1The Defence No. X, [26 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The object of the third article is connected with that of the second. The surrender of the posts naturally drew with it an arrangement with regard to inland Trade and navigation. Such an arrangement convenient in several respects appears to be in some respects necessary. To restrain the Indians on either side of the line from trading with the one party or the other at discretion, besides the...
2From Alexander Hamilton to Defence No. XX, [23 and 24 October 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The point next to be examined is the right of confiscation or sequestration, as depending on the opinions of Jurists and on usage. To understand how far these ought to weigh, it is requisite to consider what are the elements, or ingredients, which compose what is called the laws of Nations. The constituent parts of this system are, 1 The necessary or internal law, which is the law of Nature...
3The Defence No. XI, [28 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The foregoing analysis of the third article, by fixing its true meaning, enables us to detect some gross errors which have been principal sources of prejudice against it. One of these is that the article gives to the other party a right of access to all our ports, while it excludes us from the ports of Nova Scotia and Canada. It has been clearly shewn that it gives no right of access to any...
4The Defence No. XXXVI, [2 January 1796] (Hamilton Papers)
It is now time to fulfil my promise of an examination of the constitutionality of the Treaty. Of all the objections which have been contrived against this instrument, those relating to this point are the most futile. If there be a political problem capable of complete demonstration, the constitutionality of the Treaty in all its parts is of this sort. It is even difficult to believe that any...
5[The Defence No. XXX], [9 December 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
ADf , in the handwriting of Rufus King, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; The [New York] Herald; A Gazette for the Country , December 9, 1795. For background to this document, see the introductory note to “The Defence No. I,” July 22, 1795 . Except for a few words inserted by H, the draft of “The Defence No. XXX” is in the handwriting of Rufus King.
6The Defence No. XXII, [5–11 November 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
The analogy of the stipulation in the 10th article with stipulations in our other treaties and in the treaties between other Nations is the remaining topic of discussion. After this, attention will be paid to such observations by way of objection to the article as may not have been before expressly or virtually answered. The 20th. article of our treaty of Amity and Commerce with France is in...
7The Defence No. XV, [12 and 14 September 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
[ It is the business of the seventh article of the treaty, to provide for two objects: one, compensation to our citizens for injuries to their property, by irregular or illegal captures or condemnations; the other, compensation to British citizens for captures of their property within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, or elsewhere, by vessels originally armed in our ports, in...
8The Defence No. I, [22 July 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
IT was to have been foreseen, that the treaty which Mr. Jay was charged to negociate with Great Britain, whenever it should appear, would have to contend with many perverse dispositions and some honest prejudices. That there was no measure in which the government could engage so little likely to be viewed according to its intrinsic merits—so very likely to encountre misconception, jealousy,...
9The Defence No. IV, [1 August 1795] (Hamilton Papers)
An accurate enumeration of the breaches of the Treaty of peace on our part would require a tedious research. It will suffice to select and quote a few of the most prominent and early instances. One of the earliest is to be found in an Act of this state for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain Trespasses passed the 17 of March 1783. This act takes away from any person (subjects...
10The Defence No. XXXVII, [6 January 1796] (Hamilton Papers)
It shall now be shewn, that the objections to the Treaty founded on its pretended interference with the powers of Congress tend to render the Power of making Treaties in a very great degree if not altogether nominal. This will be best seen by an enumeration of the cases of pretended interference. I The power of Congress to lay taxes is said to be impaired by those stipulations which prevent...