A LETTER FROM AN AMERICAN, CONTAINING STRICTURES ON COMMERCE.

THE secession of so considerable a part of the British Empire, as now constitutes the United States, and the general acknowledgement of their independence by the powers of Europe, must point out a very important aera in the history of mankind.

The causes that led to this great revolution, and the operations that insured it success, will hereafter afford abundant matter for the pen of some able historian.

The immediate effects that it must have on the System of Euro­pean Politics, form a very serious subject of present enquiry and contemplation; especially, as nations begin to be convinced of the futility of becoming great by conquest, and more inclined to abandon the cruel system of war, in order effectually to enrich themselves by pursuing the peaceful line of commerce.

The United States, stretching through such a variety of climates, abounding in such various productions, and affording such a vast field for the consumption of European manufactures, must natural­ly have a very intimate and active commerce with the different States of Europe.

From adventitious circumstances, peculiarly favorable to Great Britain, no nation possesses opportunities of so effectually promo­ting this connection; and from her dependence on commerce, for the support of her power and importance, [...] nation is so pointedly interested in the improvement of these advantages.

She has already brought her affairs to the brink of [...], from continuing too long a slave to imposture and delusion. It is time to recover her from her lethargy; this perhaps may prove a diffi­cult [Page 4]task, as ignorant and interested writers are still endeavouring to impose their ill-digested and pernicious systems on the public mind, and to impress sentiments, which, if adopted into the poli­tics of this country, would be entirely subversive of a commercial connection betwixt Great Britain and the United States of America.

I shall submit my opinions on this [...] your consideration, and have little doubt of a coincidence of s [...]ment.

You must remember that after the conclusion of the war, a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, by Mr. Pitt, (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) in order to serve as a temporary regulation for the trade of the United States. In perfect confor­mity with the spirit of this Bill, it was expected a permanent con­nection betwixt the two Countries, would be formed by treaty; it had in view a system of liberal intercourse, and was received in America with universal approbation, as the harbinger of returning affections.

Under a firm persuasion that Great Britain would persevere in the line of conduct, that this Bill prescribed, the United States opened all their ports to British shipping, and received them, without any other restrictions than those, which vessels belonging to their own citizens, were exposed to.

A change of ministry soon after took place, and likewise a change of measures; the advocates for the American war compo­sed a part of it; the effects were soon visible: a Proclamation, virtually restraining all intercourse betwixt the United States and the West Indies, except in British shipping, made its appear­ance.

This measure was in every respect impolitic and unwise, as it was natural to imagine that it would make unfavourable impressi­ons in regard to the views of Great Britain, that would remain long, and affect deeply; and would have a tendency to convince the United States that the same system of infatuated councils, that severed the two countries asunder, still had an ascendency in the British Cabinet, and was likely to continue an insuperable barrier to a free and unrestrained connection.

Much about the same time Lord Sheffield published a pamphlet, which was intended to justify the prudent precaution of such mea­sures, as essentially necessary to the future wealth and power of Great Britain; it is said to have had a very serious effect on the minds of the people in England, the majority of whom, as in all countries, are more prone to receive the opinions of others, than be at the trouble of furnishing arguments for themselves.

However, it will not be difficult to prove, that his reasoning is extremely flimsy and fallacious; entirely remote from the princi­ples of commercial legislation, and supported on a system of ac­knowledged error.

Previous to entering on a refutation of his doctrine, it will be necessary to premise some few reflections, on the advantages that [Page 5]the West India Islands will derive, from being indulged in an in­tercourse with the United States, from which the adoption of Lord Sheffield's system would entirely exclude them.

The soil, the climate, and consequently the productions of the United States, are so various, that they can furnish almost every article that they can furnish almost every article that the wants and conveniences of the islands can require; and from circumstances of local situation, can supply them more abundantly, more expe­ditiously on better terms, and less subject to contingencies, than they can be procured from Europe; insomuch, that the West India Planters have always regarded a commercial connection with the United States as essential to the well-being and improvement of the islands, and have deprecated the loss of it, as a most fatal bl [...]w to their flourishing existence.

The articles which the Colonist indispensably stands in need of, are flour, biscuit, Indian corn, rice, beans, peas, potatoes, salt beef, pork, cheese, butter, beer, cod and other kinds of salt fish, whale oil, candies, tallow, soap, tobacco, naval stores, horses, poultry, live cattle, bar iron, building wood of all kinds, frames of houses, masts, spars, hogshead slaves, heading, shin­gles, plank both pine and oak, &c.

The United States can, not only abundantly, and at all times, supply these articles, but can furnish them on far more moderate terms, than they can be imported from Europe.

Experience has proved, that no food is so cheap and nourishing to the slaves as Indian corn, of which there must necessarily be a regular and frequent supply, as it will not keep but a short time, exposed to the extreme warmth of the climate. Small vessels are generally employed in furnishing these supplies, as well as live stock and other articles of provisions, which could not afford to navigate with cargoes of such little value if it was not for the quickness of the voyage, and the certainty of a return freight of West India produce. These are not objects of sufficient impor­tance for European vessels; for large quantities would frequently overstock the market, and consequently be exposed to perish in the hands of the importer.

But there are particular times when the dependence of the West Indies on the United States, is more pointedly observable. After a hurricane, that awful and tremendous convulsion of na­ture, that so frequently happens in the tropical climates, that levels with the ground all the buildings and improvements of a plantation, destroys the provisions, and exhibits throughout the whole country, the wildest marks of ruin and devastation: Where is the affrighted planter to look for succour and assistance? How is he to repair his losses, promptly and effectually?

He must give himself up to despair, if his only reliance is on European supplies: but he feels a consolation when he considers his vicinity to America, which, though but a foster mother, acting like a natural parent, flies to his relief.

[Page 6] After these terrible calamities, which have threatened all the miseries of famine, he has often found, from experience, that she has poured in such abundance, as to have reduced the prices of provisions, much lower than they even were previous to his misfortunes.

The advantages which this commerce presents are founded on the broad basis of reciprocal interests, and a mutual exchange of necessary commodities.

The United States, in return for the supplies they furnish the islands, will receive their productions, several of which, such as rum and molasses, may be called the excrescences of their exports, and without recourse to American consumption, would be in very feeble demand for the European market.

But should no encouragement be given to the planter, to aid the natural vigour of the soil, by the facility with which he may procure his provisions; and should the islands be deprived of the advantages which their local situation affords, by having the channel through which their supplies are to be procured, stopped up, or confined in too narrow bounds, they will not only individually suffer, by being often exposed to a calamitous scarcity; but the Mother Country must finally be sensible of the pernicious effects of such restrictions. For the body politic, like the human body, has a sense of feeling, in its remotest extremities. Nothing suffers singly by itself—there ‘is a consent of the parts in the system of both, and the partial evil grows into universal mischief’ For in an exact ra­tio, with the rate of provisions, and other necessaries of life will the demand for labour keep pace, and the price of West India produce, and its relative quantity, will rise or fall by these pro­portions, The planter consequently cannot afford his productions so low, as to be placed in competition with the French at a foreign market, except he procures his necessaries on the best of terms.

On the contrary, should the islands flourish under a State of ease and plenty, the Mother Country will be proportionably bene­fited; for it is an invariable rule in commercial polity, that riches always centre in the Metropolis: their diffusive influence may be compared to the circulation of the blood, which is dispersed over the whole system, but always returns back to the heart, the seat of life, and is only sent back by new pulsations.

Should therefore this monopolizing spirit which is a mockery on the industry of a country, give way to more liberal ideas, the active stimulus of the planter will no longer be depressed. By being furnished with necessaries on more moderate and easy terms, he will employ less of his revenue, to defray the expences of his estate; he will consequently have a residue left to appropriate to the the extension of his settlements, clearing and breaking up new grounds, which when brought into culture, will furnish additional quantities of produce, to supply the increasing demand.

In the course of attaining these profits to the planter, the State will greatly benefit in an increase of her revenues, by the duties [Page 7]laid on the surplus quantity of produce: by the employment of a more extensive commerce and navigation, which must keep pace with the improving condition of her islands: and by fixing the balance of trade in her favour in proportion to the augmen­tation of her exports.

Another advantage of conspicuous character offers itself; which is their increasing consumption of manufactures, which improving establishments naturally occasion; and an increase of manufac­tures is always accompanied by a proportional increase of population.

Moulded by habit to a particular mode of thinking in regard to the commercial legislation of the islands, I know it will be diffi­cult, and will require every effort of sound reasoning, to break through the system of prohibitory laws. established by the British Government. But, when an increase of population and of revenue, progressive opulence and strength, are to be derived from the effects of abandoning this jealous self-obstructing policy; it is to be ex­pected that the spirit of such contracted establishments will not be inveterate, and on mature consideration, will no longer be adhered to.

But it is asserted by Lord Sheffield, that regular supplies of provi­sions and necessaries may, with proper encouragement, be obtain­ed from the remainder of the British Colonies on the continent.

These visionary suggestions are almost too ludicrous to be com­bated, and seem intended as a political artifice, to blind the eyes of the too credulous people, and deceive them into a belief, that their remaining territories in America are of considerable value.

It is well known, that the intenseness of the climate of Canada, with the difficulty of its navigation will scarcely admit of more than one voyage in the year to the West Indies, which require a regular and continued supply of provisions.

As for the inhospitable regions of Nava Scotia, it will be matter of wonder, and a solace to humanity, if by the unceasing industry of its inhabitants, it will be able to produce a sufficiency, for their sustenance and support.

The United States must therefore continue to be, what they al­ways have been, the granary of the British West Indies; and if direct importations into them are not admitted of, recourse will be had to indirect supplies, through the medium of the neutral islands. All the additional expence of this circuitous route, in­curred for charges of double insurance, freight, commission, &c. will fall on the Colonist, as the comsumer, without very materi­ally injuring the American merchant, who will naturally insure to himself a saving profit on his exports.

Besides, the British Government must establish a number of guarda costas, well armed and appointed, to prevent the clandestine trade that will immediately commence betwixt the United States and their islands. A trade, that will find a support and protecti­on, in every planter of the country, whose interest will be so immediately connected with its encouragement, will not easily be suppressed.

[Page 8] Even under the vigorous authority of military government in the French West Indies, not all the weight of power, exerted for the purpose, could formerly prevent this species of traffic; much less can it be expected to succeed, where the reigns of govern­ment are relatively so relaxed, as in the hands of the British Governors.

Besides, Great Britain has learned, by fatal dear-bought experi­ence, impressed in such strong characters, as not to be soon and easily effaced, that ‘the true art of governing is not to govern too much;’ and how difficult it is to rule a people by laws, that it is their interest to resist, and render nugatory.

But to counteract the force of the foregoing observations, it is asserted by Lord Sheffield, and what is much more strange, that people are so infatuated as to believe, that notwithstanding the absolute prohibition on the part of Great Britain, of admission of American vessels into her islands, still that the United States will open their ports to British shipping, and freely indulge them with the liberty of carrying off their produce.

But he must have a poor opinion of the force of his own argu­ments, which he has so abundantly furnished to Great Britain, in favour of this selfish system of monopolizing the carrying trade, if he does not believe, that they will operate so effectually on the minds of the Americans, as to induce them, deprived of an equa­lization of privilege, to adopt the same plan; admitting that their sagacious clear-sighted politicians had not already discovered them.

His premises therefore are not admissible — the idea they con­vey is an insult on common sense.

I expected that in forming an estimate of the American cha­racter, the English had been fully persuaded, from a view of the progress of their political affairs, that they were conducted by a people who seldom have so widely wandered from their interests.

Habituated to the resistance of every oppressive measure, more vigilant over their national concerns, more intent on connecting the science of politics, with the elements of commerce, as forming the most important object of the statesman's attention — than per­haps any other nation existing, is it to be expected, they will ac­quiesce in a system, so derogatory to the honour, degrading to the spirit, and injurious to the interests of a great people?

A moment's reflection must convince every dispassionate enqui­rer, that our legislators are better guardians of the public con­cerns, than to submit to so pernicious an intercourse; especially when it is considered, that they are selected from these, who are the best versed in the interests of the States, as relative to those of other commercial powers, and who will embrace every advantage that nature has given, or art can procure, to the improvement thereof.

He may continue to cherish the delusive idea, but I will tell him in prophetic language, what will be the consequence.

The States from a sense of common danger, and common interest, will more closely unite together, and form one general [Page 9]system of exclusive navigation, in regard to Great Britain, esta­blished on clear, equal and determinate principles of commercial retaliation, which will rapidly pervade the whole Union. Already has a generous competition began to take place, betwixt them, which shall most cheerfully adopt, and carry into effect, those wise and salutary measures, recommended by the grand council of the country, in order to make their foederal union respectable, and the United States, as prosperous in Peace, as they have been glorious in War.

I acknowledge, that such public spirited arrangements will, for a time, expose some of the States, to temporary inconvenience and distress; but after all the sacrifices they have already made, will it be surprizing that they should exert this self-denying virtue; especially as it will eventually become one of the greatest sources of their fu­ture wealth and importance.

Such prohibitions, therefore, on the part of Great Britain, will operate like a charm throughout the country; they will act like a spur on the industry of the inhabitants, and compel them to turn their attention more immediately to the construction of ships, and the increase of their seamen. The eastern and middle States, which from circumstances of local situation and character, are more peculiarly calculated for these purposes, will, by vigorous exerti­on, by great and increasing encouragement, in a short time, be enabled to furnish a sufficient supply. Many of their trading inhabitants will be induced to reside in, and become citizens of the southern States, and form establishments therein, in order to devote themselves to the business of furnishing the necessary ship­ping, for the transportation of their bulky produce.

Such circumstances, fortunately combining in favour of the gene­ral interest of the republic will operate as a bond of union amongst them by occasioning their respective citizens to continue to mix freely and intimately together.

And by making them mutually dependent on each other for reci­procal services, will divest them of local attachments, and will irresistibly impel them to become friends, to the rights and interests of confederated America. For as the propagation of mankind depends on the intercourse of persons of different sexes, so do political connections thrive only betwixt such countries, as furnish different materials for their mutual exchange, and who soon become, from a sense of each others wants mutually endeared to each other. Yet this shrewd p [...]litcian infers, that the States will oppose each other, because their staples and their climate are different—forgetting the truth of that political maxim, that inte­rest unites, from the same cause that it divides.

Therefore this selfish arrangement which appears to predominate, in the British Cabinet, and which is supposed to be an emanation from the same ill fated star, which in your political system has been so long looked up to as your polar direction, will eventually become [Page 10]a great advantage to the United States; for I am well convinced, that they never will arrive to any eminence as a naval power, until their inhabitants are reduced to the necessity of being the exclu­sive carriers of their own productions, thereby encouraging mer­cantile navigation, so as to make it become a nursery of seaman. I say forced, for the assertion of Lord Sheffield, that our vessels na­vigate cheaper than those of Great Britain, is not founded on fact; for when their speedy decay, comparatively with those of the Bri­tish, with the scarcity of seamen, the much higher price of wa­ges, and the necessity of importing most of the building materials from Europe, are taken into consideration, it will clearly be in­ferred, that the latter can afford their freights, at a much easier rate.

But should the United States be compelled to adopt a navigati­on act, the prospect will then change, the demands for seamen will greatly increase, their wages will be encouraging, and it will not be possible to prevent their passing into the American service; for this class of people, as wavering and inconstant as the element that wafts them, are attached to change of climate, and are easily allured by the prospect of greater wages, or kinder treatment.

Under the influence of the above causes it must be clearly evident, that the fears of our competition in the carrying trade of the West Indies, are entirely groundless. Besides, it is not probable that the Americans will seek in foreign countries for freights, when they have not perhaps above one fourth part of the necessary shipping to supply their own demands, for transporting their produce to market: How absurd and contradictory then are Lord Sheffield's apprehensions! for it is, from a presumption of their scarcity of shippiing, that he affirms that the Americans will not refuse their produce to the offers of British vessels: he ack­nowledges likewise, that the French undersell the British sugars at foreign markets; there can consequently be but little danger of the Americans being desirous of carrying them to foreign ports; for where will be the inducement?

In arguing against this selfish contracted system, founded on extreme cupidity, and in favour of a free unrestrained commerce betwixt the two countries, I have no view of consulting the ad­vantages of the United States to the exclusion of those of Great Britain.

I know it would be folly to expect that she would make sacrifices of her interests, to accommodate the views of the Americans.

But it so happens, that she cannot favour the United States with an indulgence, for which they are not able to furnish more than a reciprocal benefit.

It is expedient however to examine still more fully, what the grand leading argument that Lord Sheffield adduces in favour of the necessity of totally excluding them from a participation in the British West India trade, amounts to. He is fearful that they will thereby become the carriers of the produce of the islands to [Page 11]the place of its consumption, which will create an interference of foreign vessels, thereby lessening the number of seamen, and con­sequently the naval force of the country.

But, if in addition to all that I have already said, I answer, that in return for this accommodation which he may call indul­gent, but which I have clearly evinced to be the interest of Great Britain, consulting the welfare of her islands, to grant.

I say, if in return for this accommodation, her subjects may be admitted to a free ingress and egress to and from the ports of the United States—What reply will the advocates for this system make? — What will become of Lord Sheffield' reasoning, when weighed in the scale of comparative proportion? I only wish them to comprehend the magnitude of the advantage. Men of weak or limited under­standings, will be incapable of extending their ideas, so as to em­brace the vast field it opens to an enlightened mind.

In the first place, they will not assuredly deny, that the produc­tions of the United States, to the transportation of which, from the proposed arrangement, they are [...] to be admitted, will furnish twice the quantity of bulky materials, that the exports of the West Indies do, and will consequently employ twice the quan­tity of shipping. — To stamp conviction in regard to the truth of this assertion, let them take a view of the rice, indigo, and lumber of Georgia and South Carolina; — the naval stores, lumber, and tobacco of North Carolina; — the tobacco wheat, Indian corn, &c. of Virginia and Maryland; — the flour, lumber corn, and various provisions of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Jersey and New-York; — the fish, lumber, live stock, &c. of the New England States.

Admit the fact to be ascertained with satisfactory precision, will it not be confessed, that an arrangement, by which both countries are freely admitted to a participation of each other's trade, will be highly advantageous to Great Britain.

This is a position, as clear as any mathematical axiom.—Besides, the advantages of Great Britain may be deemed increas­ing, as the exportation of the bulky produce of the United States, in which her vessels will be employed, will augment, in proportion to the population of the country;— a population, that will pro­bably be productive beyond all examples of former ages, — multiplying like the seeds of the harvest.

Whereas, on her part, there is but little room for extension of improvement; — on this point her most sanguine friends would compound, for her being fixed and stationary.

But Lord Sheffield argues, that it would be folly to grant the Americans any particular privileges and concessions, as the treaties with France, and the United Provinces, in direct terms forbid the British being put on a better footing than the inhabitants of those countries.

The faculties of this writer must be strangely perverted, — or [Page 12]his design must evidently be to delude the public mind, by giving so false a construction to this part of the treaties.

Can it be imagined, on the principles of common sense, that if the French and Dutch exclude the Americans from a share of their West India trade, the United States will grant to the inhabitants of those countries, the same free admission into their ports, as to those of Great Britain, who may permit an unrestrained participation in their commerce? In every contract, there is a quid pro quo — openly expressed, or tacitly implied; — and it is not to be presum­ed, that the most favoured nation can require a benefit, without granting a reciprocal return; — it is contrary to the avowed policy of nations, which, it is well understood, is founded on the broad basis, of interest and convenience.

The same reasons will tend to frustrate the hopes of Russia, who cannot, like the United States, give an equitable equivalent to Great Britain, in return for such great concessions.

France has hitherto, invariably, by her own internal resources, supplied her islands abundantly, with many of the necessaries they stand in need of, and is still in a capacity to do the same.

With respect to other articles, (the produce of the United States,) that do not interfere with her own exports, she has given free admission to them all into her West India possessions; — and in order to gain the advantages of the rum trade, which the British hitherto have exclusively proposed, she has ceded particu­lar districts in her islands, for the accommodation of the Ameri­cans, who may chuse to erect distilleries thereon, which, for their great encouragement, are to be exempt from taxes, for a certain number of years. — The consummate policy of her councils was never more eminently displayed, than in this mea­sure.

See Proclamation of the General of Martinico, published in the Public Advertiser.

The astonished planter, in viewing the respective arrangements of the two countries, will wonder where the genius of Britain, so famed for her commercial knowledge, has retired.

After having already made it appear that it is the interest of Great Britain (independent of all other considerations) to adopt the plan of an open communication between the islands and the United States, and that it is in the power of the latter to grant more than they receive; — I will now have recourse to an argument, that perhaps will have a salutary effect on those, who are the most difficult to be persuaded; — I mean, the relative situation of the two countries, which makes it the interest of Great Britain, more than that of any other European power, to be pointedly connected with the American States.

Let a moment's attention be paid to this subject, and let the in­ference be fairly and dispassionately drawn.

Great Britain, by the superior skill and industry of her inhabi­tants [Page 13]and some adventitious circumstances, has carried many of her manufactures to a degree of perfection and cheapness, which no other country in Europe has arrived at.

Considering the inferior state of her population, compared with some of her rival nations, and the very limited extent of her terri­tory, it must be confessed, that a considerable part of her revenues, to support the immense load of debt she has incured, must be drawn from this source — from the industry of her people.

The United State at present offer three millions of inhabitants. rapidly increasing to numbers, all of whom consume more or less of British manufactures, — the productions of art and industry, — in return for which, they give the raw materials — the produce of agriculture, in their native state.

How sufatueted must the councils of your country be, which could rend but for a moment, to disturb so beneficial an inter­course; or suspend the sweets of so lucrative a commerce!

The United States have as yet laid no impositions on the im­portation of British manufactures, that can have any tendency to re­strain the consumption of them;—and many reasons of conspicuous weight and importance continually offer, in favour of establishing such duties; — for by operating as a sumptuary law, such a measure would be of considerable service to a young country by repressing the desire of foreign luxuries, which have already been poured into America, in such abundance, that the States begin to suffer, from not having sufficient produce to remit in payment; — which turns the balance of trade greatly against them. [...]mdash; Besides, such restrictions wisely imposed, tend to stimulate and encourage a spirit of industry amongst the people, to aim at similar improvements. — December 16th. 1783.

But should the impolitic conduct of Great Britain precipitate the adoption of this measure by the respective States, where are her growing resources to counteract the effects of this failure of internal industry? — for it is universally agreed, that no coun­try is more dependent on foreign demand, for the superfluous produce of art and industry; — and that the luxury and ex­travagance of her inhabitants, have already advanced to the ul­timate point of abuse, and cannot be so increased, as to augment the home consumption, in proportion to the decrease that will take place on a diminution of foreign trade.

What then will become of all those useful hands, that were employed in supplying the great demand?

Recollect the cries of suffering thousands, at the time of the non-importation agreement;— these people, in their own de­fence, will emigrate to America.

Such a system of conduct persevered in, will operate in favour of the United States, as effectually, as the revocation of the edict of Nantes did in behalf of the protestant countries of Europe — by holding up America, as the most desirable refuge for the pro­perty, arts, and manufactures of Great Britain to retire to; — [Page 14]a country, where civil and religious liberty are upheld in all their purity,— where, by the exertion of a few years of nonest indus­try, an emigrant is morally sure, of being furnished with the means of becoming an independent freeholder; — a country, that has laid no impolitic restraints on naturalization;— whose yoke is easy, and whose burthen's light; and which indulgently holds out its arms for the reception of the weary and heavy laden of all nations; and which, notwithstanding the attempts of Great Bri­tain to enslave it, would generously offer an asylum for her perse­cuted sons, who impressed with a sense of gratitude, ‘may blush to think their fathers were its foes.’

But Lord Sheffield exultingly advances, that the Americans cannot forego the British manufactures; — and that so far from the necessity of courting their custom, not all the interdicts of Congress, and of the several States, during the war, could prevent their consumption.

To deduce important inferences, from such faulty premises, would be "leaning on a broken reed," There may be at pre­sent some partiality in the States, for British manufactures;— yet this predilection arises from cradle prejudices, and has greatly decreased during the war;— and it would be unwise in Great Britain to place any reliance on a continuation of it: — for the manufactures of other countries, if equally good, and afforded cheaper, will, by a continued competition, be eventually prefer­red: especially, as there will be a constant succession of emigrants from different parts of Europe, who have no decided preference in favour of the fashion or quality of British manufactures, and who, by mixing with the mass of the people, will gradually effect a change in their taste.—Already do the Americans begin to complain, that the British manufactures are slighted, and infe­rior in quality to their usual standard; — and it is well known, that many of the coarse kinds of stuffs, made at Norwich, Coven­try, Spitalfields, and other factories, are shamefully deficient in length, whilst the Dutch, Flemish, and French, usually give a generous surplus in their measures.

But if the assertions of Lord Sheffield were founded on truth, what should be the conduct of Great Britain?

Surely no circumstance can be more favourable to the aggrandi­zing a nation of industry, than the possession of a foreign trade with a country, which does not supply its own wants, and in which, the consumers of manufactures, that she furnishes, are continually increasing.

Surrounded by rival nations, whose interests are opposed to hers, does she consider the duties that arise out of such a connection? They should prompt her to facilitate, by every method in her power the means of making remittances, in return for the manu­factures she furnished; not by prohibiting the sale of American vessels which are sent to England for the payment of British debts; — by opening her ports for the importation of American produce [Page 15]free of duty; — not by laying such heavy impositions thereon, as to oblige the merchant to seek a more friendly market? and by culti­vating an intercourse, pointedly intimate, with that country; — for this is the vernal season, when the seeds of future connection and intimacy with America are to be sown and cultivated;—not by showing evident marks of pleasure and satisfaction at every fabri­cated account of the distresses of America.

It would be unnecessary to follow Lord Sheffield through the tedious detail of articles that he has enumerated, as constituting the wants of the Americans, the greatest part of which, he asserts, they must absolutely procure from England; — the fallacy of this account can only be discovered by a person who is acquainted with the nature of the American trade, and the relative quality and price of foreign manufactures.

To oppose assertion to assertion, would not be sufficient to operate conviction on the public mind; — but surely, one who can seriously place the articles of silk, laces, and salt, amongst the number of these which Great Britain can enter into competition with other countries in supplying America with, must either be very ignorant of his subject, or extremely partial to his own country.

On a fair and candid consideration of the foregoing reflections, I think you will be persuaded, that the beautiful prospect that Lord Sheffield has painted to the eyes of his enraptured countrymen, of the increasing consequence of Great Britain, from his pleasing Arcadian plans will without great care taken to prevent it, and by pursuing a system diametrically opposite to what he has formed, disappear, like the dancing vision of a misty evening.

He reasons, as if the trade of America must irresistbly be con­fined to its former channel; whereas I can assure him, that freed from the con [...]roul of your Navigation Act, and all the fetters of commercial restraint it will expand itself, as far as seas can carry, or winds can waft it.

He forgets the energy of this young Country, that he is devot­ing to such humiliation restrictions; — he forgets, that it exhibited, whilst in it [...] cradle, such marks of firmness and vigour of constitution, as like young Hercules to crush the serpent, that wantonly attacked it.

He does not recollect, that it is in the power of the United States, if provoked to it, to have recourse to recrimination and mutually ill offices, and to establish restrictions similar to those Great Britain may impose, which will be relatively far more prejudicial to her trade and commerce.

An impartial dispassionate Englishman, fully weighing the reasons alled [...]ed against the adoption of Lord Sheffield's restraining system, and cordially attached to the interest of Great Britain, will depre­cate the fatal measure.

An American, in the same temper of mind, looking forward to the future prosperity and power of his country, and contemplat­ing [Page 16]the tendency of this system towards strengthening the union of the States, and making it indissoluble, will not hesitate to ac­quiesce without a murmur, to the existence of these restraining regulations:— the only objections that can arise, will come from those, who, too attentive to temporary inconveniences, do not consider and contrast them, with the many advantages their coun­try will eventually derive; — who do not consider, that the more trade and intercourse the United States will have with Great Bri­tain, the greater will be the importation of British manufactures, and the more it will tend to impoverish and weaken them, and in the same proportion, contribute to her aggrandizement and power.

Harley-Street, Cavendish-Square, December 16th, 1783.

MENTOR's REPLY TO PHOCION's LETTER.

RAISE a feather in the air, and it will be impossible to de­termine where it shall light so it is with a newly raised political sentiment only gran [...]ing that there are a few interested, both for and against it, to give it a circulation.

When the letter of Phocion, first made its appearance the doc­trines contained in it stood so opposed to common understanding, that I was very far from supposing that any consequences arising from them, would make a reply to the letter in the smallest degree ne­cessary; so far from it, I judged a reply would carry with it, the appearance of wantonly seizing an occasion to introduce the author upon the stage of politics; but experience has taught me that passion, pomp, and plausibility, may pass even upon an en­lightened people, for argument and truth.

This author, while he declaims against "heated spirits." and "inflammatory" publications, gives us a striking proof that he has, in an eminent degree, that great disqualification for a statesman an uncontroulable warmth of temper. This letter affords us an instance of the frailty of human nature. It gives us the picture of a strong and tolerably well informed mind, which, perhaps having been flattered by success in the early stage of life, has acquired too much respect for its own capacity, too much contempt for that of others, and too much vanity to conceal these effects.

A statesman should be well informed of the nature of that kind of evidence, which given political opinion; he would then see the possibility of others having materials to reason from, which the hastiness of his mind may have overlooked. This would teach him the use of holding in decent respect the opinion of others, and of his being a dispassionate enquirer into the means which produced them, I can suppose that Phocion believed himself possessed of an honest warmth; but want of charity and want of modesty, in one who offers himself for public inspection, will never fail to raise some bile against him.

But my business is with the political part of Phocion's Letter, not that which paints the author, and I would apologize for saying this much, if I was not so strongly courted to it by his illiberality. For in writing and acting, I would wish forever to separate the states­man or politician, and the man.

[Page 18] The little regard which Phocion had to method in the arrange­ment of his arguments, must be my excuse for adopting the same plan. I must take him where the weight of his arguments seem to rest.

First, then to his construction of the treaty? (which as his pam­phlets are in the hands of most of the people, I will not trou­ble them with a long extract of it here) I beg leave to oppose to it the construction in one of the publications, under the signature of Gustavus, and leave the public to judge which is fairest.

‘In the 6th article of the treaty it is provided, that no one shall suffer in his person, liberty, or property, on account of the part he may have taken in the war. The 5th article de­scribes the persons provided for, and distinguishes them into three classes: First, those that are real British subjects. The second, those that were within their lines, and had not taken arms against the country. The third class are described by the provision that is made for them, viz. They shall have liberty to go into any part of the United States, for twelve months, to solicit a restoration of their estates that may have been confiscated. This class must be those, who, belonging to America, have taken arms against their country. The first and second class, it is agreed, that Congress shall recommend to the states, a restoration of their property. The third it seems were too infamous for the English minister to ask any consideration for, except the wretched privilege of asking it for themselves. But I can find no where, even a request, and that only implied, that any of the three classes may dwell among us, and enjoy the im­munities and privileges of citizens; for the first class are consi­dered as former subjects, the second and third as acquired subjects of England.’

But Phocion starts another difficulty: He says, to imagine, that by espousing the cause of Great Britain, they become aliens, is to admit, that subjects may, at pleasure, renounce their allegiance to the state of which they were members, and devote themselves to a foreign jurisdiction; a principle, he adds, contrary to law, and subversive of government."

To this I reply, that it there was nothing more in the case than their adhering to the then enemies of our country, I would readily join Phocion in opinion, that this action simply, should not be construed to amount to alienation; but it should be construed to amount to treason. So, instead of aliens, I would render them traitors, and as such, put the penal laws in force against them.

But it is by treaty, that they become aliens or subjects of En­gland. By the treaty England adopted them as subjects, and by ratifying that treaty, the states, and this state, from the share she had in it, consented to that adoption. And this is the great benefit of the treaty to them, which Phocion says, we would vio­late; whereas it appears that we, who he dubs heated and designing men, are the real supporters of it.

[Page 19] Graining them to be aliens, Phocion continues, they cannot hold real property under our government, their real estates then must be considered as belonging to the public, this is confiscati­on, and thereby the treaty is violated. I answer, that they are aliens, but aliens stipulated for. If in doing this, our ministers have exceeded the powers given them, and Congress also, by acceding to what they have done; or, if they agreed to an article in the treaty, which wars with the nature of government or with the particular genius of ours, let it be so declared, and also the consequence of the blunder; then we may take up the subject in another point of view. But till then we must consider it as it is, and take it for granted that it is right.

But for my own part, I cannot see the inconsistency of it. Sup­pose the British East India company had claims to certain lands in America, before her separation from England, and by an article of the treaty it should be agreed, that they should have the privi­lege of selling it, some might doubt the justice of it, but I think none could doubt the right.

To make it appear, that in removing a number of these peo­ple, prosecutions of some kind or other would be necessary, and which are forbid by the treaty, seems to be a chief design of Pho­cion. Beside others which have been observed, he starts this: How will it be determined, but by prosecution, who have so ad­hered to the enemy, as in a legal sense to amount to a crime? I answer, in the first place, that no question of law arises on the subject.

It is by treaty, and not by law, that we are to judge of them; for the ratification of that has, in effect, repealed all the laws that stood in force against them. If the treaty have not this power, then have we played the cheat, not only with England, but with every power that was represented in that Congress, which settled the terms of pence. In the second place, that the treaty itself makes the distinction that otherwise would be wanting; and all that is necessary for the legislature in this particular is, by an act of grace to make a distinction of a very different kind; to distin­guish and restore to citizenship, the deserving of those who are by treaty made subjects of England.

I presume it must by this time clearly appear, that the people we are speaking of are the subjects of England. It then remains to see, what necessity demands, and what justice and honour will allow to be done with them; and in this investigation, let us throw aside every passion, but that which is concerned for the safety and true interest of the state.

Before I proceed, permit me to lay it down as a maxim, that it is a principle coincident with the very nature of society, that there be a power vested in it, in some form or other, adequate to the purpose, not only of correcting any present evil in it, but to prevent a probable future one.

[Page 20] Though I abhor all reasonings which tend to make less hei­nous the dreadful sin of taking arms against our country, both as it regards the eternal law of justice, and also good policy; yet as the country has agreed by a solemn compact, not to take venge­ance of those of this character in America, both our honour and interest are concerned to preserve this compact inviolate, so upon this occasion I shall dismiss all that passion arising from a lively recollection of what this country has sustained from them, would dictate, and speak of them only as they respect our political safety, as a morbid humour in our political body, which requires healthy remedies to expel.

After a former has prepared his ground, would he mix cockle with his seed-wheat to grow up with, and contaminate the whole­some grain? In establishing a young empire, should we leave the principle of sedition in its foundation? But Phocion will tell us that this is a bug-bear danger. Make it their interest and they will be good subjects. God forbid, the government should make it their interest to be its friends; for to do this, would be to bring the principles of the government to suit them, not them to suit it, The tory principle, where it has been long entertained, and where it has long beat unison with the passions, is more fixed and immo­veable than the best established government. I speak of those who have been much concerned in government speculation. Of poli­tical opinions, those which respect monarchical and republican go­vernments, are most opposed of course most irreconcileable; they beget a contempt for each other, in the members of the two go­vernments.

To show that our fears for the well-being of our government on this occasion, are founded in reason, and not ideal, beside what has been already said, let us consider the number and quality of the people, who, I am ashamed to say, are the subjects of dispute, and the difference between the government which their principles contend for, and ours.

In a monarchical government, I grant the doctrine of Phocion may obtain. There fear might make it their interest to be good subjects; the fear of offending against the government. But, in a republican government, the people are their own governors. A republican government must take its shape from the opinion of the people, and is variable, as the opinions of its component parts may vary; hence the necessity of correcting that evil, which may spring from a corruption of opinion, and though it may be con­fined to a few at first, it may communicate to the overturning of the government. The number of those who are in reality mal­contents in America, are not so small as may be imagined; nor are their views and hopes so humble as many suppose.

I have said that government has a right to anticipate probable evils. The tory principle cortains in it a mortal and irreconci­leable hatred to our government. That this principle will be communicated, is too probable, when we consider the wealth, [Page 21]the art, the perseverance and fashion of many of its present posses­sors.

On the other hand, let us consider the indigence which the ra­vages of a long and accursed war have created in the other party, which must cause them assiduously to attend torneir own orivate con­cerns. For though some of them still preserve a lively attention to the government, yet in many the effect which I have mention­ed, has been wrought; and in a little time the last spasms of he republican spirit will be over, the meager ghost of poverty with all her train of evils, being constantly before them, [...]very to her consideration will yield to the spur of necessity. In the m [...]n while, the mal-contents are left with the means, and can afford the leisure to get into administration. Tais, fellow citizens is the condition of affairs; — I blush to proclaim it, to which the writings and sayings of whigs tend to bring you! — For Phocion tells you, that he has been an eminent servant of the republic in establishing her independency. If a revolution is effected in the manner above stated, however infamous the means, yet [...]nen the revolution is compleated, it is a just one, because it must be sup­posed that a majority of opinions are for it. Therefore I say, it is importantly the duty of the present government to anticipate such an evil, by removing the causes of pravity of opinion. But short of a revolution, a perversion of the principles of our govern­ment, which is more easily wrought, may be as wounding to the upright republican.

With regard to England's renewing her claim to the country, on the supposition that ill policy abroad, and anar [...]y at home, should invite her to it, I am clearly of opinion it would not be her interest to do it; for, if she should succeed, the extent and rapid growth of the country would prevent its being long tributary to that distant island. I am also fully convinced, that the late and present ministry of England did not, and do not, with for the re-union of the country upon any other terms than as a farm, from which she is to derive substantial revenue, without allowing the tenant any vote in the disposition of it. But we are not to calculate what is only the real interest of a nation, whose monarch has the right of making peace and war. Suppose the inclination of the present king should not lead him to reclaim the country; yet, his son, when he comes to the throne, may be ambitious for the glory of recovering the lost dominion of his father. And as to the difficulty of obtaining money from parliament to carry on an unreasonable war, the rapid corruption of that people will pro­bably soon remove it.

There is no other way of preventing this probable corruption of opinion, but by removing the cause, which I have asie [...]d to be the mal-contents of America. Having, as we presume, shewn the necessity, let us now, as proposed, enquire if honour and equity will consent to the measure.

The treaty which justice and honour forbid us to violate, does [Page 22]not, even upon so liberal a construction, as I believe Phocion him­self would give it, debar the states from making laws that may be salutary to the government, and advantageous to the people, though in their consequences they may operate against the interest of the subjects of England. Suppose a line to be drawn, and the deserving of those, who by treaty are made subjects of England, should be re-adopted, and invested with all the privi­leges of citizens; and, after this, laws should be passed, giv­ing the citizens the exclusive benents of trade. This law would operate no more against the subjects of England that are here, than against those who are at home, except in this, the effect of the law in one case, sends these home, and in the other case, keeps them there, or rather prevents their coming here as traders.

There was a time when the people of England considered them­selves in danger from a corruption of opinion of another kind — I mean of religious opinion. Few protestants complained of it as unjust or dishonourable, that the government enacted laws to sup­press the growth of the Roman Catholic religion.

A government has a clearer right to interfere in checking the promulgation of depravity in political, than in religious opinion. If the tory principle should be repressed in this way, it is a remedy used for the health and preservation of the body politic, and as such no one, not even the tories, can complain of it as unjust, though they may deprecate the hardship of the measure as applied to themselves.

In the first case, that is against laws for exclusive trade, it has been objected, that by removing these people we remove a great part of the silver, and gold out of the state. With as much pro­priety it may be argued against the measure, that we should remove a great part of the writing paper out of the state.

Money is a conveniency, not an article of trade; being such, wherever trade centers money will. The importance of this city, as a place of trade, is not owing to the quantity of money that is now in it, or that ever was in it, at any one time. It is with effects that we trade, and the mercantile consequence of this town arises from its being central to the effects of this and the adjoining states, and the conveniency of its water communication. Suppose this city traded only with the effects of this state, then its quantity of trade would be in exact proportion to the annual produce of the state, though there should not be an ounce of silver or gold in the place to-morrow.

Another objection still more futile has been made against a law for exclusive trade. That we prevent the merchants of England from coming over and settling with us, and their ships from visiting us, which would be a dreadful misfortune to the trading interest of the state. "Open your arms, or ports," (I do not remember which) said the writer of a hand bill, "to the ships of foreign nations."

Unless Congress should have in contemplation to give some par­ticular privileges to the French nation, and to which I shall have no [Page 23]objection, I declare I have not a wish ever to see a foreign vessel, or a foreign merchant, visit this continent, except as a tra­veller. I would not be understood to wish a prohibition of foreign vessels to our harbours; but I wish they may be discouraged, by encouraging ship-building here. With us, who have it in our power to make vessels and naval stores, articles of export; and who want articles of export so much, would it be to our interest to carry on our trade in foreign bottoms? — With regard to foreign merchants, it is well known that there are, at present, more adventurers in trade, in America, than there is trade to support, that is, the spirit of trade is more than in proportion to its quantity. When foreign merchants migrate to the two Ameri­cas, it is generally with a view to mend or make their fortunes, and to return home and enjoy them. Can such men feel themselves interested in the welfare of our government? Is it not more pro­bable that they will still consider themselves of the nation which they left; and as far as they have influence in the government, use it for the interest of their own nation, to which they still feel themselves belonging? Would it then be so essentially our duty to encourage such settlers to supplant our own traders; and who, if they acquire fortunes, is it probable they will be used to the benefit of our government?

There is a kind of settlers that I could wish might be encouraged from all countries; these are husbandmen and manufacturers. When these migrate, they do it with a view to remain where they settle. Beside these, scientific men of all kinds should be encourag­ed to visit us. For, whether they become permanent residents or not, they are useful while they do stay.

I would encourage husbandmen and manufacturers to come to the country, and discourage traders, for the same reason that I would encourage articles of export, and discourage articles of im­port, by holding out bounties on the one side, and imposts on the other.

So general is the cry of the balance of trade being against America, that the blockhead who wants skill to balance his cane, will put on the face o business, and tell me, "the balance of trade is against us." Will importing foreign merchants into the country tend to place this balance in its favour. The truth is, a balance of trade cannot exist against a country longer than a year or two. For if the imports of this year exceed the exports, the balance must be paid the next year. If the articles of export should not be so increased, as by the next year to make up the balance, then the articles of import will be proportionably diminished. A balance cannot be always due. The imports and exports must, in the long run, bear an exact proportion to each other. If our exports are small, our imports must consequently be small.

The nation then cannot abound in foreign productions; they cannot be in a state of affluence.

This teaches us a plain and simple truth, viz. That the riches of a nation are derived from the cultivation of its land, and its [Page 24]manufacturies. Merchants are the agents of the farmers and ma­nufacturers, to exchange their commodities for those of other countries, which this will not produce.

This is a simple state of the case; I wish I had leisure to enter more fully into it.

To increase the wealth of our state then, we should invite hus­handmen and manufacturers into the country, and look coldly on traders, for that part of our community is already too numerous, and will probably cause the temporary inconvenience which I have mentioned, of placing the balance of trade against us for a time, which must create a scarcity of foreign commodities for some time after. Unless greater exertions in cultivating the land should im­mediately succeed it and make up the balance.

Phocion's letter being essentially, though not minutely answered, some of his arguments which are not noticed, depending upon principles which have been disproved, some not applying at all to the case in question, and some in reality unexceptionable, I will take leave of my reader, after observing, that I do not wish the policy of the state to take into consideration the small sinner from the ignorant. Our government is in no danger: It is the bell-weathers of the flock that we should guard against.

There is no form of government so delicate in its nature, and which requires so much attention to preserve, as that which exists in the minds of the people. While corruption is kept out of it, there is no form of government so honourable to men, and so happy to the partaker of it; and when corrupted, there is no go­vernment so much to be detested and avoided. Considering things in this point of view, and considering what it has cost us to esta­blish this government, what it would have cost us if we had failed in it, I am not willing to uisle with the acquisition. To risque it from a false notion of generosity, or because it is easy for Phoci­on and others to bestow the epithet of vindictive on the salutary measures that may be proposed for its preservation.

We did at the commencement of the war, and have in the whole course of it, kept it in view as a debt which we owed to posterity, to bequeath to them that liberty which we recived from our an­cestors. Having got this in our power by an hazardous and dread­ful conflict, to suffer the inestimable acquisition to perish by neglect, would be not only to betray them but ourselves.

PHOCION's SECOND LETTER, CONTAINING REMARKS; ON MENTOR's REPLY.

THE little hasty production, under the signature of PHOCION, has met with a more favourable reception from the public, than was expected. The force of plain truth has carried it along against the stream of prejudice; and the princi­ples, it holds out, have gained ground, in spite of the opposition of those, who were either too angry, or too much interested to be convinced. Men of this description, have, till lately, contented themselves with virulent invectives against the Writer, without attempting to answer his arguments; but alarmed at the progress of the sentiments advocated by him, one of them has at last come forward with an answer; with what degree of success, let those, who are most partial to his opinion, determine.

To say, that the answer of Mentor is a feeble attempt, would be no derogation from his abilities; for, in fact, the cause he espou­ses, admits of nothing solid; and, as one of its partizans, he is only to be blamed for not knowing its weak sides better, than to have been tempted to expose it to the experiment of a defence.

BUT, before I enter farther into the subject, I shall take occa­sion to acknowledge, with regret, the injudicious appearance of warmth in my former letter; calculated, with many minds, to raise prejudices against the truths it contains, and liable to be misrepresented into a general censure on that part of the commu­nity, whose zeal, sacrifices and sufferings must ever render them respectable to the true friends of the revolution. I shall only ob­serve in apology (as is truly the case) that whatever severity of animadversion may have been indulged, was wholly directed against a very small number of men, who are manifestly aiming at nothing, but the acquisition of power and profit to themselves; and w [...], to gratify their avidity for these objects, would trample upon every thing sacred in society, and overturn the foundations of public and private security. It is difficult for a man, conscious of a pure attachment to the public weal, who sees it invaded and [Page 28]endangered by such men, under specious but false pretences, either to think, or to speak of their conduct, without indignation. It is equally difficult for one, who in questions that affect the com­munity, regards principles only, and not men, to look with indif­ference on attempts to make the great principles of social right, justice and honour, the victims of personal animosity or party intrigue.

MORE tenderness is indeed due to the mistakes of those, who have suffered too much to reason with impartiality, whose honest prejudices, grown into habits by the impressions of an eight years war, cannot at once accommodate themselves to that system which the public good requires, and whose situations are less favourable to distinguishing between doctrines invented to serve the turn of a revolution, and those which must give permanent prosperity to the state.

THESE observations I have thought proper to premise, in jus­tice to my own intentions, and I shall now proceed, as concisely as possible, to examine the suggestions of Mentor, interspersing as I go along, some remarks on objections which though omitted by him, have been urged in other shapes against the principles of Phocion.

MENTOR proposes to treat the sentiments of Phocion as a poli­tical novelty, but if he is serious, it is a proof that he is not even "tolerably well informed." They are as old as any regular no­tions of free government among mankind, and are to be met with, not only in every speculative Writer, on these subjects, but are interwoven in the theory and practice of that code, which consti­tutes the law of the land. They speak the common language of this country at the beginning of the revolution, and are essential to its future happiness and respectability.

THE principles of all the arguments I have used or shall use, lie within the compass of a few simple propositions, which, to be assented to, need only to be stated.

FIRST, That no man can forfeit or be justly deprived, without his consent, of any right, to which as a member of the commu­nity he is entitled, but for some crime incurring the forfeiture.

SECONDLY, That no man ought to be condemned unheard, or punished for supposed offences, without having an opportunity of making his defence. See Address of Congress to the people of Great Britain, September 5, 1774.

THIRDLY, That a crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it. — Blackstone, Vol. IV. page 5.

FOURTHLY, That a prosecution is in its most precise significa­tion, an inquiry or mode of ascertaining, whether a particular per­son has committed, or omitted such act.

FIFTHLY, That duties and rights as applied to subjects are re­ciprocal; or in other words, that a man cannot be a citizen for the purpose of punishment, and not a citizen for the purpose of privilege.

[Page 29] THESE propositions will hardly be controverted by any man professing to be a friend to civil liberty. The application of them will more fully appear hereafter.

BY the declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, in the year 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth, the late colony of New-York became an independent state. All the inha­bitants, who were subjects under the former government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon the change which took place, were to be considered as citizens, owing allegiance to the new government, This, at least, is the legal presumption; and this was the principle, in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils have been grounded. Duties have been exacted, and punishments inflicted according to this rule. If any excepti­ons to it were to be admitted, they could only flow from the in­dulgence of the state to such individuals, as from peculiar circum­stances might desire to be permitted to stand upon a different footing.

THE inhabitants of the southern district, before they fell under the power of the British army, were as much citizens of the state as the inhabitants of other parts of it. They must, therefore, con­tinue to be such, unless they have been divided of that character by some posterior circumstance. This circumstance must, either be

—THEIR having, by the fortune of war, fallen under the power of the British army.—

—THEIR having forfeited their claim by their own miscon­duct.

—THEIR having been left out of the compact by some subse­quent association of the body of the state, or

—THEIR having been dismembered by treaty.

THE first of these circumstances according to the fundamental principles of government, and the constant practice of nations could have no effect in working a forfeiture of their citizenship.

To allow it such an effect, would be to convert misfortune into guilt; it would be in many instances, to make the negligence of the society, in not providing adequate means of defence for the several parts, the crime of those parts which were the immediate sufferers by that negligence. It would tend to the dissolution of society, by loosening the ties which bind the different parts to­gether, and justifying these who should for a moment fall under the power of a conqueror, not merely in yielding such a submission as was exacted from them, but in taking a willing, in­terested and decisive part with him.

IT was the policy of the revolution, to inculcate upon every citizen the obligation of renouncing his habitation, property, and every private concern for the service of his country, and many of us have scarcely ye learned to consider it as less than [...] to have acted in a different manner, But it is time we should correct the exuberances of opinions propagated through policy, [...] from enthusiasm; and while we admit, that [...] who did act [Page 30]so disinterested and noble a part, deserve the applause and, wher­ever they can be bestowed with propriety the rewards of their country, we should cease to impute indiscriminate guilt to those, who, submitting to the accidents of war, remained with their habi­tions and property. We should learn, that this conduct is tolerated by the general sense of mankind; and that according to that sense, whenever the state recovers the possession of such parts as were for a time subdued, the citizens return at once to all the rights, to which they were formerly entitled.

As to the second head of forfeiture by misconduct, there is is no doubt, that all such as remaining within the British lines, did not merely yield an obedience, which they could not refuse, without ruin; but took a voluntary and interested part with the enemy, in carrying on the war, became subject to the penalties of treason. They could not however, by that conduct, make themselves aliens, because though they were bound to pay a tem­porary and qualified obedience to the conqueror, they could not transfer their eventual allegiance from the state to a foreign pow­er. By becoming aliens too, they would have ceased to be trai­tors; and all the laws of the state passed during the revolution, by which they are considered and punished as subjects, would have been, by that construction, unintelligence and unjust. The idea indeed of citizens transforming themselves into aliens, by taking part against the state, to which they belong, is altogether of new-invention, unknown and inadmissible in law, and contrary to the nature of the social compact.

BUT were this not the case, an insurmountable difficulty would still remain, for how shall we ascertain who are aliens or traitors, let us call them which we will. It has been seen that the boun­daries of the British lines cannot determine the question; for this would be to say, that the merely falling under the power of the British army, constituted every man a traitor or an alien. It would be to confound one third of the citizens of the state in promiscu­ous guilt and degradation, without evidence, or enquiry. It would be to make crime, which are in their nature personal and indivi­dual, aggregate and territorial. Shall we go into a enquiry to ascertain the crime of each person? This would be a prosecution; [See proposition 4th.] and the treaty forbids all future prosecutions. [...]. Legislature take the map and make a geographical de­lineation of the rights and disqualifications of its citizens? This would be to measure innocence and guilt, by latitude and longi­tude—It would be condemn and punish, not one man, but thousands for supposed effences, without giving them an oppor­tunity of making their defence. God forbid that such an act of barefaced tyranny should ever disgrace our history! God forbid that [...] body of the people should be corrupt enough to wish it, or [...] submitted it!

BUT here we are informed by Mentor, that the treaty, instead of offering any obstacle to the views of those, who wish to meta­morphose [Page 31]their fellow citizens into aliens, is precisely the thing which removes the difficulty. Mentor is thus far right; that if they are aliens at all, it must be by some stipulation in the treaty, but it requires not a little dexterity to shew, that such a stipulation exists. If it exists at all, it must be collected from the 5th and 6th articles. Let us, by analyzing these articles, try if we can find it out.

THE fifth article speaks in the first clause of real British subjects whose estates had been confiscated, and stipulates that Congress shall recommend a restitution.

IN the second clause it speaks of persons resident in districts in the possession of the British forces, who had not borne arms against the United States of whose estates, also confiscated, Congress are in like manner to recommend a restitution.

IN the third clause, persons of every other description are com­prehended, who are to be permitted to remain twelve months un­molested, in any of the states, to solicit a restoration of their pro­perty, which had been confiscated; Congress recommending, even with respect to them, a restitution, on condition of their refunding to the present possessors, where there had been a sale, the bona fiac price given by them for the estates in their possession.

IT is apparent from the dissection of the article, that the inha­bitants in the Southern district, possessed by the British army, are not confounded in one general mass of alienism, as has been assert­ed. We find the express words of descripition are real British subjects, and as contradistinguished from them, persons resident in districts within the possession of the British arms. These last, by the letter as well as the spirit of the article are deemed not British subjects.

THERE is no intelligible medium, between a real British subject, and one that is not British subject at all. A man either is or is not the subject of a country. The word real, as applied to the affirmative, is a redundancy. Its natural contrasts are fictitious or pretended. If we should call the persons of other descriptions in the article fictitious or pretended British subjects, instead of justifying, it would exclude the construction given by Mentor. For if they were only fictitious or pretended British subjects, they must be real American subjects; or in other words, if they were not real British subjects, which by necessary implication they are declared not to be, they must of necessity be American subjects.

THE phrase real British subjects, strictly considered, is innac­curate; but its practical import, with the help of a little candor, is easily fixed. It is well known that in this and other states, the property of persons, who had never been subjects of this country, before or after the revolution, but who had truly been subjects of Great-Britain, had in many instances been confiscated. Sir Henry Clinton, the late Governor Tryon, Lord Dunmore, are examples among us of the real British subjects in the contemplation of the treaty. All the rest are of course American subjects.

[Page 32] To understand the fifth and sixth articles relatively, it is necessary to remark, that all the different classes described in the fifth article agree in one common quality; they are all persons whose property had been already confiscated. I have placed this fact in a pointed view; because it shews incontestibly, that the persons who are the objects of the fifth article, and those who are the objects of the sixth, are totally different. The one relates to persons whose property had been confiscated, and aims at restitution; the other relates to those whose property had not yet been confiscated, who were not actually suffering the sentence of the law, and has for object to prevent future prosecutions, confiscations, or injuries to individu­als on account to their conduct in the war.

THIS distinction solves the seeming contradiction between the fifth and sixth articles; the former providing for the future resi­dence of persons of a particular description within the state for a twevle month; the other prohibiting all future injury or damage to persons, liberty or property. At first sight, the great extent of the latter provision appears to supersede, and render absurd, the former; but the two articles are reconciled, by considering those, who had already suffered the sentence of the law, as not within the purview of the sixth article, to arrest or remit that sentence; while all others against whom sentence had not passed, are within the protection of the sixth article. It does not operate with a retrospective and restorative influence, but looks forward and stops the futre current of prosecution and punishment.

To illustrate, in a more striking manner, the fallacy of Men­tor's comment upon the treaty, I shall give a recital of it, with some explanatory additions, the fairness of which I think will not be disputed.

"IN the sixth article (says he) it is provided that no one shall "suffer in his person, liberty, or property, on account of the part he many have taken in the war;" and yet though no one, con­sistently with the treaty, can hereafter suffer in either of those re­spects, yet many, consistently with the treaty, may be declared aliens, may be stripped of the most valuable rights of citizenship, and may be banished from the state, without injury to person, liberty, or property, "The fifth article," though it speaks of none but those who have already had their estates confiscated, "describes the persons provided for by the sixth," which indeed says, that there shall be no future prosecutions, nor confiscations, nor injury to person, liberty, or porperty; but this only means, that there shall be no future prosecutions commenced against those, who have been already attainted and banished, nor confiscations made of the estates of those whose estates have been already confisca­ted, nor injuries done to the persons, liberty, and property, of those, who are already to be esteemed dead in law by attainder and exile; but with respect to all those who have not been alrea­dy attainted, banished, and subjected to confiscation, (the only [Page 33]persons comprehended in the fifth article and provided for in the sixth) we may prosecute, banish, confiscate, disfranchise, and do whatever else we think proper. The fifth article stipulates the good offices of Congress for those, who have been already ruined, and the sixth benignly takes care that they shall not be ruined a second time; but leaves all others to their destiny and our mercy. ‘The fifth article, distinguishes, the persons who are the objects of it, into three classes— First, those who are real British subjects — The second, those’ (meaning British subjects who were not real British subjects, described by the appellation of persons resident in districts in the possession of the British forces) ‘who had not taken arms against the country— The third class are descri­bed by the provision that is made for them, viz. They shall have liberty to go into any part of the United States for twelve months to solicit a restoration of their estates, that may have been confiscated. This class must be those who belonging to America, have taken arms against their country. The first and second class it is agreed, that Congress shall recommend to the states a restoration of their property. The third it seems were too infamous for the English minister to ask any consideration for, except the wretched privilege of asking it for themselves,’ though in fact, with respect even to them, it is expressly stipu­lated, that Congress shall recommend a restoration of their estates, rights and properties, on paying to the present posses­sors the bona fide price given for them, where there has been an actual sale. ‘But (continues he) I can find no where even a request, and that only implied, that any of the three classes may dwell among us, and enjoy the immunities and privileges of citizens; for the first class are considered as former subjects; the second and third as acquired subjects of England,’ acquired but not real.

THUS we see, by taking the out-lines of Mentor's construction, and filing up the canvass in a manner suited to the design, the whole is a groupe of absurdities; or in other words by connecting the consequences with the principles of his comment, on the treaty, the result is too ridiculous not to strike the meanest understanding.

IT must appear by this time manifest, that there is nothing in the terms of the treaty, which countenances the supposition, that those who have been within the British lines are considered and stipulated for as aliens. One ground, upon which this idea has been originally adopted, was that it would have been improper to have stipulated for them at all, if they were not aliens; but I have shown in my former letter, that a stipulation for subjects, in similar circumstances, has been far from unprecedented.

A good criterion by which to determine the meaning of the treaty, in this respect, is to recur to the impressions that it made, on its first appearance; before there had been time to contrive and substitute an artificial to the natural and obvious sense of the [Page 34]words. Every man, by appealing to his own bosom, will recol­lect, that he was at first struck with an opinion that the disaffected were secured from every future deprivation and injury whatever; and however many may have been chagrined at the idea, that they should be admitted to a parity of privileges with those who had supported the revolution, none doubted that this was the sense of the treaty. Indeed the principal doubt seemed to be, in the first instance, whether the sixth article was not so broad, as to protect even those, who had been attainted, from personal injury, in case of their return within the state.

I shall not, in this place, revive the question of the power of Congress to make this stipulation; not only because Mentor ap­pears to have conceded this point, and to acknowledge our obliga­tion to a faithful observance of the treaty; but because what has been offered in my former letter on this head, must continue to appear to me to be absolutely conclusive; until some satisfactory limits can be assigned to the powers of war, peace and treaty, vested in Congress, other than those I have mentioned,— the public safety and the fundamental constitutions of the society.

WHEN any different and intelligible line shall be drawn— I will give up the question, if I cannot shew it is inadmissible in practice.

THE common interests of humanity, and the general tranquili­ty of the world, require that the power of making peace, wher­ever lodged, should be construed and exercised liberally; and even in cases where its extent may be doubtful, it is the policy of all wise nations to give it latitude rather than confine it. The exigencies of a community, in time of war, are so various and often so critical, that it would be extremely dangerous to prescribe narrow bounds to that power, by which it is to be restored. The consequence might frequently be a diffidence of our engagements, and a prolongation of the calamities of war.

IT may not be improper, in this place, to answer an objection which has been made to a position contained in my former letter. It is there laid down as a rule, that the breach of a single article of a treaty annuls the whole. The reason of this rule is, that every article is to be regarded as the consideration of some other article.

THIS has given occasion to observe, that a breach of the treaty on the part of the British, in sending away a great number of negroes, has upon my principles long since annihilated the treaty, and left us at perfect liberty to desert the stipulation, on our part.

THIS admits of an easy and solid answer. The breach of one article annuls the whole; if the side injured by it chooses to take advantage of it to dissolve the treaty; [Vatel page 130 Section 48.] but if its interest dictates a different conduct it may wave the breach and let the obligation of the treaty continue. The power of determining whether the treaty has been broken properly be­longs [Page 35]to that body who made it. Congress have wisely taken a different course, and instead of reviving the state of hostility by declaring the treaty void, have proceeded upon the presumption of its continuing in force; and by subsequent acts have given it additional validity and strength. The definitive treaty has been since concluded, and proclaimed with a remarkable solemnity and energy for the observance of the citizens of the United States.

THE third mode mentioned, by which the inhabitants of the southern district may have lost their rights of citizenship, is their having been left out of the compact by some subsequent associati­on of the body of the state. The fact however is directly the reverse; for not only the constitution makes provision for the representation of the people of the southern district in the Legislature, but during the whole war, by an ordinance of the Convention, who framed the constitution, an actual representation has been kept up in a manner, the regularity of which (whatever might have been the expedience of it) was more than questionable; as all elections were suspended in that part of the state This circumstance of a constant representa­tion of the inhabitants of the Southern district in the Legislature, during the war, is in a rational as well as a legal light a conclu­sive refutation of the pretended alienism of those inhabitants by any event of the war, or by any other matter that applies to them in a collective view antecedent to the treaty of peace. To this it may be added, that a variety of the laws of the state, in the course of the war, suppose and treat the inhabitants of the Sou­thern district as subjects; owing allegiance to the state, and con­sequently having the rights which subjects in general enjoy under the government. [See Position 5th]

THE argument is still stronger when we attend to what has been done by the government since the restoration of its jurisdic­tion in the Southern district. We did not wait till a bill of natu­ralization was passed, to remove the disabilities of the inhabitants, before we proceeded to elections. We did not confine those elec­tions to such persons only, as had resided without the British lines, but left them open to all descriptions of persons, who would choose to take the oath prescribed for that purpose, by the Council. Few indeed in this city, besides those who had been absent, did in fact vote at the elections: but a considerable number did in the counties. And if we should admit the doctrine of the general alienism of the inhabitants of the Southern district, either before, or in consequence of the treaty of peace, a curious question not easy to be solved, would arise as to the validity of the election of many individuals now holding seats in Senate and Assembly. So far as an act of government can decide the point in controversy, it is already decided. The Council for the temporary government of the Southern district in appointing the mode of election — the conduct of the legislature since in admitting the members elected in that mode, are unconstitutional; or the inhabitants at large of the Southern district, either by the treaty, or any antecedent cir­cumstance, are not aliens.

[Page 36] I have dwelt the more largely on this head, not only because the idea of a general alienism of the inhabitants of the Southern district is the ground Mentor has taken; but because some per­sons who have it in their power to make a mischievous use of it, are endeavouring to give it circulation, where, if it could pre­vail, it might lead to pernicious consequences. Pressed by the difficulty of discrimination those, who may have forfeited the rights of citizenship from those who have not, without a manifest violation as well of the constitution, as of the treaty of peace, they are willing if possible to devise some general expedient to evade both; and the one they have hit upon is, to declare all those aliens, who lived within the British lines during the war, on the miserable pretence that they are made such by the treaty.

THUS we have another example how easy it is for men to change their principles with their situations — to be zea­lous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves — to resist the encroachments of power, when it is in the hands of others, and the moment they get it into their own to make bolder strides than those they have resisted. — Are such men to be sanctified with the hallowed name of patriots? Are they not rather to be branded as men who make their pas­sions, prejudices and interests the sole measure of their own and others rights?

THE history of mankind is too full of these melancholy instan­ces of human contradiction.

HAVING mentioned the oath directed to be prescribed to elec­tors in the Southern district, by the Council for the temporary go­vernment; I shall take occasion, in this place, with freedom, but with respect, to examine the propriety of that measure.

THIS measure as founded upon an act of the legislature of of this state passed in some year declaring, that persons who had been guilty of certain matters particularized in that act, should be forever after disqualified from voting at all public electi­ons. I confine myself for the sake of brevity to the general idea of the act. The embarrassment with the Council, no doubt, was, how to ascertain the persons who had incurred the disability. As the matters, to which that disability related, were of a specific na­ture, it was necessary, they should be specifically ascertained be­fore the law could have its effect.

THE Council, therefore, could not satisfy that law, by declaring all those disqualified, who had resided within the British lines during the war. They would not leave the operation of it to a course of judicial investigation and decision, because this would be to fly in the save of the treaty, and appearances were to be preserv­ed. This consideration was strengthened by another. The course of the law must have been dilatory. The elections were to be entered upon. It was deemed inexpedient, that the voice of the citizens at large (which must have been the case if the act of the [Page 37]legislature, in question, had been left to its natural course) should govern these elections. If the returning citizens were not at this juncture gratified, tumults were by some apprehended.

THIS was a plausible step, and on that account the more danger­ous. If we examine it with an unprejudiced eye, we must ac­knowledge not only that it was an evasion of the treaty, but a subversion of one great principle of social security, to wit, that every man shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty: This was to invert the order of things; and instead of obliging the state to prove the guilt, in order to inflict the penalty, it was to oblige the citizen to establish his own innocence, to avoid the penalty. It was to excite scruples in the honest and conscientious, and to hold out a bribe to perjury.

THAT this was an evasion of the treaty, the fourth proposition already laid down will illustrate. It was a mode of inquiry who had committed any of those crimes to which the penalty of dis­qualification was annexed, with this aggravation, that it deprived the citizen of the benefit of that advantage which he would have enjoyed by leaving, as as in all other cases, the burthen of the proof upon the prosecutor.

To place this matter in a still clearer light, let it be supposed, that instead of the mode of indictment and trial by jury, the legislature was to declare that every citizen who did not swear he had never adhered to the King of Great-Britain, should incur all the penalties which our treason laws prescribe. Would this not be a palpable evasion of the treaty, and a direct infringement of the constitution? The principle is the same in both cases, with only this difference in the consequences; that in the instance already acted upon, the citizen forfeits a part of his rights,—in the one sup­posed he would forfeit the whole. The degree of punishment is all that distinguishes the cases. In either justly considered, it is substi­tuting a new and arbitrary mode of prosecution to that antient and highly esteemed one, recognized by the laws and the constitution of the state; I mean the trial by jury.

LET us not forget that the constitution declares that trial by jury in all cases in which it has been formerly used, should remain in­violate forever, and that the legislature should at no time, erect any new jurisdiction which should not proceed, according to the course of the common law. Nothing can be more repugnant to the true genius of the common law, than such an inquisition as has been mentioned into the consciencies of men.

A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most import­ant rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It is that right, by which we exist a free people; and it certainly therefore will never be admitted that less ceremony ought to be used in divesting any citizen of that right, than in depriving him of his property. Such a doctrine would [...] suit the principles of the revolution, which taught the inhabitants [Page 38]of this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty; or in other words, their right to a share in the govern­ment. That portion of the sovereignty, to which each individual is entitled, can never be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled; and we should cautiously guard against any precedents, however they may be immediately directed against those we hate, which may in their consequences render our title to this great privilege, precarious. Here we may find the criterion to distinguish the genuine from the pretended whig—The man that would attack that right, in whatever shape, is an enemy to whiggism.

IF any oath, with retrospect to past conduct, were to be made the condition, on which individuals, who have resided within the British lines, should hold their estates; we should immediately see, that this proceeding would be tyrannical, and a violation of the treaty, and yet when the same mode is employed to divert that right, which ought to be deemed still more sacred, many of us are so infatuated as to overlook the mischief.

To say that the persons, who will be affected by it, have pre­viously forfeited that right, and that therefore nothing is taken away from them, is a begging of the question. How do we know who are the persons in this situation? If it be answered, this is the mode taken to ascertain it, the objection returns, 'tis an improper mode, becaus;e it puts the most essential interests of the citizen upon a worse footing, than we should be willing to tole­rate where inferior interests were concerned; and because to elude the treaty it substitutes to the established and legal mode of ivesti­gating crimes, and inflicting forfeitures, one that is unknown to the constitution, and repugnant to the genius of our law.

MUCH stress has been laid upon a couple of unmeaning words in the act, to enforce the penalties of which, the oath was invent­ted. It is declared, that the persons, who have done the several things enumerated in the act, shall be ipso facto disqualified. These words of potent sound, but of little substance, have been supposed to include wonderful effects. Let us see if we can give them any definite meaning. If a man commits murder, by the very act ipso facto, he incurs the penalty of death; but before he can be hanged, we must enquire whether he has certainly com­mitted the fact. If a man has done any of those things which are declared sufficient to disqualify him from voting, though by the very act, ipso facto he incurs the penalty of the law, yet before he can be actually disqualified, we must enquire whether he has really done the act. From this we perceive the word ipso facto are mere expletives, which add nothing to the force or efficacy of the law.

IT has been said too, that an oath to determine the qualificati­ons of electors, is an usual precaution in free governments; but we may challenge those who make the assertion, to show that retrospective oaths have ever been administered, requiring elec­tors [Page 39]to swear that they have not been guilty of past offences. In all the violence of party which has at different periods agitated Great Britain, nothing of this kind has ever been adopted; but even where religious fanaticism has given an edge to political op­position, and in an undecided con [...]st for the crown, they have never gone further than to prescribe oaths for te [...]ing present dis­positions towards the government on general principles, without retrospection to particular instances of past mal-conduct The practical notions of legal liberty established in that country by a series of time would make such an experiment too odious to be attempted by the government.

[...]men have thought [...]oat even there, they have carried the business of oaths to an exceptionable length; but we who pretend a purer zeal for liberty, in a decided contest, after a formal renunciati­on claims by the adverse party, are for carrying the matter to a still more blameable extreme.

Men, whose judgements and intentions I respect, were promo­ters of the measure, which has occasioned this digression; some from the contagion of popular opinion; others from the too strong impressions of momentary expedience, and a third class from the insensible bias of some favourite pursuit.

As to the fourth method in which the inhabitants of the South­ern district may have lost their rights of citizenship, a dismember­ment by treaty, I have naturally been drawn, under the third head, into a discussion of this, and I trust have shown to the full satisfaction of all candid men, that there is not a shadow of foun­dation to suppose that such a dismemberment, is in the contemplation of the treaty. A few short remarks shall conclude what I in­terd to say on this article.

IT is a case, without precedent, that a nation in surrendering its acquisitions in war, to the state from which those acquisitions were made, should stipulate for the inhabitants of the country gi­ven up as for its own subjects. To do it would be both useless and absurd; useless, because the country being surrendered, no reasonable advantage could be derived from retaining the allegi­ance of its inhabitants; absurd, because the district of territory surrendered being given up as a part of the state, to which the surrender is made, it would be contradictory, by the same act, to acknowledge the right of that state to the part given up, and yet to hold up a claim to the allegiance of its inhabitants.

THE surrender (for the question does not relate to original cessions) carries in itself a decisive implication, that the inhabi­tants of the country surrendered, are the subjects of the power to which the surrender is made; and the presumption in this case is so strong that nothing but the most positive and unequivocal excep­tions in the treaty would be sufficient to defeat it. Laboured con­structions to give the treaty that complexion are inadmissible; for if there were room to doubt, the doubt, in just reasoning, should be interpreted against the position, that the inhabitants of the [Page 40]country surrendered were the subjects of the power by which the surrender was made.

THE only additional remark I shall make on this head is this: — Though we are under great obligations to our ministers for the substance of the treaty, which comprehends all the essential interests of this country; we must acknowledge that the language of it is, in many respects, defective and obscure. The true rule in this case is, not to have recourse to artificial and far-fetched interpretation; but to admit such meanings as the simple and and popular import of the words conveys. When therefore it is said in the sixth article. "that there shall be no future prosecu­tions commenced, nor confiscations made, nor damage done to person, liberty, or property, of any person or persons, on account of the part taken by them in the war," as the natural and obvi­ous scope of the words presents a full amnesty and indemnity for the future; we should not torture our imaginations to pervert them to a different sense.

IT has been urged, in support of the doctrines under considera­tion, that every government has a right to take precautions for its own security, and to prescribe the terms on which its rights shall be enjoyed.

ALL this is true when understood with proper limitations; but when rightly understood will not be found to justify the conclusion, which have been drawn from the premises.

In the first formation of a government the society may multiply its precautions as much, and annex as many conditions to the en­joyment of its rights, as it shall judge expedient; but when it has once adopted a constitution, that constitution must be the measure of its discretion, in providing for its own safety, and in prescrib­ing the conditions upon which its privileges are to be enjoyed. If the constitution declares that persons possessing certain qualifi­cations shall be entitled to certain rights, while that constitution remains in force, the government which is the mere creature of the constitution, can divest no citizen, who has the requisite qualifi­cations, of his corresponding rights. It may indeed enact laws and annex to the breach of them the penalty of forfeiture; but before that penalty can operate, the existence of the fact, upon which it is to take place, most be ascertained in that mode which the constitution and the fundamental laws have provided. If trial by jury is the mode known and established by that constitution and those laws, the persons who administer the government in de­viating from that course will be guilty of usurpation. If the con­stitution declares that the legislative power of the state shall be vested in one set of men and the judiciary power in another; and those who are appointed to act in a legislative capacity undertake the office of judges, if, instead of confining themselves to passing laws, with proper functions to enforce their observance, they go out of their province to decide who are the violators of those laws, they subvert the constitution and erect a tyranny.

[Page 41] If the constitution were even silent on particular points those who are incrusted with its power, would be bound in exercising their dis­cretion to consult and pursue its spirit, and to conform to the dictates of reason and equity; if, instead of this, they should undertake to declare whole classes of citizens disfranchised and excluded from the common rights of the society, without hearing, trial, examination or proof; if, instead of waiting to take away the rights of citizenship from indi­viduals, till the state has convicted them of crimes, by which they are to lose them, before the ordinary and regular tribunal, they institute an inquisition into mens consciences, and oblige them to give up their privileges, or undertake to interpret the law at the hazard of perjury; they expose themselves to the imputation of injustice and oppression.

THE right of a government to prescribe the conditions on which its privileges shall be enjoyed, is bounded with respect to those who are already included in the compact, by its original conditions; in admitting strangers it may add new ones; but it cannot without a breach of the social compact deprive those, who have been once admitted of their rights, unless for some declared cause of forfeiture authenticated with the solemnities required by the subsisting compact.

THE rights too of a republican government are to be modified and regulated by the principles of such a government. These principles dictate, that no man shall lose his rights without a hearing and conviction, before the proper tribunal; that previ­ous to his disfranchisement, he shall have the full benefit of the laws to make his defence; and that his innocence shall be presumed till his guilt has been proved. These with many other maxims, never to be forgotten in any but tyrannical governments, oppose the aims of those who quarrel with the principles of Phocion.

CASES indeed of extreme necessity are exceptions to all general rules; but these only exist, when it is manifest the safety of the community is in imminent danger. Speculations of possible danger never can be justifying causes of departures from principles on which in the ordinary course of things all private security depends — from principles which constitute the essenti­al distinction between free and arbitrary governments.

WHEN the advocates for legislative discriminations are driven from one subterfuge to another, their last resting place is — that this is a new case, the case of a revolution. Your principles are all right say they, in the ordinary course of society, but they do not apply to a situation like ours. This is opening a wilder­ness, through all the labyrinths of which, it is impossible to pursue them: The answer to this must be, that there are principles eter­nally true and which apply to all situations; such as those that have been already enumerated — that we are not now in the midst of a revolution but have happily brought it to a succesful issue—that we have a constitution formed as a rule of conduct — that the frame of our government is determined and the general [Page 42]principles of its settled— that we have taken our station among nations have claimed the benefit of the laws which regulate them, and must in our turn be bound by the same laws — that those eternal principles of social justice forbid the inflicting punishment upon citizens, by an abridgement of rights, or in any other manner, without conviction of some specific offence by regular trial and condemnation — that the constitution we have formed makes the trial by jury the only proper mode of ascer­taining the del [...]quences of individuals — that legislative dis­criminations, to supersede the necessity of inquiry and proof, would be an usurpation on the judiciary powers of the government, and a renunciation of all the maxims of civil liberty — that by the laws of nations and the rules of justice, we are bound to observe the engagements entered into on our behalf, by that power which is invested with the constitutional prerogative of treaty — and that the treaty we have made in its genuine sense, ties up the hards of government from any species of future prosecution or punishment, on account of the part taken by individuals in the war.

AMONG the extravagancies with which these prolific times abound, we hear it often said, that the constitution being the crea­ture of the people, their sense with respect to any measure, if it even stand in opposition to the constitution, will sanctify and make it right.

HAPPILY, for us, in this country, the position is not to be controverted; that the constitution is the creature of the people; but it does not follow that they are not bound by it, while they suffer it to continue in force; nor does it follow, that the legislature, which is, on the other hand, a creature of the constitution, can depart from it, on any presumption of the contrary sense of the people.

THE constitution is the compact made between the society at large and each individual. The society therefore, cannot without breach of faith and injustice, refuse to any individual, a single advantage which he derives under that compact, no more than one man can refuse to perform his agreement with another. If the community have good reasons for abrogating the old compact, and establishing a new one, it undoubtedly has a right to do it; but until the compact is dissolved with the same solemnity and certain­ty with which it was made, the society, as well as individuals, are bound by it.

ALL the authority of the legislature is delegated to them under the constitution; their rights and powers are there defined; if they exceed them, 'tis a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people; and by the same rule that they may take away from a single individual the rights he claims under the constitution, they may erect themselves into perpetual dictators. The sense of the people, if urged in justification of the measure, must be considered as a mere pretext; for that sense cannot appear [Page 43]to them in a form so explicit and authoritative, as the constitu­tion under which they act: and if it could appear with equal au­thenticity, it could only bind, when it had been preceded by a declared change in the form of government.

THE contrary doctrine serves to undermine all those rules, by which individuals can know their duties and their rights, and to covert the government into a government of will not of laws.

THERE is only one light on Mentor's plan in which the sub­ject remains to be considered — the danger to the government, from suffering persons to reside among us, who have an aversion to our constitution; either by their becoming auxiliaries to future attempts of the British nation to recover their lost authority; or by their contributing to corrupt the principles and change the form of our government.

MY observations on this subject, in my former letter, I believe remain unshaken, by what Mentor has opposed to them. I shall however add a few others.

THE restoration of British authority in this country, is too chimerical to be believed even by Mentor himself; though he makes some saint essays to induce the supposition,

WHY did Great Britain make peace with America? Because the necessity of her affairs compelled her to it. In what did this necessity consist? In every species of embarrassment and disorder, that a nation could experience. Her public debt had almost arriv­ed at that point, when the expences of a peace establishment were nearly equal to all the revenues they were able to extract from exhausting the sources of taxation. Had they carried on the war, 'till they had exceeded this point, a bankruptcy would have been the inevitable consequence. We perceive, as it is, the great dif­ficulties that are acknowedged by every succession of ministers, in devising means to retrieve the affairs of the nation.

THE distractions of the government, arising from those embar­rassments, are scarcely paralleled in any period of British history. Almost every sitting of parliament is a signal of a change of mini­stry. The King at variance with his ministers — the mini­sters unsupported by parliament — the lords disagreeing with the commons; the nation execrating the King, minister, lords and commons; all these are symptoms of a vital malady in 'the present state of the nation,

EXTERNALLY the scene is not brighter: The affairs of the East India settlements are in the most perplexing confusion, and Ireland seems to be ready to dismember itself from the British em­pire.

IT may be said that these are temporary mischiefs, which may be succeeded by greater tranquility, prosperity and power. The future situation of Great Britain is a problem which the wised man cannot solve. In all appearance, it will be a considerable time, before she can recover from the pressure of the evils under which she now labours, to be in a condition to form enterprizes against [Page 44]others: When that period may arrive our strength and resources will have greatly increased — the habits of men attached to her will have worn out — and it is visionary to suppose that she will then entertain a disposition to renew her attempts upon a coun­try, increased in strength and resources, exerting its forces under an established constitution, fortified by foreign alliances, which her acknowledged independence will at all times command; when she reflects that that country, in the tumolt of a revolution, and in a state of comparative impotence, baffled all her efforts, in the zenith of her power.

To an enlightened mind it will be sufficient to say, upon this subject, that independent of our own means of repelling enter­prises against us. Europe has been taught by this revolution to estimate the danger to itself c [...]an union of the two countries, under the same government, in too striking a manner, ever to permit the re-union, or tolerate the attempts of Great Britain towards it.

THE danger, from a corruption of the principles of our govern­ment, is more plausible, butr not more solid — It is an axiom that governments form manners, as well as as manners form govern­ments. The body of te people of this state are too firmly mum­ber to give a different tone to that spirit. The present law of in­heritance making an equal division among the children, of the pa­rents property, will soon melt down those great estates, which if they continued, might favour the power of the sew. The num­ber of the disaffected, who are so, from speculative notions of go­vernment, is small: The great majority of those, who took part against us, did it from accident, from the dread of the British power, and from the influence of others to whom they had been accustomed to look up. Most of the men, who had that kind of influence are already gone: The residue and their adherents must be carried along by the torrent; and with very few exceptions, if the government is mild and just, will soon come to view it with approbation and attachment.

Either the number of mal-contents in the state is small or it is considerable. If small, there can be no room for apprehensions; if great, then opposition to the government is only to be overcome by making it their interest to be its friends, or by extirpating them from the community. A middle line which will betray a spirit of persecution in the government, but will only extend its operation to a small number, will answer no other purpose than to disable a few, and inflame and river the prejudices of the rest; by exhibiting the temper of government in a harsh and unconcilia­ting light. We shall then in truth have a considerable faction in the state ready for all innotations.

THE impracticability of such a general extinpation suggests the opposite conduct as the only proper one.

THERE is a bigotry in politics, as well as in religions, equally pernicious in both— The zealors, of either description, are igno­rant [Page 45]of the advantage of a spirit of toleration: It was a long time before the kingdoms of Europe were convinced of the folly of persecution, with respect to those, who were schismatics from the established church. The cry was, these men will be equally the disturbers of the hierarchy and of the state, While some king­doms were impoverishing and depopulating themselves, by their severities to the non-conformis [...], their wiser neighbours were reaping the fruits of their f [...]lly, and augmenting their own num­bers, industry and wealth, by receiving with open arms the perse­cuted fugitives. Time and experience have taught a different lesson; and there is not an enlightened nation, which does not now acknowledge the force of this truth, that whatever speculative notions of religion may be entertained, men will not on that ac­count, be enemies to a government, that affords them protection and security. The same spirit of toleration in politics, and for the same reasons, has made great progress among mankind, of which the history of most modern revolutions is a proof. Unhappily for this state, there are some among us, who possess too much influ­ence, that have motives of personal ambition and interest to shut their minds against the entrance of that moderation, which the real welfare of the community reaches.

Our nerghbours seem to be in a disposition to benefit by our mistakes: and the time will not be very remote, if the schemes of some men can prevail, when we shall be ashamed of our own blindness, and heap infamy upon its promoters.

IT is remarkable, though not extraordinary, that those charac­ters, throughout the states, who have been principally instrumen­tal in the revolation, are the most opposed to persecuting measures. Were it proper, I might trace the truth of this remark from that character, which has been the first in conspicuousness, through the several gradations of those, with very few exceptions, who either in the civil or military line have borne a distinguished part. On the other hand I might point out men who were reluctantly dragged into taking a part in the revolution; others who were furious zealots in the commencement of the dispute, that were not heard of to any public purpose, during the progress of it, and others who were fluctuating, according to the tide of good or ill-fortune, all of whom now join in the cry with a third class, more impru­dent but much more respectable, and endeavour by the loudness of their clamours to atone for their past delinquencies.

As to Mentor's commercial reveries, I shall decline bestowing many remarks upon them, not only because they are not immedi­ately connected with the general subject, but because there is little danger of their making any proselytes; while men are convinced that the prosperity of the national commerce depends as much upon the extent of its capital as that of an individal— that to con­fine trade to any particular description of men, in exclusion of others who have better means of carrying it on, would be, if practicable, to make the people at large tributary to the avarice of a small number, who were to have the benefit of the monopoly — [Page 46]that in the present situation of things, a very small proportion of those, intended to be benefited, who have the means to avail themselves of the advantage, would reap all its fruits even at the expence and to the prejudice of the greater part of those who were meant to be favoured— that the fewer hands trade is confined to the less will be its activity, and the less the degree of emplovment affordes to other classes of the community; and, in short, that all monopolies, exclusions and discriminations, in matters of traffick, are pernicious and absurd.

SINCE writing the foregoing, I have learned, that a bill is depending before the House of Assembly, for putting various de­scriptions of persons out of the protection of government. I have too much respect for the wisdom and virtue of that body to suppose a measure of this nature can brain the sanction of the majority — What is the plain language of the proposal? There are certain persons, who are obnoxious to public resentment. The treaty forbids us to proceed against them in a legal way. Let us therefore by an unconstitutional exertion of power evade the creaty, however dangerous the precedent to the liberty of the subject, and however derogatory to the honour of the nation. By the treaty we stipulate, that no person or persons shall suffer on account of the part they may have taken in the war, any damage to person, liberty, or property; and yet by taking away the protection of go­vernment, which they would enjoy under the subsisting laws, we leave them to suffer whatever injury to erther, the rashness of in­dividuals who are the subjects of the state, may think proper to inflict. What would this be but to imitate the conduct of a cer­tain General, who having premised that he would not spill the blood of some prisoners, who were about to surrender by capitola­tion, after he had them in his power, had them all strangled to death? Words in every contract are to be construed so as to give them a reasonable effect. When it is stipulated, that a man shall not suffer in person, liberty, or property, it does not merely mean, that the state will not inflict any positive punishment upon him; but also that it will afford him protection and security from injury. The very letter as well as the spirit of the stipulation imports this— He shall not suffer any damage, are the words of the treaty.

The scheme of putting men out of the protection of the law, is calculated to transfer the scepter from the hands of government to those of individuals — it is to arm one part of the commu­nity against another; it is to enact a civil war, If unhappily for the state, this plan could succeed, no man can foresee the end of it. But the guardians of the rights of the community will certainly, on mature deliberation reject it.

[...] for the honour of the state, if expulsions must take place, if the constitution and the faith of the United States, must be sacrificed to a supposed political expedience. I had much rather see an open avowal of the principles upon which we [Page 47]acted, than that we should cloth the design with a vile of artifice and disguise, too thin not to be penetrated by the most ordinary eye.

I SHALL now with a few general reflections conclude.

THOSE, who are at present entrusted with power, in all these infant republics, hold the most sacred deposit that ever was con­fided to human hands. 'Tis with governments as with individu­als, first impressions and early habits give a lasting bias to the temper and character. Our governments hitherto have no habits. How important to the happiness not of America alone, but of mankind, that they should acquire good ones.

IF we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scru­pulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the commu­nity. If on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humour, passion and prejudice; if from resentment to individuals, or a dread of partial inconveniencies, the constitution is slighted or explained away, upon every frivolous pretext, the future spirit of government will be feeble, distracted and arbitrary. The rights of the subject will be the sport of every party vicissitude. There will be no settled rule of conduct, but every thing will fluctuate with the alternate prevalency of contending factions.

THE world has its eye upon America. The noble struggle we have made in the cause of liberty, has occasioned a kind of revolution in human sentiment. The influence of our example has penetrated the gloomy regions of despotism, and has pointed the way to inquiries, which may shake it to its deepest foundations. Men begin to ask every where, who is this tyrant, that dares to build his greatness on our misery and degradation? What com­mission has he to sacrifice millions to the wanton appetites of him­self and the few minions that surround his throne?

To ripen inquiry into action, it remains for us to justify the revolution by its fruits.

IF the consequences prove, that we really have asserted the cause of human happiness, what may not be expected from so illustrious an example? — In a greater or less degree, the world will bless and imitate?

BUT if experience, in this instance, verifies the lesson long taught by the enemies of liberty; — that the bulk of mankind are not fit to govern themselves, that they must have a mastter, and were only made for the rein and the spur: We shall then see the final triumph of despotism over liberty — The advocates of the latter must acknowledge it to be an ignis fatuus, and abandon the pursuit. With the greatest advantages for promoting it, that ever a people had, we shall have betrayed the cause of human na­ture.

LET those in whose hands it is placed, pause for a moment, and contemplate with an eye of reverence, the vast trust committed to them. Let them retire into their own bosoms and examine the [Page 48]motives which there prevail. Let them ask themselves this solemn question — Is the sacrifice of a few mistaken, or criminal individuals, an object worthy of the shifts to which we are reduced to evade the constitution and the national engagements? Then let them review the arguments that have been offered with dispas­sionate candour; and if they even doubt the propriety of the mea­sures. they may be about to adopt, let them remember, that in a doubtful case, the constitution ought never to be hazarded, with­out extreme necessity.