7. The pretended inequality of the article, as arising from the greater extent of the United States than of the British territories, is one of those fanciful positions which are so apt to haunt the brains of visionary politicians. Traced through all its consequences, it would terminate in this, that a great empire could never form a treaty of commerce with a small one; for, to equalize advantages according to the scale of territory, the small state must compensate for its deficiency in extent, by a greater quantum of positive privilege, in proportion to the difference of extent, which would give the larger state the monopoly of its trade. According to this principle, what wretched treaties have we made with France, Sweden, Prussia, and Holland! For our territories exceed in extent those of either of these powers. How immense the sacrifice in the case of Holland! for the United States are one hundred times larger than the United Provinces.

But how are we sure that the extent of the United States is greater than the territories of Great Britain on our continent? We know that she has pretensions to extend to the Pacific Ocean, and to embrace a vast wilderness, incomparably larger than the United States, and we are told, as already mentioned, that her trading establishments now actually extend beyond the 56th degree of north latitude, and 117th degree of west longitude.

Shall we be told (shifting the original ground) that not extent of territory, but extent of population is the measure? Then how great is the advantage which we gain in this particular, by the treaty at large? The population of Great Britain is to that of the United States, about two and a half to one: and the comparative concession by her in the trade between her European dominions and the United States, must be in the same ratio. When we add to this the great population of her East India possessions, in which privileges are granted to us, without any return, how prodigiously will the value of the treaty be enhanced, according to this new and extraordinary rule?

But the rule is, in fact, an absurd one, and only merits the notice which has been taken of it, to exhibit the weak grounds of the opposition to the treaty. The great standard of reciprocity is equal privilege. The adventitious circumstances, which may

render it more beneficial to one party than the other, can seldom be taken into the account, because they can seldom be estimated with certainty; the relative extent of country or population, is, · of all others, a most fallacious guide.

The comparative resources and facilities for mutual supply, regulate the relative utility of a commercial privilege; and as far as population is concerned, it may be laid down, as a general rule, that the smallest population graduates the scale of the trade on both sides, since it is at once the principal measure of what the smaller state can furnish to the greater, and of what it can take from the greater; or, in other words, of what the greater state can find a demand for in the smaller state. But this rule, too, like most general ones, admits of numerous exceptions.

In case of a trade by land and inland navigation, the sphere of the operation of any privilege can only extend a certain distance. When the distance to a given point, through a particular channel, is such that the expense of transportation would render an article dearer than it could be brought through another chan nel to the same point, the privilege to carry the article through that particular channel to such point, becomes of no avail. Thus the privilege of trading by land or inland navigation from the British territories on this continent, can procure to that country no advantage of trade with Princeton in New Jersey, because supplies can come to it on better terms from other quarters. Whence we perceive, that the absolute extent of territory or population of the United States, is no measure of the relative value of the privileges reciprocally granted by the article under consideration, and, consequently, no criterion of the real reciprocity of the article.

The objectors to the treaty have marshalled against this article a quaint figure, of which from the use of it in different quarters, it is presumable they are not a little enamoured; it is this, that the article enables Great Britain to draw a line of circumvallation round the United States. They hope to excite prejudice, by presenting to the mind the image of a siege, or investment of the country. If trade be war, they have chosen a most apt figure; and we cannot but wonder, how the unfortunate island

of Great Britain has been able so long to maintain her independence amidst the beleaguering efforts of the number of nations with whom she has been imprudent enough to form treaties of

and who, from her insular situation, have it in their power to beset and hem her in on all sides. How lucky it is for the United States, that at least one side is covered by Spain, and that this formidable line of circumvallation cannot be completely perfected! or rather how hard driven must those be, who are obliged to call to their aid auxiliaries so preposterous!

Can any good reason be given, why one side of a country should not be accessible to foreigners, for purposes of trade, equally with another? Might not the cultivators on the side from which they were excluded, have cause to complain, that the carriage of their productions was subject to an increased charge, by a monopoly of the national navigation; while the cultivators in other quarters enjoyed the benefit of a competition between that and foreign navigation? and might not all the inhabitants have a right to demand a reason, why their commerce should be less open and free, than that of other parts of the country? Will privileges of trade extend the line of territorial circumvallation? Will not the extent of contiguous British territory remain the same, whether the communications of trade are open or shut? By opening them, may we not rather be said to make so many breaches in the wall, or intrenchment of this newly-invented circumvallation? if indeed it be not enchanted!

The argument upon this article has hitherto turned, as to the trade with the white inhabitants of the British territories, on European and East India goods. But there can be no doubt that a mutually-beneficial commerce in native commodities ought to be included in the catalogue of advantages. Already there is a useful interchange of certain commodities, which time and the progress of settlement and resources cannot fail to extend. It is most probable, too, that a considerable part of the productions of the British territories will find the most convenient channel to foreign markets through us; which, as far as it regards the interest of external commerce, will yield little less advantage, than if they proceeded from our own soil or industry. It is evident, in

particular, that as far as this shall be the case, it will prevent a great part of the competition with our commodities which would exist, if those productions took other routes to foreign markets.

In considering the subject, on the side of a trade in home commodities, it is an important reflection, that the United States are much more advanced in industrious improvement, than the British territories. This will give us a material and growing advantage. While their articles of exchange with us will essentially consist in the products of agriculture and of mines, we shall add to these manufactures of various and multiplying kinds, serving to increase the balance in our favor.

In proportion as the article is viewed on an enlarged plan and permanent scale, its importance to us magnifies. Who can say how far British colonization may spread southward and down the west side of the Mississippi, northward and westward into the vast interior regions towards the Pacific Ocean? Can we view it as a matter of indifference, that this new world is eventually laid open to our enterprise, to an enterprise seconded by the immense advantage already mentioned, of a more improved state of industry? Can we be insensible, that the precedent furnishes us with a cogent and persuasive argument to bring Spain to a similar arrangement? And can we be blind to the great interest we have, in obtaining a free communication with all the territories that environ our country, from the St. Mary's to the St. Croix?

In this large view of the subject, the fur trade which has made a very prominent figure in the discussion, becomes a point scarcely visible. Objects of great variety and magnitude, start up in perspective, eclipsing the little atoms of the day, and promising to grow and mature with time.

The result of the whole is, that the United States make, by the third article of the treaty, a good bargain—that with regard to the fur trade, with equality of privileges and superior advantages of situation, we stake one against seven, or at most one against six-that as to the trade in European and East Indian goods and in home productions, we make an equal stake with some advantages of situation that we open an immense field of future enterprise, -that we avoid embarrassments and dangers ever attendant on

an artificial and prohibitory policy, which, in reference to the Indian nations, was particularly difficult and hazardous-and that we secure those of a natural and liberal policy, and give the fairest chances for good neighborhood between the United States and the bordering British territories, and consequently of good understanding with Great Britain, conducing to the security of our peace. Experience, no doubt, will demonstrate that the horrid spectres which have been conjured up, are fictions; and if it should even be slow to realize the predicted benefits (for time will be requisite to give permanent causes their due effect in controlling temporary circumstances), it will at last prove that the predicted evils are chimeras and cheats.

CAMILLUS.

NO. XIII.

1795.

The fourth and fifth articles of the treaty, from similarity of object, will naturally be considered together. The fourth, reciting a doubt, "whether the river Mississippi extends so far northwestward, as to be intersected by a line drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods, in the manner mentioned by the treaty of peace," agrees, that measures shall be taken in concert between the two governments, to make a joint survey of that river, from a degree of latitude below the falls of St. Anthony, to the principal source or sources thereof, and of the parts adjacent thereto; and that if in the result it should appear that the said river would not be intersected by such a line as above mentioned, the two parties will proceed by amicable negotiation, to regulate the boundary line in that quarter, as well as all other points to be adjusted between them, according to justice and mutual conve nience, and the intent of the treaty of peace. The fifth, reciting that doubts have arisen, what river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix, mentioned in the treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary therein described, provides that the ascertainment of the point shall be referred to three