This unequal footing of our foreign commerce, and the language made use of by England at this juncture, served still more to increase the public discontent; especially as it was plainly avowed that England ought to render the trade with us as exclusively advantagethe old confederation would enable her to do. Congress having no authority, under the confederation, to impose countervailing and other corrective regulations of trade, the States separately attempted to establish regulations upon this subject. But, as a part only of the States joined in this measure, and as the laws passed for this purpose differed from each other, the experiment completely failed.

intercourse on the solid basis of reciprocal bene- | many sailors and as much shipping as posfit, to unite in a firm bond of friendship, a peo- sible.* ple politically separate, living under different governments, but having a common origin, a common language, a common law, and kindred blood; circumstances so peculiar as not to be found between any other nations. Instead of this policy, one of a different sort is preferred; one, however, that England has a right to pre-ous to herself, as her power and the defects of fer; and, against the many evils of which, we must protect ourselves as well as we are able to do. The intricate, countervailing, and perplexing code of commercial intercourse, founded in jealousy, and the rival establishments and pursuits of the powers of Europe bordering upon, and constantly interfering with, each other, has been adopted and applied to the United States a people agricultural more than manufacturing or commercial; placed in another quarter of the globe; cultivating, and proposing to others an open system of trade and intercourse; and herein, as in many other important discriminations, differing from the nations of Europe, and therefore not fit subjects for these restrictive and jealous regulations. Our policy is, and ever has been, a different We desire peace with all nations; and the wars of maritime Europe have taught us, that a free system of trade and intercourse would be the best means of preserving it.

one.

With these principles as our guide, at the negotiation of the treaty of peace, in 1783, our ministers were authorized to conclude a treaty of commerce with England on this basis; but no treaty was concluded. Afterwards, and when a temporary trade and intercourse were opened by England, looking, as we supposed, to a treaty of commerce, Congress instructed Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, to renew the overture of a treaty of commerce, which was done by them through the English ambassador at Paris, in the year 1784; but no correspondent disposition being shown by England, this second overture failed.

The interest and prejudice of those who were benefited by the monopolies, and the exclusive system of England, were opposed to any treaty with this country, on the principle of reciprocal advantage. The political writers of that day, under the influence of these partial views, or not sufficiently appreciating the true theory of commerce, contended that it would be folly to enter into engagements by which England might not wish to be bound in future; that such engagements would be gratuitous, as, according to their interpretation, Congress possessed no power, under the confederation, to enforce any stipulation into which they might enter; that no treaty that could be made would suit all the States; that if any were necessary, they should be made with the States separately; but that none was necessary; and those who talked of liberality and reciprocity in commercial affairs, were either without argument or knowledge; that the object of England was, not reciprocity and liberality, but to raise as

In this condition of our navigation and trade, subject to foreign restrictions and exclusion, without a power at home to countervail and check the same, Congress resolved to make another effort to conclude a commercial treaty with England. For this purpose Mr. Adams, since President of the United States, was appointed, and went to England in 1785, where he resided for several years; but found and left the government unchanged, and equally as before disinclined to make with us a treaty of commerce, although, during his residence, England concluded her famous commercial treaty with France.

This further disappointment, with the depreciating condition of our navigation and trade, joined to the embarrassment of the public finances, produced what no inferior pressure could have done; it produced the general convention of 1787, that formed the constitution of the United States. Had England entered into a liberal treaty of commerce with the United States, this convention would not, perhaps, have been assembled. Without so intending it, the adherence of England to her unequal and exclusive system of trade and navigation, gave to this country a constitution; and the countervailing and equalizing bill now before the Senate, arising from the same cause, may assist us in establishing and extending those great branches of national wealth and power, which we have such constant and urgent motives to encourage.

The establishment of the constitution of the United States was coeval with the commencement of the French revolution. The sessions of the General Convention at Philadelphia, and the sessions of the Assembly of Notables at Paris, were held in the same year.

Laws were passed by the first Congress assembled under the new constitution, partially to correct the inequality of our navigation and trade with foreign nations; and a small discrimination in duties of impost and of tonnage was made for this purpose. Afterwards, in the year 1794, a number of resolutions on the sub

Sheffield, Charmers, and Knox.

ject of navigation and trade, were moved in the | safety and even liberties of the country were House of Representatives, by a distinguished concerned in the adoption of this course, the member of that body. These resolutions had treaty proved a welcome auxiliary. a special reference to the refusal of England to It suspended the further agitation of difficult enter into an equal commercial treaty with us, and angry topics of controversy with England; and aimed at countervailing her exclusive sys- it enabled the government to persist in, and to tem. Other and more direct resolutions, bear- maintain, the system of neutrality which had ing on England, were also proposed by other been recommended by the father of his counmembers, and referred to the inexecution of try;-a policy, the correctness and benefits of the treaty of peace, and to the recent captures which, whatever may have been the disagreeof American vessels by English cruisers, in the ment of opinion among the public men of those American seas. The policy of these resolu- times, will now scarcely be doubted by any one. tions, in the actual circumstances of the times, During the continuance of this treaty, furwas denied; were therefore strenuously op- ther, though ineffectual, attempts were made to posed, and the mission of Mr. Jay, as envoy ex-establish a satisfactory intercourse with the traordinary to England, suspended their further English colonies in the West Indies, and, likediscussion. The French revolution had by this wise, to place the subject of impressment on a time become the object of universal attention. mutually safe and equitable footing. The comWar had broken out between France and Eng-mercial articles of this treaty expired in 1803, land: The avowed policy of our own government to avoid war, and to adhere to a strict system of neutrality, was much questioned; and for a time it was matter of great uncertainty whether the country would support the neutrality recommended by the President.

no proposals having been made to renew them. A subsequent negotiation took place in 1806, and a treaty was made, but not ratified by the United States. The peace of Amiens was of short duration. Another war took place between France and England; no maritime treaty The universal dissatisfaction on account of then existed between the United States and the the commercial system of England; the inexe- latter; and the manner in which she exercised cution on her part of the articles of peace; the her power on the ocean; the great interruption numerous captures, by orders of the English of the navigation and trade of neutral nations; government, of our vessels, employed in a trade the numerous captures of their ships and carstrictly neutral, combined with our friendly re- goes under the retaliatory, decrees and orders collections of the services of France, and our of these two powers, with other vexatious ocgood wishes in favor of the effort she professed currences, revived the former angry feelings to be making to establish a free constitution, con- towards England, and greatly contributed to stituted a crisis most difficult and important. It the late war with that nation. This war was was in these circumstances, that President Wash-closed by the treaty of Ghent, not long after ington nominated Mr. Jay as envoy to England. England seems never to have duly appreciated the true character and importance of this extraordinary measure. France well understood and resented it. Mr. Jay was received with civility, and concluded a treaty with England on the chief points of his instructions. When published, the treaty met with great opposition. The article respecting the West India trade, having been excluded by the Senate, on account of the inadmissible condition or proviso that was coupled with it;with this exception, it was finally ratified by the President.

Although the treaty did not come up to the expectation of all, yet, in addition to satisfactory arrangements concerning English debts, the unlawful capture and condemnation of our vessels, and the delivery of the posts, points of very great importance, it contained articles regulating the trade, navigation, and maritime rights of the two countries. No treaty which could at that time have been made with England, would, in the highly excited temper of the people, have satisfied the country. But, to those whose object it was to prevent the United States from taking part in the war between France and England, and to prevail upon them to adhere to a system of impartial neutrality; and who, moreover, believed, that the

the conclusion of the general peace in Europe, and was followed by a meagre commercial convention, made at London, and limited, in its duration, to a few years only. Neither the spirit of the negotiation, nor the scope of the articles of this convention, afford any evidence that England is inclined to treat with this country on the only principle on which a commercial treaty with her can be desirable. Her decision on this point can hardly be doubted; as our latest communications inforın us, that her ancient system will not be changed; and in case we are dissatisfied with its operation, that England has no objection to our taking any such measures concerning the same, as we may deem expedient-an intimation that seems to put an end to further overtures on our part.

Such is the explanation why the measure now proposed has been so long deferred. During the confederation, Congress were without power to adopt it.

The treaty concluded by Mr. Jay, in 1794, and the relaxation of the navigation and colonial laws, during the war between France and England, rendered the measure inexpedient during this period:

And the expectation entertained, that a more enlarged and equal treaty of commerce and navigation, applicable, in its provisions, to peace as well as war, would be substituted in place of

the present commercial convention, has hitherto |eries,* and their settlement can, in no manner, suspended the interference of Congress. This be affected by the passing of this act. expectation, we fear, must be given up. England has apprised us of her determination to adhere to her ancient and exclusive system of trade and navigation, and the only alternative before us is, to submit to her regulation of our own navigation, or to interpose the authority of the constitution to counteract the same. There can be no hesitation in our choice.

THE MISSOURI BILL.

The following is the substance of two speeches | Union." As this power is conferred without delivered by Mr. King, in the Senate of the United States, when the Missouri Bill was under its consideration.*

demonstrate their unwillingness to permit the extension of slavery into the new States which might be admitted by Congress into the Union.

The States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, on the northwest of the river Ohio, have been admitted by Congress into the Union, on the condition and conformably to the article of

and by which it is declared that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States.

territory, without entering into the reasons on which this demand was urged. It is well known that they had an influence on Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, which States ceded to the United States their respective claims to the territory lying northwest of the river Ohio. This cession was made on the express condition, that the ceded terri-compact, contained in the ordinance of 1787, tory should be sold for the common benefit of the United States; that it should be laid out into States, and that the States so laid out should form distinct republican States, and be admitted as members of the federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other States! Of the four States which made this cession, two permitted, and the other two prohibited slavery. The United States having in this manner become proprietors of the extensive territory northwest of the river Ohio, although the confederation contained no express provision upon the subject, Congress, the only representatives of the United States, assured as incident to their office, the power to dispose of this territory; and for this purpose, to divide the same into distinct States, to provide for the temporary government of the inhabitants thereof, and for their ultimate admission as new States into the Federal Union.

The ordinance for those purposes, which was passed by Congress in 1787, contains certain articles, which are called "Articles of compact between the original States and the people and States within the said territory, for ever to remain unalterable, unless by common consent." The sixth of those unalterable articles provides, "that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory."

The Constitution of the United States supplies the defect that existed in the articles of confederation, and has vested Congress, as has been stated, with ample powers on this important subject. Accordingly, the ordinance of 1787, passed by the old Congress, was ratified and confirmed by an act of the new Congress during their first session under the constitu

tion.

The State of Virginia, which ceded to the United States her claims to this territory, consented by her delegates in the old Congress to this ordinance-not only Virginia, but North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, by the unanimous votes of their delegates in the old Congress, approved of the ordinance of 1787, by which slavery is for ever abolished in the territory northwest of the river Ohio.

Without the votes of these States, the ordinance could not have passed; and there is no recollection of an opposition from any of these States to the act of confirmation, passed under the actual constitution. Slavery had long been established in these States-the evil was felt in their institutions, laws, and habits, and could not easily or at once be abolished. But these votes so honorable to these States, satisfactorily

Although Congress possess the power of making the exclusion of slavery a part or condition of the act admitting a new State into the Union, they may, in special cases, and for sufficient reasons, forbear to exercise this power. Thus Kentucky and Vermont were admitted as new States into the Union, without making the abolition of slavery the condition of their admission. In Vermont, slavery never existed; her laws excluding the same. Kentucky was formed out of, and settled by, Virginia, and the inhabitants of Kentucky equally with those of Virginia, by fair interpretation of the constitution, were exempt from all such interference of Congress, as might disturb or impair the security of their property in slaves. The western territory of North Carolina and Georgia, having been partially granted and settled under the authority of these States, before the cession thereof to the United States, and these States being original parties to the constitution which recognizes the existence of slavery, no measure restraining slavery could be applied by Congress to this territory. But to remove all doubt on this head, it was made a condition of the cession of this territory to the United States, that the ordinance of 1787, except the sixth article thereof, respecting slavery, should be applied to the same; and that the sixth article should not be so applied. Accordingly, the States of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, comprehending the territory ceded to the United States by North Carolina and Georgia, have been admitted as new States into the Union, without a provision, by which slavery shall be excluded from the same. According to this abstract of the proceedings of Congress in the admission of new States into the Union, of the eight new States within the original limits of the United States, four have been admitted without an article excluding slavery; three have been admitted on the condition that slavery should be excluded; and one admitted without such condition. In the few first cases, Congress were restrained from exercising the power to exclude slavery; in the next three, they exercised this power; and in the last, it was unnecessary to do so, slavery being excluded by the State Constitution.

The province of Louisiana, soon after its cession to the United States, was divided into two territories, comprehending such parts thereof as were contiguous to the river Mississippi, being the only parts of the province that were inhabited. The foreign language, laws, cus