John Quincy Adams Digital Diary

30. VI: I called again at the Bank of the United States, (Branch) where the amount of the Bills which I presented yesterday was entered to my credit; Davidson the teller repeating the hint he had given me yesterday. I received however from Edward Cruft at Boston a Letter enclosing two drafts, making the precise amount of the credit I had at the Branch Bank Boston, without any premium or advance. I was only a few minutes at my Office— The adjourned Cabinet Meeting was held at the President’s from Noon till four, and resumed after dinner till nine in the Evening— We all dined there except Mr Wirt, who at dinner time went home, and did not return in the Evening. The question upon Lord Castlereagh’s proposed modifications to our proposal for abolishing impressment from our vessels on high seas, was again resumed, and argued with much earnestness. Crawford and Wirt adhering to their opinions; Calhoun and I to ours— The President, ultimately found a middle term upon which he concluded after expressing his regret that he was obliged to decide between us, equally divided in opinion as we were— He determined to reject the second modification; first because it implied that the boarding Officer should have the power of mustering the crew of the American vessel and passing them individually under his inspection; and secondly because it implied a suspicion that we should not faithfully and sincerely carry our own Laws into execution. He would do nothing to countenance such a distrust. He also should decline acceding to the proposal that the whole agreement might be cancelled, at the option of either party, giving three or six Months notice; but would offer to limit the duration of the Article to a shorter period than the remainder of the Convention— For he was convinced that if the British Government once brought themselves to contract the engagement, not to take men from our ships, though it should be only for a year, they would never resort to the practice again— They had never before yielded so far, as in this proposal. They had until now been inflexible in adherence to the principle of their pretended right to take men from our ships, and it would be the whole point gained on our part, if we should once obtain though for ever so short a time an abandonment by them of the principle. It would come too so soon after the conclusion of the late War, that in the opinion of our people it would be considered as having resulted from it. There was a deep anxiety in their minds, from an apprehension that it would again give rise to War. The British Ministry could in fact not abandon their pretended right without some reservation to conciliate the pride, the interest and the feelings of their nation to the sacrifice— I then suggested the expediency of proposing that it should be concluded as a separate Article, to be acted upon by our Senate distinctly from the remainder of the Convention, which I thought would itself meet with much difficulty in passing through the Senate, unless there should be additional Articles, admitting us to the West India trade— I had found upon conversation with Mr King when I passed through New-York, that he was averse to the renewal of the Convention in its present form; and his influence in the Senate was so considerable, and his knowledge upon commercial subjects so extensive that I thought his opposition alone would operate strongly against the Ratification— The stipulation to exclude all British Seamen from our ships, which would have an immediate and certain injurious effect upon our commerce, for the distant, possible, but very uncertain boon of exemption from impressment in the next maritime War, in which Great-Britain shall be engaged, and we neutral, will be so far from satisfying our people, 428that the general impression will be that we have been overreached in Negotiation, and probably the ratification in the Senate will fail. The President readily agreed that the stipulation if agreed to should be by a separate Article; and directed that the limitation of its duration to be proposed should be four years— And to avoid the immediate shock to our Commerce by the exclusion of British Seamen from our service, that it should commence from the first of October 1820.— The next subject taken up, was the proposal from Lord Castlereagh, that we should join in the measures recently concerted by Treaties concluded with Spain Portugal and the Netherlands for abolishing the Slave trade— The general character of these Treaties is, that the commanders of armed vessels of each of those Nations, should be authorized to enter and search the merchant vessels of the other, for slaves and when they find any, to carry the vessel into the nearest settlement of either of the two Nations, where they shall be tried by a mixed Court, consisting of a judge from each of the two Nations and two Arbitrators also one from each Nation, one of whom to be drawn by lot in each case upon which the two judges should be of different opinions— These mixed Courts to be authorized to condemn all slave-trading vessels of either of the two Nations, according to the penalties of their respective Laws— In the Treaty with the Netherlands there are some limitations, as to the Seas where this right of search in time of Peace is to be exercised, but there is one Article formally admitting that vessels under convoy may be searched as well as others. Lord Castlereagh by a Note to Mr Rush communicates copies of these Treaties, inviting the United States, to join in similar stipulations and expressing the conviction, that the abolition of the Slave-trade cannot be effectually accomplished, but by granting this power to the Officers of one Nation, to enter and search the merchant-vessels of another. The opinion was unanimous, that this proposal ought not to be acceded to 1. Mr Wirt thought there was no Constitutional authority, in the Government of the United States, to establish a Court partly consisting of foreigners, to sit without the bounds of the United States; and not amenable to impeachment, for corruption. and he cited the Constitution Article 3. Sec: l. I thought there was sufficient authority by the Constitution, and likened it to the joint Commissions which we have had by Treaties with G. Britain and Spain; and to the Courts of Admiralty which it has been proposed to establish at Naples, if we could have obtained the consent of that Government. Mr Wirt pointed out distinctions between the two cases—between Courts constituted under the laws of Nations, and Courts to carry into effect our municipal and penal Statutes. But as the power of making Treaties, is without limitation in the Constitution, and Treaties are declared to be the Supreme Law of the Land I still hold to the opinion that there is no Constitutional difficulty in the way. 2. Another objection was that we could not establish these Courts with reciprocity, as we have no possessions on the Coast of Africa. 3. That we have suffered so much from the practice of foreign Officers to search our vessels in time of War, particularly by its connection with a British doctrine that after an Officer has entered for one purpose he may proceed to search for another, that we ought to be specially cautious not to admit of the right of search in time of peace. 4. That it is still more obnoxious, as coupled with the provision that even vessels under convoy, shall be subjected to it.— But in declining the proposition the President directed that an offer should be made to stipulate in general terms that further Laws should be made, if it should be found necessary for carrying into effectual execution those already enacted for the prohibition of the traffic by our Citizens—and that a copy of the act of Congress of the last Session to that effect should be communicated to the British Government— Upon these general ideas I was directed to draw up a Letter of Instructions, and it was suggested that we should also promise that Instructions shall be given to the Commanders of all our armed vessels to take and bring in for trial, any Slave-trading vessel under our flag, which they shall meet with upon the high Seas— But upon question made, it did not appear that the President is now authorized to give such orders, though he was by the Act of 1807. Finally we recurred to the reply to be given to Mr Onis’s last proposals for a Treaty— What claims of the Citizens of the United States, should we undertake to assume? how should they be limited? Should the lands in the territories to be ceded, be pledged as the fund from which the payment of the claims shall be made, or shall they be generally assumed to a specified 429amount? To ascertain the validity of the claims and their amount, should a Commission be instituted joint American and Spanish; or American alone, the United States giving a discharge in full to Spain for all the claims? These questions were all amply discussed, and I was directed to make a further addition to my draft of a Note to Mr Onis— It was resolved to give a discharge for all claims which have been till the date of the Treaty presented at the department of State, or to the American Minister in Spain— That the United States will pay them to the amount of five Millions of Dollars; and that a Commission shall be appointed, of three persons, all American, to pass, upon the claims— About nine in the Evening the meeting finished, and we walked home— I had received by the Mail two Letters relating to the state of my dear Mother, both dated last Monday— One from Harriet Welsh—only three lines; closing with “We have yet hopes— Another Letter on Wednesday”— The other from De Grand; who had been out to Quincy the day before— He says, [“]your Mother is quite sick—your venerable father bears it with a considerable degree of fortitude”— These are ominous words— I am endeavouring to prepare my mind for submission to the divine Will— Might this cup, Oh! God, but pass from me!—