Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/603

Ednmnd Randolph on the British Treaty 593 tual concession. If the present constitution of the United States, which was the act of sister-states was an affair of accommodation ; how could it be expected that two nations, widely alienated from one another, could agree on any other terms? Let the treaty be reviewed under the following heads: i. The rights, which we have obtained : 2. the rights, which we have sur- rendered: 3. the favors which we have gained: 4. miscellaneous matter. My first purpose was to class the articles of the treaty under these different heads, and thus examine them individually. But the paper,^ which you did me the honor of shewing to me, having gone into thi.s [in] detail, I shall speak of them separately only where I differ from its writer. 1. The rights gained are the posts and compensation for the cap- tures." 2. The rights surrendered are 1. Satisfaction for the negros. The President will recollect the reasoning contained in the letter to Mr Jay in December last.^ This still strikes me, as unanswerably true; and I will add another reflection of no small weight; that, if the negotiators did not think proper to ascer- tain who was the first aggressor, every thing dependent upon this idea shou'd have been buried; whereas the U. S. are to be burthened with the debts of individuals, solely because the several States are supposed to have been the first aggressors. 2. The right of sequestering or confiscating the debts, funds etc. of an enemy.* It is a sound principle to prevent such acts : but it will be a subject of great clamor in the house of Representatives; as insinuating the apprehension of fraud in them ; as being the symptoms of a desire to enlarge the authority to make treaties ; as taking away one of the means of redress ; and as influencing the questions now depending in Court, as far as an opinion can go. It is reciprocal, it is true, and im- portant to commercial credit. But I wish the principle only had been declared, without stipulating against the practice. It would have been sufficiently operative, without being a direct attack upon the House of Representatives. 3. The rights surrendered by the 12th article, need not be spoken of; as it is to be suspended. 4. The rights of the settlers within the precincts and jurisdiction of the posts etc.^ I understand this as the paper does — not liable to much exception. 'Hamilton's elaborate reply, dated July 9, 1 the letter of July 3, in which the President (Writings, ed. Ford, XIII. 61-63) asks his advice as to ratifica- tion in much the same terms as those of his queries to the members of the cabinet. It is printed in Lodge's edition of Hamilton's works, IV. 3^2-363. = Arts. II. and VII. 'American State Pafers, Foreign Relations, I. 509. ' .Art. X. 5 In Art. II.