| 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, SEPTEMBER 24, 1787.
Congress assembled present as before.
On a letter3 of the 22 from the board of treasury stating that in the sales which they have made of lands in the western territory a declaration had been made by them
[Note 3: 3 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 140, II, p. 459, signed by the three members of the Board.]
Page 515 | Page image
previous to the sale that the interest on the securities to be received in payment was not to be computed and requesting to be favoured with the sense of Congress whether in payment of purchases made under the Ordinance1 of the 20 May 1785 interest should be computed on the principal of the securities and received in payment on the same terms with the principal.
[Note 1: 1 Journals, vol. XXVIII, pp. 375--381.]
Resolved That Congress approve of the Declaration made by the board of treasury at the time of selling the public lands, that the interest on the securities to be received in payment should not be computed; and direct them to proceed in the same manner in future sales, issuing certificates or indents of interest for the interest due on the certificates paid conformably to the authority given them for the sale of the lands between the seventh range of townships and the Scioto on the 23 day of July last.
On passing the foregoing resolution a division was called for and on the question to agree to the first clause as far as "computed" inclusive the yeas and nays being required by Mr [Dyre] Kearny
Page 516 | Page image
{table}
So it was resolved in the affirmative.
The second clause was passed without division.
The committee consisted of Mr [Melancton] Smith Mr [Nathan] Dane and Mr [John] Kean to whom was referred the letter1 of John M Pintard requesting that Sea letters be granted for the ship Columbia and the sloop lady Washington bound on a voyage to the northwest coast of America report "that it appears to them that the ship Columbia and the sloop Lady Washington and their cargoes are the property of citizens of the United States and that they are navigated principally by inhabitants of the United States and are bound on a voyage to the Northwest coast of America"
[Note 1: 1 See September 22, 1787.]
Whereupon
Resolved That Sea letters be granted in the usual form for the ship Columbia, burthen about 220 tons and the sloop
Page 517 | Page image
Lady Washington burthen about 90 tons bound on a voyage to the Northwest coast of America under the command and direction of capt John Kendrick.
On a report1 of the Secretary for foreign Affairs to whom were referred two letters from the honble. John Adams of the 24 and 27 January last
[Note 1: 1 See July 26 and August 1, 1787.]
reconsidered Sept. 25 an removed Resolved That at the honble. John Adams Minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the court of London be permitted agreeably to his request to return to America at any time after the 24 of feby in the year of our Lord 1788 And that his commission of Minister plenipotentiary to their High Mightinesses do also then determine.
2The Secretary of the United States for the department of foreign Affairs to whom were referred two letters3 from the honorable John Adams of the 24 and 27 of January last having reported4 that the Sept. 25, 1787 this whole business reconsidered and to be removed. first of these letters gives occasion to several questions 1 Shall Mr Adams return after the expiration of his commission to the court of London viz the 24 feby 1788?
[Note 2: 2 From this point to the end of the day the entry is in Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 5, III, pp. 1642--1647, Charles Thomson begins the entry. This entry is marked on the margin with dots to indicate reconsideration and removal.]
[Note 3: 3 See April 11, 1787.]
And having on this reported that he is persuaded Mr Adams really wishes and means to return next spring,
Whereupon
Resolved That the honorable John Adams the Minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the court of London be permitted agreeably to his request to return to America at any time after the 24 of Feby in the year
Page 518 | Page image
of our Lord 1788 and that his commission of Minister plenipotentiary to their High Mightinesses do also then determine.
The Secretary having also reported the following resolution
"That Congress entertain a high sense of the services which Mr Adams has rendered to the United States in the execution of the various important trusts which they have from time to time committed to him; And that the thanks of Congress be presented to him for the patriotism, perseverance, integrity and diligence with which he has ably and faithfully served his Country"
A motion was made by Mr Henry Lee seconded by Mr [William] Blount, that the consideration of this be postponed. And on the question for postponement the yeas and nays being required by Mr [Rufus] King
{table}
Page 519 | Page image
So the question was lost.
A division was then called for and on the question to agree to the first clause as far as the word "him" inclusive, the yeas and nays being required by Mr [Rufus] King
{table}
So the question was lost.
On the question to agree to the second clause the yeas and nays being required by Mr King
Page 520 | Page image
{table}
So the question was lost.
The Secretary having further reported "That the second question arising from this letter is Whether it will be expedient for the United States to appoint another minister to take the place of Mr Adams at the Court of London? And on this head having given his Opinion that it will be expedient to appoint another, because there do exist differences between the United States and the court of London1 which cannot too soon be adjusted, which must become the subject of occasional explanations and negociations, and which on the part of the United States cannot be so well managed and conducted, as by means of an intelligent and discreet Minister on the spot. Your Secretary's feelings strongly prompt him to retaliate the neglect of Britain in not sending
[Note 1: 1 Benjamin Bankson takes up the record.]
Page 521 | Page image
a Minister here; but as he conceives that such retaliation would eventually produce more inconveniences than advantages, he thinks it had better be omitted; especially as he is persuaded that this neglect will cease, the moment that the American Government and the Administration of it shall be such as to impress other nations with a degree of respect, which various circumstances deny to Congress the means of imposing at present. He thinks it should be the policy of the United States at present to keep all things as smooth and easy, and to expose themselves to as few embarrassments as possible, until their Affairs shall be in such a posture as to justify and support a more nervous stile of conduct and language.
Britain disputes the eastern boundary of the United States, she holds important Posts and territories on the frontiers, and she complains that the treaty of Peace has been violated by America. These Affairs are important, and the management of them requires prudence and temper, especially considering how little the actual' state of our National Affairs tends to repress the influence either of unfriendly dispositions and passions, or of that kind1 of policy which the weakness of Neighbours is very apt to suggest and promote, and that if Congress concur in the Opinion that a Minister should succeed Mr Adams a resolution like the following would perhaps be the most proper viz. Whereas divers important affairs still remain to be arranged and adjusted between his Britannic Majesty and the United States which on their part cannot be so well conducted as by means of a Minister plenipotentiary at the court of London therefore resolved that a minister plenipotentiary to reside
[Note 1: 1 Charles Thomson resumes the entry.]
Page 522 | Page image
at that court be appointed and that his Commission take effect on the 25 day of Feby. 1788 and continue in force for the space of three years thereafter unless sooner revoked.
On Motion ordered that the consideration of this part of the report be postponed.
[Report of committee on protest of the United Netherlands1]
[Note 1: 1 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, pp. 477--481, in the writing of Mr. Nathan Dane. Read September 24, 1787. The report of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject was passed October 13, 1787.]
The Committee consisting of Mr. [Nathan] Dane, Mr. [James Mitchell Varnum, Mr. [John] Kean, Mr. [Abraham] Clarke, and Mr. [William] Grayson, to whom were referred a report2 from the Secretary for the Department of foreign affairs, and a note3 from the minister of the United Netherlands, report,
[Note 2: 2 See March 15, 1787.]
[Note 3: 3 See March 1, 1787.]
That the said minister, in his note aforesaid, complains that, by an Act of the State of Virginia, French brandies imported into that State, in French or American vessels, are exempted from certain Duties, to which the like Commodities imported in Dutch vessels are left liable, as being contrary to the Second Article in their treaty with the United States.
The Committee find that the State of Virginia, in her last Session, by a legislative Act, made the distinction complained of; and tho. the reasons, that induced her to make the distinction, are not recited in the Act, yet, from various circumstances and good information, it appears, that the State granted the exemptions or favors complained of to France, in compensation, or in return for certain favors and exemptions in commerce, enumerated in Mr. Calonne's letter 4 to Mr. Jefferson dated the 22d. of October 1786, which, in the Opinion of the State, France had liberally granted to the United States, and especially to Virginia.
[Note 4: 4 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 87, I, pp. 706--713, original French, with translation pp. 714--717.]
These proceedings of Virginia do not appear to have a precedent in the affairs of the United States, and give rise to several important questions, they bring into view Articles in the treaties, which are not
Page 523 | Page image
easily understood, as well as parts of our national system which hitherto appear only to have come generally into consideration.
The second and third Articles in the treaty with France, and the second in the treaty with the United Netherlands respect this subject. The second in the treaty with France is "The Most Christian King and the United States engage mutually not to grant any particular favor to other nations in respect of Commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same favor freely, if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation if the concession was conditional."
By the second Article in our treaty with the United Netherlands, it is stipulated, that their subjects shall pay in our ports, &c. no other nor greater duties or imposts, than those which the Nations, the most favored are or shall be obliged to pay; and that they shall enjoy therein all the rights, liberties, privileges, Immunities, and exemptions in trade, navigation, and commerce which the said nations do or shall enjoy, but this Article takes no notice of Cases where compensation is granted for privileges. The Committee conceive however that reason and equity will give both Articles exactly the same Operation. Where a privilege is gratuitously granted, the Nation to whom it is granted, becomes in respect to that privilege, a favored Nation, and from that circumstance both the Articles in question deduce claims to the like favor, but where the privilege is not gratuitous but rests on compact, or where the privilege is yielded by one party as a consideration, or as a compensation for a privilege yielded by the other, the favor, if any there be, consists only in the power of making the compact, or the exchange of privileges, and the favor, in this Case, due to the third Nation entitled to the benefits of the most favored Nations from either party, consists only in the right such third Nation has to make a compact or exchange of privileges with the party so in treaty with her, on the same terms as that party stipulated with the other. This construction is, in the opinion of the Committee, founded in the highest reason and propriety, and the contrary doctrine must be productive of confusion and Injustice. If France should, therefore, purchase at a certain price, a privilege of the United States, it would be evidently unreasonable that the Dutch should have a like privilege without any price at all. The Dutch would in this Case have better terms than the most favored nation, France; and, therefore, more than is stipulated for, in the treaty, and France clearly would have reason to
Page 524 | Page image
complain, that she was not treated on so good terms as the most favored Nation, the Dutch.
But another question arises in this Case, which seems to have escaped the Secretary, and that is, in what manner shall a privilege gratuitous, or not, be granted.
It is to be observed that the extent of most Commercial privileges granted by modern treaties, must be ascertained by a reference to those yielded by the grantors, to the most favored Nations, and, therefore, a variation in the privileges allowed by any one Nation to another, may Justly give occasion to vary the privileges allowed by the former to all other Nations, and thus by any change of privileges several Nations may become immediately interested, and each entitled to claim for itself whatever may be yielded to any one by such change or variation. The terms also of national treaties are, in general indefinite and ought to receive a liberal and rational construction. The Committee, on carefully considering this part of the subject, are clearly of opinion, that whenever a privilege is yielded by a Nation which has stipulated to yield to other Nations the benefits allowed to the most favored, that the nature of the privilege, whether gratuitous or to be paid for, ought to be known and expressed at the time it is yielded; and if such privilege be intended as a compensation, or a compensation is to be received for it, the privilege and compensation form the inseparable parts of a compact, which, in the nature of shings, must stand connected together. A little attention to this tubject must fully evince that when a treaty has been formed by parties circumstanced as above supposed, that no privilege not merely gratuitous, can with propriety, pass from one to the other, without compact; and that in nature of an additional Article to the subsisting treaty. The contrary position must be absurd both in Theory and practice, if France, for instance, which has stipulated with several Nations to allow each of them the benefits of the most favored, can yield a privilege to any one of them, and it can remain uncertain for any longer or shorter time, whether that privilege was yielded gratuitously or not, how are the said other Nations to come at their rights in the mean time, but the Case in question goes further, France seems to have yielded the privileges and exemptions mentioned in the said Note, without herself knowing whether they would be gratuitous, or eventually be paid for; for it appears to have been left to the option of the United States to make them the one thing or the other, besides if among Nations, all put on an equal footing by treaty, every privilege
Page 525 | Page image
loosly granted is to be the foundation of distinctions, most modern treaties will be useless, and a total uncertainty must take place in the system of commerce.
Thus far the Committee have pursued this subject under the idea that even the Union had made the distinction complained of and it appears clear that even the nation itself can make no such distinctions in so loose and uncertain a manner.
But a third question arises, and that is, what constitutional power has a State, a part of the nation, to Judge of the privileges yielded to her, or to the United States, and to deal out compensation for them? By the Articles of Confederation, it is agreed, that Congress shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances; provided that no treaty of Commerce shall be made, whereby the legislative powers of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and Duties on foreigners, as their own people are subject to pay, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any Species of goods. it is also agreed that no State, without the consent of the United States, shall enter into any Conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any king, prince or State.
Thus by the federal compact, it is wisely and properly established that no State, or part of the nation, shall have any part in making a treaty, &c. between the nation and a foreign power, but by its Delegates in the national Council. The power of Congress to bind the Nation by treaty is complete, with these two exceptions only 1t. no treaty can authorise a foreigner to pay less duties than the Citizens of the State pay. 2d. no treaty can prevent the State from prohibiting the importation and exportation of goods, and whatever treaty, therefore, is made by Congress, not infringing these rights of the several States, is binding on all parts of the Nation; and it appears that the States in all Cases, except the present, have in laying duties, making Commercial regulations, &c. regarded treaties accordingly, and in this, they have conducted according to the obvious dictates of reason and propriety. The contrary conduct, the Committee conceive would be attended with infinite inconveniences, if one State can at discretion make distinctions between the subjects of powers put on an equal footing by national treaties, Judge of privileges yielded, and of compensation for them, another State may make other distinctions, and thereby those subjects be put into various situations totally different.
Page 526 | Page image
Contemplating this subject in every point of view it appears to the Committee so clear that a state cannot constitutionally make the distinctions alluded to that they should think it unnecessary to adduce any arguments, had not the Act complained of been passed by a very respectable State in the Union. The Committee are inclined to believe that it passed not having received the attention which that State usually pays to important laws which may effect the national system and public treaties, and that on the earliest notice the said state will do away the distinction complained of. Whereupon the Committee submit the following Resolutions,
Resolved That no individual State can constitutionally, without the Consent of the United States in Congress Assembled, make any compensation for privileges or exemptions granted in trade Navigation or Commerce by any foreign power to the United States or any of them, and that whenever any of the States shall think proper to grant any privileges or exemptions in trade, Navigation, and Commerce, to any foreign Nation gratuitously, such State ought to extend them to such other foreign Nations as by treaties with the United States are to be treated as the most favored Nation.
Resolved That a copy of the above resolution and of the representation of the minister of the United Netherlands be transmitted to the State of Virginia, to the end that the legislature of that State may take the earliest Opportunity of revising the Act of which the said Minister complains, and rendering the same perfectly consistent with the treaty subsisting between the United States and the United Netherlands; and of causing to be repaid whatever extra Duties may by virtue of the said Act, be exacted on brandies there imported in Dutch vessels, during the Operation of the same.
Resolved That copies of the foregoing resolutions be given to the said minister of the United Netherlands and that he be requested to assure their High Mightinesses that Congress are well persuaded that the Omission of Virginia, in not extending to them the favor granted to France, was entirely inadvertent and not designed; and they flatter themselves that the said resolutions, and the respect with which they will be treated by Virginia, will fully manifest to their High Mightinesses the good faith and friendship of the United States in General and of Virginia in particular.
Page 527 | Page image
[Letter of Secretary at War on Canadian refugees1]
[Note 1: 1 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 150, II, pp. 517--519, read September 24, 1787. According to the Committee Book, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 190, p. 168, this letter and the enclosed petition were referred to the Board of Treasury to report. Report rendered October 2, and passed October 12, 1787.]
War Office, September 22d. 1787.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to your Excellency a petition2 of the Canadian refugees who repaired to Lake Champlain in the course of the last year with the intention to settle certain lands given to them by the Legislature of New York.
[Note 2: 2 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 42, II, pp. 226--227, read September 24, 1787. An accompanying list of officers, soldiers and refugees is on pp. 230--232. Acted on October 12, 1787.]
Congress were pleased by their act3 of the 30th June 1786 to direct that the said Canadians should be furnished with rations for fifteen months which terminated on the 31st. ultimo.
[Note 3: 3 Journals, vol. XXX, pp. 381--382.]
By a mistake in the persons directed to assign them their lands, some clashing claims for the same lands on the river Chazzi, and an apprehension, perhaps well founded, that the British troops at Point au Fer would prevent any settlement above that post, have been the causes which have prevented the Canadians from possessing the bounty intended for them by the State of New York.
These circumstances sufficient in themselves to embarrass and discourage an industrious and enterprising people in forming a new settlement, have operated with peculiar force on a class of men habituated for a long period to be supported by the government.
I have applied to His Excellency Governor Clinton on the occasion who has given every direction the nature of the case will admit to rectify any errors that may have arisen and to facilitate the ascertainment and delivery of the lands. But a considerable period of time must elapse before complete possession can be given. In the mean time it is to be apprehended that some of the Canadians may suffer from a want of necessary food.
Although the conduct of the United States has been liberal beyond their abilities in other respects to the Canadian Refugees yet circumstances which those helpless people could not controul have prevented them from availing themselves thereof in such a manner as to obtain their food by their own industry.
Page 528 | Page image
The court of Great Britain have conceived it a necessary measure to continue from time to time rations of provisions to the refugees from the United States who are attempting to cultivate the soil in the different colonies.
How far such a procedure on their part involves in any degree an obligation of a similar conduct on the part of the United States towards the Canadian refugees, future measures relative to Canada being considered, is a point to be decided only by Congress.
It is to be observed that almost all the persons whose names accompany the petition have been actually in the service of the United States during the late war either as officers or soldiers and that their return to Canada under its present government would not be permitted.
I have the honor to be, etc.,
H Knox1
[Note 1: 1 september 24, 1787. According to indorsement and the Committee Book, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 190, p. 168, the following were referred:
Letter of Thomas Hutchins to President of Congress, dated and read September 24, 1787, asking to be enabled to pay drafts drawn by the surveyors. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 60, p. 323. Referred to the Board of Treasury to report. Report rendered October 2 and acted on October 3, 1787.
Memorial of Jedediah Huntington, September 20, 1787, read September 24, requesting pay for rations. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 41, IV, p. 372 and another copy in No. 55, p. 105. Referred to the Commissioner of Army Accounts to report. Report rendered September 27, 1787.
According to indorsement the following letters were read:
Letter of Arthur Lee to President of Congress, September 22, 1787, respecting a suit brought against him by Calbraith and others. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 78, XIV, pp. 739--740. See September 25, 1787.
Letter of John Collins, governor of Rhode Island, to President of Congress, September 17, 1787, giving reasons for not having sent delegates to the Convention. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 64, p. 588. The inclosures are copies of the following Acts of the Legislature: 1) Reasons of Rhode Island for not sending delegates to the Convention, signed by John Collins and read September 24, 1787, pp. 600--603; 2) Protest of sundry members against these reasons, pp. 592--594; 3) Reasons of Legislature for not sending delegates to Congress previous to first Monday in November 1787, pp. 596--597, and 4) Making the treaty with Great Britain fully binding, p. 582.]
His Excellency
The President of Congress.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |