Gazette Of The United States

FROM THE ARGUS.
THE DEFENCE NO. XXIV.

However uniform may have been the law of Europe in relation to their colonial establishments, no pains have been spared to create an opinion that France has been guided by a more liberal policy than the other colonizing powers, and that the regulations of her colony trade were essentially dissimilar from theirs; Moreover that her disinterestedness was so great, that she not long since proposed to our Government to establish by Treaty, a trade between us and her West India colonies equally free with that which prevails in her own intercourse with them. The object of these attempts is readily perceived.

As there was no probability, that Great Britain would consent to our trading with her West-India colonies on the same terms as she herself does, as it was foreseen that limitations and conditions would accompany any agreement that should be made on this subject; to extol the liberty of France, and to exclaim against the monopolizing views of Great Britain, were deemed suitable means to excite a prejudice against the expected adjustment of the commercial intercourse between us and the British West India Colonies.

A comparison of the footing by which our trade stood with the French and British West-India Colonies, after the completion of our revolution, and before the present war in Europe, with a concise exposition of the real views of France on the subject of a new commercial treaty, will best demonstrate the want of candor and patriotism in those Americans, who have submitted to become agents in propagating these errors.

France like England has endeavored to secure the greatest possible portion of advantage to herself, by her colonial laws, and the concessions yielded to foreigners have been only such deviations from an entire monopoly, as her own interest has rendered indispensable—France in imitation of the English Navigation Law, as early as 1727, established an ordinance, confirming to the mother country the monopoly of the trade to her colonies, and excluding thereby all Foreigners—Experience proved the necessity of moderating the rigor of their ordinance, and relaxations in favor of a limited foreign intercourse existed at the time when our commercial treaty with France was concluded, by the thirtieth article of which, it is agreed, that France will continue to the citizens of the United States, the free ports, which have been and are open in their West-India Islands, to be enjoyed agreeable to the regulations which relate to them—system of regulations relative to the trade of Foreigners with the French Islands, was promulgated in 1784: This ordinance established one free port at St. Lucie, another at Martinique, another at Guadaloupe, another at Tobago, and three others at St. Domingo, to which Foreign vessels of the burthen of sixty tons and upwards might carry for sale, woods of all sorts, pit coal, live animals, fatted beef, salted fish, rice, Indian corn, vegetables, green hides, peltry, turpentine and tar. This was followed by the arrets of September 1785, which by imposing heavy duties on foreign salted fish, and establishing large bounties on those of the National or French fishery, materially affected the foreign commerce with the French Islands in this important article of supply and consumption.

Such were the duties on the Foreign, and the premiums on the National fish, that together they would have been equivalent to a prohibition of the former, had the National fishery been able to supply the consumption.

In return for these articles which alone were permitted to be imported by foreigners into the French Islands, and which it will be observed excluded some of our principal staples especially flour, they were allowed to purchase and bring away of the productions of the islands, only molasses and rum. All cotton, coffee, sugar, and other productions (rum and molasses excepted) were prohibited; and we could, except occasionally by local relaxations of the general law, rightfully obtain none of them from the French West India Islands—This was the footing of our trade under our treaty and the standing edict which preceded the French Revolution, and even this was liable to still further limitations, whenever France should think proper to impose them; the treaty securing only a right to as Free a commerce as France should grant to other foreign nations.

Great Britain has permitted the importation into her W. I. colonies of all the foreign articles, allowed by France to be imported into her islands, (salted fish and salted beef excepted) and she moreover permitted the importation of foreign tobacco, flour, meal, biscuit, wheat, and various other grains which France prohibited—In return for these commodities, Great Britain permitted the exportation from her islands to our country, of rum and molasses, and moreover of sugar, coffee, cocoa, ginger, and pimento, together with such other articles as are allowed to be carried from their islands to any other foreign country.

Great Britain prohibited the importation and exportation of most of these articles to and from all foreign nations, except the United States— France permitted the intercourse with her colonies, under the same limitations to us in common with all other foreign nations.

The articles received from us by Great Britain, for the supply of her West India Islands, exceeded in variety those received from us by France for the supply of her Islands, the British West Indies were therefore in the ordinary and established course more extensive customers to us than the French West Indies. Again the articles which we received from the British West Indies and which we were prohibited from receiving from the French West Indies, were among the most valuable of their productions and from the force of habit some of them are included in the catalogue of articles of the first necessity in our consumption. In point of supply therefore the British were better furnishers, their colonial laws being much less restrictive than those of France.

Though the regulations of the British West India trade were more favorable to our agriculture than those of France, and tho' the articles with which we were supplied from the British Islands were more numerous and valuable than those obtained from the Islands of France, the colony system of the latter was preferable to that of the former in relation to our navigation. France permitted our vessels of and above sixty tons burthen, to carry and bring away the Articles, not prohibited in the foreign trade with her Islands, while Great Britain confined the trade to her own vessels and excluded those of all foreign nations.

Difference of situation, and not of principle produced this variety or distinction in the colony system of the two nations. France being able from her resources to supply most of the articles requisite for the consumption of her West Indies and from her great population having a proportionate demand for the productions of her Island, has been carefully restrictive in the trade between her colonies and foreign countries as to the articles of import and export.

All the productions of her Islands, must go to the mother country, except rum and molasses; these articles were not confined to France, because they would have directly interfered with the valuable manufacture of her brandies. On the other hand Great Britain, being less able from her internal resources to supply the articles necessary for the consumption of her West Indies, and her population, or home demand, not requiring the whole productions of her islands, has been more liberal in the trade allowed to be carried on between her colonies and foreign countries as to the articles of import and export. But her navigation being adequate to the whole trade of all her dominions, while that of France required the addition of foreign bottoms, G. Britain has excluded entirely from her colony trade the foreign vessels of all nations, while France has admitted them to share in the foreign trade permitted to her West India Islands.

Both France and Great Britain relax their colonial laws, in times of occasional scarcity and when they are engaged in war; during which, the intercourse with their West India possessions is laid more open to foreigners. The catalogue of supplies is sometimes enlarged, and Great Britain as well as France during these relaxations, permits American vessels to resort to, and engage in the commerce of their Islands.

It is notwithstanding from the permanent laws alone of these nations, that we are able to infer their views in relation to their Colony trade! the exceptions and deviations that become necessary by reason of Accidental Scarcity or the embarrassments of war, serve only to explain more clearly the Principles of the Permanent system.

The result of this comparison affords no support for the assertion that France has been less exclusive. or more liberal in her colony system, than Great Britain—both these nations have in the establishment of their colonial laws alike disregarded the interests of foreign nations, and have been equally under the controul of the principles of self-interest. which ever have, and ever will govern the affairs of nations.*

Nothing can be more erroneous, than the opinion that any nation is likely to yield up its own interest, in order, gratuitously, to advance that of another. Yet we frequently hear declarations of this kind, and too many honest citizens have surrendered themselves to this delusion— Time and experience will cure us of this folly.

Equal artifice has been practiced, and no less credulity displayed, on the subject of a new Treaty of Commerce, which it is boldly asserted, France from the most disinterested motives has offered to us. It should be recollected that France already has a Treaty of Commerce with us, a treaty that is not limited to two years, nor twelve years, but one that is to endure forever—This treaty is as favorable to France as she can desire, or we in our utmost fondness be disposed to make—It secures to her our acquiescence in an exclusion from her Asiatic dominions, and in fresh regulations as her interest shall dictate relative to our intercourse with her West. India possessions—It excludes us from her fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, which she was unwilling to Share with us, and it gives to her every commercial favor or privilege which by treaty we may yield to any other nation, freely when freely granted, and when otherwise on yielding the same equivalent—her productions, her manufactures, her merchandizes, and her ships may come into all our ports to which any other foreign productions, manufactures, merchandizes, or ships may come, they are equally to pay only the lowest duties paid by any other nation, and no other nation in its intercourse and trade with us is in any instance to have a preference over her—A variety of other regulations are inserted in this treaty useful to France and not particularly serviceable to us.

This treaty has been religiously observed and executed on our part; France has repeatedly violated it in the article which makes enemy goods free in neutral bottoms, while it is understood she has faithfully observed it in the article, that makes neutral goods lawful prize when found in enemy bottoms.

If it be true, that nations in justice to themselves are bound to decline the abandonment of their own interest, for the purpose of promoting at their own expense and detriment, the interest of others, ought we too readily to credit an opposite opinion? Ought we not to expect full proof of the sincerity of those declarations, that are intended to produce a belief of this disinterested and self-denying course? Ought not the very proposal of such a measure, from its extraordinary nature inspire circumspection, and put a prudent nation on its guard? If moreover, the overture should occur at a moment when we are ascertained that those who make it, desire, and are in act pursuing objects incompatible with the disinterestedness which it avows. If while it is said we wish that you should remain in peace, those who hold this language, neglect no means to engage our citizens to violate their neutral duties and thereby expose their country to war; if when we are told "we rejoice in the freedom of a sister republic" all the arts of intrigue, far more dangerous by our unsuspicious tempers, and unlimited affection for those who practice them, were employed to alienate our attachment from our own government, and to throw us into a state of anarchy; if when the fascinating, proposal, of opening new channels of commerce, which were to give unbounded riches to our merchants was received with more caution than was desired, we are told that in case of refusal, or evasion, (mark the generosity) France would repeal her existing laws which had been dictated by an attachment to the Americans. What must have been our infatuation, what the measure of our folly, had we given implicit credit to words so much at variance with contemporary actions? But it is asked do not the letters of Mr. Genet to Mr. Jefferson, which have been published, prove that France desired and offered to enter into a new disinterested and liberal Treaty of commerce with us. The question shall be fairly examined.

There are two letters from Mr. Genet on this subject—Immediately after his arrival at Philadelphia, in a letter to Mr. Jefferson of the 23d May 1793, he says—“The French republic has given it in charge to me to propose to your government to consecrate by a true family compact, by a national covenant, the liberal and fraternal basis, on which it wishes to establish the commercial and political system of two people, whose interests are inseparably connected."

If the object of this proposal was a revision of our, commercial treaty, in order to render the intercourse between us more free and advantageous, this minister was singularly unfortunate in his expressions—He might have employed the fine phrase of consecrating by a true family compact, by a national covenant, the liberal and fraternal basis on which it was wished to establish the commercial system of the two countries, and have been intelligible; but when he tells us, that he is instructed to open a negotiation with our government, for the purpose of establishing the commercial and political system of the two countries, what are we to understand? That trade and its regulations are alone in view? Or that a family compact establishing the political, as well as the commercial system of the two nations, must include likewise the league or treaty of alliance, whereby the strength and wealth of the two nations should be closely united in the prosecution of a common object.

This ambiguous overture, if its meaning is not too plain to allow the epithet, was received in the most friendly manner by our government, and on the suggestion that the Senate are united with the President in making treaties, it was understood between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Genet, that the subject should be deferred till the meeting of Congress.

Before that period, however, Mr. Genet, in a letter of the 30th of September, 1793, renews the proposal to open the negotiation relative to the proposed family compact between us and France; and proves to us, that our benefit was its principal exclusive object, by affectionately intimating in the conclusion of his letter, that he is further instructed to tell us, in case of refusal or to enter into this family agreement, that France will repeal the laws dictated by the attachment of the French for the Americans.

Had it before been doubtful whether political engagements relative to war, were intended to be connected with the proposed treaty, these doubts must have disappeared on the receipt of this second letter from Mr. Genet: the intimation that the laws, of France which operated favorably to our trade with their dominions, would be repealed, in case we refused or evaded the conclusion of a new treaty, cannot be reconciled with the belief, that this treaty was sought for from motives purely commercial, or solely to enlarge and add prosperity to our trade.

CAMILLUS.

[To be continued to-morrow.]