The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1798-05-29 00:00:00, page 1

Important Documents.
MEMORIAL of the American
Commission. to the French
Government.
( Continued from our sass.) =
IT is also to be noticed that before thg ne
gociation with England had commenced,
the government of the Übnited Srates had
openly avowed that opinion on this fubjel,
w‘;lich us belt judgment diftated. 'lhis
opinion perfefily uncoone@ed with that pe
‘gOociation, was known by all 1o foim and
regulate the basis of its condutl, Ihe let
sis from Mr. Jclierlon alrcady gisdfed bad
flated to the world ihe perfelt conviétion
of the United States, thac by the law of na
tions a bclligercx_i; power, not reitrained by
pacticular treaty, might rightfully take - out
of the bottoms of a neutrai the goods of s
enemy, as well as their determination that
they could not aud ought lot tq oppoie the.
exeicife of (his right.” The nght havihg
been clearly and unaveidably adoutied, and
the determination to acquicice under its ex
ercise having beea avowcd cpenly, Mr. Jay
sould ouly solicit its furrendsr, Had -pp
treaty been formed, or had ibat treaty omit
ted to mentionthe princijle, thesight would
flill bave existed, wouid {iill bave been ac
knowledged, and would fiill have been ex
ercised. 'L he treaty does not, in fa& or in
expreflion, cede a new privilege, it regu
lates the exercise of one betore existing and
before acknowledged 10 exist. The harth
means of exc_rciﬁu% tbis right which are
giyc? by the law of pations, are modified
angd foftened by the treaiy, and this is the
only effefts which the article on this tubjet
has produced : it was the only motive and
it wasa fufficient motive for Intraducing it.
~ The fecoud branch of ihis objeftion Igems
more to be relied on, and comes forward 1n
a more decisive shape ; it is—Thag the U
nited States have abandoned the lit'nit'givén
to contraband by the law of nations, by their
treatics with all other nations, and even by
those of England with a greaier part of the
mantime powers.
The hmit of contraband is supposed to
have been evinced by inserting in the cata
logue naval flores and nmber for thip
building.
“To eflimate rightly a charge so warmly
made, it becomes indifpeniibie to ascertain
whether thole articles are independent of
treaty, by the law of nations contraband of
war : on this single point fecms to selt the
verity of the accusation. Vi
~ It is regretted that those who have aver
red the negetive have not been pleased tp
furnith authorities in Tupport of the opinion
they advance. Such authorities wou'd have
been coufidered with candour, and any con
viftion they might have produced wonid
have bheen feeely acknowledged., 3ut no
such authorities are furnifhed and it is be.
lieved that none exist,
America solicitous to confine as much as
poflible by common confcnt the Lift of con=
traband ; buidetermined however she might
oppole its enlargement not to artempt its
diminution by force, was under the necessi
ty of examining the fubje& and of alcertain
ing the line of partition between the righis
of ncutrals and of belligerent powers.
~ As guides in fych 2 search, she could only
take the mofl aggrpy;d writers on the law
of nations. These are believed to class
timber for ship building and naval stores for
the equipmeat of veflels, among articles ad
mitted to be conttaband of war. Vauel
(B. 7y Sef. 112) defines contraband goods
to be ¢* commogdities particularly used in
Kaf + such are arms, military and naval
ores, umber, horses; and even provisions
in certain jun€tures, where there are hopes
as redaciag the cncmny by famine?” The
treaty between' France and Denmark, con
cluded in 1742, places tar, rosin, fails,
hemp, cordage, mafls, and timber for ship
building on the catalogue of contraband :
and Vaiin in his commentary on the marine
ordinances of France (vol. ¢, p. 264) fays
that «of right thele articles are now con
traband, and bave been so from the com
mencement of the present century.” Ip
conformity with thele opipions has been
that of America‘; and if the law of nations
‘was-underflood by the most approved jurists
“she has not erred.
. But the modern public: law of - nations,
and modern treaties are said to have eftab
}ithed 2 different rule. 1f the modern pub-
Tic law of oations bas changed the principle
such change is yet unknown to the United
States—it 1s much to be wished that' more
full and f{atisfallory information ba;}i been
-@iven in {apport of an opinion, a difference
on which is alledged to bave produced on
-d#equences {o extremely calamitous,
~ It is not averred that the armed neutrali
&y has constituted this modern public lay.
It is supposed that this canpot be averred
because France will never admit the right
of a confederacy, whatever may be its pow
er to oppose the law of those who are not
partiestoit. It is supposed also that this
sannot be averred for another season. The
members of the armed neutrality had not
themselves agreed upgp the articles which
ihfmld be deemed Eo?%labandgl‘- el;ulﬁa; the
power originating that celebrated, thou
| ﬁpu_hv,pjx campatt published jgj;?yßO. ;ﬁ:
principles on which she would matnrain the
commerce of ber fubjells: ope of thele
as thatthe amtigles of contraband .{hould
¢ fsanlnied BOlmsoth sod, 1 fuetles
;:ﬂ her treaty of commerce with Great Bri
e : » Rk e
Vol. XLl.—Numb, 2165.]
g y S 7 i i S A *"v-'——'*'ﬁ———“‘—_’————w
PORTS MOUTH: (New-HamesHigg)— PusLisugD EVERY TUESDAY MORNING BY JOHN MI:‘LCHER,‘_ PRINTER TO THE STATE, AT HIS OFFICE CORNER OF MARKET STRE:T,
; WHERE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THI§ PAPER, ADVERTISEMENTS, AND ARTICLES OF INTELLICENCE ARE THANKFULLY RECEIVED. i '
et Pampshive Gasette
o /o -~ PRI TN b o
- Afierwards Denmark entered into a con
vention with Russia for maintaining gener
ally the principles agreed upon, but on the
fubje& of contraband in’ particular, - Den
mark adopted as the rule by which to be
governed, her treaty of commerce -with
Great Britain, concluded the 10th of July
1670, in the 2d article of which contraband
goods are delcribed to be ““ ANY PROVI
- OF WAR, as soldiers arms, ma
chines, cannon, ships, or otber things of
neceflary use 1n war.?? But by aconveation
concluded at London on the 4th of July
1780, between Great Britain and Denmark,
to explain the treaty of commerce of 1670
between the two powers. = ¢ Timber for
ship building, tar, rofir, copper in sheets,
fails, hemp aad cordage, and generally what
ever serves direétly for the equipment of a
veflel, uowrought iron and gr planks ex
cepted,”’ are declared 1o be coptraband. .
. Denmark having in her conyention with
Russia adopted her treaty with: En’gla’n‘d
made in 1670, as declaratory of thole arti
cles which the would confidér as contra<
band, and having by her explanatory agre¢-
ments with E.g?ipd {ubftituted a particalar
enumeration of articles for a gencral deferip
tion of them, not as an amendment, but as
an explaoation of the treaty of 1670 has ta
ken a different rule; in the very compalre
ferred to as cßablithing @ modern™ public
Jaw of nations, from that taken by 'Ruffia.
The rule of Depmark classes among contra
band precisely the fame articles which are
cgumerated as such in the treaty between
the United Srates and Britain, and which
are quly found in that enumeratipn, becaule
it is believed that the law of nations has un
g;xéﬁio’nab!y so placed them. Sweden and
olland too, in acceding to the armed neu
trality, adopt their own treaties as the rule
%\yhich they will selpeQively be guided—
['here was tiico eyen among the partigs to
this agreement no fixed law of contraband.
Had the Potenrates of Europe designed to
eftablilh permanently and gengrally all the
principles of the ‘armed neutrality,’ the war
which originated that convention, would not
have terminated without some general agree
meat concerning it : The efforts of Sweden
to obtain 3 Congrels for examining and ter
minating the dil%ér;:nt concerns both of the
powers at ':v'a} and of the neutral Stg;‘cs
could not have proved entirely abortive. =
“"No argument then can be drawn trom
the armed neutrality in support of the pofis
tion, that the modern public law of natipns,
r;:lgtingdtp contraband bas been abandoned
by the Uuiied States. -No moi'ern public
law having been formed the rule rémains
unchanged ¢ and at'the present moment as
well as when the treaty with France was
formed, is believed to ordain as contraband
the articles enumerated as such in the treaty
with Britain, = :
But it is alledged that in this treaty the
United States have abandoned the dimits
given to cootraband by their treaties with
3}l other natjons and even by those of En
gland with a greater part of the maritime
powers.
It is trge that the Upited States deflirouns
of liberating commerce, have Inyariably
{eized every opportunity which presented
itfelf to diminish or remove the shackles
imposed on that of neutrals. In pursuance
of this policy, they . have on no occasion
hesitated to reduce the lit of contraband,
as between themselves and any pation cop
{enting to such redultion. 'Their pre-ex
lling treaties have been with nations as wil
ling as themselves to change the old rule :
and consequently a flipulation to ghat gffelt
being defircd by both parties, has been made
without difficylty, Each coatralling party
is deemed to have an equivalent fq'r the cel
fion made in the similar cefion 1t receives
from the party with whom ‘it contrafls.—
Neither requires of the other as an addition
al consideration that it shall propagate by the
{word the principles which form the basis
of their private agreements and force unwil
ling nations to adopt them ; Nor that it
should decline to regulate by treaty its in
terefls with any other nation which should
refule 10 accede to- them ; as little could
either fuppofé that its particular contra&
coatained any thing obligatory on others, or
was capable of enlarging or dimioifhing their
rights. The trcaiié% of the United “States
then with other nations can only ‘effablifh
the limus of contraband, as betwegn the
contrafling parties, and muit leave that fub
jelt with nations not parties to the contral
to the law which would bave governed had
such particular flipulation never been made.
According to the existing slate of things
when the negociations between the United
States and Great Britain, were opened, Na
val Stores and timber for ship building,
were as between America and Britain, cons
traband of war : they would have retained
dhis charafter had the treaty never been
made : they would have retained it had the
treaty contained no provision on the f(ubjeéi.
The United States were truly desirous of
excluding them from the liff, g'ut Britain was
anwilling to do so. A e
Had the United States poflefled the means
of coercion, their established policy found
ed on the basis of Justice, and their own
pecaliar fituarion, forbid a resort to thele
means for any ather purpose than the de
fence of their own xights, or a_compliance
with their own engagements. It was not
a cale in which force would® have been
deemed juftifiable ; and the objedt, heing
unattainable by mutnal consent; was .una.
‘voidably relinquished for ,ch\m;‘é%- "‘:l’iz‘
it was proper to epumerate the asucles
which w&irc%ifé?e f;gpqabaﬁé:;ged’;&ﬁe)\
continued to be 13, because that enumeration
notified to the merghants of the Uhaited
« OUR COUNTRY’s GOOD OUR CONSTANT AIM —
TUESDAY, May 29, 1798.
- States the bazard which their commodities
- would encounter on the seas, and becagle,
also it prevents those vexatious altercations
. which might otheswife have produced by
' the efforts of one party to {well, and of the
other to reduce theist. A
_ If on the refufal of Britain to {ubffitute
- any other rule concerning contrabaad, in
the place of that eflablithed by the Taw of
nations, France finds herfelf in a fimation
. t 0 be injured by an observance of her en
, g:gcmcints with the Ui;iscd States, it i 3 not
‘the treaty with Britain, but that with
France which has produced this fituption.
This was forefeen wheo that treaty was
- entered into, and did not prevent its i
The 18 ulation concerning coptsaband
was fo‘rmé‘g when France was at peace and
America at war; although that slate of
things did nat long continue, yet its cop
t?nu,a';’x;g was by no meaps deemed impossi
ble. Notwitblanding this, th‘!e overnment
of the United S(a'tqi%ai':ﬁaqigﬁcd a wil
lingnefs to change this fipulation as well as
that which refps@s enemics property in
geutral boifoms, so fpon ‘a3 France com.
plained of them ; of “this the letter from
- Mr. Randoliph to Mr. Adet algchdy'quotca
affords conclusive testimony. -
It appears then on examining this objee
tion to thé treaty between the én‘ncd States
and Britain, that it hag not added to the
catalogue of goptraband a single article’;
that it has ceded no privilege, has gr@ptgd
no right, and 55@{ it El)ms not changed in the
most minute circumflance the pre-exifting
situation of the United States in’ r'ﬂ';gion
either to France or to Great Britain. - “Not
witbftanding these truths, the gévernment
of the United States has haflened to assure
its former friend tha, if the flipulations be
tween them be found opprefiive in pratice,
it is ready to offer up these flipulations a
willin'g chﬁﬁ;ﬁe‘ at the shrine of _fric,ndf}iip;
~ln vain'will you search in this procedure
for ¢‘a known and evident facrificg ' on: "the
part-of the United States of ‘their connec:
tions with this Republic, and of the mof}
cflential and least cpm*:d prerogatives of
_ncutrafity'.” “In vain W 1 you search .fp;
evidence of their “‘haying given to Ehglgnd;
to the detriment of their firft alligs, the' most
firiking mark of an unbounded condeféen
tiop, by abandoniag the limits given to con
traband 'byl l,thg law of nations, by Sb;&; gc?‘
of Eﬁgggd vyt?tl; thggg;ea:g ;pggt of the
ties with all other natiops, and ¢ven by
maritipe powers BT
“"The United States feel these repmachcs
a 5 ‘confcious innocence feels thé imputa
tion of guilt, . | TIRETE,
Seconpry Itis allo alledged, that
¢‘the Unpited States have! cpnlented to ex
tend the denomination of contraband even
to provisions. Instead of pointing out par
ticalarly, as all treajics do, the cases of the
effettive blockade of a place, as alone form
ing an exception to the freedom of this ar
ticle, they have tacitly acknowledged the
pretensions raised by England to . ¢reate
blockades in our ecolonies, and gven in
France, by the force of a bare proclamapop.??
* The objeétions to this article shall be con
sidered according to.its Jetter, and according
to its opérations.
The objeftionable words are, ¢¢ and
whereas the difficolty of agreeing on the
precise cales in which elone provifiops and
other articles not geperally cgm;rab;gd may
be regarded as such, renders it expedient to
provide against the inconyeniences and mif
underfiandings which txﬁghf thence arise.
It is further agreed that wheneveér any such
article, so becoming contraband - according
to tPc ;;,if}_ing ;ll_wfof x;al.i_i};;,l 'l.f_ball {or'lhat
reason be [eized, the fame shall pot be con
ﬁl%a't'ed fbﬁt%ﬁhc'd.ypc}li thereof shall be
speedily and'complete]y indemnified ; and
the captors, or, in their default, the Egovg;_:_,
ment gnaer wholg authority ‘the ‘aft, thall
pay to the mallers or owners of such vellels
the full value of all such arti¢les, with a
realonable mercantile profit therecon, to
gether with the fr;igbt and allo the demur
rage incident to such detention,”” "
- The admifions contpived in this case are,
_ FirsT, That provisions are not general
ly congraband, and that = = = 7. 7
SEconbpLy, They are sometimes con
traband. & '
An effort wasmade to cftablith the presile
cases in which alope they {h;g&\‘xilél be fubjef}
to seizure ; but America would oply con
sent to confider them as'contrabapd in" the
cale of an ‘effe&tive blockade, siege," or ip
veflment of 2 blfcc' ; while oun the part of
England this ftritt interpretanion of the rule
was not admitted :° but it was countended
that provifigns became contraband when
there were r,cnfpgmmc hopes of yeducing the
enemy by ifa'miﬁ,;."_“ In"this’ o éi}_fﬁ‘(jp{n of
sentiment to what have the tﬁnie‘;! ‘States
consented 7 ¢ To extend the déh?'rbih'ni&n
of contraband even to provisions,”” ¥to ac.
knowledge tacitly the pretentiops railed by
England to create blockadesin your ¢olonies
and eyen in ¥rance, Ilby, the l;inc,e of a barg
proclamatiop P/ ¢ln a word to have com
merce only with England #” Reconsider
the words themselves and it will require no
commept to prove how inapplicable 1o
them are these aﬂ'cr;}ons. The cause com
plained of, baving stated the admission of
the difficulty already mentioned, proceeds
to fay it is further agreed that wb&lty:r,my
such articles, so becoming contraband ' ac
cording to the Jaws of nations, fhalf for that
reason-be seized; the fame Thall not be con
filcated, but the owners thereof shall be
dpeedily and rompletely ipdemnified.?
It is oo cl?r to admit of conteflation
ﬂ’tﬂg £laple does ot declave provilians
to be contraban %mwf e [eiznge
m any Oth!‘f e when, **accordi )
the existing law of natiops they should be
come contrabaed ;" in such cale the right
to seize them is not given by this aricle,
bat it is admitted by%r,ancc and by all the
world to exilt independent of treaty. 1n
such cale they woald have been seized bad
this flipulation. never beem criu;ic? into 3
and would have been confifcated also.
The only alteration; which is by the letter
of the clause produced in the law of nations,
1s 10 exempt ?rom confilcation geods which
under that law would have b_cgq%quc& toit.
But it has been fulpefied to bave an ob.
je&t and an operation in pralice differcnt
from its letter. ;
It has been [ulpefled to eover a design to
admit fubßantially certain principles wisth
xcfpeg. to blockades which in theory are
denied. :
Incapable of duplicity, America with the
pride of conscious integrity, repels this In.
finuation, and courts an invefligation of the
fafls on which it is founded.
The government of the United States and
that of %ritain having confiraed the law of
pations cifferently in this lefpedt, each
would have afted upon its own opinion of
that law : The privateers of England would
have seized as contraband any gdods deemed
such in their c.ourLs' QCJdgn.ir!lt)' ; and the
government of the United States would
bave reclaimed such goods, and would have
supported the demand 1n such 2 manner 3
its own judgment diftated. This procedure
is nog chaoged. The right to make such re
clamations has not been relipquithed, nor
has the legality of the feizurgan any other
cale than that of an attempt tgenter a place
adtaally invefled, been 1n apy degree ad
misted. , a
Lt is true, that the British government re
pewed the order concerning provisions about
the time of the ratification of the treaty. ; but
it is not less truye, that the g@vernment of
the Unired States manifefted & firm resolu
tion to submit to o such copftrullion, and
remonflrated so seriously against it as to
produce a revocation of the oldér. . Nor
15 this all : clayms for provisions seized in
cases of a 2 mere proclamation blockade have
been aftually made, and haye been allually
decided in favour of the claimants. The
Brigilh goveroment has acquicfced “under
fgczl. decifiops by paying the fomg awarded.
These { ums were not limited to a reasonable
g;pﬁt on the price of the commodity {eized,
but were regulated by its prige at the post
of deflination, and confcquently the atual
as well as avowed principle of fucq deci~
ﬁgns was, Ihat the goads-seized had not be
came contraband *'according to the gxifling
f}a.}yl;gf faiss AR 3
¢ intention of the povernment then,
and 'bcprgﬂis; under tbﬁ‘gdz are in di
rec} opposition tp these injurious fulpicions
the iodulgepce of which has produced such
pernicious cfefls. It is even belicved that
the decision on this fubje@ will be one flep
towards the efiablifhment of that principle
for which America has never ceased to con
tend. Itis @lto'b;:ljp‘vfd, nd has ever been
beligved, that the article ~O.gjsélcd to would
haye a neceflary tendency to cncreafe the
guanujy of provisions imported from I{lm;r.i
-ca into France and her colopies. The A
merican commerce, being entirely in the
hands of ipdividuals,is confequeatly condufl
¢d by them according to their own vicws
of particular advantage, they will unqueis
tionably endeavour ‘to ft,a‘eplr the highest
ptkel, upicle restrained from doing so by
otber considerations, which render it unad
vileable 1o attempt such a supply. In their
calculation, the nik of reducing the market
i$ too imporfant an item to be - pafled over
or forgotten. Every diminution of this
nifk adds to the number of thole who will
attempt the supply ;. and consequently a
knowledge that the voyage, thould it eyen
sail by the seizure of the veflel, would yer
be profitable, muf} increase the sumber of
those who would make jt.
It is plain thep, that this article admits
the seizure. of prqviﬁi?gs in no fitvation
where they " were nos before seizable ;
and encourage i,hc{)r transportation to France
and her colopies, by diminishing the nifk of
Juch transportation, =~ T T
~ Itjsalfo complaiped of, that this treaty
has nos, ¢ as alll) treaties do, pointed out
particalarly the cales of the cfiz&ive block
ade of a place,” as alone f0i?x....0s an excep
sien to the freedom of proyifions. |
Articles in a treaty. can only be inserted
by consent. The Jn‘itcd'Statcs tb!éféfdri
can neyver be responsible for not having in.
ferted an articlé ‘to” which the oiliercon
tralling party would not aﬂeg’,t.‘ Thex’:’q‘a‘y
refufe to make any change in the cmﬁii‘mg
slate of thigs prejudicial”to themselves
to other powers; and they bave refufed to
make 'a{ng’ such changé, Bar it is not ih
their power ‘to infer, as by commion con
sent, an anticlé though mercly declardiory
of a principle ; which they considered 2s
cemgnry exifling, and which they mean to
support if such ‘Common consent be” übal
tainable, ~ Al that can be done, in fach a
‘cafe 5 to leave ‘the printiple unimpaired,
‘referving in’tir‘cly ‘the right 1o assert it.
‘This has been done d}\ﬁ:“bﬁi‘_ncip!c“\‘ﬁs Jest
unimpaired; and has been since faccelsfully
agemd' > sane vy ..-’.» ”‘f“““‘i‘""ns." L
The Unite S&g;%ﬁg > 4t all times truly.
solicitous i 3 ?gfm@ ' s 3
the Tl o corrabad. 10l el
1p common ‘:s's{ }? ¥aer 2;“%‘?%’%
!é} ﬁf»i‘;‘}%&% T {k. .f}ﬁm', i
Ropey 18 pes FWYRE, A 0 fal A 8 (he
v“f%?;.? B m» s'g,' £y :
%‘ 3 ’éis cihbs ohisdl, ;@d which 2 ot
7ey mult be allowe i‘é“‘pu&m
[One Dollar & half pr. Annum.
_ Passing over this extraordinary language,
the undersigned, being only desirous of pro
ducing accommodation by the exhibition
of truth, will confider the o?inion which
is obliquely hinted, and the fa which is
dirc&ly averred.
The prallice of forming commercial tréa
ties is so universal dmong other nations,
having any commercial “inter¢ourle “with
tich other, that it seems unnecelfary to dife
cuss their urility. The right to form thefle
treaties has been so universally affeited acd
admitted, that it seems to be the insepara
ble attribute of sovereignty, to be queltion.
ed only by those whose queflion the righe
of a nation to govern itlelt, and to be ced.
ed only by those who are prepared to cede
their ibdependence.
But the prosperity ‘of the United States
i 3, in a peculiar degree, promoted by exter
nal commerce. A people almost exclu
sively agricultural have not within them
selves a markér for the surplus produce of
their labour, or a {ufficient number and va
riety of articles of exchange, to supply ke
wants of the cultivation; they " cannot
have an ‘internal, whith will compen
sate for the loss of an cxternal commerce =
they must search abroad for manafat
tures for many other articles which con
tribute ‘to the comfort and convenience
of life;—and they must search abrosd
also, for a market of that large portion of
the produflions of their foil, which cannot
be consumed at bome. The policy ofa
nation thus circumflanced, must ‘ever be to
encourage tXternal commerce, and to opén
to itfelf every poflible market for the diipo
fition of its fupetfluities, and the supply of
its wants. *The commercial and manufaé
turing charaler and capacities of England
mufl turn into that chaonel a considerable
portion of the commerce of any nation upe
der the circamflances of the United States,
It is 2 market too important asd too valua
ble to be voluntarily closed ; in consequence
of a considerable portion of their commerce
has taken that diretion, and a continual so
licitude has been manifefted to regulate and
secure it by contrall. To abolith thiscom
merce, or to refufe 1o give it pcrmanence °
and security by fair and equal flipulations
would be a facrifice which nc nation d'ugfxt :
to require and which no natior® ought to
make. In forming her treaty of Amity:
and Commerce with the United States,
France claimed no such prerogative. That
treaty declares the intention of the partiests
be, ¢‘to fix in an equitable and permanent
manner the rules which ougbt to be fo)-
}C’WFa relaive to the correipondence and
commerce, which the two parties desire 1o
‘g.,a'a\ilinl between their refpeflive countriés,
fates, and fubjefls ; and thar ¢¢ they have
Judged thas the said end could not be batier
obtamed than by takipg for the balis of
their agreement the moit perfe@ equaliny
and reciprocity ; and by carefully avoiding
all _tis,o”(g burthenfome preferences, which
are usually fburces of debate, embarrassment
AATR o BUP I T g :
.@9_;! discontent, by leaving also each pany
atliberty to make refpebiing commerce and
navigation, thole interier regulaiions which
it shall find most c}mwc&x to itlelf, and
by founding the advantages of :ot:mm,ee
Jolely Spos reciprocal aulity, and the just
rules of free intercourse, reserving, withal 10
each party the .@%ﬂy of admitting at js
pleafurc other pations to -g:wm uge of
the fame advantages.! The treany iafeM
contains no fhipulaugn io an ?u, -
_sradiftary to .:J',§°£¢ declarations of the iprea.
| ,ﬁ&c@%yksi g&‘f‘ fuggedl a folpicion
.{lﬁ& o m the lovercignty of the
- § %&ga Scatiea . 0.
With Dritain theretore, in which no pecp
dias privilege is granted, the government of
in such a manner-as may comport with thae
fitwation. While ‘they furrénder no ac
tual right, in preserving which ‘there is a
common interell ; wﬁil’q they violate ho
'Er‘é';cxi{!ing ghgagcmgnt, and these they
ave not surrendered or violdted; they must
judge exclusively for themselves bow far
they will or ought to go in their efforts to
2cguire new rights; or eftablith pew princi
ples. When they surrender this privilege,
they cease to be independent, and they will
no longer deserve to be frec. ~ They will
have surrendered into other hands the most
sacred deposits—the right of lelf govern
mient ; and inflead of the approbation they
will merit the contempt of the world.
Those pasfs of the treaty between the U
nited States and Great Britain, which have
been fgle€ted by France as injurious to her,
haye now been examined. The underfigp
ed are too well convinced that they in o
degree jullify the enmity they are alledged
té‘i’avc prodaced, not to rcl))'r on 2 cand;d
reconsideration of them as a sure means of
removing the impressions they are supposed
to have made.
- Before this fubjeét is entirely closed, one
other objeftion will be noticed. The very
formation of a commercial treaty with En
gland fcems to be reprobated as furnithing
Just canfe of offence to France ; and Mr.
Adet has permitted bimfelf to fay, *lt was
a little matter, only to allow the Englith 10
avail themlelves of the advantages of opc
treaty ¢ it was necessary to assure those to
them by the aid of a contra® which might
serve at once as a reply to the claims of
France, and a 3 prcrcmtorfz thotives for re
fufals ; the true cause of which it was ree
?9iﬁ}c inceflantly to difguilc to her under
pecious pretexts: Such was the objeét of
Mr. Jay's mission to London ; such was
the obje& of a negociation enveloped from
its ongin in the shadow of myflery, and
covered with the veil of difimulation.”