Sec. 2. We now come together to consider that instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new chapter in our history. The state in which that found things, is to be considered as rightful: so says the law of nations. [6]"L'état où les choses se trouvent au moment du traité doit passer pour legitime; et si l'on veut y apporter du changement il faut que le traité en fasse une mention expresse. Par consequent toutes les choses dont le traité ne dit rien, doivent demeurer dans l'etat où elles se trouvent lors de sa conclusion." Vattel, 1. 4, s. 21. [7]"De quibus nihil dictum, ea manent quo sunt loco." Wolf, 1222. No alterations then are to be claimed on either side, but those which the treaty has provided. The moment, too, to which it refers, as a rule of conduct for this country at large, was the moment of its notification to the country at large. Vattel, 1. 4, s. 24. [8]"Le traité de paix oblige les parties contractantes du moment qu'il est conclu aussitôt qu'il a reçu toute sa forme; et elles doivent procurer incessamment l'execution; mais ce traité n'oblige les sujets que du moment qu'il leur est notifié." And s. 25. "Le traité devient par la publication, une loi pour les sujets, et ils sont obligés de se conformer désormais aux dispositions dont on y est convenu." And another author as pointedly says, [9]"Pactio pacis paciscentes statim obligat quam primum perfecta, cum ex pacto veniat obligatio. Subditos vero et milites, quam primum iisdem fuerit publicata; cum de eâ ante publicationem ipsis certo constare non possit." Wolf, s. 1229. It was stipulated, indeed, by the ninth article, that "if, before its arrival in America," any place or territory, belonging to either party, should be conquered by the arms of the other, it should be restored. This was the only case in which transactions, intervening between the signature and publication, were to be nullified.
Congress, on the 24th of March, 1783, received informal intelligence from the Marquis de la Fayette, that provisional articles were concluded; and, on the same day, they received a copy of the articles, in a letter of March 19th, from General Carleton and Admiral Digby. They immediately gave orders for recalling all armed vessels, and communicated the orders to those officers, who answered, on the 26th and 27th, that they were not authorized to concur in the recall of armed vessels, on their part. On the 11th of April, Congress received an official copy of these articles from Dr. Franklin, with notice that a preliminary treaty was now signed between France, Spain and England. The event having now taken place on which the provisional articles were to come into effect, on the usual footing of preliminaries, Congress immediately proclaim them, and, on the 19th of April, a cessation of hostilities is published by the commander-in-chief. These particulars place all acts preceding the 11th of April out of the present discussion, and confine it to the treaty itself, and the circumstances attending its execution. I have therefore taken the liberty of extracting from your list of American acts all of those preceding that epoch, and of throwing them together in the paper No. 6, as things out of question. The subsequent acts shall be distributed, according to their several subjects, of I. Exile and confiscation: II. Debts: and III. Interest on those debts:
Beginning, I. with those of exile and confiscation, which will be considered together, because blended together in most of the acts, and blended also in the same article of the treaty.
Sec. 3. It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to seize the property of its enemies found within its own limits, or taken in war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession. This is so perspicuously laid down by one of the most respectable writers on subjects of this kind, that I shall use his words, [10]"Cum ea sit belli conditio, ut hostes sint omni jure spoliati, rationis est, quascunque res hostium apud hostes inventas dominum mutare, et fisco cedere. Solet præterea in singulis fere belli indictionibus constitui, ut bona hostium, tam apud nos reperta, quam capta bello publicentur. Si merum jus belli sequamur, etiam immobilia possent vendi, et eorum pretium in fiscum redigi, ut in mobilibus obtinet. Sed in omni fere Europa sola fit annotatio, ut eorum fructus, durante bello, percipiat fiscus, finito autem bello, ipsa immobilia ex pactis restituuntur pristinis dominis." Bynkersh. Quest. Jur. Pub. 1. 1, c. 7. Every nation, indeed, would wish to pursue the latter practice, if under circumstances leaving them their usual resources. But the circumstances of our war were without example; excluded from all commerce, even with neutral nations, without arms, money, or the means of getting them abroad, we were obliged to avail ourselves of such resources as we found at home. Great Britain, too, did not consider it as an ordinary war, but a rebellion; she did not conduct it according to the rules of war, established by the law of nations, but according to her acts of parliament, made from time to time, to suit circumstances. She would not admit our title even to the strict rights of ordinary war; she cannot then claim from us its liberalities; yet the confiscations of property were by no means universal, and that of debts still less so. What effect was to be produced on them by the treaty, will be seen by the words of the fifth article, which are as follows:
Sec. 4. "Art. V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights, and properties, of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties, as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, should universally prevail; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last-mentioned persons, shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons, who may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given), which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties, since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage, settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights."
"Art. VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made."
Sec. 5. Observe, that in every other article, the parties agree expressly, that such and such things shall be done; in this, they only agree to recommend that they shall be done. You are pleased to say (page 7), "It cannot be presumed, that the Commissioners, who negotiated the treaty of peace, would engage, in behalf of Congress, to make recommendations to the Legislatures of the respective States, which they did not expect to be effectual, or enter into direct stipulations which they had not the power to enforce." On the contrary, we may fairly presume that, if they had had the power to enforce, they would not merely have recommended. When, in every other article, they agree expressly to do, why in this do they change the style suddenly, and agree only to recommend? Because the things here proposed to be done were retrospective in their nature—would tear up the laws of the several States, and the contracts and transactions, private and public, which had taken place under them; and retrospective laws were forbidden by the constitutions of several of the States. Between persons whose native language is that of his treaty, it is unnecessary to explain the difference between enacting a thing to be done, and recommending it to be done; the words themselves being as well understood as any by which they could be explained. But it may not be unnecessary to observe, that recommendations to the people, instead of laws, had been introduced among us, and were rendered familiar in the interval between discontinuing the old, and establishing the new governments. The conventions and committees who then assembled, to guide the conduct of the People, having no authority to oblige them by law, took up the practice of simply recommending measures to them. These recommendations they either complied with or not, at their pleasure. If they refused, there was complaint, but no compulsion. So, after organizing the Governments, if at any time it became expedient that a thing should be done, which Congress, or any other of the organized bodies, were not authorized to ordain, they simply recommended, and left to the People, or their Legislatures, to comply, or not, as they pleased. It was impossible that the negotiators on either side should have been ignorant of the difference between agreeing to do a thing, and agreeing only to recommend it to be done. The import of the terms is so different, that no deception or surprise could be supposed, even if there were no evidence that the difference was attended to, explained, and understood.
Sec. 6. But the evidence on this occasion removes all question. It is well known that the British court had it extremely at heart, to procure a restitution of the estates of the refugees who had gone over to their side; that they proposed it in the first inferences, and insisted on it to the last; that our commissioners, on the other hand, refused it from first to last, urging, 1st. That it was unreasonable to restore the confiscated property of the refugees, unless they would reimburse the destruction of the property of our citizens, committed on their part; and 2dly. That it was beyond the powers of the commissions to stipulate, or of Congress to enforce. On this point, the treaty hung long. It was the subject of a special mission of a confidential agent of the British negotiator from Paris to London. It was still insisted on, on his return, and still protested against, by our commissioners; and when they were urged to agree only, that Congress should recommend to the State Legislatures to restore the estates, &c., of the refugees, they were expressly told that the Legislatures would not regard the recommendation. In proof of this, I subjoin extracts from the letters and journals of Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, two of our commissioners, the originals of which are among the records of the Department of State, and shall be open to you for a verification of the copies. These prove, beyond all question, that the difference between an express agreement to do a thing, and to recommend it to be done, was well understood by both parties, and that the British negotiators were put on their guard by those on our part, not only that the Legislature will be free to refuse, but that they probably would refuse. And it is evident from all circumstances, that Mr. Oswald accepted the recommendation merely to have something to oppose to the clamors of the refugees—to keep alive a hope in them, that they might yet get their property from the State Legislatures; and that, if they should fail in this, they would have ground to demand indemnification from their own Government; and he might think it a circumstance of present relief at least, that the question of indemnification by them should be kept out of sight, till time and events should open it upon the nation insensibly.
Sec. 7. The same was perfectly understood by the British ministry, and by the members of both Houses in Parliament, as well those who advocated, as those who oppose the treaty; the latter of whom, being out of the secrets of the negotiation, must have formed their judgments on the mere import of the terms. That all parties concurred in this exposition, will appear by the following extracts from the parliamentary register; a work, which, without pretending to give what is spoken with verbal accuracy, may yet be relied on, we presume, for the general reasoning and opinions of the speakers.
House of Commons.—The preliminary articles under consideration; 1783, February 17th.