1. On 12 April 1783 Congress referred to a committee, composed of JM, chairman, Nathaniel Gorham (Mass.), and Thomas FitzSimons, the dispatch of 16 December 1782 from Francis Dana, minister-designate at the court of St. Petersburg. Before FitzSimons on 22 April reported for the committee, its members were directed also to consider Dana’s dispatch of 19 December 1782, enclosed in a covering letter from Robert R. Livingston, secretary for foreign affairs. The committee recommended that Dana should be permitted “to return to America so soon as he can with propriety”; should be instructed to decline Russian proposals for a commercial treaty unless negotiations had advanced so far as to injure “the faith and honor of the United States” by withdrawing; and, in that event, should insist on limiting the duration of the treaty to a maximum of fifteen years (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (7 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VI, 427, n. 13; 452; 453, nn. 1–3; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 267).

Reaching no decision on 22 April except that the treaty must also provide for “exact reciprocity” and should not go into effect until approved by Congress, further consideration of the committee’s report was “postponed” until 21 May. On that day the report was replaced by Hamilton’s lengthy motion, seconded by JM, which, save for a paragraph on the “armed neutrality,” chiefly constituted a rephrasing of the committee’s terse recommendations so as to render them less offensive to Dana and his friends in Congress. JM suggested that although the rejection of the motion by a vote of 6 to 3 signified that one too few state delegations agreed with the proposals regarding the commercial treaty, the members “generally concurred” with Hamilton’s statement about the “armed neutrality.” JM implicitly included the latter subject in his motion of 22 May (q.v.). On 21 and 22 May, in five of the six tallied polls taken on issues connected with the commercial treaty, the Massachusetts and South Carolina delegations all voted alike (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 348–57; Instruction to Dana, 22 May 1783, and n. 3).

After pointing out that the “primary object” of Dana’s mission was to treat for the admission of the United States to the League of Armed Neutrality, and that the peace treaty with Great Britain had greatly lessened the importance of this “object” as a support of American independence, Hamilton continued: “That though Congress approve the principles of armed neutrality, founded on the liberal basis of a maintenance of the rights of neutral nations and of the privileges of commerce, yet they are unwilling, at this juncture, to become a party to a Confederacy which may hereafter too far complicate the interests of the United States with the politicks of Europe” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 350, 351–52). For Dana and the League of Armed Neutrality, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (7 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , II, 56, n. 3; 165; 167, nn. 2, 3; III, 45, n. 9; 221, n. 14; IV, 10–11; 16, n. 24; 182, n. 14; 388, n. 11; V, 189, n. 13; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVIII, 1166–73, and esp. 1169; Rights of Neutral Nations, 12 June, and nn. 7, 8; JM Notes, 12 June 1783, and n. 3; David M. Griffiths, “American Commercial Diplomacy in Russia, 1780 to 1783,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., XXVII (1970), 397–410.