British court, complaining of those infractions, and desiring reparation, and after declaring that the national honor and interest. of the citizens of that commonwealth obliged the assembly to withhold their co-operation in the complete fulfilment of the said treaty, until the success of the aforementioned remonstrance is known, or Congress shall signify their sentiments touching the premises, concludes with the following resolution:

"That so soon as reparation is made for the foregoing infraction, or Congress shall judge it indisputably necessary, such acts and parts of acts passed during the late war, as inhibit the recovery of British debts, ought to be repealed, and payment thereof made in such time and manner as shall consist with the exhausted situation of the commonwealth."

The plain language of this resolution is, that there were acts passed during the war, which then actually inhibited the recovery of British debts; and that for the removal of this inhibition, a repealing act by the authority of Virginia was necessary.

However unfounded this position might have been in theory, here is conclusive evidence that the fact in Virginia was conformable to it; that her courts had been, ever since the peace, then were, and until a repealing law was passed, were likely to continue to be shut against the recovery of British debts. When testimony of this kind was urged by the British minister, was it possible for our envoy to make any solid reply? Who could be supposed to know better than the legislature of Virginia, the real state of the fact? When that legislature declared it to be as has been stated, who, or what could contradict it? With what truth has it been asserted, that "it was at all times perfectly understood" that treaties controlled the laws of the states?

Additional proof of the contrary is found in the subsequent conduct of Virginia. On the 12th of December, 1787, the state passed an act repealing all such acts or parts of acts of the state, as had prevented, or might prevent the recovery of debts due to British subjects, according to the true intent of the treaty; but with this proviso, that there should be a suspension of the repeal, 'till the governor, by advice of council had, by proclamation, notified that Great Britain had delivered up the posts, and was tak

ing measures for the further fulfilment of the treaty by delivering up the negroes, or by making compensation for them. This denotes clearly, that in the opinion of the legislature of Virginia, there were acts of that state which had prevented and might prevent the recovery of debts according to the treaty.

It is observable, too, that the resolutions of June, 1784, do not even give the expectation of a complete repeal of the impeding laws, in the event of reparation of the breaches of treaty by Great Britain. They only promise such a modification of them. as would permit the payment in such time and manner as should consist with the exhausted situation of the commonwealth; that is, not according to the true intent of the treaty, but according to the opinion of the legislature of Virginia of the abilities of the commonwealth.

As the infraction which these proceedings of Virginia admit, resulted from acts passed during the war, it of course was coeval with the first existence of the treaty of peace, and seems to preclude the possibility of any prior breach by Great Britain. It has been at least demonstrated, that the detention of the posts was not such prior breach; as there was no obligation to surrender 'till after the exchange of the ratifications of the definitive treaty in England.

I pass by the serious contraventions of the treaty in this important article of the debts, which are of a later date, because they do not affect the question of the first breach, though they are of great weight to demonstrate the obligation of the United States to make compensation.

The argument then, upon the whole, as to the question of the first breach, stands thus-It is a great doubt whether the carrying away of the negroes was at all a breach. If it was one, the trespass act of this state preceded it in date, and went into operation the very moment it was possible to issue process. The detention of the posts is subsequent to breaches of the article concerning their recovery of debts on our part. This, in the case of South Carolina, is determined by the date of her act (March 26, 1784) which is before the exchange of the ratifications of the definitive treaty could have taken place. In that of Virginia, it results from her

own testimony, that impediments to the recovery of British debts, created by acts passed during the war, continued from the first moment of the peace until after the year 1787. Or if, contrary to our own interpretation, we are disposed to adhere to the provisional treaty, as the act from which performance was to date, we are guilty of a breach in not acting ourselves upon that treaty: a breach, which being cotemporary with the existence of the treaty, seems not to admit of any prior contravention. From all which it follows, that take what ground we will, we must be perplexed to fix the charge of the first breach of the treaty upon Great Britain.

Let the appeal be to the understandings and hearts of candid men-men who have force of mind sufficient to rescue themselves from the trammels of prejudice, and who dare to look even unpalatable truths in the face. Let such men pronounce, whether they are still satisfied that Great Britain is clearly chargeable with the first breaches of the treaty? Whether they are not, on the contrary, convinced that the question is one so mixed and doubtful, as to render a waiver of it, even on the score of intrinsic merit, expedient on our part? and especially whether they can entertain a particle of doubt, that it was wiser to waive it than to suffer it to prove a final obstacle to the adjustment of a controversy on which the peace of their country was suspended? This was undoubtedly the alternative to our envoy. In the choice he made, the ultimate opinion of our enlightened country cannot fail to applaud his prudence.

CAMILLUS.

V.

1795.

The discussion in the two last numbers has shown, if I mistake not, that this country by no means stands upon such good ground, with regard to the inexecution of the treaty of peace, as some of our official proceedings have advanced, and as many

The task of displaying this As long as a contrary doc

among us have too lightly credited. truth has been an unwelcome one. trine was either a mere essay of polemical skill, or a convenient ingredient of negotiation, it was natural for those who thought differently of it, to prefer silence to contradiction; but when it is made the engine of great errors, of national conduct, of excessive pretensions, which forbid a reasonable accommodation, of national difference, and endangers rupture and war, on grounds which reason disapproves and prudence condemns, it becomes an indispensable duty to expose its hollowness and fallacy.--Reserve then would be a crime. The true patriot, who never fears to sacrifice popularity to what he believes to be the cause of public good, cannot hesitate to endeavor to unmask the error, though with the certainty of incurring the displeasure and censure of the prejudiced and unthinking.

The disposition to infract the treaty, which, in several particulars, discovered itself among us, almost as soon as it was known to have been made, was, from its first appearance, a source of humiliation, regret, and apprehension to those who could dispassionately estimate the consequences, and who felt a proper concern for the honor and character of the country. They perceived that besides loss of reputation, it must sooner or later lead to very serious embarrassments. They have been hitherto mistaken in no part of their anticipations; and if their faithful warning voice, now raised to check the progress of error, is as little listened to as when it was raised to prevent the commencement of it, there is too much cause to fear, that the expeperience of extensive evils may extort regrets which the foresight of an enlightened people ought to avert.

Citizens of United America! as you value your present enviable lot, rally round your own good sense! Expel from your confidence, men who have never ceased to misadvise you! Discard intemperate and illiberal passions! Aspire to the glory of the greatest triumph which a people can gain, a triumph over prejudice! Be just, be prudent! Listen impartially to the unadulterated language of truth! And, above all, guard your peace with anxious vigilance against all the artful snares which are

laid for it! Accompany me with minds open to conviction, in a discussion of unspeakable importance to your welfare !

Weigh well, as preliminary to further investigation, this momentous proposition. "PEACE, in the particular situation of this independent country, is an object of such GREAT and PRIMARY magnitude, that it ought not to be relinquished, unless the relinquishment be clearly necessary to PRESERVE our HONOR in some UNEQUIVOCAL point, or to avoid the sacrifice of some RIGHT or INTEREST of MATERIAL and PERMANENT importance." This is the touchstone of every question which can come before us, respecting our foreign concerns.

As a general proposition, scarcely any will dispute it; but in the application of the rule, there is much confusion of ideas; much false feeling, and falser reasoning. The ravings of anger and pride are mistaken for the suggestions of honor. Thus are we told in a delirium of rage, by a gentleman of South Carolina, that our envoy should have demanded an unconditional relinquishment of the western posts as a right; till which was granted, and until Lord Grenville had given orders to Lord Dorchester to that effect, open to be sent to our President, to be by him forwarded, he should not have opened his lips about the treaty. It was prostrating the dearest rights of freemen, and laying them prostrate at the feet of royalty.

In a case of incontestible, mutual infractions of a treaty, one of the parties is to demand, peremptorily of the other, an unconditional performance upon his part, by way of preliminary, and without negotiation. An envoy sent to avert war, carrying with him the clearest indications of a general solicitude of his country, that peace might be preserved, was, at the very first step of his progress, to render hostility inevitable, by exacting, not only what could not have been complied with, but what must have been rejected with indignation. The government of Great Britain must have been the most abject on earth, in a case so situated, to have listened for a moment to such a demand. And because our envoy did not pursue this frantic course; did not hold the language of an IMPERIOUS BASHAW to his TREMBLING SLAVE, he is absurdly stigmatised as having prostrated the rights