Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Ministers, or from any other information, either that such ratification was expected from the United States, or intended on the part of Great Britain ; still less that any exchange of mutual ratifications has been in contemplation.

Second. If Congress are not bound to ratify the articles in question, the Committee are of opinion, that it is inexpedient for them to go immediately into such an act; inasmuch as it might be thought to argue that Congress meant to give to those articles the quality and effect of a definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain, though neither their allies nor friends have as yet proceeded further than to sign Preliminary Articles; and inasmuch as it may oblige Congress to fulfil immediately all the stipulations contained in the Provisional Articles, though they have no evidence that a correspondent obligation will be assumed by the other party.

Third. If the ratification in question be neither obligatory nor expedient, the Committee are of opinion, that an immediate discharge of all prisoners of war, on the part of the United States, is premature and unadvisable; especially, as such a step may possibly lessen the force of demands for a reimbursement of the sums expended in the subsistence of the prisoners.

Upon these considerations, the Committee recominend that a decision of Congress on the papers referred to them be postponed.

On this subject, a variety of sentiments prevailed. Mr. DYER, on a principle of frugality, was strenuous for a liberation of the prisoners.

Mr. WILLIAMSON thought Congress not obliged to

discharge the prisoners previous to a definitive treaty, but was willing to go into the measure as soon as the public honor would permit. He wished us to move, pari passu, with the British commander at New York. He suspected that that place would be held till the interests of the Tories should be provided for. Mr. HAMILTON contended, that Congress were bound, by the tenor of the provisional treaty, immediately to ratify it, and to execute the several stipulations inserted in it; particularly that relating to a discharge of prisoners.

Mr. BLAND thought Congress not bound.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was strenuous for the obligation and policy of going into an immediate execution of the treaty. He supposed, that a ready and generous execution on our part would accelerate the like on the other part.

Mr. WILSON was not surprised that the obscurity of the treaty should produce a variety of ideas. He thought, upon the whole, that the treaty was to be regarded as "contingently definitive."

The Report of the Committee being not consonant to the prevailing sense of Congress, it was laid aside.

TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH.

The ratification of the treaty and discharge of prisoners were again agitated. For the result in a unanimous ratification, see the secret Journal of this day; the urgency of the majority producing an acquiescence of most of the opponents to the measure.'

71

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16TH.

Mr. HAMILTON acknowledged that he began to view the obligation of the provisional treaty in a different light, and, in consequence, wished to vary the direction of the Commander-in-Chief from a positive to a preparatory one, as his motion on the Journal states."

THURSDAY, APRIL 17TH.

Mr. MADISON, with the permission of the Committee on Revenue, reported the following clause, to be added to the tenth paragraph in the first report, viz:

"And to the end that convenient provision may be made for determining, in all such cases, how far the expenses may have been reasonable, as well with respect to the object thereof, as the means for accomplishing it, thirteen commissioners—namely, one out of each State-shall be appointed by Congress, any seven of whom (having first taken an oath for the faithful and impartial execution of their trust) who shall concur in the same opinion shall be empowered to determine finally on the reasonableness of the claims for expenses incurred by particular States as aforesaid; and, in order that such determinations may be expedited as much as possible, the commissioners now in appointment for adjusting accounts between the United States and individual States shall be instructed to examine all such claims, and

report to Congress such of them as shall be supported by satisfactory proofs, distinguishing, in their reports, the objects and measures in which the expenses shall have been incurred; provided, that no balances, which may be found due under this regulation, or the resolutions of the day

of shall be deducted out of the preceding revenues; but shall be discharged by separate requisitions to be made on the States for that purpose.'

In support of this proposition it was argued, that, in a general provision for public debts and public tranquillity, satisfactory measures ought to be taken on a point which many of the States had so much at heart, and which they would not separate from the other matters proposed by Congress; that the nature of the business was unfit for the decision of Congress, who brought with them the spirit of advocates rather than of judges, and, besides, it required more time than could be spared for it.

On the opposite side, some contended, that the accounts between the United States and particular States should not be made in any manner to encumber those between the former and private persons. Others thought that Congress could not delegate to commissioners a power of allowing claims for which the Confederation required nine States. Others were unwilling to open so wide a door for claims on the common treasury.

On the question, Massachusetts, divided; Connecticut, aye; Rhode Island, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Maryland, no; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

FRIDAY, APRIL 18TH.

Application was made from the Council of Pennsylvania for the determination of Congress as to the effect of the acts terminating hostilities, on acts to be enforced during the war.

giving any opinion.

Congress declined

The motion of Mr. BLAND for striking out the recommendation to the States which had agreed to cede territory, to revise and complete their cessions, raised a long debate. In favor of the motion, it was urged, by Mr. RUTLEDGE, that the proposed cession of Virginia ought to be previously considered and disallowed; that otherwise a renewal of the recommendation would be offensive; that it was possible the cession might be accepted, in which case the renewal would be improper. Virginia, he observed, alone could be alluded to as having complied in part only.

Mr. WILSON went largely into the subject. He said, if the investigation of right was to be considered, the United States ought rather to make cessions to individual States than receive cessions from them, the extent of the territory ceded by the treaty being larger than all the States put together; that when the claims of the States came to be limited on principles of right, the Alleghany mountains would appear to be the true boundary; this could be established, without difficulty, before any court, or the tribunal of the world. He thought, however, policy required that such a boundary should be established as would give to the Atlantic States access to the

« ZurückWeiter »