Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Arrangements, and by a large majority referred it to a Special Committee, viz: Messrs. OSGOOD, WILSON, MADISON, CARROLL, and WILLIAMSON; to whom was also referred the memorial of General Hazen.

On the preceding question, Connecticut was strenuous in favor of Mr. WILSON's motion.

A motion was made by Mr. DYER, to strike out the drawback on salt fish, &c. Mr. GORHAM protested in the most solemn manner that Massachusetts would never accede to the plan without the drawback. The motion was very little supported.

THURSDAY, APRIL 10TH.

Letters were received from General Carleton and Admiral Digby, enclosing the British Proclamation of the cessation of arms, and also letters from Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, notifying the conclusion of preliminaries between Great Britain and France, and Spain, with a declaration entered into with Mr. Fitzherbert, applying the epochs of cessation to the case of Great Britain and the United States. These papers were referred to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to report a Proclamation for Congress at six o'clock; at which time Congress met, and received the report nearly as it stands on the Journal of Friday, April the eleventh. After some consideration of the report as to the accuracy and propriety, of which a diversity of sentiments prevailed, they postponed it till next day. The Secretary also reported a resolution directing the Secretary at War and Agent of Marine to discharge all prisoners of war.

FRIDAY, APRIL 11TH.

This day was spent in discussing the Proclamation, which passed. Mr. WILSON proposed an abbreviation of it, which was disagreed to. The difficulties attending it were, first, the agreement of our Ministers with Fitzherbert, that the epochs with Spain as well as France should be applied to the United States, to be computed from the ratifications which happened at different times--the former on the third, the latter on the ninth, of February; second, the circumstance of the epochs having passed at which the cessation of hostilities was to be enjoined. The impatience of Congress did not admit of proper attention to these and some other points of the Proclamation; particularly the authoritative style of enjoining an observance on the United States, the Governors, &c. It was against these absurdities and improprieties that the solitary no of Mr. MERCER was pointed. See the Journal."

SATURDAY, APRIL 12TH.

A letter of the sixteenth of December, O. S., was received from Mr. Dana, in which he intimates that, in consequence of the news of peace taking place, and Independence being acknowledged by Great Britain, he expected soon to take his proper station at the Court of St. Petersburg, and to be engaged in forming a commercial treaty with Her Imperial Majesty.

Mr. MADISON observed, that as no powers or instructions had been given to Mr. Dana relative to a treaty of commerce, he apprehended there must be some mistake on the part of Mr. Dana; that it would be proper to inquire into the matter, and let him know the intentions of Congress on this subject. The letter was committed to Mr. MADISON, Mr. GORHAM, and Mr. FITZSIMMONS.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that, as the instructions to Foreign Ministers now stood, it was conceived they had no powers for commercial stipulations, other than such as might be comprehended in a definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain. He said, he did not pretend to commercial knowledge, but thought it would be well for the United States to enter into commercial treaties with all nations, and particularly with Great Britain. He moved, therefore, that the Committee should be instructed to prepare a general report for that purpose.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. FITZSIMMONS thought it would be proper to be very circumspect in fettering our trade with stipulations to foreigners; that as our stipulations would extend to all the possessions of the United States necessarily, but those of foreign nations having colonies to part of their possessions only, and as the most favored nations enjoyed greater privileges in the United States than elsewhere, the United States gave an advantage in treaties on this subject; and, finally, that negotiations ought to be carried on here, or our Ministers directed to conclude nothing without previously reporting every thing for the sanction of Congress. It was at length agreed, that the Committee should

report the general state of instructions existing on the subject of commercial treaties.

Congress took into consideration the report of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for immediately setting at liberty all the prisoners of war, and ratifying the Provisional Articles. Several members were extremely urgent on this point, from motives of economy. Others doubted whether Congress were bound thereto, and, if not bound, whether it would be proper. The first question depended on the import of the Provisional Articles, which were very differently interpreted by different members. After much discussion, from which a general opinion arose of extreme inaccuracy and ambiguity as to the force of these articles, the business was committed to Mr. MADISON, Mr. PETERS, and Mr. HAMILTON, who were also to report on the expediency of ratifying the said articles immediately.”

MONDAY, APRIL 14TH.

The Committee, on the Report of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, reported as follows-Mr. HAMILTON dissenting. *

* His dissent was founded on his construction of the treaty, as stated in a paper handed to Mr. MADISON at the time. The following is a copy: "The words such treaty are relative.

"The antecedents must either be the 'treaty proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the United States,' or 'the terms of peace to be agreed upon between Great Britain and France.'

"Let us see how it will read if we understand it in the first sense. The articles are 'to be inserted, and to constitute the treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the United States; but which treaty is not to be concluded (until terms of peace shall be agreed upon

First. That it does not appear that Congress are any wise bound to go into the ratification proposed. The treaty" of which a ratification is to take place, as mentioned in the sixth of the Provisional Articles, is described in the title of those articles to be "a Treaty of Peace, proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which is not to be concluded until terms of peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France." The act to be ratified, therefore, is not the Provisional Articles themselves, but an act distinct, future, and even contingent. Again, although the declaratory act entered into on the twentieth of January last, between the American and British Plenipotentiaries relative to a cessation of hostilities, seems to consider the contingency on which the Provisional Articles were suspended as having taken place, and that act cannot itself be considered as the "Treaty of Peace meant to be concluded;" nor does it stipulate that either the Provisional Articles, or the act itself, should be ratified in America; it only engages that the United States shall cause hostilities to cease on their part-an engagement which was duly fulfilled by the Proclamation issued on the eleventh instant; lastly, it does not appear, from the correspondence of the American between Great Britain and France and) until his Britannic Majesty shall be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly.'

"The words included in the parenthesis may in this case be omitted, and then the sentence will have no meaning.

"But if the words such treaty are construed as relative to the words terms of peace, the meaning will be plain; and if terms of peace have been agreed upon between France and Britain, then the contingency has happened on which the proposed treaty between America and Britain was to take effect." *

See his change of opinion expressed in the debates of April the sixteenth.
VOL. I.-28*

« ZurückWeiter »