The writings of James Madison, comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed. |
 |
|
|
|
TO JAMES MONROE AND WILLIAM PINKNEY. |
|
|
 | The writings of James Madison, |  |
TO JAMES MONROE AND WILLIAM PINKNEY.
I herewith enclose a Commission and letters of credence
authorizing you to treat with the British Government concerning
the maritime wrongs which have been committed,
and the regulation of commerce and navigation, between
the parties. Your authority is made several as well as
joint, as a provision for any contingency depriving either of
the co-operation of the other.
The importance of the trust is evinced by its being made
the occasion of an Extraordinary Mission, as well as by the
subjects which it embraces. And I have great pleasure in
expressing the confidence which the President feels in the
prudence and talents to which the business is committed.
It is his particular wish that the British Government
should be made fully to understand that the United States are
sincerely and anxiously disposed to cherish good will and
liberal intercourse between the two nations, that an unwillingness
alone to take measures not congenial with that disposition
has made them so long patient under violations of
their rights and of the rules of a friendly reciprocity; and
when forced at length by accumulating wrongs to depart from
an absolute forbearance, they have not only selected a mode
strictly pacific, but in demonstration of their friendly policy,
with powers to remove every source of difference, and even
to enlarge the foundations of future harmony and mutual
interest.
There can be the less ground of umbrage to the British
Government, in the Act prohibiting the importation of certain
Articles of British manufacture 1st because there is nothing
on the face of the Act beyond a mere commercial regulation,
tending to foster manufactures in the United States, to
lessen our dependence on a single nation by the distribution
of our trade, and to substitute for woolens and linens, manufactures
made from one of our principal agricultural staples.
2nd because it is far short of a reciprocity with British
exclusions of American Articles of export. 3d because as
a commercial measure discriminating in time of war, between
British and other nations, it has examples in British practice.
It deserves attention also that a discrimination was made,
and under another name still exists, in the amount of convoy
duty imposed on the trade between Great Britain with
Europe, and with America. 4th because the measure cannot
be ascribed to a partiality towards the enemies of Great
Britain, or to a view of favoring them in the war; having
for its sole object the interest of the United States, whch it
pursues in a mode strictly conformable to the rights and
the practice of all nations.
To observations of this kind it may be useful to add that
the measure was undertaken before the late change in the
British Ministry, and does not therefore imply any particular
distrust of the views of the new one, but merely a belief that
it was most consistent with self respect not to be diverted,
by an occurrence of that nature, from a ground which had
been deliberately and publickly assumed; not to mention that
no assurances sufficiently decisive had been received that a
disposition to correct the evil in question predominated in
the present Cabinet; whilst it was known that some of its
most distinguished members have heretofore been among
those evils have their origin.
In one respect the act may even be favorable to the objects
of the present Cabinet, if it should be disposed to make
unpopular concessions refused by their predecessors;
since concessions alone can now regain a lost market
for certain important and popular classes of British
manufactures.
In fine the Act may truly be represented as so far from
derogating from the amicable dispositions of the United
States towards Great Britain, that it has resulted solely from
the inefficacy of their protracted and reiterated endeavors
otherwise to obtain a just redress, and from a hope that an
appeal in this peaceable form to the reflections and interests
of an enlightened nation, would be more successful in removing
every obstacle to a perfect and permanent cordiality between
the two nations.
The instructions given to Mr. Monroe Jan'y 5–1804, having
taken into view, and being still applicable to a great
proportion of the matter now committed to your joint negotiations,
it will be most convenient to refer you to those instructions
as your general guide, and to confine the present,
to the alterations and additions, which a change of
circumstances, or a contemplation of new objects may
require.
The first article of the project comprized in the instructions
of 1804, relates to the impressment of seamen. The importance
of an effectual remedy for this practice, derives urgency
from the licenciousness with which it is still pursued, and
from the growing impatience of this Country under it. So
indispensable is some adequate provision for the case, that
the President makes it a necessary preliminary to any stipulation
requiring a repeal of the Act shutting the Market of
the U. States against certain British manufactures. At the
same time he authorizes you in case the ultimatum as stated
in the Article above referred to, should not be acceptable
following—"No seaman nor sea faring person shall upon
the high seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party,
be demanded or taken out of any ship or vessel, belonging
to the Citizens or subjects of one of the parties, by the public
or private armed ships or men of war belonging to or in the
service of the other party; and strict orders shall be given for
the observance of this engagement."
An article in these terms was, with the acquiescence of
Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. Addington, concerted between Mr.
King and lord St Vincent on the approaching renewal of
the late war. It was frustrated by an exception of the
"narrow seas", inserted by Lord St Vincent; an exception so
evidently inadmissible both in principle and in practice, that
it must have been intended as a pretext for evading the stipulation
at that time. Perhaps the present Ministry may neither
be disposed to resort to such a pretext, nor unwilling to avail
themselves of the precise sanction as far as it was given by
their predecessors.
With respect to contraband which is the subject of the
4th art, it may be observed that as it excludes naval stores
from the list, and is otherwise limited to articles strictly
military, it must be admissible to Great Britain, [and] leave but
feeble objections to an abolition of contraband altogether.
In the present state of the arts in Europe, with the intercourse
by land, no nation at war with Great Britain can be
much embarrassed by leaving those particular articles subject
to maritime capture. Whilst belligerent nations therefore
have little interest in the limited right against contraband,
it imposes on neutrals all the evils resulting from suspicious
and vexatious searches, and from questions incident to the
terms used in the actual enumeration. It is not an unreasonable
hope therefore, that in place of this article, an entire
abolition of contraband may be substituted. Should this
be found unattainable, it may be an improvement of the
Article, as it stands, to subjoin for the sake of greater caution.
Articles, such as provisions, money naval stores &c as in no
case to be deemed within the meaning of the article with
a proviso, that the specification shall not be construed to
imply in the least, that any articles not specified in the exception,
shall on that account be liable to be drawn into
question.
A doctrine has been lately introduced by the British Courts
and at length adopted by the instructions of June 1803, to
British Cruizers, which regards contraband conveyed in one
voyage as affecting a resumed or returning voyage, altho'
contraband shall have been previously deposited at its port
of destination. It will be a further improvement of the
Article to insert a declaratory clause against the innovation,
and the abuses incident to it.
The 4th article, besides the stipulation on the subject
of contraband, relates to two other subjects; 1st That of
free ships free goods, 2nd that of a trade with enemy's
Colonies.
1st. With respect to the first, the principle that a neutral
flag covers the property of an enemy, is relinquished, in
pursuance of the example of the Russian Treaty on which the
article is modelled; the relinquishment however being connected
with and conditioned on, the provision required in
favor of the neutral right to the Colonial Trade. The importance
of that principle to the security of neutral commerce,
and to the freedom of the seas, has at all times been felt by
the United States; and altho' they have not asserted it as the
established law of nations, they have ever been anxious to
see it made a part of that law. It was with reluctance, of
course, that a contrary stipulation was authorized, and merely
as a mean of obtaining from Great Britain, the recognition
of a principle now become of more importance to neutral
nations possessing mercantile Capital, than the principle of
"free ships free goods." It is to be particularly kept in view
therefore that such a contrary stipulation is to be avoided if
as to interfere as little as possible with the spirit and policy
of any provisions in favor of the principle which may be likely
to be introduced into a Treaty of peace among the present
belligerent powers of Europe. Should it be known that
Russia as well as France meant to insist on such a provision,
and that such a stipulation by the United States however
modified, will naturally affect her confidence and good will
towards them, the objection to the measure will acquire a
force that can yield only to the consideration that without
such a sacrifice the provisions for the security of our seamen,
and of our neutral commerce, cannot be obtained and that
the sacrifice will effectually answer these purposes.
2d. The vast importance of the Colonial trade, with
the circumstances and the excitement which have taken
place since the date of the Original instructions to Mr. Monroe,
will require that the neutral right on this subject, be provided
for in an appropriate Article, and in terms more explicit than
are used in the Article under review. As the right in this
case, turns on the general principle that neutrals may lawfully
trade, with the exception of Blockades and contraband,
to and between all ports of an enemy and in all Articles,
altho' the trade shall not have been open to them in time of
peace, particular care is to be taken that no part of the
principle be expressly or virtually abandoned, as being no
part of the law of nations. On the contrary it is much to be
desired that the general principle in its full extent, be laid
down in the stipulation. But as this may not be attainable
and as too much ought not to be risked by an inflexible pursuit
of abstract right, especially against the example and
the sentiments of great powers having concurrent interests
with the United States; you are left at liberty if found necessary
to abridge the right in practice, as it is done in the supplement
of Octr 1801 to the Treaty of June of that year,
between Russia and Great Britain; not omitting to provide
that in case Great Britain should by her Treaties or instructions
than it is stipulated to the United States, they may claim
the enjoyment of it in an equal extent.
The abuses which have been committed by Great Britain
under the pretext that a neutral trade, from enemy Colonies,
through neutral ports, was a direct trade, render it indispensable
to guard against such a pretext by some express declaration
on that point. The most that can be conceded on the
part of the United States, is that the landing of the goods, the
securing the duties, and the change of the ship, or preferably
the landing of the goods alone, or with the securing the
duties, shall be requisite to destroy the identity of the voyage
and the directness of the trade, and that the ordinary
documents of the Custom House officers, shall be sufficient
evidence of the facts or fact.
A satisfactory provision on this subject of a trade with
enemy Colonies, is deemed of so much consequence to the
rights and interests of the United States, and is so well
understood to have been contemplated along with a like
provision against the impressment of seamen, in the late
Act of Congress prohibiting the importation of certain classes
of British Manufactures that, as was enjoined with respect to
the provision against impressment, no stipulation is to be
entered into not consistent with a continuance of that Act,
unless the provision with respect to the Colonial trade be
also obtained.
In remodelling the provision with respect to the Colonial
trade, you may with great propriety urge a distinction between
the West India Colonies, and the very distant ones in
the East Indies and elsewhere; and the reasonableness of
limiting to the former, the exception of the direct trade with
their present Countries, out of the general neutral right. The
distinction is supported by several considerations, particularly
by the greater difficulty, in the case of the more distant Colonies,
of previously knowing, and eventually proving the
regulations as they may have actually stood in time of peace;
investigations. The British Courts have in fact admitted
the distinction so far as to presume the lawfulness of the
neutral trade with the East India Colonies, as being generally
open in peace as well as war; whilst they reverse the presumption
with respect to the West Indies.
In addition to what is proposed on the subject of blockades
in VI & VII articles, the perseverance of Great Britain
in considering a notification of a blockade, and even of an
intended blockade, to a foreign Government, or its Ministers
at London, as a notice to its Citizens, and as rendering a
vessel wherever found in a destination to the notified port,
as liable to capture, calls for a special remedy. The palpable
injustice of the practice, is aggravated by the auxiliary rule
prevailing in the British Courts, that the blockade is to be
held in legal force, until the Governmental notification be
expressly rescinded; however certain the fact may be that
the blockade was never formed or had ceased. You will
be at no loss for topics to enforce the inconsistency of these
innovations with the law of nations, with the nature of blockades,
with the safety of neutral commerce; and particularly
with the communication made to this Government by order
of the British Government in the year 1804; according to
which the British Commanders and Vice Admiralty Courts,
were instructed "not to consider any blockade of the Islands
of Martinique and Guadaloupe as existing unless in respect
of particular ports which may be actually invested, and
then not to capture vessels bound to such ports unless they
shall previously have been warned not to enter them."
The absurdity of substituting such diplomatic notifications
in place of a special warning from the blockading ships, cannot
be better illustrated than by the fact, that before the notification
of a proposed blockade of Cadiz in the year 1805 was
received here from our Minister at London, official information
was received from Cadiz, that the blockade had actually
been raised, by an enemy's fleet.
It may be worth your attention that a distinction has
been admitted by the British Courts, in consideration of the
distance of the United States from the European Blockades,
between their Citizens and those of States less distant; the
notice required for the former being more positive than is
made necessary for the latter. You will be able to avail yourselves
in the discussion, and perhaps in the modification of
the Article, of the reasons on which such a distinction rests.
The instructions in the hands of Mr. Monroe are silent
with respect to Convoys. If the footing on which the neutral
right on that subject is placed by the Russian and British
Treaty of 1801, can be turned to advantage in your negotiations,
and should be understood to coincide with the present
way of thinking of Russia and other maritime powers, an
article corresponding with the regulations in that Treaty,
may be admitted. But as the United States are not in the
practice of Convoying their trade, nor likely to be so within
the period of any stipulation now to be made, and as the
progress of opinion is rather favorable than discouraging
to the enlargement of neutral rights, it is in a general view
desirable that any stipulation, such as Great Britain will
probably admit, should at this time be entered into. In
whatever arrangement on the subject limiting the protecting
right of public ships of war, may be deemed expedient,
you will be careful so to express the limitation, that it may
be applied to the exercise of the right without affecting the
abstract right itself.
There remains as an object of great importance, some
adequate provision against the insults and injuries committed
by British cruizers in the vicinity of our shores and harbors.
These have been heretofore a topic of remonstrance, and have
in a late instance, been repeated with circumstances peculiarly
provoking, as they include the murder of an American seaman
within the jurisdictional limits of the United States. Mr.
Monroe is in full possession of the documents explaining a
former instance. Herewith will be received those relating
exemplary punishment of the offenders and of indemnity for
the spoliations, but call for some stipulations guarding against
such outrages in future. With this view it is proper that
all armed belligerent ships should be expressly and effectually
restrained from making seizures or searches within a certain
distance from our Coasts, or taking stations near our harbours,
commodious for those purposes.
In defining the distance protected against belligerent
proceedings, it would not perhaps be unreasonable, considering
the extent of the United States, the shoalness of their coast
and the natural indication furnished by the well defined
path of the Gulph stream, to expect an immunity for the
space between that limit and the american shore. But at
least it may be insisted that the extent of the neutral immunity
should correspond with the claims maintained by Great
Britain, around her own territory. Without any particular
enquiry into the extent of these, it may be observed 1
That the British Act of Parliament in the year 1730—9 G.
2 C. 35 supposed to be that called the Hovering Act assumes
for certain purposes of trade, the distance of four leagues from
the shores. 2 That it appears that both in the Reign
of James I and of Charles II[162]
the security of the commerce
with British ports was provided for, by express prohibitions
against the roving or hovering of belligerent ships so near the
neutral harbours and coasts of Great Britain as to disturb
or threaten vessels homeward or outward bound; as well as
against belligerent proceedings generally within an inconvenient
approach towards British territory.
With this example, and with a view to what is suggested
by our own experience, it may be expected that the British
Government will not refuse to concur in an Article to the
following effect.
"It is agreed that all armed vessels belonging to either
positive orders and penal provisions from seizing, searching
or otherwise interrupting or disturbing vessels to whomsoever
belonging, and whether outward or inward bound within
the harbours, or the Chambers formed by headlands, or
anywhere at sea within the distance of four leagues from
the shore, or from a right line from one head-land to another;
it is further agreed that by like orders and provisions all
armed vessels shall be effectually restrained by the party to
which they respectively belong, from stationing themselves,
or from roving or hovering, so near the entry of any of the
harbours or coasts of the other, as that Merchantmen shall
apprehend their passage to be unsafe, or a danger of being
set upon and surprised; and that in all cases where death
shall be occasioned by any proceeding contrary to these stipulations,
and the offender cannot, conveniently be brought to
trial and punishment under the laws of the party offended
he shall on demand made within months be delivered up
for that purpose."
If the distance of four leagues cannot be obtained, any
distance not less than one sea league may be substituted in the
Article. It will occur to you that the stipulation against
the roving and hovering of armed ships on our coasts so as
to endanger or alarm trading vessels, will acquire importance
as the space entitled to immunity shall be narrowed.
Another object not comprehended in the instructions of
1804 to Mr. Monroe, is rendered important by the number
of illegal captures and injuries, which have been committed
by British Cruizers since that date. An indemnity for them
is due on every consideration of justice and friendship and
is enforced by the example heretofore given by Great Britain
herself, as well as by other nations which have provided by
Treaty for repairing the spoliations practised under colour
of their authority. You will press this as an object too
reasonable not to be confidently expected by the United States.
Many of the claims indeed for indemnification are so obviously
and ought not therefore to be presumed.
The two modes most readily presenting themselves for
a comprehensive provision for the claims, are first the establishment
of a Board analogous to that provided for in the
7th Art of the Treaty of 1794; secondly, the substitution of a
gross sum to be distributed among the claimants according
to a liquidation to be made under the authority of the United
States.
The second is the most eligible, if the gross sum to be
allowed, be thought to approach the amount of losses to be indemnified.
To assist you in estimating these, the statements
addressed to this Department by the underwriter and others,
are herewith transmitted. These statements with those
furnished by Mr Lyman to Novr 1st will be [have?] to be
reduced according to the redress which shall have been
judicially afforded, and on the other hand to be augmented
by the addition of cases not reported here, and to be collected
from the sources of information within your own reach.
If the first mode should be adopted, great care will be
requisite, in describing the cases, to employ such general
terms as will comprehend all that are fairly entitled to redress.
It will be well at the same time to secure, by specifying, such
of the cases as can be specified and as are least susceptible
of objection. Under this head may be classed I cases in
which the official communication made by Lord Hawkesbury
to Mr. King of the 11th day of April 1801 has been violated
2d Cases in which the rules of blockade stated in Mr.
Merry's communication to the Department of State on the
12th day of April 1804 have been violated. 3d Cases
where the territorial jurisdiction of the United States has
been violated.
The list of neutral rights asserted in the Report of the
Secretary of State to the President on the 25th day of Jany
1806, will suggest other specifications which may be attempted.
It may be worth recollecting that the British order of Council
vessels on a return voyage, which had carried contraband
in the outward voyage, was never promulgated, nor was it
known that such a rule was to be enforced until the summer
of 1805. Could the rule be regarded otherwise than as it
certainly is, an innovation on the law of nations, all captures
before it was made known, and contrary to antecedent practice,
would be marked by an unjust surprise, fairly entitling
them to redress.
The business to come before such a board may be much
diminished by the reference of cases, particularly of costs and
damages and such others whose description by common
consent entitles them to redress, to the Kings Advocate and
an Advocate to be named on your part (Dr. Laurence for Example)
who may be authorized to report the sums due, subject
to the approbation in each case of Mr. Lyman our
Agent. As far as the cases fall within the observation here
made, a liquidation of them may be carried on during the
period of negotiation.
Altho' the subject of indemnifications for past wrongs
is to be pressed as of great magnitude in a satisfactory adjustment
of our differences with Great Britain; yet as the
British Government may be inflexible in refusing an arrangement
implying that her maritime principles of capture were
contrary to the law of nations, whilst she would not be inflexible
in stipulating a future practice conformable to our
wishes, it is not thought proper that a provision for indemnities
should be an absolute condition of the repeal of the
Act of Congress concerning British manufactures, provided
satisfactory arrangements shall be made relative to impressments,
and the trade with enemy's Colonies. Still however
it is to be kept in view that there are claims founded on Acts
of British cruizers violating the law of nations as recognized
by Great Britain herself, and others founded on unexpected
departures, without notice from rules of practice deliberately
settled and formally announced. Of these, examples have
to Mr. King and of Mr. Merry to the Department of State.
With respect to claims of these several kinds, it is evident
that provision is clearly due for them, and that it may be
made without implication which can alarm the pride or the
caution which may be professed. You will not fail therefore.
to bring if necessary, these claims into view, as distinguished
from others founded on controverted principles, and to let it be
understood that a refusal of them will be a painful ingredient
in the negotiations for extinguishing discontents on both sides,
and consolidating and perpetuating the friendship between
them. In case this distinction should operate in the adjustment,
it will furnish an additional reason for preferring
a gross sum, to the liquidations of a joint Board, first because
it will admit of a liberal sum, if the British Government should
be liberally disposed, on presumptions not affecting her maritime
principles. Secondly, because it will leave the United
States free to apply the gross sum, in redressing claims, according
to our maritime principles. A precedent for such
an expedient may be found in the Convention of Jany
1756 between Great Britain and Persia; whereby a gross sum
of £20,000 sterling was paid to the latter as an extinguishment
of claims on account of illegal captures, without reference
to the precise rules by which it was to be applied. The treaty
of Pardo in Jany 1739 between Great Britain and Spain,
is another precedent. In that Treaty the sum of £95,000
sterling was stipulated in the like general manner, to be
paid to Great Britain by Spain, as a compromise for all
reparation of maritime injuries.
If the United States succeed in making satisfactory arrangements
on the principal points of impressment of seamen,
Colonial trade, and still more if provision be also made for
indemnity for spoliations, it may be naturally expected that
Great Britain will require, not only the repeal of the prohibitory
act of last Session, but also some security that the
United States will not by subsequent acts of the same nature
reasonably urge that demand on the double plea, of having
yielded on those points which were the subjects of complaint
on the part of the United States, and of her being now for
want of a Commercial Treaty placed in that respect at the
discretion of the United States; whilst they are precluded by
their Treaties with the enemies of Great Britain (Holland,
France and Spain) from the power of laying prohibitions or
restrictions particularly affecting those nations.
The most natural arrangement in that respect will be simply
to agree that the two parties shall enjoy in the ports of each
other in regard to commerce and Navigation, the privileges
of the most favored nation. But the Article should be framed
so as to embrace 1st every privilege and particularly the
exemption from higher duties of every description either
on imports or exports and including Convoy duties, that are
paid by the most favored nation; 2dly all the possessions
of Great Britain in every port of the world; which will secure
admission at all times in both East and West Indies, on the
same terms as are now or may in future be enjoyed by the
most favored nation, whether it be a friend or an enemy.
The same clause of the footing of the most favored nation
may be extended not only to navigation and Commercial intercourse
between the two nations, but to points which relate
to the rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals: an
arrangement which would secure to Great Britain the same
rights in relation to the admission of her armed vessels in
our ports and to the exclusion of her enemies privateers and
of their prizes, which are now enjoyed by Holland, Spain
and other most favored nations: whilst it would place the
rights of the United States as neutrals on the same footing
with Russia or the most favored nation in respect to search,
Convoys, blockades and contraband.
If, it shall be thought eligible to place the reciprocal commercial
privileges of the two nations on a more definite basis
than they would be placed by the general expression of the
of ascertaining the equivalent to be given in cases where
a privilege is granted by one of the contracting parties to
another nation in exchange for some favor which the other contracting
party cannot specifically give) it may be done, either
by abolishing all alien duties either on vessel or cargo, or both,
and reciprocally placing the vessels of the other nation on the
same footing with national vessels; conformably to a provision
in which Great Britain concurred by an Act of Parliament in
the year 1802 or by fixing the maximum of alien duty which
each nation shall have the right to impose on the vessel or
Cargoes of the other nation. But should the last plan be
adopted, care must be taken 1st that in fixing the maximum
of the alien duty to be levied on vessels, all charges whatever
and under whatever name known, whether tonnage Light
House money, port charges &c. shall be included, 2dly That
the maximum of the alien duty to be levied on merchandize
imported in the vessels of the other nation (beyond the
dities levied on similar Articles imported in the national
vessels) shall be a per centage on the value of the merchandize
itself and not on the original duty 3dly that the right
of imposing such maximum duties either on the vessels or
merchandize shall never be exercised so as to contravene the
other stipulation of enjoying the privileges of the most favored
nation 4thly That the stipulation shall not embrace vessels
and cargoes coming from or going to ports from which the
vessels or cargoes of the United States are excluded.
Should the expedient of a Maximum be adopted, it must
not be overlooked that the productions of the United States
exported to Great Britain employ a far greater tonnage than
the exports from Great Britain to the United States; that the
higher the maximum therefore the more favorable to Great
Britain, who may avail herself according to the degree of it
to secure to her vessels the carriage of our bulky productions,
of which her duty on Tobacco imported in American vessels is
an example; leaving to the United States the opportunity
exports; and that consequently no maximum ought to be admitted
more unfavorable to the United States, than the
regulations likely to prevail, if uncontrouled by Treaty.
A mutual abolition of alien duties would probably be favorable
to the Navigation of the United States, which would then have
to contend on equal terms with British Navigation, for which
it may be expected to be at least a match at all times, and
more than a match when Great Britain is at War, which is not
less than half the time.
The only great branch of Commercial intercourse which
would remain unprovided for, is that of intercourse with the
British Colonies and dependencies: and if nothing can be
obtained on that ground, care also must be taken in framing
the Article for reciprocally enjoying the privileges of the most
favored nation, not to deprive the United States of the right
of making such regulations as they may think proper in relation
to vessels coming from ports from which their own vessels
are excluded, or in relation generally to the intercourse with
such ports.
As the United States confer no particular benefit on the
British possessions in the East Indies by their intercourse
with that Country, it can hardly be expected that Great
Britain will grant anything more than the general stipulation
to be placed on the footing of the most favored Nation; or
possibly a stipulation to the United States of the privileges
heretofore granted to foreigners, which in relation to the
coasting trade, and the trade from India ports to all foreign
Countries as well as that owning the vessel exceeded the
privileges stipulated in the Treaty of 1794.
But as relates to the West Indies and North American
Colonies it must be a permanent object of the United States,
to have the intercourse with them made as free as that with
Europe. The relative situation of the United States and those
Colonies, and particularly those wants which we can alone
supply, must necessarily produce that effect at some no very
either by abandoning by Treaty the strong hold which our
right of stopping the intercourse gives us; or by accepting
any temporary or trifling privilege, the exercise of which
would diminish the probability of soon obtaining a perfectly
free trade.
It is not probable that Great Britain will be disposed to
open the intercourse to our vessels with her North American
Colonies; nor does it appear that any limitation or restriction
can be offered by the United States, calculated to quiet the apprehensions
of Great Britain that to open that trade to our
vessels would destroy their own. It is not perceived that any
thing else can be proposed but perfect reciprocity as is contemplated
in relation to the Intercourse between the United
States and the British dominions in Europe, such reciprocity
to consist either of a total abolition of alien duties or of a
fixed Maximum as above stated; and the intercourse to be
also either general or confined to Articles of the growth,
produce or manufacture of the United States and of the said
Colonies respectively. It must not be fogotten, as relates
to our commerce with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that
however advantageous to both parties, it is more beneficial to
the United States than to those Colonies. The importation
of not less than 30, perhaps 50 thousand tons of Plaister to
our agriculture needs no comment; and notwithstanding our
exclusion from their ports, we have in fact, as the trade has
hitherto been carried on, a greater share of it than themselves.
This however is the result of a connivance in practice which
may possibly be withdrawn. The produce of their fisheries
is brought by them from Halifax to Boston, and by us from
Boston carried to the West Indies. Their plaister is brought
by them from Fundy Bay to Maine, and by us from Maine to
New York, Philada and the Chesapeake. A strong jealousy
seems to exist between the shipping interest of Massachusetts
and that of those Colonies. Hence the wish of their
legislative assemblies to prohibit the exportation of plaister
law which laid the light House money tax and a high duty
on their fish, taking away at the same time the drawback
of the re-exportation of such fish. An enlightened policy
and a mutual wish to promote the real interest and welfare
of the inhabitants on both sides, should induce both Governments
to throw the trade perfectly open. But it cannot be
denied that it will give us a very great share of their carrying
trade.
The minimum which should be accepted in relation to the
intercourse with the West Indies, will be the admission of our
vessels laden solely with Articles of our growth, produce or
manufacture, the importation of which [in] British vessels is
not prohibited, on the same terms as British vessels solely
laden with the Colonial Articles shall be admitted in our
ports, that is to say, either without alien duties or with a
fixed maximum of such alien duties with the two following
restrictions, 1st. That Great Britain may prohibit our
vessels from exporting from the British West India Islands
in Sugar and Coffee, more than one half of the proceeds of
their inward Cargoes, 2dly That such Sugar and Coffee
shall be exported only to the United States, or that the vessels
thus admitted in the West Indies shall be obliged to return
and land their Cargoes in the United States, provided
they may however, on their return touch at any other West
India Island or the Bahamas to complete their cargo. For it
is usual to carry the specie which proceeds from the sale of a
cargo in the West Indies to Turks Island or the Bahamas and
there load with Salt for the United States. Altho' those
restrictions and particularly the first be inconvenient, yet
they may be acquiesced in. As respects the first restriction
the value of our average exportation, to the British West
India Islands, being Six Millions of dollars and our exportations
from thence in every article (Sugar & Coffee excepted)
being three Millions of dollars the privilege of bringing in return
in Sugar & Coffee one half of the value of our exportations
be desirable that the restriction should be altogether dispensed
with or that Great Britain should allow the exportation
in those two Articles to the amount of 2/3 or 3/4 of the value
of our Cargoes. As relates to Great Britain, if she once yields
the point of admission, the restrictions which are proposed
seem to be amply sufficient to remove her minor objections.
We now import notwithstanding the nominal prohibitions
to some amount in American vessels: about one million and
a half dollars being the whole amount imported from the
British islands, in both American and British vessels. The
value of our average importations from all the world is in
sugar, 7,800,000 in coffee 8,400,000, or more than 16 Millions
of dollars. The value of our annual consumption exclusively
of the New Orleans Sugar, is in sugar 4,000,000 in
coffee 1,500,000 or 5 ½ Millions of dollars.
To permit us therefore to import for 3 millions cannot
enable us to re-export. And three millions of dollars compared
with the value of the Sugar and Coffee exported annually
from the British West Indies which amounts to less than
millions cannot in any degree affect their own commerce
or navigation.
The second restriction is intended still more effectually to remove
any apprehension that our vessels might become carriers
of British West India produce to any other Country than
the United States. And it may even if insisted on, be farther
agreed that no drawback shall be allowable on the re-exportation
of those Articles imported from the British West Indies in
American vessels, provided, however, that on that condition
the first mentioned restriction limiting the quantity which
may be thus imported from the British West Indies in American
vessels, shall be dispensed with. The utmost care is to
be taken in framing the restriction on re-exporting from the
United States, the produce of the British West Indies, imported
in American vessels, so to express it as to leave no possible
pretext for applying the restriction to any similar Articles,
from any other than English possessions.
It will be a reasonable Stipulation on the part of Great
Britain, that at all times and places at which the trade of the
United States is admitted generally or partially the residence
of Consuls and factors shall also be admitted.
The duration of the Commercial part of the Treaty and
of any other parts which do not establish in their full extent,
the rights of neutral nations, ought not to succeed the term
of Eight years; and an abridgment even of that term may
perhaps be rendered expedient by the tenor of Articles not
inconsistent with those instructions.
| The writings of James Madison, | |