1. According to the enclosed proceedings, the citizens of Savannah first met to discuss the Jay Treaty on Saturday, 25 July. Gen. Lachlan McIntosh chaired the meeting. They moved to publicize the announcement throughout Chatham County to inform the citizens of a second meeting on 29 July “to take fully into consideration such measures as they may deem proper respecting the said Treaty … as the business is of the utmost importance to the people of these States in general, and of this State in particular.”

On the appointed day, the number of people who attended caused the meeting to move from the courthouse to Christ Church. Jones acted as chairman. During the course of the session, participants resolved that the treaty “is an infraction of the sovereignty and Independence of the said United States, and derogatory to the honor, interest, and happiness, of the Citizens thereof.” They then appointed a fifteen-member committee to prepare a report about the treaty and report to the citizens on Saturday, 1 August.

On that day, the committee reported their sentiments about the treaty: “That reciprocal benefit and mutial advantage are the only proper inducements for national negotiations, and ought to be the basis of all treaties between sovereign and independent Nations.

“That the objects which presented themselves for a negotiation with Great Britain, at the time when Mr Jay was appointed to that mission, were in their nature truly interesting to the Justice, honor, and happiness, of the United States; among which we consider the procuring a compliance with the Treaty of Peace, obtaining compensation for recent spoliations on the property of American merchants, and preventing future repetitions of such injuries, as the most important: That, by the treaty above referred to, neither of these objects has been accomplished, nor has any political or commercial benefit in favor of the United States been attained; but, on the contrary, a variety of concessions have been made to Great Britain, in violation of the treaty of 1783, and of our engagements with France and other Nations, in subversion of the Rights of the people, and, if ratified, to the eternal disgrace and reproach of our Government.

“That the said treaty is calculated to contravene the acts of banishment and attainder passed during the late American War, and to authorize the return of all persons included in them, without any condition, altho’ that power is exclusively vested in the Legislatures of the respective States.

“That, by the Treaty of Peace, the right of property of the northwestern territory, within the boundaries designated therein, was vested in the United States, and, had that treaty been complied with, would long ago have been disposed of for their use: That the Treaty lately made, whilst [it] necessarily implies an aggression, or at lease a failure on the part of Great Britain, provides, not only an indemnity, but also, at our, expence, a compensation to her subjects, and clogs the surrender of an acknowled[g]ed right, withheld for eleven years, with provisions tending to lessen the value of such surrender. This article and the next prove that Great Britain has so contrived the present treaty as to part with nothing on this head, even after 1st June 1796, but the mere possession and the expence of the posts in question. By the stipulations in favor of her settlers, whether they remain British subjects, or disguise themselves as American citizens, it is evident the profits of their trade will center in Great Britain, and their connexions and influence continue as extensive as ever with the India[n] tribes; two objects appearing to your Committee of more importance than the mere occupation of the Ground; besides, as, from the nature of this trade, and the manner of carrying it on, there will be abundant opportunity, so there can be little doubt that (in a people so recently leagued in war with the savages against us) there will be sufficient inclination to defraud the American revenue.

“That it gives to the subjects of a foreign nation the uncontrolable power and right of passing through the territory of the United States; a priviledge which is Contrary to the policy of all nations: That the navigation of the river Missisippi, although a right of the United States which cannot be questioned, may not be brought into operation without great difficulty and expence; and that therefore a participation of it ought not to have been stipulated for, without some reciprocal obligation, by which the beneficial effect of this right would have been promoted: That, by our exclusion from the ports within the limits of the Hudson’s bay company, the advantages of the Indian trade will be confined to British subjects; That it provides for the establishment of a tribunal unknown to and in violation of the Constitution, which will have the power of reviewing the decisions of our Courts, constitutionally made, and of impeaching the Justice and legality of those decisions: the fifth Commissioner is to be elected by lot, and upon this principle we conceive it is to be determined by chance merely, whether the United States are to be encumbered with the payment of large sums of money to British merchants, and to an unlimited amount. Your Committee view this article as the more unwarrantable and unnecessary, because they are confident that in this State no legal impediments have been created against the recovery of debts due to British creditors since the treaty of 1783, but that, on the contrary, the Courts of the United States have for several years past been in constant and active operation, for the purpose of enforcing the recovery of these demands, without any equitable allowances for the hardships and distresses of the war, or even for losses wantonly occasioned by the Government and Subjects of that nation. That, on the other hand, legal impediments have been created against the recovery of debts by American citizens in Great Britain, of which the celebrated case Nutt. versus Wright is one among many instances which might be cited.

“It ⟨is⟩ entirely silent ⟨on⟩ that important subject, the restoration of Negroes, and other property carried from this continent by the British troops, in direct violation of the Treaty of 1783, to the ⟨dis⟩appoint⟨ment⟩, ⟨and⟩, in many instances⟨,⟩ ruin of the unfortunate citizens of the United States who have suffered by this unwarrantable measure; whereas the British Government and Courts of Law, where attempts have been made to recover by that means, have repeatedly held out assurances of Compensation.

“We consider that part of the treaty which makes provision for compensating the losses sustained by citizens of the respective parties, by means of illegal spoliations, as manifestly and grossly unequal and partial, and that, so far as it respects American citizens, it is altogether ineffectual; on their parts no application can be made to the Commissioners until it shall have been ascertained, by going through a tedious course of Judicial proceeding, whether any remedy can be obtained in that way; then the applications and proofs must be produced in Great Britain; whereas British subjects may apply immediately at home, and receive compensation, although the Courts of Admiralty of the United States have been and are constantly open to compel restitution where it has appeared that captures of British property have been illegally made.

“It provides for the subjects of his Britannic Majesty of every discription, without regard to banished persons, to hold lands in the territories of the United States, in like manner as if they were natives; and at the same time holds out that American citizens may do the same in her dominions, when it is well known that, by the English laws, aliens are incapacitated from holding real estate, and the comparative quantity of lands held by the Citizens of the one power and the subjects of the other bears no manner of proportion.

“The priviledge offered by this treaty of trading to the West Indies is so limited as to the burthen of vessels that it can afford little or no benefit; it leaves all the advantages subject to the control of existing and future legislative restriction and prohibitions: Even this paltry privilege is rendered of very small use to American merchants, by their being positively restricted from exporting the produce of the West Indies to any part of the World in their own vessels; and, in exchange for this pretended advantage, the treaty has relinquished the right of exporting cotton, the growth of our own Soil, and one of the most important staples of the Southern States, in American vessels to foreign ports.

“Your Committee deem it Necessary to observe fully on the article relating to the West India trade, although its operation is suspended by the Senate, and they cannot forbear to remark, that this article, so far as it respects the privilege of trading with small vessels, is the only one in that treaty which contains the smallest appearance of benefit to the United States.

“It therefore appears to your Committee extraordinary that the Representatives of the People in Senate, instead of rejecting this unequal and unrighteous contract altogether, have ratified every part except the 12th Article, in consequence of which every other article may be enforced, and this may be nullified, whereby the object of the West India trade will be put entirely out of view.

“It appears to your Committee that the clause which restrains the Congress of the United States from increasing the tonnage of British vessels is calculated to suppress the American revenue, is an infringement of a constitutional right, and will induce the necessity of straining the obnoxious measure of direct Taxation to an impolitic degree.

“We find that the said treaty, instead of preventing any further spoliations on our property by the British, contains a provision calculated to promote repetitions of those Injuries.

“That it authorizes the capture and detention of our vessels even on suspicion, and carrying the same into British ports, whenever met by British vessels, without any stipulation that compensation shall be made for unnecessary or unfounded detentions: That it authorizes searches of American vessels in every instance: That these stipulations are contrary to the general law of nations, interfere with the engagements between the United States and France, and expose American seamen to arrest and detention by British vessels.

“It enumerates and acknowledges as contraband of war various articles which by all our treaties with other nations are acknowledged not to be so, and invests Great Britain with the power of declaring what articles shall be considered, in future, as contraband. It enables that nation to defeat all the advantages which otherwise might accrue to the United States from a State of neutrality during the existence of European war, and also is calculated to deprive a Sister Republic of all the advantages to which she is entitled by existing treaties with us.

“It violates a natural right inherent in every free man, by preventing the citizens of the United States from expatriating themselves when they deem it necessary, and engaging in foreign Service.

“It contains stipulations relative to the right of bringing armed vessels and prizes into our seaports which are incompatible with our engagements to France, made at a time when [we] were under the most solemn and strict obligations to that Nation, which, instead of being impaired by acts of ingratitude and perfidy, we are anxious to have continued and confirmed by good faith and friendly offices.

“There is no object contained in this treaty that we conceive will warrant the secret manner in which the whole progress of it has been conducted, and lament that it did not receive a more open and public discussion, in which case it is presumable that the present embarrassment and agitation of the public mind might have been averted.

“Your Committee, deeply impressed with the weight of these objections, and with a sence of the many injuries which would result to the United States from a final ratification of the said treaty, considering that it is a prostitution of the sovereignty of the United States, and a wanton sacrifice of the rights of this free nation, DO recommend that an address be prepared, and transmitted to the President of the United States, accompanied with the objections above stated, by which it may be requested that he will not ratify the said treaty.”

The citizens ordered that two copies of the report, address, and proceedings be transmitted to GW “with all possible expedition” (D, docketed “Answer within”, DLC:GW; D, docketed “Savannah meeting”, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).

2. GW sent an answer to Jones dated 31 Aug.: “My determination on this important subject and the general principles upon which it has been formed have Been already promulgated to the public: next to the consciousness of having discharged my duty according to my best judgement, nothing could have afforded me a greater pleasure than to have found my decision consistent with the wishes of all my fellow Citizens.

“On this occasion I have however been directed by the great principle which has governed all my public conduct; a sincere desire to promote & secure the true Interests of my Country” (DfS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).