APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. or R. the present war; or if the property had been resold, and passed into such variety of hands as to render the restoration impracticable, (which you assert to be the case in many instances,) you should stipulate for a compensation or indemnification to those persons adequate to their losses. To those propositions, you said, you could not accede. Mr. Stachey, since in insisting upon the said restitution, compensation, his arrival at Paris, has most strenuously joined me or indemnification, and in laying before you every argument in favor of the demands, founded on national honor, and upon the true principles of justice. Those demands you must have understood to extend, not only to all persons of the above-mentioned description who have fled to Europe, but likewise to all those who may now be in any part of North America, dwelling under the protection of His Majesty's arm, or otherwise. We have also insisted on a mutual stipulation for a general amnesty on both sides, comprehending thereby an enlargement of all persons to be committed, since the commencement of hostiliwho, on account of offences committed, or supposed ties, may now be in confinement, and for an immeenjoyment thereof, under the Government of the Unitdiate repossession of their properties and peaceable ed States. and direct answer. To this you have not given a particular It is, however, incumbent on me, as Commissioner of the King of Great Britain, to repeat the several demands, and without going over those arguments upon paper, which we have so often urged in conversation, to press your immediate attention to these subjects, and to urge you to enter into proper stipulations for their restitution, compensation, and amnesty, before we proceed further in this negotiation." all negroes and other property which in the | Refugees, who have taken part with Great Britain in course of the war had been taken, or in any way had fallen into the hands of the British, had shifted their owner, and were no longer the property of the American inhabitants. In the case of negroes, the British Commander-inChief had exercised the highest act of ownership, by manumitting such of them as should conform to certain stipulations, pointed out in his proclamation. If any change was intended to have been made by the Treaty in the circumstances of these negroes, and it had been intended they should be again returned into bondage, there would have been some express stipulation to that effect in the Treaty. The words are," and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies," &c. There is nothing that indicates the least intention that this article should have a retrospective operation. It can only relate to property then belonging to the American inhabitants. Wherever any article was intended to have a retrospective operation, some expression is used that clearly shows such intention. In this same article, speaking of delivering up records, deeds, &c., these words are added, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers," &c. In the 4th article, "debts heretofore contracted." Any other construction would have required the restoration of vessels which had been taken from the Americans, and were then in New York, under the term "other property," as well as negroes and horses. If any negroes or other property, in the possession of the American inhabitants at or after signing the preliminary articles, were carried off, it was no doubt a violation of the Treaty, but he had not understood that they refused to deliver up property of that description, or that such property was carried off to any great amount. 66 To which our commissioners returned the following answer : "In answer to the letter you did us the honor to write on the 4th instant, we beg leave to repeat what we often said in conversation, viz: that the restoration of such of the estates of the refugees as have been confiscated, is impracticable, because they were confiscated by laws of particular States, and in many But this matter does not rest only on there instances have passed by legal titles through several being no words in the Treaty which can be conhands. Besides, sir, as this is a matter evidently strued to have a retrospective operation, but it appertaining to the internal policy of the separate is fairly to be inferred from the papers contain-have no authority to interfere with it. States, the Congress, by the nature of our constitution, ed in this same collection of Mr. JEFFERSON, demand of compensation to those persons, we forbear As to your that it was so understood by the negotiators; enumerating our reasons for thinking it ill-founded. for, in the course of that negotiation, it appears In the moment of conciliatory overtures, it would not to have been a primary object with the British be proper to call certain scenes into view, over which Minister to obtain restitution of the Tory estates, a variety of considerations should induce both parties or compensation for them. They almost made at present to draw a veil. Permit us, therefore, only a sine qua non, and a refusal to comply had to repeat, that we cannot stipulate for such compenwell-nigh broken off the negotiation; and to sation, unless on your part it be agreed to make resinduce the British Minister to relinquish that titution to our citizens for the heavy losses they have article, our commissioners brought in a claim sustained by the unnecessary destruction of private for negroes and other property which had been property. We have already agreed to an amnesty taken, and towns and villages which had been more extensive than justice required, and full as exdestroyed during the war. He here read the tensive as humanity would demand; we can therefollowing letter from Mr. Oswald, the British We should be sorry, if the absolute impossibility of fore, only repeat, that it cannot be extended further. Minister, to our commissioners, viz: our complying further with your propositions, should induce Great Britain to continue the war, for the sake of those who caused and prolonged it; but, if that should be the case, we hope that the utmost latitude will not be again given to its rigors. Whatever may be the issue of this negotiation, be assured, "You may remember, that from the very beginning of our negotiation for settling a peace between Great Britain and America, I insisted that you should positively stipulate for the restoration of the property of all those under the denomination of Loyalists or sir, that we shall always acknowledge the liberal, manly, and candid manner, in which you have conducted it." In consequence of information from our commissioners that the claim was made and pertinaciously insisted on by the British Minister, Congress passed the following resolutions, viz: "Resolved, That the Secretary for Foreign Affairs be, and he is hereby, directed to obtain, as speedily as possible, authentic returns of the slaves and other property which have been carried off or destroyed in the course of the war by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Ministers Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace. [APRIL, 1796. After pressing the matter to the utmost extent, we find, by Mr. ADAMS's journal, that on the evening previous to signing the Treaty, Ministers on both sides came to the following result: "Upon this I recounted the history of Gen. Gage's agreement with the inhabitants of Boston, that they should remove their effects, upon condition that they would surrender their arms; but as soon as the arms were secured, the goods were forbid to be carried out, and were finally carried off in large quantities to Halifax. Dr. Franklin mentioned the case of Philadelphia, and the carrying off effects there, even his own library. Mr. Jay mentioned several other things: and Mr. Laurens added the plunder in Carolina, of negroes, plate, &c. After hearing all this, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. Stachey, retired for some time, and returning Mr. Fitzherbert said, that upon consulting together, and weighing every thing as maturely as possible, Mr. Stachey and himself had determined to advise Mr. Oswald to strike with us according to the terms we had proposed, as to our ultimatum respecting the fishery, and the loyalists. Accordingly we all sat down, read over the whole Treaty and corrected it, and agreed to "Resolved, That, in the mean time, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs inform the said Ministers, that many thousands of slaves, and other property to a very great amount, have been carried off or destroyed by the enemy, and that, in the opinion of Congress, the great loss of property which the citizens of the United States have sustained by the enemy, will be considered by the several States as an insuperable bar to their making restitution or indemnification to the foriner owners of property which has been or may be forfeited to, or confiscated by, any of the States.". Dr. FRANKLIN, in a letter to the British Minis-meet to-morrow at O.'s house, to sign and seal the ter, says: "I must repeat my opinion, that it is best for you to drop all mention of the refugees. We have proposed, indeed, nothing but what we think best for you as well as ourselves. But if you will have them mentioned, let it be in an article which may provide that they shall exhibit accounts of their losses to commissioners hereafter to be appointed, who shall examine the same, together with the accounts now preparing in America of the damages done by them, and state the account; and that if a balance appears in their favor, it shall be paid by us to you, and by you divided among them, as you shall think proper. And if the balance is found due to us, it shall be paid by you. Give me leave, however, to advise you to prevent so dreadful a discussion, by dropping the article, that we may write to America and stop the inquiry." Treaties." these circumstances, that the 7th article was Will any candid man say, after reviewing meant to secure the restitution of negroes and other property taken in the course of the war? If that had been meant, would it not have been improper to have urged it as an argument against the introduction of an article which would have subjected this country to immense embarrassment and expense? It is true that the United States did challenge negroes and other property, which had fallen into the hands of the British previous to signing the Treaty. This circumstance, for the reason he had mentioned, and others that might be suggested, ought to have very little weight, for it is well known that recrimination of a vioThe following article was accordingly drawn up sides, and each mustered up every tolerable lation of the Treaty soon commenced on both and proposed to be inserted in the Treaty, viz: claim; many of which have since been admit"It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will ear-ted on both sides to be groundless. A circumnestly recommend it to his Parliament to provide for stance which strongly corroborated what he and make compensation to the merchants and shop- said was, Sir Guy Carlton's letter on that subkeepers of Boston, whose goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of the stores, warehouses,ject had also been so grossly misunderstood and and shops, by order of General Gage, and others of misrepresented, from that time to this, and now his commanders or officers there; and also the inhabitants of Philadelphia, for the goods taken away by his army there; and to make compensation also for the tobacco, rice, indigo, negroes, &c., seized and carried off by his armies under Generals Arnold, Cornwallis, and others, from the States of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia: And also for all vessels and cargoes belonging to the inhabitants of the said United States, which were stopped, seized, or taken, either in the ports or on the seas, by his Governors, or by his ships of war, before the declaration of war against the said States. And it is further agreed that His Britannic Majesty will also earnestly recommend it to his Parliament to make compensation for all the towns, villages, and farms, burnt and destroyed by his troops or adherents in the said United States." advanced by a gentleman on this floor, (Mr. GILES,) and even by Mr. JEFFERSON-in this instance departing from that candor which is so conspicuous in almost every other part of this excellent performance-for, when speaking on this subject, he says, "here there was a direct, unequivocal, and avowed violation of this part of the 7th article, in the first moment of its being known." Mr. JEFFERSON has given us a copy of Sir Guy Carlton's letter to General WASHINGTON, which is relied on to support this assertion, which is so far from speaking such a language, that in his opinion, it was directly the reverse, and that in a very pointed manner. His words are: "I must confess, that the mere supposition that APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. or R. the King's Minister could deliberately stipulate in a our right to demand of a foreign nation the Treaty an engagement to be guilty of a notorious restitution of a runaway slave. The United breach of the public faith towards people of any com- States are now at peace with all the world; plexion, seems to denote a less friendly disposition suppose a slave should escape into the dominthan I could wish, and I think less friendly than ions of a foreign nation, and on demand they we might expect. After all, I only give my own should refuse to deliver him up? he very much. opinion. Every negro's name is registered, the mas- doubted whether we should have just ground ter he formerly belonged to, with such other circumof complaint. On the other hand, if any of stances as serve to denote his value, that it may be adjusted by compensation, if that was really the inten-duced to slavery by any of the Barbary powers our citizens may be so unfortunate as to be retion and meaning of the Treaty. Restoration was inseparable from a breach of public faith, and is, as I think all the world must allow, utterly impracti cable." in Africa, should make their escape into the dominions of any of the European nations, and upon being claimed by such powers, should be delivered up, he did believe we should have good ground of complaint against such nation, as being unjust and inhumane. And, so far as principle is concerned, what difference does it make whether the citizens of the United States itants of Africa are brought into slavery in the are carried into slavery in Africa, or the inhabUnited States? He knew of no principle that made a difference between the natural rights of a white or black man. The first prin Gen. WASHINGTON, at that time, seemed disinclined to give an opinion on that subject, but intimated the propriety of leaving any doubtful clause of the Treaty to be settled by future negotiation; for in a letter from him to our commissioners in New York, dated June, 1783, who had written to him for particular and pointed instructions on this very subject, there is this passage: "It is exceeding difficult for me, not being a wit-ciple that is laid down in the rights of man, is, ness to the particular cases, or acquainted with the particular circumstances which must fall under your view in the course of the evacuation, to give you a precise definition of the acts which you are to represent as infractions of the Treaty; nor can I undertake to give an official construction of any particular expression or terms of the Treaty, which must, in cases of ambiguity or different interpretations, be explained by the Sovereignties of the two nations, or their commissioners appointed for that purpose." that all men are born free and equal; it does not say all white men. He did not believe, he said, that the House would ever admit so absurd a doctrine, as that the different shades in a man's complexion would increase or diminish his natural rights. He hoped no gentleman would take any exception to what he had said on this point; he did not mean to give offence, or to throw any reflection on any part of the Union, on account of their having a larger proportion of slaves. It was an evil which existed at the commencement of our Revolution, and he trusted every part of the Union would get rid of the evil as soon as it should be practicable and safe. What he had said, was only what he felt himself bound to do in justification of our Minister for his having given up that A letter drawn up with great caution and extremely characteristic of that great man, who has always been extremely careful never to commit himself, but upon mature deliberation and upon sure ground. Here, Sir Guy Carlton, as a public officer of Great Britain, had made an explicit declaration on the subject, and that was directly against our claims; for his direct-claim. ing an inventory of the negroes, was only an Mr. HILLHOUSE requested gentlemen to pause evidence of his being disposed to conduct can- a moment, and reflect what will be our situadidly in the matter, and give us an opportunity tion if this Treaty is rejected. The peace of to recover a compensation, if we could after-1783 is agreed on both sides to have been inwards make out our construction of the Treaty to be right. Both in the United States and Great Britain it is admitted, as a sound rule of construction, that where any law or instrument is doubtful, and the liberty of any one, even of a slave, to be affected by it, that construction was to be preferred which was favorable to liberty. Under this rule, ought this Treaty to be so consted as to reduce to slavery three thousand persons who had obtained their liberty, by putting themselves under the protection of the British arms, unless there was some positive unequivocal stipulation in the Treaty which could admit of no other construction, he hoped, for the honor of America, they would make no such challenge. There was another circumstance which he had never seen mentioned, which, in his opinion, greatly weakened our claims, which was the doubts he entertained of fracted, since that Great Britain has committed depredations on our commerce to an immense amount. Is it supposed that all this matter can go off without any noise or combustion? As to treating again, no one can suppose that we could do it to any advantage, after such rejection. What may Great Britain expect, if we will not settle our differences by negotiation? Will she not expect that we shall resort to more violent measures such as reprisal, sequestration, or stopping of intercourse? And to guard herself against such measures, may we not expect she will lay her hand upon all our property on the ocean? He said he looked upon such events as the natural consequences of our rejecting the Treaty. What may we expect will be the conduct of our own citizens? Will they tamely submit to be robbed of their property, when they lose all hope of aid or protection from the Government? They will not; they will defend it even to the shedding of blood; and not only | necessity for such conduct. WEDNESDAY, April 20. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the resolution for carrying the British Treaty into effect, being under consideration, [APRIL, 1796. For my part, should Britain never give up the posts, I would not vote for war, nor be at the expense of s single regiment to take them; nor would I go to war to recover losses sustained by spoliations. For, if we reject the resolution before you, sir, we may be at liberty to pass such a bill as we passed in the year 1794, by a majority of twenty-four members, and for which thirteen Senators then voted; and should the Senate concur with us in passing it, we might use it more effectually than a declaration of war for the recovery of the posts, and reparation of wrongs. As to war, as my colleague yesterday said, I have reason to deprecate it, for the sake of my constituents, and for my own sake; for I have experienced enough of its evils; but I cannot think that I ought to sacrifice their dearest interests merely from an apprehension of the dangers of war. The arguments, therefore, which I have heard, cannot induce me to vote for the resolution before you. Indeed, sir, I must vote against it; because I think that the Treaty is unconstitutional and pernicious; and even if it were constitutional in every respect, and as advantageous to the United States as it has been represented, I should think it impoli tic and dishonorable in this House to lend its aid to carry it into effect during the present war, and a continuance of the British depredations on our commerce, and impressment of our seamen. The Treaty appears to me unconstitutional, because it takes from Congress that very power with which it was invested by the con Mr. PAGE said, that he had heard no arguments in favor of the resolution before the committee, but such as might be used to influence a vote at any other time, and upon almost any occasion; for we are told that war, or popular discontent, and great inconvenience and distress to merchants, underwriters, and others, will be the consequence of its rejection. If such threats can influence this House upon the present occasion, an unhappy and mortifying comparison may be made between the Congress of 1776, and that of the present day. They despised and encountered the dangers of war actually commenced. He wished, when members were disposed to mention their fears of such dangers, they would first clear the galleries; for such communications ought to be secret. Did members really believe that Great Britain will declare war against the United States, if this House should refuse to be acces-stitution, and to invest them with which, the sary to the violation of the constitution, the destruction of their own rights, of the rights of neutral nations, and of the interests of their constituents? If they do believe this, is their belief founded on conjecture alone, or on the negotiator's declaration, that the British Ministers threatened him with war, declaring that war should be the consequence of a rejection of the Treaty? If the latter be the case, and nothing less can justify such repeated assertion that war will be the consequence of a refusal to carry the Treaty into effect, the Treaty ought to be deemed null and void on account of that threat; and if the former, they may be assured that they are mistaken, and that Britain is not so frantic as to engage in a war with the United States upon such slight grounds. The citizens of the United States wish not to be at war with the British nation; nor can the people of Britain desire a war with them. Both must wish for peace, and a full commercial inter-known to our laws; with temptations to decourse upon liberal terms; and as the Executive authority of both countries are well disposed to each other, and have, as far as in their power, carried the Treaty into execution, what reason can be assigned why we should be involved in a war? It has been said that the United States will be obliged to declare war, on account of the British refusal (which may be expected) to deliver up the posts, and to make compensation for spoliations of our commerce; but I see no constitution itself was expressly formed; a power which I think should be held as precious and unalienable. I mean the power of regulating the commerce of the United States with Great Britain; so as to induce her to fulfil all the conditions of the Treaty of Peace, and to put the trade of the United States with her upon a footing of reciprocity. It appears also unconstitutional, because it violates a solemn act of Congress passed in conformity to the express words, and I may say, in obedience to the injunction of the spirit of the constitution: I mean the act for establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, and this violation, too, operates partially, and in favor of British subjects alone. It is moreover unconstitutional, because it interferes with the authority of the Judiciary, by establishing a Court of Commissioners, a kind of supreme court of appeals, within the United States, with powers to proceed, un fendants to make no defence; with a right to bind the United States to pay debts which they owe not, and to any extent or amount which that court may think fit to decree; and it is unconstitutional, because it authorizes the PRESIDENT to create certain offices, and annex salaries thereto. In these instances, at least, I think the Treaty unconstitutional; for I think that Congress cannot authorize the PRESIDENT to do away the power of Congress or to establish a APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. OF R. But, passing over this consideration, there had been pretty large views taken of the manner in which the Treaty came before them. The gentlemen from New York and Virginia had entered into the subject. He must beg leave to differ from the gentleman from New York as to the matter of fact relative to that House in the concerns of Government two years ago. He had no apprehensions at the time the Envoy was sent to Britain to negotiate a Treaty, that Britain would have commenced a war if that measure had not been adopted; so far from it, that a majority of that House thought differently. He had no doubt that war, and the destruction of liberty altogether, had been meditated by Great Britain; but before the negotiation was commenced, circumstances occurred which caused her to give up this extravagant design. Before the negotiator was appointed, it is well known that the plundering Order of the 6th November was revoked. The gentle court of appeals superior to the Federal Supreme Court; that, whatever would be unconstitutional, if done by Congress, cannot be constitutional if done by the PRESIDENT and British King. But, sir, if the Treaty were not unconstitutional, that is, if the PRESIDENT and Senate had a right to deprive Congress of the power it claims, and to interfere with the Judiciary, yet the exercise of that right in the present case, ought to be viewed as so pernicious to the United States as to render the Treaty null and void; or, at least, it ought to be viewed as an argument of sufficient weight to induce this House to refuse their aid towards carrying this Treaty into operation. And were it even constitutional and advantageous to the United States in every article, yet, as it acquiesces in a violation of the rights of neutral nations in favor of Great Britain, and in some instances, to such a degree as to be thought even by the PRESIDENT himself, to afford just ground for discontent on the part of our allies, it will be dishon-man from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had given a very orable and highly impolitic in this House to be in any manner instrumental in carrying it into effect. As it has not been in the power of the United States to assist their Republican allies, when fighting in fact their battles, the least they can do, or the least that the world and those allies can expect from them, must be, that they will not put the enemies of those allies into a better condition than they were by making Treaties with them during the present war. good narrative of events in Europe, which fully showed the cause of this change of conduct. That gentleman had also gone through the Treaty, article by article, in a manner so much to his satisfaction, that he should not attempt to follow him. Before the negotiation took place, we had suffered considerably by British spoliations, and that House thought of various means to make it the interest of that power not to continue their depredations. First one plan was proposed and then another. It need not be mentioned that amongst these was the plan of sequestration, the future power of doing which this Treaty proposed to deprive them of. It was discussed in the House, but no question Mr. FINDLAY said he should not think it necessary to resume any of the arguments relative to a principle which had already been settled in that House; yet, he observed, that every gentleman who spoke on the subject seemed to argue what were the rights of that body upon the sub-taken on it, to show that negotiation was not ject of Treaties, as if no question had already been had on the occasion. afraid of war, they were more and more convinced that it was in their power to make it the interest of Britain to refrain from their acts of violence towards us. thought necessary. He mentioned a conversation which had taken place betwixt a gentleIt had been insisted upon, notwithstanding the man then in the Cabinet (now no more) and decision which had been had, that a Treaty was himself, which confirmed his opinion of the proa law when it came before that House, and they priety of the measures. A bill for regulating had no power but to appropriate to carry it into commerce in such a manner as to make it the effect. He said this opinion was directly con- interest of Britain to refrain from injuring us, trary to the opinion held on the constitution at and redress the wrongs we had suffered by the time it was accepted in Pennsylvania. Mo-spoliations, was agreed to by the House, but neral discretion, he said, was necessary to be ex-gatived in the Senate. So far from being then ercised in every decision of that House, except the constitution had prescribed to them some positive rule of action. In ratifying the constitution in the State of Pennsylvania, this was the understanding of it. The minority in the convention did not wish so much power placed in the Executive, and he appealed to gentlemen in that convention, if this was not the doctrine asserted by the majority in answer to the objections of the minority. Indeed, if they were not to have exercised a moral obligation upon the Treaties, the constitution would have expressly said so, as in the case of the PRESIDENT's salary, the pay of the Judges, Army appropriations, &c. If they had not been limited in these articles by the constitution, they certainly would have had the power to have changed them if they had thought proper. Mr. MOORE.-Mr. Chairman, I rise with diffidence to give my sentiments on so important a question as that now before you, especially as I have been preceded by gentlemen whose superior abilities have enabled them to investigate the subject with more accuracy than I am capable of. I consider the object as important of itself. It is rendered more so by the warmth with which it has been discussed-the irritation it has produced, both in this House and on the public mind. I lament that improper motives should be imputed to gentlemen on either side. I am disposed to believe, that gentlemen aim at doing what will best promote the public inter |