From John Jay to Edmund Randolph, 19 November 1794
To Edmund Randolph
London 19th. November 1794.
Sir,
The long expected Treaty accompanies this letter;— a probability of soon concluding it has caused the Packet to be detained for more than a week;— The difficulties which retarded its accomplishment, frequently had the appearance of being insurmountable; they have at last yielded to modifications of the Articles in which they existed, and to that mutual disposition to Agreement which reconciled Lord Grenville and myself to an unusual degree of Trouble and Application.1— They who have levelled uneven Grounds know how little of the work afterwards appears.
Since the Building is finished, it cannot be very important to describe the scaffolding, or go into all the details which respected the Business.— Explanatory remarks on certain Articles might be useful by casting Light on governing principles which in some instances, are not so obvious as to be distinctly seen on the first view.— Feeling the want of Liesure and Relaxation, I cannot undertake it in this moment of Haste;— I must confine myself to a few cursory Observations, & hope allowances will be made for Inaccuracies and Omissions.
My Opinion of the Treaty is apparent from my having signed it; I have no reason to believe or conjecture, that one more favorable to us is attainable.
Perhaps it is not very much to be regretted that all our differences are merged in this Treaty, without having been decided. disagreeable imputations are thereby avoided, and the Door of Conciliation is fairly and widely opened, by the essential Justice done, and the conveniencies granted to each other by the Parties.2
The Term limited for the evacuation of the Posts, could not be restricted to a more early day:— that point has been pressed. The Reasons which caused an inflexible adherence to that term, I am persuaded, were these, vizt.— That the Traders have spread through the Indian Nations, Goods to a great amount. That the Returns for those Goods cannot be drawn into Canada at an earlier Period;— That the Impression which the Surrender of all the Posts to American Garrisons will make on the minds of the Indians cannot be foreseen:— On a former Occasion it was intimated to them (not very delicately) that they had been forsaken, & given up to the United States:— That the protection promised on our part, however sincere and however in other Respects competent, cannot entirely prevent those Embarrassments which without our fault may be occasioned by the War.— That, for these reasons, the Traders ought to have time to conclude their Adventures which were calculated on the Existing state of things. — they will afterwards calculate on the new State of Things:— but that in the mean time the care of Government should not be withdrawn from them.3
The 3d. Article will I presume appear to you in a favorable light— a number of Reasons which in my Judgement are solid support it:— I think they will on consideration become obvious. It was proposed and urged that the commercial Intercourse opened by this Article ought to be exempted from all Duties whatever on either side. The inconveniencies which we should experience from such a measure were stated and examined. It was finally agreed to subject it to native Duties:4— in this compromise, which I consider as being exactly right, that difficulty terminated;— But, for this compromise the whole Article would have failed, and every expectation of an amicable Settlement been frustrated: A continuance of Trade with the Indians was a decided ultimatum;— much Time and Paper, and many Conferences were employed in producing this Article. that part of it which respects the Ports and places on the Eastern side of the Missisipi, if considered in connexion with the Article in the Treaty of Peace, and with the Article in this Treaty which directs a Survey of that River to be made, will I think appear unexceptionable.5
In discussing the question about the River St. Croix, before the Commissioners,6 I apprehend the old French claims will be revived— we must adhere to Mitchell’s Map;7— the Vice President perfectly understands this Business.
The 6th. Article was a sine qua non, and is intended as well as calculated to afford that Justice and Equity which judicial proceedings may on trial be found incapable of affording;— That the Commissioners may do exactly what is right they are to determine according to the merits of the several cases, having a due regard to all the Circumstances, and as Justice and Equity shall appear to them to require.8
It is very much to be regretted that a more summary Method than the one indicated in the Seventh Article could not have been devised and agreed upon for settling the Capture cases.— Every other Plan was perplexed with Difficulties which frustrated it:— Permit me to hint the expediency of aiding the Claimants, by employing a Gentleman at the public Expence to oversee and manage the Causes of such of them as cannot conveniently have Agents of their own hire; and whether in some cases pecuniary assistance might not be proper;— I do not consider myself at liberty to make such an appointment nor to enter into ^any^ such pecuniary engagements. It would probably be more easy to find a proper person on your side of the Water, than on this— here there are few fit for the Business & willing to undertake it, who (having many affairs of their own to attend to) would not be tempted to consider the Business of the Claimants in a secondary light. Several objections to giving him a fixed Salary are obvious; in my opinion a moderate Commission on the sums to be recovered and received would be a more eligible method of compensating him for his Services.9— Our Consul here talks and I believe in earnest of returning to America or I should expect much advantage from his Zeal and Endeavours to serve such of the Claimants as might commit their Business to his management.10
You will find in the 8th. Article a Stipulation which in effect refers the manner of paying the Commissioners very much to our Election:— I prefer paying them jointly:— the Objection to it is, that the English pay high:— I have always doubted the Policy of being Penny-wise.11
The Lord Chancellor has prepared an Article respecting the mutual admission of evidence &ca—which we have not had time fully to consider and decide upon: it contains a Clause to abolish Alienism between the two Countries;— His Lordships conduct and conversation indicate the most friendly disposition towards us;— a Copy of his Article shall be sent and I wish to receive precise instructions on that Head.12
The Credit of some of the States having to my knowledge suffered by appearances of their being favorable to the Idea of sequestrating British Debts on certain occasions—the 10th. Article will be useful.— Persons wishing to invest their Property in our Funds and Banks, have frequently applied to me to be informed whether they might do it without risque of confiscation or Sequestration.— my answer has been uniform, Vizt. That in my opinion such measures would be improper, and therefore that in my Opinion they would not be adopted; some pressed me for Assurances, but I have declined giving any:13
The 12th. Article admitting our Vessels of Seventy Tons and under into the British Islands in the West Indies affords occasion for several explanatory Remarks;— It became connected with a proposed Stipulation for the Abolition of all Alien Duties of every kind between the Two Countries:— This Proposition was pressed, but strong objections opposed my agreeing to it.— A Satisfactory statement of the Negotiation on this point, would be prolix;— at present I cannot form a very concise one, for that would not require less time.— the Selection and arrangement necessary in making abridgements cannot be hastily performed. The Duration of this Article is short, but if we meet the disposition of this Country to Good Humour and Cordiality, I am much inclined to believe it will be renewed.— the Duration of the Treaty is connected with the renewal of that Article, and an opportunity will then offer for discussing and Settling many important matters.14
The Articles which opens the British Ports in the East Indies to our Vessels and Cargoes, needs no comment. It is a manifestation and Proof of Goodwill towards us.
The Questions about the Cases, in which alone Provisions become contraband, and the Question whether and how far Neutral Ships protect Enemy’s Property, have been the subjects of much Trouble and many fruitless discussions.— That Britain at this Period and involved in War should not admit principles which would impeach the Propriety of her Conduct, in siezing Provisions bound to France, and Enemy’s property on board of Neutral Vessels does not appear to me extraordinary.— The Articles as they now stand, secure compensation for Siezures, and leave us at liberty to decide whether they were made in such cases as to be warranted by the existing Law of Nations; —15 As to the Principles we contend for, you will find them saved in the conclusion of the 12th. Article, from which it will appear that we still adhere to them.16
The Two Articles about Privateers,17 were taken from the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and France, and the One for treating Natives, commanding Privateers, as Pirates, in certain cases, was partly taken from our’s with Holland.18
The Prohibition to Sell Prizes in our Ports, had its use; and we have no reason to regret that your Instructions to me admitted of it.19
Various Articles which have no place in this Treaty, have from time to time been under consideration, but did not meet with mutual approbation and Conduct.—
I must draw this letter to a Conclusion;— Lord Grenville is anxious to dismiss the Packet as soon as possible;— [illegible] authorized exchange Ratifications[?]
There is reason to hope that occasions for complaint on either side will be carefully avoided:— Let us be just and friendly to all Nations.
I ought not to omit mentioning the acknowledgements due from me to Mr. Pinckney, with whom I have every reason to be satisfied, and from whose Advice and Opinions I have derived light and Advantage in the course of the negotiation:— His approbation of the Treaty gives me pleasure, not merely because his Opinion corresponds with my own, but also from the Sentiments I entertain of his Judgement and Candor.20
It is desireable that I should have the earliest advice of the ratification, and be enabled to finish whatever may be expected of me in season to return in one of the first Spring Vessels. My Health is not competent to a Winter’s Voyage, or I should be the Bearer of the Treaty:— This Climate does not agree with me, and the less so on account of the Application and Confinement to which it was necessary for me to submit.
I had almost forgotten to mention, that on finishing and agreeing to the Draft of the Treaty, I suggested to Lord Grenville, as a measure that would be very acceptable to our Country, the interposition of his Majesty with Algiers and other States of Barbary that may be hostile to us:— This Idea was favorably received, and it is my opinion that this Court would in good Earnest undertake that Business, in case nothing should occur to impeach the Sincerity of that mutual Reconciliation which it is to be hoped will now take place.21
It will give you pleasure to hear that great reserve and Delicacy has been observed respecting our Concerns with France:— The Stipulations in favor of existing Treaties was agreed to without hesitation: not an Expectation nor even a wish has been expressed that our conduct towards France should be otherwise than fair and friendly:— In a word:—I do not know how the negotiation could have been conducted on their part, with more Delicacy, Friendliness, and Propriety than it has been from first to last.22 I have the Honor to be Sir your most obt. & hble Servt.
John Jay
To the Honble. Edmund Randolph Esqr.
Secry. of State &c &c &c
C, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04338). Marked: “No. 22 Duplicate”. Endorsed by clerk: “… recorded page 120.” C, NHi: King (EJ: 04465); LbkC, NNC: JJ Lbk. 8; , 1: 334 (extract); , 4: 137–44; ASP: FR, 1: 503–4. Enclosures: For the copy of the Jay Treaty, [19 Nov. 1794], see below; for the Article Proposed by Lord Chancellor (Loughborough), [c. 9 Oct. 1794], see above.
1. See the editorial note “Negotiating the Jay Treaty,” above.
2. On the decision to refrain from deciding which of the two nations was the first to violate the peace treaty, see the preface to JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain, 30 Sept. 1794, above. ER first described the decision not to identify the first violator, as well as that regarding enslaved persons, as so new to him that he could not agree to their accuracy without the fullest reflection. In a subsequent letter, he expressed strong concern that JJ’s failure to fix the blame for the first violation on Britain might have serious adverse effects on American claims. See JJ to ER, 13 Sept. 1794, above; ER to JJ, 12 Nov. 1794, ASP: FR, 1: 501–2; and ER to JJ, 15 Dec. 1794, C, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00620); ASP: FR, 1: 509–12.
3. See Art. 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below. For British criticism of the peace treaty of 1783 for its failure to defend the interest of British traders, see , 3: 397n. In his letter of 15 Dec. 1794, cited above, ER remarked that the passage of time had increased GW’s repugnance to the extension of time, which, he thought, would prolong the time needed to establish peaceful relations with the Indians, and would counteract the development of an American fur trade.
4. That is, American duties. See Art. 3 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
5. See the editorial note “Negotiating the Jay Treaty,” above; and Art. 3 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
6. On the St. Croix boundary commission of 1796, see JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain, 30 Sept. 1794, above; and the editorial note “Aftermath of the Jay Treaty: Responses, Ratification, and Implementation,” below. ER informed JJ that GW approved his reasoning and conduct on the boundary issues as very judicious. See ER to JJ, 15 Dec. 1794, cited above.
7. See Richard Oswald to Thomas Townsend, 8 Oct. 1782, , 3: 185–86.
8. On this article, regarding debts owed to British creditors, see Art. 6 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
9. On this article, see Articles 7 and 8 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
10. Joshua Johnson (1742–1802), served as American consul in London from 1790–97. ER had announced the appointment of Samuel Bayard as agent for the American merchants. See ER to JJ, 29 Oct. 1794, C, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04328); C, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00612); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04459); and ASP: FR, 1: 499–500.
11. See Art. 8 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
12. See Article Proposed by the Lord Chancellor (Loughborough), [c. 9 Oct. 1794], above. On alienage, see also Art. 9 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
13. On sequestration, see Art. 10 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
14. On the West Indies article, see Art. 6 of Grenville’s Draft of a commercial treaty in his Treaties of 30 Aug., and note 13, and Art. 10 of JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain, 30 Sept. 1794, and notes 39–44, both above.
15. See Grenville to JJ, 7 Sept. 1794, above.
16. See the final clause of the 10th Art. in JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain of 30 Sept. 1794, which was subsequently incorporated into Art. 12 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation of 19 Nov. 1794, and ultimately rejected by the United States. JJ had also attempted to concede practice while saving the principle in his negotiations with Gardoqui for use of the Mississippi, which he was willing to concede for ten years while establishing the principle that the United States had the right to it. See the editorial note “Negotiations with Gardoqui Reach an Impasse,” , 4: 364–78.
17. Arts. 19 and 21 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation of 19 Nov. 1794. Arts. 19 through 25 of this treaty, which closely follow Arts. 20, 22, and 23 of JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain, 30 Sept. 1794, above, were designed by JJ to respond to Britain’s complaints about infractions of American neutrality perpetrated by Genet, no doubt as a result of conversations with Grenville, since, for the most part, there are no equivalents for them in Grenville’s Draft Treaties of 30 Aug. 1794, above. On Genet’s breaches of American neutrality, see the editorial note “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” , 5: 546–61
18. Art. 8 of the Dutch-American Treaty of 1782 and Art. 20 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
19. See item 11 of ER’s instructions to JJ, 6 May 1794, , 5: 640, and Art. 24 of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, below.
20. See JJ to Pinckney, 19 Nov. 1794, Dft, NNC (EJ: 09471); and Pinckney to JJ, 20 Nov. 1794, ALS, ScHi (EJ: 03483).
21. This had been suggested in ER to JJ, 6 May 1794, , 5: 642.
22. For his injunction to repulse any attempts by Britain to detach the United States from France, see ER to JJ, 6 May 1794, , 5: 638, 642.