To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 30 September 1795
From Timothy Pickering
Department of State Septr 30. 1795.
Sir,
The letter from Judge Walton covering the proceedings of the meeting at Augusta against the late treaty with Great Britain, were to have been transmitted in my 1ast: they are now inclosed.1 I have acknowledged the receipt of the letter and proceedings, seeing they were addrerssed to the Department of State, to be laid before you. Mr Wolcott concurs with me in opinion that they are not necessary to be noticed by you.
How such absurd and unfounded opinions on the treaty could be formed by such men as composed the Committee, is to me unaccountable—if indeed such are their opinions. After acknowledging the letter as received at this office, I have in my personal capacity dropped a remark or two on their proceedings. A copy of my letter I take the liberty to inclose;2 and am, with the greatest respect, sir, your most obt servt
Timothy Pickering
ALS, DLC:GW; ALS (letterpress copy), MHi: Pickering Papers.
1. For George Walton’s letter of 4 Sept., which enclosed minutes of the meeting held at Augusta, Ga., on 1 Sept., see Pickering to GW, 28 Sept. (second letter), and n.6.
2. The enclosed copy of Pickering’s letter to Walton of 30 Sept. has not been identified, but a letter-book copy is in DLC:GW. Pickering wrote in part: “As an individual citizen permit me to notice the opinion expressed in the proceedings ‘That part of the 12th Article, prohibiting the exportation of cotton even of the growth of the United States, is still in force.’ But is it not plain, that the supposed prohibition was one of the conditions to be observed on the part of the United States, in consideration of their being allowed a commerce with the British West Indies? and the Senate having refused to accept of that commerce on the conditions proposed, is it not equally plain that the Article which stipulates for the commerce, and the conditions on which it was to be carried on, fall together to the ground? every other objection in the proceedings appears to me equally easy to obviate: And I hope you will pardon me for being inclined to think that hereafter, if the treaty goes into full operation, ‘it will appear astonishing,’ not ‘that such articles could have been subscribed,’ but that such objections to them as have been published should ever have been made.”