Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/124

98 make good Spanish subjects, and that they would become such for the sake of the privilege annexed to that character.

He seemed to be disposed to make us believe that Spain and Britain understood one another; that he knew the views of Great Britain in holding the western posts; and that Spain had it in her power to make Great Britain bend to her views. He affected a mysterious air on this point, which only proved that he was at a loss what to say to the probability and tendency of a connection between Great Britain and the western settlements, in case the Mississippi should be given up by Congress.

He intimated that Spain could not grant any inlet of the American trade by treaty; but that, in case of a treaty, trade through the Mississippi, as well as other channels, would be winked at.

In speaking of the Mississippi and the right of Spain, he alluded to the case of the Tagus, which Spain had never pretended to a right of navigating through Portugal. It was observed to him, that, in estimating the rights of nations in such cases, regard must be had to their respective proportions of territory on the river. Suppose Spain held only five acres on each side at the mouth of the Mississippi; would she pretend to an exclusive right in such case? He said, that was not the case: Spain had a great proportion. How much? After some confusion and hesitation, he said, she claimed at least—as far as the Ohio. We smiled, and asked how far eastwardly from the Mississippi? He became still more at a loss for an answer, and turned it off by insinuating that he had conversed on that matter with the secretary of foreign affairs.

He was reminded of the doctrine maintained by Spain, in 1608, as to the Scheldt. He seemed not to have known the fact, and resolved it into some political consideration of the times.

He was asked, whether the partition of the British empire could deprive this part of it of the rights appertaining to the king of Great Britain as king of this country; and even whether the rupture of Great Britain and Spain could deprive, in justice, the United States of rights which they held under the treaty of 1763, whilst they remained a part of the British empire; whether, in case no such rupture had happened, the treaty between Spain and that part of the empire would have been dissolved by the revolution; &c. &c. He did not seem well to understand the principles into which such questions resolved themselves, and gave them the go-by referring the claim of Spain principally to her conquests of the British possessions in North America.

He betrayed strongly the anxiety of Spain to retard the population of the western country; observing, that whenever sufficient force should arise therein, it would be impossible for it to be controlled; that any conciliating measures that might be taken now would have little effect on their temper and views fifty or a hundred years hence, when they should be in force.

When we rose to take leave, he begged us to remember what he had said as to the inflexibility of Spain on the point of the Mississippi, and the consequences to America of her adherence to her present pretensions.$54$

Nothing noted till

, March 20.

Mr. Jay's report on the treaty of peace taken up.

Mr. YATES objected to the first resolution, which declares the treaty to be a law of the land. He said the states, or at least his state, did not admit it to be such until clothed with legal sanction. At his request he was furnished with a copy of the resolution, for the purpose of consulting such as he might choose.

, March 21.

The subject of yesterday resumed.

Mr. YATES was now satisfied with the resolutions as they stood. The words "constitutionally made," as applied to the treaty, seemed to him, on consideration, to qualify sufficiently the doctrine on which the resolution was founded.

The second and third resolutions, urging on the states a repeal of all laws contravening the treaty, (first, that they might not continue to operate as violations of it, secondly, that questions might be avoided touching their validity,) underwent some criticisms and discussions.

Mr. VARNUM and Mr. MITCHELL thought they did not consist with the first,