tions, and even by thofe of England with the greater part of the maritime powers." The United States feel these reproaches as conscious innocence feels the imputation of guilt. Secondly. It is alfo alleged, that "the United States have .confented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provifions. Instead of pointing out particularly, as all treaties do, the cafes of the effective blockade of a place, as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article, they have tacitly acknowledged the pretenfions raised by England to create blockades in our colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation." The objections to this article fhall be confidered according to its letter, and according to its operations. The objectionable words are and whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precife cafes in which alone provifions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as fuch, renders it expedient to provide against the inconvenience and mifundertandings which might thence arife; it is farther agreed, that whenever any fuch articles fo becoming contraband according to the exifting laws of nations, fhall, for that reafon, be feized, the fame fhall not be confifcated; but the owners thereof fhall be fpeedily 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 veffels the full value of all fuch articles, with a reafonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight and alfo the demurrage incident to fuch detention." The admiffions contained in this cafe are First, That provifions are not generally contraband; and that, An effort was made to eftablish the precife cafes in which alone they thould be subject to seizure; for America would only confent to confider them as contraband in the cafe of an effective blockade, fiege, or inveftment of a place; while, on the part of England, this ftrict interpretation of the rule was not admitted: but it was contended, that provifions became contraband when there were reasonable hopes of reducing the enemy by famine. In this oppofition of fentiment, to what have the United States confented? "To extend the denomination of contraband even to provifions"-" to acknowledge tacitly the pretenfions raised by England to create blockades in your colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation "" in a word, to have commerce only with England."-Reconfider the 'words themfelves, and it will require no comment to prove how inapplicable to them are thefe affertions. The claufe complained of having ftated stated the admiffion of the difficulty already mentioned, proceeds to fay" It is further agreed, that whenever any fuch articles To becoming contraband according to the laws of nations, fhall, for that reafon, be feized, the fame fhall not be confifcated, but the owners thereof fhall be fpeedily and completely indemnified." It is too clear to admit of conteftation, that this claufe does not declare provifions to be contraband, or admit of their seizure. in any other cafes than when," according to the existing law of nations, they fhould become contraband;" in fuch cafe, the right to feize them is not given by this article, but it is admitted by France, and by all the world, to exift independent of treaty. In fuch cafe, they would have been feized, had this ftipulation never been entered into, and would had been confifcated alfo. The only alteration which is, by the letter of the claufe, produced in the law of nations, is, to exempt from confifcation goods which under that law would have been fubject to it. But it has been fufpected to have an object and an operation in practice different from its letter. It has been fufpected to cover a defign to admit fubftantially certain principles with refpect to blockades which in theory are denied. Incapable of duplicity, America, with the pride of conscious integrity, repels this infinuation, and courts an investigation of the facts on which it is founded. The government of the United States and that of Britain. having conftrued the law of nations differently in this refpect, each would have acted upon its own opinion of that law; the privateers of England would have feized as contraband any goods deemed fuch in their courts of admiralty; and the government of the United States would have reclaimed fuch goods, and would have fupported the demand in fuch a manner as its own judgment dictated. This procedure is not changed. The right to make fuch reclamations has not been relinquifhed, nor has the legality of the feizure, in any other cafe than that of an attempt to enter a place actually invefted, been in any degree. admitted. It is true, that the British government renewed the order concerning provifions about the time of the ratification of this treaty; but it is not lefs true, that the government of the United States manifefted a firm refolution to submit to no fuch conftruction, and remonftrated so seriously against it as to produce a revocation of the order. Nor is this all claims for provifions feized in cafes of a mere proclamation-blockade, have been actually made, and have been actually decided in favour of the claimants. The British government has acquiefced under fuch decifions, by paying the fums awarded. Thefe fums were not limited to a reasonable profit on the price of the commodity feized, but were regulated regulated by its price at the port of destination; and, confequently, the actual as well as avowed' principle of fuch decifions was, that the goods feized had not become contraband, "according to the exifting law of nations." The intention of the government then, and the practice under the article, are in direct oppofition to thefe injurious fufpicions, the indulgence of which has produced fuch pernicious effects. It is even believed that the decifion on this fubject will be one step towards the establishment of that principle for which America has never ceafed to contend. It is alfo believed, and has ever been believed, that the article objected to would have a neceffary tendency to increafe, and did, in fact, increafe the quantity of provifions imported from America into France and her colonies. The American commerce, being entirely in the hands of individuals, is confequently conducted by them according to their own views of particular advantage: they will unquestionably endeavour to fupply the higheft market, unless refrained from doing fo by other confiderations which render it unadvifable to attempt fuch a fupply. In their calculation, the risk of reducing the market is too important an item to be passed over or forgotten. Every diminution of this rifk adds to the number of thofe who will attempt the fupply; and confequently a knowledge that the voyage, fhould it even fail by the feizure of the veffel, would yet be profitable, muft increase the number of thofe who would make it. It is plain then, that this article admits the feizure of provifions in no fituation where they were not before feizable; and encourages their tranfportation to France and her colonies, by diminishing the risk of fuch transportation.. It is alfo complained of, that this treaty has not, "as all treaties do, pointed out particularly the cafes of the effective blockade of a place," as alone forming an exception to the freedom of provifions. Articles in a treaty can only be inferted by confent. The United States therefore can never be refponfible for not having inferted an article to which the other contracting party would not alfent. They may refufe to make any change in the existing ftate of things prejudicial to themfelves or to other powers; and they have refused to make any fuch change: but it is not in their power to infert, as by common confent, an article, though merely declaratory of a principle which they confidered as certainly exifting, and which they mean to fupport if fuch common confent be unattainable. All that can be done in such a cafe is, to leave the principle unimpaired, referving entirely the right to affert it. This has been done: the principle was left unimpaired, and has been fince fuccefsfully afferted. The The United States are at all times truly folicitous to diminifa as much as poffible the lift of contraband. It is their intereft, in common with all other nations whofe policy is peace, to enlarge, fo far as they can be enlarged, the rights of neutrals. This intereft is a fure guarantee for their uling thofe means which they think calculated to effect the object, and which a just regard to their fituation will permit. But they must be allowed to purfue the object in fuch a manner as may comport with that fituation. While they furrender no actual right, in preferving which there is a common intereft, while they violate no pre-exifting engagements (and these they have not furrendered or violated), they muft judge exclufively for themselves how far they will or ought to go in their efforts to acquire new rights or eftablifh new principles. When they furrender this privilege, they ceafe to be independent, and they will no longer deferve to be free. They will have furrendered in other hands the most facred of depofits the right of felf-government; and instead of the approbation they will merit the contempt of the world. Thofe parts of the treaty between the United States and Britain, which have been selected by France as injurious to her, have now been examined. The underfigned are too well convinced that they in no degree juftify the enmity they are alleged to have produced, not to rely on a candid reconfideration of them as a fure mean of removing the impreffions they are supposed to have made. Before this fubject is entirely clofed, one other objection will be noticed. The very formation of a commercial treaty with England feems to be reprobated, as furnishing juft caufe of offence to France; and Mr. Adet has permitted himself to fay"It was a little matter only to allow the English to avail themfelves of the advantages of our treaty: it was neceffary to affure thofe to them by the aid of a contract which might ferve at once as a reply to the claims of France, and as peremptory motives for refufals; the true caufe of which it was requifite inceffantly to difguife to her under fpecious pretexts. Such was the object of Mr. Jay's miffion to London; fuch was the object of a negotiation enveloped from its origin in the fhadow of myftery, and covered with the veil of diffimulation." Paffing over this extraordinary language, the undersigned, being only defirous of producing accommodation by the exhibition of truth, will confider the opinion which is obliquely hinted, and the fact which is directly averred. The practice of forming commercial treaties is fo univerfal among other nations having any commercial intercourfe with each other, that it seems unneceffary to difcufs their utility. The right to form thofe treaties has been fo univerfally afferted and admitted, that it feems to be the infeparable attribute of fovereignty ⚫ to to be queftioned only by thofe who queftion the right of a nation to govern itfelf, and to be ceded only by thofe who are prepared to cede their independence. But the profperity of the United States is in a peculiar degree promoted by external commerce. A people almost exclusively agricultural have not within themselves a market for the furplus produce of their labour, or a fufficient number and variety of articles of exchange to fupply the wants of the cultivators; they cannot have an internal which will compenfate for the lofs of an external commerce: they muft fearch abroad for manufactures, for many other articles which contribute to the comfort and convenience of life, and they muft fearch abroad alfo for a market for that large portion of the productions of their foil which cannot be confumed at home. The policy of a nation thus circumftanced must ever be to encourage external commerce, and to open to itself every market for the difpofition of its fuperfluities and the fupply of its wants. The commercial and manufacturing character and capacities of England muft turn into that channel' a confiderable portion of the commerce of any nation under the circumftances of the United States. It is a market too important and too valuable to be voluntarily clofed'; in confequence, a confiderable portion of their commerce has taken that direction, and a continual folicitudé has been manifested to regulate and fecure it by contract. To abolith this commerce, or to refufe to give it permanence and fecurity by fair and equal ftipulations, would be a facrifice which no nation ought to require, and which no nation. ought to make. In forming her treaty of amity and commerce with the United States, France claimed no fuch prerogative. That treaty declares the intention of the parties to be," to fix, in an equitable and permanent manner, the rules which ought to be followed relative to the commerce and correfpondence which the two parties defire to establish between their respective countries, ftates, and subjects;" and that "they have judged that the faid end could not be better obtained than by taking for the bafis of their agreement the most perfect equality and reciprocity; and by carefully avoiding all thofe burdenfome preferences which are ufually fources of debate, embarraffment, and difcontent; by leaving alfo each party at liberty to make, refpecting commerce and navigation, thofe interfor regulations which it shall find most convenient to itself, and by founding the advantages of commercefolely upon reciprocal utility and the juft rules of free intercourfe, referving to each party the liberty of admitting at its pleasure, other nations to a participation of the fame advantages." The treaty itself contains no ftipulation in any degree contradictory to thofe declarations of the preamble, or which could fuggeft a fufpicion, that under thefe declarations was concealed a wish to abridge the fovereignty of the United States with refpect to trea |