1The Defence No. I, [22 July 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
IT was to have been foreseen, that the treaty which Mr. Jay was charged to negociate with Great Britain, whenever it should appear, would have to contend with many perverse dispositions and some honest prejudices. That there was no measure in which the government could engage so little likely to be viewed according to its intrinsic merits—so very likely to encountre misconception, jealousy,...
2The Defence No. II, [25 July 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
Previous to a more particular discussion of the merits of the Treaty, it may be useful to advert to a suggestion which has been thrown out, namely that it was foreseen by many, that the mission to Great Britain would produce no good result, and that the event has corresponded with the anticipation. The reverse of this position is manifestly true. All must remember the very critical posture of...
3The Defence No. III, [29 July 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The opposers of the Treaty seem to have put invention on the rack, to accumulate charges against it, in a great number of cases, without regard even to plausibility. If we suppose them sincere, we must often pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays. Of the preposterous nature of some of their charges, specimens will be given in the course of...
4The Defence No. IV, [1 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
An accurate enumeration of the breaches of the Treaty of peace on our part would require a tedious research. It will suffice to select and quote a few of the most prominent and early instances. One of the earliest is to be found in an Act of this state for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain Trespasses passed the 17 of March 1783. This act takes away from any person (subjects...
5The Defence No. V, [5 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The discussion in the two last numbers has shewn 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 among us have too lightly creditted. The task of displaying this truth has been an unwelcome one. As long as a contrary doctrine was either a mere essay...
6The Defence No. VI, [8 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
There is one more objection to the Treaty for what it does not do, which requires to be noticed. This is an omission to provide against the empressment of our seamen. It is certain that our Trade has suffered embarrassments in this respect, and that there have been abuses which have operated very oppressively upon our seamen; and all will join in the wish that they could have been guarded...
7The Defence No. VII, [12 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The Second Article of the Treaty stipulates that his Britannic Majesty will withdraw all his troops and garrisons from all posts and places within the boundary lines assigned by the Treaty of Peace to the U States; and that this evacuation shall take place on or before the first day of June 1796—the United States in the mean time at their discretion extending their settlements to any part...
8The Defence No. VIII, [15 August 1795], with enclosure (Hamilton Papers)
One of the particulars in which our Envoy is alleged to have fallen short of what might and ought to have been done respects the time for the surrender of the Western posts. It is alleged, that there ought either to have been an immediate surrender or some guarantee or surety for the performance of the new promise. Both parts of the alternative presuppose that Great Britain was to have no will...
9The Defence No. IX, [21 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
It was my intention to have comprised in two numbers the examination of the second article; but on experiment it was found expedient to add a third. I resume for a moment the subject of indemnification for the detention of the Posts. As an inducement to persist in this claim, we are assured that the magnimity of France would have procured for us its establishment. In the first place this...
10The Defence No. X, [26 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The object of the third article is connected with that of the second. The surrender of the posts naturally drew with it an arrangement with regard to inland Trade and navigation. Such an arrangement convenient in several respects appears to be in some respects necessary. To restrain the Indians on either side of the line from trading with the one party or the other at discretion, besides the...
11The Defence No. XI, [28 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
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 Nova Scotia and Canada. It has been clearly shewn that it gives no right of access to any...
12The Defence No. XII, [2–3 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The remaining allegations in disparagement of the 3 article are to this effect 1 That the exception of the country of the Hudsons Bay Company owing to its undefined limits renders the stipulations in our favour in a great measure nugatory. [2. That the privileges granted to Great Britain in our Missisippi ports, are impolitic, because without reciprocity.] [3] that the agreement to forbid to...
13The Defence No. XIII, [5 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The 4th and 5th articles of the Treaty from similarity of object will naturally be considered together. The fourth, reciting a doubt “whether the River Mississippi extends so far Northward as to be intersected by a line to be drawn due West from the Lake of the Woods in the manner mentioned in the Treaty of Peace” agrees, that measures shall be taken in concert between the two Governments to...
14The Defence No. XIV, [9 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The sixth article stipulates compensation to British Creditors for losses and damages which may have been sustained by them, in consequence of certain legal impediments, which since the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, are alleged to have obstructed the recovery of debts bona fide contracted with them before the peace. To a man who has a due sense of the sacred obligation of a just debt, a...
15The Defence No. XV, [12 and 14 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
[ It is the business of the seventh article of the treaty, to provide for two objects: one, compensation to our citizens for injuries to their property, by irregular or illegal captures or condemnations; the other, compensation to British citizens for captures of their property within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, or elsewhere, by vessels originally armed in our ports, in...
16The Defence No. XVI, [18 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The second object of the seventh article, as stated in my last number, is “compensation to British Citizens, for captures of their property within the limits and jurisdiction of the U States, or elsewhere by vessels originally armed in our ports, in the cases in which the captured property having come within our power, there was a neglect to make restitution .” This precise view of the thing...
17The Defence No. XVII, [22 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The VIII article provides merely that the Commissioners to be appointed in the three preceding articles shall be paid in such manner as shall be agreed between the parties at the time of the exchange of the “Ratification of the Treaty, and that all other expenses attending the Commissions shall be defrayed jointly by the two parties the same being previously ascertained and allowed by a...
18The Defence No. XVIII, [6 October 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
It is provided by The tenth article of the Treaty that “Neither Debts due from individuals of the one Nation to Individuals of the other, nor shares nor monies, which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever in any event of War or national differences be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust and impolitic that debts and engagements contracted and...
19The Defence No. XIX, [14 October 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The objects protected by the 10th. article are classed under four heads, 1 debts of individuals to individuals 2 property of individuals in the public funds 3 property of individuals in public banks 4 property of individuals in private banks. These, if analised, resolve themselves, in principle, into two discriminations—(viz) private debts & private property in public funds....
20From Alexander Hamilton to Defence No. XX, [23 and 24 October 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The point next to be examined is the right of confiscation or sequestration, as depending on the opinions of Jurists and on usage. To understand how far these ought to weigh, it is requisite to consider what are the elements, or ingredients, which compose what is called the laws of Nations. The constituent parts of this system are, 1 The necessary or internal law, which is the law of Nature...
21The Defence No. XXI, [30 October 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
Since the closing of my last number, I have accidentally turned to a passage of Vatel , which is so pertinent to the immediate subject of that paper, that I cannot refrain from interrupting the progress of the discussion to quote it. It is in these words (B 3 C 4 § 63) “The Sovereign declaring War can neither detain those subjects of the enemy, who are within his dominions at the time of the...
22The Defence No. XXII, [5–11 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The analogy of the stipulation in the 10th article with stipulations in our other treaties and in the treaties between other Nations is the remaining topic of discussion. After this, attention will be paid to such observations by way of objection to the article as may not have been before expressly or virtually answered. The 20th. article of our treaty of Amity and Commerce with France is in...
23[The Defence No. XXIII], [14 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , November 14, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for several words and phrases inserted by H, the draft of “The Defence No. XXIII” is in the handwriting of Rufus King.
24[The Defence No. XXIV], [14 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , November 14, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for several words and phrases and one paragraph inserted by H, the draft of this essay is in the handwriting of Rufus King. The paragraph...
25The Defence No. XXV, [18 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
It will be useful, as it will simplify the Examination of the commercial articles of the Treaty, to bear in mind and preserve the Division that we find established by the 12. 13. & the 14. & 15. articles. Each respects a particular Branch or portion of the trade between the two Countries, the regulations whereof, differ from, and are severally independent of each other. Thus one is relative to...
26[The Defence No. XXVI], [25 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , November 25, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for several words, phrases, and footnotes inserted by H, the draft of this essay is in the handwriting of Rufus King.
27[The Defence No. XXVII], [28 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , November 28, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for a few phrases and sentences inserted by H, the draft of “The Defence No. XXVII” is in the handwriting of Rufus King.
28[The Defence No. XXVIII], [2 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , December 2, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for a few phrases and sentences inserted by H, the draft of this essay is in the handwriting of Rufus King.
29[The Defence No. XXIX], [5 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , December 5, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for minor changes in wording made by H, the draft of “The Defence No. XXIX” is in the handwriting of Rufus King. On a page attached to the...
30[The Defence No. XXX], [9 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , December 9, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for a few words inserted by H, the draft of “The Defence No. XXX” is in the handwriting of Rufus King.