Chapter XXXIII: Section 158: , "lesion cannot render a treaty invalid. It is his duty who (1)

enters into engagements, to weigh well all things before he concludes. He may do with his property what he pleases. He may relinquish his rights or renounce his advantages, as he judges proper. The acceptant is not obliged to inform himself of his motives nor to weigh then just value. If we could free ourselves from a compact because we find ourselves injured by it, there would be nothing firm in the contracts of nations. Civil laws may set limits to lesion, and determine the degree capable of producing a nullity of the contract; but sovereigns acknowledge no judge. How establish lesion among them? Who will determine the degree sufficient to invalidate a treaty? The happiness and peace of nations require manifestly that their treaties should not depend on a means of nullity so vague and so dangerous."

Let us hear him again on the general subject of the observation of treaties, Section 163: "It is demonstrated in natural law that he who promises another, confers on him a perfect right to require the thing promised, and that consequently, not to observe a perfect promise is to violate the right of another; it is as manifest injustice as to plunder any one of their right. All the tranquillity, the happiness and security of mankind, rest on justice or the obligation to respect the rights of others. The respect of others for our right of domain and property is the security of our actual possessions. The faith of promises is the security for the things which cannot be delivered or executed on the spot. No more security, no more commerce among men, if they think themselves not bound to preserve faith, to keep their word. This obligation, then, is as necessary as it is natural and indubitable among nations who live together in a state of nature, and who acknowledge no superior on earth. To maintain order and peace in their society, nations and their governors then ought to observe inviolably their promises and their treaties. This is a great truth, although too often neglected in practice, is generally acknowledged by all nations, the reproach of perfidy is a bitter affront among sovereigns. Now he who does not observe a treaty is assuredly perfidious, since he violates his faith. On the contrary, nothing is so glorious to a prince and his nation as the reputation of inviolable fidelity to his word." Again, Section 219, "Who will doubt that treaties are of the things sacred among nations? They decide matters the most important; they impose rules on the pretensions of sovereigns, they cause the rights of nations to be acknowledged; they assume their most precious interests. Among political bodies, sovereigns, who acknowledge no superior on earth, treaties are the only means of adjusting their different pretensions; of establishing a rule, to know on what to count, on what to depend. But treaties are but vain words, if nations do not consider them as respectable engagements, as rules inviolable for sovereigns, and sacred through the whole earth." Section 220: "The faith of treaties, that firm and sincere will, that invincible constancy in fulfilling engagements, of which a declaration is made in a treaty, is then holy and sacred among nations, whose safety and repose it ensures; and if nations will not be wanting to themselves, they will load with infamy whoever violates his faith."

After evidence so copious and explicit of the respect of this author for the sanctity of treaties, we should hardly have expected that his authority would have been resorted to for a wanton invalidation of them whenever they should become merely _useless or disagreeable_. We should hardly have expected that, rejecting all the rest of his book, this scrap would have been culled and made the hook whereon to hang such a chain of immoral consequences. Had the passage accidentally met our eye, we should have imagined it had fallen from the author's pen under some momentary view, not sufficiently developed to found a conjecture what he meant, and we may certainly affirm that a fragment like this cannot weigh against the authority of all other writers; against the uniform and systematic doctrine of the very work from which it is torn; against the moral feelings and the reason of all honest men. If the terms of the fragment are not misunderstood, they are in full contradiction to all the written and unwritten evidences of morality. If they are misunderstood, they are no longer a foundation for the doctrines which have been built on them.

But even had this doctrine been as true as it is manifestly false, it would have been asked, to whom is it that the treaties with France have become _disagreeable_? How will it be proved that they are _useless_?

The conclusion of the sentence suggests a reflection too strong to be suppressed, "for the party may say with truth that it would not have allied itself with this nation if it had been under the present form of its government." The republic of the United States allied itself with France when under a despotic government. She changes her government, and declares it shall be a republic; prepares a form of republic extremely free, and in the meantime is governing herself as such. And it is proposed that America shall declare the treaties void, because it may say with truth that it would not have allied itself with that nation if it had been under the present form of its government. Who is the American who can say with truth that he would not have allied himself to France if she had been a republic? Or that a republic of any form would be as _disagreeable_ as her ancient despotism?

Upon the whole I conclude, that the treaties are still binding, notwithstanding the change of government in France; that no part of them but the clause of guarantee holds up _danger_, even at a distance, and consequently that a liberation from no other part would be prepared in any case; that if that clause may ever bring _danger_, it is neither extreme nor imminent, nor even probable that the authority for renouncing a treaty, when _useless or disagreeable_, is either misunderstood or in opposition to itself, to all other writers, and to every moral feeling; that were it not so, these treaties are in fact neither useless or disagreeable; that the receiving a minister from France at this time is an act of no significance with respect to the treaties, amounting neither to an admission nor denial of them, forasmuch as he comes not under any stipulation in them; that were it an explicit admission, or were it an express declaration of their obligation now to be made, it would not take from us that right which exists at all times, of liberating ourselves when an adherence to the treaties would be _ruinous_ or _destructive_ to the society; and that the not renouncing the treaties now is so far from being a breach of neutrality, that the doing it would be the breach, by giving just cause of war to France.

XXXVI.--_Opinion relative to granting of passports to American vessels._

May 3, 1793.

It has been stated in our treaties with the French, Dutch and Prussians, that when it happens that either party is at war, and the other neutral, the neutral shall give passports of a certain tenor to the _vessels belonging to their subjects_, in order to avoid dissension; and it has been thought that passports of such high import to the persons and property of our citizens should have the highest sanction; that of the signature of the President, and seal of the United States. The authority of Congress also, in the case of sea letters to East India vessels, was in favor of this sanction. It is now become a question whether these passports shall be given only to ships _owned and built_ in the United States, or may be given also to those _owned_ in the United States, though _built_ in foreign countries.

The persons and property of our citizens are entitled to the protection of our government in all places where they may lawfully go. No laws forbid a merchant to buy, own, and use a _foreign-built_ vessel. She is, then, his lawful property, and entitled to the protection of his nation whenever he is lawfully using her.

The laws indeed, for the encouragement of ship building, have given to home-built vessels the exclusive privilege of being registered and paying lighter duties. To this privilege, therefore, the foreign-built vessel, though owned at home, does not pretend. But the laws have not said that they withdraw their protection from the foreign-built vessel. To this protection, then, she retains her title, notwithstanding the preference given to the home-built vessel as to duties. It would be hard indeed because the law has given one valuable right to home-built vessels, to infer that it had taken away all rights from those foreign-built.

In conformity with the idea that all the vessels of a State are entitled to its protection, the treaties before mentioned have settled that passports shall be given, not merely to the vessels _built_ in the United States, but to the vessels belonging to them; and when one of these nations shall take a vessel, if she has not such a passport, they are to conclude she does not _belong_ to the United States, and is therefore lawful prize; so that to refuse these passports to foreign-built vessels _belonging_ to our merchants, is to give them up to capture with their cargoes. The most important interests of the United States hang upon this question. The produce of the earth is their principle source of wealth. Our _home-built_ vessels would suffice for the transportation of a very small part of this produce to market, and even a part of these vessels will be withdrawn by high premiums to other lines of business. All the rest of our produce, then, must remain on our hands, or have its price reduced by a war insurance. Many descriptions of our produce will not bear this reduction, and would, therefore, remain on hand.

We shall lose also a great proportion of the profits of navigation. The great harvest for these is when other nations are at war, and our flag neutral. But if we can augment our stock of shipping only by the slow process of building, the harvest will be over while we are only preparing instruments to reap it. The moment of breeding seamen will be lost for want of bottoms to embark them in.

France and Holland permit our vessels to be neutralized with them; not even to suffer theirs to be purchased here might give them just cause to revoke the privilege of naturalization given to ours, and would inflict on the ship-building States and artizans a severe injury.

_Objection._ To protect foreign-built vessels will lessen the demand for ship building here.

_Answer._ Not at all; because as long as we can build cheaper than other nations, we shall be employed in preference to others; besides, shall we permit the greatest part of the produce of our fields to rot on our hands, or lose half its value by subjecting it to high insurance, merely that our ship builders may have brisker employ? Shall the whole mass of our farmers be sacrificed to the class of ship wrights?

_Objection._ There will be collusive transfers of foreign ships to our merchants, merely to obtain for them the cover of our passports.

_Answer._ The same objection lies to giving passports to home-built vessels. They may be owned, and are owned by foreigners, and may be collusively re-transferred to our merchants to obtain our passports. To lessen the danger of collusion, however, I should be for delivering passports in our own ports only, if they were to be sent blank to foreign ports to be delivered there, the power of checking collusion would be small, and they might be employed to cover purposes of no benefit to us (which we ought not to countenance), and to throw our vessels out of business; but if issued only to vessels in our own ports, we can generally be certain that the vessel is our property; and always that the _cargo_ is of our produce. State the case that it shall be found that all our shipping, home-built and foreign-built, is inadequate to the transportation of our produce to market; so that after all these are loaded, there shall yet remain produce on hand. This must be put into vessels owned by foreigners. Should these obtain collusively the protection of our passport, it will cover their _vessel_ indeed, but it will cover also our _cargo_. I repeat it then, that if the issuing passports be confined to our ports, it will be our own _vessels_ for the most part, and always our _cargoes_ which will be covered by them.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that passports ought to be issued to all vessels _belonging_ to citizens of the United States, but only on their clearing out from our own ports, and for that voyage only.

XXXVII.--_Opinion relative to case of a British vessel captured by a French vessel, purchased by French citizens, and fitted out as a Privateer in one of our ports._

May 16, 1793.

The facts suggested, or to be taken for granted, because the contrary is not known, in the case now to be considered, are, that a vessel was purchased at Charleston, and fitted out as a privateer by French citizens, manned with foreigners chiefly, but partly with citizens of the United States. The command given to a French citizen by a regular commission from his government; that she has made prize of an English vessel in the open sea, and sent her into Philadelphia. The British minister demands restitution, and the question is, whether the Executive of the United States shall undertake to make it?

This transaction may be considered, 1st, as an offence against the United States; 2d, as an injury to Great Britain.

In the first view it is not now to be taken up. The opinion being, that it has been an act of disrespect to the jurisdiction of the United States, of which proper notice is to be taken at a proper time.

Under the second point of view, it appears to me wrong on the part of the United States (where not constrained by treaties) to permit one party in the present war to do what cannot be permitted to the other. We cannot permit the enemies of France to fit out privateers in our ports, by the 22d article of our treaty. We ought not, therefore, to permit France to do it; the treaty leaving us free to refuse, and the refusal being necessary to preserve a fair neutrality. Yet considering that the present is the first case which has arisen; that it has been in the first moment of the war, in one of the most distant ports of the United States, and before measures could be taken by the government to meet all the cases which may flow from the infant state of our government, and novelty of our position, it ought to be placed by Great Britain among the accidents of loss to which a nation is exposed in a state of war, and by no means as a premeditated wrong on the part of the government. In the last light it cannot be taken, because the act from which it results placed the United States with the offended, and not the offending party. Her minister has seen himself that there could have been on our part neither permission or connivance. A very moderate apology then from the United States ought to satisfy Great Britain.

The one we have made already is ample, to wit, a pointed disapprobation of the transaction, a promise to prosecute and punish according to law such of our citizens as have been concerned in it, and to take effectual measures against a repetition. To demand more would be a wrong in Great Britain; for to demand satisfaction _beyond_ what is adequate, is wrong. But it is proposed further to take the prize from the captors and restore her to the English. This is a very serious proposition.

The dilemma proposed in our conferences, appears to me unanswerable. Either the commission to the commander of the privateer was good, or not good. If not good, then the tribunals of the country will take cognizance of the transaction, receive the demand of the former owner, and make restitution of the capture; and there being, on this supposition, regular remedy at law, it would be irregular for the government to interpose. If the commission be good, then the capture having been made on the high seas, under a valid commission from a power at war with Great Britain, the British owner has lost all his right, and the prize would be deemed good, even in his own courts, were the question to be brought before his own courts. He has now no more claim on the vessel than any stranger would have who never owned her, his whole right being transferred by the laws of war to the captor.

The legal right then being in the captors, on what ground can we take it from him? Not on that of _right_, for the right has been transferred to him. It can only be by an act of _force_, that is to say, of reprisal for the offence committed against us in the port of Charleston. But the making reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. Remonstrance and refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it is considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were important enough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step, Congress must be called on to take it; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive.

I therefore think that the satisfaction already made to the _government_ of Great Britain is quite equal to what ought to be desired in the present case; that the property of the British _owner_ is transferred by the laws of war to the _captor_; that for us to take it from the captor would be an act of force or reprisal, which the circumstances of the case do not justify, and to which the powers of the Executive are not competent by the Constitution.

XXXVIII.-_Opinion on the proposition of the Secretary of the Treasury to open a new Loan._

June 5, 1793.

Instructions having been given to borrow two millions of florins in Holland, and the Secretary of the Treasury proposing to open a further loan of three millions of florins, which he says "a comprehensive view of the affairs of the United States, in various relations, appears to him to recommend," the President is pleased to ask whether I see any objections to the proposition?

The power to borrow money is confided to the President by the two acts of the 4th and 12th of August, 1790, and the monies, when borrowed, are appropriated to two purposes only: to wit, the twelve millions to be borrowed under the former, are appropriated to discharge the arrears of interest and instalments of the foreign debt; and the two millions, under the latter, to the purchase of the public debt, under direction of the trustees of the sinking fund.

These appropriations render very simple the duties of the President in the discharge of this trust. He has only to look to the _payment_ of the foreign debt, and the purchase of the general one. And in order to judge for himself of the necessity of the loan proposed for effecting these two purposes, he will need from the treasury the following statements:--

A. A statement of the nett amount of the loans already made under these acts, adding to that the two millions of florins now in course of being borrowed. This will form the _debit_ of the trust.

The _credit_ side of the account will consist of the following statements, to wit:--

B. Amount of the principal and interest of foreign debt, paid and payable, to the close of 1792.

C. Ditto, payable to the close of 1793.

D. Ditto, payable to the close of 1794 (for I think our preparations should be a year beforehand).

E. Amount of monies necessary for the sinking fund to the end of 1794.

If the amount of the four last articles exceeds the first, it will prove a further loan necessary, and to what extent.

The treasury alone can furnish these statements with perfect accuracy. But to show that there is probable cause to go into the examination, I will hazard a statement from materials which, though perhaps not perfectly exact, are not much otherwise.

_Report of January 3, 1793. New Edition._

Dr.

The trust for loans.

A. To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792, as stated
in the treasury report, to wit, 18,678,000 florins,
at 99 florins to $40, the treasury exchange $7,545,912
To loan now going on for 2,000,000 florins 808,080
----------
$8,353,992

Cr.
Florins.
B. By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1
By reimbursement to Spain 680,000
By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000
----------
795,093 1 = $321,239 46
By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90
By amount of French debt, principal and Livres.
interest, payable to end of 1791 26,000,000
By ditto, for 1792 3,450,000
----------
29,450,000 = 5,345,171
C. By ditto, for 1793 3,410,000 = 618,915
D. By ditto, for 1794 3,250,000 = 569,876
E. By necessary for sinking fund at $50,000 a
month, from July 1, 1793, to Dec. 31, 1794 900,000
Balance which will remain in hands of the
trust, at end of 1794 387,474 64
-------------
$8,353,992 60

So that instead of an additional loan being necessary, the monies already borrowed will suffice for all the purposes to which they can be legally applied to the end of 1794, and leave a surplus of $387 474 64 to cover charges and errors. And as, on account of the unsettled state of the French government, it is not proposed to pay in advance, or but little so, any further sum would be lying at a dead interest and risk. Perhaps it might be said that new monies must be borrowed for the current domestic service of the year. To this I should answer, that no law has authorized the opening of a loan for this purpose.

If it should be said that the monies heretofore borrowed are so far put out of our power that we cannot command them before an instalment will be due, I should answer, that certainly I would rather borrow than fail in a payment; but if borrowing will secure a payment in time, the two millions of florins now borrowing are sufficient to secure it. If we cannot get this sum in time, then we cannot get an additional sum in time.

The above account might be stated in another way, which might, perhaps, be more satisfactory, to wit:

Dr.

The trust for loans.

To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792. 18,678,000 florins,
at 99 florins to $40 $7,545,912

Cr.

Florins
By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1
By reimbursement to Spain 680,000
By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000
---------
795,073 1 = $321,239 46
By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90
By payments to France 10,073,043 8 = 4,069,918 54
Livres.
By ditto to St. Domingo 4,000,000 = 726,000
By ditto to do. 3,000,000 = 544,500
By do. to Mr. Ternant [I state this by
memory] 24,000 = 4,356
Balance in hand to be carried to new debit 1,688,581 10
-------------
$7,545,912 00

Dr.

The trust for loans.

To balance as per contra $1,688,581 10
To two millions of florins, new loan, when effected 808,080
-------------
$2,496,661 10

Cr.

By the following payments when made, to wit:
Balance due to France, to close of year 1792
Livres.
($5,345,171-$5,344,774 54) $396 46
Instalments and interest to close of year
1793 3,410,000 == 618,915
do. do
1794 3,250,000 == 589,875
Necessary for sinking fund from July 1, 1793,
to December 31, 1794 900,000
Balance will then be in hand to be carried to
new debit 387,474 64
-------------
$2,496,661 10

By this statement, it would seem as if all the payments to France, hitherto made and ordered, would not acquit the year 1792. So that we have never yet been clear of arrears to her.

The amount of the French debt is stated according to the convention, and the interest is calculated accordingly. Interest on the ten million loan is known to have been paid for the years 1784, 1785, and is therefore deducted. It is not known whether it was paid on the same loan for the years 1786-7-8-9, previous to the payment of December 3, 1790, or whether it was included in that payment; therefore this is not deducted. But if, in fact, it was paid before that day, it will then have lessened the debt so much, to wit, 400,000 livres a year, for four years, making 1,600,000 florins, equal to $290,400, which sum would put us in advance near half of the instalments of 1793. Note,--livres are estimated at 18/100 cents, proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury to the French ministry as the par of the metals, to be the rate of conversion.

This uncertainty with respect to the true state of our account with France, and the difference of the result from what has been understood, shows that the gentlemen who are to give opinions on this subject, must do it in the dark, and suggests to the President the propriety of having an exact statement of the account with France communicated to them, as the ground on which they are to give opinions. It will probably be material in that about to be given on the late application of Mr. Genet, on which the Secretary of the Treasury is preparing a report.

XXXIX.--_Opinion relative to the policy of a new loan._

June 17, 1793

I cannot see my way clear in the case which the President has been pleased to ask my opinion, but by recurring to these leading questions:

Of the $7,898,999 88 borrowed, or rather of the $7,545,912, nett proceeds thereof, how much has been applied to the _payment_ of the _foreign_, and _purchase_ of the _general_ debt?

To the balance thereof, which should be on hand, and the two millions of florins now borrowing, is any and what addition necessary, _for the same objects_, for the years 1793, 1794?

The statement furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury does not answer these questions. It only shows what has been done with somewhat less than three millions out of near eight millions of dollars which have been borrowed, and in so doing it takes credit for two sums which are not to come out of this sum, and therefore not to be left in the account. They are the following:

1. A sum of $284,901 89 expended in purchases of the public debt. In the general report of the trustees of the sinking fund, made to Congress the 23d of February last, and printed, it appears, page 29, that the whole amount of monies laid out by them was $1,302,407 64, from which were to be deducted, as is mentioned in the note there subjoined, the purchases made out of the interest fund (then about $50,000 as well as I recollect). Call the sum paid then $1,252,407 64. By the Treasury report, p. 38, (new edition,) it appears that the surplus of domestic revenue to the end of 1790, appropriated to this object, was $1,374,656 40, and p. 34, that the monies drawn from Europe on account of the foreign loans, were not the instrument of these purchases; and in some part, to which I am not able just now to turn, I recollect pretty certainly that it is said these purchases were actually carried to account, as was proper, against the domestic surplus, consequently they are not to be allowed in the foreign account also. Or if allowed in this, the sum will then be due from the surplus account, and so must lessen the sum to be borrowed for the sinking fund, which amounts to the same.

2. The 1st instalment due to the bank $200,000. Though the first payment of the subscription of the United States to the bank might have been made, in the first instant, out of the foreign monies to be immediately repaid to them by the money borrowed of the bank, yet this useless formality was avoided, and it was a mere operation of the pen on paper, without the displacement of a single dollar. See reports p. 12. And, in any event, the final reimbursement was never to be made out of the foreign fund, which was appropriated solely to the _payment_ of the _foreign_, and _purchase_ of the _general_ debt.

These two sums, therefore, of $284,901 89 and $200,000 are to be added to the balance of $575,484 28 subject to future disposition, and will make $1,050,386 17 actually here, and still to be applied to the proper appropriation.

However, this account, as before observed, being only of a part of the monies borrowed, no judgment can be formed from it of the expediency of borrowing more; nor should I have stopped to make a criticism on it, but to show why no such sums as the two above mentioned, were inserted in the general account sketched for the President, June 5. I must add that the miscellaneous sum of $49,400 in this account, is probably covered by some other articles of that as far as it is chargeable on this fund; because that account, under one form or another, takes up all the articles chargeable on this fund which had appeared in the printed reports.

I must, therefore, proceed to renew my statement of June 5, inserting therein the 1st instalment of the Dutch loan of $404,040 40 payable this month, which not having been mentioned in any of the reports heretofore published, was not inserted in my statement. I will add a like sum for the year 1794, because I think we should now prepare for the whole of that year.

As the Secretary of the Treasury does not seem to contemplate the furnishing any fixed sum for the sinking fund, I shall leave that article out of the account. The President can easily add to its result any sum he may decide to have furnished to that fund. The account, so corrected, will stand thus:

Dr.

The trust for loans.
To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792 $7,545,912
To loan now going on for 2,000,000 florins 808,080
----------
$8,353,992

Cr.

Florins.
By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1
By reimbursement to Spain 680,000
By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000
-------
795,073 1==$321,239 46
By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90
By amount of French debt, principal and interest Livres.
payable to end of 1791 26,000,000
By ditto for 1792 3,450,000
----------
29,450,000 ==5,345,171
By ditto for 1793 3,410,000 == 618,915
By 1st instalment of Dutch debt due June 1793 404,040 40
By instalments and interest to France for
1794 3,250,000 == 569,875
By instalment to Holland for 1794 404,040 40
Balance will then remain in hands of the trust, 499,393 84
------------
$8,353,992 00

So that it appears there would be a balance in the hands of this trust, at the close of 1794, of $499,393 84, were no monies to be furnished in the meantime to the sinking fund; but should the President determine to furnish that with the $900,000 proposed in my statement of June 5, then a loan would be necessary for about $400,000, say in near round numbers, 1,000,000 of guilders, in addition to the 2,000,000 now borrowing. I am, _individually_, of opinion that that sum ought to be furnished to the sinking fund, and consequently that an additional loan, to this extent, should be made, considering the subject in a _legal point of view_ only.

The reasons in favor of the extension are,

The apprehension of the extension of our war to other Indian nations, and perhaps to Europe itself.

The disability this might produce to borrow at all, [this is, in my judgment, a weighty consideration.]

The possibility that the government of France may become so settled as that we may hazard the anticipation of payment, and so avoid dead interest.

The reasons against it are,

The possibility that France may continue, for some time yet, so unsettled as to render an anticipation of payments hazardous.

The risk of losing the capital borrowed by a successful invasion of the country of deposit, if it be left in Europe; or by an extension of the bankruptcies now shaking the most solid houses; and when and where they will end we know not.

The loss of interest on the dead sum, if the sum itself be safe.

The execution of a power for one object, which was given to be executed but for a very different one.

The commitment of the President, on this account, to events, or to the criticisms of those who, though the measures should be perfectly wise, may misjudge it through error or passion.

The apprehension that the head of the department means to provide idle money to be lodged in the banks ready for the corruption of the next legislature, as it is believed the late ones were corrupted, by gratifying particular members with vast discounts for objects of speculation.

I confess that the last reasons have most weight with me.

XL.--_Report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries._

December 16, 1793.

SIR,--According to the pleasure of the House of Representatives, expressed in their resolution of February 23, 1791, I now lay before them a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries. In order to keep the subject within those bounds which I supposed to be under the contemplation of the House, I have restrained my statements to those countries only with which we carry on a commerce of some importance, and to those articles also of our produce which are of sensible weight in the scale of our exports; and even these articles are sometimes grouped together, according to the degree of favor or restriction with which they are received in each country, and that degree expressed in general terms without detailing the exact duty levied on each article. To have gone fully into these minutiæ, would have been to copy the tariffs and books of rates of the different countries, and to have hidden, under a mass of details, those general and important truths, the extraction of which, in a simple form, I conceived would best answer the inquiries of the House, by condensing material information within those limits of time and attention, which this portion of their duties may justly claim. The plan, indeed, of minute details which have been impracticable with some countries, for want of information.

Since preparing this report, which was put into its present form in time to have been given in to the last session of Congress, alterations of the conditions of our commerce with some foreign nations have taken place--some of them independent of war; some arising out of it.

France has proposed to enter into a new treaty of commerce with us, on liberal principles; and has, in the meantime, relaxed some of the restraints mentioned in the report. Spain has, by an ordinance of June last, established New Orleans, Pensacola, and St. Augustine into free ports, for the vessels of friendly nations _having treaties of commerce_ with her, provided they touch for a permit at Corcubion in Gallicia, or at Alicant; and our rice is, by the same ordinance, excluded from that country. The circumstances of war have necessarily given us freer access to the West Indian islands, whilst they have also drawn on our navigation vexations and depredations of the most serious nature.

To have endeavored to describe all these, would have been as impracticable as useless, since the scenes would have been shifting while under description. I therefore think it best to leave the report as it was formed, being adapted to a particular point of time, when things were in their settled order, that is to say, to the summer of 1792. I have the honor to be, &c.

_To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America._

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the report of a committee on the written message of the President of the United States, of the 14th of February, 1791, with instruction to report to Congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which he should think proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same, has had the same under consideration, and thereupon makes the following Report:

The countries with which the United States have their chief commercial intercourse are Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, the United Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, and their American possessions; and the articles of export, which constitute the basis of that commerce, with their respective amounts, are,

Bread-stuff, that is to say, bread grains, meals,
and bread, to the annual amount of $7,649,887
Tobacco 4,349,567
Rice 1,753,796
Wood 1,263,534
Salted fish 941,696
Pot and pearl ash 839,093
Salted meats 599,130
Indigo 537,379
Horses and mules 339,753
Whale oil 252,591
Flax seed 236,072
Tar, pitch and turpentine 217,177
Live provisions 137,743
Ships
Foreign goods 620,274

To descend to articles of smaller value than these, would lead into a minuteness of detail neither necessary nor useful to the present object.

The proportions of our exports, which go to the nations before mentioned, and to their dominions, respectively, are as follows:

To Spain and its dominions $2,005,907
Portugal and its dominions 1,283,462
France and its dominions 4,698,735
Great Britain and its dominions 9,363,416
The United Netherlands and their dominions 1,963,880
Denmark and its dominions 224,415
Sweden and its dominions 47,240

Our imports from the same countries, are,

Spain and its dominions 335,110
Portugal and its dominions 595,763
France and its dominions 2,068,348
Great Britain and its dominions 15,285,428
United Netherlands and their dominions 1,172,692
Denmark and its dominions 351,364
Sweden and its dominions 14,325

These imports consist mostly of articles on which industry has been exhausted.

Our _navigation_, depending on the same commerce, will appear by the following statement of the tonnage of our own vessels, entering in our ports, from those several nations and their possessions, in one year; that is to say; from October, 1789, to September, 1790, inclusive, as follows:

Tons.
Spain 19,695
Portugal 23,576
France 116,410
Great Britain 43,580
United Netherlands 58,858
Denmark 14,655
Sweden 750

Of our commercial objects, Spain receives favorably our bread-stuff, salted fish, wood, ships, tar, pitch, and turpentine. On our meals, however, as well as on those of other foreign countries, when re-exported to their colonies, they have lately imposed duties of from half-a-dollar to two dollars the barrel, the duties being so proportioned to the current price of their own flour, as that both together are to make the constant sum of nine dollars per barrel.

They do not discourage our rice, pot and pearl ash, salted provisions, or whale oil; but these articles, being in small demand at their markets, are carried thither but in a small degree. Their demand for rice, however, is increasing. Neither tobacco nor indigo are received there. Our commerce is permitted with their Canary islands under the same conditions.

Themselves, and their colonies, are the actual consumers of what they receive from us.

Our navigation is free with the kingdom of Spain; foreign goods being received there in our ships on the same conditions as if carried in their own, or in the vessels of the country of which such goods are the manufacture or produce.

_Portugal_ receives favorably our grain and bread, salted fish, and other salted provisions, wood, tar, pitch, and turpentine.

For flax-seed, pot and pearl ash, though not discouraged, there is little demand.

Our ships pay 20 per cent. on being sold to their subjects, and are then free-bottoms.

Foreign goods (except those of the East Indies) are received on the same footing in our vessels as in their own, or any others; that is to say, on general duties of from 20 to 28 per cent., and, consequently, our navigation is unobstructed by them. Tobacco, rice, and meals, are prohibited.

Themselves and their colonies consume what they receive from us.

These regulations extend to the Azores, Madeira, and the Cape de Verd islands, except that in these, meals and rice are received freely.

_France_ receives favorably our bread-stuffs, rice, wood, pot and pearl ashes.

A duty of 5 sous the quintal, or nearly 4½ cents, is paid on our tar, pitch, and turpentine. Our whale oils pay 6 livres the quintal, and are the only foreign whale oils admitted. Our indigo pays 5 livres the quintal, their own 2½; but a difference of quality, still more than a difference of duty, prevents its seeking that market.

Salted beef is received freely for re-exportation; but if for home consumption, it pays five livres the quintal. Other salted provisions pay that duty in all cases, and salted fish is made lately to pay the prohibitory one of twenty livres the quintal.

Our ships are free to carry thither all foreign goods which may be carried in their own or any other vessels, except tobaccoes not of our own growth; and they participate with theirs, the exclusive carriage of our whale oils and tobaccoes.

During their former government, our tobacco was under a monopoly, but paid no duties; and our ships were freely sold in their ports, and converted into national bottoms. The first national assembly took from our ships this privilege. They emancipated tobacco from its monopoly, but subjected it to duties of eighteen livres, fifteen sous the quintal, carried in their own vessels, and five livres carried in ours--a difference more than equal to the freight of the article.

They and their colonies consume what they receive from us.

_Great Britain_ receives our pot and pearl ashes free, whilst those of other nations pay a duty of two shillings and three pence the quintal. There is an equal distinction in favor of our bar iron; of which article, however, we do not produce enough for our own use. Woods are free from us, whilst they pay some small duty from other countries. Indigo and flax seed are free from all countries. Our tar and pitch pay eleven pence, sterling, the barrel. From other alien countries they pay about a penny and a third more.

Our tobacco, for their own consumption, pays one shilling and three pence, sterling, the pound, custom and excise, besides heavy expenses of collection; and rice, in the same case, pays seven shillings and fourpence, sterling, the hundred weight; which, rendering it too dear, as an article of common food, it is consequently used in very small quantity.

Our salted fish and other salted provisions, except bacon, are prohibited. Bacon and whale oils are under prohibitory duties; so are our grains, meals, and bread, as to internal consumption, unless in times of such scarcity as may raise the price of wheat to fifty shillings, sterling, the quarter, and other grains and meals in proportion.

Our ships, though purchased and navigated by their own subjects, are not permitted to be used, even in their trade with us.

While the vessels of other nations are secured by standing laws, which cannot be altered but by the concurrent will of the three branches of the British legislature, in carrying thither any produce or manufacture of the country to which they belong, which may be lawfully carried in any vessels, ours, with the same prohibition of what is foreign, are further prohibited by a standing law, (12 Car. 2, 18, sect. 3,) from carrying thither all and any of our own domestic productions and manufactures. A subsequent act, indeed, has authorized their executive to permit the carriage of our own productions in our own bottoms, at its sole discretion; and the permission has been given from year to year by proclamation, but subject every moment to be withdrawn on that single will; in which event, our vessels having anything on board, stand interdicted from the entry of all British ports. The disadvantage of a tenure which may be so suddenly discontinued, was experienced by our merchants on a late occasion,[33] when an official notification that this law would be strictly enforced, gave them just apprehensions for the fate of their vessels and cargoes despatched or destined for the ports of Great Britain. The minister of that court, indeed, frankly expressed his personal conviction, that the words of the order went farther than was intended, and so he afterwards officially informed us; but the embarrassments of the moment were real and great, and the possibility of their renewal lays our commerce to that country under the same species of discouragement as to other countries, where it is regulated by a single legislator; and the distinction is too remarkable not to be noticed, that our navigation is excluded from the security of fixed laws, while that security is given to the navigation of others.

Our vessels pay in their ports one shilling and nine pence, sterling, per ton, light and trinity dues, more than is paid by British ships, except in the port of London, where they pay the same as British.

The greater part of what they receive from us, is re-exported to other countries, under the useless charges of an intermediate deposit, and double voyage. From tables published in England, and composed, as is said, from the books of their customhouses, it appears, that of the indigo imported there in the years 1773, '4, '5, one-third was re-exported; and from a document of authority, we learn, that of the rice and tobacco imported there before the war, four-fifths were re-exported. We are assured, indeed, that the quantities sent thither for re-exportation since the war, are considerably diminished, yet less so than reason and national interest would dictate. The whole of our grain is re-exported when wheat is below fifty shillings the quarter, and other grains in proportion.

The _United Netherlands_ prohibit our pickled beef and pork, meals and bread of all sorts, and lay a prohibitory duty on spirits distilled from grain.

All other of our productions are received on varied duties, which may be reckoned, on a medium, at about three per cent.

They consume but a small proportion of what they receive. The residue is partly forwarded for consumption in the inland parts of Europe, and partly re-shipped to other maritime countries. On the latter portion they intercept between us and the consumer, so much of the value as is absorbed in the charges attending an intermediate deposit.

Foreign goods, except some East India articles, are received in vessels of any nation.

Our ships may be sold and neutralized there, with exceptions of one or two privileges, which somewhat lessen their value.

_Denmark_ lays considerable duties on our tobacco and rice, carried in their own vessels, and half as much more, if carried in ours; but the exact amount of these duties is not perfectly known here. They lay such as amount to prohibitions on our indigo and corn.

_Sweden_ receives favorably our grains and meals, salted provisions, indigo, and whale oil.

They subject our rice to duties of sixteen mills the pound weight, carried in their own vessels, and of forty per cent. additional on that, or twenty-two and four-tenths mills, carried in ours or any others. Being thus rendered too dear as an article of common food, little of it is consumed with them. They consume some of our tobaccoes, which they take circuitously through Great Britain, levying heavy duties on them also; their duties of entry, town duties, and excise, being 4.34 dollars the hundred weight, if carried in their own vessels, and of forty per cent. on that additional, if carried in our own or any other vessels.

They prohibit altogether our bread, fish, pot and pearl ashes, flax-seed, tar, pitch, and turpentine, wood, (except oak timber and masts,) and all foreign manufactures.

Under so many restrictions and prohibitions, our navigation with them is reduced to almost nothing.

With our neighbors, an order of things much harder presents itself.

_Spain_ and _Portugal_ refuse, to all those parts of America which they govern, all direct intercourse with any people but themselves. The commodities in mutual demand between them and their neighbors, must be carried to be exchanged in some port of the dominant country, and the transportation between that and the subject state, must be in a domestic bottom.

_France_, by a standing law, permits her West India possessions to receive directly our vegetables, live provisions, horses, wood, tar, pitch, turpentine, rice, and maize, and prohibits our other bread stuff; but a suspension of this prohibition having been left to the colonial legislatures, in times of scarcity, it was formerly suspended occasionally, but latterly without interruption.

Our fish and salted provisions (except pork) are received in their islands under a duty of three colonial livres the quintal, and our vessels are as free as their own to carry our commodities thither, and to bring away rum and molasses.

_Great Britain_ admits in her islands our vegetables, live provisions, horses, wood, tar, pitch, and turpentine, rice and bread stuff, by a proclamation of her executive, limited always to the term of a year, but hitherto renewed from year to year. She prohibits our salted fish and other salted provisions. She does not permit our vessels to carry thither our own produce. Her vessels alone may take it from us, and bring in exchange rum, molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa-nuts, ginger, and pimento. There are, indeed, some freedoms in the island of Dominica, but, under such circumstances, as to be little used by us. In the British continental colonies, and in Newfoundland, all our productions are prohibited, and our vessels forbidden to enter their ports. Their governors, however, in times of distress, have power to permit a temporary importation of certain articles in their own bottoms, but not in ours.

Our citizens cannot reside as merchants or factors within any of the British plantations, this being expressly prohibited by the same statute of 12 Car. 2, c. 18, commonly called the navigation act.

In the _Danish American_ possessions a duty of 5 per cent. is levied on our corn, corn meal, rice, tobacco, wood, salted fish, indigo, horses, mules and live stock, and of 10 per cent. on our flour, salted pork and beef, tar, pitch and turpentine.

In the American islands of the _United Netherlands_ and Sweden, our vessels and produce are received, subject to duties, not so heavy as to have been complained of; but they are heavier in the Dutch possessions on the continent.

To sum up these restrictions, so far as they are important:

FIRST. In Europe--

Our bread stuff is at most times under prohibitory duties in England, and considerably dutied on re-exportation from Spain to her colonies.

Our tobaccoes are heavily dutied in England, Sweden and France, and prohibited in Spain and Portugal.

Our rice is heavily dutied in England and Sweden, and prohibited in Portugal.

Our fish and salted provisions are prohibited in England, and under prohibitory duties in France.

Our whale oils are prohibited in England and Portugal.

And our vessels are denied naturalization in England, and of late in France.

SECOND. In the West Indies--

All intercourse is prohibited with the possessions of Spain and Portugal.

Our salted provisions and fish are prohibited by England.

Our salted pork and bread stuff (except maize) are received under temporary laws only, in the dominions of France, and our salted fish pays there a weighty duty.

THIRD. In the article of navigation--

Our own carriage of our own tobacco is heavily dutied in Sweden, and lately in France.

We can carry no article, not of our own production, to the British ports in Europe. Nor even our own produce to her American possessions.

Such being the restrictions on the commerce and navigation of the United States; the question is, in what way they may best be removed, modified or counteracted?

As to commerce, two methods occur. 1. By friendly arrangements with the several nations with whom these restrictions exist: Or, 2. By the separate act of our own legislatures for countervailing their effects.

There can be no doubt but that of these two, friendly arrangement is the most eligible. Instead of embarrassing commerce under piles of regulating laws, duties and prohibitions, could it be relieved from all its shackles in all parts of the world, could every country be employed in producing that which nature has best fitted it to produce, and each be free to exchange with others mutual surplusses for mutual wants, the greatest mass possible would then be produced of those things which contribute to human life and human happiness; the numbers of mankind would be increased, and their condition bettered.