ries of the parties should be in their whole extent common to both. As to other communicating waters, accessible under the article, the reciprocal limit of the right will be the ports of entry from the sea. This is to be understood with the exception of the Mississippi, to the ports of which, access from the sea is granted under the qualification which has been pointed out.

CAMILLUS.

NO. XI.

1795.

The foregoing analysis of the third article, by fixing its true meaning, enables us to detect some gross errors, which have been principal sources of prejudice against it. One of these is, that the article gives to the other party a right of access to all our ports, while it excludes us from the ports of the British territories in our neighborhood. It has been clearly shown, that it gives no right of access to any one of our Atlantic ports, and that it gives only a qualified and conditional access to the ports which we may have on the Mississippi, to be regulated by the privileges at any time allowed by law or compact in our Atlantic ports, and liable to cease with the cessation of those privileges. The charge, therefore, of want of reciprocity in this particular, vanishes, and with it all the exceptionable consequences which have been the fruit of the error. Such is the assertion of DECIUS, that a British trader may set out from Canada, traverse our lakes, rivers and waters to New-York, and thence to Philadelphia, while we are precluded from the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and other British rivers lower than the highest ports of entry from the sea. It would be an indulgent construction of the article, not to stop the British trader at Hudson, as the highest port of entry from the sea, and the boundary of inland navigation; but he could certainly have no claim of right under it, to go from New-York to Philadelphia, because he must necessarily go by sea to arrive at the first place, and no such permission

is stipulated by the article. Such, also, is the assertion of CATO, that Great Britain is admitted to all the advantages of which our Atlantic rivers are susceptible. The rivers, upon which no part of their territory borders, and which their vessels can only approach by sea, are certainly excepted.

Another of the errors referred to, is this, that goods and merchandise may, under this article, be imported into any part of the United States, upon the same duties which are now payable when imported by citizens of the United States, and in vessels of the United States. It has been clearly proved, that there is no pretence for this position, and that equality of duties only applies to importations from the British territories, in our neighborhood, by land and inland navigation.

CATO, DECIUS, and other writers against the treaty, have fallen into this strange error, and have founded upon it much angry declamation. The first, however, embarrassed in his construction, by the provision which reserves to Great Britain the right of laying countervailing duties, endeavors to escape from it by distinguishing goods imported for the Indian trade, and those imported for other uses. Whatever may be the case with regard to the latter, the former, he is convinced, are certainly entitled to admission into our Atlantic ports, on the privileged rights of duty; though he is very naturally perplexed to see how the discrimination could be maintained in practice. But where does he find room for this distinction? Not in the provision respecting countervailing duties, for that is general-not in the clause of the third article, to which he gives the interpretation, for that is directly against his distinction. The goods and merchandise, for the privileged importation of which it provides, are restricted to no particular object-have no special reference to Indian more. than to other trade: on the contrary, they are expressly to be imported for "the purposes of commerce" at large; so that in the cases in which they are privileged, they are equally so, whether it be for a trade with our citizens or with Indians. The distinction, therefore, only proves the embarrassment of its inventor, without solving the difficulty. A curious assertion has been made on this article of duties. It has been said, that while

we are obliged to admit British goods on the same duties with those paid by our own citizens, or importation in our own vessels, Great Britain, under the right to lay countervailing duties, may incumber us with an additional ten per cent. Can any thing be more absurd than the position, that the right to lay countervailing duties exists in a case, where there is no difference of duty to countervail? The term is manifestly a relative one, and can only operate where there is something on our side to be countervailed or counterbalanced, and in an exact ratio to it. If it be true, that a very high law character is the writer of CATO, we cannot but be surprised at such extreme inaccuracy.

Other errors, no less considerable, will appear in the progress of the examination; but it will facilitate the detection of these, and tend to a more thorough understanding of the article, to state in this place some general facts, which are material in a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the article, to the respective parties.

1st. The fur trade within our limits is, to the fur trade within the British limits, as one to seven, nearly; that is, the trade with the Indians, on the British side of the boundary line, is about seven times greater than the same trade on our side of that line. This fact is stated as the result of repeated inquiry from well informed persons for several years past. It will not appear extraordinary to those who recollect how much the Indians on our side are circumscribed in their hunting-grounds, and to what a degree they are reduced in numbers by the frequent wars, in which they have been engaged with us; while the tribes on the British side of the line are not only far more numerous, but enjoy an immense undisturbed range of wilderness. The more rapid progress of settlement on our side than on the other, will fast increase the existing disparity.

2d. Our communication with the sea is more easy, safe, and expeditious, than that of Canada, by the St. Lawrence. Accordingly, while our vessels ordinarily make two voyages in a year, to and from Europe, the British vessels, in the Canada trade, are, from the course of the seasons, and the nature of the navigation, confined to one voyage in a year. Though hitherto,

from temporary circumstances, this difference has not made any sensible difference in the price of transportation; yet in its permanent operation, it is hardly possible that it should not give us a material advantage in the competition for the supply of European goods to a large part of Canada, especially that which is denominated Upper Canada. The city of Hudson, distant 124 miles from the city of New-York, is as near to the junction of the river Cataraquy and Lake Ontario, as Montreal, which last is near four hundred miles distant from the mouth of the St. Lawrence. When the canals, now in rapid execution, are com pleted, there will be a water communication the whole way from the city of Hudson to Ontario.

3d. The supply of East India goods to Canada, is likely to be always easier and cheaper through us, than in any other way. According to the present British system, Canada is supplied through Britain. It is obvious how much the charges of this double voyage must enhance the prices of the articles, when delivered in Canada. A direct trade between the East Indies and Canada, would suppose a change in the British system, to which there are great obstacles; and even then, there are circumstances which would secure to us an advantageous competition. It is a fact, which serves to illustrate our advantages, that East India articles, including teas, are, upon an average, cheaper in the United States than in England.

The facts demonstrate that a trade between us and the British territories in our neighborhood, upon equal terms as to privilege, must afford a balance of advantages on our side. As to the fur trade, for a participation in one eighth of the whole, which we concede, we gain a participation in seven eighths which is conceded to us. As to the European and East India trade, we acquire the right of competition upon equal terms of privilege, with real and considerable advantages of situation.

The stipulation with regard to equal duties, was essential to the preservation of our superiority of advantages in this trade, while it would not interfere with the general policy of our regulation, concerning the difference of duties on goods imported in our own and in foreign bottoms; because the supplies which can

come to us through Canada, for the reasons already given, must be inconsiderable; because, also, distance would soon countervail, in expenses of transportation, the effect of the difference of duties in our market; and because, in the last place, this difference is not very sensible, owing to the large proportion of goods which are imported in the names of our own citizens. I say nothing here of the practicability, on general grounds, of long maintaining with effect this regulation.

Is it not wonderful, considering the real state of the trade, as depending on locality, that the treaty should be charged with sacrificing the fur trade to the British? If there be any sacrifice, is it not on their side; when the fact is, that the quantity of trade in which they admit us to equal privileges is seven times greater than that in which we admit them to equal privileges?

The arguments against the treaty on this point, are not only full of falsity, but they are in contradiction with each other.

On the one hand, it is argued that our communication from the sea, with the Indian country, being much easier than by the St. Lawrence, we could furnish English goods cheaper, and of course could have continued the Indian trade in its usual channel, even from the British side of the lakes; nor could they have prevented it, without giving such disgust to the Indians, as would have made them dangerous neighbors. On the other hand, it is argued, that from superiority of capital, better knowledge of the trade, a better established connection of customers, the British. will be able to supplant us, even in our own territories, and to acquire a monopoly of the whole fur trade.

Propositions so opposite cannot all be true. Either the supposed faculty of supplying English goods cheaper, which, it is said, would give us a command of the Indian trade, even on the British side of the lakes, not in the power of the British to prevent, overbalances the advantages which are specified on the other side, or it does not. If it does not, then it is not true, that it could draw to us the trade from the British side of the lakes. If it does, then it is not true, that the British can supplant us in the trade on either side the lakes; much less that they can obtain a monopoly of it on both sides.