By voting out the resolutions, we shall show to our own citizens, and foreign nations, that our prudence has prevailed over our prejudices, that we prefer our interests to our resentments. Let us assert a genuine independence of spirit: we shall be false to our duty and feelings as Americans, if we basely descend to a servile dependence on France or Great Britain.

с

SPEECH OF JAMES MADISON,

ON

THE BRITISH TREATY,

DELIVERED IN THE House of rePRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 15, 1796.

On the 28th of October, 1794, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was concluded, and was subsequently ratified by the President. On the 1st of March, 1796, the President promulgated the treaty by proclamation, declaring it obligatory, and on the same day communicated it to the house of representatives, in order that the necessary appropriations might be made to carry it into effect. In committee of the whole, on the following resolution: "Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that it is expedient to pass the laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty with Great Britain ;" Mr. Madison spoke as follows:

MR. CHAIRMAN,

THE subject now under the consideration of the committee, is of such vast extent, of such vital importance to this country, and involves so many topics, which demand minute investigation, that I wish, at setting out, to be understood as not pretending to go through all the observations that may be applicable to its circumstances, but as endeavoring to present it in a mere general view, persuaded that the omissions I shall make, will be amply supplied by other gentlemen who are to follow me in the discussion.

The proposition, sir, immediately before the committee, amounts to this, that the treaty lately made with Great Britain ought to be directly carried into

effect by all such means and provisions, as are peculiarly within the province and the competency of the house of representatives to supply. This, sir, is the substance of the point immediately in question: but it will, in examining it, be proper to keep constantly in view another proposition which was made yesterday, by the gentleman from Pennsylvania,* and referred to the committee, and which will be taken up of course, if the immediate question shall be decided in the negative.

Sir, if the proposition for carrying the treaty into effect be agreed to by the house, it must necessarily be upon some one or other of the three following considerations that the legislature is bound by a constitutional necessity to pass the requisite laws, without examining the treaty or considering its merits-or, that on due examination, the treaty is deemed to be in itself a good one-or that, apart from these considerations, there shall appear extraneous reasons of sufficient weight to induce the house to carry the treaty into effect, even though it be in itself a bad treaty. The first of these considerations, however, is now completely excluded by the late decision of the house, that they have a right to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of passing laws relative to treaties; the question then first to be examined by the committee, is that which relates to the merits of the present treaty. I will now, therefore, proceed to discuss those merits, and to present them to the committee under three different aspects. The first, as it relates to the execution of the treaty of peace, made in the year 1783. The second, as it bears upon and determines the several points in the law of nations connected with it. And the third, as it infringes upon, and may be supposed to affect the commercial intercourse of the two

nations.

* Mr. Maclay, who moved a resolution" that it is not expedient at this time to concur in passing the laws necessary for carrying the said treaty into effect."

Sir, in animadverting upon the first of these, I will not take upon me the invidious office of inquiring, which party it is to whom the censure may justly be ascribed of having more than the other contributed to the delay of its execution, though I am far from entertaining any desire to shrink from the task, under an apprehension that the result might be disadvantageous to this country. The present treaty has itself, in express terms, waved this inquiry, and professes, that its purpose is to adjust all controversies on the subjects of which it is conversant, without regard to the mutual complaints or pretensions of the parties. Naturally, therefore, and most justly it was to be expected, that the arrangements for carrying that treaty into effect, would have been founded on the most exact, scrupulous and equitable reciprocity. But has this been the case, sir? I venture to say that it has not, and it grieves me to add, what nevertheless truth and justice compel me to declare, that, on the contrary, the arrangements were founded on the grossest violation of this principle. This, sir, is undoubtedly strong language, and as such I should be one of the last men living to give it utterance, if I were not supported in it by facts no less strong and unequivocal. There are two articles in the old treaty, for the execution of which, no provision whatsoever is made in the new one. The first is that which relates to the restitution of, or compensation for, the negroes and other property carried away by the British. The second, that which provides for the surrender to the United States of the posts, so long withheld by them, on our territory. The article that remains unexecuted on the part of the United States, is that which stipulates for the payment of all bona fide debts owing to British creditors; and the present treaty guarantees the carrying of this article into the most complete effect by the United States, together with all damages sustained by the delay, even to the most rigid extent of exaction, while it contains no stipulation whatever, on the part of Great Britain, for the faithful performance

Look to the

of the articles left unexecuted by her. treaty, sir, and you will find nothing like it, nothing allusive to it. No, on the contrary, she is entirely and formally absolved from her obligation to fulfil that article, which relates to the negroes, and is discharged from making any compensation whatsoever for her having delayed to fulfil that, which provides for the surrender of the posts..

I am aware, sir, of its being urged in apology, or by way of extenuation for these very unequal stipulations, that the injury which may possibly be sustained by us in consequence of the detention of the posts by the British government, is not susceptible of an accurate valuation; that between such an injury and money there is no common measure, and that therefore, the wrong is incapable of liquidation, and affords no fair basis for a calculation of pecuniary damages. This apology, sir, may appear plausible, but it is by no means satisfactory. Commissioners might easily have been appointed, (as they are, vested too with full discretion, for other purposes,) to take charge of this subject, with instructions to do what they could, if unable to do what they ought, and if incapable of effecting positive justice, at least to mitigate the injustice of doing nothing.

For the very extraordinary abandonment of the compensation due for the negroes and other property carried off by the British, apologies have also been lamely attempted; and these apologies demand consideration. It is said to be at least doubtful whether this claim is authorized by the seventh article of the treaty of peace, and that Great Britain has uniformly denied the meaning put by the United States on that article. In reply to these assertions, it is sufficient for me to remark, that so far from its being true, that Great Britain has uniformly denied the American construction of this article, it is susceptible of positive proof, that till very lately, Great Britain has uniformly