Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow MEMORANDUM. 1 - The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Return to Title Page for The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory

MEMORANDUM. 1 - Albert Gallatin, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1 [1879]

Edition used:

The Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Henry Adams (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1879). 3 vols.

Part of: The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 3 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


MEMORANDUM.1

1815?

In the latter end of May or beginning of June, 1812, Mr. Astor, of New York (who had, with the knowledge of government, purchased one-half of the British concern in what is called the Southwest or Michilimackinac Fur Company), stated that in the event of a war the arms, powder, and other merchandise which he had at St. Joseph’s, on Lake Huron, would fall in the hands of the Indians or British, and requested that an order might be given to the officers of the United States to receive that property, the admission of which was prohibited by the Non-Intercourse Act. The President thought the subject of sufficient importance to give directions to that effect; and accordingly a letter was written to General Hull by Mr. Eustis, and another by the Secretary of the Treasury to the collectors of Detroit and Michilimackinac on the subject (Mr. Sheldon will send to Mr. Dallas an attested copy of the last). Those letters were written by duplicate, one transmitted to Mr. Astor and the other sent by mail, either under cover of General Hull or of the collector of Detroit. Mr. Atwater (the said collector) received one (but which is not known), which did not reach him till after the capture of Michilimackinac. No other communication respecting Mr. Astor was made by the Secretary of the Treasury.

He gave information of the war neither to Mr. Astor nor to any other person. Mr. Astor did not believe in its probability, notwithstanding the precaution which he wanted to be taken, and heard of the declaration on his way to Washington, between that place and Baltimore.

Whether or how Mr. Astor or his clerk transmitted the account to Canada I cannot say; but I am certain that none was sent by either till after the official account had been received at New York. This it is not for me to explain. I will add that the news of the war was sent by express to General Hull, who must necessarily have known of that event some time before the British. It has been said that his despatches containing that account (which he did not communicate to the army) were by him put in a vessel, which was of course taken by the British; but it is probable that an account from New York via Niagara would reach St. Joseph’s and Michilimackinac long before the news from Washington would arrive.

Memorandum. Astor’s letters of 21st and 22d June, 1812, received by Abbot on 9th July. On 10th, Atwater gave copy of Treasury letter, which, with Astor’s letters to Day & Dixon, were forwarded to Michilimackinac by Jacob Smith. He returned on 29th, and brought news of capture of Michilimackinac on 16th. General Hull opened and detained letters to Day & Dixon on Smith’s return.

GALLATIN TO CLAY.

New York, 4th January, 1816.

Dear Sir,—

I have received your letter of 31st ult., and am enabled, from our correspondence and notes of conferences, to give a satisfactory answer to your inquiry respecting the effect, on our intercourse with the British West Indies, of the provisions of the convention as they now stand.

On 7th of June we delivered to the British plenipotentiaries our projet of treaty, containing, as part of the 2d Article, the following provision, viz.: “No other or higher duties or charges shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels (such only excepted as may be bound from or to British possessions into which vessels of the United States are not admitted) than shall be payable in the said ports by vessels of the United States; nor, &c.”

On the 16th of June the British plenipotentiaries sent us their contre-projet, containing the same provision, but omitting the exception provided for by the words between () in our projet.

On the 17th of June we addressed a note to the British plenipotentiaries, proposing, among other alterations, in their contre-projet the following, viz.:

“Article 2d. 1stly. . . . 2dly. To reinstate the clause in the projet of the undersigned, which excepted from the provision to equalize tonnage duties British vessels bound to or from possessions to which vessels of the United States were not permanently admitted; or to introduce a new article providing that neither the intercourse between the United States and his British Majesty’s possessions in the West Indies, nor that by sea between the said States and his British Majesty’s territories on the continent of North America, shall be affected by any article in the treaty, but that each party shall remain in the complete possession of its rights in respect to such an intercourse.”

The British plenipotentiaries reduced to writing, in their note of 20th of June, the substance of the observations made in a conference of the 19th on the several points contained in our note of the 17th; in which note of the 20th they say, “upon the second point referred to in the note of the American plenipotentiaries the undersigned expressed their readiness to agree to a clause which should contain the latter alternative suggested by the American plenipotentiaries.”

The clause was accordingly inserted as it now stands in the 2d Article of the convention, omitting the words which I have underscored, and which had reference to the then still pending article to provide for an intercourse by land with the North American British colonies, and substituting the words “any of the provisions of this article” to those any article in the treaty, as, by the convention as signed, the 2d Article alone could affect the subject.

We were induced to offer the alternative, because the words used in it answer the proposed object as well as those we had first proposed, being, in fact, not only as explicit but more comprehensive; and because, having been used with the same avowed intent in the unratified treaty of 31st December, 1806, and then understood and approved by both governments, they could not be objected to by the British plenipotentiaries.

In that treaty a partial abolition of discriminating duties is, without excepting vessels from British colonies, provided for in the 5th Article; and then a distinct article (the 6th) provides that, with respect to the intercourse with the British West Indies, “each of the parties shall remain in the complete possession of its rights in respect to such an intercourse.” The clause in the convention not only extends the principle to the British possessions on the continent of North America, but is still more precise than the 6th Article of the unratified treaty by the addition of the words, that the intercourse aforesaid “shall not be affected by any of the provisions of the article.”

The instructions given on that subject by our government to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney were (in the instructions of May 17, 1806), that “care must be taken not to deprive the United States of the right of making such regulations as they may think proper in relation to vessels coming from ports from which their own vessels are excluded, or in relation generally to the intercourse with such ports;” and (in the instructions of 3d February, 1807, written before the receipt of the treaty) that “if the West India trade cannot be put on some footing as is authorized by your instructions, it will evidently be best to leave it as it is, and of course with a freedom to either party to make such regulations as may be justified by those of the other.”

Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney in their letter of January 3, 1807, alluding to that part of the treaty, say, “we have, as you will perceive, in conformity with our instructions, reserved the right to our government to counteract any regulations by which the British government may exclude us from a fair participation in that commerce. . . . The reservation cannot fail to be considered by it as a powerful weapon of defence, to be used when occasion calls for it, &c.”

The treaty was not ratified. The Secretary of State in his letter of 20th of May, 1807, enumerates the objections of our government to that instrument, and, although he does object to part of the 5th Article (for not abolishing discriminating duties on exports, which we have obtained), he does not require any greater security with respect to the West India intercourse, and approves the 6th Article.

Although that treaty was a theme of discussion, it never was hinted by either party that it was defective in that respect. I am indeed confident that the objection would not now have been made had it not been suggested by the expressions used in our first projet. But that the words adopted fully imply the right of laying an additional duty on British vessels from the British West Indies, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in the other provisions of the article, is indisputable.

The British government understand the clause in no other sense. It was susceptible of no other; and, in addition to our explicit declarations, they were in full possession of the instructions and correspondence above quoted, which leave no doubt on the intention of the parties.

Truly yours.

[1 ]“De Astor and communications by the Treasury to collectors before the declaration of war.” Note by Mr. Gallatin.