Commissioners seceded for the last time in the month of July, 1799, just at the time that their government had received fresh assurances of the friendly disposition of France!-We now call the attention of our readers to the termination of this scandalous transaction.

"There were other opinions which a majority of the Board had often occasion to declare; such as did not specially rise out of any particular case, but were essential to the execution of the article, and may therefore be here in like manner concisely stated.

66

They held, that those acts of secession, which had been practised in particular cases, could not affect the validity or operation of the opinions which they were meant to defeat: for the very act of secession implied, what had indeed been formerly minuted, that those opinions were the opinions of the majority, which had been declared in a Board, completely constituted: and all that the subsequent secession of some of the members could effect, was but to prevent, what the treaty did not require, namely, the declaration of opinions, by the formality of a vote: that formality being the accustomed, but not the exclusive, mode of ascertaining the fact; which, if prevented by an evasive proceeding, might be supplied by the admission, or other evidence, that such had been the fact. They therefore held, that the opinions which had been declared, by a majority of the Board, were as much the opinions of the Board, under the express provisions of the article, as if the form of a vote had not been so prevented.

They considered it as clear, that there was no room for explanation, when a majority of the Board had no doubt that every such explanation would be an alteration of the treaty, which they had sworn to execute as it stood; that therefore, as

soon

soon as the Commissioners had formed an opinion, they had no choice of proceeding, no power of compromise, no capacity to receive, or to act upon instructions, in opposition to what they themselves conceived to be the plain meaning of the instrument

before them.

--

"The general views, with which the two nations had settled the article, seemed to them to be very apparent. With a view to particular cases, the object was the dispensation of justice, according to the special merits of every distinct case, either by an award of compensation, where the complaint of injury, from past delay, was well founded; or, by a conclusive rejection of the demand putting it to silence for ever, if it appeared to be groundlessand, in either case, dispatch was essential; a dilatory cure for past delay, being a mocker in terms, as well as in effect; and a speedy rejection of ill founded complaints, amounting to no more than strict justice to the rights and character of the party charged. In a larger view, the object was, a termination by means, which neither of the two nations could control, of a complicated dispute between them, such as they could not themselves decide: a radical remedy for an old sore, which had long rankled in the hearts, and interrupted the confidential intercourse of many of the most valuable subjects of both.-In construing the article, a majority of the Board was, therefore, well convinced, that every opinion which tended to uncertainty, indecision, and delay, was most essentially erroneous; and every proceeding, which went to convert a solemn national arbitration, for the known and declared purpose of final settlement, into the worst species of protracted negotiation, was totally inadmissible under the treaty.

"A bare perusal of the article, every line of which anticipated the occurrence of difference of opinión; (unavoidable, as from the variety of involved matter to be settled, it certainly was) ;which provided for it, not only in express terms, by declaring that the opinion of the majority should, in all cases, both as to the justice of the complaint, and the amount of the sum to be paid, be final and conclusive; but also by the structure and conformation of the Board, which was made to consist of an unequal number ofmembers (either five or three), for the very purpose of giving certainty of decision, in all cases whatsoever; in cases of division, as well as unanimity was sufficient to prevent, as they conceived, the possibility of any serious apprehensions, that mere difference of opinion on any subject, whether it respected the justice of the claim within the meaning of the treaty, or the amount of the damages incurred, could be made a pretext for disappointing the whole spirit, as well as the letter of the article.

"They believed, that as neither of the two nations could be supposed capable of appointing men to the confidential situation of national arbitrators, to decide upon a subject so extensive and involved, and with powers so absolute, as to offer ample means of secret perversion and abuse; such as might be practised with so much plausibility of appearance, and good agreement among themselves, as to prevent detection, or even general censure; nay, perhaps, to attract applause as neither of the two nations were capable of appointing men to such a situation of important trust, without the recommendation of unblemished reputation, and competent ability, there was, in the characters of such men, and the assurance of an oath, the only guarantee for just and impartial determination,

which the imperfect state of human affairs can afford.

Finally, for themselves, they did certainly, without the consciousness of much arrogance, conceive, that opinions, which the parties had invited, and called upon them solemnly to declare upon oath, according to the best of their judgment, were, when so declared, to be received by those parties with respect, while they determined, by their conduct, and a fair disclosure of their principles, to disprove the surmise (which, if just, would have suggested a simple mode, for a dissatisfied party, to suspend, or invalidate, the decisions of every set of arbitrators, who could be chosen,) that because they had been unjustly reproached, and were therefore displeased, they could no longer be considered as capable of impartial deliberation.

3

"The last proceeding of the Board was the motion, which has been reported, in the case of Robert Williams, on the 17th of July.

"The Commissioners of his Britannic Majesty and the fifth Commissioner, attended, as usual, on the next day of sitting, when the Secretary delivered to them a letter from the two American Commissioners, dated the 19th of July, and addressed to the three other members of the Board, in which the American Commissioners declared a determination, "under the existing circumstances,

not to give their further attendance" in the Board, and promised to explain their motives in a future communication.

"And by another letter, dated the 22d of July, they assured the three other Commissioners, that they would," without any avoidable delay," communicate the explanation they had promised.

"About six weeks after, viz. on the 3d of September, the three other Commissioners did accordingly

G 4

cordingly receive a communication from the two American Commissioners, in a letter of fifty-five pages, dated on the preceding day, every line of which proved the great difficulty of the subject, even in the hands of men of ability. It referred to, and professed correctly to state, all the differences of opinion, which from first to last had occurred in the Board; ascribing the hardy measure they adopted, not to one, or a few of those differences, but equally to all. It was an argument of many words, which terminated at every period in this simple and conclusive point, that, under the sixth article of the treaty, no opinion in favour of a British subject was good, without the concurrence of the American Commissioners;-or, that by an unfortunate fatality (for no corrupt intention was ascribed to them) all the opinions which had been declared by the three other Commissioners, or any of them, in favour of claimants, were radically erroneous and bad; while those which they had declared in favour of the United States, were perfectly well founded.

"The three members of the Commission, who were thus, at once, deprived of all power of performing their functions, on grounds as now declared, and in a manner which admitted of litte prospect of satisfactory adjustment, did not (as may perhaps have been expected) take their leave, They had no concern with national considerations: but many individuals were, in consequence of the rules and orders of the Board, either in attendance, or ready to appear, from very distant parts; and as the business was now, notwithsanding the various interruptions which had occurred, so far, in essential matters, advanced, it was desirable to preserve, at least, the possibility of meeting such a change of measures, as might enable them to bring it to a conclusion,