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 entrusted 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 believe the United States will be but unsuccessful collectors from insolvent debtors.

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 indemnifica

tion 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.

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 the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens."

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 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 monies, 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.

British subjects have great sums, both in public and private funds, in the United States; American citizens have little or no property in public or private funds in Great Britain. Hence the evident and substantial inequality of this reciprocal stipulation. On the other hand, American citizens have a great share of property on the water, with very little naval protection, and of course subject to the naval superiority of Great Britain.

If, therefore, Great Britain had stipulated, in case of war, that in consideration of a refusal, on the part of the United States, to sequestrate property of British subjects upon land, she would not molest the property of American citizens upon water, there would then have been a substantial, instead of a nominal reciprocity: 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 difference of the element can make no difference in 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 ar

ticle, 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.

War itself is immoral in most cases; and justifiable, in my opinion, only in the case of self-defence; 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 article prohibits the United States from resorting to the best means, not only of preventing war, but the most efficacious means of supporting it. Hence the surrender of the right is a most impolitic concession, and is infinitely aggravated by its being a voluntary concession; no equivalent being received in return. It is dishonorable to the United States, because it evidences a want of confidence in the discretion of the constituted authorities. The right of sequestration is admitted to be essential to national sovereignty; but lest it should be indiscreetly used by the United States, its guardianship is transferred to Great Britain. I view sequestration as an extraordinary remedy, to be resorted to only on extraordinary occasions. And although I admit that but few cases will justify a resort to it, yet it is one of our best instruments of defence, considering our relationship to