Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Having taken this brief review of the positive evils in this part of the treaty, I might add the various omissions, which are chargeable upon it: but, as I shall not pretend to exhaust the subject, I will mention only one, and that is, the utterly neglecting to provide for the exhibition of sea papers; and, I cannot help regarding this omission as truly extraordinary, when I observe that in almost every modern treaty, and particularly in all our other treaties, an article on this subject has been regularly inserted. Indeed it has become almost an article of course in the treaties of the present century.

law of nations, and as ruinous to our commerce | United States have an equal interest at stake, and agriculture, it has the following paragraph: and equally entitled to protection, it is aban"This act, too, tends to draw us from that state doned to all the dangers which it has expeof peace in which we are willing to remain. It rienced. is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids not stipulated by treaty"—that is, sir, by a treaty made prior to the war-"to one party, which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to be sent to France. To restrain it would be a partiality that must lead to war; and between restraining it ourselves, and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully, there is no difference. She would consider it as a mere pretext, of which she certainly would not agree to be the dupe; and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus we should see ourselves plunged, by this unauthorized act of Great Britain, into a war, with which we meddle not, and which we wish to avoid, if justice to all parties, and from all parties, will enable us to avoid it."* Sir, I entreat the committee to give this very interesting executive document all the attention which it demands, and which they have in their power to bestow.

I shall now, sir, consider the aspect in which the commercial articles of this treaty present themselves for consideration. In the free intercourse stipulated between the United States and Great Britain, it cannot be pretended that any advantage is gained by the former. A treaty is surely not necessary to induce Great Britain to receive our raw materials and to sell us her manufactures. Let us, on the other hand, consider what is given up by the United States. It is well known that when our government became into operation, the tonnage of America, employed in the British trade, bore a very inconsiderable proportion to the British tonnage. There being nothing on our side to counteract the influence of capital and other circumstances on the British side, that disproportion was the natural state of things. As some small balance to the British advantages, and particularly that of her capital, our laws have made several regulations in favor of our shipping, among which is the important encouragement resulting from the difference of ten per centum in the duties paid by American and foreign vessels. Under this encouragement, the American tonnage has increased in a very respectable degree of proportion to the British tonnage. Great Britain has never deemed it prudent to frustrate or diminish the effects of this, by attemping any countervailing measures for her shipping; being aware, no doubt, that we could easily preserve the difference by further measures on our side but by this treaty, she has reserved to herself the right to take such countervailing measures against our existing regulations, and we have surrendered our right to pursue further defensive measures against the influence of her capital. It is justly to be apprehended, therefore, that under such a restoration of things to their former state, the American tonnage will relapse into its former disproportion to the British tonnage.

I am now, sir, come to that article of the treaty by which the sequestration of British property is prohibited; upon which I must say, that though I should, in all probability, one of the last men existing, to have recourse to such an expedient for redress, I cannot approve of a perpetual and irrevocable abandonmert of a defensive weapon, the existence of which may render the use of it unnecessary. Sir, there is an extraordinary peculiarity in the situation of this country, as it stands in its relations to Great Britain. As we have no fleets or armies, to command a respect for our rights, we ought to keep in our own hands all such means as our situation gives us. This article, sir, is another instance of the very little regard that has been paid to reciprocity. It is well known, that British subjects now have, and are likely always to have in this country, a vast quantity of property of the kind made sacred. American citizens, it is known, have little, and are likely to have little of the kind in Great Britain. If a real reciprocity was intended, why are not other kinds of private property, such as vessels and their cargoes, equally protected against violation? These, even within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, are left open to seizure and sequestration, if Great Britain shall find it expedient; and why is not property on the high seas, under the protection of the law of nations, which is said to be a part of the law of the land, made secure by a like stipulation? This would have given a face of equality and reciprocity to the bargain. But nothing of the sort makes a part of it. Where Great Britain has a particular interest at stake, the treaty watchfully provides for it; when the

Sir, when I turn my attention to that branch of the subject which relates to the West Indies, I see still greater cause for astonishment and dissatisfaction. As the treaty now stands, Great

* Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. 1854, vol. 4, page 61. | Britain is left as free, as she ever has been, to

continue to herself and her shipping, the entire |
monopoly of the intercourse. Recollecting, as
I do, and as every member of the committee
must do, the whole history of this subject, from
the peace of 1783, through every subsequent
stage of our independence, down to the mission
of the late envoy, I find it impossible, ade-
quately to express my astonishment, that any
treaty of commerce should ever have been ac-
ceded to, that so entirely abandoned the very
object for which alone such a treaty could have
been contemplated; I never could have be-
lieved that the time was so near, when all the
principles, claims and calculations, which have
heretofore prevailed among all classes of peo-
ple, in every part of the Union, on this inter-
esting point, were to be so completely re-
nounced. A treaty of commerce with Great
Britain, excluding a reciprocity for our vessels
in the West India trade, is a phenomenon which
fills me with great surprise.

as well in the case of colonies as of any other part of her dominions. Great Britain has the same right to prohibit foreign trade between London and the United States, as between Jamaica and the United States; but if no such prohibition be made with respect to either, she is equally bound to allow foreign vessels a common right with her own in both. If Great Britain were to say, that no trade whatever should be carried on between London and the United States, she would exercise a right of which we could not reasonably complain. If she were to say, that no American vessels should be employed in the trade, it would produce just complaints, and justify a reciprocal regulation as to her vessels. The case of the trade from a port in the West Indies is precisely similar.

In order that the omission of the treaty to provide a reciprocity for our vessels in the West India trade, may be placed in its true light, it will be proper to attend to another part of the treaty, which ties up the hands of this country against every effort for making it the interest of Great Britain to yield to our reasonable claims. For this end I beg leave to na-point out to the committee the clause which restrains the United States from imposing prohibitions or duties on Great Britain, in any case, which shall not extend to all other nations, and to observe, that the clause makes it impossible to operate on the unreasonable policy of that nation, without suspending our commerce at the same time with all other nations, whose regulations, with respect to us, may be ever so favorable and satisfactory.

I may be told, perhaps, that in the first place, Great Britain grants to no other nation the privilege granted to the United States of trading at all with her West Indies, and that, in the second place, this is an important relaxation of the colonial system established among the tions of Europe. To the first of these observations, I reply, that no other nation bears the same relation to the West Indies as the United States; that the supplies of the United States are essential to those islands; and that the trade with them has been permitted purely on that account, and not as a beneficial privilege to the United States.

To the second, I reply, that it is not true, that the colony system requires an exclusion of foreign vessels from the carrying trade between the colonies and foreign countries. On the contrary, the principle and practice of the colony system are, to prohibit, as much as may be convenient, all trade between the colonies and foreign countries; but when such a trade is permitted at all, as necessary for the colonies, then to allow the vessels of such foreign countries a reciprocal right of being employed in the trade. Great Britain has accordingly restrained the trade of her islands with this country, as far as her interest in them will permit. But, has she allowed our vessels the reciprocal right to carry on the trade so far as it is not restrained?-No such thing. Here she enforces a monopoly in her own favor, contrary to justice, and contrary to the colonial system of every European nation that possesses any colonies; none of whom, without a single exception, ever open a trade between their colonies and other countries, without opening it equally to vessels on both sides. This is evidently nothing more than strict justice. A colony is a part of an empire. If a nation choose, she may prohibit all trade between a colony and a foreign country, as she may between any other part of her dominions and a foreign country; but if she permit such a trade at all, it must be free to vessels on both sides,

The fifteenth article, Mr. Chairman, has another extraordinary feature, which I should imagine must strike every observer. In other treaties, which profess to put the parties on the footing of the most favored nation, it is stipulated that where new favors are granted to a particular nation in return for favors received, the party claiming the new favor shall pay the price of it. This is just and proper where the footing of the most favored nation is established at all. But this article gives to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation, without requiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those granted by such nation. Hence it will happen, that if Spain, Portugal or France shall open their colonial ports to the United States, in consideration of certain privileges in our trade, the same privileges will result gratis and ipso facto to Great Britain. This stipulation, sir, I consider as peculiarly impolitic, and such an one as cannot fail to form, in the view of the committee, a very solid and weighty objection to the treaty.

I dare say, sir, that by the advocates of the treaty great stress will be laid on the article relating to the East Indies. To those who are better acquainted with the subject than I can pretend to be, I shall resign the task of examining and explaining that part of the subject.

With two observations, however, I must trouble | the committee, before I drop the subject of this article; one is, that some gentlemen, as judicious and well informed as any who can be consulted, declare that they consider this article as affording not a shadow of advantage to the United States. The other is, that no privilege is stipulated in it, which has not heretofore been uniformly granted without stipulation; and as the grant can have proceeded from no motive but a pure regard to the British interest in that country, there was every reasonable security that the trade would continue open as it had been, under the same consideration.

notice of two considerations, which have been made great use of by way of inducing Congress to carry the treaty into effect. In the first place, it has been said, that the greater part of the treaty is to continue in force for no longer time than two years after the termination of the present war in Europe; and that no very great evils can grow out of it in that short period. To this I reply, that ten of the articles, containing very objectionable stipulations, are perpetual; and that, in the next place, it will be in the power of Great Britain, at the expiration of the other articles, to produce the same causes for the renewal of them, as are now urged in their support. If we are now to enforce the treaty, lest Great Britain should stir up the Indians, and refuse to pay our merchants for the property of which she has plundered them, can she not, at the end of two or three years, plunder them again, to the same or a greater amount? Cannot the same apprehensions be revived with respect to the Indians, and will not the arguments then be as strong as they are now, for renewing the same treaty, or for making any other equal sacrifices that her purposes may dictate?

It has been asked, What will be the consequences of refusing to carry the treaty into effect? I answer, that the only supposable consequence is, that the executive, if governed by the prudence and patriotism which I do not doubt will govern that department, will of course pursue the measures most likely to obtain a reconsideration and remodification of the offensive parts of the treaty. The idea of war as a consequence of refusing to give effect to the treaty is too visionary and incredible to be admitted into the question. No man will say that the United States, if they be really an in

Such, Mr. Chairman, being the character of this treaty, with respect to the execution of the treaty of peace, the great principles of the law of nations, and the regulations of commerce, it never can be viewed as having any claim to be carried into effect on its own account. Is there then any consideration, extraneous to the treaty, that can furnish the requisite motives? On this part of the subject, the House is wholly without information. The continuance of the spoliations on our trade, and the impressment of our seamen, whether to be understood as practical comments on the treaty, or as infractions of it, cannot but enforce on the minds of the committee the most serious reflections. And here, sir, I beg leave to refer once more to the passage I have already read, extracted from the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Pinckney, and to ask if, as there stated by the executive, our neutrality and peace are to be exposed, by permitting practices of that kind, what must be thought of our giving effect, in the midst of such practices, to a treaty from which a countenance may be derived by that nation for going on further with them? I am aware that the executive, notwithstand-dependent people, have not a right to judge of ing the doctrine and policy laid down as above, their own interests, and to decline any treaty has finally concurred in the treaty under all that does not duly provide for them. A refuthese circumstances. But I do not consider sal, therefore, in such cases, can afford no that as invalidating the reasoning drawn from cause, nor pretext, nor provocation for war, or the present state of things. I may be treading for any just resentment. But, apart from this, on delicate ground, but I cannot think it im- is it conceivable that Great Britain, with all proper to remark, because it is a known fact, the dangers and embarrassments that are thickthat the executive paused for some weeks after ening on her, will wantonly make war on a the concurrence of the Senate, before he ratified country which is the best market she has in the treaty with his signature; and I think it the world for her manufactures, which pays her may fairly be presumed, that the true grounds an annual balance, in specie, of ten or twelve of that pause were the renewal of spoliations, millions of dollars, and whose supplies, moreand a recollection of the light in which they over, are essential to an important part of her had been represented; that, on that supposition, dominions? Such a degree of infatuation ought he was probably influenced in signing the not to be ascribed to any country. And, at the treaty when he did, by an expectation that present crisis, for reasons well known, an unsuch a mark of confidence in the British gov- provoked war from Great Britain, on this counernment would produce an abolition of the un-try, would argue a degree of madness greater lawful proceeding, and consequently, if it were than any other circumstances that can well be foreseen that the spoliations would have been imagined. continued, as we find them to be, the treaty would not have been then signed, or if it had not been then signed, it would not be signed under the circumstances of the moment, when it falls under our consideration.

I shall conclude, Mr. Chairman, with taking

With all the objections, therefore, to the treaty, which I have stated, I hope it will not now be carried into effect, and that an opportunity will take place for reconsidering the subject, on principles more just and favorable to the United States.

JOHN JAY.

AMONG those Huguenots who were compelled, on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, to abandon their country or renounce their religion, was Pierre Jay, the great grandfather of the subject of the present memoir. After suffering great contumely at the hands of the Catholics, he fled to England, managing, through the strictest precaution, to carry with him a sufficiency adequate to the support of himself and his family. Having escaped from persecution and reached a friendly country, nothing remained to cause anxiety but the fate of his son Augustus, who had gone on a voyage to Africa, and would probably return to France without having been apprised of the troubles and flight of his family. This accordingly happened. On his arrival at Rochelle he found himself in a situation not easy to be described. The persecution was proceeding with increasing severity, and every circumstance pressed him to decide, without delay, on the measures proper to pursue. The kindness of his friends facilitated every necessary arrangement for his departure, and in a short time he embarked for Charleston in South Carolina. Finding the climate of that locality unfavorable to his health, he went to Philadelphia, and from thence to New York. Here he met many friends who had left Rochelle to escape the Popish persecution, and soon established himself in business. In 1697 he married a daughter of Mr. Balthazar, by whom he had four children, the youngest a son, "whom, in honor of his father, he named Peter." This son married a daughter of Jacobus Van Cortlandt, in 1728, and was blessed with ten children.

ance.

John Jay, the eighth child of Peter, was born in the city of New York, on the twelfth day of December, 1745. At an early period he manifested a grave and studious disposition. Under the care and instruction of his mother, he acquired the rudiments of English and the Latin grammar, and, at the age of eight years, was placed at a school kept by the Reverend Mr. Stoope, at New Rochelle. Here he remained about two years, continuing his subsequent studies at home, under a private tutor, until he reached the age of fourteen years. In 1760 he entered the Freshman class of King's (now Columbia) College, where he applied himself with resolution and perseverHis studious habits and correct deportment acquired for him the friendship of the President, Dr. Samuel Johnson, who, on his retirement from the college, during the third year of young Jay's course, wrote a letter to his favorite pupil, inviting him to visit him, and assuring him of his prayers that he might "continue to act a good part." On the fifteenth of May, 1764, Mr. Jay graduated with the highest honors of his class, and two weeks after, entered the office of Mr. Benjamin Kissam, as a student at law. "His talents and virtues gave at that period," says the celebrated Lindley Murray,* "pleasing indications of future eminence. He was remarkable for strong reasoning powers, comprehensive views, indefatigable application, and uncommon firmness of mind. With these qualifications, added to a just taste in literature, and ample stores of learning and knowledge, he was happily prepared to enter on that career of public virtue by which he was afterward honorably distinguished, and made instrumental in promoting the good of his country." On his admission to the bar in 1768, he entered into partner

• Lindley Murray, the celebrated author of several works on grammar and religion, was a fellow-student with Mr. Jay, in the office of Mr. Kissam.-Murray's Memoir.

ship with Robert R. Livingston, afterward Chancellor of the State of New York, and immediately commenced an extensive and profitable practice.

In 1774 Mr. Jay married Sarah, the youngest daughter of William Livingston, afterward Governor of New Jersey, and a political writer of great wit and power. At this period his prospects of domestic happiness and professional eminence were unusually brilliant; but the storm of the Revolution soon darkened the political horizon, and he was called upon to support the rights of his countrymen, abroad and at home. On the passage of the Boston Port Bill, a meeting was holden in New York, "to consult on the measures proper to be pursued in consequence of the late extraordinary advices received from England," and a committee of fifty was organized to correspond with the other Colonies "on all matters of moment." Of this committee Mr. Jay was an active member, being placed on a sub-committee, appointed to prepare answers to whatever letters might be received. In this position his services were of the highest importance.*

On the fifth day of September, 1774, Mr. Jay took his seat in the Congress at Philadelphia, as a delegate from New York. He was then in the twenty-ninth year of his age, and probably the youngest member of that body. The first day of the session, Congress appointed a committee "to state the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which those rights are violated or infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them." Mr. Jay was a member of that committee, and soon after was placed on another for preparing an address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and a memorial to the people of British America. The preparation of the former was assigned to him. To secure himself from interruption, he left his lodgings and shut himself up in a neighboring tavern, and there completed that eloquent state paper which Mr. Jefferson declared to be "a production, certainly, of the finest pen in America," and which elicited the highest applause and admiration, both at home and abroad. On the return of Mr. Jay from the Congress to New York, he was elected a member of a Committee of Observation "for carrying into effect the measures proposed for interrupting the commerce of Great Britain with her colonies," and shortly after a member of a committee of Association. This committee was invested with general undefined powers, and in the absence of all legal authority, was not unmindful of the interests of the people which had been assigned to its care. They called out the militia, perfected their discipline, and ordered them to patrol the streets by night, to prevent any disobedience to the "people's rules concerning exportation." They also addressed a letter to the Lord Mayor and magistrates of London, on the subject of American grievances. This letter bore the signature of Mr. Jay. The Provincial Congress assembled at New York on the twenty-eighth of May, and assuming the powers of government, relieved this committee of its responsibility.

The second Congress assembled at Philadelphia, on the tenth of May, 1775, where Mr. Jay attended as a member. The battle of Lexington had occurred a short time previous to the meeting, and it was apparent that the English ministry purposed to use force wherever they should find it necessary to carry out their designs. The defence of New York now attracted the attention of Congress, and application was made by the New York members for advice as to the course proper to be observed by their constituents, in the event of an arrival of British armament at their city. Congress recommended that the people should "not commence hostilities, but to repel force by force, and not to permit the British to erect fortifications, or to cut off the communication between the town and country." But it being evident that an organized force would be necessary to carry out even the defensive which had been recommended, Congress took measures to raise a militia, and adopted a code of "Rules and Regulations of the American Army." On the appointment of the subordinate generals, a few days after Washington was chosen commander-in-chief, Mr. Jay proposed Mr. Sullivan, then a delegate in Congress from New Hampshire, saying "that his good sense was known to the House, and as to his military talents, he would take his chance for them." The nomination was confirmed, and the

*This meeting of the citizens of New York, was holden on the 16th of May, 1774. The minutes of the committee appointed by them, are still preserved in the library of the New York Historical Society, and form a valuable and interesting document.

Autobiography; in the Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. 1853, vol. 1, page 10.

« AnteriorContinuar »