176

which, in the course of a year, had embraced most of the European nations. He considered it his duty to admonish his fellow citizens of the consequences of a contraband trade, and said that, to preserve the country in peace with all nations, he had adopted some general rules, which, while conforming to existing treaties, asserted the rights of the United States. He recommended that, while the United States fulfilled their duties toward other nations, they should not neglect to place the country in an efficient state of defence, and that they should exact from others the fulfilment of duties toward themselves. He said:

"The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion, that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

On December 5 the President sent a message to Congress respecting the relations with Great Britain and France.* He first referred to the orders and decrees issued by the belligerent powers and the effect of these upon American commerce. He then spoke of the conduct of the French minister, as follows:

"It is with extreme concern I have to inform you that the proceedings of the person whom they

have unfortunately appointed their minister plenipotentiary here have breathed nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent him. Their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve us in a war abroad and discord and anarchy at home. So far as his acts or those of his agents have threatened our immediate commitment in the war, or flagrant insult to the authority of the laws, their effect has been counteracted by the ordinary cognizance of the laws and by an exertion of the powers confided to me. Where their danger was not imminent they have been borne with from sentiments of regard to his nation, from a sense of their friendship toward us, from a conviction that they would not suffer us to remain long exposed to the action of a person who has so little respected our mutual dispositions; and, I will add, from a reliance on the firmness of my fellow-citizens in their principles of peace and order." *

Accompanying the message were copies of the correspondence between Jefferson and Genêt, and of the letter written by the Secretary of State to Morris, which, Marshall says, justified the conduct of the United States by arguments too clear to be misunderstood and too strong ever to be encountered."

This speech was referred to a committee of the House of which Madison was chairman, and on December 6, 1793, the answer of the House was It read in unanimously adopted.

part:

"The United States having taken no part in the war, which has embraced in Europe the powers with whom they have the most extensive relations, the maintenance of peace was justly to be regarded as one of the most important duties of the magistrate charged with the faithful execution of the laws. We accordingly witness with approbation and pleasure the vigilance with which you have guarded against an interruption of that blessing by your proclamation admonishing our citizens of the consequences of illicit and hostile

Irving. Life of Washington, vol. v., p. 202.

acts towards the belligerent parties, and promoting by the declaration of the existing legal state of things an easier admission of our right to the immunities belonging to our situation.""

The Senate declared the proclama

tion to be a "measure well-timed and wise, manifesting a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the nation, and calculated to promote it." t

Nearly three years before, the Secretary of the State had been instructed by the House to report on the nature and extent of the privileges granted to American commerce and the restrictions imposed upon it by foreign nations, being requested to suggest measures which would improve the commerce and navigation of the United States. For various reasons, the rendering of this report had been delayed, and not until Jefferson was about to leave the Cabinet was it presented to Congress. In fact, it was his last official act, for he resigned his office December 31, 1793.‡

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 144..

Ibid, vol. i., p. 143.

See his letters and Washington's reply in Irving, Life of Washington, vol. v., p. 206; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vi., pp. 360, 366– 367, 496. Marshall (vol. ii., p. 298) points out very clearly the opportune period of Jefferson's retirement, when the Federalists could not but praise the ability which which he had conducted the correspondence with Genêt, and the Republicans were proud of his evident partiality for France and dislike of Great Britain. It would hardly have been possible for Jefferson to have continued much longer in the Cabinet without departing, to some extent, from the principles and views on public affairs which he held and defended on every occasion. Mr. Tucker (vol. i., p. 469) in this connection says: "It is certain,

177

According to this report, the exports of produce and manufactures from the United States were valued at $19,587,055; and the imports, at $19,823,060. Of the exports, $9,363,416 went to Great Britain and her colonies; $4,698,735 went to France and her dominions; and about $2,000,000 each went to Spain and the Netherlands and their possessions. Of the imports, $15,285,428 came from Great Britain; $2,068,348 from France, and $1,172,692 from the Netherlands. The American shipping amounted to 277,519 tons, of which 43,580 tons were employed in the trade with Great Britain and her dominions, while 116,410 tons were employed in the French trade, and 58,858 in trade with the Netherlands. Jefferson submitted a detailed account of the privileges granted to and the restrictions imposed upon American commerce, and then suggested measures by which these restrictions might be modified and counteracted. He said that the "following principles, being founded on reciprocity, appear perfectly just, and to offer no cause of complaint to any nation:"

"1. Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs; first burdening or excluding those productions which

that Monticello was, in this, and the two succeeding years, the headquarters of those opposed to the federal policy, and that few measures of the republican party in Congress, were undertaken without his (Jefferson's) advice or concurrence. He even had an agency in directing the attacks of the opposition journals," etc.

178

they bring here, in competition with our own of the same kind; selecting next, such manufactures as we take from them in greatest quantity, and which, at the same time we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from other countries; imposing on them duties lighter at first, but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open. Such duties having the effect of indirect encouragement to domestic manufactures of the same kind, may induce the manufacturer to come himself into these States, where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent of his wares, free of duty, may insure him the highest profits from his skill and industry.

*

And here

it may be in the power of the State governments to co-operate essentially, by opening the resources of encouragement which are under their control. The oppressions on our agriculture, in foreign ports, would thus be made the occasion of relieving it from a dependence on the councils and conduct of others, and of promoting arts, manufactures and population at home.

"2. Where a nation refuses permission to our merchants and factors to reside within certain parts of their dominions, we may, if it should be thought expedient, refuse residence to theirs in any and every part of ours, or modify their transactions.

"3. Where a nation refuses to receive in our vessels any productions but our own, we may refuse to receive, in theirs, any but their own productions.

"4. Where a nation refuses to consider any vessel as ours which has not been built within our territories, we should refuse to consider as theirs, any vessel not built within their territories.

"5. Where a nation refuses to our vessels the carriage even of our own productions, to certain countries under their domination, we might refuse to theirs of every description, the carriage of the same productions to the same countries. But as justice and good neighborhood would dictate that those who have no part in imposing the restriction on us, should not be the victims of measures adopted to defeat its effects, it may be proper to confine the restrictions to vessels owned or navigated by any subjects of the same dominant power, other than the inhabitants of the country to which the said productions are to be carried. And to prevent all inconvenience to the said inhabitants, and to our own, by too sudden a check on the means of transportation, we may continue to admit the vessels marked for future exclusion, on an advanced tonnage, and for such

length of time only, as may be supposed necessary to provide against that inconvenience." *

Though ostensibly this report dealt with commercial matters only, Jefferson was far from thinking that his panacea for commercial ills was good for nothing else. Numberless times, both before and after the submission of this report, he had stated that the power to regulate commerce gave Congress the means of righting its wrongs without war. Writing to Madison in March of 1793, he said:

"The idea seems to gain credit that the naval powers combining against France will prohibit supplies, even of provisions, to that country. Should this be formally notified, I suppose that Congress would be called, because it is a justifiable cause of war; and as the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, from preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question. But I should hope that war would not be their choice. I think it will furnish us a happy opportunity of setting another precious example to the world, by showing that nations may be brought to do justice by appeals to their interests as well as by appeals to arms. I should hope that Congress, instead of a declaration of war, would instantly exclude from our ports all the manufactures, produce, vessels, and subjects of the nations committing this aggression, during the continuance of this aggression, and till full satisfaction is made for it."

On January 3, 1794, after the House had gone into Committee of the Whole, Madison offered a series of resolutions for the consideration

This report will be found in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vi., pp. 470-484, and the supplementary report, pp. 491-494; and in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 300-304. For a criticism, see Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., p. 119.

of the members.* In substance, these resolutions declared that the interests of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign powers. The additional duties were to be imposed upon certain articles manufactured by those European nations which had no commercial treaties with the United States, the articles selected being leather, wool, iron, steel, copper, brass, pewter, cotton, silk, hemp, and flax and their manufactures. Reciprocity was required in navigation, save in the case of the West Indies, and on foreign vessels engaged in this trade higher tonnage duties and additional duties on their cargoes were to be imposed. The last resolution declared that the losses sustained by American citizens by the operation of decrees or regulations of foreign countries contravening the laws of nations, ought to be ascertained and reimbursed out of the additional duties on the manufactures and vessels of those nations which had established such regulations. Benton says:

*

"The debate on this subject was one of the most elaborate and most replete with knowledge of commercial principles and statistics, which our Congress has furnished. In this great debate, as in that upon the bank of the United States, the genius of Hamilton and Jefferson were pitted against each other, each having made opposite reports on each question, which were the magazines from which the opposing speakers in Congress chiefly armed themselves,- Mr. Madison * See Rives, Life of Madison, vol. iii., p. 383 et seq.

McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 179–180.

179

being the chief exponent of the Jeffersonian side, and Mr. William Smith of South Carolina* that of General Hamilton."†

On February 3 the first resolution, providing for discriminating duties in favor of such nations as had treaties of commerce with the United States, was passed by a majority of 5-51 to 46.‡ In the debate on this resolution, the New England members were allied in opposition, while the Southern States were united in its favor. This is remarkable, since the New England States were supposed to have suffered most by the restrictions imposed on their commerce, whereas the Southern States, being largely non-commercial, had suffered but little. The chief argument against the resolution was made by Smith, of South Carolina, who said that, if this method of retaliation were carried out, we should become involved in war with England. In advocating his views, Madison said that the object was the same as that of the British Navigation Act, which had given England command of the sea, and he disputed the soundness of the facts adduced by those who questioned the wisdom of the resolution. He contended that America would

*The substance of this speech being furnished by Hamilton. See Lodge's ed. of Hamilton's Works, vol. iii., p. 423; Annals of Congress, 3d Congress, 1st session, pp. 174-209; Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 280.

† Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 458. For a full and careful abstract of the arguments on these resolutions of Mr. Madison, see Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 299-314; also McMaster, vol. ii., p. 180 et seq.

Gordy, Political History, vol. i., p. 230.