Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

admitted our construction of it, and that she has rejected the claim on no other ground than the alleged violation of the fourth article on the part of the United States. But on the supposition that it had been true, that Great Britain had uniformly asserted a different construction of the article, and refused to accede to ours, I beg leave to ask the house what ought to have been done? Ought we to have acceded at once to her construction? You will anticipate me, sir, in saying, assuredly not. Each party had an equal right to interpret the compact; and if they could not agree, they ought to have done in this, what they did in other cases, where they could not agree; that is, have referred the settlement of the meaning of the compact to arbitration: but, for us to give up the claim altogether because the other party to the compact thought proper to disallow our construction of it, was in effect to admit nothing less than that Great Britain had a better right than the United States to explain the point in controversy, or that the United States had done something which in justice called for a sacrifice of one of their essential rights.

[ocr errors]

From this view of the subject, sir, I consider it to be evident, that the arrangements in this treaty which relate to the treaty of peace of 1783, are in several instances deficient both in justice and reciprocity. And here a circumstance occurs, that in my opinion deserves the very particular attention of the committee. From the face of the treaty generally, and particularly from the order of the articles, it would seem that the compensation for the spoliations on our trade have been combined with the

execution of the treaty of peace, and may therefore have been viewed as a substitute for the equivalent stipulated for the negroes. If this be really the meaning of the instrument, it cannot be the less obnoxious to reasonable and fair judges. No man can be more firmly convinced than I myself am, of the perfect jus

tice on which the claims of the merchants on Great Britain are founded, nor can any one be more desirous to see them fully indemnified. But surely, sir, it will not be asserted that compensation to them is a just substitute for the compensation due to others. It is impossible that any claims can be better founded than those of the sufferers under the seventh article of the treaty of peace; because they are supported by positive and acknowledged stipulation, as well as by equity and right. Just and undeniable as the claims of the merchants may be, and certainly are, the United States cannot be obliged to take more care of them than of the claims equally just and unquestionable of other citizens; much less to sacrifice the latter to the former. To set this matter in a light, that will exhibit it in the clearest and most familiar way possible to the understanding and the bosom of every member in this house, I will invert the case. Let us suppose for a moment, that instead of relinquishing the claims for property wrongfully carried off at the close of the war, and obtaining stipulations in favor of the, mercantile claims, the mercantile claims had been relinquished, and the other claims provided for-I ask, would not the complaints of the merchants have been as universal and as loud as they would have been just?

Sir, besides the omissions in favor of Great Britain, which I have already pointed out, as particularly connected with the execution of the treaty of peace, the committee will perceive, that there are conditions an nexed to the partial execution of it in the surrender of the western posts, which increase the general inequality of this part of the treaty, and essentially affect the value of those objects. I beseech the committee to examine the point with the attention, a subject of so very important a character demands.

The value of the posts to the United States is to be estimated by the influence of those posts: first, on the trade with the Indians, and secondly, on the temper and conduct of the Indians to the United States.

[blocks in formation]

Their influence on the Indian trade depends principally on the exclusive command they give to the several carrying places connected with the posts. These places are understood to be of such importance in this respect, that those, who possess them exclusively, will have a monopoly of that lucrative intercourse with a great part of the savage nations. Great Britain having exclusively possessed those places, has possessed all those advantages without a rival; and it was reasonably enough expected, that with the exclusive possession of the posts, the exclusive benefits of that trade and intercourse would be transferred also: but by the treaty now under consideration, the carrying places are to be enjoyed in common, and it will be determined by the respective advantages under which British and American traders will engage in the trade, which of them is to have the larger share in it. In this point of view, even if in no other, I view this regulation in the treaty as highly impolitic and injurious to the interests of this country. I need not dwell upon the signal advantages the British will have in their superior capital, which we shall have to encounter in all our commercial rivalships: but there is another consideration which ought to have, and no doubt will have great weight with the committee on this subject. The goods imported for the Indian trade through Canada, pay no duties-whilst those imported through the United States for that trade, will have paid duties from seven to ten per centum. At the same time, every man must see that a drawback is impracticable, or would be attended with an expense, which the business would not bear. Whatever the value or the importance, therefore, which the posts may be supposed to derive from those considerations, they are in a great measure stripped of them by the condition, annexed by this treaty to the surrender of the posts. Instead of securing, as it ought to have done, a monopoly in our favor, the carrying places are made common to both countries under circumstances, which will in all proba

bility throw a monopoly into the hands of Great Britain. Nor is this a transient or a temporary evil, for that article of the treaty is to last forever. As to the influence of the posts on the conduct of the Indians, it is well known to depend chiefly upon their influence on the Indian trade. In proportion, therefore, as the condition annexed to the surrender of the posts affects the one, it must affect the other. So long and in such degree, as the British continue to enjoy the Indian trade, they will continue to influence the Indian conduct; and, though that should not be in the same degree as heretofore, it will be at least in a degree sufficiently great to pass sentence of condemnation on the article in question.

Another very extraordinary feature in this part of the treaty, sir, is the permission that it grants to aliens to hold lands in perpetuity. I will not inquire how far this may be authorized by constitutional principles, but I will always maintain that there cannot be found, in any treaty that ever was made, either where territory was ceded, or where it was acknowledged by one nation to another, one other such stipulation. Although I admit, that in such cases it has been common, and may be right, to make regulations for the conservation of the property of the inhabitants, yet I believe it will appear, that, in every case of the kind that has occurred, the owners of landed property, when they were so favored, were either called upon to swear allegiance to the new sovereign, or compelled to dispose of their landed property within a reasonable time.

Sir, the stipulation, by which all the ports of the United States are to open to Great Britain, as a valuable consideration for, or condition upon which those of one of her unimportant provinces are to be opened to us in return, is marked with such signal inequality, that it ought not only to be rejected, but marked with censure. Nor is the clause respecting the Mississippi less censurable. To me, indeed, it appears singularly reprehensible. Happy is it for the United States,

that the adjustment of our claims with Spain has been brought about, before any evil operation of the clause has been experienced. But of the tendency of the thing, I am persuaded, there can be no doubt. It is the more remarkable that this extension of the privileges of Great Britain on the Mississippi, beyond those contained in the treaty of peace, should have been admitted into the new treaty, because, by the latter itself, the supposition is suggested that Great Britain may be deprived, by her real boundary, of all pretensions to a share in the waters and the banks of the Mississippi.

And now, sir, to turn to the second aspect, in which I have undertaken to examine the question; namely, as it determines the several points in the law of nations connected with it. And here, I must say, that the same want of real reciprocity, and the same sacrifice of the interests of the United States, are conspicuous. Sir, it is well known that the principle that "FREE SHIPS MAKE FREE GOODS," has ever been a great and favorite object with the United States; they have established this principle in all their treaties; they have witnessed with anxiety the general effort and the successful advances towards incorporating this principle in the law of nations-a principle friendly to all neutral nations, and particularly interesting to the United States. I know, sir, that it has before now been conceded, on the part of the United States, that the law of nations stands as the present treaty regulates it; but it does not follow that more than acquiescence in this doctrine, is proper. There is an evident and a material distinction between silently acquiescing in it, and giving it the additional force and support of a formal and positive stipulation. The former is all that could have been required, and the latter is more than ought to have been unnecessarily yielded. The treaty is liable to similar objections in respect to the enumeration it contains of contraband articles, in which, sir, I am sorry to be obliged to remark, that the circumstances

« AnteriorContinuar »