Papers of John Adams, volume 17
Since the Letter which I did myself the honour to write to your Lordship, relative to the Construction of the Armistice, I have received further information from America, which I beg leave to Communicate to your Lordship.1
The first Judgement rendered on a mistaken Interpretation of the Armistice, appears to have been at New York where all American Vessells, taken within the second Month were condemned as lawful Prize by the Judge of Admiralty. The Fame of these Decrees having reached Connecticut and Rhode Island it is said that similar Decrees were rendered by the inferior Courts of Admiralty there against british Vessells. There is my Lord, a Court of Admiralty in each of the United States but by our Constitution an Appeal lies from all of them to a Court appointed by the United States in Congress assembled for receiving and determining finally Appeals in all 271Cases of Capture.2 If the Parties interrested in the decrees in Connecticut and Rhode Island had appealed to the supream Court, those decrees would certainly have been reversed, because every cause which ever came before them upon the point in question, has been decided in favour of the british owner of the Vessell. And if a Declaration should now be made, of the true Intention of the contracting Parties, the british Owners against whom the decrees were renderd in Connecticut and Rhode Island may still appeal and have Justice, if the time limited is not passed. if it is, by an application to the Legislatures of those States, there is no doubt to be made, that an appeal would be granted, under the present Circumstances, notwithstanding the lapse of Time.
The decissions in the Court of admiralty of the Massachusetts and all the other States, have been conformable to the Judgement of the supreme Court of appeals, that is to say conformable to the true Intention of the Armistice, and it is with pleasure that I add, that the Judgements of His Majesty’s Court of Admiralty at Halifax have been the same way.
The Words of the Armistice, are supposed to be the same which have been constantly used in every Treaty of peace for the last hundred Years, and it is not known that there ever was before any doubt, or difference of opinion concerning the construction of them. in order to establish this Confidence between the two Countries, it is necessary My Lord that there should be a mutual Confidence in each others Tribunals of Justice, which can hardly exist, while such various Interpretations are given of so plain a point by different Courts in each Nation.
In order to settle all disputes upon this Subject upon one Principle. I have the Honour to propose to Your Lordship that a Declaration should be made, in the form inclosed, or to the same Effect in any other Form which may appear to your Lordship more proper.
With great Respect, I have the honour to be / My Lord / Your Lordship’s / most Obedient & very / Humble Servant
Declaration
]27 July 1785
Whereas, By the first article of the Preliminary Treaty of Peace between the Crown of Great Britain and the Crown of France 272signed at Versailles on the twentieth of January 1783 it was stipulated in these Words vizt. “
And by the twenty second Article of the same treaty it was stipulated in these Words, vizt. “
And Whereas, on the said twentieth Day of January 1783 it was agreed, and by instruments signed by the Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty in behalf of His Majesty on one part, and by the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United states of America in behalf of the said United States on the other, it was mutually declared that the said United States of North America, their Citizens6 and their Possessions, and His Britannic Majesty his Subjects and Possessions, should be comprised in the suspension of Arms abovementioned, and that they should consequently enjoy the benefit of the Cessation of Hostilities, at the same periods and in the same Manner as the Crowns aforesaid and their Subjects and Possessions respectively.
And Whereas a doubt has arisen and a Question has been made concerning the sense and intention of the High Contracting Parties, by the Words “d’un mois depuis la Manche et les mers du Nord 273jusqu’aux Isles Canaries, inclusivement[”]; and by the Words, “de deux mois depuis les dites Isles Canaries jusqu’a la ligne equinoxiale.”
Now in order to remove all such doubts and questions and to the End that the same rule of Justice may take place in all the Courts of Justice in both Nations, it is hereby agreed and declared by: in the Name and behalf of His Majesty the King of Great Britain and by Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, to the Court of Great Britain on the other in the Name and behalf of the said United States, that the Line of Latitude of the southermost Canary Island was intended by the said contracting Parties and that the Armistice aforesaid ought to be every where undestood and construed, in the same manner as if the Words had been “depuis la Manche et les Mers du Nord, jusqu’a la latitude des Isles Canaries inclusivement,” and “depuis la latitude des dites Isles Canaries, qusqu’a la ligne Equinoxiale.” And that all judgements and Decrees of any Court of Justice of either of the Parties to this Declaration, rendered upon any different Construction of the Armistice aforesaid ought to be reversed
Done at Westminster this Day of 1785—
RC and enclosure in WSS’s hand (PRO:FO 4, State Papers, vol. 3, f. 439–445); internal address: “The Right Honourable / The Marquis of Carmarthen / Secry of State for foreign / Affairs—” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 111.
JA had previously written to Carmarthen on 14 July, above, regarding the cessation of Anglo-American hostilities. The additional information received in the meantime was contained in a letter from the Boston merchants Isaiah Doane and Samuel Brown (PRO: FO 4, State Papers, vol. 3, fol. 475–481) and in documents the two men sent to their London agents, Lane, Son & Fraser, for transmission to JA. Doane and Brown had signed an 18 Aug. 1783 petition to Congress regarding the condemnations of American ships at New York in apparent contravention of the terms of the Anglo-American declarations on the cessation of hostilities (vol. 16:107). They also owned one of the vessels thus condemned and, after vainly seeking to have the condemnation overturned by the court of appeals in London, sought JA’s aid in pressing their case on the British government. In his representation to Carmarthen, JA summarized the points raised by Doane and Brown in their letter and enclosed it and the accompanying documents to support his arguments. On 16 Feb. 1786 Doane, having no reply from JA, wrote to inquire about the status of the case (Adams Papers). JA replied on 25 May that he received the papers sent by Doane and Brown to Lane, Son & Fraser and soon after wrote to “Ld. Carmarthen concerning this subject and proposed to his Ld: a Plan for settling all disputes of this Nature and as your papers threw much light upon the subject. I Communicated them for the information of his Britannic Majesty’s Ministers.” Since then he had heard nothing, and it was JA’s opinion that there would “be no redress for this or any other Complaint respecting frontier Posts, Negroes public or private Debts or demands while there is one Law of any state in force against the recovery of the Debts contracted before the peace, I have done all in my power and am in total dispair” (LbC, APM Reel 113).
Art. 9, sect. 1, of the Articles of Confederation empowered Congress to establish rules for deciding the legality and distribution of prizes taken on land and sea, as well 274as to appoint “courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures.”
In JA’s hand.
“Art. 1. As soon as the Preliminaries shall be signed and ratified, sincere friendship shall be re-established between his Britannic Majesty and his most Christian Majesty, their kingdoms, states, and subjects, by sea and by land, in all parts of the world: orders shall be sent to the armies and squadrons, as well as to the subjects, of the two powers, to stop all hostilities, and to live in the most perfect union, forgetting what is passed, of which their sovereigns give them the order and example; and for the execution of this Arti cle, sea passes shall be given on each side for the ships which shall be dispatched to carry the news of it to the possessions of the said powers” (
Parliamentary Hist.
, 23:346). For English translations of Art. 22 quoted later in the declaration, see the British and American proclamations of 14 and 20 Feb. 1783 (vol. 14:264–265, 284). Except for the inclusion of the language of Art. 1 of the Anglo-French preliminary treaty and the explicit direction to the courts as to how the cessation of hostilities should be interpreted, the proposed declaration is essentially a restatement of those proclamations.
The preceding four words (from “soit”) are interlined in JA’s hand.
In the LbC, WSS wrote, “Subjects.”
I am Requested by John Low Esqr. a Respectable Citizen of this State to make application for the Release of his Son Richard Low, who was taken in the Year 1776, on Board a Marchant Vessell and was sent to the East Indies. in January 1784. he was on Board the Defence of Seventy Four Guns at Bombay many more of our poor Country men are in the same situation. so that I suppose that a general application would be verry servisable and necessary.1
I am informed that in the Year 1775 their was a Ballance of three thousand pounds Sterling due to the Colony of Rhode Island. that Money; had been stopped by Orders from the Minister, to Reimburse Dor. Moffatt—Martin Howard, Esqr. &c. for Damages they sustained at the Time of the Stamp Act. on the Colony takeing the matter up, and Remonstrating to the Ministry on their detaning the propertily of the Colony, the Ballance never was broke upon, but now appears fairly due by the Treasury Books. Divers applications have been made by the Loyalists that lost property in this State to procure Orders from the Minister to Draw the said Ballance out of the Treasury but all to no purpose. you would do a verry acceptable service to this State if you would be so kind as Enquire into the above, and also to know if a Bill or Bills should be drawn for the same, wheather they would be paid;2 By renewing our former Trade with Great-Brittain there is a large Debt due from America. By the Acts of Parlement and other New Commercial Regulations. Brittain 275has put it quite out of our power, to discharge the Debt in any other way than by Remitting Cash. this has been the Case to such a Degree that we find it verry difficult to raise Money for Marketing and other small Domestick uses. verry great Complaints among the Farmers for want of Money to pay their Taxes, and Business, of every kind stagnated.
If the British will not permitt us to send our Oil Duty free; I think the New England States cannot make payment for the Debts already contracted. neighther will they be so unwise as to Contract new ones; so that we shall be gradually disconnected. who will loose or who gain by this alteration, Time only must discover. this I infer that we American must be more Frugal, and bend our Force to promote Arts and Manufactorys among our selves.
Your Old Friend Govr. Hopkins Departed this Life on the 13th of this Instant in the 79th Year of his Age, he Dy’d as he Lived The Firm Zelous Patriot. and Friend to the Liberties of Mankind.3
I wish you to Pardon the Length of this Letter, (and (tho’ unknown) Beleve that I am Your Excellencys Most / Obedient and verry Humb Servant.
Dep-Gov
r.R
dIsland.
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Excellency J. Adams Esqr”; endorsed: “Jabez Bowen Esq / Deputy Governor / of Rhode Island / 27. July. Ansd. Sept. 8. / 1785.”
See also Rhode Island governor William Greene’s 25 July letter protesting Richard Low’s plight, above, and JA’s memorial of 17 Oct. on behalf of Low and others, below.
Two influential Rhode Island loyalists, Dr. Thomas Moffatt and attorney Martin Howard Jr., sued for damages after Stamp Act protesters burnt them in effigy and ransacked their homes in Aug. 1765. Moffatt and Howard fled to London, bent on reporting the chief perpetrators of the riot to British officials, but their steady efforts to gain compensation from the Rhode Island assembly failed. Initially, Moffatt won only £179 of his £1310 claim in 1772, while Howard was granted £76, instead of his original request of £970. When the British Treasury, which still owed funds to the colony for subsidizing the Crown Point campaign of 1756, refused to pay the overdue amount until Moffatt and Howard received generous compensation, deadlock ensued. There is no indication that JA ever pursued the claim (The Correspondence of the Colonial Governors of Rhode Island, 1723–1775, ed. Gertrude Selwyn Kimball, 2 vols., Boston, 1903, 2:387, 426–429; David S. Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760–1776, Providence, R.I., 1958, p. 104–106, 110–111).
Stephen Hopkins (1707–1785), former colonial governor of Rhode Island, served as a member of Congress alongside JA from the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774 until he retired owing to ill health in Sept. 1776 (
ANB
). In his Autobiography, JA remembered social evenings with Hopkins and other members of Congress, recalling that the Rhode Islander “never drank to excess, but all he drank was immediately not only converted into Wit, Sense, Knowledge and good humour, but inspired Us all with similar qualities” (JA, D&A
, 3:350).