band, as between the contracting parties, and must leave that subject, with nations not parties to the contract, to the law which would have governed had such particular stipulation never been made. According to the existing state of things when the negotiations between the United States and Great Britain were opened, naval stores and timber for ship-building were, as between America and Britain, contraband of war: they would have retained this character had the treaty never been made: they would have retained it had the treaty contained no provision on the subject. The United States were truly desirous of excluding them from the list, but Britain was unwilling to do so. Had the United States possessed the means of coercion, - their established policy, founded on the basis of justice, and their own peculiar situation, forbid a resort to these means for any other purpose than the defence of their own rights, or a compliance with their own engagements. It was not a case in which force would have been deemed justifiable; and the object, being unattainable by mutual consent, was unavoidably relinquished for the moment. Yet it was proper to enumerate the articles which were before contraband, and which continued to be so, because that enumeration notified to the merchants of the United States the hazard which their commodities would encounter on the seas, and because also it prevents those vexatious altercations, which might otherwise have been produced by the efforts of one party to swell, and of the other to reduce the list.

If on the refusal of Britain to substitute any other rule concerning contraband, in the place of that established by the law of nations, France finds herself in a situation to be injured by an observance of her engagements with the United States, it is not the treaty with Britain, but that with France which has produced this situation. This was foreseen when that treaty was entered into, and did not prevent it. The stipulation concerning contraband was formed when France was at peace, and America at war; although that state of things did not long continue, yet its continuance was by no means deemed impossible. Notwithstanding this, the government of the United States has manifested a willingness to change this stipulation, as well as that which respects enemies' property in neutral

bottoms, so soon as France complained of them of this the letter from Mr. Randolph to Mr. Adet, already quoted, affords conclusive testimony.

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 most minute circumstance the preexisting situation of the United States in relation either to France or to Britain. Notwithstanding those truths, the government of the United States has hastened to assure its former friend that, if the stipulations between them be found oppressive in practice, it is ready to offer up those stipulations a willing sacrifice at the shrine of friendship.

In vain will you search in this procedure for "a known and evident sacrifice on the part of the United States of their connexions with this Republick, and of the most essential and least contested prerogatives of neutrality." In vain will you search for evidence of their "having given to England, to the detriment of their first allies, the most striking mark of an unbounded condescension, by abandoning the limits given to contraband by the law of nations, by their treaties with all other nations, and even by those of England with the greater part of the maritime powers,"

The United States feel these reproaches, as conscious. innocence feels the imputation of guilt.

2dly. It is also alleged, that "the United States have consented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provisions. Instead of pointing out particularly, as all treaties do, the cases of the effective blockade of a place, as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article, they have tacitly acknowledged the pretensions 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 shall be considered according to its letter, and according to its operation.

The objectionable words are: "and whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise: It is further agreed that whenever

any such articles so becoming contraband according to the existing laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated; but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or, in their default, the government under whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels the full value of all such articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight and also the demurrage incident to such detention."

The admissions contained in this clause are,

1st, That provisions are not generally contraband, and 2dly, That they are sometimes contraband.

An effort was made to establish the precise cases in which alone they should be subject to seizure; but America would only consent to consider them as contraband in the case of an effective blockade, seige, or investment of a place; while on the part of England this strict interpretation of the rule was not admitted: but it was contended that provisions became contraband, when there were reasonable hopes of reducing the enemy by famine. In this opposition of sentiment, to what have the United States consented? "To extend the denomination of contraband even to provisions ?" "To acknowledge tacitly the pretensions raised by England to create blockades in your colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation ?"" "To secure to the English alone the carriage of meals ?" "In a word, to have commerce only with England?" Reconsider the words themselves, and it will require no comment to prove how inapplicable to them are these assertions. The clause complained of having stated the admission and the difficulty already mentioned, proceeds to say: "It is further agreed that whenever any such articles, so becoming contraband according to the laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified."

It is too clear to admit of contestation, that this clause does not declare provisions to be contraband, or admit of their seizure in any other case than where," according to the existing law of nations, they should become contraband" in such case the right to seize them is not given by this article, but is admitted by France and by all the world to exist independent of treaty. In such case they

would have been seized had this stipulation never been entered into ; and would have been confiscated also. The only alteration, which is by the letter of the clause produced in the law of nations, is to exempt from confiscation goods which under that law would have been subject to it.

But it is has been suspected to have an object and an operation in practice different from its letter. It has been suspected to cover a design to admit substantially certain principles, with respect to blockades, which in theory are denied.

Incapable of duplicity, America with the pride of conscious integrity, repels this insinuation, and courts an investigation of the facts on which it is founded.

The government of the United States and that of Britain, having construed the law of nations differently in this respect, each would have acted upon its own opinion of that law: the privateers of England would have seized as contraband any goods, deemed such in their courts of admiralty; and the government of the United States would have reclaimed such goods, and would have supported the demand in such a manner as its own judgment dictated. This procedure is not changed. The right to make such reclamation has not been relinquished, nor has the legality of the seizure, in any other case than that of an attempt to enter a place actually invested, been in any degree admitted.

It is true, that the British government renewed the order concerning provisions about the time of the ratification of this treaty but it is not less true, that the government of the United States manifested a firm resolution to submit to no such construction, and remonstrated so seriously against it as to produce a revocation of the order. Nor is this all claims for provisions seized in cases of a mere proclamation-blockade have been actually made, and have been actually decided in favour of the claimants. The British government has acquiesced under such decisions. by paying the sums awarded. These sums were not limited to a reasonable profit on the price of the commo dity seized, but were regulated by its price at the port of destination, and consequently the actual as well as avowed principle of such decisions was, that the goods seized

had not become contraband" according to the existing law of nations."

The intention of the government then, and the practice under the article, are in direct opposition to these injurious suspicions, the indulgence of which has produced such pernicious effects. It is even believed that the decision on this subject, will be one step towards the establishment of that principle for which America has never ceased to contend. It is also believed, and has ever been believed, that the article objected to would have a necessary tendency to increase, and did in fact increase the quantity of provisions imported from America into France and her colonies. The American commerce, being entirely in the hands of individuals, is consequently conducted by them according to their own views of particular advantage they will unquestionably endeavour to supply the highest market, unless restrained from doing so by other considerations which render it unadvisable to attempt such a supply. In their calculations, the risk of reaching the market is too important an item to be passed over or forgotten. Every diminution of this risk adds to the number of those who will attempt the supply and consequently a knowledge that the voyage, should it even fail by the seizure of the vessel, would yet be profitable, must increase the number of those who would make it.

It is plain then, that this article admits the seizure of provisions in no situation where they were not before seizable; and encourages their transportation to France and her colonies, by diminishing the risk of such transportation.

66 as

It is also complained of, that this treaty has not, all treaties do, pointed out particularly the cases of the effective blockade of a place," as alone forming an exception to the freedom of provisions.

Articles in a treaty can only be inserted by consent. The United States therefore can never be responsible for not having inserted an article to which the other contracting party would not assent. They may refuse to make any change in the existing state of things prejudicial to themselves or to other powers; and they have refused to make any such change. But it is not in their power to insert, as by common consent, an article, though merely declaratory of a principle which they considered as cer