so than it was under the confederation, where it has been deemed adequate to do much more in this respect than has been done by the treaty in question.

In fine, the objection to the constitutionality of this article, is manifestly futile.

Article X. In my opinion this article is nothing more than an affirmance of the modern law and usage of civilized nations, and is valuable as a check upon a measure which, if it could ever take place, would disgrace the government of the country, and injure its true interests.

The general proposition of writers on the laws of nations is, that all enemy's property, wherever found, is liable to seizure and confiscation; but reason pronounces that this is with the exception of all such property as exists in the faith of the laws of your own country; such are the several kinds of property which are protected by this article.

And though in remote periods the exception may not have been duly observed, yet the spirit of commerce, diffusing more just ideas, has been giving strength to it for a century past, and a negative usage among nations, according with the opinions of modern writers, authorizes the considering the exception as established.

If there have been deviations from that usage in the actual war of Europe, they form no just objection to this reasoning: for this war has violated, in different instances, most of the most sacred laws of nations.

It is said that the power which is given up by this article, was the only effective check upon Great Britain. I answer, 1st. That there existed before no rightful or moral power; and, notwithstanding the treaty, there will still exist a power without right or morality. The treaty only adds the sanction of an express, to what was before an implied pledge of the public faith. .The one may be still violated as well as the other; and the only use of the article will be, to give prudent and good men an acditional argument against an act of national iniquity.

2d. That the fear of the exercise of this power has not hitherto appeared to be a check upon Great Britain; and the menace of

its exercise can never take place without doing ourselves more harm than good, by tarnishing our honor and shaking our credit.

3d. That war itself acts as a virtual sequestration of property, by interrupting the course of remittances; and the gov ernment by interfering does little more than render itself liable for the dilapidations of vicious individuals who take advantage of the circumstance; since treaties of peace, unless one party is totally prostrate, will never fail to reinstate private debts.

What benefit did those States derive which had recourse to the expedient of sequestrations in our war? How much wiser and less embarrassing to themselves was the policy of those States who refrained from it. And why did they refrain from it, but because they thought it unwarrantable and impolitic?

I have not the State laws by me, and cannot speak with certainty from memory; but as far as I recollect, a majority of the States, including the most commercial, abstained from the sequestration or confiscation of private debts, except in the case of convicted or attainted criminals, which may be regarded as an indication of the general opinion. For if ever a war warranted such a measure, it was our Revolution war.

I conclude from the whole, that no honest or truly politic objection lies against this article; and that a willingness to enter into the stipulation is reputable to the country, while an unwillingness would be disreputable to it.

These ten are all the permanent articles. They close the various matters of controversy with Great Britain, and, upon the whole, they close them reasonably. Compensation for the negroes, if not a point of doubtful right, is certainly a point of no great moment. It involves no principle of future operation. It terminates in itself; and the actual pecuniary value of the object is in a national sense inconsiderable and insignificant.

The remaining articles are temporary. I proceed to review them in their order.

Article XI. This article is a mere introduction to the succeeding articles.

Article XII. This article is in my judgment an exception

able one. The principle of a restriction upon any thing which is not the produce of the treaty itself, is unprecedented and wrong. Had it been confined to articles from the British islands, it would have been justified; but extending to articles from other countries, and, according to the letter, to one which is the growth of our own country, it appeared to me from the beginning inadmissible. It might also have proved a source of dissatisfaction to France, by interrupting in the midst of the war a regular and just source of supply through us. And though I would not omit any measure which I thought for the national interest, because any foreign power might capriciously dislike it, yet I would do no act giving a reasonable cause of dissatisfaction. And for these reasons I am glad, though at the risk of the treaty, that the Senate has accepted it.

I do justice to Mr. Jay's reasoning on this subject. He thought rightly that the re-exportation of the articles in ordinary times was a matter of little consequence to this country, and that it was of importance by a formal treaty to establish the precedent of a breach in the navigation system of Great Britian, which might be successively widened. These reasons were not light ones, but they are in my judgment outweighed by the other considerations.

Article XIII. This article is a valuable one. In considering it, it is necessary to reflect that the privileges we now enjoy in the British East Indies are by the mere sufferance of the local government, and revocable at pleasure. This article converts into a right by stipulation, not all that we before enjoyed by sufferance, but the most essential and extensive part of it-the direct trade between India and the United States. Heretofore by sufferance we have been occasionally let into the coasting trade, and have been permitted to go from India to other countries than the United States. The treaty, though it permits a circuitous trade to India, permits only a direct trade from India to the United States; but when the articles arrive within the United States, we may re-export them, or do whatever else we please.

But though the treaty does not secure to us an indirect trade from India, nor the coasting trade there, I do not see but that

these matters will be left just where they were before; that is, depending on the sufferance or free permission of the British government in India. When two parties agree that a certain thing shall not be done, it is always with this tacit exception, unless the party for whose benefit the restriction is imposed shall consent to waive it. If the British government finds it expedient to continue to us the advantages not granted by treaty, its permission ad hoc will release the restriction in the treaty and confer the right. "Tis by the same permission we have hitherto enjoyed it, and by its continuance we may enjoy it still.

The interest of the other party was the only ground upon which we heretofore enjoyed any privilege in the British East Indies. That interest without the treaty would continue the privilege so long, and so long only, as the interest continued. It will still do the same as to what is not included in the treaty, and the result of the whole is this-that the treaty converts into matter of right the most extensive and most valuable part of a trade, which before was wholly matter of sufferance, leaving the residue now as it was before, matter of sufferance, to be continued or discontinued according to the interest of the party.

Some alarm has been attempted to be excited as if under this article, the British merchants could enter into competition with us in the India trade, and by the superiority of their capitals, supplant us. But there is not a syllable in this article which renders this at all more possible now than it was before.

There is a clause which says negatively that our vessels shall pay in India no other or higher duties than are payable on British vessels in the ports of the United States. But as it is at the option of the other party under this article, not to make us pay as much tonnage in India as British vessels pay in the United States, so before the treaty it was in their power to make us pay not only as much but more; now by the treaty they are restrained from making us pay more, so that something is gained, nothing lost. There is a clause which immediately follows, very important in a contrary sense to the object. This clause secures us from paying higher duties in India on articles imported and exported in our vessels than are paid on the same articles in British

vessels; whereas before they might have imposed at pleasure, higher duties on our cargoes, and very reasonably could have gone so far as to countervail the higher duties which we lay on foreign vessels bringing goods from India.

In fine this article is all on one side, and favorable to us. Article XIV. This article is a general formula without any special or remarkable feature.

Article XV. This article, with more precision than is usual, only establishes reciprocally the rule of the most favored nation. It stipulates that as to the points enumerated, Great Britain shall be on no worse footing than other nations, but it gives her no preferences. It was impossible to expect that a treaty could be formed of which this was not the basis.

The last clause but one assures to Great Britain the right of imposing on American vessels entering into her ports in Europe, and their cargoes, duties which shall countervail the differences made in our ports between British and American vessels and their cargoes. This right Great Britain enjoyed before the treaty, and it depended then upon her option as it does still to exercise or not to exercise it. And it is now in our option to defeat the reservation if we choose it by equalizing the duties.

The last clause stipulates on our side a continuance of the status quo as to the tonnage duty on British vessels, and as to the proportional difference of duties on articles imported in British and American vessels. This status quo is such as we have no interest to vary, unless on the plan of coercive regulations, an idea which is certainly incompatible with the being of the treaty while it continues in force.

Article XVI. This article merely relates to consuls, and is on the common and a harmless footing.

Article XVII. This article, recognizing the right of a belligerent nation to take its enemy's goods out of a neutral vessel, establishes the usual grounds against abuse.

It is impossible to deny that the principle recognized is conformable with the laws of nations. It is the uniform doctrine of writers, and was the uniform and universally allowed practice of nations before the armed neutrality brought it into controversy.