The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Foreign Relations ( Continued )
• Cabinet Opinion
• Cabinet Opinion—hamilton and Knox
• Washington to John Jay, Chief-justice, and James Wilson, James Iredell, and William Patterson, Associate-justices, of the Supreme Court of the United States
• Questions Proposed to Be Submitted to the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States
• Washington to the Heads of Departments and the Attorney-general
• No Jacobin 1
• I.
• Ii
• Iii
• Iv
• V
• Instructions to the Collectors of the Customs 2
• Cabinet Opinion.—hamilton to Washington 1
• Notes By Hamilton, to Frame Letter of Secretary of State to Gouverneur Morris, Minister At Paris (cabinet Paper.)
• Cabinet Opinion
• Hamilton to Washington
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Report.
• Americanus (from the American Daily Advertiser .)
• I
• II.
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Points to Be Considered In the Instructions to Mr. Jay, Envoy Extraordinary to Great Britain
• Hamilton to Jay (cabinet Paper.)
• Treaty Project
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Hamilton to Randolph (cabinet Paper.)
• Hamilton to Randolph (cabinet Paper.)
• Remarks On Lord Grenville’s Project of a Commercial Treaty, Made At the Request of E. Randolph, Esq., Secretary of State
• Hamilton to Washington (cabinet Paper.)
• Remarks On the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Made Between the United States and Great Britain
• Supplementary Remarks
• Horatius 1
• Camillus
• No . I
• No . Ii
• No . Iii
• No . Iv
• No . V
• No . Vi
• No . Vii
• No . Viii
• No . Ix
• No . X
• No . Xi
• No . Xii
• No . Xiii
• No . Xiv
• No . Xv
• No . Xvi
• No . Xvii
• No . Xviii
• No . Xix
• No . Xx
• No . Xxi
• No . Xxii
• No . Xxiii 1

Points to be Considered in the Instructions to Mr. Jay, Envoy Extraordinary to Great Britain

• I.—Indemnification for the depredations upon our commerce, according to a rule to be settled.The desirable rule is that which theoretical writers lay down as the rule of the law of nations—to wit: that none but articles by general usage deemed contraband shall be liable to confiscation, and that the carrying of such articles shall not infect other parts of a cargo, nor even a vessel carrying them, where there are no appearances of a design to conceal.Our treaties contain a good guide as to contraband articles, which fall under general denomination of instrumenta bellia—instruments of war.But if it should be found impracticable to establish this rule, the following qualifications of it occur for consideration:
  • 1st.Whether provisions (defining what shall be such) may not be excepted, so far as to render them liable, when going to an enemy’s port not blockaded, to be carried into the port of the other enemy, and converted to his use, paying the full value. A good rule for estimating this value would be the costs and charges at the place of exportation, with the addition of—per cent.
  • 2nd.Whether colony produce, going directly from the colony to the mother country, may not be added to the list of contraband articles?Or, in the last resort, whether the rule in this particular, resulting from the instructions of the 8th of January last, may not be admitted—to wit: that colony produce, going directly from the colony to any port in Europe, may be confiscated.This is a principle which, it is understood, has been long adhered to by Great Britain, and finds a sanction in precedents under the ancient government of France and other maritime powers.The indemnification for prizes made by proscribed vessels, of which an expectation has been given by the President, may be confirmed by convention.
• II.—Arrangement with regard to the future:The basis to be the rule already quoted of the general law of nations.

But it is probable that the same exceptions which may be insisted upon as to indemnification for the past, will also be insisted upon as to the future.

The idea of a place blockaded or besieged by construction, which is not actually so, ought to be excluded in either case.

A stipulation against the sale of prizes in our ports will probably be insisted upon; and it is just that it should be made.

A stipulation that, in case of war with any Indian tribe, the other party shall furnish no supplies whatever to that tribe, except such, and in such quantity only, as it was accustomed to furnish previous to the war; and the party at war to have a right to keep an agent or agents at the posts or settlements of the other party nearest to such Indians, to ascertain the faithful execution of this stipulation.

Grounds of adjustment with regard to the late treaty of peace.

On the Part of the British

• 1st.Indemnification for our negroes carried away.
• 2nd.Surrender of our posts.

On the Part of the United States

1st. Indemnification for the obstructions to the recovery of debts not exceeding — sterling.

It may be desired, and would it not be our interest to agree, that neither party shall in time of peace keep up and armed force upon the lakes, nor any fortified places nearer than — miles to the lakes, except small posts for small guards (the number to be defined) stationed for the security of trading houses?

Would it not be also our interest to agree to an arrangement by which each party shall permit to the other, under the precaution and regulations, a free trade with the Indian tribes inhabiting within the limits of the other?

Treaty of Commerce

The statu quo may be taken with the following exception:

A privilege to carry to the West India Islands in our vessels of certain burthens (say not less than sixty tons, nor more than eighty tons) all such articles as may now be carried thither from the United States in British bottoms; and to bring from thence directly to the United States all such articles as may now be brought from thence to the United States in British bottoms. The privilege of carrying to Great Britain and Ireland, manufactures of the United States similar to those which now are or hereafter may be allowed to be carried thither by others nations who stand on the footing of the most favored nation, and upon terms of admission equally good.

As Equivalents

The extra tonnage and duties on British vessels and goods imported in British vessels to be done away, and if desired, a stipulation to be entered into, that the commodities and manufactures of Great Britain and Ireland may be imported into the United States upon terms equally good with the like commodities and manufactures of any other nation; and that the duties upon such of them as now pay ten per cent. ad valorem and upwards, shall not be increased; and that the duties upon such of them as now pay under ten per cent. ad valorem, shall not be increased beyond ten per cent.

A treaty on these terms to be made for any term not exceeding—years.

But if such a treaty cannot be made, it deserves consideration, whether a treaty on this basis of the statu quo for a short term (say five years) may not be advisable as an expedient for preserving peace between the two countries.

hamilton to randolph1

April 27, 1794

DearSir:—I did not receive the draft of your reply to Mr. Hammond, on the subject of the instructions of the 8th of June, till bedtime, last night, nor could I, without a much more considerable delay than seems to comport with your plan, pretend to enter into an accurate sifting scrutiny of this paper.

I must therefore confine myself to a very few remarks.

If my memory serves me right:

• I.—Your position, that the United States alone suffer from the operation of the above-mentioned instructions, is not accurate. I take it, that provisions on board all neutral vessels going to any port of France are liable to the same treatment, except in the single case of their going to a place blockaded or besieged, when the rigor of the law of nations is enforced against us by a confiscation in the first instance; whereas, in respect to Sweden and Denmark, it is mitigated by the circumstance of admonition first, and confiscation afterwards. But even in this particular, the other neutral powers (Sweden and Denmark excepted) were left in the same predicament with us. I do not understand, either, that in fact any ports of France have been deemed blockaded so as to produce confiscation, except those actually so. But not having the instructions before me, I cannot speak with precision.
• II.—You seem to take the position too strictly—that none but such articles as are peculiar to war are deemed contraband. Other articles besides these are usually deemed contraband (as naval stores, which are the general instrument of commerce in time of peace, as well as a means of war).
• III.—You appeal strongly to the conduct of Great Britain for a century past, as to the question of provisions being treated as contraband or otherwise interdicted from being carried to any enemy’s country. I fear examples may be cited upon you which will include the point, and more. Is there not a treaty include the point, and more. Is there not a treaty between Holland and England within a century, which goes much further? And you may be, perhaps, pressed by examples from other countries. I remember a declaration from France to the States-General (in the time of Louis XIV., as I believe), which imposes much more extensive restrictions.
• IV.—There appears to me too much tartness in various parts of the reply. Energy, without asperity, seems best to comport with the dignity of national language. The force ought to be more in the idea, than in the expression or manner. The subject of the paper is the instructions of the 8th of June, not those of the 6th of November. I suspect from some later lights which I have received, that more of justification for the former can be found in the practice of nations than I was originally aware of; and the expression of our sensibility, and the energy of our resistance, ought to be proportioned to the nature of the case.

On the whole, I submit whether it be not advisable to give no other reply than a general one, declaring that the doctrines advanced in support of the instructions of the 8th of June do not appear to us well-founded, but that being among the objects committed to Mr. Jay’s negotiation, a particular reply is forborne. We are still in the path of negotiation; let us not plant it with thorns.

part of instructions to john jay

(Draft by Hamilton.)

1794.

This enumeration presents generally the objects which it is desirable to comprise in a commercial treaty; not that it is expected that one can be effected with so great a latitude of advantages. If to the actual footing of our commerce and navigation with British European dominions could be added the privilege of carrying directly from the United States to the British West India Islands, in our own bottoms generally, or of certain defined burthens, the articles which, by the act of the 28th of George III., chapter 6th, may be carried thither in British bottoms, and of bringing from those islands directly to the United States, in our bottoms of the like description, the articles which by the same act may be brought from those islands to the United States in British bottoms,—this would afford an acceptable basis of a treaty for a term not exceeding fifteen years; and it would be advisable to conclude a treaty upon that basis.

But if a treaty cannot be formed upon a basis as liberal as this, it is conceived that it would not be expedient to do any thing more than to digest the articles of such a one as the British Government shall appear willing to accede to—referring it here for consideration and further instruction previous to a formal conclusion.

There are other points which it would be interesting to comprehend in a treaty, and which it is presumed would not be attended with difficulty. Among these is the admission of our commodities and manufactures generally, into the European dominions of Great Britain, upon a footing equally good with those of other foreign countries.1

At present only certain enumerated articles are admitted. But though this enumeration embraces all the articles which it is of present material consequence to us to export to those dominions, yet in process of time an extension of the objects may become of moment. The fixing of the privileges which we now enjoy by toleration of the Company’s government in the British East Indies, if any arrangement could be made with the consent of the Company for that purpose, would also be a valuable ingredient.

The foregoing is conformed to the ideas in which the Secretary of War and Attorney-General appeared to concur.

It is my opinion that if an indemnification for the depredations committed on our trade, and the execution of those points of the treaty of peace which remain unexecuted on the part of Great Britain, can be accomplished on satisfactory terms, and it should appear a necessary means to this end, to combine a treaty of commerce for a short term on the footing of the statu quo, the conclusion of such a treaty would be consistent with the interests of the United States.

A. Hamilton.

[1]Randolph was now Secretary of State, Jefferson having retired at the beginning of New Year in a good deal of disgust to Monticello.

[1]This is now the case, though a general impression to the contrary has prevailed. See Proclamation of 1792.