monies current in the several states, and had directed the Financier,
Robert Morris, to report to them a table of rates, at which the foreign
coins should be received at the treasury. That officer, or rather his
assistant, Gouverneur Morris, answered them on the 15th, in an able and
elaborate statement of the denominations of money current in the several
states, and of the comparative value of the foreign coins chiefly in
circulation with us, He went into the consideration of the necessity of
establishing a standard of value with us, and of the adoption of a money
unit. He proposed for that unit, such a fraction of pure silver as
would be a common measure of the penny of every state, without leaving
a fraction. This common divisor he found to be 1/1440 of a dollar, or
1/1600 the crown sterling. The value of a dollar was, therefore, to be
expressed by 1440 units, and of a crown by 1600; each unit containing
a quarter of a grain of fine silver. Congress turning again their
attention to this subject the following year, the Financier, by a letter
of April 30,1783, further explained and urged the unit he had proposed:
but nothing more was done on it until the ensuing year, when it was
again taken up, and referred to a committee, of which I was a member.
The general views of the Financier were sound, and the principle was
ingenious, on which he proposed to found his unit; but it was too minute
for ordinary use, too laborious for computation, either by the head or
in figures. The price of a loaf of bread, 1/20 of a dollar, would be
72 units. A pound of butter, 1/5 of a dollar, 288 units. A horse, or
bullock, of eighty dollars’ value, would require a notation of six
figures, to wit, 115,200, and the public debt, suppose of eighty
millions, would require twelve figures, to wit, 115,200,000,000 units.
Such a system of money-arithmetic would be entirely unmanageable for the
common purposes of society. I proposed, therefore, instead of this,
to adopt the Dollar as our unit of account and payment, and that its
divisions and subdivisions should be in the decimal ratio. I wrote some
Notes on the subject, which I submitted to the consideration of the
Financier. I received his answer and adherence to his general system,
only agreeing to take for his unit one hundred of those he first
proposed, so that a Dollar should be 14 40/100 and a crown 16 units. I
replied to this, and printed my Notes and Reply on a flying sheet, which
I put into the hands of the members of Congress for consideration, and
the Committee agreed to report on my principle. This was adopted the
ensuing year, and is the system which now prevails. I insert, here, the
Notes and Reply, as showing the different views on which the adoption of
our money system hung. [See Appendix, note F.]The divisions into dismes,
cents, and mills is now so well understood, that it would be easy of
introduction into the kindred branches of weights and measures. I use,
when I travel, an Odometer of Clarke’s invention, which divides the mile
into cents, and I find every one comprehends a distance readily, when
stated to him in miles and cents; so he would in feet and cents, pounds
and cents, &c.
The remissness of Congress, and their permanent session began to be a
subject of uneasiness; and even some of the legislatures had recommended
to them intermissions, and periodical sessions. As the Confederation had
made no provision for a visible head of the government, during vacations
of Congress, and such a one was necessary to superintend the executive
business, to receive and communicate with foreign ministers and nations,
and to assemble Congress on sudden and extraordinary emergencies, I
proposed, early in April, the appointment of a committee, to be called
the ‘Committee of the States,’ to consist of a member from each state,
who should remain in session during the recess of Congress: that the
functions of Congress should be divided into executive and legislative,
the latter to be reserved, and the former, by a general resolution, to
be delegated to that Committee. This proposition was afterwards
agreed to; a Committee appointed who entered on duty on the subsequent
adjournment of Congress, quarrelled very soon, split into two parties,
abandoned their post, and left the government without any visible head,
until the next meeting of Congress. We have since seen the same thing
take place, in the Directory of France; and I believe it will for ever
take place in any Executive consisting of a plurality. Our plan, best, I
believe, combines wisdom and practicability, by providing a plurality of
Counsellors, but a single Arbiter for ultimate decision. I was in France
when we heard of this schism and separation of our Committee, and,
speaking with Dr. Franklin of this singular disposition of men to
quarrel, and divide into parties, he gave his sentiments, as usual, by
way of Apologue. He mentioned the Eddystone light-house, in the
British channel, as being built on a rock, in the mid-channel, totally
inaccessible in winter, from the boisterous character of that sea, in
that season; that, therefore, for the two keepers employed to keep up
the lights, all provisions for the winter were necessarily carried to
them in autumn, as they could never be visited again till the return of
the milder season; that, on the first practicable day in the spring, a
boat put off to them with fresh supplies. The boatmen met at the door
one of the keepers, and accosted him with a ‘How goes it, friend?’ ‘Very
well.’ ‘How is your companion?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Don’t know? Is not he
here?’ ‘I can’t tell.’ ‘Have not you seen him to-day?’ ‘No.’ ‘When did
you see him?’ ‘Not since last fall.’ ‘You have killed him?’ ‘Not
I, indeed.’ They were about to lay hold of him, as having certainly
murdered his companion; but he desired them to go up stairs and examine
for themselves. They went up, and there found the other keeper. They had
quarrelled, it seems, soon after being left there, had divided into two
parties, assigned the cares below to one, and those above to the other,
and had never spoken to, or seen, one another since.
But to return to our Congress at Annapolis. The definitive treaty of
peace which had been signed at Paris on the 3rd of September, 1783, and
received here, could not be ratified without a House of nine states.
On the 23rd of December, therefore, we addressed letters to the several
Governors, stating the receipt of the definitive treaty; that seven
states only were in attendance, while nine were necessary to its
ratification; and urging them to press on their delegates the necessity
of their immediate attendance. And on the 26th, to save time, I moved
that the Agent of Marine (Robert Morris) should be instructed to have
ready a vessel at this place, at New York, and at some Eastern port,
to carry over the ratification of the treaty when agreed to. It met the
general sense of the House, but was opposed by Dr. Lee, on the ground
of expense, which it would authorize the Agent to incur for us; and,
he said, it would be better to ratify at once, and send on the
ratification. Some members had before suggested, that seven states were
competent to the ratification. My motion was therefore postponed, and
another brought forward by Mr. Read, of South Carolina, for an immediate
ratification. This was debated the 26th and 27th. Read, Lee, Williamson,
and Jeremiah Chase urged that ratification was a mere matter of form;
that the treaty was conclusive from the moment it was signed by the
ministers; that, although the Confederation requires the assent of nine
states to enter into a treaty, yet, that its conclusion could not be
called the entrance into it; that supposing nine states requisite, it
would be in the power of five states to keep us always at war; that nine
states had virtually authorized the ratification, having ratified
the provisional treaty, and instructed their ministers to agree to a
definitive one in the same terms, and the present one was, in fact,
substantially, and almost verbatim, the same; that there now remain
but sixty-seven days for the ratification, for its passage across the
Atlantic, and its exchange; that there was no hope of our soon having
nine states present in fact, that this was the ultimate point of time
to which we could venture to wait; that if the ratification was not
in Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty would become void; that if
ratified by seven states, it would go under our seal, without its being
known to Great Britain that only seven had concurred; that it was a
question of which they had no right to take cognizance, and we were only
answerable for it to our constituents; that it was like the ratification
which Great Britain had received from the Dutch, by the negotiations of
Sir William Temple.
On the contrary, it was argued by Monroe, Gerry, Howel, Ellery, and
myself, that by the modern usage of Europe, the ratification was
considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until which, it
was not obligatory.* That the commission to the ministers, reserved the
ratification to Congress; that the treaty itself stipulated, that it
should be ratified; that it became a second question, who were competent
to the ratification? That the Confederation expressly required nine
states to enter into any treaty; that, by this, that instrument must
have intended, that the assent of nine states should be necessary, as
well to the completion as to the commencement of the treaty, its object
having been to guard the rights of the Union in all those important
cases, where nine states are called for; that by the contrary
construction, seven states, containing less than one third of our whole
citizens, might rivet on us a treaty, commenced indeed under commission
and instructions from nine states, but formed by the minister in express
contradiction to such instructions, and in direct sacrifice of the
interests of so great a majority; that the definitive treaty was
admitted not to be a verbal copy of the provisional one, and whether the
departures from it were of substance, or not, was a question on which
nine states alone were competent to decide; that the circumstances
of the ratification of the provisional articles by nine states, the
instructions to our ministers to form a definitive one by them, and
their actual agreement in substance, do not render us competent to
ratify in the present instance; if these circumstances are in themselves
a ratification, nothing further is requisite than to give attested
copies of them, in exchange for the British ratification; if they are
not, we remain where we were, without a ratification by nine states,
and incompetent ourselves to ratify; that it was but four days since the
seven states, now present, unanimously concurred in a resolution to be
forwarded to the Governors of the absent states, in which they stated,
as a cause for urging on their delegates, that nine states were
necessary to ratify the treaty; that in the case of the Dutch
ratification, Great Britain had courted it, and therefore was glad to
accept it as it was; that they knew our Constitution, and would object
to a ratification by seven; that, if that circumstance was kept back,
it would be known hereafter, and would give them ground to deny the
validity of a ratification, into which they should have been surprised
and cheated, and it would be a dishonorable prostitution of our seal;
that there is a hope of nine states; that if the treaty would become
null, if not ratified in time, it would not be saved by an imperfect
ratification; but that, in fact, it would not be null, and would be
placed on better ground, going in unexceptionable form, though a few
days too late, and rested on the small importance of this circumstance,
and the physical impossibilities which had prevented a punctual
compliance in point of time; that this would be approved by all nations,
and by Great Britain herself, if not determined to renew the war, and if
so determined, she would never want excuses, were this out of the way.
Mr. Read gave notice, he should call for the yeas and nays; whereon
those in opposition, prepared a resolution, expressing pointedly the
reasons of their dissent from his motion. It appearing, however, that
his proposition could not be carried, it was thought better to make no
entry at all. Massachusetts alone would have been for it; Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia against it, Delaware, Maryland, and North
Carolina, would have been divided.
Our body was little numerous, but very contentious. Day after day
was wasted on the most unimportant questions. A member, one of those
afflicted with the morbid rage of debate, of an ardent mind, prompt
imagination, and copious flow of words, who heard with impatience any
logic which was not his own, sitting near me on some occasion of a
trifling but wordy debate, asked me how I could sit in silence, hearing
so much false reasoning, which a word should refute? I observed to
him, that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence impossible; that
in measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was
incumbent on me; but that in general, I was willing to listen; that if
every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of the
numerous debaters, it was enough; if not, I thought it sufficient to
suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had been
already said by others: that this was a waste and abuse of the time and
patience of the House, which could not be justified. And I believe,
that if the members of deliberate bodies were to observe this course
generally, they would do in a day, what takes them a week; and it
is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether
Bonaparte’s dumb legislature, which said nothing, and did much, may not
be preferable to one which talks much, and does nothing. I served
with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia, before the
revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard
either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main
point, which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders
to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of
themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it
be otherwise, in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty
lawyers, whose trade it is, to question every thing, yield nothing, and
talk by the hour? That one hundred and fifty lawyers should do business
together, ought not to be expected. But to return again to our subject.
Those, who thought seven states competent to the ratification, being
very restless under the loss of their motion, I proposed, on the
third of January, to meet them on middle ground, and therefore moved a
resolution, which premised, that there were but seven states present,
who were unanimous for the ratification, but that they differed in
opinion on the question of competency; that those however in the
negative, were unwilling, that any powers which it might be supposed
they possessed, should remain unexercised for the restoration of
peace, provided it could be done, saving their good faith, and without
importing any opinion of Congress, that seven states were competent, and
resolving that the treaty be ratified so far as they had power; that
it should be transmitted to our ministers, with instructions to keep it
uncommunicated; to endeavor to obtain three months longer for exchange
of ratifications; that they should be informed, that so soon as nine
states shall be present, a ratification by nine shall be sent them: if
this should get to them before the ultimate point of time for exchange,
they were to use it, and not the other; if not, they were to offer the
act of the seven states in exchange, informing them the treaty had come
to hand while Congress was not in session, that but seven states were as
yet assembled, and these had unanimously concurred in the ratification.
This was debated on the third and fourth; and on the fifth, a vessel
being to sail for England, from this port, (Annapolis), the House
directed the President to write to our ministers accordingly.
January 14. Delegates from Connecticut having attended yesterday, and
another from South Carolina coming in this day, the treaty was ratified
without a dissenting voice; and three instruments of ratification were
ordered to be made out, one of which was sent by Colonel Harmer, another
by Colonel Franks, and the third transmitted to the Agent of Marine, to
be forwarded by any good opportunity.
Congress soon took up the consideration of their foreign relations. They
deemed it necessary to get their commerce placed, with every nation, on
a footing as favorable as that of other nations; and for this purpose,
to propose to each a distinct treaty of commerce. This act too would
amount to an acknowledgment, by each, of our independence, and of our
reception into the fraternity of nations; which, although as possessing
our station of right, and, in fact, we would not condescend to ask, we
were not unwilling to furnish opportunities for receiving their friendly
salutations and welcome. With France, the United Netherlands, and
Sweden, we had already treaties of commerce; but commissions were given
for those countries also, should any amendments be thought necessary.
The other states to which treaties were to be proposed, were England,
Hamburg, Saxony, Prussia, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Venice, Rome,
Naples, Tuscany, Sardinia, Genoa, Spain, Portugal, the Porte, Algiers,
Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco.
On the 7th of May, Congress resolved that a Minister Plenipotentiary
should be appointed, in addition to Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, for
negotiating treaties of commerce with foreign nations, and I was elected
to that duty. I accordingly left Annapolis on the 11th, took with me my
eldest daughter; then at Philadelphia (the two others being too young
for the voyage), and proceeded to Boston, in quest of a passage. While
passing through the different states, I made a point of informing myself
of the state of the commerce of each, went on to New Hampshire with the
same view, and returned to Boston. Thence I sailed on the 5th of July,
in the Ceres, a merchant ship of Mr. Nathaniel Tracy, bound to Cowes. He
was himself a passenger, and, after a pleasant voyage of nineteen days,
from land to land, we arrived at Cowes on the 26th. I was detained there
a few days by the indisposition of my daughter. On the 30th we embarked
for Havre, arrived there on the 31st, left it on the 3rd of August, and
arrived at Paris on the 6th. I called immediately on Dr. Franklin, at
Passy, communicated to him our charge, and we wrote to Mr. Adams, then
at the Hague, to join us at Paris.
Before I had left America, that is to say, in the year 1781, 1 had
received a letter from M. de Marbois, of the French legation in
Philadelphia, informing me, he had been instructed by his government to
obtain such statistical accounts of the different states of our Union,
as might be useful for their information; and addressing to me a number
of queries relative to the state of Virginia. I had always made it a
practice, whenever an opportunity occurred of obtaining any information
of our country, which might be of use to me in any station, public or
private, to commit it to writing. These memoranda were on loose papers,
bundled up without order, and difficult of recurrence, when I had
occasion for a particular one. I thought this a good occasion to embody
their substance, which I did in the order of Mr. Marbois’ queries, so as
to answer his wish, and to arrange them for my own use. Some friends, to
whom they were occasionally communicated, wished for copies; but their
volume rendering this too laborious by hand, I proposed to get a few
printed for their gratification. I was asked such a price however, as
exceeded the importance of the object. On my arrival at Paris, I found
it could be done for a fourth of what I had been asked here. I therefore
corrected and enlarged them, and had two hundred copies printed, under
the title of ‘Notes on Virginia.’ I gave a very few copies to some
particular friends in Europe, and sent the rest to my friends in
America. An European copy, by the death of the owner, got into the hands
of a bookseller, who engaged its translation, and when ready for the
press, communicated his intentions and manuscript to me, suggesting
that I should correct it, without asking any other permission for the
publication. I never had seen so wretched an attempt at translation.
Interverted, abridged, mutilated, and often reversing the sense of
the original, I found it a blotch of errors from beginning to end. I
corrected some of the most material, and, in that form, it was printed
in French. A London bookseller, on seeing the translation, requested me
to permit him to print the English original. I thought it best to do
so, to let the world see that it was not really so bad as the French
translation had made it appear. And this is the true history of that
publication.
Mr. Adams soon joined us at Paris, and our first employment was to
prepare a general form, to be proposed to such nations as were disposed
to treat with us. During the negotiations for peace with the British
Commissioner, David Hartley, our Commissioners had proposed, on the
suggestion of Dr. Franklin, to insert an article, exempting from capture
by the public or private armed ships, of either belligerent, when at
war, all merchant vessels and their cargoes, employed merely in
carrying on the commerce between nations. It was refused by England,
and unwisely, in my opinion. For, in the case of a war with us, their
superior commerce places infinitely more at hazard on the ocean, than
ours; and, as hawks abound in proportion to game, so our privateers
would swarm, in proportion to the wealth exposed to their prize, while
theirs would be few, for want of subjects of capture. We inserted
this article in our form, with a provision against the molestation of
fishermen, husbandmen, citizens unarmed, and following their occupations
in unfortified places, for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, the
abolition of contraband of war, which exposes merchant vessels to such
vexatious and ruinous detentions and abuses; and for the principle of
free bottoms, free goods.
In a conference with the Count de Vergennes, it was thought better to
leave to legislative regulation, on both sides, such modifications of
our commercial intercourse, as would voluntarily flow from amicable
dispositions. Without urging, we sounded the ministers of the several
European nations, at the court of Versailles, on their dispositions
towards mutual commerce, and the expediency of encouraging it by the
protection of a treaty. Old Frederic, of Prussia, met us cordially, and
without hesitation, and appointing the Baron de Thulemeyer, his minister
at the Hague, to negotiate with us, we communicated to him our Projet,
which, with little alteration by the King, was soon concluded. Denmark
and Tuscany entered also into negotiations with us. Other powers
appearing indifferent, we did not think it proper to press them. They
seemed, in fact, to know little about us, but as rebels, who had been
successful in throwing off the yoke of the mother country. They were
ignorant of our commerce, which had been always monopolized by England,
and of the exchange of articles it might offer advantageously to both
parties. They were inclined, therefore, to stand aloof, until they could
see better what relations might be usefully instituted with us. The
negotiations, therefore, begun with Denmark and Tuscany, we protracted
designedly, until our powers had expired; and abstained from making new
propositions to others having no colonies; because our commerce being
an exchange of raw for wrought materials, is a competent price for
admission into the colonies of those possessing them; but were we to
give it, without price, to others, all would claim it, without price, on
the ordinary ground of _gentis amicissimæ_.