conditions accompanying the surrender.

The surrender of the western posts would be an extremely desirable object, if conformably with the treaty of peace, it were unattended with any conditions.

article itself was a sufficient security against this | for the surrender of the western posts, and the conduct, and of course no specific provision could have been necessary for that purpose. This is not only the uniform construction of the article by the United States, but, as I always have understood and believed, Great Britain has acquiesced in the construction, until the I am desirious of giving credit to every part negotiation of the present treaty. As an evi- of the instrument which will admit of it, and dence of these facts, I will observe, that Ameri- am not disposed to exaggerate its imperfections. can commissioners were permitted to make a I am willing to admit that the surrender of list of the negroes in the possession of the the posts, even with the conditions annexed, is British at the close of the war, by the British of some importance; but I will assert, that the commander; that the list was entered upon surrender loses a great portion of its value to the files of Congress; that there are resolutions the United States, in consequence of the conof Congress claiming compensation for the pro-ditions attached to it. Two objects of primary perty carried away in contravention of that article in the treaty of peace, perhaps without even the intimation of a doubt as to the construction: that during the administration of Lord Carmarthen, I have always understood, that the claim of compensation for property carried away, was admitted, whenever British subjects were indemnified for debts due to them from citizens of the United States. But here I have to regret the want of the papers called for by this House, as they contain all the evidence upon which this important fact depends. Hence it appears that Great Britain herself yielded her assent to this construction, and ought not to have been permitted to withdraw it afterwards. These circumstances seem to me to be conclusive, and ingenuity itself would pause for arguments against facts so stubborn and irresis-ence of the United States over the numerous tible.

The gentleman from Connecticut has said, that he thinks the present treaty as good an one as the United States had any right to expect. If the United States were as flagitious with respect to the inexecution of the treaty of peace, as the gentleman supposes, and Great Britain as blameless, I would acknowledge that the mode of adjustment has inflicted upon them a just punishment for their criminal conduct. This, however, is but a negative compliment to the treaty, and can be gratifying only to those who concur with the gentleman in the imputation thrown upon the United States. But it can afford no consolation to those who contend that Great Britain has been at least as culpable as the United States, and particularly when they reflect that the present treaty itself professes to disavow the imputation.

But even if the imputation is conceded, it would have been but reasonable to have confined the punishment to the new adjustment of the articles unfulfilled, without extending it to a train of humiliating and imperious commercial concessions, which are altogether unconnected with the subject, and not warranted by necessity.

The first article of the treaty, is declaratory of peace, &c., between the two countries, which is a very desirable thing, provided it can be established upon principles compatible with the national honor and the national interests. The second and third articles contain the stipulations

importance were to be effected by the unqualified surrender of the posts. The one was to obtain the influence over the Indians in their neighborhood, which the British now possess. The other, the participation, at least, in the fur trade carried on with those Indians. The conditions accompanying the surrender, will, in my opinion, very much impede the one, and completely defeat the other object.

The stipulation in the second article, which authorizes British subjects, now living within the precints or jurisdiction of the posts, still to continue to reside there, with the free use of their property, and to elect either to remain British subjects, or become American citizens at pleasure, will, in my opinion, very much impede, if not wholly obstruct, the salutary influ

tribes of Indians in that quarter; which is one great object hoped for from the possession of those posts. The effects of this stipulation will appear more obvious, when it is compared with the stipulations in the next article, by which the trade with the Indians is regulated. The second object, to wit, the participation in the fur trade, I believe will be completely defeated by the regulation of that trade in the third article. That article stipulates an equality of duties between American citizens and British subjects, a free communication through that country, upon an equality of portages and ferriages. These conditions, in my opinion, will secure a complete monopoly of the fur trade to Great Britain; because the superiority of the British capital employed in that trade, and the inferiority of duties paid upon goods imported for that trade into Canada, will, in my judgment, wholly exclude American citizens from a participation in that trade through any channel in the United States. The United States have no mode left to counteract this monopoly, but by a system of drawbacks, which appear to me, from the nature of the trade and country, to be almost impracticable; or if not absolutely impracticable, it will compel us to purchase the trade at a price greater than it is worth. It appears to me, that Great Britain foresaw these consequences, and that these articles are as well calculated to produce them, and to obstruct the views of the United States, as sagacity itself could have devised. Hence it appears

to me, that the value of an unqualified surren- | der of the posts, is very much lessened by the accompanying conditions. The gentleman from Connecticut observed, that the surrender of the posts was absolute, and that no conditions were annexed to it. It is a sufficient answer to say, that his observation is a mere criticism upon terms. If they be not conditions of the surrender, they are accompanying engagements, and are to be executed, with good faith, by the United States.

The fourth and fifth articles relate merely to the ascertainment of the boundary line, and therefore I shall pass over them without com

ment.

amount what it may. Gentlemen should reflect, that the amount will depend very much upon the mode of adjustment, and that the mode adopted by the treaty, is the most objectionable that can be devised.

The principle established for the adjustment of the debts, instead of preserving the conflicting interests of debtor and creditor will produce a complete union of interests; and of course, will furnish the greatest temptations to frauds against the United States from both debtor and creditor. Hence the amount of debts assumed by the United States, will probably be greatly increased beyond what would be the amount, if the debtor and creditor were left to the ordinary course of judicial proceedprinciple of opposing interests. To entitle the creditor to a claim upon the United States, it is necessary for him first to establish his demand against his debtor, and then to show that his debtor was solvent at the commencement of the late war, has since become insolvent, and that some legal impediment has intervened to prevent the recovery of the debt. Hence it becomes the interest of both debtor and creditor, to establish these facts: because the debtor will be relieved from his debt, by the assumption of the United States, and the claim of the creditor will be transferred from the individual to the United States, which he will in all cases prefer, particularly as the assistance of the debtor will often become necessary to facilitate the establishment of the debt. This is the natural operation of the union of interest, produced by the assumption of the debts by the United States, and there is more danger to be apprehended from it, from the impossibility of checking it by any vigilance on the part of the United States, and from the peculiar circumstances attending these debts.

The sixth article is, in my judgment, highly objectionable. This article assumes the pay-ings to adjust their own differences under the ment of all debts, interests, and damages, due from American citizens to British subjects, previous to the Revolution, in all cases where insolvencies have ensued, and where legal impediments to the recovery of the debts have existed. I will remark, that this is an assumption of debt by the public, which they do not owe, and never promised to pay, and that it is bettering the condition of the British creditor under the treaty of peace, without any obligation on the United States to do so. As amongst the fashionable calumnies of the day, this article has been a fertile source of misrepresentation against the State I have the honor to represent, I am anxious to place this subject in its true light; and as I profess to be well acquainted with it, I hope to be indulged with some minutiæ of explanation. This subject presents two aspects to the public; the one, as it respects States, the other, as it respects the individuals of the United States. As to the first, I admit, that if a greater proportion of debts of this description are due from Virginia than from other States, which has not, however, been ascertained, and which, I doubt, in the same proportion as a State, Virginia would receive an advantage over the rest of the States, by a common assumption of the debts; but as it respects the individuals of that State, who are not debtors, they stand precisely upon the same footing with individuals in the other States, because they are, in common with others, to contribute to the payment of debts which they never owed. It is of very little consolation to them, that they live in the neighborhood of those whose debts they are to contribute to pay; for propinquity or distance can make no difference in the state of interest between the individuals who do not owe, but who are to contribute to pay. As a very small proportion of the inhabitants of Virginia come under this description of debtors, the phenomenon of an opposition of that State to this particular article, is thus explained.

It is to be remarked, that this article contains no limits as to the amount of debts assumed by it, nor are there any precise data furnished for calculation. But it has been said, that if the debts be due, they ought to be paid, be the VOL. II.-13

The greatest proportion of debts remaining unpaid, I believe, stand upon open accounts. In many cases, when the debts were evidenced by specialties, payments have been obtained, either by the usual course of judicial process, or by compromise between the parties. There are two circumstances attending the open accounts, which will give great scope to fraudulent combinations between the debtor and creditor. The one respects the evidence, the other the substantial causes of difference in the accounts of the creditor and debtor. In the reign of George the II., an act was passed for the more easy recovery of debts due to his majesty's subjects, from his majesty's plantations in America. This act authorized the merchant residing in Great Britain to establish his debt against a colonist, by affidavits, taken before the commencement of the suit, and authenticated in the usual mode. This deprived the defendant of all opportunity of cross-examination, so essential to the discovery of truth, and the jury of all knowledge of the character and credibility of the deponent.

In Virginia, the affidavits taken in pursuance

From these circumstances, I conclude, that this assumption of debt, without any obligation for so doing, is extremely improper, particularly when it is recollected that this article sweeps away all acts of limitation, and relates to the whole extensive scene of business carried on in the United States, from the extremes of New Hampshire to the extremes of Georgia, for an unlimited time before the Revolution. If I were to make a conjecture as to the amount, it would be a loose one, but if I were to choose between indemnification to the American merchants for recent spoliations committed upon their commerce, or the payment of these debts, I should not hesitate to prefer the first alternative; because, to that there are known limits; to the other there are not, nor any data for calculation under the mode of adjustment prescribed by the treaty. I therefore caution gentlemen against the assumption of this unascertained debt; for I believe it will be attended with a responsibility which they cannot answer to their constituents, nor will the responsibility be alleviated by the recollection of the merits of the individuals for whose benefit it is made. The increase of the debt of the United States by these artificial means, without any obligation to do so, I think highly objectionable.

of this act, have been deemed incompetent to | lieve the United States will be but unsuccessful the establishment of the debt, because the act collectors from insolvent debtors. itself destroys the very nature and properties of evidence. Hence, in all disputed claims, founded upon this act, judgments have been rendered for the defendants. If this should be deemed a legal impediment to the recovery, this whole description of debts will probably come under the description of debts assumed. The words used in the treaty were calculated, in my opinion, with a view to this construction, and must have been dictated by persons better informed of the nature of this business than I presume the envoy extraordinary of the United States could have been. The words alluded to are the following: "The said commissioners in examining the complaints and applications so preferred to them, are empowered and required, in pursuance of the true intent and meaning of this article, to take into their consideration all claims, whether of principal or interest, or balance of principal and interest, and to determine the same respectively, according to the merits of the several cases, due regard being had to all the circumstances thereof, and as equity and justice shall appear to them to require. And the said commissioners shall have power to examine all such persons, as shall come before them, on oath or affirmation, touching the premises; and also to receive in evidence, according as they may think most consistent with equity and justice, all written depositions, or books, or papers, or copies, or extracts thereof, every such deposition, book, or paper, or copy, or extract, being duly authenticated, either according to the legal forms now respectively existing in the two countries, or in such other manner as the said commissioners shall see cause to require or allow."

The other circumstances arise from the nature of the remittances. These are generally made in tobacco. The sales of this article are intrusted solely to the merchant residing in Great Britain; and the American shipper has no check whatever upon the merchant making the sale. Upon rendering these accounts, the tobacco is often set down at a price very inferior to the average price of that article in Europe, at the time of making the sale. A great number of controversies have taken place upon this ground, which remain unsettled; but if the United States shall assume the debts of the individuals thus circumstanced, they will have no inducement to contest these accounts in a course of judicial proceedings, and the promise of exoneration from the creditor will often induce the debtor to facilitate the establishment of the claims against the United States. I have not overlooked the clause in this article of the treaty, which compels an assignment of the claim from the creditor to the United States; but that will have little or no operation to check the practice invited by this article, because the debtor is presumed to be insolvent before the assignment is to be made, and I be

The seventh article of the treaty promises compensation for the spoliations committed upon American commerce, in the course of the present war. This would be a very desirable object, if it could be obtained; but, when I observe, that before compensation is to be obtained, a process is to be had in the admiralty courts of Great Britain, and that the amount will depend very much upon the temper of those courts, I doubt whether this boasted article will not dwindle down into very little importance. I shall only observe further, that the merchants, for whose benefit this article was more immediately intended, and who have petitioned Congress to make provision for carrying the treaty into effect, seem not to rely implicitly upon the provision upon this subject; because, in every memorial they have held up the expectation of ultimate indemnification from the United States.

The eighth article points out the mode of paying the commissioners, to be appointed under the treaty-to which I have no objection.

The phraseology of the ninth article is somewhat curious, and the object I cannot perfectly understand. It is in the following words:

"It is agreed, that British subjects, who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens, who now hold lands in the dominions of his majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell, or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner, as if they were natives; and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect

If it be the object of this article to vary the existing laws upon the subject of landed estates, it is wholly improper. If not, it is wholly unnecessary. I do not know how far this article may affect the proprietory estates. If it be intended to give any new impulse to those estates, it may be attended with serious effects. Pennsylvania is the only State which has regularly extinguished the proprietory claim. If a latitude of construction should be given to this article, it might materially affect the States of Delaware, North Carolina, and Virginia. I will not pretend to say, that it will bear the interpretation I have hinted at, but, as an individual, I would rather it had been omitted. There is a semblance of reciprocity assumed by this article; but no reciprocity in fact.

the said lands and the legal remedies incident | ence of the element can make no difference in thereto, be regarded as aliens." the morality of the act. However strongly, therefore, this moral impulse was operating upon the American envoy, whilst engaged in the construction of this article, it had entirely dissipated before he arrived at the twenty-fifth article: for, in that article, the principle of privateering is not only admitted, but its operation facilitated; so that, unless the interest of Great Britain is to be the criterion of the envoy's morality, what he has gained by the morality of the tenth article, must be at least balanced by the immorality of the twenty-fifth. Sequestration is always admitted as part of the law of nations, and hence I presume it is not immoral, under certain circumstances. It appears to be the opinion of some, that where the property of an individual has been sequestered on account of the act of his nation, the individual is to sustain the loss; but this is not the case. The sequestration itself imposes upon the government, to which the individual belongs, an obligation of reimbursement. Hence the sequestration does not ultimately rest upon the individual, but upon the government for whose wrong the property was taken. This is also conformable to the laws of nations. It is the course pursued by Great Britain for all sequestrations made during the American war, and is the course which will be pursued by all nations.

The tenth article is of a very extraordinary complexion. It is remarkable, both as to the matter it contains, and the manner in which it is expressed. It is in the following words:

"Neither the debts, due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor moneys, which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever, in any event of war or national differences, be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust and impolitic, that debts and engagements, contracted and made by individuals having confidence in each other, and in their respective governments, should ever be destroyed or impaired by national authority, on account of national differences and discontents."

This article also assumes the semblance of reciprocity; but no reciprocity in fact.

War itself is immoral in most cases; and justifiable, in my opinion, only in the case of selfdefence; but, if a stipulation had been inserted in this treaty which prohibited the United States from declaring war, it would have been justly and universally reprobated. The present British subjects have great sums, both in article prohibits the United States from resortpublic and private funds, in the United States; ing to the best means, not only of preventing American citizens have little or no property in war, but the most efficacious means of supportpublic or private funds in Great Britain. Hence ing it. Hence the surrender of the right is a the evident and substantial inequality of this most impolitic concession, and is infinitely agreciprocal stipulation. On the other hand, gravated by its being a voluntary concession; American citizens have a great share of prop-no equivalent being received in return. It is erty on the water, with very little naval protection, and of course subject to the naval superiority of Great Britain.

dishonorable to the United States, because it evidences a want of confidence in the discretion of the constituted authorities. The right If, therefore, Great Britain had stipulated, in of sequestration is admitted to be essential to case of war, that in consideration of a refusal, national sovereignty; but lest it should be inon the part of the United States, to sequestrate discreetly used by the United States, its guarproperty of British subjects upon land, she dianship is transferred to Great Britain. I would not molest the property of American citi- view sequestration as an extraordinary remedy, zens upon water, there would then have been a to be resorted to only on extraordinary occasubstantial, instead of a nominal reciprocity:sions. And although I admit that but few cases as the article now stands, there is an important right conceded, and no compensation obtained. This article, however, has been highly applauded, by a particular description of persons interested in it, in consequence of the affectation of morality professed by it.

It has been said to be dishonest and immoral, to take the property of individuals for the purpose of compensating national wrongs. I can see no difference between the morality of taking the property of individuals upon water, and the property of individuals upon land. The differ

This

will justify a resort to it, yet it is one of our best instruments of defence, considering our relationship to Great Britain, and ought not, therefore, to have been surrendered. restraint is imposed upon the United States for an unlimited time, and is the more objectionable, as it is a species of legislation against tho discretion of legislation.

But, whatever may be the difference of opinion as to the matter of this article, the most partial admirer of this treaty must be unwilling to defend the very extraordinary envoy of the

countries precisely upon the footing she wished; and the United States have yielded every commercial advantage which might have been exchanged for that relaxation; of course, Great Britain will have no inducement to make, as the United States have nothing to offer for, the relaxation.

United States for the manner of expression. | tion, placed the commerce between the two This measure was proposed in the House of Representatives, as one of the means of selfprotection against British depredations. This circumstance was known to the envoy, yet he not only bartered away the measure, but, in doing so, branded the proposition, then depending before the House of Representatives, with the terms "impolitic and unjust." This was an unnecessary imputation, which no minister could have been justifiable in applying to his government. Suppose our envoy had insisted, and the British minister had agreed, that the order of the 6th of November, for taking neutral vessels for adjudication, was piratical, and ought not to be renewed: I will not pretend to say how far the order would justify the epithet; but what would have been the fate of a British minister under such circumstances? Utter disgrace would have been one inevitable consequence; but, an American minister is not only tolerated for a similar conduct, but by some, who even affect to be Americans, applauded. In the present agitation of the public mind, truth seems to be obscured by party irritations, and personal partialities; but I am convinced, that whenever it may be so far collected as to take a calm review of this transaction, there will exist one universal voice of condemnation.

The eleventh article contains a general stipuiation for the liberty of navigation and commerce between the two countries.

The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Swift, justified the conduct of Great Britain with respect to the West Indies, upon the ground of her colonial rights. He observed that Great Britain had a right to prevent the trade to the West Indies altogether. This is true, and she has a right to prevent the trade to London, and the United States have a right to interdict her trade to this country. But I would ask, if there be no relaxation of these rights, of what advantage is the treaty? The very object of a commercial treaty is a reciprocal indulgence in the exercise of these rights; and the peculiar dependence of those islands, upon the United States for their very subsistence, would command a participation in that trade, if properly used.

The resort to the United States for supplies to facilitate the present operations in the West Indies, is a striking evidence of the importance of the United States to their existence.

It has been observed, that the Spanish treaty has not opened the Spanish islands to the United States. This is true, and it would have been a desirable thing if it had effected this object. But it should be recollected, that the United States have made no commercial concessions to Spain, and that the treaty does not profess to contain any material commercial regulations.

The twelfth article is the first of the commercial articles. This article is suspended; but the want of a substitute will justify a few remarks. I am not practically acquainted with commercial detail, and of course shall not go much into detail upon the commercial articles; The thirteenth article contains regulations there are, however, some grand principles for the East India trade. This article has been which apply to commerce, as well as to every held up as an apology for all the commercial other business or science, which will guide me defects of the treaty. I do not pretend to be in a few remarks upon this subject. The perfectly acquainted with the nature of this twelfth article is intended to regulate the trade trade; but as far as I understand the explanabetween the United States and the British tion of the advantages of this article, I cannot West India Islands; so far, therefore, as it per- concur in the result. The common remark is, mits that trade to be carried on, it is intended that this article secures to the United States a as a concession to the United States; the rigid right which before was a courtesy. This rerestrictions accompanying the concession, how-mark possesses some plausibility, but no subever, render it so paltry, that the Senate reject- stance; what is called courtesy, is a trade ed the concession, although the envoy had ac- founded upon the interest of the parties. I becepted it. But, in what situation has the re-lieve that a courtesy in trade, the basis of which jection left the United States? They are now is the interest of the party granting it, is a engaged in a commercial treaty with Great better security than forced regulations by treaty, Britain, in which they have surrendered almost without the basis of interest for their support. every commercial advantage they had to bestow, and are still wholly excluded from the West India trade. I have always understood that the West India trade was the great object of commercial negotiation with Great Britain, but now that is formally relinquished. It may be said, that further negotiations upon this subject are promised; but what inducement will Great Britain have to relax her colonial regulations, provided this treaty should be carried into effect? She has already, without this relaxa

is admitted, that the trade to the East Indes, before this treaty, was extremely lucrative, and of course cannot be the effect of the treaty. But the restrictive and monopolizing hand of Great Britain is seen to extend itself even to this branch of commerce, in the prohibition of the exportation of East India articles to an European market in American bottoms; which is a restriction that does not now exist, and is another restriction upon the citizens of the United States trading thence, which,