Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO SECRETARIES OF STATE, TREASURY, AND WAR, AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 1 - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO SECRETARIES OF STATE, TREASURY, AND WAR, AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 1 - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798) [1892]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XIII (1794-1798).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 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.


TO SECRETARIES OF STATE, TREASURY, AND WAR, AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.1

Philadelphia, 29 June, 1795.

Sir,

I enclose to you a copy of the resolution of the Senate, advising that the late treaty with Great Britain be ratified. Upon this resolution two questions arise.

First, is or is not that resolution intended to be the final act of the Senate; or do they expect, that the new article which is proposed shall be submitted to them before the treaty takes effect?

Secondly, does or does not the constitution permit the President to ratify the treaty, without submitting the new article, after it shall be agreed to by the British King, to the Senate for their further advice and consent?

I wish you to consider this subject as soon as possible, and transmit to me your opinion in writing, that I may without delay take some definitive step upon the treaty. I am, &c.1

[1 ]Jay had closed his English mission by signing a treaty on 19 November, 1794. Of the objects of that mission, but one was secured—that of a surrender of the western posts; and even this was not to be until June, 1796. The treaty instead of recognizing the maxim “free ships make free goods,” agreed that French goods in American vessels should be liable to seizure by Great Britain—in direct contravention of the treaty with France. It also extended the list of contraband; the right of impressment was not surrendered by Great Britain; and finally what concessions were obtained in the trade with the British West Indies were neutralized, and in some cases made oppressive, by subsequent events. The full text may be found in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, i., 520. The treaty was long on its passage, for it was not received by the President till 7 March, 1795, a few days after the adjournment of Congress. Washington summoned the Senate to convene on Monday, the 8th of June, and on that day laid before it the treaty and accompanying documents. The French Minister, Fauchet, then awaiting his successor, wrote to Randolph, asking that the Senate should not vote on the treaty until Adet should arrive and make known his instructions (June 8th). Such a delay could hardly have been made by the President with propriety; and the Senate entered into a consideration of the treaty, while Adet, who arrived on the 13th, amused the Executive by a promise of certain French acts relative to commerce with the United States, a promise that was not fulfilled when the Senate rose on June 26th.

The proceedings of the Senate was held behind closed doors, but this did not prevent an agitation, chiefly hostile to the document, from being carried on in the newspapers and in public meetings. In the Senate, Aaron Burr wished a further negotiation with Great Britain, while Henry Tazewell moved that the President be advised not to sign. Compensation for negroes and other property carried away during the war was also urged, but all opposition was voted down, and on the 24th of June, by a vote of twenty to ten, the Senate advised and consented to its conditional ratification. “An insuperable objection existed to an article regulating the intercourse with the British West Indies, founded on a fact which is understood to have been unknown to Mr. Jay. The intention of the contracting parties was to admit the direct intercourse between the United States and those Islands, but not to permit the productions of the latter to be carried to Europe in the vessels of the former. To give effect to this intention, the exportation from the United States of those articles, which were the principal productions of the Islands, was to be relinquished. Among these was cotton. This article, which a few years before was scarcely raised in sufficient quantity for domestic consumption, was becoming one of the richest staples of the southern States. The Senate, being informed of this fact, advised and consented that the treaty should be ratified on condition that an article be added thereto, suspending that part of the twelfth article which relates to the intercourse with the West Indies.”—Chief-Justice Marshall.

The Senate had agreed to keep the treaty a secret; but a few days after its rising, a sketch of the document appeared in the Aurora, and led Senator Stevens Thomson Mason, a strong opponent of the treaty, to send to that paper his copy, and on July 1st it was issued by Bache in a pamphlet.

In the meantime “the English papers contained an account, which, though not official, was deemed worthy of credit, that the order of the 8th of June, 1793, for the seizure of provisions going to French ports, was renewed. In the apprehension, that this order might be construed and intended as a practical construction of that article in the treaty, which seemed to favor the idea, that provisions, though not generally contraband, might occasionally become so, a construction in which he had determined not to acquiesce, the President thought it wise to reconsider his decision. Of the result of this reconsideration there is no conclusive testimony. A strong memorial against this objectionable order was directed; and the propositions to withhold the ratifications of the treaty until the order should be repealed, to make the exchange of ratifications dependent upon that event, and to adhere to his original purpose of pursuing the advice of the Senate, connecting with that measure the memorial which had been mentioned, as an act explanatory of the sense in which his ratification was made, were severally reviewed by him. In conformity with his practice of withholding his opinion on controverted points, until it should become necessary to decide them, he suspended his determination on these propositions until the memorial should be prepared and laid before him.”—Marshall’s Life of Washington, 2d edition, vol. ii., p. 361.

[1 ]“On Monday the 8th of June,” says Chief-Justice Marshall, “the Senate, in conformity with the summons of the President, convened in the Senate-chamber, and the treaty, with the documents connected with it, were submitted to their consideration.

“On the 24th of June, after a minute and laborious investigation, the Senate, by precisely a constitutional majority, advised and consented to its conditional ratification.”