We are now ready to resume consideration of the situation in 1794. Washington’s policy of peace necessitated definite negotiations with England. He accordingly looked about for an agent specially fitted to carry on the difficult task. He decided upon John Jay, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Washington’s choice was approved by the Senate, and Jay set sail for England as envoy extraordinary of the United States. It is important that the class should realize that this sending of a special ambassador is not necessarily typical of treaty-making. Washington might have used as his agent our regular minister to England. On the other hand, the negotiations might have taken place in Philadelphia, our Secretary of State taking up the matter with the English minister to this country. In other words, the selection of Jay is not a type-element, and must not be so regarded by our pupils.
The details of Jay’s negotiations in London should not be presented to an elementary class. They are of little value or interest for young pupils and have practically no bearing on the treaty-making process. Suffice it to say that Great Britain was represented by Lord Grenville (“His Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,” and son of the Grenville of pre-Revolutionary notoriety), and that Jay found it impossible to secure all the concessions he desired. On November 19, 1794, after five months of negotiation, the articles were signed by the two plenipotentiaries.
The class is now ready to give some time and attention to the treaty itself with a view to noting its typical or significant parts.[8] Attention should first be directed to the preamble, which, as typical of modern treaties, should receive considerable emphasis. It should be read at length (it is not very long), and the wording carefully noted. The preamble serves three purposes: (1) It names the contracting parties, (2) it specifies the object of the negotiations, and (3) it names the agents of both countries and indicates their mode of appointment.
The general arrangement of the document, that is to say, the division into articles taking up the special points covered by the treaty, should next be pointed out. The teacher might rapidly run through some of the chief topics considered, in the twenty-eight articles of the treaty. Finally, the formal dating and signing at the end of the document should receive passing notice.
The special provisions, in so far as they need be taken up in an elementary treatment of our topic, next call for attention. In no sense do these constitute a type-element. They should be given to the class in their simplest form and without any undue detail. The general statement that most of the difficulties between the two nations were adjusted by the treaty of 1794, but that nothing was settled on the disturbing question of impressment, comprises about all that we can expect an elementary pupil to retain concerning the special provisions of this treaty.
When, however, we come to the subsequent history of the treaty in the Senate, we reach a more essential part of the story. Ratification by the Senate has already been pointed out as part of the constitutional provision on treaty-making, and here we come upon our first typical instance of its application. The Senate was called into special session, and took up the matter of the treaty on June 8, 1795. The two-thirds vote is both interesting and important as typical of the treaty-making process. The teacher should impress it by reviewing the number of states in the Union at the time, the consequent membership of the Senate, and the vote necessary for the ratification of the treaty. It is well here to work with actual numbers so as to lend vividness to the presentation. The final ratification took place June 24, 1795.
The reservation in regard to Article XII, which the Senate refused to confirm, and the later struggle for an appropriation in the House obviously will find no place in an elementary lesson. They are in themselves far too complicated for the purpose of history teaching in the grades. Moreover, they are in no sense typical of treaties in general and would tend to confuse rather than clarify the notion we are seeking to develop.
Having taken the class through the process of treaty-making as exemplified in the Jay Treaty, and having developed an adequate notion of the nature of a treaty, it will be advisable for the teacher to formulate with his pupils an outline or synopsis of the most important points of the lesson. This type-lesson is different in character from the lessons we have previously considered on explorers and claims in that it does not typify an epoch. As before mentioned, treaties are not peculiar to any one period of our history. It is, therefore, of importance that the results of the lesson should be put into some concise, permanent form to which the pupil may easily refer when, now and again in the course of his history work, various treaties are under discussion. While the lesson as here outlined may seem to enter into an undue amount of detail, it is our thought that the effort expended will be more than repaid by the definiteness of the notion which we have developed and by the greater ease of comprehension with which our pupils will approach the treaties lying in wait for them later in the course.