make good Spanish subjects, and that they would become such for the sake of the privilege annexed to that character.

He seemed to be disposed to make us believe that Spain and Britain understood one another; that he knew the views of Great Britain in holding the western posts; and that Spain had it in her power to make Great Britain bend to her views. He affected a mysterious air on this point, which only proved that he was at a loss what to say to the probability and tendency of a connection between Great Britain and the western settlements, in case the Mississippi should be given up by Congress.

He intimated that Spain could not grant any inlet of the American trade by treaty; but that, in case of a treaty, trade through the Mississippi, as well as other channels, would be winked at.

In speaking of the Mississippi and the right of Spain, he alluded to the case of the Tagus, which Spain had never pretended to a right of navigating through Portugal. It was observed to him, that, in estimating the rights of nations in such cases, regard must be had to their respective proportions of territory on the river. Suppo-e Spain held only five acres on each side at the mouth of the Mississippi; would she pretend to an exclusive right in such case? He said, that was not the case: Spain had a great proportion. How much? After some confusion and hesitation, he said, she claimed at least as far as the Ohio. We smiled, and asked how far eastwardly from the Mississippi? He became still more at a loss for an answer, and turned it off by insinuating that he had conversed on that matter with the secretary of foreign affairs. He was reminded of the doctrine maintained by Spain, in 1608, as to the Scheldt. He seemed not to have known the fact, and resolved it into some political considera

tion of the times.

He was asked, whether the partition of the British empire could deprive this part of it of the rights appertaining to the king of Great Britain as king of this country; and even whether the rupture of Great Britain and Spain could deprive, in justice, the United States of rights which they held under the treaty of 1763, whilst they remained a part of the British empire; whether, in case no such rupture had happened, the treaty between Spain and that part of the empire would have been dissolved by the revolution; &c. &c. He did not seem well to understand the principles into which such questions resolved themselves, and gave them the go-by referring the claim of Spain principally to her conquests of the British possessions in North America.

He betrayed strongly the anxiety of Spain to retard the population of the western country; observing, that whenever sufficient force should arise therein, it would be impossible for it to be controlled; that any conciliating measures that might be taken now would have little effect on their temper and views fifty or a hundred years hence, when they should be in force.

When we rose to take leave, he begged us to remember what he had said as to the inflexibility of Spain on the point of the Mississippi, and the consequences to America of her adherence to her present pretensions.54

Nothing noted till

Mr. Jay's report on the treaty of peace taken up.

TUESDAY, March 20.

Mr. YATES objected to the first resolution, which declares the treaty to be a law of the land. He said the states, or at least his state, did not admit it to be such until clothed with legal sanction. At his request he was furnished with a copy of the resolution, for the purpose of consulting such as he might choose.

The subject of yesterday resumed.

WEDNESDAY, March 21

Mr. YATES was now satisfied with the resolutions as they stood. The words "constitutionally made," as applied to the treaty, seemed to him, on consideration, to qualify sufficiently the doctrine on which the resolution was founded.

The second and third resolutions, urging on the states a repeal of all laws contravening the treaty, (first, that they night not continue to operate as violations of it, secondly, that questions might be avoided touching their validity,) underwent some criticisms and discussions.

Mr. VARNUM and Mr. MITCHELL thought they did not consist with 'he first,

which declared such laws to be void, in which case they could not operate as violations.

Mr. MADISON observed, that a repeal of those contravening laws was expedient, and even necessary, to free the courts from the bias of their oaths, which bound the judges more strongly to the state than to the federal authority. A distinction too, he said, might be started possibly between laws prior and laws subsequent to the treaty; a repealing effect of the treaty on the former not necessarily implying the nullity of the latter. Supposing the treaty to have the validity of a law only, it would repeal all antecedent laws. To render succeeding laws void, it must have more than the mere authority of a law. In case these succeeding laws, contrary to the treaty, should come into discussion before the courts, it would be necessary to examine the foundation of the federal authority, and to determine whether it had the validity of a constitution paramount to the legislative authority in each state. This was a delicate question, and studiously to be avoided, as it was notorious that, although in some of the states the Confederation was incorporated with, and had the sanction of, their respective constitutions, yet in others it received a legislative ratification only, and rested on no other basis. He admitted, however, that the word "operate" might be changed for the better, and proposed, in its place, the words "be regarded," as violations of the treaty, which was agreed to without opposition.

Mr. KING, in the course of the business, observed, that a question had been raised in New York whether stipulations, as they might affect citizens only, and not foreigners, could restrain the states from legislating with respect to the former; and supposed that such stipulations could not.

The resolutions passed unanimously. 55
Nothing till

FRIDAY, March 23.

The report for reducing salaries agreed to, as amended, unanimously. The proposition for reducing the salary of the secretary of foreign affairs to $3000 was opposed by Mr. KING and Mr. MADISON, who entered into the peculiar duties and qualifications required in that office, and its peculiar importance. Mr. MITCHELL and Mr. VARNUM contended, that it stood on a level with the secretaryship to Congress. The yeas and nays were called on the question, and it was lost. A motion was then made to reduce the salary of $4000 to $3500. Mr. CLARK, who had been an opponent to any reduction, acceded to this compromise. Mr. King suffered his colleague to vote in the affirmative. There being six states for reducing to $3500, and Mr. CARRINGTON being on the same side, in opposition to Mr. GRAYSON, Mr. MADISON gave up his opinion to so great a majority, and the resolution for $3500 passed. The preceding yeas and nays on the motions for reducing to $3000 were then withdrawn, and no entry made of them. It seemed to be the general opinion that the salary of the secretary at war was disproportionately low, and ought to be raised. The committee would have reported an augmentation, but conceived themselves restrained by their commission, which was to reduce, not to revise, the civil list.

Nothing of consequence till

WEDNESDAY, March 28.

Mr. KING reminded Congress of the motion on the 19th of February for discontinuing the enlistments, and intimated that the state of things in Massachusetts was at present such that no opposition would now be made by the delegation of that state. A committee was appointed, in general, to consider the military establishment, and particularly to report a proper resolution for stopping the enlist

ments.

The Virginia delegates laid before Congress sundry papers from the executive of that state relating to the seizure of Spanish property by General Clark, and the incendiary efforts on foot in the western country against the Spaniards, &c. No comment was made on them, nor any vote taken.

THURSDAY, March 29.

The committee appointed to confer with the treasury board on the great business o. a fiscal settlement of the accounts of the United States reported that they be discharged, and the board instructed to report an ordinance. Mr. KING, in ex

planation said, that it was the sense of the committee and of the treasury board both, that commissioners should be appointed with full and final powers to decide on the claims of the states against the Union, &c. The report was agreed to nem.

con.

Sundry papers from the Illinois, complaining of the grievances of that country, which had arrived by a special express, were laid before Congress by the president, and committed.

Mr. MITCHELL, from Connecticut, observed, that the papers from Virginia communicated yesterday were of a very serious nature, and showed that we were in danger of being precipitated into disputes with Spain, which ought to be avoided if possible; and moved that these papers might be referred to the committee on the Illinois papers, which was done without opposition; Mr. KING only observing, that they contained mere information, and did not in his view need any step to be taken on them.

The Virginia delegates communicated to Mr. Guardoqui the proceedings of the executive relative to Clark's seizure of Spanish property, at which he expressed much regret as a friend to the United States, though, as a Spanish minister, he had little reason to dread the tendency of such outrages. The communication was followed by a free conversation on the western territory and the Mississippi. The observations of the delegates tended to impress him—first, with the unfriendly temper which would be produced in the western people, both against Spain and the United States, by a concerted occlusion of that river; secondly, with the probability of throwing them into the arms of Great Britain; thirdly, of accelerating the population of that country, after the example of Vermont; fourthly, the danger of such numbers under British influence, as well to Spanish America as to the Atlantic States; fifthly, the universal opinion of right in the United States to the free use of the river; sixthly, the disappointment of the people of America at an attempt in Spain to make their condition worse, as citizens of an independent state, in amity and lately engaged in a common cause, than as subjects of a formidable and unfriendly power; seventhly, the inefficiency of an attempt in Congress to fulfil a treaty for shutting the Mississippi, and the folly of their entering into such a stipu lation; eighthly, that it would be wise in Spain to foresee and provide for events that could not be controlled, rather than to make fruitless efforts to prevent or procras tinate them.

Mr. Guardoqui reiterated his assertion that Spain would never accede to the claim of the United States to navigate the river; secondly, urged that the result of what was said was, that Congress could enter into no treaty at all; thirdly, that the trade of Spain was of great importance, and would certainly be shut against the United States, affecting to disregard the remark that, if Spain continued to use fish, flour, &c., her interest would restrain her from shutting her ports against the American competition; fourthly, he signified that he had observed the weakness of the Union, and foreseen its probable breach; that he lamented the danger of it, as he wished to see it preserved and strengthened, which was more than France or any other nation in Europe did. No reply was made to this remark. The sincerity of his declaration as to his own wishes was not free from suspicion. Fifthly, he laid much stress on the service Spain had rendered the United States during the struggle for their independence, considering it as laying them under great obligations. The reality of the service was not denied; but he was reminded of the interest Spain had in dividing a power which had given the law to the house of Bourbon, and compelled Spain to relinquish, as he said, the exclusive use of the Mississippi. Sixthly, in answer to the remark that Spain was for putting the United States on a worse footing than they stood on as British subjects, he not only mentioned the necessity which had dictated the treaty of 1763, but contended that the recovery of West Florida made a distinction in the case. It was observed to him that, as the navigable channel of the Mississippi ran between the island and the western shore, Spain had the same pretext for holding both shores when Florida was a British colony as since. He would neither accede to the inference nor deny the fact. Seventhly, he intimated, with a jocular air, the possibility of the western people becoming Spanish subjects; and, with a serious one, that such an idea had been

#

From this it may be inferred that he does not regard France as favorable to the claims of Spain touching the Mississippi.

brought forward to the king of Spain by some person connected with the western country, but that his majesty's dignity and character could never countenance it. It was replied, that that consideration was no doubt a sufficient obstacle, but it was presumed, that such subjects would not be very convenient to Spain. It would be much more for the interest of Spain that they should be friendly neighbors than refractory subjects. It did not appear that he viewed the matter in a different light. Eighthly, he disclaimed his having ever assented to, or approved of, any limited occlusion of the Mississippi, though in a manner that did not speak a real inflexibility on that point. Ninthly, it appeared clearly that the check to the western settlements was a favorite object, and that the occlusion of the Mississippi was considered as having that tendency. Tenthly, the futility of many of his arguments and answers satisfied the delegates that they could not appear convincing to himself, and that he was of course pursuing rather the ideas of his court than his own.56

FRIDAY, March 30.

Mr. Jay's report in favor of the admission of Phineas Bond as British consul for the Middle States, was called for by Mr. CADWALADER. Mr. MADISON said, he was far from being satisfied of the propriety of the measure; he was a friend in general to a liberal policy, and admitted that the United States were more in the wrong, in the violation of the treaty of peace, than Great Britain; but still the latter was not blameless. He thought, however, the question turned on different considerations: first, the facility of the United States in granting privileges to Great Britain without a treaty of commerce, instead of begetting a disposition to conclude such a treaty, had been found, on trial, to be made a reason against it; secondly, the indignity of Great Britain in neglecting to send a public minister to the United States, notwithstanding the lapse of time since Mr. Adams's arrival there, gave them no title to favors in that line; and self-respect seemed to require that the United States should at least proceed with distrust and reserve.

Mr. GRAYSON thought, as the secretary had done, that it would be good policy to admit Mr. Bond, and that it could not be decently, and without offence, refused after the admission of Mr. Temple.

Mr. CLARK said, he was at first puzzled how to vote, as he did not like the admission proposed, on one hand, and, on the other, thought it not decent to refuse it after the admission of Mr. Temple. On reflecting, however, that Mr. Temple was admitted at a time when hopes were entertained of a commercial treaty, which had since vanished, and that the question might be postponed generally without being negatived, he should accede to the idea of doing nothing on the subject.

Mr. VARNUM animadverted on the obnoxious character of Mr. Bond, and conceived that alone a sufficient reason for not admitting him. The postponement was agreed to without any overt dissent except that of Mr. Grayson.

The delegates from North Carolina communicated to Congress sundry papers conspiring with the other proofs of discontent in the western country at the supposed surrender of the Mississippi, and of hostile machinations against the Spaniards.

It was ordered that they should be referred to the secretary of foreign affairs for his information. It was then moved that the papers relative to the same subjects from Virginia, yesterday referred to a committee, should, after discharging the committee, be referred to the office of foreign affairs. Mr. CLARK proposed to add "to report." This was objected to by Mr. KING, and brought on some general observations on the proceedings of Congress in the affair of the Mississippi. It was at length agreed that the reference be made without an instruction to report. Mr. PIERCE then observed, that it had been hinted by Mr. Madison, as proper, to instruct the secretary of foreign affairs to lay before Congress the state of his negotiation with Mr. Guardoqui, and made a motion to that effe, which was seconded by several at once.

Mr. KING hoped Congress would not be hurried into a decision on that point, Observing that it was a very delicate one. But he did not altogether like it; and yet It was of such a nature that it might appear strange to negative it. He desired that t might at least lie over till Monday.

Mr. MADISON concurred in wishing the same, being persuaded that the propriety of the motion was so clear, that nothing could produce dissent, unless it were forcing members into an unwilling decision.

The motion was withdrawn, with notice that it would be renewed on Monday next.57

MONDAY, April 2

Mr. PIERCE renewed his motion instructing the secretary of foreign affairs to lay before Congress the state of his negotiation with Mr. Guardoqui, which was agreed to without observation or dissent.

See Journals till

TUESDAY, April 10.

Mr KEARNEY moved that Congress adjourn, on the last Friday in April, to meet on the day of May, in Philadelphia. Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, were for it. The merits of the proposition were not discussed. The friends to it seemed sensible that objections lay against the particular moment at which it was proposed; but, considering the greater centrality of Philadelphia, as rendering a removal proper in itself, and the uncertainty of finding seven states present and in the humor again, they waived the objections. The opinion of Mr. MADISON was, that the meeting of the ensuing Congress in Philadelphia ought to be fixed, leaving the existing Congress to remain throughout the federal year in New York. This arrangement would have been less irritating, and would have had less the aspect of precipitancy or passion, and would have repelled insinuations of personal considerations with the members. The question was agreed to lie over till to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, April 11.

Mr. VARNUM moved that the motion for removing to Philadelphia should be postponed generally. As the assent of Rhode Island was necessary to make seven states, no one chose to press a decision; the postponement was therefore agreed to nem. con., and the proceedings of yesterday involved the yeas and nays on some immaterial points struck from the Journal.

See the Journal till

WEDNESDAY, April 18.

It having appeared, by the report of Mr. Jay on the instruction agreed to on Monday, the 2d instant, and on information referred to him concerning the discontents of the western people, that he had considered the act of seven states as authorizing him to suspend the use of the Mississippi, and that he had accordingly adjusted with Mr. Guardoqui an article to that effect; that he was also much embarrassed by the ferment excited in the western country by the rumored intention to cede the Mississippi, by which such cession was rendered inexpedient on one side, and, on the other side, by the disinclination in another part of the Union to support the use of the river by arms, if necessary; it was proposed by Mr. MADISON, as an expe. dient which, if it should answer no other purpose, would at least gain time, that it should be resolved,

"That the present state of the negotiations with Spain. [meaning the step taken under the spurious authority of seven states,] and of the affairs of the United States, [meaning the temper and proceedings in the western country.] renders it expedient that the minister plenipotentiary at the court of France should proceed under a special commission to the court of Madrid, there to make such representations, and to urge such negotiations, as will be most likely to satisfy the said court of the friendly disposition of the United States, and to induce it to make such con cessions relative to the southern limit of the said states and their right to navigate the River Mississippi, and to enter into such commercial stipulations with them, as may most effectually guard against a rupture of the subsisting harmony, and promote the mutual interest of the two nations; and that the secretary of foreign affairs prepare and report the instructions proper to be given to the said minister, with a proper commission and letters of credence; and that he also report the communications and explanations which it may be advisable to make to Mr. Guardoqui relative to this change in the mode of conducting the negotiation with his court."

Mr. KING said, that he did not know that he should be opposed to the proposition, as it seemed to be a plausible expedient, and as something seemed necessary to be done; but that he thought it proper that Congress should, before they agreed to it, give the secretary for foreign affairs an opportunity of stating his opinions on it, and accordingly moved that it should be referred to him.

Mr. CLARK and Mr. VARNUM opposed the reference, it being improper for Congress to submit a principle, for deciding which no further information was wanted, to the opinion of their minister. The reference being, however, at length