University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
The writings of James Madison,

comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
collapse section
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
collapse section
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MONDAY APRIL 14.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MONDAY APRIL 14.

The Committee on the report of the Secretary of foreign
Affrs. reported as follows. Mr. Hamilton dissenting.

    1.

  • That it does not appear that Congress are any wise bound
    to go into the ratification proposed. “The Treaty” of which a ratification
    is to take place, as mentioned in the 6th. of the Provisional
    articles, is described in the title of those articles to be “a Treaty of
    Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of G. B. and
    the said U. S., but which is not to be concluded until terms of
    Peace shall be agreed upon between G. B. & France.” The Act
    to be ratified therefore is not the Provl. articles themselves, but
    an Act distinct,—future,—and even contingent. Again altho' the
    Declaratory Act entered into on the 20th. of Jan.y last, between the
    American & British Plenipotentiaries relative to a cessation of
    hostilities, seems to consider the contingency on which the
    Provl. articles were suspended as having taken place, yet that act
    cannot itself be considered as the Treaty of Peace meant to be
    concluded;
    nor does it stipulate that either the Provl. articles, or
    the act itself should be ratified in America; it only engages that
    the U. S. shall cause hostilities to cease on their part, an


    449

    Page 449
    engagement which was duly fulfilled by the Proclamation issued on
    the 11th. instant; lastly it does not appear from the correspondence
    of the American Ministers, or from any other information, either
    that such ratification was expected from the U. S. or intended on
    the part of G. B.; still less that any exchange of mutual
    ratifications has been in contemplation.

  • 2.

  • If Congress are not bound to ratify the articles in question,
    the Come are of opinion that it is inexpedient for them to go immediately
    into such an Act; inasmuch as it might be thought to
    argue that Congress meant to give to those articles the quality
    & effect of a definitive Treaty of Peace with G. B., tho' neither
    their allies nor friends have as yet proceeded farther than to sign
    preliminary articles; and inasmuch as it may oblige Congs to fulfil
    immediately all the stipulations contained in the provl articles,
    tho' they have no evidence that a correspondent obligation will
    be assumed by the other party.

  • 3.

  • If the ratification in question be neither obligatory nor expedient,

    the Come are of opinion, that an immediate discharge of
    all prisoners of war,[91] on the part of the U. S., is premature and
    unadvisable; especially as such a step may possibly lessen the


    450

    Page 450
    force of demands for a reimbursement of the sums expended in
    the subsistence of the prisoners.

Upon these considerations the Come recommend that a
decision of Congs on the papers referred to them be postponed.

On this subject a variety of sentiments prevailed.

Mr. Dyer, on a principle of frugality was strenuous for a
liberation of the prisoners.

Mr. Williamson thought Congs not obliged to discharge the
Prisoners previous to a definitive treaty, but was willing to go into
the measure as soon as that public honor would permit. He
wished us to move pari passu, with the British Com̃ander at New
York. He suspected that the place would be held till the
interests of the Tories should be provided for.

Mr. Hamilton contended that Congress were bound, by the
tenor of the Provl. Treaty immediately to Ratify it, and to
execute the several stipulations inserted in it; particularly that
relating to a discharge of Prisoners.

Mr. Bland thought Congs. not bound.

Mr. Elseworth was strenuous for the obligation and policy of
going into an immediate execution of the treaty. He supposed
that a ready & generous execution on our part wd. accelerate the
like on the other part.

Mr. Wilson was not surprised that the obscurity of the Treaty
sd. produce a variety of ideas. He thought upon the whole that
the Treaty was to be regarded as “contingently definitive.”

The Report of the Come. being not consonant to the prevailing
sense of Congs., it was laid aside.

 
[91]

“Genl Carleton is very importunate for an immediate execution of the
provisional articles on the part of Congress in the points of liberating the
prisoners, and recommending restitution to the Loyalists. On his part he has
set the example on the first point but says nothing of executing the other important
conditions which are in our favor. This proposition has led Congs into
a critical discussion of the import of the Provl Articles, in which the opinions
are almost as numerous as the articles themselves. Some think that the instrument
was converted by the signature of preliminary articles between F. & G.
B. into the Treaty of Peace, of which a ratification in America is alluded to in
the 6 art. Others think that it was conditioned no otherwise on terms of peace
between these powers, than that such an agreement rendered it a lawful &
necessary foundation for a Treaty of peace between the U. S. & G. B. Some
again suppose that the provl art: need no ratification from Congs but that they
ought to wait for a Treaty to be grounded on them. Others suppose that a
ratification is essential or at least proper. The latter description again are
divided—some proposing to ratify them as articles still contingent, others to
ratify them as having taken effect in consequence of the preliminary Articles
between G. B. & F. This variety & contrariety of interpretation arise in a
great measure from the obscurity & even contrariety of the articles themselves.”
—Madison to Edmund Randolph, April 15, 1783. Mad. MSS.