| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journals of the Continental Congress --MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1785.
Congress assembled. Present, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia; and from the State of New Hampshire, Mr. [Pierse] Long; from New Jersey, Mr. [Lambert] Cadwallader; from Delaware, Mr. [John] Vining; from Maryland, Mr. [William] Hindman, and from North Carolina, Mr. [William] Cumming.
Page 816 | Page image
The delegates for New Hampshire laid before Congress two Acts of the legislature of that State, one entitled,
"An Act to vest the United States in Congress assembled, with full power to regulate trade and enter into treaties of Commerce." Passed 22 and 23 June, 1785.
The other entitled,
"An Act for the regulation of Navigation and commerce." Passed 23 June, 1785.
A letter, of this day, from S. H. Parsons, Esqr. was read, accepting the Office of a commissioner to treat with the western Indians, and informing Congress of his arrival in this City.1
[Note 1: 1 On this day, according to indorsement, further consideration of Gerry's motion of October 3 was apparently postponed to October 12, q. v.]
On motion of Mr. [Rufus] King, seconded by Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry,
Resolved, that any committee of congress be and hereby are authorised to require the attendance of any person or persons holding an Office under Congress and residing at the place where congress hold their session, before such committee, specifying in such requisition the Time and place of attendance.
And also to direct such person or persons shall to bring with him or them such public papers and Documents as may be in his or their Office and particularised in the summons such papers being considered at all times as in the Custody of the person or persons producing the same.2
[Note 2: 2 This motion, in the writing of Rufus King, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, III, folio 177. it is indorsed as passed October 10.]
Resolved, That any person or persons, holding an Office under Congress, and residing at the place where Congress hold their sessions, be directed to attend any committee of Congress, whenever summoned by the chairman of such committee; in which summons, the time and place of attendance shall be notified;3 and such person or persons, shall
[Note 3: 3 This paragraph, in the writing of David Howell, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, III, folio 179.]
Page 817 | Page image
bring with him or them, such public papers and documents as may be in his or their Office, and particularised in the summons, such papers being considered at all times as in the custody of the person or persons producing the same.1
[Note 1: 1 On this day, as the indorsement states, was read a petition dated September 14, from John Coles, of Boston, praying to be appointed map engraver to the United States. It is in No. 42, II, folio 190.
Also, a petition of Daniel Gray praying the settlement of his accounts, which was referred to the Board of Treasury to report. It is in No. 42, III, folio 283. Committee Book No. 190 shows that the report was made October 19.
Also, a letter of September 15 from Thomas Hutchins announcing his arrival at Pittsburg and giving news of the situation. It is in No. 60, folio 189.
Also, a letter of October 4 from Matthew Griswold, Governor of Connecticut, asking that his letters be sent by post. It is in No. 66, II, folio 308.]
The Board of Treasury to whom was referred the Memorial of Francis Lewis, Jacobus Vanzandt and Samuel Tudor, in behalf of themselves and others, who have accounts unsettled in the Maxine Department, Beg leave to Report--
That in consequence of a representation from the Commissioner for settling accounts in the Marine Department, they have given him permission to come to this City; They therefore submit to Congress the following resolve.
Resolved, That on the arrival of the Commissioner of Marine Accounts in this City, the Memorialist be directed to exhibit their accounts; in order that the same may be put into such a train of settlement, as the Board of Treasury from the circumstances of the case may judge expedient.2
[Note 2: 2 This report, signed by Samuel Osgood and Arthur Lee, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 138, II, folio 55. Committee Book No. 191 states that the matter was transferred.]
Octr. 8th. 1785.
Office for Foreign Affairs,
7th. October, 1785.
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of foreign Affairs to whom was referred the Representation of Certain french Merchants against the Acts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts for regulating Navigation and Commerce &c., Reports--
That as the Objections stated in the memorial against those Acts, are equally applied to both of them, he presumes there is no material Difference between them.
Page 818 | Page image
He has the one of Massachusetts but not that of New Hampshire. This Circumstance induces him to take the Liberty of suggesting whether it would not be expedient to collect, at the public Expence, Copies of the Acts of the different States, and place them in the Secretary's Office for the Use of Congress and their Officers.
The Complaints made of these Acts may be comprized under the following Heads--
In considering these Objections two Objects of Enquiry present themselves: (1) whether these Acts observe the Letter of the Treaty, and (2) whether they quadrate with those Principles of Reciprocity on which the Treaty is professedly founded.
As to the first objection vizt--the Exclusion of french Vessels from all except certain Ports--
Your Secretary observes, that there is no express Stipulation in the Treaty which prevents such Exclusion, while extended to the most favored Nation.
He nevertheless thinks that, however lawful and consistent with the Letter of the Treaty such exclusion may be, and however the States may have good Right to refuse establishing any free Ports; yet that the french Merchants have Reason to say, that they enjoy fewer Priviledges in that Respect, in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, than the Merchants of those States do in France, from none of whose Ports they are excluded, and in some of which they are allowed particular Immunities.
The Second objection appears to have much weight.
The 5th Article of the Treaty exempts american Vessels from the Impost of 100 Sous pr. Ton, established in France on foreign Ships unless when the Ships of the United States shall load with the Merchandize of France for another Port of the same Dominion, in which case they shall pay the Duty above mentioned so long as other Nations the most favored shall be obliged to pay it. But it is understood that the United States or any of them are at Liberty, when they shall
Page 819 | Page image
judge it proper to establish a Duty equivalent in the same case, that is, in the Opinion of your Secretary, in the Case of a french Vessel loading in one Port to carry her Lading to another Port of the United States.
If this be the true Construction and Meaning of the Treaty, then it seems to follow as of necessary consequence, that none of the United States can rightfully impose a Duty of Tonnage on a french Vessel in any other case. For if it was intended that they should be at Liberty to impose it in all cases why was it expressly stipulated that they might impose it in the same or in such a Case? It would neither be a fair Construction of the Treaty nor a Construction consistent with the most obvious dictates of Reciprocity, to say, that the French are to give up their Tonnage of 100 Sous in all cases but one, but that the United States are to be at Liberty to impose a Tonnage equal to 100 Sous pr. Ton, on french Vessels in every Case without Exception.
The Law of Massachusetts makes no Distinction of Cases, but subjects french Vessels to Tonnage in every Case where they enter their Ports after the 1st. of August. In this Respect therefore your Secretary considers that Act as deviating both from the Letter and Spirit of the Treaty.
The third objection though not very important merits some attention.
The Act of Massachusetts passed the 23d June, and took place the 1st. August last.--This Notice might have been sufficient to prevent a Ship from sailing, but it was not sufficient to prevent a Ship's being fitted out and laden for their Ports. It doubtless is wholly in the Discretion of the Legislature to make their Acts take place when they please: But it nevertheless seems reasonable, that they who are to be affected by Laws, should have seasonable Notice of them.
Your Secretary takes the Liberty of observing that the French have extended Liberty of Commerce to the United States beyond what they were bound to do by the Treaty, and it certainly would not be kind to repay their friendly Relaxations by Restrictions more rigid than a due Regard to our Commercial Interests may demand and justify. It is in their Power to retaliate, but it would not be good Policy in us to dispose them to it.
Your Secretary is clearly of Opinion that the Commerce of the United States, must suffer from partial and discordant Regulations; and that until it is under one Direction, it will never be conducted in that stable, uniform and consistant manner which is necessary to produce the Benefits and Respectability that might be expected from it.
Page 820 | Page image
As to the Acts in Question, he thinks it would be proper to transmit these Papers to the Legislatures of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and to recommend to them a Revision of these Acts. The Confidence that may be placed in their Wisdom and in their Attachment to the Honor and good Faith of the Union, leaves no Room to doubt of their Readiness to correct any Errors which may have inadvertently glided into any of their Laws.
All which is Submitted to the Wisdom of Congress.
John Jay1.
[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 81, I, folio 437. According to Committee Book No. 191, it was submitted October 10 and transferred.
October 10: The following committee was appointed: Mr. [Charles] Pinckney, Mr. [Samuel] Holten and Mr. [David] Howell, on "Motion of Mr. Howell That all grants of money and orders on the treasury be entered on the common Journal."
Also the Board of Treasury was directed to take order on the letter of October 10 from S. H. Parsons "for an advance of money sufficient to enable him to proceed to the place of holding a treaty with Western Indians." Parsons' letter is in No. 78, XVIII, folio 591.
Also a letter of October 5 from Robert Morris relating to the failure of de la Lande & Fynje was referred to the Board of Treasury.
Also the petition of Daniel Gray for a settlement "of his accots notwithstanding loss of books and papers" was referred to the Board of Treasury to report and report was rendered October 19.
Also the report of the Board of Treasury, of July 21, on Ezekiel Forman's letter of December 11, 1784, was referred back to the Board to take order. The report and order were entered in Resolve Book No. 123, under October 10.
Also the letters from C. W. F. Dumas, dated July 5, July 10, July 28 and July 26, and numbered as despatches Nos. 56--59, were referred to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Committee Book No, 190.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |