of juftice, and their own peculiar fituation, forbid a refort to thefe means for any other purpose than the defence of their own rights, or a compliance with their own engagements. It was not a cafe in which force would have been deemed juftifiable; and the object, being unattainable by mutual confent, was unavoidably relinquished for the moment. Yet it was proper to enu merate the articles which were before contraband, and which continued to be fo, because that enumeration notified to the merchants of the United States the hazard which their commodities would encounter on the feas; and because, alfo, it prevents thofe vexatious altercations which might otherwife have been produced by the efforts of one party to fwell, and of the other to reduce the lift. If, on the refufal of Britain to substitute any other rule concerning contraband, in the place of that establifhed by the law of nations, France finds herself in a fituation to be injured by an obfervance of her engagements with the United States, it is not the treaty with Britain, but that with France, which has produced this fituation. This was forefeen when that treaty was entered into, and did not prevent it. The ftipulation concerning contraband was formed when France was at peace and America at war; although that ftate of things did not long continue, yet its continuance was by no means deemed impoffible. Notwithstanding this, the government of the United States has manifested a willingness to change this ftipulation as well as that which refpects enemies property in neutral bottoms, fo foon as France complained of them: of this the letter from Mr. Randolph to Mr. Adet, already quoted, affords conclufive teftimony. It appears then, on examining this objection to the treaty between the United States and Britain, that it has not added to the catalogue of contraband a single article; that it has ceded no privilege, has granted no right, and that it has not changed in the moft minute circumftance the pre-existing situation of the United States in relation either to France or to Britain. Notwithstanding these truths, the government of the United States has haftened to affure its former friend that, if the ftipulations between them be found oppreffive in practice, it is ready to offer up these stipulations a willing facrifice at the fhrine of friendship. In vain will you fearch in this procedure for "a known and evident facrifice on the part of the United States of their connexions with this republic, and of the most effential and leaft contested prerogatives of neutrality." In vain will you search for evidence of their "having given to England, to the detriment of their firft allies, the moft ftriking mark of an unbounded condefcenfion, by abandoning the limits given to contraband by the law of nations, by their treaties with all other na tions, and even by thofe of England with the greater part of the maritime powers." The United States feel these reproaches as confcious innocence feels the imputation of guilt. Secondly. It is alfo alleged, that "the United States have confented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provifions. Instead of pointing out particularly, as all treaties do, the cafes of the effective blockade of a place, as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article, they have tacitly acknowledged the pretenfions raised by England to create blockades in our colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation." The objections to this article fhall be confidered according to its letter, and according to its operations. The objectionable words are" and whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precife cafes in which alone provifions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as fuch, renders it expedient to provide against the inconvenience and mifunderftandings which might thence arife; it is farther agreed, that whenever any fuch articles fo becoming contraband according to the existing laws of nations, fhall, for that reafon, be feized, the fame fhall not be confifcated; but the owners thereof fhall be fpeedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or, in their default, the government under whofe authority they act, fhall pay to the mafters or owners of fuch veffels the full value of all fuch articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight and alfo the demurrage incident to such detention." The admiffions contained in this cafe are First, That provifions are not generally contraband; and that, An effort was made to establish the precife cafes in which alone they should be fubject to feizure; for America would only confent to confider them as contraband in the cafe of an effective blockade, fiege, or investment of a place; while, on the part of England, this ftri&t interpretation of the rule was not admitted: but it was contended, that provifions became contraband when there were reafonable hopes of reducing the enemy by famine. In this oppofition of fentiment, to what have the United States confented?"To extend the denomination of contraband even to provifions"-" to acknowledge tacitly the pretenfions raised by England to create blockades in your colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation?"" in a word, to have commerce only with England."-Reconfider the words themfelves, and it will require no comment to prove how inapplicable to them are thefe affertions. The claufe complained of having ftated ftated the admiffion of the difficulty already mentioned, proceeds to fay-" It is further agreed, that whenever any fuch articles fo becoming contraband according to the laws of nations, fhall, for that reason, be feized, the fame fhall not be confifcated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified." It is too clear to admit of conteftation, that this claufe does not declare provifions to be contraband, or admit of their feizure in any other cafes than when," according to the existing law of nations, they should become contraband;" in fuch cafe, the right to seize them is not given by this article, but it is admitted by France, and by all the world, to exift independent of treaty. In fuch cafe, they would have been feized, had this ftipulation never been entered into, and would had been confifcated alfo. The only alteration which is, by the letter of the claufe, produced in the law of nations, is, to exempt from confifcation goods which under that law would have been subject to it. But it has been fufpected to have an object and an operation in practice different from its letter. It has been fufpected to cover a defign to admit fubftantially certain principles with refpect to blockades which in theory are denied. Incapable of duplicity, America, with the pride of conscious integrity, repels this infinuation, and courts an investigation of the facts on which it is founded. The government of the United States and that of Britain' having conftrued the law of nations differently in this refpect, each would have acted upon its own opinion of that law; the privateers of England would have feized as contraband any goods deemed fuch in their courts of admiralty; and the government of the United States would have reclaimed such goods, and would have fupported the demand in fuch a manner as its own judgment dictated. This procedure is not changed. The right to make fuch reclamations has not been relinquished, nor has the legality of the feizure, in any other cafe than that of an attempt to enter a place actually invefted, been in any degree admitted. It is true, that the British government renewed the order concerning provifions about the time of the ratification of this treaty; but it is not lefs true, that the government of the United States manifefted a firm refolution to fubmit to no fuch conftruction, and remonftrated so seriously against it as to produce a revocation of the order. Nor is this all: claims for provifions feized in cafes of a mere proclamation-blockade, have been actually made, and have been actually decided in favour of the claimants. The British government has acquiefced under fuch decifions, by paying the fums awarded. These fums were not limited to a reasonable profit on the price of the commodity feized, but were I regulated regulated by its price at the port of destination; and, confequently, the actual as well as avowed principle of fuch decifions was, that the goods feized, had not become contraband, "according to the exifting law of nations." The intention of the government then, and the practice under the article, are in direct oppofition to thefe injurious fufpicions, the indulgence of which has produced fuch pernicious effects. It is even believed that the decifion on this fubject will be one step towards the eftablishment of that principle for which America has never ceafed to contend. It is alfo believed, and has ever been believed, that the article objected to would have a necellary tendency to increafe, and did, in fact, increase the quantity of provifions imported from America into France and. her colonies. The American commerce, being entirely in the hands of individuals, is confequently conducted by them according to their own views of particular advantage: they will unquestionably endeavour to fupply the higheft market, unless re rained from doing fo by other confiderations which render it unadvisable to attempt such a supply. In their calculation, the risk of reducing the market is too important an item to be paffed over or forgotten. Every diminution of this rifk adds to the number of those who will attempt the fupply;, and confequently a knowledge that the voyage, fhould it even fail by the feizure of the veffel, would yet be profitable, muft increase the number of those who would make it. It is plain then, that this article admits the feizure of provifions in no fituation where they were not before feizable; and encourages their tranfportation to France and her colonies, by diminishing the risk of such transportation. It is alfo complained of, that this treaty has not, "as all treaties do, pointed out particularly the cafes of the effective blockade of a place," as alone forming an exception to the freedom of provisions. Articles in a treaty can only be inferted by confent. The United States therefore can never be refponfible for not having inforted an article to which the other contracting party would not affent. They may refufe to make any change in the existing ftate of things prejudicial to themselves or to other powers; and they have refused to make any fuch change: but it is not in their power to infert, as by common confent, an article, though merely declaratory of a principle which they confidered as certainly exifting, and which they mean to fupport if fuch common confent be unattainable. All that can be done in fuch a cafe is, to leave the principle unimpaired, referving entirely the right to affent it. This has been done: the principle was left unimpaired, and has been fince fuccefsfully afferted. The The United States are at all times truly folicitous to diminish as much as poffible the lift of contraband. It is their intereft, in common with all other nations whofe policy is peace, to enlarge, fo far as they can be enlarged, the rights of neutrals. This intereft is a fure guarantee for their ufing these means which they think calculated to effect the object, and which a juft regard to their fituation will permit. But they must be allowed to pursue the object in such a manner as may comport with that fituation. While they furrender no actual right, in preferving which there is a common intereft, while they violate no pre-exifting engagements (and thefe they have not furrendered or violated), they muft judge exclufively for themselves how far they will or ought to go in their efforts to acquire new rights or eftablifh new principles. When they furrender this privilege, they ceafe to be independent, and they will no longer deferve to be free. They will have furrendered in other hands the most facred of depofits-the right of felf-government; and instead of the approbation they will merit the contempt of the world. Thofe parts of the treaty between the United States and Britain, which have been felected by France as injurious to her, have now been examined. The underfigned are too well convinced that they in no degree juftify the enmity they are alleged to have produced, not to rely on a candid reconfideration of them as a fure mean of removing the impreffions they are supposed to have made. Before this fubject is entirely clofed, one other objection will be noticed. The very formation of a commercial treaty with England feems to be reprobated, as furnishing juft caufe of offence to France; and Mr. Adet has permitted himself to fay"It was a little matter only to allow the English to avail themfelves of the advantages of our treaty: it was neceffary to affure those to them by the aid of a contract which might serve at once as a reply to the claims of France, and as peremptory motives for refufals; the true caufe of which it was requifite inceffantly to difguife to her under fpecious pretexts. Such was the object of Mr. Jay's miflion to London; fuch was the object of a negotiation enveloped from its origin in the fhadow of myftery, and covered with the veil of diffimulation." Paffing over this extraordinary language, the undersigned, being only defirous of producing accommodation by the exhibition of truth, will confider the opinion which is obliquely hinted, and the fact which is directly averred. The practice of forming commercial treaties is fo univerfal among other nations having any commercial intercourfe with each other, that it feems unneceffary to difcufs their utility. The right to form those treaties has been so univerfally afferted and admitted, that it seems to be the infeparable attribute of fovereignty to |