House Report on the Jay Treaty 1796

Context: After the Senate ratified the Jay Treaty, the House of Representatives debated whether to pass the necessary implementing legislation. In this committee report, Madison argued against implementation, claiming the treaty served British interests while failing to secure essential American objectives.

Excerpt:

Mr. Madison said, on a subject of such extent and importance, he should not attempt to go through all the observations that might be applicable to it. A general view of the subject was all that he meant at present. His omissions would be more than supplied by others who might enter into the discussion.

The proposition immediately before the committee was, that the treaty with Great Britain ought to be carried into effect by such provisions as depended on the house of Representatives. This was the point immediately in question. But it would be proper in examining it, to keep in view also the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Maclay) which had been referred to the committee, and which would be taken up of course, if the immediate question should be decided in the negative.

…

He would not enquire on which side the blame lay, of having first violated the treaty of 1783, or of having most contributed to delay its execution, although he did not shrink from the task under any apprehension that the result could be disadvantageous to this country. The treaty itself had waved this enquiry, and professed to adjust all controversies on this subject, without regard to the mutual complaints or pretensions of the parties. It was therefore justly and naturally to be expected, that the arrangements for carrying that treaty into effect, would have been founded in the most exact and scrupulous reciprocity. Was this the case? He was sorry that on the contrary, the arrangements were founded on the grossest violation of that principle.

There were two articles which had not been executed by Great Britain; that which related to the negroes and other property carried away, and that which required a surrender of the posts. The article unexecuted by the United States was, that which required payment of all bona fide debts according to the treaty now in question; this article is now to be carried into the most compleat effect by the United States, and damages to the last fraction are to be paid for the delay. Is there a reciprocal stipulation by Great Britain with respect to the articles unexecuted by her? Nothing like it. She is wholly absolved from the obligation to fulfil one of the articles, viz. that relating to the negroes, &c. and she is to make no compensation whatever for delaying to fulfil the other, viz. the surrender of the posts.

It had been urged in apology for those very unequal stipulations, that the injury resulting from a forbearance to surrender the posts, was not susceptible of any precise liquidation into pecuniary damages. However plausible this might appear, it was by no means satisfactory. Commissioners, such as were appointed, with full discretion for other purposes, might have been charged with this subject, and if they could not have done exact justice might have mitigated the injustice of doing nothing.

Apologies had been attempted also, for the very extraordinary abandonment of the compensation due for the negroes, &c. It was said to be at least doubtful whether this claim was authorised by the 7th art. of the treaty of peace, and that Great Britain had uniformly denied the meaning put by the United States on that article. In reply he made two remarks. First, that it was not true that Great Britain had uniformly denied the American construction of that article, on the contrary he believed it could be proved, that till of late, Great Britain had uniformly admitted this construction, and had rejected the claim on no other ground, than the alledged violation of the 4th article, on the part of the United States.

For more information about the House Report on the Jay Treaty, or to access the complete document, visit Founders Online.