Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/597

Ednuuid Randolph oil the British Treaty 587 Equidem ad praedicandum evangeliuni, amplificandamque Eccle- siam per infidelium potissinium conversioneni, ostium magnum apertum iam est, quod obstruere conantur ii, qui e Societate Mercatoria Vir- giniae' Baroni se opponunt, et Coloniam e manibus et potestate Catho- licorum eripere magno molimine connituntur, sed nullo hactenus alio effectu quam quod per exactionem luramenti vulgo fidelitatis nuncupati profectionem Catholicorum in earn difficillimam reddidere, quasi Regi ei Statui Angliae periculosam. In Comitiis vero quid impetraturi sint nondum certo constat. Atque hie est tarn huius Coloniae, quam Missionis praesens status. -'. Edmund Randolph on. the British Treaty, I/P3. Of the following documents, sent to the Remew by Air. Worth- ington C. Ford, the first three are in the Library- of Congress, Divi- sion of Manuscripts. All are in Randolph's handwriting. The fourth and most important, Randolph's letter to the President on the question of ratification, is no longer to be found among the Wash- ington papers in that library, but may be seen only in the form of a copy in a volume of transcripts made for Washington of letters ad- dressed to him by the secretaries of state. For this reason, and also because it is out of its chronological place in that volume of tran- scripts, it might escape the attention of students. It may be useful to remind the reader that the Jay treaty, signed November 19, 1794, was received by the President March 7, 1795; that the Senate was convened for June 8, agreed on June 24 to ratify conditionally, and adjourned June 26; that, Randolph alone of the cabinet opposing, the President signed the ratification on August 18: and that Randolph's dramatic resignation occurred on the next day, August 19. R.NDOLPH TO THE PRESIDENT." E. Randolph has the honor of suggesting to the President, whether it may not be expedient to take the opinion of the gentlemen in zvriting on the following points: I. Is not the resolution of the Senate, respect- ing the treaty between the U. S. and G. Britain, intended to be their final act; or do they expect, that the new article shall be submitted to them, before the treaty takes effect? 2. Does the constitution permit ' Perhaps the allusion is to Clobery and Company, perhaps more generally to those who had had part in the management of the Virginia Company in its last years. - The original of this note is in the Library of Congress, Letters to Wash- ington, Miscellaneous, 117, p. 272. The President's letter of June 29, asking of the members of the cabinet substantially the questions here suggested, is in Sparks, Washington. XL 31, and Ford. XIIL 59.