illuftrious and amiable patriots, whofe 
 important, meritorious fervices, rendered their country, ought 
 to endear them 10 every friend of ft, pay the higheft eulogium 
 to Stephens Thorn/on Mafin, a fenatorof the United States, for 
 3 notorious breach of official confluence. 
 
 October 30th, 1795. 
 
 ( Sigtied by Seventy- two Names.) 
 -1 <i<'«><^/>»4'> ■■> ■ 
 At a Meeting of the Inhabitants of the County of Weftmoreland, 
 (Virginia) convened, in >ce of written Invitations cir- 
 
 culated through the Cbjttitry, for the purpofe of iakitig the Opini- 
 .011 of the People on the Treaty lately concluded between the United 
 States and the jBriiiJb Nation, September 2y;'h, 1795. 
 
 JOSEPH PIERCE, Efquire, Senior Magi (Irate, in 
 
 the Chair. 
 
 THE treaty was real — and, after fome explanations of its 
 object ami tendency, the following refolutions were en- 
 tered into, without a diflenting voice : 
 
 Refolved, That we continue to no fiefs undiminished confi- 
 dence in our government ; and that we fincerely believe its due 
 prefervation, in all its parts, efiemjal to our rights, liberties, 
 and happinefs. 
 
 Refolved, That we deem it the duty of all good citizens, to 
 check, by every lawful means, the wicked and cunning machi- 
 nations employed with induftry and art, by certain individuals, 
 their tools, and adherents, to withdraw the confidence of the 
 people from their government, without which confidence, no 
 free political fyttem can long endure; and that with deep re- 
 gret, we have marked 1 certain fet of men, exerting themielves 
 on every occafion, which, in the courfe of things, has ^refent- 
 ed itlelt, lor the obvi< fe of deftroying a government, 
 
 eftablifhcd by a majority of freemen, necefiary to each others 
 happinefs, and who have experienced a wonderful profperity 
 under the practice thereof. 
 
 Refolved, That in the late ( tiorf with Great Britain, 
 
 its primary object, the prefervation of peacej has been com- 
 
3i2 President's Answer. 
 
 pletely effected, which, of itfclf, is all-important ; and that 
 very confiderable additional good has alfo been acquired by the 
 furrender of the weftern polls, which leads to the termination 
 of Indian warfare, and compenfation for the fpoliations on our 
 commerce. 
 
 Refolved, therefore, That we feel ourfelves perfectly fatisfi- 
 ed with the government of the United States in this late tranf- 
 action ; and are fully perfuaded, that the fame lignal wifdom 
 and love of country which has invariably marked the conduct 
 of the prefident, and eminently produced good to his fellow 
 citizens, will be found to have directed his councils throughout 
 his arduous adminiflration — and we do, for ourfelves, deter- 
 mine to fupport and maintain, with our lives and our fortunes, 
 the conftiiuted authorities of our country, againfl. foreign and 
 domeftic enemies of every fort and defcription. 
 
 JOSEPH PIERCE, Chairman. 
 
 ' PRESIDENT'S ANSWER. 
 
 JOSEPH PIERCE, Esq. 
 Sir, 
 
 I HAVE received your letter of the 29th ult. covering 
 refolutions of a meeting of the inhabitants of the county 
 of Weftmoreland relative to the treaty with Great Britain. 
 
 The approbation therein given of this meafure, and the af- 
 furances of fupporting the constituted authorities of our coun- 
 try, cannot but be pleafing to all who know the value of regu- 
 lar government. 
 
 No wifli, while I fill the office I now have the honor to 
 hold, can be more ardent, than that the acts of my admini- 
 ftration ihould give fatisfaction to my conilituents. The con- 
 trary will always give me pain. I know but one fure method to 
 merit the firft, or to avoid the latter, and that is, to purfue 
 fteadily fuch meafures (of an executive nature) as appear to 
 be moil conducive to their intereft and happinefs. This, to the 
 belt of my judgment, has been my invariable endeavor ; and I 
 cannot but hope that the ratification of the treaty (agreeably 
 to the advice and confent of the fenate) will be viewed in this 
 light, when it is better underftood than it leems to be at pre- 
 
 ient. For the expreffion of perfonal confidence in me, I 
 
 feel very feniibly. I am, Sir, with due refpect, 
 
 "Your obedient, 
 
 Go. WASHINGTON. 
 
 United States, pth Oct. 1795. 
 
 END OF THE THIRD AND LAST VOLUME.