^^*0/- o o ^ ** s .3). .L.aJ3s:..z. Author Title Imprint. le— 47372-2 «l>e m qI^ Qor-^^Ch. higio^k^r. CENSURES OF THE GOVERNMENT WinittXi States, CONTAINED IN THE NINTH CHAPTER OF A BOOK, BNTITLED, « EUROPE : OR, A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PRESENT SI- TUATION OF THE PRINCIPAL POWERS ; WITH CON- JECTURES ON THEIR FUTURE PROSPECTS. BY ^ A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.'Vf-^ , ^^IMA-^^ BOSTON: WELLS AND LILLY COURT-STREET. 1822. 1) 3 g ^ RE3IARKS, ^c. A Book has lately appeared, entitled " Europe : or a general Survey of the present situation of the principal powers ; with conjectures on their future prospects. By a citizen of the United States." Of the correctness of the details, relating to the principal powers, or of the conjectures on their future prospects, few, in this country, are com- petent to form a satisfactory judgment. On the facts and observations which regard the United States, we cannot but feel a deep interest, and on these we have the means of deciding correctly. In the 9th chapter, entitled " The British Na- vy," the author has been pleased to censure the Government of the United States, when adminis- tered by General Washington, and of course the whole country ; for we have yet to learn, that the government and people of a country will be distin- guished in the character, which the world will form of both; and while all men are willing to share in the eulogium, which his administration derived to the nation, not a feAV are disposed to shrink from a full responsibility for those measures wliich this gentleman has been pleased to criticise. These censures also derive an interest from an in- timation, very plainly made, that the author is in the service and confidence of the American Go- vernment. It is, however, believed, that a recurrence to the times and transactions on which he has treat- ed, and on which he founds his charges, will con- vince him and all impartial men, that he has mis- taken the nature and character of those measures ascribed to the government, when administered bj President Washington. The author says, page 400, " Under pretence of prohibiting commerce with an enemy in ipuni- tions of war, which had been previously done, Eng- land undertook to interdict the trade in provisions, and even medicines. And the nation, which some- times claims the praise of being more civilized than any other, was guilty of the crime of attempting to starve the whole innocent population of another countrv, and give it over to disease, because the two governments were at war. Considered as a deduction from previously existing usages, the claim was perfectly absurd, and / regret that it should have been sanctioned in a formal treaty by the Government of the United States." Great Britain authorized her cruizers to capture and send into port, vessels loaded with provisions and bound to France, and retained the cargo, on payment of its estimated value. To this illegal and impoHtic conduct she pre- tended a right, under the law of nations. Against these captures the United States remonstrated and exerted every effort which prudence, in the existing state of affairs, would admit ; and after some time the orders of Great Britain were re- voked. The 18th article of the Treaty to which the author alludes, is the one, on which he probably founds his charge, " that the United States, in a formal treaty, have sanctioned the crime of at- tempting to starve the whole innocent population of another country." Its words are as follows, viz. "Whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases, in which alone, provisions and other articles, not generally contraband, may be consi- dered as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise." " It is further agreed, that whenever any such articles, so becoming con- 6 traband, according to the existing Law of JYations, shall, yor that reason, be seized, the same shall not be co?ifiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified ; and the cap- tors, or, in their default, the government, under whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels the full value of all such articles, with a reasonable profit thereon, together with the freight, and also the demurrage, incident to such detention." By no construction can the words of this article be stramed, to sanction the seizure of provisions, in any case, where they are not contraband. That cases may be supposed, wherein provisions, not generally contraband, may become so, will hardly be denied : but if any hold the doctrine, that such do not exist, the article may be considered rather in their favour, than against them : for it is only by implication, that the words of the Treaty allow of their seizure, in any case, and in such only, where they become contraband hy the existing Law of JYations, and shall Jor that reason be seized, and then, that they shall 7iot be confiscated, but the own- ers thereof shall be speedily and completely in- demnified. It is too clear to admit a doubt, that the article does not sanction a seizure of provisions in any case, except when they are contraband ; and in such cases, the right to seize is not afforded by the treaty, but by the law of nations, independent of the treaty, as that law is understood and acknow- ledged by all the world. The only alteration, made by the treaty, is to exempt provisions from confiscation^ to which they would have been liable under the law of nations. Instead of the clause having sanctioned the crime of starving an innocent population, it holds out inducements for the American to assist in reliev- ing the people of a country from the hazard of starv- ing, by insuring to him speedy and complete indem- nification incase of seizure, although in some cases the articles would be otherwise liable by the ex- isting law of nations to confiscation. It is worthy of remark, that the pretensions of Great Britain to seize provisions under the orders to which the writer alludes, were not only firmly opposed by the United States, but that their citizens, who had received from England the value according to the estimate of the British government, which value was composed of the invoice price, with an addi- tion of ten per cent., claimed a further sum before a board established under this treaty, consisting of American and British commissioners ; and, by their award, received full and complete compensa- tion from the British government. The rule by which that board estimated the value, was the price for which such provisions sold at the port in France, where they were des- tined at the time of their probable arrival, had the voyage not been interrupted. The decisions by this board, the acquiescence in such decisions, by prompt payment by the British government of the awards rendered in those cases, confirm the opinion that the treaty did not sanction the pre- tensions of Great Britain in regard to provisions, either in her own judgment, or in that of America. It is true, that at that time some adversaries of the treaty, whether from utter stupidity, unable to comprehend the clear and distinct language of the article, or from a wicked and perverse ingenuity, in attempts to construe it, to forward their pur- pose of rendering the negociation odious, so that they might involve the country, as a miserable and dependant ally, in all the horrors of the French revolution, did pretend, that Great Britain was authorized to seize American provisions going to France by virtue of this treaty. But such glosses were no sooner examined, by a fair exposition of the terras of the article, than the wickedness and folly of the attemj3t were ap- parent, and but one sentiment pervaded the com- munity on this subject. It is true, that the British government renewed the order, in regard to provisions, about the time of the ratification of the treaty ; but it is also true, that the government of the United States mani- fested so firm a resolution, and remonstrated so strongly against the orders, that they were again revoked. It must, then, be evident, that the author has fallen into a very deep error, in sup- posing that " the United States had, in a formal treaty, sanctioned the crime of attempting to starve the whole innocent population of another country." A writer, of so much sagacity, must surely have adopted the assertions of the oppo- nents of the treaty, without recurriug to the act itself: for it is utterly impossible, that, with his intelligence, he could have so mistaken its plain and obvious import. The treaty was negotiated by Mr. Jay, and ra- tified by President Washington, with the advice and consent of two thirds of the members of the senate, comprising the late Governor Strong, Mr. 2 10 Cabot, the late Chief Justice Elsworth, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Robert Morris, and others of that body, whose character for wisdom and firm- ness have not been surpassed by any men of any country. And it would be matter of painful re- flection, if such men had sacrificed the rights of the nation or the interests of humanit y It may, however, be fairly presumed, that the author, after duly examining the words of the treaty and the contemporaneous conduct of those who administered the government of the United States, at the period to which he refers, instead of finding occasion of regret for a supposed defec- tion in his country from what its honour or its in- terests required, will have abundant reason for be- ing satisfied, that both were eminently preserved in times of uncommon difficulty and peril, by the wisdom and firmness of men, who have reflected, and will, for a long time, continue to reflect, no ordinary lustre on the American name and cha- racter. Errors like those which are here exposed, are less excusable at the present day, when, although personal objections to distinguished individuals are not entirely removed, yet all well-informed and impartial men agree in, and approve of, the sin- 11 gular prudence and the admirable policy of the administration of General Washington ; an admm- istration which, at home and abroad, has advanced the reputation of our country. The author says, page 409, " The claims of the United States, as a neutral power, have been ex- tremely moderate. They acquiesced in the prin- ciple, that the enemy's property on board of neu- tral vessels is good prize, and in the pretended rule of 1756." The first position is true, that the United States acquiesced in the principle, that enemy's property on board of a neutral ship is good prize. When we assumed the character and sovereignty of a nation, we made a part of the great society of nations in the civilized world. Asserting our rights, in this character, we became liable to its obligations, and were bound to take the law as we found it. We neither made, nor could we alter its principles. In this code, as understood and practised upon by all nations from the earliest ages, it was clearly established, that the property of an enemy, found on board a friend's ship, was a good prize. We, therefore, in acquiescing in the principle, did no otherwise than our duty as an independent nation obliged us to do. 12 Different nations, at various times, have, by treaties, altered and modified their rights and du- ties as between themselves. But this never liEid, nor could have any further effect, than between the parties to the contract. And it may be seen by a recurrence to history, that such stipulations have not always been effectual between the parties themselves. We had a lamentable instance of the want of efficiency of such an agreement, in our experience under the treaty we made with France, in 1778. It Avas then agreed between the United States and France, that the ownership and character of the ship should decide the character of the cargo, and that the goods of an enemy, found on board the ship of one of the parties, should be free from seizure by the other ; and further, that the goods of the party not at war, should be liable to seizure and condemnation by the other, if found on board the vessels of those with whom the nation making- such seizure was at war. To this rule the United States steadily adhered, and, at the same time, saw the goods of their own citizens, found on board English vessels, brought into the United States by French cruizers, and sold for the benefit of the captors, before the eyes 13 ot' those to whom they belonged at the time of their capture by the ships of France ; while France, within about two months after her decla- ration of war against England, authorized her ships of war and privateers, in violation of her treaty and of our rights, to capture all neutral vessels, loaded in whole or part with merchandize belonging to enemies, or with provisions belonging to neutrals, if bound to enemy's ports. The decree, authorizing such captures, was prior, by one month, to the first orders of Great Britain, under which our provisions, destined for French ports, were seized and carried into Eng- land. The author is certainly incorrect in saying that the United States acquiesced in the pretend- ed Rule of 1756, by which, as he states, neutrals were prohibited from carrying on a trade in war, which they were not allowed to carry on in time of peace. In November 1793, Great Britain issued the following instructions to the commanders of her ships of war and privateers, viz. " That they shall detain all ships loaded with goods, the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provi- sions or other supplies for the use of any such co- lony." 14 In January 1794, she revoked that order, and authorized the capture of all vessels loaden with goods, the produce of the French West India Isl- ands, and coming directly from any ports of said Islands to any ports in Europe. These orders very justly excited the indignation of the government and people of the United States, and but one sentiment, that of determined resis- tance to such injurious conduct, prevailed among all parties and all men. The only question that existed on this occasion, related to the nature of the opposition to be made. A portion of Congress thought, that commercial restrictions on the trade of England was the course to be pursued for this purpose ; and, with this view, certain resolutions passed the House of Representatives. President Washington, sustained by Hamilton and other men in his confidence, apprehending that the Resolutions of the House would be fol- lowed up by other measures, of a character which would produce war, was of opinion that an attempt should first be made to obtain satisfaction by nego- tiation ; but, notwithstanding the moderation of this proceeding, it is well known to have been his opinion, that the failure to obtain satisfaction must be followed by war. 15 In pursuance of these opinions, the President, on the 16th of April, 1794, sent the following message to the Senate : — " GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, " The communication which I made you, dur- ing jour present session, from the despatches of our minister in London, contains a serious aspect of our atfairs with Great Britain. But as peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal, before the last resource which has so often been the scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the advancing prosperity of the United States, is con- templated, I have thought proper to nominate, and do hereby nominate John Jay, as an envoy ex- traordinary of the United States to his Britannic Majesty. My confidence in our minister plenipo- tentiary in London continues undimmished; but a mission like this, while it corresponds with the so- lemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for a friendly adjustment of our com- plaints and a reluctance to hostility. Going imme- diately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness and to cultivate peace with sincerity." 16 With these sentiments a majority of Congress concurred. The Senaie approved of the nomina- tion of Mr. Jaj, and declined to pass the resolution which had been adopted by the House of Represen- tatives, prohibiting all trade with Great Britain. Measures were taken to place the United States in a situation to vindicate our rights by the sword, should the attempt to obtain satisfaction by nego- tiation fail. So far from acquiescing in the pretended Rule of 1756, as this author has asserted, the United States determined to resist it, and did resist it, bv all the means in their power. They sought redress for the injuries suffered under the orders of 1793, which attempted to es- tablish that Rule, by a solemn embassy, avowing their purpose, at the same time, in language which could not be mistaken by England or any part of the world, to seek satisfaction by war, should she refuse the demands so made by the American envoy. It will be remembered, that the determination took place after England had revoked the orders of November 1793, and limited the authority of capture to vessels laden Avith the produce of the French West India Islands, and proceeding directly from any ports of said Islands to Europe. 19 The author chooses to remark, " that it was only the wholly unauthorized practice of impress- ment on board of neutral ships, and the last unwar- rantable pretensions to a right of interdicting all commerce with an enemy, under pretence of block- ading the coasts, that the United States firmly re- sisted in principle." Surely this writer must have left entirely un- noticed the conduct of the United States, which we have explained ; and he must have misunderstood or undervalued the resistance made to England, which, without war, was crowned with complete success in the attainment of full compensation for all the injuries sustained from her unlawful mari- time captures. We say, all, because we do not remember a single instance of failure to obtain complete reparation for an injury of this nature. We have no disposition to disturb the quiescent state and apparent harmony of national politics which seem to prevail, at least in the northern parts of our country, or to interrupt those unquali- fied hosannas, which all our publications, and es- pecially our newspapers, are constantly wafting to the present administration. But it may be fairly questioned, and, we hope, without offence to any one, whether it be just to characterize the 20 administration of Presidents Washington and Adams as wanting in firmness, when compared with that of Mr. Jelferson, who resisted the infringement of our rights, by imposing commercial restrictions in- jurious to ourselves, and an embargo on our ships, wasteful in the extreme and unlimited in duration; or with that of Mr. Madison, who made resistance by entering into a war without preparation, and closed it without attaining a single object for which it was professed to have been undertaken, and particularly without procuring the abandon- ment of the claims of impressment and blockade to which the author specially refers. END- 17 Fortunately the envoy succeeded in vindicating the dignity and supporting the honour of the United States. All the thorny and difficult points of the treaty of "peace were adjusted. The posts retained by England, in our country, contrary to the stipula- tions of that treaty, she agreed to surrender, and they were surrendered. Measures were taken for settling the boundaries of the two countries ac- cording to that compact. Full and complete com- pensation for all the unjust seizures on the high seas, of which our citizens complained, was pro- vided for by a board of commissioners to be ap- pointed for that purpose, to consist of American and British citizens; which board was authorized to decide the claims for such compensation accord- ing to the merits of the several cases, and to jus- tice, equity, and the laws of nations. Here is no attempt to enforce the Rule of 1756, on the part of England, or of acquiescence therein, on the part of the United States. Many cases of capture under the several orders referred to, were brought before this board, who examined the assumed principle, and distinctly de- cided, that it was not sanctioned by the laAV of na- tions, and awarded to the claimants full and com- 3 18 plete compensation for the loss and damage sus- tained by reason of every capture made under that Rule. Among these cases were some of capture on voyages between the United States and the French colonies, and on voyages between the colonies and and ports of Europe. And they were among the first and last cases, in point of time, that Avere de- cided by that board. That board was organized in 1796, and closed their commission in 1804. The awards, made in these cases, were promptly and punctually paid by the British government. It may, therefore, be said with much more truth, that Great Britain abandoned the Rule of 1756, than that the United States acquiesced in its validity : for the United States promptly resisted it by solemn remonstrances ; and evidently an- nounced to Great Britain, unless compensation was made for the injuries suffered by their citizens under this Rule, that war would be resorted to for satisfaction. Satisfaction was promised by Great Britain. It was fairly and fully made by her to the complaining citizens of the United States, and peace with honour was preserved. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS lllllililllllliiil 015 900 762 5