Execution of British Treaty

Tuesday, April 19.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the motion for making provision for carrying into effect the Treaty with Great Britain; when

Mr. Heath rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: In the discussion of this so momentous and important a subject, and so big at the same time with the dearest interests of our common country, I shall not attempt any critical analysis upon the good and bad parts of the instrument, as the gentlemen preceding me in this debate have already done, but only confine myself to a few remarks, to justify my conduct to God and my country for the vote I shall give in the ultimate decision of the question. Mr. Chairman, permit me here to remark, that during the recess of the last Congress, when the American mind was roused with so much irritation and sensibility through all parts of the Union against this paper, after its first appearance in public print, I was one of those who kept aloof from the storm, suspended my opinion, became of no party, considering myself hereafter bound to discharge the important duties of an American Representative on the occasion. And now since the commencement of the present session, though two-thirds of my time overwhelmed with disease, and daily languishing in the bed of pain, even under such a dreadful personal calamity, my reflections were not turned aside from the awfulness of the subject before us; which before and during this discussion, I confess, as often as I have revolved in my mind, with a review of the situation of my country, I have frequently paused, not knowing the best expedient to pursue to avoid impending evils.

Mr. Chairman, I have strange forebodings on this occasion. By the second and third articles of the instrument before you, in the surrender of the posts, British subjects have a right to reside with us; Indians have a right to pass and repass from post to post from our district to their portages and ferriages free, all in the vicinity within gun-shot. Will not their traders continue their old acquaintanceship with them in spite of us? Are not their capitals for trade larger than ours? Where, then, are the real profits anticipated? All visionary, like the beggar's dream, grasping mountains of gold, and when the morning sun shakes off his slumber, it dissipates the delusion. But time will make more converts than reason. Further, before I quit this subject of inequality, I wish to remark, by way of reply to my much respected friend from Connecticut, who was up a few days ago, in language nearly similar, and the same sort of ingenuity of a celebrated champion, who has dedicated much labor in favor of this instrument, under the signature of Camillus, that Great Britain had never violated the seventh article of the Treaty of Peace in not restoring the slaves and other property; that they were taken in war, and their freedom offered to them by the British commanders, and were not taken after a cessation of hostilities; and, therefore, were not proper objects of surrender. Oh, the deceit, the sophistry of this construction! I shall just answer it by reading from the Journals of the old Congress what the real Camillus, or, in other words, the learned Mr. Hamilton, thought of that article at that time. He read the Journals of 1783, where Mr. Hamilton moved in Congress for commissioners to be sent to New York to the British commander to request an explanation respecting an infraction of that article. So was Mr. Hamilton's opinion at that time, so was the prevalent opinion of all America at that time. My second point, the want of reciprocity in the instrument, has been so well explained by my worthy colleague from Virginia, that I confess I am curtailed in my sentiments a little here. But, suffice it to say, that the local circumstances of this country will make the suspension of the law of alienage more advantageous by tenfold, than could be reaped by American citizens over the other side of the water. Witness the great disproportion between American citizens holding lands in Britain and British subjects in this country. I wish it may not revive old proprietary rights, with its long train of tenure, fealty, and vassalage. Perhaps my fears may ensue from residing in that of Virginia, where this tenure once prevailed. I now come to the third objection, and the most important. Other objections, though they have their weight in my mind, yet perhaps they might yield their force, were it not for this the more insurmountable. This might be said with propriety to be the foundation of the call for papers from the Executive respecting the Treaty.

By the various articles embracing this subject, the House of Representatives of the United States, in the Treaty-making power, have lived to see the day, which I am sure no human sagacity could have ever divined, that they may be considered as a perfect collective cypherical body of men in legislation, reduced to a mere Committee of Ways and Means, subservient to Executive policy, just called together, for voting the necessary supplies of money for foreign negotiation, or for the current annual expenses of Government. America is here totally disarmed of every alternative to resort to in the hour of distress—to prevent the horrors of war, no sequestration, no embargo, no commercial restriction, can be the subject of future legislation against the tender and humane people of Britain.

Is this right, is this just, that all our rights should be thus bartered away under a Treaty-making power? If it is so, and it must be borne, dreadful, dreadful, indeed, must be the calamity of future generations of America, under the operation of this Government; for any one of them, or all together, I would resort to an awful national crisis, sooner than sound the trumpet of war, and let the banners of blood loose upon the earth.

Mr. Williams said, that various opinions had been delivered upon the various subjects involved in the Treaty. He should take the liberty of stating to the committee his sentiments on the occasion, and then inquire into the policy or impolicy of carrying the Treaty into effect. But, in the first place, he conceived it to be necessary to take a view of its origin, the division, and party dissensions which then prevailed—the critical posture of our affairs, the depredations committed on our commerce, and the probability of a war.

Let us, said Mr. W., take a view of the debates of that House in the year 1793 and 1794, and he believed it would be discovered that if the business of negotiation had not taken place, this country must have been involved in a war. It would be remembered, that a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Madison,) on the 3d of January, 1794, laid on the table of this House seven resolutions. The object of which was to compel Britain to come to some terms of accommodation, and to prevent further depredations on our commerce.

After a discussion of several weeks, the first resolution, which was for imposing an additional duty on the importation of a great variety of manufactures from nations having no Commercial Treaty with the United States was agreed to by a small majority. Britain had, said he, ever since the end of the war, declined entering into any Commercial Treaty with us. In the mean time, the danger from British depredations augmented with such rapidity that those resolutions became insufficient, by reason of the seizure of an immense number of our vessels, in consequence of instructions that had been given by the British Ministry on the 6th of November, 1793; and other resolutions were then moved for the sequestration of British property, but the result was an embargo and negotiation.

Was it not then urged by members of that House that the British nation refused to negotiate with them? It was, indeed, supposed it would be attended with considerable difficulties, and that a considerable class of citizens, let the consequences be what they might, would not be satisfied with the result. However, it was thought best to adopt the measure.

But, said Mr. W., let us waive this subject, and inquire if negotiation had failed, whether war would not have been the consequence? Can it be supposed that, after the British had committed certain spoliations on our commerce; after their Order of the 6th of November, 1793; after the declaration of Lord Dorchester to the Indians, that war would not have followed? The national pride of Great Britain could not have yielded to compulsion without self-degradation; and it would be remembered, too, that from the relation in which the two countries have stood to each other, it must have cost more to the pride of Britain to have received the law from us than from any other power. And if war had been the consequence, how were we to have recovered the amount of the spoliations committed on the property of our merchants? How were we to act? Were we to demand satisfaction? We have no protection to our commerce, and therefore the British can at any time arrest it without additional expense to themselves, having near 500 vessels of war at command.

What had been our situation ever since the negotiation? Have we not, said he, been one of the happiest nations upon earth? Yet we are about to oppose the necessary appropriations to carry into effect that Treaty which hath been the means of keeping us in a neutrality, and thereby hazard a war which may be our ruin.

But, if we arrest the Treaty by refusing to make the necessary appropriations, can we suppose Great Britain will carry the Treaty into effect on her part? It would be inconsistent to think so. Great Britain was certainly acquainted with what was going on within these walls, and would refuse to give up the posts at the time specified. Who had been the cause of the posts being so long kept from the United States? The State of New York had been too long kept from its just due; that State had not prevented the British from obtaining their debt, and the people now looked with anxious expectation to the time when the posts were to be given up. They were, at present, considerably alarmed, lest the British Treaty should not be carried into effect. He had received letters that morning, from some of his constituents, who were at New York, endeavoring to sell their produce (for a number of the farmers in that part of the country which he came from, did not sell their produce to the merchants, but attended the market with it themselves.) They write the price of flour had already fallen three dollars a barrel, and wheat four shillings per bushel. Who were to be the losers, under these circumstances? The farmers. Who had the most produce to sell? The farmers in the State of New York. The other day a resolution was laid upon our table, proposing to lay an embargo on the exportation of corn. This, if it had been agreed to, would have had an immediate effect on the State of New York.

What was the effect of the embargo in 1794? The farmers were obliged to sell their produce for what they could get. Whatever loss was experienced, fell upon the farmer; and so it will be with respect to their present proceedings. If merchants cannot get insurance, will they send their vessels out? No; and they will certainly give no more produce than they can sell their articles for, with a trade profit.

The great objection against the Treaty was, that payment for the negroes which were carried away by the British, at the close of the war, was not provided for. It appears that this, at best, was a doubtful point. General Carlton, previous to his leaving New York at the close of the war, and when the negroes were demanded of him, said, that many slaves had been declared free by his predecessors before his own arrival; over these, he said, he neither possessed nor could assume any control. He considered them as at liberty to go to any part of the world which they thought proper. He was unwilling to suppose that the British Ministry could stipulate, by any Treaty, to make themselves guilty of a notorious breach of public faith to people of any color. He considered restoration, where inseparable from a violation of that faith, as, in itself, utterly impracticable.

It was acknowledged by every gentleman that the Treaty of 1783 was broken by the United States; and, if so, what could their negotiator do? The British Government would not come into the same terms as the Treaty of 1783, in the sense and meaning of the gentleman from Virginia, nor would they admit that that Treaty compelled them to give up or make restitution for the negroes. Their negotiator, thus situated, no doubt concluded that the amount of the negroes was not an object which ought to prevent a negotiation so desirable at that time, and agreeable to the law of nations. The Treaty of 1783 had been violated. Here Mr. W. quoted several authorities, among which was Marten's Law of Nations: "The violation of one article only of a Treaty, by one party, may, at least successively, give the other a right to violate the whole Treaty, unless this right has been formally renounced."

The United States having violated that Treaty, there was no other way than commencing a negotiation. And would gentlemen say that the negotiation had not been attended with beneficial consequences to this country? Was not peace the most to be desired, especially in our present situation? Had not the managers of our Government kept a watchful eye on our affairs? Had not our neutrality been the occasion of our wealth and prosperity? And having now entered into a Treaty with Spain, Algiers, and Natives, let us carry that with Great Britain into effect, and secure to us peace with all the world.

When Mr. Williams had concluded—

Mr. Hillhouse rose and said, the subject now under consideration was one of the first in magnitude he had ever been called to deliberate upon, and that the circumstances under which it came up were peculiar, for previous to the Treaty's being either promulgated or known, a hue-and-cry had been raised, and the prejudices of the people as much as possible excited against it, and he confessed it had not been without its effect upon his own mind. When the Treaty came out, therefore, he was led to examine it with attention, compare it with our Treaties with other nations, and those between Great Britain and other nations; the result of this inquiry was, that he found that no privilege or advantage given by Great Britain to the other nations was withheld from us; that advantages were secured to us which were enjoyed by no other nation, nor even by her own subjects: that we gave her little that was not enjoyed by every other nation; and, on the whole, that it was as good a Treaty as we had a right to expect, and as he had ever expected to obtain. He was sensible that prejudice, which, like a sentinel at the door of the human mind to keep out truth and argument, had induced many good citizens of the United States at first to be opposed to the Treaty, who, upon being prevailed on to give it a more candid examination, had declared in favor of it; but he hoped the Representatives of the people, called to decide on a question which might affect the dearest interests of millions, would, as much as possible, divest themselves of prejudice and passion: to do it entirely, he believed, was impossible.

The first, and, if well-founded, the most important objection which he had heard made against the Treaty was, that a claim for negroes and other property carried away from New York had been wholly overlooked or given up by our Minister. Here, he said, he was sensible any argument he might adduce would be opposed by the party opinions formed at the time—when judging in our own case, and when we felt a great degree of sensibility for the losses and injuries we had recently experienced. He was not unapprised that Congress had claimed that the construction of the 7th article of the Treaty was such as to require the delivering up of the negroes, and had passed the resolution read by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Heath,) and that that opinion had, without examination, been implicitly followed by many respectable characters; but he hoped at this distance of time, he might expect a candid hearing, whilst he examined their arguments and the law of nations, to which alone resort can be had to decide differences between sovereign and independent nations. To his mind they were conclusive that we had not a well-founded claim; to every mind, he believed, they would render the claim at least doubtful.

His first inquiry, he said, should be, whether negroes were to be considered as property? This, he believed, must be admitted: they were thus recognized by the article itself, which says "negroes or other property." Negroes being mentioned amounts only to a specification of one kind of property; as, in the constitution, it says "capitation or other direct taxes," which is a conclusive recognition that a capitation tax is a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution. Upon no other ground than that of property could the United States claim them; as men, they had a right to go where they pleased. Our commissioners, at the time of the embarkation, had no hesitation in declaring that they considered "negroes, horses, and other property," as being precisely on the same footing, and selected a claim for a horse as one of the strongest that could be found to enforce a compliance with this construction of the article. The claim was in these words:

"Mr. Vanderburgh had a horse stolen from him, out of his stable in Beekman's Precinct, in Dutchess County, 26th February, 1780, and the horse was conveyed by the person who stole him to a then British post, in Westchester County, where he has since been detained; so that Mr. Vanderburgh could not recover him again. The horse is now in the possession of Col. James De Launcy, of this city, from whom Mr. Vanderburgh has demanded him, and who refuses to deliver him to Mr. Vanderburgh."

In the letter of the Commissioners to General Washington, on this subject, they say:

"In the interview between the 15th and 24th, numbers applied to us for a restitution of their negroes and other property in the possession of others, but we supposed it most eligible to defer a requisition till a clear unequivocal case, similar to that of Mr. Vanderburgh's, where the proofs were at hand and not embarrassed with the circumstances of a capture in war or other pretences under which property is withheld here, should present itself; sensible that if restitution was denied in such an instance, it would inevitably be in every other."

It therefore appears clear that negroes, horses, and other property, were, by this article, placed upon the same footing, and that it was as much a violation of the Treaty to carry away a horse as a negro.

He next proceeded to inquire what was the situation of this property, and in whom, according to the law of nations, it was vested at the time of executing the Treaty? This point, he said, Mr. Jefferson had fully settled to his hand, and read out of his collection the following extracts:

"We now come together (says Mr. Jefferson) to consider that instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new chapter in our history. The state in which they found things is to be considered as rightful; so says the Law of Nations.—Vattel. The state in which things are found at the moment of the Treaty, should be considered as lawful, and if it is meant to make any change in it, the Treaty must expressly mention it. Consequently, all things about which the Treaty is silent, must remain in the state in which they are found at its conclusion.—Bynk. Since it is a condition of war that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it is reasonable that every thing of an enemy's, found among his enemies, should change its owners, and go to the Treasury. It is moreover usually directed, in all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well those found among us as those taken in war, shall be confiscated."

These authorities, he said, clearly proved that all negroes and other property which in the 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-in-Chief 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.

But this matter does not rest only on there being no words in the Treaty which can be construed to have a retrospective operation, but it is fairly to be inferred from the papers contained in this same collection of Mr. Jefferson, that it was so understood by the negotiators; for, in the course of that negotiation; it appears to have been a primary object with the British Minister to obtain restitution of the Tory estates, or compensation for them. They almost made a sine qua non, and a refusal to comply had well-nigh broken off the negotiation; and to induce the British Minister to relinquish that article, our commissioners brought in a claim for negroes and other property which had been taken, and towns and villages which had been destroyed during the war. He here read the following letter from Mr. Oswald, the British Minister, to our commissioners, viz:

"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 Refugees, who have taken part with Great Britain in 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 his arrival at Paris, has most strenuously joined me in insisting upon the said restitution, compensation, 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 who, on account of offences committed, or supposed to be committed, since the commencement of hostilities, may now be in confinement, and for an immediate repossession of their properties and peaceable enjoyment thereof, under the Government of the United States. To this you have not given a particular and direct answer. 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."

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 instances have passed by legal titles through several hands. Besides, sir, as this is a matter evidently appertaining to the internal policy of the separate States, the Congress, by the nature of our constitution, have no authority to interfere with it. As to your demand of compensation to those persons, we forbear enumerating our reasons for thinking it ill-founded. In the moment of conciliatory overtures, it would not be proper to call certain scenes into view, over which a variety of considerations should induce both parties at present to draw a veil. Permit us, therefore, only to repeat, that we cannot stipulate for such compensation, unless on your part it be agreed to make restitution to our citizens for the heavy losses they have sustained by the unnecessary destruction of private property. We have already agreed to an amnesty more extensive than justice required, and full as extensive as humanity would demand; we can therefore, only repeat, that it cannot be extended further. We should be sorry, if the absolute impossibility of 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, 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.

"Resolved, That, in the mean time, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs inform the said Minister, 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 former 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 Minister, 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."

The following article was accordingly drawn up and proposed to be inserted in the Treaty, viz:

"It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly recommend it to his Parliament to provide for and make compensation to the merchants and shopkeepers of Boston, whose goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of the stores, warehouses, and shops, by order of General Gage, and others of 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."

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 meet to-morrow at O.'s house, to sign and seal the Treaties."

Will any candid man say, after reviewing these circumstances, that the 7th article was 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 violation of the Treaty soon commenced on both sides, and each mustered up every tolerable claim; many of which have since been admitted on both sides to be groundless. A circumstance which strongly corroborated what he said was, Sir Guy Carlton's letter on that subject had also been so grossly misunderstood and misrepresented, from that time to this, and now 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 the King's Minister could deliberately stipulate in a Treaty an engagement to be guilty of a notorious breach of the public faith towards people of any complexion, seems to denote a less friendly disposition than I could wish, and I think less friendly than we might expect. After all, I only give my own opinion. Every negro's name is registered, the master he formerly belonged to, with such other circumstances as serve to denote his value, that it may be adjusted by compensation, if that was really the intention 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 impracticable."

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 witness 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."

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 directing an inventory of the negroes, was only an evidence of his being disposed to conduct candidly in the matter, and give us an opportunity to recover a compensation, if we could afterwards 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 construed 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 our right to demand of a foreign nation the restitution of a runaway slave. The United States are now at peace with all the world; suppose a slave should escape into the dominions of a foreign nation, and on demand they should refuse to deliver him up? he very much doubted whether we should have just ground of complaint. On the other hand, if any of our citizens may be so unfortunate as to be reduced to slavery by any of the Barbary powers 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 are carried into slavery in Africa, or the inhabitants of Africa are brought into slavery in the United States? He knew of no principle that made a difference between the natural rights of a white or black man. The first principle that is laid down in the rights of man, is, 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 claim.

Mr. Hillhouse requested gentlemen to pause a moment, and reflect what will be our situation if this Treaty is rejected. The peace of 1783 is agreed on both sides to have been infracted, 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 so, but they will also take every opportunity they have to make reprisal for the property they have already lost upon those who did them the injury, whether they belong to one nation or another. What, he asked, could be the end of all these things but war?