| 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 --TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1786.
Congress assembled. Present, as before.
The order of the day being called for by the State of South Carolina, to take into consideration the report2 of a committee, to whom was referred a letter of the 16, from his Excellency the governor of New York; another order of the day being also called for by the State of Massachusetts, to
[Note 2: 2 See ante, August 21.]
Page 532 | Page image
go into a committee of the whole: On the question to take into consideration the report called for, which is in the words following:
The Committee, consisting of Mr. [William Samuel] Johnson, Mr. [Rufus] King, Mr. [Charles] Pinckney, Mr. [James] Monroe and Mr. [William] Grayson, to whom was referred a Letter from his Excellency the Governor of New York, of the 16th instant, Report:
That they have examined an act passed by the state of New-York, on the 4th day of May last, entitled "An act for giving and granting to the United States in Congress assembled, certain imposts and duties on foreign goods imported into that state, for the special purpose of paying the principal and interest of the debt contracted in the prosecution of the late war with Great-Britain:" That by the act of Congress of the 18th April, 1783, it is recommended to the several states, as indispensably necessary to the restoration of public credit, and to the punctual and honorable discharge of the public debts, to invest the United States in Congress assembled, with a power to levy certain duties upon goods imported into the United States; provided that the collectors of the said duties should be appointed by the states within which their offices are to be respectively exercised; but when so appointed, to be amenable to and removable by the United States in Congress assembled alone. The committee conceive that the investing the United States in Congress assembled with this power, which includes that of forming the necessary regulations, or revenue laws, with suitable penalties, of declaring the money in which the said duties shall be received, of establishing the number of revenue officers, and ascertaining their duties, has been and must be considered as an essential part of the plan submitted to the several states for their adoption: The exercise of this power by thirteen separate authorities, would introduce different laws upon the same subject, ordain various penalties for the same offence, destroy the equality of the tax, and might, in a great measure, defeat the revenue. All the states, except New-York, having in pursuance of the recommendation of the 18th April, 1783, granted the imposts by acts vesting this power, with certain qualifications, exclusively in the United States in Congress assembled; the long continued embarrassments of the public finances, and the indispensable demands on the federal government, dictate
Page 533 | Page image
the necessity of an immediate and unanimous adoption of this measure: Impressed with these opinions, the committee have carefully examined the act of the state of New-York, and submit the following remarks:
Page 534 | Page image
that the system of a general impost could be put in operation, it would remain optional with the importer to pay the duties on goods imported into the state of New-York, in specie or bills of credit, emitted by virtue of the aforesaid act.
[Note 1: 1 This report, in printed form, has been pasted into the Journals by Thomson.]
Page 535 | Page image
The yeas and nays being required by Mr. [James] Monroe,
{table}
So it passed in the negative.
Congress then went into a committee of the whole, and after some time the President resumed the chair, and Mr. [John] Bull reported, that the committee of the whole have had under consideration the subject referred to them, but not having come to a conclusion, desire leave to sit again.
Ordered, That the committee of the whole sit again to Morrow.
The Board of Treasury to whom was referred the Petition of James Burnside, Doyle Sweeney, and Robert Underwood, late Clerks to the Commissioners for Settling Accounts of the Hospital and clothing Departments, beg leave to Report:
That the Resolves of Congress of March 24th., 1786 (establishing a new System for Settling the Accounts of the five great Departments), having fixed a period of three Weeks for the termination of the
Page 536 | Page image
Business under the former Commission, the principal part of the Books and Papers belonging to the respective Offices might, in the opinion of the Board, have been got ready for delivery, previous to the 15th. April, last, and that at all events, the Service of more than one person was not necessary to complete this object after that period.
That on this account the Board conceived themselves authorised to make an extra Allowance to the Principals of the Department of a Months Salary, presuming, that from this allowance compensation would be made by the Commissioners to their respective Clerks, who it is to be supposed were principally employed in the Business of preparing for delivery the Books and Papers of their several Offices.
That as such compensation has not been made by the several Commissioners, and as the principal Business for which it is claimed, has been done by their Clerks (whose Salaries are not more than is necessary for their actual Subsistence). The Board submit to the consideration of Congress the following Resolve:
That there be allowed to each of the Commissions for Settling the Accounts of the five great Departments, the Salary of One Clerk from the 15th. April, last, to the time when the Books and Papers of the respective Departments were delivered over to the present Commissioners.
All which is humbly submitted.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, signed by Samuel Osgood and Arthur Lee, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 138, I, folio 143. According to indorsement it was read August 22 and on October 11, referred to a committee.]
August 21st., 1786.
The Board of Treasury to whom was Referred the Claim of Joseph Abbot, beg leave to Report:
That it appears by the Copy of the Record of a Supreme Court of Judicature, holden at Amherst in the State of New Hampshire on the second Tuesday in May, 1785. That a certain William Morlin of Salem in the County of Rockingham in the said State, was Indicted and found Guilty of Counterfeiting a final Settlement Certificate of John Pierce Commissioner of Army Accounts, and of offering to pass the same to Joseph Abbott.
That the said Abbott in consequence of this Conviction Claims the Reward offered by the Proclamation of the United States in Congress of the 2d. February, 1785, to the Person or Persons who should be found Guilty of the species of Forgery specified in the said Proclamation.
Page 537 | Page image
In examining into the merits of this Claim the Board find from the Papers accompanying the same, that the Person Guilty of the Forgery was committed for the same on the 24th November, 1784, and that Joseph Abbott, the Claimant was bound over to prosecute for the said Offence; of course the benefit of the Proclamation cannot without a restrospective construction, be extended to the Claimant.
They therefore Submit to the consideration of Congress the following Resolve:
That Joseph Abbott is not entitled to the Reward offered by the Proclamation of Congress of the 2d. February, 1785; the discovery of the Forgery, for which the said Reward is Claimed, having been made previous to the date of the above Proclamation.
All which is humbly submitted.1
[Note 1: 1 This report, signed by Samuel Osgood and Arthur Lee, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 138, I, folio 1. According to indorsement it was read August 22.]
August 21st, 1786.
Office For Foreign Affairs,
August 17, 1786.
2The Secretary of the United States for the Department of Foreign Affairs, in obedience to the Order of Congress directing him to state to them without delay the territorial Claims of Spain on the East side of the Mississippi, and the sentiments of France touching our right to navigate that river, Reports,
[Note 2: 2 At this point Benjamin Bankson begins the entry.]
That the time allotted for this report must necessarily render it concise and summary.
It is well known that Spain claims the two Floridas, and contends that West Florida extends higher up the river Mississippi than is admitted by our Treaty with Britain, but how much higher exactly your Secretary is uninformed, and has reason to think that Spain has not yet made up her own mind on that point.
Spain also claims certain posts and places on the Mississippi, of which she divested the English during the war, but how far they mean to stretch their Claims
Page 538 | Page image
over the adjacent Country, the Negotiations between Mr. Gardoqui and your Secretary have not as yet extended so minutely to that point as to enable him to determine.
On the 26 day of April, 1782, your Secretary, who was then at Madrid, wrote a Letter to the Secretary for foreign Affairs, of which the following is an Extract:
"The Madrid Gazette of the 12th March contained a paragraph of which you ought not to be ignorant; I shall therefore copy it verbatim, and add a translation as literal as I can make it.
Translation.
"'By a Letter from the Commandant General of the Army of operations at the Havana and Governour of Louisiana, his Majesty has advices, that a detachment of 65 Militia men, and 60 Indians of the nations Otaguos, Sotu and Putuatami, under the command of Don Eugenio Purre, a Captain of Militia, accompanied by Don Carlos Tayon, a Sub-lieutenant of Militia, by Don Luis Chavalier, a man well versed in the language of the Indians, and by their great Chiefs Eleturno and Naquigen, which marched the 2d January, 1781, from the town of St. Luis of the Illinois, had possessed themselves of the post of St. Joseph, which the English occupied at 220 Leagues distance from that of the above-mentioned St. Luis; having suffered in so extensive a march, and so rigorous a season, the greatest inconveniences from Cold and hunger, exposed to continued risks from the Country being possessed by Savage Nations, and having to pass over parts covered with snow, and each one being obliged to carry provision for his own subsistence, and various merchandises which were necessary to content, in case of need, the barbarous nations
Page 539 | Page image
through whom they were obliged to cross. The Commander, by seasonable negotiations and precautions, prevented a considerable body of Indians, who were at the devotion of the English, from opposing this expedition; for it would otherwise have been difficult to have accomplished the taking of the said post. They made prisoners of the few English they found in it, the others having perhaps retired in consequence of some prior notice. Don Eugenio Purre took possession, in the name of the King, of that place and its dependencies, and of the river of the Illinois; in consequence whereof the Standard of his Majesty was there displayed during the whole time. He took the English one, and delivered it on his arrival at St. Luis to don Francisco Cruyat the Commandant of that post.
"The destruction of the magazine of provisions and goods which the English had there (the greater part of which was divided among our Indians and those who lived at St. Joseph, as had been offered them in case they did not oppose our troops) was not the only advantage resulting from the success of this expedition, for thereby it became impossible for the English to execute their plan of attacking the fort of St. Luis of the Illinois, and it also served to intimidate these savage Nations, and oblige them to promise to remain neuter, which they do at present.'"
"When you consider the ostensible object of this expedition, the distance of it, the formalties with which the place, the Country and the river were taken possession of in the name of his Catholic Majesty, I am persuaded it will not be necessary for me to swell this Letter with remarks that would occur to a reader of far less penetration than yourself."
Page 540 | Page image
This is the only circumstance or transaction which your Secretary recollects to have heard while in Spain, which induced him to suppose that his Catholic Majesty wished to acquire any Lands East of the Mississippi, except the Floridas. Neither Count de Florida Blanca, nor Mr. Gardoqui, who was then employed, nor Mr. Del Campo, ever hinted to your Secretary that a Cession of any territory was expected or desired of the United States; all that was then insisted upon was our quitting all claim to the Navigation of the Mississippi below our Territories.
When your Secretary came to Paris, in the year 1782, Count Aranda, the Spanish Ambassador there, appeared to have far other ideas on the subject Your Secretary's conferences with him being detailed in his Letter of the 17th November, 1782, it does not appear necessary to repeat them here, nor to extract more from that Letter than merely to observe, that the Count did mark a line on a map as, and for, a proper line of boundary between Spain and the United States in that Western Country. That same Map is now in the possession of the Secretary of Congress.
Altho' your Secretary has not yet obtained from Mr. Gardoqui an exact and explicit specification of the Spanish Claims, yet he has good reason to believe that they fall very far short of those suggested by Count Aranda.
Your Secretary thinks he should not omit inserting in this report the following Extracts from a correspondence on these Subjects between the Marquis de la Fayette and Count de Florida Blanca, viztt.
[From the Marquis de la Fayette to the Count de Florida
Blanca, dated Madrid, 19 February, 1783.]
Sir: Having had the honor to confer with your Excellency on the objects relative to the United States, and
Page 541 | Page image
being soon to repair to the American Congress, I wish to be fully impressed with the result of our Conversations. Instead of the indifference, and even of the divisions which another Nation would be glad to foresee, I am happy to have it in my power to inform the United States of your good dispositions. It is to you, Sir, I am indebted for this advantage; and in order to make it compleat, and to make myself certain that I forget nothing, give me leave to submit to your Excellency the report which I intend to lay before Congress.
His Catholic Majesty desires that a lasting Confidence and harmony may subsist between him and the United States; and he is determined on his part to do every thing that will be necessary to keep it up. The American Chargé des Affaires is at this moment received as such, and your Excellency is going to treat of the interests of the two Nations. As you wish to shew Mr. Jay every kind of regard, you wait only till the Count de Aranda shall have notified your dispositions to him, to present Mr. Carmichael to his Majesty.
With respect to the limits, his Catholic Majesty has adopted those that are determined by the preliminaries of the 30th of November, between the United States and the Court of London. The fear of raising an object of dissention, is the only objection the King has to the free Navigation of the River Mississippi. The Virginia Tobacco, the Naval Stores, may furnish matter for reciprocal Conventions in the Treaty, and by means of the productions of America, arrangements might be made useful to her finances. When I had the honor to speak to you in favour of a diminution of the duties on Codfish, you have answered that it would be necessary to give to France a similar advantage; and that by virtue of former treaties, the English might set up pretensions to the
Page 542 | Page image
same. But you will do in every respect all that will be in your power to satisfy America.
I would with very great pleasure enter into every detail in which I foresee a connection between Spain and the United States, but I am not to be concerned in this happy work. The Ministers of the United States, and one whom you are going to send thither, are to make it their business; and I content myself with reminding you of the general ideas you have given me. A word from you will satisfy me that I have not forgot any thing. The dispositions of his Catholic Majesty, and the candour of your Excellency, will leave no pretence for misrepresentations. The Alliance of the house of Bourbon with the United States is founded on reciprocal interest; it will still acquire greater strength from the confidence which your Excellency wishes to establish.
Such, Sir, are the conclusions which I have drawn from our conferences, and the account which I intend to give to Congress, without having any mission for that purpose. I am acquainted with the sentiments of Congress; and I am convinced they will set a just value upon your dispositions. In permitting me to acquaint them with what I have seen, you lay a claim to my personal gratitude; I join the assurance of it to that of the respect with which I have the honor to be, &c.
[From the Count de Florida Blanca to the Marquis de
la Fayette, dated 22d February, 1783.]
Sir, I cannot comply better with your desire than by asking your leave to give you here my answer. You have perfectly well understood whatever I have had the honor to communicate to you with respect to our dispositions towards the United States. I shall only add, that although it is his Majesty's intentions to
Page 543 | Page image
abide for the present by the limits established by the treaty of the 30th of November, 1782, between the English and the Americans, the King intends to inform himself particularly whether it can be in any ways inconvenient or prejudicial to settle that affair amicably with the United States.
I have the honor to be, &c.
On receiving the answer of the Count de Florida Blanca, I desired an explanation respecting the addition that relates to the limits. I was answered, that it was a fixed principle to abide by the limits established by the treaty between the English and Americans; that his remark related only to mere unimportant details, which he wished to receive from the Spanish Commandants, which would be amicably regulated, and would by no means oppose the general principle. I asked him before the Ambassador of France, whether he would give me his word of honor for it; he answered me he would, and that I might engage it to the United States.
(Signed) La Fayette.
Madrid, 22d February, 1783.
Your Secretary showed these Extracts to Mr. Gardoqui. He wrote to his Minister about them; and has since told your Secretary that the Marquis misunderstood the Count. From these and similar facts and circumstances, your Secretary is led to believe, that, all other matters being first settled, Spain may be prevailed upon to confine these improper claims within a small compass; for as she has not yet delineated them by metes and bounds, she may diminish them without hurting her pride.
Page 544 | Page image
As to the Sentiments of France, touching our right to navigate the Mississippi, your Secretary began at an early period to believe, and still thinks, that the Court of France will not admit it.
He well recollects that Mr. Gerard, while at Philadelphia, treated it as being ill founded, and promoted measures for a dereliction of it.
He finds among the Communications made by the Chevalier de la Luzerne, one reported by a Committee of Congress, in January, 1780,1 which in his opinion merits consideration, vizt.
[Note 1: 1 See ante, January 31, 1780.]
"The Committee appointed to receive the communications from the Minister plenipotentiary of France, report, that, on their second Conference with him, he communicated to them--
"'That His Most Christian Majesty being uninformed of the appointment of a Minister plenipotentiary to treat of an Alliance between the United States and his Catholic Majesty, signified to his Minister plenipotentiary to these United States, that he wishes most ardently for such an Alliance; and in order to make the way thereto more easy, commanded him to communicate to Congress certain Articles which his Catholic Majesty deems of great importance to the interests of his Crown, and on which it is highly necessary that these United States explain themselves with precision, and with such moderation as may consist with their essential rights.
"'That the Articles are,
Page 545 | Page image
"'That on the first Article, it is the idea of the Cabinet of Madrid, that the United States extend to the westward no farther than settlements were permitted by the royal Proclamation bearing date theday of 1763.1
[Note 1: 1 October 7, 1763. See ante, October 17, 1780.]
"'On the second, that the United States do not consider themselves as having any right to navigate the river Mississippi, no territory belonging to them being situated thereon.
"'On the third, that it is probable the King of Spain will conquer the Floridas during the course of the present war; and in such event every cause of dispute relative thereto between Spain and these United States ought to be removed.
"'On the fourth, that the lands lying on the east side of the Mississippi, whereon the settlements were prohibited by the aforesaid Proclamation, are possessions of the Crown of Great Britain, and proper objects against which the Arms of Spain may be employed for the purpose of making a permanent conquest for the Spanish Crown. That such Conquest may probably be made during the present war. That therefore it would be advisable to restrain the Southern States from making any settlements or Conquests in those territories.
"'That the Council of Madrid consider the United States as having no Claims to those territories, either as not having had possession of them before the present war, or not having any foundation for a claim in the right of the Sovereign of Great Britain, whose dominion they have abjured.
Page 546 | Page image
"'That his Most Christian Majesty, united to the Catholic King by blood and by the strictest Alliances, and united with these States in treaties of Alliance, and feeling towards them dispositions of the most perfect friendship, is exceedingly desirous of conciliating between his Catholic Majesty and these United States the most happy and lasting friendship. That the United States may repose the utmost confidence in his good will to their interests, and in the justice and liberality of his Catholic Majesty; and that he cannot deem the revolution which has set up the Independence of these United States as past all danger of unfavorable events, until his Catholic Majesty and the said States shall be established on those terms of Confidence and Amity, which are the objects of his Most Christian Majesty's very earnest wishes.'"
That in 1782, at Paris, your Secretary received and transmitted to Congress a Memoir of Monsieur de Rayneval, the first Secretary of Count de Vergennes, on the subject of our Western Claims. That Paper was not official. The following is a translation of it:
"IDEA
"On the manner of determining and fixing the limits between Spain and the United States on the Ohio and the Mississippi.
"The question between Spain and the United States of North America is, how to regulate the respective limits towards the Ohio and the Mississippi. The Americans pretend that their dominion extends as far as the Mississippi; and Spain maintains the contrary.
"It is evident that the Americans can only borrow from England the right they pretend to have to extend as far as the Mississippi: therefore, to determine this
Page 547 | Page image
right, it is proper to examine what the Court of London has thought and done on this head.
"It is known that before the treaty of Paris, France possessed Louisiana and Canada; and that she considered the savage people situated to the east of the Mississippi either as independent, or as under her protection.
"This pretension caused no dispute. England never thought of making any, except as to the lands situated towards the South of the Ohio, in that part where she had given the name of Allegany to that river.
"A discussion about limits at that time took place between the Court of Versailles and London; but it would be superfluous to follow the particulars. It will suffice to observe, that England proposed, in 1755, the following boundary: It set out from the point where the River des Boeufs falls into the Ohio, at the place called Venango; it went up this river towards Lake Erie as far as 20 leagues; and setting off again from the same place, Venango, a right line was drawn as far as the last mountains of Virginia, which descend towards the Ocean. As to the Savage tribes situated between the aforesaid line and the Mississippi, the English Minister considers them as independent; from whence it follows, that according to the very propositions of the Court of London, almost the whole course of the Ohio belonged to France; and that the Countries situated to the Westward of the mountains were considered as having nothing in common with the Colonies.
"When peace was negotiated, in 1761, France offered to make a Cession of Canada to England. The regulation of the limits of this Colony and Louisiana was in question. France pretended that almost the whole course of the Ohio made a part of Louisiana; and the
Page 548 | Page image
Court of London, to prove that this river belonged to Canada, produced several authentic papers, among others the Chart which Mr. Vaudreuil delivered to the English Commandant when he abandoned Canada. The Minister of London maintained, at the same time, that a part of the Savages situated to the eastward of the Mississippi were independent; another part under its protection; and that she had purchased a part from the 5 Iroquois Nations. The misfortunes of France cut these discussions short. The treaty of Paris assigned the Mississippi for the boundary between the possessions of France and Great Britain.
"Let us see the dispositions which the Court of London has made in consequence of the treaty of Paris.
"If she had considered the vast territories situated to the eastward of the Mississippi as forming part of her ancient Colonies, she would have declared so, and have made dispositions accordingly. So far from any such thing, the King of England, in a Proclamation of the month of October, 1763, declares in a precise and positive manner, that the lands in question are situated between the Mississippi and the ancient english establishments. It is therefore clearly evident that the Court of London itself, when it was as yet Sovereign of the thirteen colonies, did not consider the aforementioned lands as forming part of these same Colonies; and it results from this in the most demonstrative manner, that they have not at this time any right over these lands. To maintain the contrary, every principle of the laws of Nature and Nations must be subverted.
"The principles now established are as applicable to Spain as to the United States. This power cannot extend its claim beyond the bounds of its conquests; she cannot therefore pass beyond the Natches, situated
Page 549 | Page image
towards the 31 degree of latitude: her rights are therefore confined to this degree; what is beyond is either independent, or belonging to England; neither Spain nor the Americans can have any pretensions thereto. The future treaty of peace can alone regulate the respective rights.
"The consequence of all that has been said is, that neither Spain nor the United States have the least right of Sovereignty over the Savages in question; and that the transactions they may carry on as to this Country would be to no purpose.
"But the future may bring forth new circumstances; and this reflection leads me to suppose that it would be of use that the Court of Madrid and the United States should make an eventual arrangement.
"This arrangement may be made in the following manner: A right line should be drawn from the eastern angle of the gulf of Mexico, which makes the section between the two Floridas, to fort Toulouze, situated in the Country of the Alibamons; from thence the River Loueshatchi should be ascended, from the mouth of which a right line should be drawn to the fort or factory Quenassie; from this last place the course of the river Euphasee is to be followed till it joins the Cherokee; the course of this last river is to be pursued to the place where it receives the Pelisippi; this last to be followed to its source; from whence a right line is to be drawn to Cumberland river, whose course is to be followed until it falls into the Ohio. The Savages to the west of the line described should be free, under the protection of Spain; those to the eastward should be free, and under the protection of the United States; or rather the Americans may make such arrangements with them as is most convenient to themselves. The trade should be free to both parties.
Page 550 | Page image
"By looking over the Chart we will find that Spain would lose almost the whole course of the Ohio; and that the establishments which the Americans may have on this river would remain untouched; and that even a very extensive space remains to form new ones.
"As to the course of Navigation of the Mississippi, they follow with the property, and they will belong therefore to the Nation to which the two banks belong. If then by the future treaty of peace Spain preserves West Florida, she alone will be proprietor of the course of the Mississippi, from the 31 degree of latitude until [to] the mouth of this river. Whatever may be the case with that part which is beyond this point to the North, the United States of America can have no pretentions to it, not being Masters of either border of this river.
"As to what respects the lands situated to the Northward of the Ohio, there is reason to presume that Spain can form no pretentions thereto. Their fate must be regulated by the Court of London."
Your Secretary also thinks, that the sentiments of the Court of France on the subject in question may be gathered from a Conference between him and their Ambassador's Secretary, who called upon him by the Ambassador's direction, at Madrid, on the 11th day of September, 1780; the particulars of which are contained in his Letter of 6th November. The following is an Extract from it.
"On the 11th September, the French Ambassador's Secretary called upon me by the Ambassador's direction, to inform me that an Express was going to Paris, and to know whether any thing further had been done in our affairs since he had seen me. I told him things continued in the same situation. He again commenced a Conversation on the subject; and as he came directly from the Ambassador, I entered into it. He expressed
Page 551 | Page image
some concern for the delays I met with. I told him such things must be expected. He said he hoped I was content with France. I replied that I apprehended France considered an interference in our Negociation as a delicate matter, for that as she had probably held up the exclusive Navigation of the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico, among other objects, to induce Spain to take part in the war, she might hesitate about pressing Spain into a treaty with us on terms that would not comprehend this object. He said, Mr. Gerard had reasoned well about those matters, but that he did not believe France would be backward, nor indeed that she had promised this to Spain, to bring her into the war. I told him I should not be surprised to find that the delay arose from a desire of hearing further news from America, and probably from Philadelphia. He said that could not be the case, for since Mr. Miralle's death, Spain had no person there to give them intelligence. I told him that Spain might be waiting the issue of new Motions respecting the Mississippi, in Congress; and that I was sure Count de la Luzerne would readily be at the trouble of communicating to them any interesting information on that, or any other Subject. Whether he drew any conclusions from the manner in which this was said, I can't say, but, in a way that looked like exculpating that Minister, he told me that Count de la Luzerne had only mentioned to the French Ambassador, that two Members of Congress with whom he had talked over the affair of the Mississippi, thought it would be best not to bring on the question of the Navigation until Spain should become possessed of the adjacent Country, for that then it might be ceded with a better grace. He mentioned no names."
Page 552 | Page image
These facts and papers, in the opinion of your Secretary, afford much evidence of the sentiments entertained by the Court of France respecting our right to navigate the Mississippi prior to, and at the time of the peace.
Whether they have adopted new opinions in that point, your Secretary cannot decide. He has however no reason to believe that has been the case, for he can perceive no reason why such an alteration in their sentiments should have taken place. On the contrary, it seems from Mr. Jefferson's letter of the 23d May last, that the Minister is not ready to admit all our Claims as ascertained by the treaty of peace to be within their Guarantee. He intimated that all our limits were not fixed; and your Secretary thinks that the Minister could have meant to allude only to our western limits and Claims. Britain disputes no boundaries with us, unless perhaps part of our Eastern; and those disputes had not yet been brought before the french Court; but Spain still adheres to pretentions of which France had been long and well informed, and therefore your Secretary supposes the Minister then had those in view.
Your Secretary sincerely wishes that the event may not confirm his opinion, and that the Court of France may clearly admit all our Claims, and particularly that to navigate the Mississippi, to be well founded, and to be within the terms, intent and meaning of the Guarantee.1
[Note 1: 1 This proceeding, in the writing of Benjamin Bankson, is entered only in Secret Journal, Foreign, No. 5. Through an evident pen slip it is dated as of August 10. Jay's original report is in No. 81, II, folio 217 and is indorsed: "Report of Secretary for foreign Affairs in pursuance of the order of Congress of 10th. Aug. 1786. Read 22d. Augt. 1786."]
Page 553 | Page image
Office of Secretary of Congress,
August 22, 1786.
On the memorial of James Easton stating his services and that in 1779 when he was discharged he received this pay and disbursements, in Continental paper currency which was then depreciated more than 14 for one, that he is reduced to extreme distress and praying Congress to take his case into consideration and give such order thereon as to their wisdom seems meet,
The Secretary of Congress reports: That on the 30 July, 1776, on a petition of Col. J. Easton and major Brown praying that the charges against them of having been concerned in plundering the officers baggage taken at Sorrel might be submitted to a court of Enquiry, Congress was pleased to order such a court. That two days after viz., August 1, 1776, Congress resolved that James Easton was entitled to the rank of a col. in the cont. Army from July 1, 1775, and to the pay of a col. from that day until he should be discharged, which ought to be done as soon as a court of Enquiry should report in his favour or a court martial sho'd determine upon his conduct and their sentence was carried into execution. That on 16 July, 1779, it appearing to Congress that no such enquiry or court martial had been held, that though it was the duty of col. Easton to have procured such a court to sit or if that had been found impracticable to have informed Congress thereof, it not appearing that he had done or attempted to do either but contendly drew his pay to that time Congress thereupon resolved That Col. James Easton be dismissed from the service of the United States.
On this state of facts the Secretary of Congress Agreed to Aug. 22. reports: That James Easton have leave to withdraw his memorial.1
[Note 1: 1 This proceeding was entered by Charles Thomson in Reports of the Secretary of Congress, No. 180. Easton's petition, with its accompanying papers, was withdrawn June 17, 1788; a copy of it was made by Roger Alden and is in No. 41, III, folio 131.
Also, according to indorsement, was read a letter from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, forwarding a letter from A. Fowler, giving a list of American vessels arrived at Madeira. Jay's letter is in No. 80, III, folio 49. Fowler's is in No. 78, IX, folio 555.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |