knowledge of the forces which control the commerce of the world, we should discount immensely the faith of our fathers in treaties. To the present day we have no "liberal commercial treaty" with Great Britain, AND WE NEED NONE. All we need is our freedom to apply our Constitution to the regulation of our trade. England now has this freedom tied up- suspended, nullified. We have given this freedom into her charge. Beginning now, for one year to come, we have no more power to regulate our trade with respect to Great Britain than we had under the Articles of Confederation. For one of its principal objects, our boasted Constitution has suffered emasculation. It is not a certainty that our liberty will ever be regained, or that we will ever have a marine of our own again for our foreign trade as the fruits of an early passion for the restraints of treaties. And the "treaty" that binds our hands is thus described by Senator King: "The treaty of Ghent (Dec. 1814) was followed by a meagre Commercial Convention, made at London, and limited, in its duration, to a few years only." Afterward he adverts to this "convention as follows:

"And the expectation since entertained that a more enlarged and equal treaty of commerce and navigation, applicable, in its provisions, to peace as well as war, might be substituted in place of the present Commercial Convention, has hitherto suspended the interference of Congress."

But the treaty so much desired was never made. Instead, the "meagre Convention" was extended, and when the West Indies were opened afterward, it was by Act of Parliament on one side, and by Act of Congress on the other.

King's Conclusion and the Vote. "If this bill becomes a law, it must be followed up by ulterior provisions, if requisite to give it complete effect. Either the intercourse must be reciprocally beneficial, or it must not be suffered to exist."

Mr. Macon, of Ga., spoke in support of the bill; after which the question was taken on engrossment and third reading and determined in the affirmative-yeas, 32; nays, 1. The next day April 4-on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" the yeas were 31, and the nays, 2. The yea votes were from nine Northern and nine Southern states; the nay votes from one

Northern and one Southern state. They objected to the mode, not to the principle.

In the House, this bill was reported from the Committee of the Whole without amendment, and put on passage for third reading. Mr. Pitkin "spoke more than an hour for its support." On ordering to third reading the vote was, yeas, 123; nays, 16. It was forthwith read a third time and passed," and became law for years afterwards. Being firmly adhered to, it accomplished its purpose.

The unanimity shown in the vote upon this bill, if it could be commanded now in support of proper means for the refloating of our flag at sea, would cause more respect for the name and fame of the United States than the world has ever yet accorded. Such a manifestation of strength as well as resolution would prove a happy augury of success.

CHAPTER XV.

EXTENSION OF RECIPROCITY BY ACTS AND CONVENTIONS.

Principles of Our First Treaty of Commerce. Our first treaty of amity and commerce was made with the United Netherlands, October 8, 1782, our Commissioner being John Adams. It was ratified by the Continental Congress and proclaimed January 23, 1783. It was made with the thirteen United States of America by name, in this respect setting a precedent, which Great Britain refused to follow. The principles of this treaty, set forth in its preamble, read thus:

The contracting parties" desiring to ascertain in a permanent and equitable manner, the rules to be observed relative to the commerce and correspondence which they intend to establish between their respective States, countries, and inhabitants, have judged that the said end cannot be better obtained than by establishing the most perfect equality and reciprocity for the basis of their agreements, and by avoiding all those burdensome preferences which are usually the sources of debate, embarrassment, and discontent; by leaving also each party at liberty to make, respecting commerce and navigation, such ulterior regulations as it shall find most convenient to itself, and by founding the advantages of commerce solely upon reciprocal utility and the just rules of free intercourse; reserving withal to each party the liberty of admitting at its pleasure other nations to a participation of the same advantages." 1

Respecting duties and imposts of the two nations — these were to be the same to each other as for the "most favored nation."

The treaty with Sweden in the following year, made by Benjamin Franklin, for the "thirteen United States of North America," was drawn upon the same lines in respect to preamble and articles.

After the making of the first shipping reciprocity Convention that with England in 1815 - the next nation to obtain a similar favor was the Netherlands. March 20, 1818, Congress received from the President a Message "relative to our relations with the Government of the Netherlands, with a view to the revisal and modification of the treaty existing between the two countries, adapted to their present circumstances." This was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and resulted in an Act of Congress based substantially on that of March 3, 1815, and in addition removed our discriminating duties dating from the time when the Netherlands had complied with that act. No Convention was made until 1839. Thus Holland antedates all the nations that followed Great Britain in having our discriminating duties removed.

Improper Change of Principle. The principle of our first treaties of commerce to be "at liberty to make, respecting commerce and navigation, such ulterior regulations as shall be most convenient," was now set aside, and henceforth the principle was to be the one that England had dictated the nonprotection of American shipping. John Adams's treaty was good, John Quincy Adams's convention was bad.

Time of Reciprocity Convention extended. This last was made clear from the negotiation of the Convention of 1818, which was one "Respecting Fisheries, Boundary and Restoration of Slaves," our Commissioners being Albert Gallatin and Richard Rush. The sixth article of this agreement extended the time of the London Convention for ten years. Considering how unsatisfactory this agreement was, and how confidently Congress expected their last Act would result in a better one, it was extremely disappointing that our Commissioners were obliged to extend the time or obtain no settlement of certain important matters, and, as usual, our negotiators were outgeneraled or allowed themselves to be imposed upon. President Monroe and the Senate could but ratify their work.

Extract from the President's Message, Dec. 1819. "At the time of the negotiation for the renewal of the commercial Convention, between the United States and Great Britain, a hope had been entertained that an article might have been

agreed upon mutually satisfactory to both countries, regulating, upon principles of justice and reciprocity, the commercial intercourse between the United States and the British possessions, as well in the West Indies as upon the continent of North America. The Plenipotentiaries of the two Governments not having been able to come to an agreement on this important interest, those of the United States reserved for the consideration of this Government the proposals which had been presented to them, as the ultimate offer on the part of the British Government, and which they were not authorized to accept. On their transmission here, they were examined with due deliberation, the result of which was a new effort to meet the views of the British Government. The Minister of the United States was instructed to make a further proposal, which has not been accepted. It was, however, declined in an amicable manner. I recommend to the consideration of Congress, whether further prohibitory provisions in the laws relating to this interest may not be expedient."

The Supplementary Act of 1820. In consequence of the foregoing view of the President a bill was brought into the Senate to supplement the West India Act of 1818. It provided an extension" to all the ports of the British West Indies, the free ports as well as those which had been closed." On third reading, this bill had yeas, 40; nays, 1. It passed the House, without amendment, 94 to 25. On this bill Senator Barbour, of Va., spoke as follows:

"The course pursued in 1818 1 was in conformity with strong recommendations of three preceding Presidents, and was a part of that settled policy by which this country will in future be invariably governed, namely, equality and reciprocity among

nations."

The law of 1818 had been neutralized in part by British port regulations a few were declared "free;" to these petty places American vessels could get no business, but we had to clear British vessels to them, as ours were permitted to enter if they wished. Continuing Senator Barbour said:

Relation of the Marine to the Navy. "The last war gave

1 See chapter xiv. for the Act of 1818.