neutrality, which, though it gave some offence to the French, had the desired effect of keeping our people in proper re

straint.

In reference to the policy which guided the Administration in its connection with Great Britain, it is obvious no other salutary course could have been pursued. A treaty or another war was absolutely unavoidable. The great injustice and oppression visited upon us must have been allayed at the cannon's mouth, or our just and national rights recognized and enforced by the sovereignty of treaty stipulations.

The paralyzing effects of a seven years' war still preyed upon us; with our energies thus impaired, every sentiment of high and patriotic duty impelled our Government to seek an honorable and amicable adjustment of the difficulties that existed. In April, the President nominated John 1794. Jay as Envoy Extraordinary to the Court of St. James. Our commerce was subjected at this period to ruinous depredations. By the influence of the British Ministry peace had been concluded between the Dey of Algiers and Portugal. The vessels of the former had availed themselves of every opportunity in pursuing their depredations upon our commerce. The negotiation of the peace had been attributed to Great Britain from unfriendly purposes towards the United States. This the Ministry disavowed. In consequence of our relations with Spain, we were in imminent hazard of war with that nation. The Spaniards meditated an attack upon us on the Mississippi, to which they were instigated by the French Minister, M. Genet.

France and England made unfriendly exhibitions towards the United States, each being dubious of the assumed neutrality of this Government. France had, with much arrogance, intimated that she expected aid from us, and that national gratitude should prompt us to the effort. Great Britain feared an alliance between this Government and the French, whilst the latter had despaired of aid from us; each ignorant of the diplomatic secrets of the other, felt great vexation towards the United States Government.

Besides these and many other intricacies, all tending strongly to involve us in war with England, the feelings of our people were excited to the highest degree. An embargo had been laid for thirty days, and at its expiration, for thirty days more. A law had passed Congress to empower the President to establish and revoke embargoes at

April.

his discretion. An act had also passed increasing the officers and privates of the army; and authority was vested at the same time in the President to call on the Governors of the States for an increase of the militia. He was also empowered to have ten vessels of war built for our defence; and many other acts were passed having a tendency to augment and embitter the national feeling towards Great Britain.

It was under these circumstances, surrounded with these many vexed questions, that the ship of State had to be steered; and amidst which John Jay, relinquishing the highest law office in the world, accepted in his patriotic and selfsacrificing devotion to his country, the mission to England. No one was ever charged with higher interests; never was an ambassador perplexed with more difficult and harassing duties, which were discharged with consummate skill and wisdom.

I have alluded to the great opposition of many distinguished members of Congress to this treaty. The excitement even reached many of the State legislatures; whilst the populace of many of the large cities were riotous in their opposition not only to this treaty, of which they knew nothing, but to the idea of a treaty of any description.

The best defence of the treaty, of Washington, and of the negotiation, was delivered by Fisher Ames, in answer to Madison and Giles, who had assailed it with their greatest ability and boldest declamation, for which the latter was eminently conspicuous. Madison contended that if the proposition for carrying the treaty into effect be agreed to, it must be from one of three considerations: either that the Legislature is bound by a constitutional necessity to pass the requisite laws without examining the merits of the treaty; or that, on such examination, the treaty is deemed in itself a good one; or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it in force, although it be in itself a bad treaty. The first consideration being excluded by the decision of the House,—that they have a right to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of passing laws relative to treaties, the question first to be examined must relate to the merits of the treaty.

He mentioned the permission of aliens to hold lands in perpetuity as a very extraordinary feature in the treaty. He would not inquire how far this might be authorized by constitutional principles, but he said no example of such a stipulation was to be found in any treaty that ever was made,

either where territory was ceded or where it was acknowledged by one nation or another; although it was common and right in such regulation in favor of the property of the inhabitants, yet he believed that in every case that ever had happened the owners of landed property were universally required to swear allegiance to the new sovereign, or dispose of their landed property within a reasonable time. With respect to the great points in the law of nations, comprehended in the stipulations of the treaty, the same want of real reciprocity and the same sacrifice of interest of the United States were conspicuous.

It is well known to have been a great and favorite principle with the United States that "free ships make free goods;" they had established the principle in their other treaties. They had witnessed with anxiety the general efforts and the successful advances towards incorporating this principle into the law of nations, a principle friendly towards all neutral nations, and particularly interesting to the United States. He knew that at a former period it had been conceded on the part of the United States, that the law of nations stood as the present treaty regulates it. But it did not follow that more than acquiesence in that doctrine was proper. There was an evident distinction between silently acquiescing in it, and giving it the support of a formal and positive stipulation. The former was all that could have been required, and the latter was more than ought to have been unnecessarily yielded.*

Is it possible, said Ames, for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuation-without some respect for the measures which many will say produced, and all will confess have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene?

The well-grounded fears of our citizens in 1794 are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable; and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? The great interest and general desire of our people was to enjoy the advantages of the neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes are either cut up by the roots or referred to a new

* Elliott's Debates, vol. iv. p. 448

This was

negotiation after the end of the European war. gaining everything, because it confirms our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining everything. This alone would justify the engagements of our Government. When the fiery vapors of war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentrated in this, that we might escape the desolation of the storm.

This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marks to our eyes the space where it is raging, and affords at the same time the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale; it will become a baneful meteor, portending tempest and war.

Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus shall we save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse a spirit and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and some will think too rapid; the field of exertion fruitful and vast; the rewards of enterprise go to augment its power; profit is every hour becoming capital; the vast crop of our neutrality is all seed wheat, and is sown again to swell almost beyond calculation the future harvest of prosperity. In a strain of irresistible logic or impassioned eloquence this truly great man continued for some time to address the House.*

John Adams heard the speech. Iredell was sitting with him. "My God, how great he is!" exclaimed the judge. "How great he has been-noble!" said Adams. It was designed that this speech should close the debate in the House of Representatives. So great was its power, the opposition wished longer time to rally against the vote for an appropriation to carry the treaty into effect. It was postponed several days, yet no one attempted to answer the great speech of the

occasion.

This treaty was bitterly opposed by the Southern delegation. Only four south of the Potomac voted for it,-Hancock, of Virginia, Grove, of North Carolina, Smith and Harper, of South Carolina. It was among the New England men that it received its support, four of the delegation only voting against it-Smith, of Vermont, Dearborn, Syman, and Varnum, of Massachusetts.

* Hild. Hist. of U. S., second series, vol. i. p. 614.

VOL. I.-10

1796.

In February the treaty was returned in the form in which it had been sent to the British Ministry, properly ratified. Washington immediately issued his proclamation requiring its observance; a copy of the proclamation was sent to each House of Congress. The Republican party in the House had denied the authority of the President to negotiate this treaty, and great dissatisfaction was exhibited because the proclamation had been issued before the House expressed its sense on the obligations of the treaty.

Livingston, of New York, offered a resolution reMarch 2. questing the President to transmit a copy of the instructions sent to Jay, along with the correspondence and other documents appertaining to the treaty. A violent debate ensued; after some days the resolution passed by a vote of 57 to 35. The President refused to send the papers. His reason was that the House of Representatives had no constitutional agency in making treaties, and consequently were not entitled to the papers. In his communication, he mildly concluded by saying,-"A just regard to the Constitution and the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request." The majority poured forth great indignation upon the reception of this answer. The spirit of opposition manifested by the House was imbibed to some extent by the people.

Public meetings were held throughout the country, yet the treaty, though somewhat objectionable, was generally received with approbation, and the course of Washington approved.

After the reception of the President's answer, the debate in the House became exceedingly interesting and animated. The most attractive and distinguished speech on the occasion, was delivered by Fisher Ames, fearlessly sustaining the President, and defending the treaty. With him were Griswold, R. G. Harper, Sedgwick, and Wm. Smith. The opposition, equally distinguished for ability, was conducted by Livingston, Madison, Gallatin, and Giles.

The question was taken in committee of the whole, and was determined by the casting-vote of the chairman in favor of passing the necessary laws for the execution of the treaty, and the resolution was finally carried by fifty-one voting in the affirmative, and forty-eight in the negative.* In refer

* Marshall, vol. ii. p. 384; Hild. Hist. U. S. second series, vol. i. p. 615; Bradford's Stat. Man.