The Republican ledger — Portsmouth, N.H., 1799-12-11 00:00:00, page 1

NUMBER I6.—VOL. I.]
WE may fafely and fairlyprefume, that
the expositions of the proceedings of
the Commissioners anting under thefxtb ar
ticle of the Britijh treaty, given repeatedly in
the Aurora from Nov. 1798 to a recent pe
riod, have contributed in the firft inßance to
call the attention of people to this alarming
fubjed, and finally to cause such apprehen
sions on the part of the American Commis
sioners, as to produce the present suspension
of their proceedings.
We were oh the firft blush of the recent
secession of Messrs. Fitzfimmons and Sit
greaves, willing to give them a degree of
credit, which their former political condua
would not by any means entitle them to :
the pernicious conferences which must re
fnlt to the United States from the number,
nature and variety of the claims set up, their
amount, complexity, and extent, were so
flagrant, that feeing all this with the limited
lights which we could arrive at, we could
not but attribute to the fame causes which
alarmed and astonished us their secession.
But considering that one of those commis
sioners (Mr. Fitzfimmons) had in a very
pertinacious manner attempted to controvert
our statements, by a letter addressed to a
southern member of congress, the fortunes
and estates of whose constituents were jeop
ardy by claims laid by those who had been
the most open and sanguinary enemies to
our country in the revolutionary contest —
and knowing that this gentleman was in
politics the most moderate, and in under
standing the most able and best informed,
we could not reconcile this letter with the
decent resignation, upon any presumption of
that liberality Which we were at firft ready
to give them credit for.
In fa&, it now appears, that political par
ty motives alone dilated the secession, and
however the British party may affect to be
generally offended by it, we have good rea
son to believe, that with a very few excep
tions, the whole British plalanx confider it
as an expedient necessary to the exigence of
their political influence in the affairs of our
country, and our relations with other na
tions.
Should the proceedings before the com
milioners have -retained a current and act
ive existence, and been called for by con
gress at the next session, as was intended
and expected, such a stupendous monument
of wickedness was never exhibited as would
have appeared in the claims set up against
these fates under colour of the loose and in
definite language of the British treaty. A
long with the claims, numerous, odious, and
exaggerated, even where they had a shade of
justice, the pleas and arguments set up by
the British commissioners, in support of these
claims, exhibi^fuch amass of audacious me
nace and indecent contempt for our govern
ment, independence, and country as has rare
ly been uttered and endured among civiliz
ed nations.
To have brought these claims, with these
arguments, before congress, would be to have
amazed the American people —it would have
been to expose at once the immense ignor
ance or neglea of duty in the negociator of
the British Treaty, who could.have left any
opening for reducing us to so dangerous a
fituatioa.
It would have been to expose the rapa
cious designs of Britain upon us, in revenge
for our success over her arms. /
It would have been to develope the cause
why the value of the vast numbers of our
Shipping carried into British ports from 1792
to this day have never been restored, unless
in such a partial manner as would not repay
the ordinary interest of the amount.
It would have laid open the danger of A
merica being, by implication or forced con
foudion, saddled with a debt, which would
require a triplication of our whole present
enormous taxes to pay the bare interest.
There are other disclosures which could
not fail to rouse the indignation of America
against British rapacity and insolence, which
would have been the effe& of a continuance
of the deliberations under the 6th article—
to continue them would be to destroy all the
labour, intrigue, and expence which Britain
has employed to reduce these fates to a ser
vile dependence, from the establishment of
the federal government.
The proceedings of the mission are there
fore suspended, and as Mr. Liston was able
Wti© Create
BLESSED EFFECTS
PORTSMOUTH, (NEW-HAMPSHIRE) PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GEORGE JERRY OSBORNE, jun. MULBERRY LANE, NEXT DOOR TO ROUSSELETs MUSEUM.
“ WHEN YOU SHALL THESE DEEDS RELATE, SPEAK OF THEM AS THEY ARE ; NOTHING EXTENUATE NOR SET, DOWN OUGHT IN MALICE."
OF THE
From the Aurora.
The Republican Ledger.
to fatisfy Mr. Pickering on the occasion of
our flag being insulted by a British ship of
war, so we doubt not that Mr. Pickering
has been able to render this suspension per
feaiv fatisfactory to Mr. Litton.
We have before us something more than
report —something more than furmife ——
something indeed which sets the whole of
the British treaty and British views towards
these states in such a light, that neither so-,
phiftry nor the authority of office can deny
or invalidate.
We have before us the case of Andrew
Allen, Esq. with all the documents accom
panying this claim and the answer printed
by authority of the commissioners and sign
ed by “ W. Moore 'Smith, agent general for
British claimants."
The American citizens will do well to
remember that the authenticity of the fads,
as official fa&s, cannot be here doubted com
ing forth under such authority. William
Moore Smith, this Britijh agent for Britifo
claimants, is an attorney of our own courts,
a relation of that Thomas Wm. Moore, for
merly British Consul at Rhode-lfland, and
who was dismissed by Gen. Washington for
insolence to the Government of that Rate on
the sth of Sept. 1795 ; this W. Moore Smith
is a native of America, and brother of that
Charles Smith who is so very a&ive in pro
pagating slander against one of the candi
dates for Governor of this Commonwealth.
The anthenticity of this document, which
makes fifty quarto pages close printing, and
which in law manuferipts would make at
least forty sheets, is now before us, and may
be seen by any citizen who thinks it worth
while to apply to the editor.
It is our present purpose to give as perfe&
an abftraa of tde whole case as our limits
will admit of, in order that the public may
perceive how well founded were the alarms
which we resounded nearly twelve months a
go —and how imminent Was the danger and
how serious the evils to which America was
exposed by the British treaty.
Andrew Allen was before the revolution
a lawyer of no great eminence for talents,
but possessed of some property ; and at a
particular crisis of the revolution, when Bri
tain appeared ready to pounce upon us, and
the weak, the daftardlv, and the trimming
members of society, tho't the cause of Ame
rica was undone, fled and joined the British.
In this case which is dated the 28th Nov.
1898, he Riles himfelf “ Andrew Allen, of
London, in the kingdom of Great-Britain,
and he Rates that he is, and from his birth
ever has been, a fubjea of the king of Great
Britain, and that on the 6th of March 1778,
the legislature of Pennsylvania attainted him
of high' treason and contifcated to the use of
the commonwealth the estate real and per
sonal of the said Andrew Allen within the
commonwealth." He proceeds to Rate per
sons indebted to him in large sums of money
who in consequence of the said a& paid the
fame to the executive authority of the Rate,
to the amount (with interest) of Fifteen thou
sand and eighty three pounds thirteen Jhillings
andthree pence three farthings—and tor this
amount he lays his claim.
In this place it is well worthy of remark
that Thomas M'Kean was the Chief Justice
before whom the claim under the law of the
Commonwealth was decided, and Allen s
Estate confifeated by a decree of April 9,
1779, and it is only necessary to remark it
at this time, because a son of this fame An
drew Alien, who was a member ot the cele
brated anchor club which was so lavish of a
buse on President Adams, constantly writes
for the newspapers of Fenno, Brown and Por
cupine—We fay when this case is con fidered
and the complexion of those writings, it is
no longer a myßery why every thing Ame
rican and republican is abused, why Judge
M'Kean is particularly afperfed, and whv
British principles and adherents are extolled.
To this claim Mr. Read, the general a
gent for the United States,-put in an answer,
the nature of the property in land and debts
is examined, and he Rates that “ by the ad
passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania,
of the 6th March, 1778, Allen was a man
conviaed and Granted of high treason, and
all his estates forfeited. By the fame ad it
was provided that all persons claiming any
interest in estates so forfeited, may make
their claims before the jußices of the Su
preme C^rt in writing, who are to proceed
in a summary way to examine into the
claims of such persons, to feewhether they
have any right, title, inter, ff or charge, in
law or in equity," on any such estates.
The monies due to Alien it appeared were
Wednesday, december 11, 1799.
But another fa& also appears, and is con
trasted by the declaration of Andrew Alien,
in opening his claim, that he had always been
from his -birth a fubjefl of the king of Great-
Britain.
It appears that in the year 1792, the com
monwealth of Pennsylvania through princi
ples of lenity and humanity, which have al
ways diflingui(h^d this Rate, but which on
that occasion was the source of many fatal
evils to the country, granted a pardon to all
those who had been the enemies of the state,
and that this identical Andrew Allen claimed
and accepted the pardon !
It is further remarkable' that although the
agent for the United States furnilhed a copy
of the document of the pardon, this case
printed by the authority of the Britilh a
gent, does not furnifh it, though it is nam
ed.
1. That Allen was not capable of claim
ing under the 6th Article, he being an Ame
rican attainted of high treason, which at
tainder was in force at and after the treaty
of 1783, and until he received a pardon in
I79 2 -
2. That if Allen could be comprehended,
the monies due upon equitable charges on the
forfeited lands, came within the provision of
the last clause of the sth article of the treaty
°f '7B3' a ^ a remedy lay at law in the
courts.
The United States pleas against Allen's
claim were three —
3. That no interest could be justly due to
the claimant during the war.
W. M. Smith the British agent gave in a
reply to the answer of the American agent
general—Wherein he argued principally and
relied wholly upon the assumption that Allen
always had and continued to be a British fub
je&, and consequently within the stipulation
of the 6th article of the British treaty. And
he further adds this remarkable argument,
that—-“ At the time of negotiating the treaty
it was known to Mr. jay that Britijh fubjeHs
wbo had rejided in America previous to and at
the commencement of the revolution, and had
been attainted for adhering to the Britijh gov
ernment, could not recover their confifeated
debts."
The remainder of this reply is remarka
ble for its laboured prolixity, and for doc
trines, which coining from a person born in
America, profeffing to be a friend to its gov
ernment, and a practitioner of law in our
courts, are the most audacious that we recot
led to have seen.
arrearages of money for lands purchased by
sundry persons, who fcverally paid the ar
rears under the law to the Commonwealth.
A desire to convery as brief a sketch of the
case as is compatible with our room, alone
prevents the detail of the extraordinary pro
ceedings, we ihall however give a few of
these ft range dodrines.
It is maintained throughout, that America
was not an independent nation, until Great-
Britain, by special peace, and for a valuable
consideration, granted our independence.
In conformity with this dodrine Mr.
Smith argues that—“ There is no risk in as
serting and no difficulty in proving that eve
ry child of British fubjeds (whether the pa.
rents were natives of Great-Britain or the
British American dominions) born in the U
nited States, between the declaration of in
dependence and the treaty of peace, can hold
estates either of inheritance or purchase in
any parts of the British dominions, notwith
fanding those parents adhered uniformly to
tfe American fide. That the treaty is tbe on-
I, point of time from which agreably to the
British constitution & laws, the United States
ceased to be a part of the British empire."
That it is that according to this argument
nine tenths of the American people at this
day are considered by Britain as Britifo fub
je&s—and by such are American people to
be 'degraded into the condition of fubjeds—
underfills do&rine it would be only neceffa
rv to prove that' Jonathan Robbins was born
before the. treaty 1783, in order to render his
recent murder perfectly legal.
There is another feature in the proceed
ings, not only of the American born Britifo
agent SMITH, in the proceedings in t his case,
but in the fufferance which was given to it
by men employed in such serious and foleinn
obje&s as the British commissioners. It is
an attempt to throw ridicule on out govern
mentfout revolution, and our independent na
tional cbarader. Thus Mr. Moore Smith
in reviewing the three feypral kinds of at
tainder under the law of this commonwealth
observes, that in cases where the party was
named, " The law could not be controuled
[I DOL. 50 CTS. PEK AItNUM.
by the courts. The power of the legislature"
could not be questioned, and if they attaint
ed a wandering Tartar for eating horse fefh,
a Turkish Mufti for fefuJtng Madeira, or an
Indian Sacbem for drinking too much rum, and
either of them had afterwards been found
within the flute\ the courts would be obliged
to confider them as traitors."
In the name of decency is this a mode of
argument suitable to be used in ferictis na
tional deliberations r In the name of com
mon sense is it a probable case that the Le
gislature of Pennsylvania would interfere
with or pass laws- concerning the food of
Tartars, Muphtis, &c. or is the open perfi
dy of an American citizen to the freedom of
his country of a nature so trivial or of a cha
ra&er so venial as to be as little within the
purview of the supreme authority of the
land ? Citizens of America, the broacher of
this ridicule is Wm, Moore Smith who re
ceives a thousand pounds ferling out of the
British Coffers for his services!
But this is not #11 —Mr. Read the agent
general on the part of the U. States, in his
observations on this extravagant and insult
ing reply—Rates as follows :—
66 When the United States became inde
pendent and took its place among the nations
of the earth, is a matter not to be determin
ed agreeably to the Britijh Constitution & Laws
—but agreeably to the laws of nature and of
nations.
" In fa& they were independent so early
as 1775, and on the ever glorious 4th of Ju
ly, 1776, they solemnly and formally declar
ed to the world, they were independent, and
from that period have maintained their in
dependence with honor and prosperity.—•
Prior to the treaty of peace (1783) they made
treaties of alliance, commerce, and naviga
tion, and were thus publicly recognized by
foreign powers, as an independent nation.—-
They carried on war, they made laws for
their government, and did every other ad of
a sovereign power.. The formal acknow
ledgment by his. Britannic majelty added
nothing to their real independence, and if the
treaty of peace never had been made, the U
nited States would have actually continued
an independent nation, though at war with
Great- Britain to this moment."
The American agent with a strength of
argument and authority that does him high
credit, continues to shew from the law of
nations, the' evidence for these principles,
and applies them to the case in difcuflion ;
but in the proceedings of the board, Smith,
the Anglo-American agent, attempts to turn
what he cannot refute into ridicule, by 4
sarcasm on the celebration of the 4th of
July, the anniversary of our independence.
The proceedings of the board on this oc<
cafion contain the following Resolve in which
this sarcasm is comprehended, & with which
we (hall close our observations this day, pro
posing to take it up again.
“ Resolved, on the said “ firft ground of
defence," and reserving the other points in
the case, that it becomes the board to refrain
from all observations on the general ques
tions suggested in the above argument ; —
namely, whether a part of a nation becomes
independent of the government which had
been eftabliihed over the whole, merely by
declaring itfelf to be so, and supporting such
declaration " by the sword ?"—whether a
part of a nation'by thus “ carrying on war"
against that which had till then been main
tained as the government of the whole ;
<c making laws for their own government,
and doing every a& of a sovereign power,"
does truly become a sovereign power ?—
whether the assertion be well founded, "that
the formal acknowledgment by his Britannic
majefly added nothing to the real indepen
dence of the United States ?"—What would
have been the case " if the treaty ofpeace
had never been made r"—whether " the U
nited States Would have actually continued
an° independent nation, though at war with
Great-Biitain at this moment r"—and how
far the celebration in every part of the coun
try of the ever glorious and ever ,nemcrakle
4th / y^ 1.776," (according to the lan
guage made life of before the board) " as the an
niversary of their sovereignty" can effed the pre
sent case ?—that the board think it fit .Ifo to re
frain from all observations on the case which Is in
jubilance put, of an unconditional Jubmiffion on the
part of Great-Britain to the independence of the
United States, and to all that had been dote under
the authority they exercised; because We case so
put, is not the case which etluady exiffs ; there
.haying been no fitch unconditional fobmiffion, or
acknowledgment of independence ofthe United Sta tes
on the part a/ Great Britain, but a recognitions Jo
lemn treaty, containing reciprocal Jliputateu, at
the price of peace, ana for the mutual! benefit <f
both, countries: . ' '* '',