JAY SENT TO ENGLAND. where it would be dishonorable to negotiate for a settlement, and he resolved to act accordingly. On April 16 he nominated Chief Justice Jay as envoy-extraordinary of the United States to the British Court.* In nominating Jay, he said: "The communications which I have made to you during your present session from the dispatches of our minister at London contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain. But as peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the advanced prosperity of the United States, is contemplated, I have thought proper to nominate, "My confidence in our minister-plenipotentiary in London continues undiminished. But a mission like this, while it corresponds with the solemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for a friendly adjustment of our complaints, and a reluctance to hostility. Going immediately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness and to cultivate peace with sincerity." + Washington stated his views more particularly to the Secretary of State * Speaking of the objections of the Republicans to the appointment of John Jay, Tucker says it was 'urged by them that those invested with judicial authority should not mingle in other concerns, and still less, with those of party politics, lest they should carry their political feelings on the bench; and that, if the judges could be rewarded with offices of greater distinction and emolument, it would favor that spirit of dependence, against which the Constitution meant to guard, in providing that their offices should not be taken away, nor their salaries diminished; and that the only effectual way of securing their independence, was to make them as inaccessible to the hope of reward, as to the fear of punishment."― Life of Jefferson, vol. i., p. 481. Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 153–154. See also Foster, Century of American Diplomacy, pp. 159-160. 66 185 the day preceding Jay's nomination.* He said, among other things: My objects are to prevent a war, if justice can be obtained by fair and strong representations of the injuries which this country has sustained from Great Britain in various ways, to put it in a complete state of military defense, and to provide eventually for the execution of such measures as seem to be now pending in Congress, if negotiation in a reasonable time prove unsuccessful." He said further: "If he succeeds, well; if he does not, why, knowing the worst, we must take measures accordingly." Though Jay's nomination was opposed by Burr, Monroe and others, it was approved by the Senate April 19, by a vote of 18 to 8.|| In spite of the fact that Jay was about to start out possibly to settle the dispute and to effect a commercial treaty, the opponents of the administration in Congress forced action, and finally on April 21, succeeded in passing a bill which cut off all commercial intercourse with Great Brit * Mr. Randolph had been appointed Secretary of State early in January of 1794 and was succeeded in the office of Attorney-General by William Bradford, January 27, 1794. (Conway, Edmund Randolph, p. 213.) Sparks, Life of Washington, p. 458. See also Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 174-175; Conway, Edmund Randolph, pp. 214-220. Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xii., p. 436. See Pellew, John Jay, pp. 294-300; Secret Journals of Congress, Foreign Affairs, vol. iv., pp. 277-280; Trescot, Diplomatic History, pp. 102-105. Jay's instructions and the diplomatic correspondence will be found in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 472-520. 186 NON-INTERCOURSE DEFEATED; DEFENSIVE MEASURES. ain. The vote on this bill was 58 to * Hunt, Life of Madison, p. 227; Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. ii., p. 11; Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 286; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 498. John Adams, Works, vol. i, p. 457; Annals of Congress, 3d Congress, 1st session, pp. 561-603. The action of Adams called forth a letter from Jefferson which clearly shows the drift of Congress now proceeded to place the country in a state of defence. They voted $160,000 for fortifications to be constructed at Portland, Portsmouth, Gloucester, Salem, Boston, Newport, New London, New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Alexandria, Norfolk, Ocracoke Inlet, Cape Fear River, Georgetown, Charleston, St. Mary's and Savannah.* The several States were required to maintain 80,000 militia, to be ready at a moment's notice; the exportation of arms was prohibited for a year; the duty on brass cannon, muskets, swords, cutlasses, musket balls, lead and gunpowder was taken off so as to encourage the importation of these articles; and a corps of artillerists and engineers was established. The President was authorized also to lay an embargo during the recess of Congress, whenever he should think public safety required it. It was during this session that the foundations of the navy were laid, the agitation being started by the debate as to whether it would be easier to build a fleet to send to the Mediterranean or to appro Republican sentiment. Speaking of the Senate, priate the money to purchase he thus writes to Madison: "This body was # peace, which finally (January 2) terminated in the decision to do both. The Committee of Ways and Means, to whom the matter was referred, suggested the building of four frigates, but the bill passed provided for six. The Republicans strenuously opposed * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 171-173. REVENUE MEASURES. the creation of a navy, for reasons clearly stated by William B. Giles, of Virginia. He said that this policy involved a complete suspension of the policy of discharging the principal of the public debt; that to increase the navy while decreasing the national debt was beyond the power of any nation; that of all the means of defence this was the most expensive (and the tyranny of governments consists in the expensiveness of their machinery); that the system of governments by indebtedness was the most refined system of tyranny; and that there was no device which so much facilitated the system of expense and debt as a navy. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of members gave the bill their support to pass it, and it quickly received the assent of the President. Something had to be done to provide funds to meet the expenses made mandatory under these recent enactments, and on March 26, 1794, a resolution was passed appointing a committee of of fourteen "to inquire whether any or what further or other revenues are necessary for the support of public credit; and if further revenues are necessary to report the ways and means." William Smith, of " William Smith, of South Carolina, was chairman of the committee and in his report of April 17, 1794, stated that the ordinary deficit for the year would be $425,633; that $650,000 additional ought to be appropriated for the military service; and that the interruption to com 187 merce would result in a loss of $1,300,000 in duties under existing rates.* The committee proposed to supply the deficiency by an excise on carriages, auction sales, manufactured snuff, and sugar, by requiring licenses for selling wines and spirituous liquors at retail, by establishing stamp duties, by laying a direct tax on land, and by increasing the import duties on such articles as salt, coal, boots and shoes, coffee, cheese, refined sugar, etc. When the measure was brought into Committee of the Whole, the direct tax was overwhelmingly defeated (50 to 32). The other excise measures as well as the bill increasing customs duties were passed. The impost bill was reported May 13, considered in Committee of the Whole on the 16th, and reported back to the House. The chief debates were on the salt and coal duties. The Pennsylvania and Western members defeated an additional tax of three cents on salt and succeeded in raising the duty on coal. The original bill was passed May 17, and with the Senate's amendments June 3; after an agreement had been reached respecting the amendments, it was signed by the President June 7, 1794. The new duties were violently opposed, and that on carriages declared unconstitutional. In Virginia the collection of * American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 276-278. Dewey, Financial History, pp. 106-109. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp. 108-110; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. ii., pp. 53-54. 188 RESTRICTIVE MEASURES; INDIAN TREATIES. the tax was disputed until the Supreme Court should decide as to its constitutionality.* During the same session Congress adopted measures to prevent the infraction of the laws and sovereignty of the country by foreigners, and also to guard against infraction of neutrality by acts of American citizens. The enlistment of men within the territory of the United States in the service of any foreign prince or State was prohibited under a penalty of $1,000 fine and imprisonment for three years (a measure clearly aimed to prevent a recurrence of such highhanded acts as those of as those of Citizen Genêt). The arming of vessels in American ports to be employed in the service of any foreign prince or State, or for the purpose of committing hostilities on the subjects or citizens of any nation in amity with the United States, and the issuing of a commission to any vessel for such employment were prohibited; nor could the armament of any foreign vessel be increased in American ports. Those who organized any military expedition or enterprise to be sent from the United States against the dominions of any foreign power at peace with the United States were to be severely punished, and the President was authorized to use the land and naval forces to compel obedience. While these dilatory negotiations * McMaster, vol. ii., p. 138. See also Madison's letters regarding this, in Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. ii., pp. 14, 16. were in progress in the East, affairs in the West were assuming an ominous aspect. England still held sway in the region to the west of Ohio, where lived the Miamis, the Delawares, the Shawnees, the Ottawas and the Wyandots. Congress had treated these tribes as sovereign nations, five treaties having been made with them between 1783 and 1790. The first was with the Iroquois on October 22, 1784, at Fort Stanwix, by the terms of which the Iroquois surrendered all claims to the lands now comprising the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.* Of the other treaties one was concluded at Fort McIntosh, on January 27, 1785, with the Chippewas, Delawares, Ottawas and Wyandots, by which these tribes surrendered all their lands, save in the region bordering on Lake Erie and lying between what is now Cleveland and the Maumee River;t another at Fort Finney on January 31, 1786, with the Shawnees, who acknowledged the right of the United States to lands acquired from Great Britain by treaty; and two at Fort Harmar, * Dunn, Indiana, p. 198; Cooley, Michigan, pp. 108-109; American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., pp. 10-11; Journals of Congress, vol. iv., p. 531; F. G. Hough, Proceedings of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs in New York, vol. i., p. 64; Stone, Life of Brant, and Life of Red Jacket; Hubbard, Life of Red Jacket, p. 58. † Albach, Annals of the West, p. 433; Slocum, The Ohio Country, p. 35; Hulbert, The Ohio River, p. 165. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., pp. 11-12; Henry Harvey, History of the Shawnee Indians, 1681-1854, chap. xv.; Albach, Annals of the West, p. 443. |