Jay, John 1817-1894
Diplomatist; born in New York City, June 23, 1817; graduated at Columbia College in 1836; admitted to the bar in 1839; appointed minister to Austria in 1869; chairman of the committee to investigate the New York custom-house in 1877; and member of the State civil service in 1883. Mr. Jay was a prominent abolitionist and author of a number of pamphlets, among them are The dignity of the abolition cause; The American Church and the American slave-trade; The Great conspiracy and England's neutrality; Caste and slavery in the American Church; America free, or America slave, etc. He died in New York City, May 5, 1894.
Statesman; born in New York City, Dec. 12, 1745; was of Huguenot descent. Graduated at King's College (now Columbia University) in 1764, he was admitted to the bar in 1768, and formed a partnership with Robert R. Livingston. In 1774 he was a delegate in the first Continental Congress, and the same year he married a daughter of William Livingston, of New Jersey. In that Congress, though the youngest member but one, he took a conspicuous part, being the author of the Address to the people of Great Britain. His facile pen was often employed in framing documents in the Congress of 1775. Early in 1776 he left Congress and engaged in the public affairs of his own State, being a leading member of the Provincial Congress in 1776. He wrote the able address of the convention at Fishkill in December, 1776; reported a bill of rights to the New York constitutional convention in March, 1777; and was the chief author of the first constitution of the State of New York. After assisting in putting in motion the machinery of his State government, and being made a judge he entered Congress again late in 1778 and became president of that body. In September, 1779, he was sent to Spain to negotiate a loan. Mr. Jay was one of the commissioners for negotiating a treaty of peace with Great Britain. He returned to New York in 1784, and was secretary for foreign affairs from that year until the organization of the government under the national Constitution. Mr. Jay was associated with Hamilton and Madison in writing the series of articles in support of the Constitution known collectively as The Federalist. Washington appointed Jay the first chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
On April 7, 1794, a motion was made in the House of Representatives that all commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her subjects be suspended, so far as respected all articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, until the surrender of the Western posts and due compensation for all losses and damages growing out of British aggressions on our neutral rights should be made. This motion, if adopted, would lead directly to war. Its adoption seemed probable, and Washington, to avert the calamitous consequences, proposed to send a special minister to England to negotiate an amicable settlement of the existing disputes. There were grave charges of violations of the treaty of 1783 made by the two parties against each other. Washington desired to send Hamilton on the mission. Violent opposition to this was made by his political enemies, whose hatred and jealousy were intense. Fearing Hamilton might not have the confirmation of the Senate, Washington nominated Mr. Jay (April 16), which nomination was confirmed April 19. The special minister arrived in England in June, where he was received with great courtesy by the British government. He negotiated a treaty which was not wholly satisfactory to his countrymen, closing his labors on Nov. 19; and from 1795 to 1801 he was governor of New York, under whose administration slavery was abolished. This was his last public office. He died in Bedford, N. Y., May 17, 1829. See Ames, Fisher.
Jay's treaty.
After Mr. Jay's formal reception in London, Lord Grenville, then at the head of foreign affairs, expressed great anxiety to bring the negotiations to a successful issue. There was a wide difference of views concerning matters in dispute. The Americans complained that, contrary to the provisions of the treaty of peace (1783), a large number of negroes had been carried off by the evacuating armies; and for this loss [126] compensation was demanded for the owners. They complained, also, of the detention of the Western posts, which was the main cause of the hostility of the Northwestern tribes. They also alleged numerous |
| John Jay. |
Early opposition.
The treaty was concluded at London on Nov. 19, 1794. It reached the President in March, 1795, after the adjournment of Congress. The Senate was convened, in special session, to consider it, early in June, 1795. After a debate for a fortnight, in secret session, a vote of 20 to 10—precisely a constitutional majority—advised (June 24) the ratification of the treaty, excepting the article which related to the renunciation by the Americans of the privilege of transportation of sugar, molasses, coffee, cocoa, and cotton in the West India trade. Cotton was then just promising to be of vast importance in the carrying-trade, and such an article was wholly inadmissible. The President had determined, before the meeting of the Senate, to ratify the treaty; and when it was laid before the cabinet all agreed with him excepting the Secretary of State (Edmund Randolph, of Virginia), who raised the point that by the ratification, before an obnoxious British Order in Council concerning neutrals should be repealed, the British claim to the right of search and impressment would be conceded by the Americans. Hamilton, who had been consulted, advised the ratification, but to withhold the exchange of ratifications until that order should be repealed. The Senate had removed the seal of secrecy from their proceedings, but had forbidden any publication of the treaty itself. Statements concerning the provisions of the treaty soon appeared. The Democratic societies and newspapers had resolved to oppose and attack the treaty whatever might be its provisions. They had opposed the mission to negotiate it. After it was received Randolph revealed enough of its character to give a foundation for many attacks upon it in the newspapers. It was denounced as a pusillanimous surrender of American rights. In order to prevent misrepresentations, and to elicit the expressions of the people, Washington caused the whole treaty to be published. A mad, seditious cry went over the land from the opposition. In several cities mobs threatened personal violence to the supporters of the treaty. Hamilton was stoned at a public meeting in New York, while speaking in the open air. The British minister at Philadelphia was insulted; and in Charleston the British flag was trailed in the dust of the streets. Jay was denounced as a traitor; and in Virginia disunion was recommended as a cure for political evils. The Democratic societies and orators put forth claims for sympathy for France. “She has a government congenial to our own. Citizens, your security depends on France. Let us unite with her and stand or fall together!” shouted opposition orators throughout the country. The Democrats adorned their hats with the French cockade. Jay was burned in effigy in many places, and longings for the guillotine were freely expressed in public assemblies.When the President had proclaimed the treaty as the law of the land, he, according to promise, sent a copy of it, March 2, 1796, to the House. Its appearance was the beginning of a violent debate in that body, which turned upon the question whether the House possessed discretionary power to carry the treaty into execution or not at its pleasure. The debate arose on a motion of Edward Livingston, of New York, calling upon the President for his instructions to Jay and other papers relating to the treaty. After about thirty speeches, in a debate of three weeks, which grew warmer and warmer the longer it lasted, the resolution was adopted, March 24, by a vote of 62 to 37. The President consulted his cabinet, and they unanimously decided that the House had no right to make such a call, as they were not a part of the treaty-making power. They also decided that it was not expedient for the President to furnish the papers, for the call should be considered as an unfounded claim of power on the part of the House to interfere with the privileges of the President and Senate. The President, therefore, declined to comply with the request of the House, giving [128] his reasons in a special message. Resolutions asserting the majesty of the House were introduced (April 6), and were supported by Madison. These resolutions were adopted by a vote of 57 to 35, and the subject of the “British treaty” was a staple topic of debate for some time afterwards. Finally, April 30, the House passed a resolution—51 to 48—that it was expedient to pass laws for carrying the treaty into effect.
The discussions of the treaty were soon transferred from public meetings and the newspapers to the arena of State legislatures. Governor Shelby, in his speech to the Kentucky legislature, attacked the treaty. The House seemed to agree with him (Nov. 4, 1794), but the Senate evaded any decided committal. The house of delegates of Virginia adopted, by a vote of 100 to 50, a resolution approving the conduct of their Senators in voting (Nov. 20) against the treaty. A counter-resolution declaring their undiminished confidence in the President was lost—59 to 79; but another resolution disclaiming any imputation of the President's motives was passed—78 to 62. The legislature took the occasion to adopt a series of resolutions proposing an amendment to the national Constitution to admit the House of Representatives to a share in the treaty-making power. The legislature of Maryland resolved that they felt a deep concern at efforts to detach from the President the “well-earned confidence of his fellow-citizens,” and declaring their “unabated reliance in his judgment, integrity, and patriotism.” The Senate of Pennsylvania made a similar declaration. The legislature of New Hampshire expressed, Dec. 5, 1795, their “abhorrence of those disturbers of the peace” who had endeavored to render abortive measures so well calculated to advance the happiness of the country. The North Carolina legislature, by a decided majority, adopted a series of resolutions, Dec. 8, reprobating the treaty and thanking their Senators for having opposed it. In the legislature of South Carolina resolutions were introduced declaring the treaty “highly injurious to the general interests of the United States” ; when the friends of the treaty, finding themselves in a minority, declared the legislature had no business to interfere with the duties of the President and Senate of the United States, and, refusing to vote, the resolutions were adopted unanimously. The House did not venture to send up these resolutions to the Senate. A resolution declaring the treaty unconstitutional was defeated. The legislature of Delaware passed, Jan. 14, 1796, a resolution of approval. Gov. Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, spoke of the treaty as “pregnant with evil,” suggested a conflict of authority between the President and Senate and the House of Representatives, and transmitted to the general court the resolutions of Virginia on the subject of amendments to the Constitution. His suggestions and sentiments met with no favorable response from the legislature. The Massachusetts Senate declared their concurrence in the belief of the governor that the national government was in “honest hands,” and expressed the opinion, unanimously, that it would “be an interference with duties intrusted to that government for the State legislatures to decide on the British treaty.” The house, by a large majority, suggested “a respectful submission on the part of the people to the constituted authorities as the surest means of enjoying and perpetuating the invaluable blessings of our free and representative government.” The general court of Rhode Island expressed their confidence in the general government and rejected the Virginia resolutions for amendments to the Constitution. So, also, did the legislature of New York.
