Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

laws of sovereign States, and as such obligatory upon the people of each State.

McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209; Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12
Wheat. 523.

66

The astute and resolute representatives of the United States have on every occasion shown a marked superiority over ours in framing and interpreting treaties, and in the assertion or infringement of rights in which British interests were concerned; but in no instance have they given a more signal proof of their skill in this regard than they did in that portion of the treaty of 1783 which purported to define the territorial boundary between the mother country and her emancipated colonists." (Diplomatic Review, Oct. 1872, vol. 20, p. 231.)

As to the treaty of peace of 1782-3, see 1 John Adams's Works, 294, 355, 359; 3 id. 74, 78, 259, 281, 290, 299; 7 id. 119, 143, 165, 177, 238, 306, 431, 554, 562, 570, 606, 610, 639, 645, 649.

As to its signature and ratification, see 3 John Adams's Works, 348, 363– 383; 8 id. 50, 54, 57, 72-92, 115, 134, 137, 143, 154, 165, 177, 180, 196, 204, 358; 9 id. 521.

For the application to the northeastern fisheries of the position that
the treaty of peace was a recognition, not a grant, of independence,
see supra, §§ 163, 164.

For a review of the stipulations relating to the boundary, see Moore, Int.
Arbitrations, I. 97-119.

All British grants of land in the United States made subsequent to the Declaration of Independence are inoperative under the treaty of 1783.

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat. 523.

The United States, by the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired the sovereignty of Michigan, which was part of the French domain prior to the conquest by Great Britain in 1750, and as an incident of such sovereignty succeeded to the prerogatives of the King of France in dealing with seignioral estates for a forfeiture for nonfulfillment of the conditions of the fief.

United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211.

Article IV.

During the Revolutionary war various States, among which was Virginia, passed acts of sequestration and confiscation, by which it was provided that, if the American debtor should pay into the State treasury the debt due to his British creditor, such payment should constitute an effectual plea in bar to a subsequent action for the recovery of the debt. When the representatives of the United States and Great Britain met at Paris to negotiate for peace the question of the confiscated debts became a subject of controversy, especially in connection with that of the claims of the loyalists for the confiscation of their estates. Franklin and Jay,

[ocr errors]

though they did not advocate the policy of confiscating debts, hesitated, chiefly on the ground of a want of authority in the existing national government, to override the acts of the States. But when John Adams arrived on the scene he delivered one of those dramatic strokes of which he was a master, and ended the discussion by suddenly declaring, in the presence of the British plenipotentiaries, that, so far as he was concerned, he "had no notion of cheating anybody; that the question of paying debts and the question of compensating the loyalists were two; and that, while he was opposed to compensating the loyalists, he would agree to a stipulation to secure the payment of debts. It was therefore provided, in the fourth article of the treaty, that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery in full sterling money of bona fide debts contracted prior to the war. This stipulation is remarkable, not only as the embodiment of an enlightened policy, but also as perhaps the strongest assertion to be found in the acts of that time of the power and authority of the National Government. Indeed, when the British creditors, after the establishment of peace, sought to proceed in the State courts they found the treaty unavailing, since those tribunals held themselves still to be bound by the local statutes. In order to remove this difficulty, as well as to provide a rule for the future, there was inserted in the Constitution of the United States the clause declaring that treaties then made, or which should be made, under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land, binding on the judges in every State, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. On the strength of this provision the question of the debts was raised again, and was finally brought before the Supreme Court. On the question of the right of confiscation the judges differed, one holding that such a right existed, while another denied it, two doubted, and the fifth was silent. But as to the operation of the treaty all but one agreed that it restored to the original creditor his right to sue without regard to the validity or the invalidity of the Virginia statute.

See Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 199.

For a similar decision in regard to the Maryland statute, see Clerke v.
Harwood (1797), 3 Dallas, 342.

As to the failure of Art. IV. of the treaty of peace and the decisions of
the Supreme Court thereunder to secure effective redress, and the
ultimate settlement of the matter, see 1 Moore's Int. Arbitrations, 271
et seq.

A, a citizen of Connecticut, owed a debt to B, a citizen of the same State. Some time after the beginning of the Revolutionary war B joined the British army, and in consequence the debt in question was confiscated to the State of Connecticut. After the close of the war, however, B sued A, then a citizen of Pennsylvania, for the recovery

of the debt, which, though B's whole estate, personal as well as real, was declared to be forfeited, had not in fact been collected from A. Held, that the principle of international law as to the revival of debts, or of remedies for the recovery of debts, did not apply where a debt had been confiscated for a treasonable act; that the provisions of Article IV. did not apply to such a case, and that B was not entitled to sue.

Camp . Lockwood (Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 1788), 1 Dallas, 393.

The provisions of Article IV. did not extend to any obligation to pay money growing out of captures made during the war of property in the actual possession of the enemy, whatever might be the means employed in making such captures.

Hannay v. Eve (1806), 3 Cranch, 242.

Where a note was given in Virginia to British creditors in 1772 and was not barred by the State statute of limitations prior to the war, it was held that Article IV. of the treaty of peace prevented the operation of the statute after the war, although one of the plaintiffs was in the county in 1784 and remained there.

Hopkirk v. Bell (1806), 3 Cranch, 454; (1807), 4 Cranch, 164.

Article V., of the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783 saved the lien of a mortgage upon confiscated land which at the time remained unsold.

Articles V. and VI.

Higginson v. Mein (1808), 4 Cranch, 415.

Article V. did not apply to a forfeited mortgage, the right to redeem which had been lost at the time of the treaty.

Owings v. Norwood's Lessee (1809), 5 Cranch, 344.

Article VI. of the treaty of peace of 1783 protected from forfeiture, by reason of alienage, lands then held by British subjects.

Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453.

This was so even where, though the owner was attainted of treason and his estate confiscated, his estate was not taken possession of by the State before the peace. (Resp. v. Gordon, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1788, 1 Dallas, 233. )

Where a claim to real estate depended on the question whether its confiscation under the laws of Maryland was complete at the time of the making of the treaty of peace, by the sixth article of which unconfiscated estates were protected, it was held that a writ of error would lie to the court of appeals of Maryland, on the ground that the con

struction of the treaty was drawn in question and that the decision of the State court was adverse to the right set up under the treaty, though the question whether the treaty protected the claim depended upon the true construction of the State laws.

Smith v. Maryland (1810), 6 Cranch, 286.

The term "prosecutions," in Article VI. of the treaty of 1783, imports a suit against another in a criminal cause, such prosecutions being conducted in the name of the public, the ground of them being distinctly known as soon as they are instituted and being always under the control of the government.

Bradford, At. Gen., 1794, 1 Op. 50.

2. JAY TREATY, 1794.

(1) HISTORICAL SKETCH.
§ 826.

By Article VII. of the treaty of peace of 1783 it was agreed that His Brittannic Majesty should," with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants," withdraw his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the United States. When, on Nov. 25, 1783, the British forces were withdrawn from New York, complaint was made that they took with them, or sent in advance, 3,000 negroes; and in 1794 the British still occupied Detroit, Mackinaw, Fort Erie (Buffalo), Niagara, Oswego, Oswegatchie, Point au Fer, and Dutchmans Point. Washington, soon after he became President, made an effort to restore good relations between the two countries. After the conclusion of peace, John Adams was sent as minister of the United States to London, but no British minister was sent in return to the United States, and in time diplomatic relations fell into suspense. In these circumstances Washington authorized Gouverneur Morris, who was expected soon to be in London, to make unofficial inquiries as to the sentiments of the British ministry concerning the execution of the treaty of peace. Morris arrived in London March 28, 1790, and lost no time in calling on the Duke of Leeds, who was then minister for foreign affairs. Being cordially received, he assured the duke that all obstacles to the recovery of British debts had been removed by the adoption of the Constitution and the organization of the Federal courts. The duke, on the other hand, took the ground that the stipulations of the treaty should be performed in the order in which they stood, and finally declared that Great Britain would retard the evacuation of the posts till redress was granted to British subjects. In this declaration Pitt concurred. Morris's negotiations continued through the summer of 1790, without other result than the

promise of the British government to send a minister to the United States. This promise was fulfilled, but the negotiations which took place from November, 1791, to May, 1792, between Mr. Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, and Mr. Hammond, the British minister, on the subject of the inexecution of the treaty, produced nothing more tangible than an exchange of certain voluminous diplomatic

notes.

April 16, 1794, Washington sent to the Senate the nomination of John Jay, then Chief Justice of the United States, as envoy extraordinary to Great Britain. Washington, in explanation of his action, referred to the "serious aspect" of affairs and expressed the opinion that "peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal before the last resort, which has so often been the scourge of nations, is contemplated." The relations between the two countries had by this time been greatly embittered by the attacks made on neutral trade under the orders in council issued by the British government in the long contest with France that had lately begun. Jay's nomination was confirmed by a vote of 18 to 8. His instructions, which were signed by Edmund Randolph, were dated May 6, 1794. He sailed from New York on the 12th of the same month.

Jay had scarcely left the United States when the British governor of Canada, Lord Dorchester, made a speech, unfriendly in its character to the United States, to Indians then aroused against the United States, and three companies of a British regiment went to the foot of the rapids of the Miami, in the southern part of what is now the State of Ohio, to build a fort there. When complaints were made of these hostile acts the British minister at Washington justified both as defensible preparations for an actual state of war about to begin between the two nations, and retorted by complaining of the fitting out of French privateers in American ports, and of the " uniformly unfriendly treatment which His Majesty's ships of war

ex

perienced in the American ports." President Washington, in transmitting the correspondence to both Houses of Congress, said “ This new state of things suggests the propriety of placing the United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an event which, natwithstanding the endeavors making to avert it, may, by circumstances beyond our control, be forced upon us."

Jay made his first formal representations to Earl Grenville July 30, 1794, and on the 6th of August submitted a series of articles. Various projects were exchanged, and on the 19th of November a treaty was signed.

For the correspondence between Jefferson and Hammond, concerning the inexecution of the treaty of 1783, see Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 188, 189, 190-193, 193-200, 201-237, 238.

« PředchozíPokračovat »