of the colonial system established among the nations of Europe. To the first of these observations, I reply, that no other nation bears the same relation to the West Indies as the United States; that the supplies of the United States are essential to those islands; and that the trade with them has been permitted purely on that account, and not as a beneficial privilege to the United States.

To the second, I reply, that it is not true that the colony system required an exclusion of foreign vessels, from the carrying trade between the colonies and foreign countries. On the contrary, the principle and practice of the colony system are, to prohibit as much as may be convenient, all trade between the colonies and foreign countries; but when such a trade is permitted at all, as necessary for the colonies, then to allow the vessels of such foreign countries a reciprocal right of being employed in the trade. Great Britain has accordingly restrained the trade of her islands with this country as far as her interest in them will permit. But, has she allowed our vessels the reciprocal right to carry on the trade so far as it is not restrained? No, no such thing. Here, she enforces a monopoly in her own favour, contrary to justice, and contrary to the colonial system of every European that possesses any colonies; none of whom, without a single exception, ever open a trade between their colonies and other countries, without opening it equally to vessels on both sides. This is evidently nothing more than strict justice. A colony is a part of an empire. If a nation choose, she may prohibit all trade between a colony and a foreign country, as she may between any other part of her dominions and a foreign country; but if she permit such a trade at all, it must be free to vessels on both sides, as well in the case of colonies as of any other part of her dominions. Great Britain has the same right to prohibit foreign trade between London and the United States, as between Jamaica and the United VOL. II.

C

States; but if no such prohibition be made with respect to either, she is equally bound to allow foreign vessels a common right with her own in both. If Great Britain were to say that no trade whatever shall be carried on between London and the United States, she would exercise a right of which we could not reasonably complain. If she were to say that no American vessels should be employed in the trade, it would produce just complaints and justify a reciprocal regulation as to her vessels. The case of the trade from a port in the West Indies is precisely similar.

In order that the omission of the treaty to provide a reciprocity for our vessels in the West India trade, may be placed in its true light, it will be proper to attend to another part of the treaty, which ties up the hands of this country against every effort for making it the interest of Great Britain to yield to our reasonable claims. To this end I beg leave to point out to the committee, the clause which restrains the United States from imposing prohibitions or duties on Great Britain, in any case, which shall not extend to all other nations, and to observe that the clause makes it impossible to operate on the unreasonable policy of that nation, without suspending our commerce at the same time with all other nations, whose regulations with respect to us may be ever so favourable and satisfactory.

The fifteenth article, Mr. Chairman, has another extraordinary feature, which I should imagine must strike every observer. In other treaties which profess to put the parties on the footing of the most favoured nation, it is stipulated that where new favours are granted to a particular nation in return for favours received, the party claiming the new favour shall pay the price of it. This is just and proper where the footing of the most favoured nation is established at all. But this article gives

to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation, without requiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those granted by such nation. Hence it would happen, that, if Spain, Portugal or France should open their colonial ports to the United States, in consideration of certain privileges in our trade, the same privileges would result gratis and ipso facto to Great Britain. This stipulation, sir, I consider as peculiarly impolitic, and such a one as can not fail to form, in the view of the committee, a very solid and weighty objection to the treaty.

I dare say, sir, that by the advocates of the treaty great stress will be laid on the article relating to the East Indies. To those who are better acquainted with the subject than I can pretend to be, I shall resign the task of examining and explaining that part of the subject. With two observations, however, I must trouble the committee before I drop the subject of this article; one is, that some gentlemen, as judicious and well informed as any who can be consulted, declare that they consider this article as affording not a shadow of advantage to the United States. The other is, that no privilege is stipulated in it, which has not heretofore been uniformly granted without stipulation; and as the grant can have proceeded from no motive but a pure regard to the British interest in that country, there was every reasonable security that the trade would continue open as it had been, under the same consideration.

Such, Mr. Chairman, being the character of this treaty, as it relates to the execution of the treaty of peace, the great principles of the law of nations, and the regulations of commerce, it never can be viewed as having any claim to be carried into effect on its own account. Is there then any consideration extraneous to the treaty that can furnish the requisite motives? On this part of the subject

States; but if no such prohibition be made with respect to either, she is equally bound to allow foreign vessels a common right with her own in both. If Great Britain were to say that no trade whatever shall be carried on between London and the United States, she would exercise a right of which we could not reasonably complain. If she were to say that no American vessels should be employed in the trade, it would produce just complaints and justify a reciprocal regulation as to her vessels. The case of the trade from a port in the West Indies is precisely similar.

In order that the omission of the treaty to provide a reciprocity for our vessels in the West India trade, may be placed in its true light, it will be proper to attend to another part of the treaty, which ties up the hands of this country against every effort for making it the interest of Great Britain to yield to our reasonable claims. To this end I beg leave to point out to the committee, the clause which restrains the United States from imposing prohibitions or duties on Great Britain, in any case, which shall not extend to all other nations, and to observe that the clause makes it impossible to operate on the unreasonable policy of that nation, without suspending our commerce at the same time with all other nations, whose regulations with respect to us may be ever so favourable and satisfactory.

The fifteenth article, Mr. Chairman, has another extraordinary feature, which I should imagine must strike every observer. In other treaties which profess to put the parties on the footing of the most favoured nation, it is stipulated that where new favours are granted to a particular nation in return for favours received, the party claiming the new favour shall pay the price of it. This is just and proper where the footing of the most favoured nation is established at all. But this article gives

to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation, without requiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those granted by such nation. Hence it would happen, that, if Spain, Portugal or France should open their colonial ports to the United States, in consideration of certain privileges in our trade, the same privileges would result gratis and ipso facto to Great Britain. This stipulation, sir, I consider as peculiarly impolitic, and such a one as can not fail to form, in the view of the committee, a very solid and weighty objection to the treaty.

I dare say, sir, that by the advocates of the treaty great stress will be laid on the article relating to the East Indies. To those who are better acquainted with the subject than I can pretend to be, I shall resign the task of examining and explaining that part of the subject. With two observations, however, I must trouble the committee before I drop the subject of this article; one is, that some gentlemen, as judicious and well informed as any who can be consulted, declare that they consider this article as affording not a shadow of advantage to the United States. The other is, that no privilege is stipulated in it, which has not heretofore been uniformly granted without stipulation; and as the grant can have proceeded from no motive but a pure regard to the British interest in that country, there was every reasonable security that the trade would continue open as it had been, under the same consideration.

Such, Mr. Chairman, being the character of this treaty, as it relates to the execution of the treaty of peace, the great principles of the law of nations, and the regulations of commerce, it never can be viewed as having any claim to be carried into effect on its own account. Is there then any consideration extraneous to the treaty that can furnish the requisite motives? On this part of the subject