Читать книгу The Memoirs & Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson (Vol. 1-4) - Thomas Jefferson - Страница 166

Table of Contents

TO JOHN JAY.

Sir,

Paris, January 2,1786

Several conferences and letters having passed between the Count de Vergennes and myself, on the subject of the commerce of this country with the United States, I think them sufficiently interesting to be communicated to Congress. They are stated in the form of a report, and are herein enclosed. The length of this despatch, perhaps, needs apology. Yet I have not been able to abridge it, without omitting circumstances which I thought Congress would rather choose to know. Some of the objects of these conferences present but small hopes for the present, but they seem to admit a possibility of success at some future moment.

I am, Sir, your most obedient

and most humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

[The following is an extract from the report referred to in the preceding letter, embracing every thing interesting therein, not communicated to the reader in the previous correspondence.]

The next levee day at Versailles, I meant to bring again under the view of the Count de Vergennes, the whole subject of our commerce with France; but the number of audiences of ambassadors and other ministers, which take place, of course, before mine, and which seldom, indeed, leave me an opportunity of audience at all, prevented me that day. I was only able to ask of the Count de Vergennes, as a particular favor, that he would permit me to wait on him some day that week. He did so, and I went to Versailles the Friday following, (the 9th of December.) M. de Reyneval was with the Count. Our conversation began with the usual topic; that the trade of the United States had not yet learned the way to France, but continued to centre in England, though no longer obliged by law to go there. I observed, that the real cause of this was to be found in the difference of the commercial arrangements in the two countries; that merchants would not, and could not, trade but where there was to be some gain; that the commerce between two countries could not be kept up, but by an exchange of commodities; that, if an American merchant was forced to carry his produce to London, it could not be expected he would make a voyage from thence to France, with the money, to lay it out here; and, in like manner, that if he could bring his commodities with advantage to this country, he would not make another voyage to England, with the money, to lay it out there, but would take in exchange the merchandise of this country. The Count de Vergennes agreed to this, and particularly, that where there was no exchange of merchandise, there could be no durable commerce; and that it was natural for merchants to take their returns in the port where they sold their cargo. I desired his permission then, to take a summary view of the productions of the United States, that we might see which of them could be brought here to advantage.

1. Rice. France gets from the Mediterranean a rice not so good indeed, but cheaper than ours. He said that they bought of our rice, but that they got from Egypt, also, rice of a very fine quality. I observed that such was the actual state of their commerce in that article, that they take little from us. 2. Indigo. They make a plenty in their own colonies. He observed that they did, and that they thought it better than ours. 3. Flour, fish, and provisions of all sorts, they produce for themselves. That these articles might, therefore, be considered as not existing, for commerce, between the United States and the kingdom of France.

I proceeded to those capable of becoming objects of exchange between the two nations. 1. Peltry and furs. Our posts being in the hands of the English, we are cut off from that article. I am not sure even, whether we are not obliged to buy of them, for our own use. When these posts are given up, if ever they are, we shall be able to furnish France with skins and furs, to the amount of two millions of livres, in exchange for her merchandise: but, at present, these articles are to be counted as nothing. 2. Potash. An experiment is making whether this can be brought here. We hope it may, but at present it stands for nothing. He observed that it was much wanted in France, and he thought it would succeed. 3. Naval stores. Trials are also making on these, as subjects of commerce with France. They are heavy, and the voyage long. The result, therefore, is doubtful. At present, they are as nothing in our commerce with this country. 4. Whale-oil: I told him I had great hopes, that the late diminution of duty would enable us to bring this article with advantage, to France: that a merchant was just arrived (Mr. Barrett), who proposed to settle at L’Orient, for the purpose of selling the cargoes of this article, and choosing the returns. That he had informed me, that in the first year, it would be necessary to take one third in money, and the remainder only in merchandise; because the fishermen require, indispensably, some money. But he thought that after the first year, the merchandise of the preceding year would always produce money for the ensuing one, and that the whole amount would continue to be taken annually afterwards, in merchandise. I added, that though the diminution of duty was expressed to be but for one year, yet I hoped they would find their advantage in renewing and continuing it: for that if they intended really to admit it for one year only, the fishermen would not find it worth while to rebuild their vessels and to prepare themselves for the business. The Count expressed satisfaction on the view of commercial exchange held up by this article. He made no answer as to the continuance of it; and I did not choose to tell him, at that time, that we should claim its continuance under their treaty with the Hanseatic towns, which fixes this duty for them, and our own treaty, which gives us the rights of the most favored nation. 5. Tobacco. I recalled to the memory of the Count de Vergennes the letter I had written to him on this article; and the object of the present conversation being, how to facilitate the exchange of commerciable articles between the two countries, I pressed that of tobacco in this point of view; observed that France, at present, paid us two millions of livres for this article; that for such portions of it as were bought in London, they sent the money directly there, and for what they bought in the United States, the money was still remitted to London, by bills of exchange: whereas, if thy would permit our merchants to sell this article freely, they would bring it here, and take the returns on the spot, in merchandise, not money. The Count observed, that my proposition contained what was doubtless useful, but that the King received on this article, at present, a revenue of twenty-eight millions, which was so considerable, as to render them fearful of tampering with it; that the collection of this revenue by way of Farm, was of very ancient date, and that it was always hazardous to alter arrangements of long standing, and of such infinite combinations with the fiscal system. I answered, that the simplicity of the mode of collection proposed for this article, withdrew it from all fear of deranging other parts of their system; that I supposed they would confine the importation to some of their principal ports, probably not more than five or six; that a single collector in each of these, was the only new officer requisite; that he could get rich himself on six livres a hogshead, and would receive the whole revenue, and pay it into the treasury, at short hand. M. de Reyneval entered particularly into this part of the conversation, and explained to the Count, more in detail, the advantages and simplicity of it, and concluded by observing to me, that it sometimes happened that useful propositions, though not practicable at one time, might become so at another. I told him that that consideration had induced me to press the matter when I did, because I had understood the renewal of the Farm was then on the carpet, and that it was the precise moment, when I supposed that this portion might be detached from the mass of the Farms. I asked the Count de Vergennes whether, if the renewal of the Farm was pressing, this article might not be separated, merely in suspense, till government should have time to satisfy themselves on the expediency of renewing it. He said no promise could be made.

In the course of this conversation, he had mentioned the liberty we enjoyed of carrying our fish to the French islands. I repeated to him what I had hinted in my letter of November the 20th, 1785, that I considered as a prohibition, the laying such duties on our fish, and giving such premiums on theirs, as made a difference between their and our fishermen of fifteen livres the quintal, in an article which sold for but fifteen livres. He said it would not have that effect, for two reasons. 1. That their fishermen could not furnish supplies sufficient for their islands, and, of course, the inhabitants must, of necessity, buy our fish. 2. That from the constancy of our fishery, and the short season during which theirs continued, and also from the economy and management of ours, compared with the expense of theirs, we had always been able to sell our fish, in their islands, at twenty-five livres the quintal, while they were obliged to ask thirty-six livres. (I suppose he meant the livre of the French islands.) That thus, the duty and premium had been a necessary operation on their side, to place the sale of their fish on a level with ours, and, that without this, theirs could not bear the competition.

I have here brought together the substance of what was said on the preceding subjects, not pretending to give it verbatim, which my memory does not enable me to do. I have, probably, omitted many things which were spoken, but have mentioned nothing which was not. I was interrupted, at times, with collateral matters. One of these was important. The Count de Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it; first, in a conversation at Fontainebleau, when he first complained to me of the navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire; secondly, in his letter of October the 30th, 1785, on the same subject; and now, in the present conversation, wherein he added, as another instance, the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, heir of General Oglethorpe, who, notwithstanding that the 11th article of the treaty provides, that the subjects or citizens of either party shall succeed, ab intestato, to the lands of their ancestors, within the dominions of the other, had been informed from Mr. Adams, and by me also, that his right of succession to the General’s estate in Georgia was doubtful. He observed too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch, that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States, considered it as desperate; and, that our commercial regulations, in general, were disgusting to them. These ideas were new, serious, and delicate. I decided, therefore, not to enter into them at that moment, and the rather, as we were speaking in French, in which language I did not choose to hazard myself. I withdrew from the objections of the tardiness of justice with us, and the disagreeableness of our commercial regulations, by a general observation, that I was not sensible they were well founded. With respect to the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, I was obliged to enter into some explanations. They related chiefly to the legal operation of our Declaration of Independence, to the undecided question whether our citizens and British subjects were thereby made aliens to one another, to the general laws as to conveyances of land to aliens, and the doubt, whether an act of the Assembly of Georgia might not have been passed, to confiscate General Oglethorpe’s property, which would of course prevent its devolution on any heir. M. Reyneval observed, that in this case, it became a mere question of fact, whether a confiscation of these lands had taken place before the death of General Oglethorpe, which fact might be easily known by, inquiries in Georgia, where the possessions lay. I thought it very material, that the opinion of this court should be set to rights on these points. On my return, therefore, I wrote the following observations on them, which, the next time I went to Versailles (not having an opportunity of speaking to the Count de Vergennes), I put into the hands of M. Reyneval, praying him to read them, and to ask the favor of the Count to do the same.

Explanations on some of the subjects of the conversation, which I had the honor of having with his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, when I was last at Versailles.

The principal design of that conversation was, to discuss, those articles of commerce which the United States could spare, which are wanted in France, and, if received there on a convenient footing, would be exchanged for the productions of France. But in the course of the conversation, some circumstances were incidentally mentioned by the Count de Vergennes, which induced me to suppose he had received impressions, neither favorable to us, nor derived from perfect information.

The case of the Chevalier de Mezieres was supposed to furnish an instance of our disregard to treatises; and the event of that case was inferred from opinions supposed to have been given by Mr. Adams and myself. This is ascribing a weight to our opinions, to which they are not entitled. They will have no influence on the decision of the case. The judges in our courts would not suffer them to be read. Their guide is the law of the land, of which law its treaties make a part. Indeed, I know not what opinion Mr. Adams may have given on the case. And, if any be imputed to him derogatory of our regard to the treaty with France, I think his opinion has been misunderstood. With respect to myself, the doubts which I expressed to the Chevalier de Mezieres, as to the success of his claims, were not founded on any question whether the treaty between France and the United States would be observed. On the contrary, I venture to pronounce that it will be religiously observed, if his case comes under it. But I doubted whether it would come under the treaty. The case, as I understand it, is this. General Oglethorpe, a British subject, had lands in Georgia. He died since the peace, having devised these lands to his wife. His heirs are the Chevalier de Mezieres, son of his eldest sister, and the Marquis de Bellegarde, son of his younger sister. This case gives rise to legal questions, some of which have not yet been decided, either in England or America, the laws of which countries are nearly the same.

1. It is a question under the laws of those countries, whether persons born before their separation, and once completely invested, in both, with the character of natural subjects, can ever become aliens in either? There are respectable opinions on both sides. If the negative be right, then General Oglethorpe having never become an alien, and having devised his lands to his wife, who, on this supposition, also, was not an alien, the devise has transferred the lands to her, and there is nothing left for the treaty to operate on.

2. If the affirmative opinion be right, and the inhabitants of Great Britain and America, born before the Revolution, are become aliens to each other, it follows by the laws of both, that the lands which either possessed, within the jurisdiction of the other, became the property of the State in which they are. But a question arises, whether the transfer of the property took place on the Declaration of Independence, or not till an office, or an act of Assembly, had declared the transfer. If the property passed to the State on the Declaration of Independence, then it did not remain in General Oglethorpe, and, of course, at the time of his death, he having nothing, there was nothing to pass to his heirs, and so nothing for the treaty to operate on.

3. If the property does not pass till declared by an office found by jury, or an act passed by the Assembly, the question then is, whether an office had been found, or an act of Assembly been passed for that purpose, before the peace. If there was, the lands had passed to the State during his life, and nothing being left in him, there is nothing for his heirs to claim under the treaty.

4. If the property had not been transferred to the State, before the peace, either by the Declaration of Independence, or an office or an act of Assembly, then it remained in General Oglethorpe at the epoch of the peace and it will be insisted, no doubt, that, by the sixth article of the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, which forbids future confiscations, General Oglethorpe acquired a capacity of holding and of conveying his lands. He has conveyed them to his wife. But, she being an alien, it will be decided by the laws of the land, whether she took them for her own use, or for the use of the State. For it is a general principle of our law, that conveyances to aliens pass the lands to the State; and it may be urged, that though, by the treaty of peace, General Oglethorpe could convey, yet that treaty did not mean to give him a greater privilege of conveyance, than natives hold, to wit, a privilege of transferring the property to persons incapable, by law, of taking it. However, this would be a question between the State of Georgia and the widow of General Oglethorpe, in the decision of which the Chevalier de Mezieres is not interested, because, whether she takes the land by the will, for her own use, or for that of the State, it is equally prevented from descending to him: there is neither a conveyance to him, nor a succession ab intestato devolving on him, which are the cases provided for by our treaty with France. To sum up the matter in a few words; if the lands had passed to the State before the epoch of peace, the heirs of General Oglethorpe cannot say they have descended on them, and if they remained in the General at that epoch, the treaty saving them to him, he could convey them away from his heirs, and he has conveyed them to his widow, either for her own use, or for that of the State.

Seeing no event, in which, according to the facts stated to me, the treaty could be applied to this case, or could give any right, whatever, to the heirs of General Oglethorpe, I advised the Chevalier de Mezieres not to urge his pretensions on the footing of right, nor under the treaty, but to petition the Assembly of Georgia for a grant of these lands. If, in the question between the State and the widow of General Oglethorpe, it should be decided that they were the property of the State, I expected from their generosity, and the friendly dispositions in America towards the subjects of France, that they would be favorable to the Chevalier de Mezieres. There is nothing in the preceding observations, which would not have applied against the heir of General Ogiethorpe, had he been a native citizen of Georgia, as it now applies against him, being a subject of France. The treaty has placed the subjects of France on a footing with natives, as to conveyances and descent of property. There was no occasion for the assemblies to pass laws on this subject; the treaty being a law, as I conceive, superior to those of particular Assemblies, and repealing them where they stand in the way of its operations.

The supposition that the treaty was disregarded on our part, in the instance of the acts of Assembly of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which made a distinction between natives and foreigners, as to the duties to be paid on commerce, was taken notice of in the letter of November the 20th, which I had the honor of addressing to the Count de Vergennes. And while I express my hopes, that, on a revision of these subjects, nothing will be found in them derogatory from either the letter or spirit of our treaty, I will add assurances that the United States will not be behind hand, in going beyond both, when occasions shall ever offer of manifesting their sincere attachment to this country.

I will pass on to the observation, that our commercial regulations are difficult and repugnant to the French merchants. To detail these regulations minutely, as they exist in every State, would be beyond my information. A general view of them, however, will suffice because the States differ little in their several regulations. On the arrival of a ship in America, her cargo must be reported at the proper office. The duties on it are to be paid. These are commonly from two and a half to five per cent, on its value. On many articles, the value of which is tolerably uniform, the precise sum is fixed by law. A tariff of these is presented to the importer, and he can see what he has to pay, as well as the officer. For other articles, the duty is such a per cent, on their value. That value is either shown by the invoice, or by the oath of the importer. This operation being once over, and it is a very short one, the goods are considered as entered, and may then pass through the whole thirteen States, without their being ever more subject to a question, unless they be re-shipped. Exportation is still more simple: because, as we prohibit the exportation of nothing, and very rarely lay a duty on any article of export, the State is little interested in examining outward bound vessels. The captain asks a clearance for his own purposes. As to the operations of internal commerce, such as matters of exchange, of buying, selling, bartering, &c, our laws are the same as the English. If they have been altered in any instance, it has been to render them more simple. Lastly, as to the tardiness of the administration of justice with us, it would be equally tedious and impracticable for me to give a precise account of it in every State. But I think it probable, that it is much on the same footing through all the States, and that an account of it in any one of them, may found a general presumption of it in the others. Being best acquainted with its administration in Virginia, I shall confine myself to that. Before the Revolution, a judgment could not be obtained under eight years, in the supreme court, where the suit was in the department of the common law, which department embraces about nine tenths of the subjects of legal contestation. In that of the chancery, from twelve to twenty years were requisite. This did not proceed from any vice in the laws, but from the indolence of the judges appointed by the King: and these judges holding their offices during his will only, he could have reformed the evil at any time. This reformation was among the first works of the legislature, after our independence. A judgment can now be obtained in the supreme court, in one year, at the common law, and in about three years, in the chancery. But more particularly to protect the commerce of France, which at that moment was considerable with us, a law was passed, giving all suits wherein a foreigner was a party, a privilege to be tried immediately, on the return of his process, without waiting till those of natives, which stand before them, shall have been decided on. Out of this act, however, the British stand excluded by a subsequent one. This, with its causes, must be explained. The British army, after ravaging the State of Virginia, had sent off a very great number of slaves to New York. By the seventh article of the treaty of peace, they stipulated not to carry away any of these. Notwithstanding this, it was known, when they were evacuating New York, that they were carrying away the slaves. General Washington made an official demand of Sir Guy Carleton, that he should cease to send them away. He answered, that these people had come to them under promise of the King’s protection, and that that promise should be fulfilled, in preference to the stipulation in the treaty. The State of Virginia, to which nearly the whole of these slaves belonged, passed a law to forbid the recovery of debts due to British subjects. They declared, at the same time, they would repeal the law, if Congress were of opinion they ought to do it. But, desirous that their citizens should be discharging their debts, they afterwards permitted British creditors to prosecute their suits, and to receive their debts in seven equal and annual payments; relying that the demand for the slaves would either be admitted or denied, in time to lay their hands on some of the latter payments for reimbursement. The immensity of this debt was another reason for forbidding such a mass of property to be offered for sale under execution at once, as, from the small quantity of circulating money, it must have sold for little or nothing, whereby the creditor would have failed to receive his money, and the debtor would have lost his whole estate, without being discharged of his debt. This is the history of the delay of justice in that country, in the case of British creditors. As to all others, its administration is as speedy as justice itself will admit. I presume it is equally so in all the other States, and can add, that it is administered in them all with a purity and integrity, of which few countries afford an example.

I cannot take leave, altogether, of the subjects of this conversation, without recalling the attention of the Count de Vergennes to what had been its principal drift. This was to endeavor to bring about a direct exchange between France and the United States, (without the intervention of a third nation) of those productions, with which each could furnish the other. We can furnish to France (because we have heretofore furnished to England) of whale-oil and spermaceti, of furs and peltry, of ships and naval stores, and of potash, to the amount of fifteen millions of livres; and the quantities will admit of increase. Of our tobacco, France consumes the value of ten millions more. Twenty-five millions of livres, then, mark the extent of that commerce of exchange, which is, at present, practicable between us. We want, in return, productions and manufactures, not money. If the duties on our produce are light, and the sale free, we shall undoubtedly bring it here, and lay out the proceeds on the spot, in the productions and manufactures which we want. The merchants of France will, on their part, become active in the same business. We shall no more think, when we shall have sold our produce here, of making an useless voyage to another country, to lay out the money, than we think, at present, when we have sold it elsewhere, of coming here to lay out the money. The conclusion is, that there are commodities which form a basis of exchange, to the extent of a million of guineas annually: it is for the wisdom of those in power, to contrive that the exchange shall be made.

Having put this paper into the hands of Monsieur Reyneval, we entered into conversation again, on the subject of the Farms, which were now understood to be approaching to a conclusion. He told me, that he was decidedly of opinion, that the interest of the State required the Farm of tobacco to be discontinued, and that he had, accordingly, given every aid to my proposition, which lay within his sphere: that the Count de Vergennes was very clearly of the same opinion, and had supported it strongly with reasons of his own, when he transmitted it to the Comptroller General; but that the Comptroller, in the discussions of this subject which had taken place, besides the objections which the Count de Vergennes had repeated to me, and which are before mentioned, had added, that the contract with the Farmers General was now so far advanced, that the article of tobacco could not be withdrawn from it, without unraveling the whole transaction. Having understood, that, in this contract, there was always reserved to the crown, a right to discontinue it at any moment, making just reimbursements to the Farmers, I asked M. Reyneval, if the contract should be concluded in its present form, whether it might still be practicable to have it discontinued, as to the article of tobacco, at some future moment. He said it might be possible.

Upon the whole, the true obstacle to this proposition has penetrated, in various ways, through the veil which covers it. The influence of the Farmers General has been heretofore found sufficient to shake a minister in his office. Monsieur de Calonne’s continuance or dismission has been thought, for some time, to be on a poise. Were he to shift this great weight, therefore, out of his own scale into that of his adversaries, it would decide their preponderance. The joint interests of France and America would be an insufficient counterpoise in his favor.

It will be observed, that these efforts to improve the commerce of the United States have been confined to that branch only, which respects France itself, and that nothing passed on the subject of our commerce with the West Indies, except an incidental conversation as to our fish. The reason of this was no want of a due sense of its importance. Of that I am thoroughly sensible. But efforts in favor of this branch would, at present, be desperate. To nations with which we have not yet treated, and who have possessions in America, we may offer a free vent of their manufactures in the United States, for a full, or a modified admittance into those possessions. But to France, we are obliged to give that freedom for a different compensation; to wit, for her aid in effecting our independence. It is difficult, therefore, to say what we have now to offer her, for an admission into her West Indies. Doubtless it has its price. But the question is, what this would be, and whether worth our while to give it. Were we to propose to give to each other’s citizens all the rights of natives, they would, of course, count what they should gain by this enlargement of right, and examine whether it would be worth to them, as much as their monopoly of their West India commerce. If not, that commercial freedom which we wish to preserve, and which, indeed, is so valuable, leaves us little else to offer. An expression in my letter to the Count de Vergennes, of November the 20th, wherein I hinted, that both nations might, perhaps, come into the opinion, that the condition of natives might be a better ground of intercourse for their citizens, than that of the most favored nation, was intended to furnish an opportunity to the minister, of parleying on that subject, if he was so disposed, and to myself, of seeing whereabouts they would begin, that I might communicate it to Congress, and leave them to judge of the expediency of pursuing the subject. But no overtures have followed; for I have no right to consider, as coming from the minister, certain questions which were, very soon after, proposed to me by an individual. It sufficiently accounts for these questions, that that individual had written a memorial on the subject, for the consideration of the minister, and might wish to know what we would be willing to do. The idea that I should answer such questions to him, is equally unaccountable, whether we suppose them originating with himself, or coming from the minister. In fact, I must suppose them to be his own; and I transmit them, only that Congress my see what one Frenchman, at least, thinks on the subject. If we can obtain from Great Britain reasonable conditions of commerce (which, in my idea, must for ever include an admission into her islands), the freest ground between these two nations would seem to be the best. But if we can obtain no equal terms from her, perhaps Congress might think it prudent, as Holland has done, to connect us unequivocally with France. Holland has purchased the protection of France. The price she pays is, aid in time of war. It is interesting for us to purchase a free commerce with the French islands. But whether it is best to pay for it, by aids in war, or by privileges in commerce; or not to purchase it at all, is the question.