Newspapers / The Wilmington Gazette (Wilmington, … / Feb. 16, 1797, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Wilmington Gazette (Wilmington, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
I 4. gt :-..J- 1 v lJ -rf . - it v- i f fl . mm ... w 1 t different periods, and .with that war end. ed the maritime convention. This np na tion has more rcafon to regret than our own, as well bec-p.ufe Hie principles in question refpect torn very valuable portions of our exports; as becaufe our difpofnion and pur policy prefcrving us in peace, fuch an extend ed liberty of commerce would prove, highly advantageous to us as carriers lor the powers at war. We have, &en then, that the law of nati ons, the marine laws of France, her own treaties as well as thole of other nations, and even the fyftem of the armed neutrality, inconteftibly eftablifh thefe principles. That enemies goods on board neutral veflels, are rightly fubjects of capture and condemnati on, and that timber and other articles for the equipment and armament of strips, are contraband of War; and .therefore, that the admiffion of thefe principles, in the treaty between the United States and Great-Britain, not being a grant to her of any rigit (for in what fenfe could we be faid to givg what (he before poflefled ? ) fur nifties, no jutic ground of offence to France. In What fenle too can the United States be faid to have " refufed to other nations a right" which they and we voluntarily and mutually agree id to renounce? Or how, are we chargeab le with " partiality in favor of England," b e caufe we do not take up arms to compel h tr alfo to renounce it ? But Mr. Adet, dill retting . on the idira that net to com pel Great-Britain torenor.n ce is to grant her a right, feems to imagi ne that we fhall attempt to obviate his com plaints, by faying, France having the right, by her treaty of 1778, to enjoy all . " the advantages in commerce and MLfphg " tion which the United States have granted " to England, is not injured by the ttipulia- " tions of the treaty of 1794 (with Great-. Britain) relative to contraband of war; as "they become common to her." Bntto'e fhall fay no fuch thing. The 2d article 1:0 which he refers has no relation to this fah ject. Had we granted any particular favor to Great- Britain, or to any Other nation., in refpect to commerce and navigation, we readily admit that by this article France would be immediately entitled to the fame. But in regard to contraband of war, we have granted nothing, and tneretore, un der that article, France can claim notning. Under the influence of present and tem porary interefts, the very nature of the fti pulations between France and the U . Suites on the fubject of free commerce and the- li mitation of contraband, feems to be forgot ten. Tncy took for the baiis of their treaty " the moll perfect equality and reciprocity would they then confpire to their wn hurt ! would they voluntarily and mutually ltipnlute for injuries! or for advantages i certainly the latter; and both confideicd the agreement reciprocally advantageous, which feenred to each, in its turn, the free dom of commerce provided by the rules, that free (hips fhould make free goods and that timber and naval 11 ores fhould be ex cluded from the lift of contraband. Connected with thh fubject is what con cerns the article of provifions. Mr. Adet fays, that " after having allured to the Kilg- . lifh the carriage of naval ftorea, the fed e " ral government wifhed to allure then that "of mtals; in a Word, it defired to have " commerce ohly with England. Thus it " ftipulatea by the loth article, that the A ' mericao veflels laden with grain, may he ' Prized under the frivolous pretext, that 44 it is extremely difficult to define the cafes " wherein provifions, and other art idea, ' which are generally excepted, could he W clafled in the lift of contraband of war " There are fo many extraordinary anertJ ops in Mr. Adet's notes, thofe in the above paragraph excite no fnrprife. The federal government is corrttituted of citizens who have a common intereft with their fellow citizens of the United States. That common intereft has a peculiar relation to commerce, cm the freedom and extenfion of which the public revenue and the general prnfperitv of our country chiefly depend. Will it then be believed that the government wifhed this commerce to be reftrained, particularly the commerce m.meali which compote the moft Valuable part of oor exports) Efpecialty ill it he believed that the government de fired that our citizens might hive commerce only with Enghmd f Let the general fenfe of oorfellow.citir.ens anfwer thefe charges. Let the great ma& of our commercial bre thren anfwer, they whose enterprize trt verfes every fea, and explores every region f the globe, to extend their painful trade . r.i . . . titiscens whole commercial adventures to France and her colonies have rifeh annually to many millions ; adventures by which ma ny have hatarded their credit and their for tunes. Yet among all our citizens none have been more loticitous to form a commer cial treaty with Britain ; none more decided tin approving that which has been made, f For the reafoning of our own government .on this fubject, I beg leave to refer you to my letter of September t a, 1 705, written by the Prefident s direction to Mr. Monroe. Therein it was attempted tb mow the necefc fity and our right of forming that treaty with Great-Br itain, and 1 hope it will ap pear to you that the conclufion is there fairly drawn, that even the 18th article, as it re fpecls provifions, would operate favorably to France. . , Before the treaty with Great-Britain, her crnifers captured nfeutral VefTels bound to r ranee with provifions.- She abetted that in certain cafes, provifions were contraband of war; confequeptly that fhe might lawful ly capture and confifcate fuch provifions. We oppofed the principle and the practice., Britain infiited on her right. 1 this dilem . 11a, it was agreed by the treaty, that When ever provifions, becoming contraband by the law of nations, fho;, c -"pt"-il, they fhould be pirt fr reafonable mercan tile profit. This 'ftipulation, without ad" mittingthe principle, by fecuring the Ame rican merchants from lofsin cafe of capture, would certainly tend to promote rather than to difcourage adventures in provifions, to France. But as this treaty has been the fubject of ferious complaint on the part of France, it is important to enquire with what foundati on the complaint is made. I might pais over the unworthy infinfiati ons of the minifter, that the treaty was en tered into by us " in order to allure advan tages to the Englifh, and to f urnifh our own government with a reply to the claims of France, and peremptory motives for refufals to accede to them ; that the true object of the negociation was incefTantly difguifed under fpecioos pretexts, and covered with the veil of diflimulation." Thefe infinuati ons have been indifcreetly addrefTed to the people Of the United States. They will gain no belief. It may, however, be ufeful to you to be truly informed on this fubject. The Prefident's mefTage to the Senate on the r6th April 1794, does not declare (as Mr. Adetaflerts) uthat Mr. Jay was fentto Lon don only to obtain a redrefs of wrongs." The Prefident fays that Mr. Jay's million would announce to the world a folicitude for a friendly adjullihent of our complaints," and that u going Immediately from the U nited States, fuch an envoy would carry with him a full knowledge of the exifting tern Err aud fenfibility of our country ; and thus e taught to vindicate our rights with firm nefs, and to cultivate peace with firrcerity." And fhall the pnrfuit of either of .thefe ob jects be denied to us? What were our com plaints ? The molt urgent regarded the fpo liat ions on our commerce, and the inescmi on of the article of the treaty of peace re fuelling the pdfta. With the latter was con nected nie Indian war, with which we had been harrafled for fo many years; and With the former, the injury or ruin of our mer chants and the confequent extend vc damage to agriculture. Thefe being the moft pro minent objects of the million, were of coorfe moft obfervable, and moft talked of t and without them the million probably would not at that time have been contemplated. But had we no other "complaints'" Did not the imprefliaent of our feftmen, like the fpoliationson our commerce, excite an unu verfal complaint ' Had we never manifeft" ed our unesfinefs at Great- Britain's avoiding a commercial treaty f Wat it not even a fobject of complaint and reproach f Was not the inaucing her to enter into fuch a treaty, the object of divers meafures agitat ed in Congrefs? Had not a commercial treaty wkh Great-Britain been earneftly fought for from the eonclnflon of the war to the time of Mr. Jay'smifOon I How aHo could Mr. Jay, after adjofting the primary objects of his tnifHon, better prove the firt cerity of oor paeifk difpofition and more r f fectoally "cultivate peaee," than by firm ing arrangements calculated to extend and protect oor trade, to promote good neigh bourhood and a friendly and mutually bene ficent tnteroourfe , by prefcribing a previous demand of jnftice and fatilfaction to hafty reprifals, which naturally lead to war; and by agreeing on other regulations to prevent difpsKM, or to adjuft them when they fhould arife ? At) thefe objects then, and whatever elfe would be the means of " cultivating peace," were clearly comprehended in the Prefident's menage. But Mr. Adet fayjSjv' that Mr. Jay's ne gotiation was enveloped from its origin in the fhacjow of myftcry.'' And to whom was our government bound to unveil it ? To France or to her minilter Mt. Adet fhould anfwer or not have complained. And was it for this to make us a dependance on the French empire that our alliance: was formed Did we ftipulate to fubmit the exerCiie of our foVereignty (if It is not a contradiction in termS)to the direction Of the government of France I Let the treaty itfelffurnifh the anfwer.f " The eflential and direct end of " the prefent defenfive alliance is to main " tain effectually the Jiberty, foVcreigntk " and independence abfolute and unlimited, " of the faid U nited Stores, as well in mat ters of government as of commerce .' So likewife the treaty of amity and commerce in its preamble, declares that his moft Chi if tian Majefty and the United States willing tO fix the rules which ought to be followed relative to the correlpondenceand commerce which they defire to eftablifh between their respective countries, have taken for the " bafis of their government, the moft per- feet equality and icciprbcity" and re-1 " ferving withal to each party the liberty of admitting at its pleafure other nations to a " participation of the fame advantages Correfponding with this declaration in our treaty of amity and commerce with France is the declaration of the Marquis de IKoailles, her ambafiador at the court of London, on the i 3th of March 1 776, five weeks after the treaty was figned. Some paflages in this de claration are fo pertinent ic the fubject in dilcuthon, I ihali quote them at length. ., J Theiinderfigned ambafiador of his moft " Chriftian Majefty, has received exprefa i( oders to make the following declaration " to the court of London." V The United States of North America, " who are in full pofieflinn of independence, " as pronounced by them on iheth of July " 1 776, having propofed to the king to con ' folidate by a formal convention, the con " nection begun to be eft abl ifhed ' between " the two nations, the refpective plenipo' " rentiaries have figned a treaty of iriend n fbip.and commerce, designed to ferve asm " foundation for ihcir mutual good conef " pondence." His majefty beinw determined to ctilti vate the good undemanding iubfilling be tween France and Great Britain, by every means compatible with his dignity, and the good of his fubjects, thinks it necefiary xH make this proceeding know n to the court of London, and to declare, at the fame time, that the contracting parties have paid great attention not to stipulate any exclufive ad vantages in favor of the French nation, and that the United States have referved, the liberty of treating with every nation what ever upon the fame tooting of equality and reciprocity." Why after all this, do we hear from Mr. Adet the complaint, that the negociations of the Britifh treaty were fe cretly cohdnctedf In other Words, that ih exercinng their abfolute and unlitmtetl rights of ' government and commerce," the United States did not lay open to the French minifter or his government, the in structions to our envoy for fettling Our own difpatesand regulating oor own commerce with Great -Britain .' So tar as candour and friendfhip required, a communication was made to the French minifter. He was offi cially informed, M That Mr. Jay wal in structed not to weaken our engagements to France." This inft ruction was obeyed, Mr. Jay having taken care to infert in the 25th article of the treaty this explicit ftipuhstion, that " nothing in this treaty contained, shall be onl1 rued or operate contrary to former and exifting public treaties with other fbve reigns or Rates.' To be continued. f Treaty of Alliance, Art. 3. JOHN CALHORDA la addition to his former flock of Wines, has received by the late arrival, Sherry In quarter-calks, and Tent Wines of a fuperior flavor, which he will fell low for Cath, by the quarter calk. Alfo a frefh alTortmeiti of Dry Goods, (likable for the enfuing feafon. , February 16. W"r -e-. t 1.. VSSSSSSTT mmr-rn B m t t 0 it ' a S
The Wilmington Gazette (Wilmington, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 16, 1797, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75