Documents.

The Secretary of State having received from the charge d’affaires of France a note on the tonnage payable by French vessels in the ports of the United States, has had the same under his consideration, and thereupon makes the following report to the President of the United States:

The charge d’affaires of France, by a note of the 13th of December, represents, by order of his Court, that they consider so much of the acts of Congress of July 20, 1789 and 1790, as imposes an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels without excepting those of France, to be in contravention of the fifth article of the treaty of amity and commerce between the two nations; that this would have authorized on their part a proportional modification in the favors granted to the American navigation, but that his Sovereign had thought it more conformable to his principles of friendship and attachment to the United States to order him to make representations thereon, and to ask in favor of French vessels a modification of the acts which impose an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels.

The Secretary of State, in giving in this paper to the President of the United States, thinks it his duty to accompany it with the following observations:

The third and fourth articles of the treaty of amity and commerce between France and the United States subject the vessels of each nation to pay in the ports of the other only such duties as are paid by the most favored nation, and give themreciprocally all the privileges and exemptions in navigation and commerce which are given by either to the most favored nations. Had the contracting parties stopped here, they would have been free to raise or lower their tonnage as they should find it expedient, only taking care to keep the other on the footing of the most favored nation. The question, then, is whether the fifth article cited in the note is anything more than an application of the principle comprised in the third and fourth to a particular object, or whether it is an additional stipulation of something not so comprised.

I. That it is merely an application of a principle comprised in the preceding articles is declared by the express words of the article, to wit: "Dans l’exemption ci-dessus est nommement compris," etc., "in the above exemption is particularly comprised, the imposition of 100 sols per ton established in France on foreign vessels." Here, then, is at once an express declaration that the exemption from the duty of 100 sols is comprised in the third and fourth articles; that is to say, it was one of the exemptions enjoyed by the most favored nations, and as such extended to us by those articles. If the exemption spoken of in this first member of the fifth article was comprised in the third and fourth articles, as. is expressly declared, then the reservation by France out of that exemption (which makes the second member of the same article) was also comprised; that is to say, if the whole was comprised, the part was comprised. And if this reservation of France in the second member was comprised in the third and fourth articles, then the counter reservation by the United States (which constitutes the third and last member of the same article) was also comprised, because it is but a corresponding portion of a similar whole on our part, which had been comprised by the same terms with theirs.

In short, the whole article relates to a particular duty of 100 sols, laid by some antecedent law of France on the vessels of foreign nations, relinquished as to the most favored, and consequently to us. It is not a new and additional stipulation, then, but a declared application of the stipulations comprised in the preceding articles to a particular case by way of greater caution.

The doctrine laid down generally in the third and fourth articles, and exemplified specially in the fifth, amounts to this: "’The vessels of the most favored nations coming from foreign ports are exempted from the duty of 100 sols; therefore you are exempted from it by the third and fourth articles. The vessels of the most favored nations coming coastwise pay that duty; therefore you are to pay it by the third and fourth articles. We shall not think it unfriendly in you to lay a like duty on coasters, because it will be no more than we have done ourselves. You are free also to lay that or any other duty on vessels coming from foreign ports, provided they apply to all other nations, even the most favored. We are free to do the same under the same restriction. Our exempting you from a duty which the most favored nations do not pay does not exempt you from one which they do pay."

In this view, it is evident that the fifth article neither enlarges nor abridges the stipulations of the third and fourth. The effect of the treaty would have been precisely the same had it been omitted altogether; consequently it may be truly said that the reservation by the United States in this article is completely useless. And it may be added with equal truth that the equivalent reservation by France is completely useless, as well as her previous abandonment of the same duty, and, in short, the whole article. Each party, then, remains free to raise or lower its tonnage, provided the change operates on all nations, even the most favored.

Without undertaking to affirm, we may obviously conjecture that this article has been inserted on the part of the United States from an overcaution to guard, nommement, by name, against a particular aggrievance, which they thought they could never be too well secured against; and that has happened which generally happens-- doubts have been produced by the too great number of words used to prevent doubt.

II. The Court of France, however, understands this article as intended to introduce something to which the preceding articles had not reached, and not merely as an application of them to a particular case. Their opinion seems to be rounded on the general rule in the construction of instruments, to leave no words merely useless for which any rational meaning can be found. They say that the reservation by the United States of a right to lay a duty equivalent to that of the 100 sols, reserved by France, would have been completely useless if they were left free by the preceding articles to lay a tonnage to any extent whatever; consequently, that the reservation of a part proves a relinquishment of the residue.

If some meaning, and such a one, is to be given to the last member of the article, some meaning, and a similar one, must be given to the corresponding member. If the reservation by the United States of a right to lay an equivalent duty implies a relinquishment of their right to lay any other, the reservation by France of a right to continue the specified duty to which it is an equivalent must imply a relinquishment of the right on her part to lay or continue any other. Equivalent reservations by both must imply equivalent restrictions on both. The exact reciprocity stipulated in the preceding articles, and which pervades every part of the treaty, insures a counter right to each party for every right ceded to the other.

Let it be further considered that the duty called tonnage in the United States is in lieu of the duties for anchorage, for the support of buoys, beacons, and light-houses, to guide the mariner into harbor and along the coast, which are provided and supported at the expense of the United States, and for fees to measurers, weighers, gaugers, etc., who are paid by the United States, for which articles, among many others (light-house money excepted), duties are paid by us in the ports of France under their specific names. That Government has hitherto thought these duties consistent with the treaty, and consequently the same duties under a general instead of specific names, with us, must be equally consistent with it. It is not the name, but the thing, which is essential. If we have renounced the right to lay any port duties, they must be understood to have equally renounced that of either laying new or continuing the old. If we ought to refund the port duties received from their vessels since the date of the act of Congress, they should refund the port duties they have received from our vessels since the date of the treaty, for nothing short of this is the reciprocity of the treaty.

If this construction be adopted, then each party has forever renounced the right of laying any duties on the vessels of the other coming from any foreign port, or more than 100 sols on those coming coastwise. Could this relinquishment be confined to the two contracting parties alone, the United States would be the gainers, for it is well known that a much greater number of American than of French vessels are employed in the commerce between the two countries; but the exemption once conceded by the one nation to the other becomes immediately the property of all others who are on the footing of the most favored nations. It is true that those others would be obliged to yield the same compensation, that is to say, to receive our vessels duty free. Whether we should gain or lose in the exchange of the measure with them is not easy to say.

Another consequence of this construction will be that the vessels of the most favored nations paying no duties will be on a better footing than those of natives which pay a moderate duty; consequently either the duty on these also must be given up or they will be supplanted by foreign vessels in our own ports.

The resource, then, of duty on vessels for the purposes either of revenue or regulation will be forever lost to both. It is hardly conceivable that either party looking forward to all these consequences would see their interest in them.

III. But if France persists in claiming this exemption, what is to be done? The claim, indeed, is couched in mild and friendly terms; but the idea leaks out that a refusal would authorize them to modify proportionally the favors granted by thesame article to our navigation. Perhaps they may do what we should feel much more severely, they may turn their eyes to the favors granted us by their arrets of December 29, 1787, and December 7, 1788, which hang on their will alone, unconnected with the treaty. Those arrets, among other advantages, admit our whale oils to the exclusion of that of all other foreigners. And this monopoly procures a vent for seven-twelfths of the produce of that fishery, which experience has taught us could find no other market. Near two-thirds of the produce of our cod fisheries, too, have lately found a free vent in the colonies of France. This, indeed, has been an irregularity growing out of the anarchy reigning in those colonies. Yet the demands the colonists, even of the Government party among them (if an auxiliary disposition can be excited by some marks of friendship and distinction on our part), may perhaps produce a constitutional concession to them to procure their provisions at the cheapest market; that is to say, at ours.

Considering the value of the interests we have at stake and considering the smallness of difference between foreign and native tonnage on French vessels alone, it might perhaps be thought advisable to make the sacrifice asked, and especially if it can be so done as to give no title to other the most favored nations to claim it. If the act should put French vessels on the footing of those of natives, and declare it to be in consideration of the favors granted us by the arrets of December 1787, and December 7, 1788 (and perhaps this would satisfy them), no nation could then demand the same favor without offering an equivalent compensation. It might strengthen, too, the tenure by which those arrets are held, which must be precarious so long as they are gratuitous.

It is desirable in many instances to exchange mutual advantages by legislative acts rather than by treaty, because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient can be dropped at the will of either party; whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent, let a change of circumstances render them ever so burdensome.

On the whole, if it be the opinion that the first construction is to be insisted on as ours, in opposition to the second urged by the Court of France, and that no relaxation is to be admitted, an answer shall be given to that Court defending that construction, and explaining in as friendly terms as possible the difficulties opposed to the exemption they claim.

2. If it be the opinion that it is advantageous for us to close with France in her interpretation of a reciprocal and perpetual exemption from tonnage, a repeal of so much of the tonnage law will be the answer.

3. If it be thought better to waive rigorous and nice discussions of right and to make the modification an act of friendship and of compensation for favors received, the passage of such a bill will then be the answer.

SIR: During the long stay you made in France you had opportunities of being satisfied of the favorable dispositions of His Majesty to render permanent the ties that united the two nations and to give stability to the treaties of alliance and of commerce which form the basis of this union. These treaties were so well maintained by the Congress formed under the ancient Confederation that they thought it their duty to interpose their authority whenever any laws made by individual States appeared to infringe their stipulations, and particularly in 1785, when the States of New Hampshire and of Massachusetts had imposed an extraordinary tonnage onforeign vessels without exempting those of the French nation. The reflections that I have the honor to address to you in the subjoined note being rounded on the same principles, I flatter myself that they will merit on the part of the Government of the United States the most serious attention.

I am, with respect, etc,

NOTE.--The underwritten, charge’ d’affaires of France, has received the express order of his Court to represent to the United States that the act passed by Congress the 20th July, 1789, and renewed the 20th July of the present year, which imposes an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels without excepting French vessels, is directly contrary to the spirit and to the object of the treaty of commerce which unites the two nations, and of which His Majesty has not only scrupulously observed the tenor, but of which he has extended the advantages by many regulations very favorable to the commerce and navigation of the United States.

By the fifth article of this treaty the citizens of these States are declared exempt from the tonnage duty imposed in France on foreign vessels, and they are not subject to that duty but in the coasting business. Congress has reserved the privilege of establishing a duty equivalent to this last, a stipulation founded on the state in which matters were in America at the time of the signature of the treaty. There did not exist at that epoch any duty on tonnage in the United States.

It is evident that it was the nonexistence of this duty and the motive of a perfect reciprocity stipulated in the preamble of the treaty that had determined the King to grant the exemption contained in the article fifth; and a proof that Congress had no intention to contravene this reciprocity is that it only reserves a privilege of establishing on the coasting business a duty equivalent to that which is levied in France. This reservation would have been completely useless if by the words of the treaty Congress thought themselves at liberty to lay any tonnage they should think proper on French vessels.

The undersigned has the honor to observe that this contravention of the fifth article of the treaty of commerce might have authorized His Majesty to modify proportionately the favors granted by the same article to the American navigation; but the King, always faithful to the principles of friendship and attachment to the United States, and desirous of strengthening more and more the ties which subsist so happily between the French nation and these States, thinks it more conformable to these views to order the undersigned to make representations on this subject, and to ask in favor of French vessels a modification of the act which imposes an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels. His Majesty does not doubt but that the United States will acknowledge the justice of this claim, and will be disposed to restore things to the footing on which they were at the signature of the treaty of the 6th February, 1778.

His Excellency M. JEFFERSON,

Secretary of State.

Sir: I have the honor herewith to send you a letter from the King to Congress, and one which M. de Montmorin has written to yourself. You will find therein thesincere sentiments with which you have inspired our Government, and the regret o! the minister in not having a more near relation of correspondence with you. In these every person who has had the advantage of knowing you in France participates.

At the same time, it gives me pain, sir, to be obliged to announce to you that the complaints of our merchants on the subject of the tonnage duty increase, and that they have excited not only the attention of the King but that of several departments of the Kingdom. I have received new orders to request of the United States a decision on this matter and to solicit in favor of the aggrieved merchants the restitution of the duties which have already been paid. I earnestly beg of you, sir, not to lose sight of an object which, as I have already had the honor to tell you verbally, is of the greatest importance for cementing the future commercial connections between the two nations.

In more particularly examining this question you will perhaps find that motives of convenience are as powerful as those of justice to engage the United States to give to His Majesty the satisfaction which he requires. At least twice as many American vessels enter the ports of France as do those of France the ports of America. The exemption of the tonnage of duty, then, is evidently less advantageous for the French than for the navigators of the United States. Be this as it may, I can assure you, sir, that the delay of a decision in this respect by augmenting the just complaints of the French merchants will only augment the difficulties.

I therefore beg of you to enable me before the sailing of the packet, which will take place toward the last of this month, to give to my Court a satisfactory answer. I have the honor to be, etc.,

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I lay before you a statement relative to the frontiers of the United States, which has been submitted to me by the Secretary for the Department of War.

I rely upon your wisdom to make such arrangements as may be essential for the preservation of good order and the effectual protection of the frontiers.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

In execution of the powers with which Congress were pleased to invest me by their act entitled "An act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government of the United States," and on mature consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the several positions within the limits prescribed by the said act, I have by a proclamation bearing date this day (a copy of which is herewith transmitted) directed commissioners, appointed in pursuance of the act, to survey and limit a part of the territory of 10 miles square on both sides of the river Potomac, so as to comprehend Georgetown, in Maryland, and extend to the Eastern Branch.

I have not by this first act given to the said territory the whole extent of which it is susceptible in the direction of the river, because I thought it important that Congress should have an opportunity of considering whether by an amendatory law they would authorize the location of the residue at the lower end of the present, so as to comprehend the Eastern Branch itself and some of the country on its lower side, in the State of Maryland, and the town of Alexandria, in Virginia. If, however, they are of opinion that the Federal territory should be bounded by the water edge of the Eastern Branch, the location of the residue will be to be made at the upper end of what is now directed.

I have thought best to await a survey of the territory before it is decided on what particular spot on the northeastern side of the river the public buildings shall be erected.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I lay before you the copy of a letter from the President of the National Assembly of France to the President of the United States, and of a decree of that Assembly, which was transmitted with the above-mentioned letter.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

In order that you may be fully informed of the situation of the frontiers and the prospect of hostility in that quarter, I lay before you the intelligence of some recent depredations, received since my message to you upon this subject of the 24th instant.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have received from the governor of Vermont authentic documents, expressing the consent of the legislatures of New York and of the Territory of Vermont that the said Territory shall be admitted to be a distinct member of our Union; and a memorial of Nathaniel Chipman and Lewis R. Morris, commissioners from the said Territory, praying the consent of Congress to that admission, by the name and style of the State of Vermont, copies of which I now lay before Congress, with whom the Constitution has vested the object of these proceedings.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Soon after I was called to the administration of the Government I found it important to come to an understanding with the Court of London on several points interesting to the United States, and particularly to know whether they were disposed to enter into arrangements by mutual consent which might fix the commerce between the two nations on principles of reciprocal advantage. For this purpose I authorized informal conferences with their ministers, and from these I do not infer any disposition on their part to enter into any arrangements merely commercial. I have thought it proper to give you this information, as it might at some time have influence on matters under your consideration.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Conceiving that in the possible event of a refusal of justice on the part of Great Britain we should stand less committed should it be made to a private rather than to a public person, I employed Mr. Gouverneur Morris, who was on the spot, and without giving him any definite character, to enter informally into the conferences before mentioned. For your more particular information I lay before you the instructions I gave him and those parts of his communications wherein the British ministers appear either in conversation or by letter. These are two letters from the Duke of Leeds to Mr. Morris, and three letters of Mr. Morris giving an account of two conferences with the Duke of Leeds and one with him and Mr. Pitt. The sum of these is that they declare without scruple they do not mean to fulfill what remains of the treaty of peace to be fulfilled on their part (by which we are to understand the delivery of the posts and payment for property carried off) till performance on our part, and compensation where the delay has rendered the performance now impracticable; that on the subject of a treaty of commerce they avoided direct answers, so as to satisfy Mr. Morris they did not mean to enter into one unless it could be extended to a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive, or unless in the event of a rupture with Spain.

As to the sending a minister here, they made excuses at the first conference, seemed disposed to it in the second, and in the last express an intention of so doing.

Their views being thus sufficiently ascertained, I have directed Mr. Morris to discontinue his communications with them.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

The aspect of affairs in Europe during the last summer, and especially between Spain and England, gave reason to expect a favorable occasion for pressing to accommodation the unsettled matters between them and us. Mr. Carmichael, our charge’ d’affaires at Madrid, having been long absent from his country, great changes having taken place in our circumstances and sentiments during that interval, it was thought expedient to send some person, in a private character, fully acquainted with the present state of things here, to be the bearer of written and confidential instructions to him, and at the same time to possess him in full and frequent conversations of all those details of facts and topics of argument which could not be conveyed in writing, but which would be necessary to enable him to meet the reasonings of that Court with advantage. Colonel David Humphreys was therefore sent for these purposes.

An additional motive for this confidential mission arose in the same quarter. The Court of Lisbon had on several occasions made the most amicable advances for cultivating friendship and intercourse with the United States. The exchange of a diplomatic character had been informally, but repeatedly, suggested on their part. It was our interest to meet this nation in its friendly dispositions and to concur in the exchange proposed. But my wish was at the same time that the character to be exchanged should be of the lowest and most economical grade. To this it was known that certain rules of long standing at that Court would produce obstacles. Colonel Humphreys was charged with dispatches to the prime minister of Portugal and with instructions to endeavor to arrange this to our views. It happened, however, that previous to his arrival at Lisbon the Queen had appointed a minister resident to the United States. This embarrassment seems to have rendered the difficulty completely insurmountable. The minister of that Court in his conferences with Colonel Humphreys, professing every wish to accommodate, yet expresses his regrets that circumstances do not permit them to concur in the grade of charge’ d’affaires, a grade of little privilege or respectability by the rules of their Court and held in so low estimation with them that no proper character would accept it to go abroad. In a letter to the Secretary of State he expresses the same sentiments, and announces the appointment on their part of a minister resident to the United States, and the pleasure with which the Queen will receive one from us at her Court. A copy of his letter, and also of Colonel Humphreys’s giving the details of this transaction, will be delivered to you.

On consideration of all circumstances I have determined to accede to the desire of the Court of Lisbon in the article of grade. I am aware that the consequences will not end here, and that this is not the only instance in which a like change may be pressed. But should it be necessaryto yield elsewhere also, I shall think it a less evil than to disgust a government so friendly and so interesting to us as that of Portugal.

I do not mean that the change of grade shall render the mission more expensive.

I have therefore nominated David Humphreys minister resident from the United States to Her Most Faithful Majesty the Queen of Portugal.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

I will proceed to take measures for the ransom of our citizens in captivity at Algiers, in conformity with your resolution of advice of the 1st instant, so soon as the moneys necessary shall be appropriated by the Legislature and shall be in readiness.

The recognition of our treaty with the new Emperor of Morocco requires also previous appropriation and provision. The importance of this last to the liberty and property of our citizens induces me to urge it on your earliest attention.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Information having been received from Thomas Auldjo, who was appointed vice- consul of the United States at Cowes, in Great Britain, that his commission has not been recognized by that Government because it is a port at which no foreign consul has yet been received, and that it has been intimated to him that his appointment to the port of Poole and parts nearer to that than to the residence of any other consul of the United States would be recognized and his residence at Cowes not noticed, I have therefore thought it expedient to nominate Thomas Auldjo to be vice-consul for the United States at the port of Poole, in Great Britain, and such parts within the allegiance of His Britannic Majesty as shall be nearer thereto than to the residence of any other consul or vice-consul of the United States within the same allegiance.

I also nominate James Yard, of Pennsylvania, to be consul for the United States in the island of Santa Cruz and such other parts within the allegiance of His Danish Majesty as shall be nearer thereto than to the residence of any other consul or vice- consul of the United States within the same allegiance.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

The act for the admission of the State of Vermont into this Union having fixed on this as the day of its admission, it was thought that this would also be the first day on which any officer of the Union mightlegally perform any act of authority relating to that State. I therefore required your attendance to receive nominations of the several officers necessary to put the Federal Government into motion in that State.

For this purpose I nominate Nathaniel Chipman to be judge of the district of Vermont; Stephen Jacobs to be attorney for the United States in the district of Vermont; Lewis R. Morris to be marshal of the district of Vermont, and Stephen Keyes to be collector of the port of Allburgh, in the State of Vermont.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers Vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia.

And I hereby nominate as supervisors of the said districts, respectively, the following persons, viz:

For the district of New Hampshire, Joshua Wentworth; for the district of Massachusetts, Nathaniel Gorham; for the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, John S. Dexter; for the district of Connecticut, John Chester; for the district of Vermont, Noah Smith; for the district of New York, William S. Smith; for the district of New Jersey, Aaron Dunham; for the district of Pennsylvania, George Clymer; for the district of Delaware, Henry Latimer; for the district of Maryland, George Gale; for the district of Virginia, Edward Carrington; for the district of North Carolina, William Polk; for the district of South Carolina, Daniel Stevens; for the district of Georgia, John Mathews.