Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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 nego tiations 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.29

MONDAY, April 14.

The committee, on the report of the secretary of foreign affairs, reported as follows - Mr. Hamilton dissenting.*

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 20th 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 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 com

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 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."t

† See his change of opinion expressed in the debates of April 16.

mittee 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 recommend 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 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 15.

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. 30

WEDNESDAY, April 16.

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. 31

THURSDAY, April 17.

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 or 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, ay; Rhode Island, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Maryland, no; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

FRIDAY, April 18. 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. Congress declined giving any opinion.

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 western waters. If accommodation was the object, the clause ought by no means to be struck out. The cession of Virginia would never be accepted, because it guarantied to her the country as far as the Ohio, which never belonged to Virginia. (Here he was called to order by Mr. JONES.) The question, he said, must be decided. The indecision of Congress had been hurtful to the interests of the United States. If the compliance of Virginia was to be sought, she ought to be urged to comply fully. For the vote in the affirmative, with the exception of Virginia and South Carolina, see Journal.

The plan of revenue was then passed as it had been amended, all the states present concurring except Rhode Island, which was in the negative, and New York, which was divided - Mr. FLOYD, ay, and Mr. HAMILTON, no. 32

MONDAY, April 21.

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. MADISON, to annex to the plan of the eighteenth instant the part omitted, relating to expenses incurred by individual states. On the question, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia alone were in the affirmative; Connecticut and Georgia not present.

See Journal.

TUESDAY, April 22. WEDNESDAY, April 23.

The resolution permitting the soldiers to retain their arms was passed at the recommendation of General Washington. (See his letter on the files.)

The resolution for granting furloughs or discharges was a compromise between those who wished to get rid of the expense of keeping the men in the field and those who thought it impolitic to disband the army whilst the British remained in the United States. 33

See Journal.

THURSDAY, April 24, and Friday, April 25.

SATURDAY, April 26.

Address to the states passed nem. con. It was drawn up by Mr. Madison. The address to Rhode Island, referred to as No. 2, had been drawn up by Mr. Hamilton. See Vol. I. p. 96, Elliot's Debates.

The writer of these notes absent till

MONDAY, May 5.

Mr. BLAND and Mr. MERCER moved to erase from the Journal the resolution of Friday, the 2d instant, applying for an addition of three millions to the grant of six millions, by his Most Christian Majesty, as in part of the loan of four millions, requested by the resolution of September 14, 1782. As the resolution of the 2d had been passed by fewer than nine states, they contended that it was unconstitutional. The reply was, that as the three millions were to be part of a loan heretofore authorized, the sanction of nine states was not necessary. The motion was negatived, the two movers alone voting in the affirmative.34

TUESDAY, May 6.

A motion was made by Mr. LEE to recommend to the several states to pass laws indemnifying officers of the army for damages sustained by individuals from acts of such officers rendered necessary in the execution of their military functions. It was referred to Mr. Lee, Mr. Williamson, and Mr. Clark.

He proposed, also, that an equestrian statue should be erected to General Washington.35

A report, from the secretary of foreign affairs, of a treaty of commerce to be entered into with Great Britain, was referred to Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Higginson, Mr Rutledge, Mr. Helmsley, and Mr. Madison.

WEDNESDAY, May 7

The resolution moved yesterday, by Mr. Lee, for indemnifying military officers, being reported by the committee, was agreed to.

The committee, on a motion of Mr. DYER, reported that the states which had settled with their respective lines of the army for their pay since August 1, 1780, should receive the securities which would otherwise be due to such lines.

The report was opposed, on the ground that the settlements had not been discharged in the value due. The notes issued in payment, by Connecticut, were complained of, as being of little value.

The report was disagreed to.

See Journal,36

THURSDAY, May 8.

Mr. BLAND suggested, that the prisoners of war should be detained until an answer be given as to the delivery of slaves, represented, in a letter to Mr. Thomas Walke, to be refused on the part of Sir Guy Carleton.

On his motion, seconded by Mr. WILLIAMSON, it was ordered that the letter be sent to General Washington for his information, in carrying into effect the resolution of April 15, touching arrangements with the British commander for delivery of the post, negroes, &c.

A portrait of Don Galvez was presented to Congress by Oliver Pollock.37

FRIDAY, May 9.

A question on a report relating to the occupying the posts, when evacuated by the British, was postponed by Virginia, in right of a state.

Mr. DYER moved a recommendation to the states to restore confiscated property, conformably to the provisional articles. The motion produced a debate, which went off without any positive result.38

Adjourned to

See Journal.

No Congress.

MONDAY, May 12.

TUESDAY, May 13. WEDNESDAY, May 14.

Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. ELLSWORTH moved a call on the states to fulfil the recommendation relative to the tories. After some remarks on the subject, the House adjourned.39

See Journal.

THURSDAY, May 15.

The report re.ating to the department of foreign affairs was taken up, and, after some discussion of the expediency of raising the salary of the secretary, Congress adjourned.

See Journal.

No Congress.

FRIDAY, May 16.

SATURDAY, May 17.

MONDAY, May 19.

Spent in debating the report recommending provision for tories, according to the provisional articles of peace.

TUESDAY, May 20.

On the proposal to discharge the troops who had been enlisted for the war, (amounting to ten thousand men,) from the want of means to support them,

Mr. CARROLL urged the expediency of caution; the possibility that advantage might be taken by Great Britain of a discharge both of prisoners and of the army; and suggested the middle course, of furloughing the troops.

Mr. DYER was strenuous for getting rid of expense; considered the war at an end; that Great Britain might as well renew the war after the definitive treaty as now; that not a moment ought to be lost in disburdening the public of needless expense.

Mr. RUTLEDGE viewed the conduct of Great Britain in so serious a light, that he almost regretted having voted for a discharge of prisoners. He urged the expediency of caution, and of consulting the commander-in-chief. He accordingly moved that the report be referred to him for his opinion and advice. The motion was seconded by Mr. IZARD.

Mr. CLARK asked whether any military operation was on foot, that the commander-in-chief was to be consulted. This was a national question, which the national council ought to decide. He was against furloughing the men, because they would carry their arms with them. He said we were at peace, and complained that some could not separate the idea of a Briton from that of cutting throats.

Mr. ELLSWORTH enlarged on the impropriety of submitting to the commanderin-chief a point on which he could not possess competent materials for deciding. We ought either to discharge the men engaged for the war, or to furlough them. He preferred the former.

Mr. MERCER descanted on the insidiousness of Great Britain, and warmly opposed the idea of laying ourselves at her mercy that we might save fifty thousand dollars, although Congress knew they were violating the treaty as to negroes.

Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed that the soldiers be furloughed. Mr. CARROLL seconded him, that the two modes of furlough and discharge might both lie on the table.

By general consent this took place.

The report as to confiscated property, on the instructions from Virginia and Pennsylvania, was taken up, and agreed to be recommitted, together with a motion of Mr. MADISON, to provide for the case of Canadian refugees, and for settlement of accounts with the British; and a motion of Mr. HAMILTON to insert, in a definitive treaty, a mutual stipulation not to keep a naval force on the lakes.40

WEDNESDAY, May 21, and Tнursday, May 22.

See the Secret Journal for these two days. The passage relating to the armed neutrality was generally concurred in for the reasons which it expresses.

The disagreements on the questions relating to a treaty of commerce with Russia were occasioned chiefly by sympathies, particularly in the Massachusetts delegation, with Mr. Dana; and by an eye, in the navigating and ship-building states, to the Russian articles of iron and hemp. They were supported by South Carolina, who calculated on a Russian market for her rice.41

FRIDAY, May 23.

The report from Messrs. Hamilton, Gorham, and Peters, in favor of discharging the soldiers enlisted for the war, was supported on the ground that it was called for

[blocks in formation]

T

« ZurückWeiter »