He wished the treaty had established an independent nation between us to keep us apart. He was under great apprehensions that it would become a matter of bidding as it were, between the British and us, who should have the greatest army there, and who should have the greatest force on the lakes: that we, holding posts on this side the water, and they on the other, soldiers looking constantly at one another, would get into broils and commit the two nations in war. I told him we might perhaps regulate by agreement the force to be kept on each side.
He asked what was our view in keeping a force there: that he apprehended if we had these posts, we should be able to hinder vessels from passing. I answered that I did not know whether the position of the present posts was such as that no vessel could pass but within their gun-shot; but that each party must have a plenty of such positions on the opposite sides, exclusively of the present posts: that our view in possessing these posts was to awe the Indians, to participate in the fur trade, to protect that trade. Protect it against whom? Against the Indians. He asked what I imagined to be their motives for keeping the posts? To influence the Indians, to keep off a rival nation and the appearance of having a rival nation, to monopolize the fur trade. He said he was not afraid of rivals if the traders would have fair play. He thought it would be better that neither party should have any military posts, but only trading houses. I told him that the idea of having no military posts on either side was new to me: that it had never been mentioned among the members of the executive: that therefore I could only speak for myself and say that, primâ facie, it accorded well with two favorite ideas of mine, of leaving commerce free, and never keeping an unnecessary soldier; but when he spoke of having no military posts on either side, there might be difficulty in fixing the distance of the nearest posts. He said that though his opinion on this subject was only a private one, and he understood mine to be so also, yet he was much pleased that we two seemed to think nearly alike, as it might lead to something. He said that their principal object in the fur trade was the consumption of the goods they gave in exchange for the furs. I answered that whether the trade was carried on by English or Americans, it would be with English goods, and the route would be, not through Canada, but by the shorter channels of the Hudson or Potomac.
It is not pretended that the above is in the exact order, or the exact words of the conversation. This was often desultory, and I can only answer for having given generally the expression, and always the substance of what passed.
XXIV.
Extempore thoughts and doubts, on very superficially running over the Bankrupt Bill.
The British statute excepts expressly farmers, graziers, drovers, as such, though they buy to sell again. This bill has no exception.
The British adjudications exempt the buyers and sellers of bank-stock, government papers, &c. What feelings guided the draughtsman in adhering to his original in this case, and departing from it in the other?
The British courts adjudge that any artists may be bankrupts if the materials of their art are bought, such as shoemakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, &c. Will the body of our artists desire to be brought within the vortex of this law? It will follow as a consequence that the master who has an artist of this kind in his family, whether hired, indentured, or a slave, to serve the purposes of his farm or family, but who may at leisure times do something for his neighbors also, may be a bankrupt.
The British law makes a departure from the realm, i. e. out of the mediation of British law, an act of bankruptcy. This bill makes a departure from the State wherein he resides, (though into a neighboring one where the laws of the United States run equally,) an act of bankruptcy.
The commissioners may open houses, break open doors, chests, &c. Are we really ripe for this? Is that spirit of independence and sovereignty which a man feels in his own house, and which Englishmen felt when they denominated their houses their castles, to be absolutely subdued? and is it expedient that it should be subdued?
The lands of the bankrupt are to be taken, sold, &c. Is not this a predominant question between the general and State Legislatures?