71The 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...
72The 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....
73The 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...
74The 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...
75The 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...
76The Defence No. XXXI, [12 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
I resume the subject of the two last papers for the sake of a few supplementary observations. The objections to the Treaty for not adhering to the rule “that free ships make free goods and enemy ships enemy goods” as being the relinquishment of an advantage which the modern law of Nations gives to Neutrals have been fully examined and I flatter myself completely refuted. I shall however add...
77The Defence No. XXXII, [16 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The 18th Article of the Treaty, which regulates the subject of contraband, has been grievously misrepresented. The objections urged against it with most acrimony are disingenuous and unfounded; yet while I make this assertion which I flatter myself I shall be able to prove, I shall not pretend to maintain that it is an article completely satisfactory. I even admit that it has one unpleasant...
78The 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...
79The 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...
80The 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...