Corporations, under the treaties with Great Britain of 1783 and 1794, are entitled to the same rights as are natural persons. Society for Propag. Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat., 464. All British grants of land in the United States made subsequent to the Declaration of Independence are inoperative under the treaty of 1783. Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat., 523; supra, § 5a. Under the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, all those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American States, were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet., 242. The United States, by the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired the sovereignty of Michigan, which was part of the French domain prior to the conquest by Great Britain in 1750, and as an incident of such sovereignty succeeded to the prerogatives of the King of France in dealing with seignioral estates for a forfeiture for non-fulfillment of the conditions of the fief. U. S. v. Repentigny, 5 Wall., 211. The term "prosecutions," employed in the sixth article of the treaty with Great Britain of 1783, imports a suit against another in a criminal cause, such prosecutions being conducted in the name of the public, the ground of them being distinctly known as soon as they are instituted, and being always under the control of the Government. 1 Op., 50, Bradford, 1794. The correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hammond opened with a formal statement by Mr. Jefferson, on November 29, 1791, of the grievances of the United States on the non-performance of the British stipulations in the treaty of 1783. "On the 30th of November Hammond replied to Jefferson's note thus: With respect to the non-execution of the seventh article of the definitive treaty of peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, which you have recalled to my attention, it is scarcely necessary for me to remark to you, sir, that the King, my master, was induced to suspend the execu tion of that article, on his part, in consequence of the non-compliance, on the part of the United States, with the engagements contained in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the same treaty. These two objects are, therefore, so materially connected with each other as not to admit of separation, either in the mode of discussing them, or in any subsequent arrangements which may result from that discussion.' "Jefferson met this on the 15th of December by a note stating briefly the American position as to the British infractions of the treaty and producing evidence in its support. This drew from Hammond an elaborate reply on the 5th of March, 1792, in which he contended (1) that the United States had failed to execute the 4th article of the treaty, by not preventing the placing of impediments in the way of the recovery, in sterling, of debts due to British subjects; (2) that interest had not been allowed on judgments in favor of British creditors; and (3), that article 5 had not been carried into effect by the United States, inasmuch as confiscated estates had not been restored; and that therefore 'the measure that the King has adopted (of delaying his compliance with the 7th article of the treaty) is perfectly justifiable.' To this Jefferson, on the 29th of May, 1792, replied, (1) that impediments, within the meaning of the treaty, had not been thrown in the way of the collection of British debts in the United States; (2) that interest is not an integral part of a debt under British and American law, and therefore it was not embraced in the treaty; (3) that the United States had only undertaken in the treaty to recommend the States to restore confiscated estates, and had fully complied with that agreement; and he showed conclusively that it was understood both by the ministry and by both houses of Parliament, when the treaty was negotiated, that the American plenipotentiaries not only would not agree to restore the confiscated estates, but expressed the opinion that the States themselves would not restore them, even if recommended by Congress to do so; (4) that the British infractions of the treaty, so far from being the result of alleged infractions by the United States, preceded them, and were in no way dependent upon them. "More than a year elapsed without a reply. Jefferson then, on the 19th of June, 1793, wrote Hammond, asking when one might be expected. The subject,' he said, 'was extensive and important, and therefore rendered a certain degree of delay in the reply to be expected. But it has now become such as naturally to generate disquietude. The interests we have in the western posts, the blood and treasure which their detention costs us daily, cannot but produce a corresponding anxiety on our part.' Hammond replied that as soon as he should receive instructions the reply should be transmitted, and added, 'There is one passage in your letter of yesterday, sir, of which it becomes me to take some notice. The passage I allude to is that wherein you mention "the blood and treasure which the detention of the Western posts costs the United States daily." I cannot easily conjecture the motives in which this declaration has originated. After the evidence that this Government has repeatedly received of the strict neutrality observed by the King's governors of Canada, during the present contest between the United States and the Indians, and of the disposition of those officers to facilitate, as far as may be in their power, any negotiations for peace, I will not for a moment imagine that the expression I have cited was intended to convey the insinuation of their having pursued a different conduct.' "Jefferson made no response to this. In a few months he again asked Hammond whether he was prepared to reply on this subject of the infractions of the treaty. No answer was ever made. "In the autumn of 1793 a new question of difference arose. The admiralty instructions to British ships of war and privateers, issued in June, 1793, ordered the seizure of all neutral vessels laden with corn, flour, or meal, destined for French ports, and of all neutral vessels, except those of Denmark and Sweden, attempting to enter any blockaded port. As Denmark, Sweden, and the United States were the principal neutral maritime powers, there was no question as to the vessels against which the latter provision was aimed. When complaint was made of the order to seize vessels laden with provisions, it was justified by Great Britain on the assumption that provisions were contraband of war. Edmund Randolph, Jefferson's successor as Secretary of State, met this by saying: 'We have labored to cultivate with the British nation perfect harmony. We have not attempted by a revival of maxims which, if ever countenanced, are now antiquated, to blast your agriculture or commerce. To be persuaded, as you wish, that the instructions of the 8th of June, 1793, are in a conciliatory spirit, is impossible. And be assured, sir, that it is a matter of sincere regret to learn the intention of your Government to adhere to them, notwithstanding our representations, which utter, as we flatter ourselves, the decent but firm language of right.' "Under such circumstances President Washington, on the 16th of April, 1794, sent a message to the Senate, in which, referring to the 'serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain,' he said: But, as peace ought to be pursued with unremited zeal, before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the advancing prosperity of the United States, is contemplated, I have thought proper to nominate, and do hereby nominate, John Jay, as envoy extraordinary of the United States to his Britannic Majesty.' "The nomination was confirmed by a vote of 18 to 8. Jay's instructions were dated the 6th of May, 1794. He sailed from New York on the 12th of the same month." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Notes, &c. Almost immediately after this conciliatory step was taken, the British governor of Canada, Lord Dorchester, made a speech, unfriendly in its character to the United States, to Indians then aroused against the United States, and three companies of a British regiment went to the foot of the rapids of the Miami, in the southern part of what is now the State of Ohio, to build a fort there. When complaints were made of these hostile acts the British minister at Washington justified both as defensible preparations for an actual state of war about to begin between the two nations, and he retorted by complaining of the fitting out of French privateers in American ports, and of the uniformly unfriendly treatment which His Majesty's ships of war ex perienced in the American ports.' President Washington, in transmitting the correspondence to both Houses of Congress, said: "This - new state of things suggests the propriety of placing the United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an event which, notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert it, may, by circumstances beyond our control, be forced upon us."" Ibid. See supra, §§ 107, 131 ff. (b) JAY'S TREATY (1794). § 150a. The full text of the instructions to Mr. Jay, and of much minor correspondence relative thereto, will be found in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 472 ff. Mr. Jay's report of his proceedings in England is in the same volume, 476 ff. The projects and counter projects of the negotiators are given in same volume, 486 ff; see same volume, 705, for Mr. Randolph's correspondence with Mr. Jay. The policy of President Washington in the negotiations which led to Jay's treaty is given as follows in instructions of September 20, 1794, from Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, to Mr. Jay: "It is his (the President's) wish that the characteristics of an American minister should be marked on the one hand by a firmness against improper compliances, and on the other by sincerity, candor, and prudence, and by a horror of finesse and chicanery. These ideas, however, will not oppose those firm and temperate representations which you meditate should your present plan fail. For it is fair and indispensable in the event of a rupture to divide the nation from the Government." The treaty appears in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 520 ff. Some of the disputes in construction of Jay's treaty are noticed in 1 John Adams's Mr. Pickering's instructions to Mr. Pinckney of Jan. 16, 1797, as to this treaty, The proceedings of the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, when acting on Jay's treaty, are discussed in a previous section. Supra, § 131 ƒfƒ. See also, 3 Life of Pickering, 174. Under article 18 of this treaty an intention to enter a blockaded port is not cause for condemnation. Fitzsimmons v. Newport Ins. Co., 4 Cranch, 185. Jay's treaty provided that British subjects then holding lands in the Territories of the United States may continue to hold them according to their respective titles. It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that this provision is part of the supreme law of the land, being a constitutional exercise of the treaty-making power. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603. See supra, § 138. Under the 9th article of Jay's treaty, by which it is provided that British subjects holding lands in the United States, and their heirs, so far as respects those lands and the remedies incident thereto, should not be considered as aliens, the parties must show that the title to the land for which the suit was commenced was in them or their ancestors, when the treaty was made. Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat, 300. A defeasible title to a freehold estate in Virginia being vested in a British subject during the Revolution, and capable of being divested, by the laws of Virginia, only by inquest of office, or a legislative act equivalent thereto, was protected and confirmed by the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, between the United States and Great Britian, though the holder had never become a citizen. Craig . Bradford, 3 Wheat., 594. To the same effect as the treaty of 1783 was the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, which also provided that, as to the lands held under it, neither the British subjects, nor their heirs should be regarded as aliens. But the term "heirs" was not meant to include any persons other than such as were British subjects or American citizens at the time of the descent cast. Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat., 453. As to construction of the treaty of 1794, so far as concerns title of British subjects to lands, see further, Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat., 300, reversing S. C., 1 Paine, 55; Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat., 453; Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheat., 535; Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Wheeler, 2 Gall., 105. The commissioners appointed in pursuance of the 5th article of the treaty of 1794 must agree in their decisions, and must all subscribe their names and attach their seals thereto. In case the two original commissioners appointed under said article disagree in the choice of a third, each is to propose one person, and of the two names so proposed, one shall be drawn by lot, and neither of said commissioners has a discretionary power to withhold his nominee or to refuse to draw by lot for the third commissioner. 1 Op., 66, Lee, 1796. To insure the speedy and due execution of the 6th article of the treaty of 1794, public officers should, when requested, furnish authenticated copies of documents in their custody, and should assist in bringing forward testimony according to the duties of their several stations; and individuals should not refuse to give testimony. 1 Op., 82, Lee, 1798. By the 27th article of the treaty of 1794, a requisition from the British minister is not authorized unless the persons demanded are charged with murder or forgery committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain. 1 Op., 83, Lee, 1798. See infra, § 271. The provision in the 23d article of the treaty that "the ships of war of each of the contracting parties shall at all times be hospitably received in the ports of the other; their officers and crews paying due respect to the laws and Government of the country," is merely declaratory of the usage of nations, that hospitality, which includes protection, is to be enjoyed upon condition that the laws and Government of the country are respected. 1 Op., 87, Lee, 1799. Under the treaty of 1794 goods and merchandise carried from any place in the territory of His Britannic Majesty on the continent of America, by the subjects of Great Britain, into any of the northern districts of the United States, are subject to the same duties which would be payable by our citizens on the same goods imported from the same place in American ships into the Atlantic ports of the United States. 1 Op., 155, Breckinridge, 1806. |