informed me that a minister would be appointed, with powers and instructions sufficient for concluding it at this place. Dr. Gual has informed Mr. Todd, that the views of the Colombian government have. since undergone a change; and although they have appointed Mr. Salazar as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the United States, and in March last he was under instructions to proceed forthwith upon his mission to this country, they were, nevertheless, exceedingly desirous that the treaty should be negotiated there.

The president deems it of no material importance to the United States whether the treaty shall be negotiated at Washington or at Bogota: but the proposal having first been made for concluding it here, it was natural to inquire what it was that produced the change in the wishes of the Colombian government with regard to the seat of the negotiation. Dr. Gual intimated confidentially to Mr. Todd, that it had proceeded from two causes; one, the desire to establish a precedent, which might prevail upon the great European governments to negotiate likewise with the republic at its own capital, and thereby hasten them to the recognition of Colombian independence; and the other a jealousy of their own negotiators in Europe, who were apt to become themselves entangled with European intrigues, and to involve the republic in unsuitable and perplexing engagements. With regard to the second of these causes, whatever occasion may have been given to the distrust of their own agents which it avows, it could have no application to their transaction with the United States. By

assuming the principles of inde pendence, equality, and reciprocity, as the foundations of all our negotiations, we discard all the incentives and all the opportunities for double dealing, overreaching, and corrupt caballing. We shall ask nothing which the Colombian republic can have any interest to deny. We shall offer nothing for which she may be unwilling to yield the fair equivalent. To the other reason, however, the president the more readily accedes, because perceiving its full force, it gives him an opportunity of manifesting in action the friendly disposition of the United States towards the republic, and their readiness to promote by all proper means the recognition of its independence by the great European powers.

In the negotiation of all commercial treaties, there is undoubtedly an advantage, at least of convenience, enjoyed by the party which treats at home; and this advantage acquires greater importance, when, as is now the case with both parties, the treaty to become valid, must obtain the assent of legislative assemblies. This advantage, in the ordinary course of things, accrues to the party to whom the proposal of negotiation is first made. Independent then of all questions of precedence, and without resorting to the example of the first treaties negotiated by the United States, both of which considerations have been mentioned by Mr. Todd to Dr. Gual, the United States might insist upon having the negotiation concluded here, not only as the first proposal of it was made to them, but because the proposal itself was, that it should be concluded here. The president, however, is well aware

of the stimulus which a treaty negotiated, and even a negotiation known to be in progress at Bogota, will apply to the attention of European interests, and has no doubt that it will press them to the recognition more powerfully than they have been urged by the example, or are likely to be by the exhortations of the North American government. You are accordingly furnished, by his direction, with the full power necessary for the conclusion of the treaty.

Dr. Gual informed Mr. Todd, that the project of the treaty was already prepared, and that a copy of it would be committed to Mr. Salazar, with powers and instructions authorizing him to conclude the negotiation if this government should insist upon its being completed here. The arrival of Mr. Salazar may be expected from day to day. In the mean time, we are yet unacquainted with the particular objects of commercial intercourse which the Colombian government wishes to regulate with us by treaty. The only object which we shall have much at heart in the negotiation, will be the sanction, by solemn compact, of the broad and liberal principles of independence, equal favors, and reciprocity. With this view I recommend to your particular attention the preamble, and first four articles of the first treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and France, concluded on the 6th of February, 1778. The preamble is believed to be the first instance on the diplomatic records of nations, upon which the true principles of all fair commercial negotiation between independent states were laid down and proclaimed to the world. That pre

amble was to the foundation of our commercial intercourse with the rest of mankind, what the declaration of independence was to that of our internal government. The two instruments were parts of one and the same system, matured by long and anxious deliberation of the founders of this union in the ever memorable congress of 1776; and as the declaration of independence was the fountain of all our municipal institutions, the preamble to the treaty with France laid the corner stone for all our subsequent transactions of intercourse with foreign nations. Its principles should be, therefore, deeply impressed upon the mind of every statesman and negotiator of this union, and the first four articles of the treaty with France contain the practical exposition of those principles which may serve as models for insertion in the projected treaty, or in any other that we may hereafter negotiate with any of the rising republics of the south.

There is, indeed, a principle of still more expansive liberality, which may be assumed as the basis of commercial intercourse between nation and nation. It is that of placing the foreigner, in regard to all objects of navigation and commerce, upon a footing of equal favor with a native citizen, and to that end, of abolishing all discriminating duties and charges whatsoever.

This principle is altogether congenial to the spirit of our institutions, and the main obstacle to its adoption consists in this: that the fairness of its operation depends upon its being admitted universally. For, while two maritime and commercial nations should bind themselves to it as a compact operative only between them, a

third power might avail itself of its own restrictive and discriminating regulations, to secure advantages to its own people, at the expense of both the parties to the treaty. The United States have nevertheless made considerable advances in their proposals to other nations towards the general establishment of this most liberal of all principles of commercial intercourse.

On the 3d of March, 1815, immediately after the conclusion of our late war with Great Britain, an act of congress, (U. S. Laws, vol. 4. p. 824,) repealed so much of the discriminating duties of tonnage and impost, as were imposed on foreign vessels and merchandise, beyond the duties imposed on the same in our own vessels; so far as they respected the produce or manufacture of the nation to which the foreign vessel might be long. The repeal to take effect in favor of any foreign nation, whenever the president of the United States should be satisfied that the discriminating or countervailing duties of such foreign nation, so far as they operated to the disadvantage of the United States, had been abolished.

On the 3d of July, 1815, (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, p. 603,) a convention was concluded with Great Britain, by the second article of which, this principle was adopted for the commercial intercourse between the United States and the British territories in Europe; so far as related to duties and charges of tonnage, impost, export, and bounties upon articles of the produce or manufacture of the two countries, respectively. It was partially admitted for drawbacks. But the intercourse between the United

States and the British possessions in India was differently regulated by another article of the same convention, and that between the United States and the British colonies in America was expressly excepted from the convention, leaving each party to the exercise, in this respect, of its own rights. This convention, originally limited to four years, was afterwards, by the convention of 20th October, 1818, (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, p. 607.) extended for the term of ten years from that time.

On the 4th of September, 1816, (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, p. 642.) a treaty with Sweden and Norway was concluded, and extended to the Swedish island of St. Bartholomew, in the West Indies; by the second article of which, the same principle is established, of equal duties and charges, of tonnage, impost, export, and prohibition, upon vessels and their cargoes, being of the produce or manufacture of the respective countries, whether in vessels of the foreigner or the native. The duration of this treaty is limited to the 25th of September, 1826.

On the 20th of April, 1818, (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, p. 344.) an act of congress, repealed all discriminating duties of tonnage and impost in favor of the vessels of the Netherlands, and their cargoes, being of the produce or manufacture of the territories in Europe, of the king of the Netherlands, or "such produce and manufactures as can only be, or most usually are, first shipped from a port or place in the kingdom aforesaid." Such repeal to take effect from the time the government of the Netherlands had abolished its discriminating duties upon the vessels of the United

act.

This same act of 3d of March, 1819, limited its own duration, and that of the act to which it was in addition, and the act of 3d March, 1815, itself, to the 1st of January, 1824.

The provisions of the 3d March, 1815, have been extended by proclamations of the president of the United States, as follows:

1818, 24th July, to the free and Hanseatic city of Bremen. (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, p. 599.)

1st. August, to the free and Hanseatic city of Hamburg.-p.

600.

1820, 4th May, the free and Hanseatic city of Lubeck.-p. 601. 1821, 20th August, to the kingdom of Norway.-p. 602.

22d November, to the dukedom of Oldenburg. p. 774.

You will observe that the acts of 3d March, 1819, admitted the vessels of Hamburg and Bremen to advantages more extensive than those offered by the act of 3d March, 1815, and which had already been secured to them, by the proclamations of 24th July, and 1st August, 1818. The same enlargement of the favors offered by the act of 3d March, 1815, is extended to the vessels of the Netherlands, and of Prussia. While Norway has the double security, of the principle offered in the act of 3d March, 1815, by the stipulation in the treaty with Sweden, and by the

The proclamation with regard to Norway, was founded on an act of the government of that kingdom, not extending, however, to Sweden, abolishing all discriminating duties whatsoever, in the Norwegian ports, between their own vessels, and vessels of the United States, and upon their cargoes, of whatsoever origin, and whencesoever coming. This is the consummation of the principle of treating the foreigner, in respect to navigation and foreign commerce, upon a footing of equal favor with the native. The government of Norway, in adopting this regulation, required that it should be reciprocally granted to Norwegian vessels and their cargoes in the ports of the United States. This, however, could be granted only by an act of congress; and the proclamation could only extend to them under the law, that to which they were already entitled by the treaty.

The subject was submitted to congress by a message from the president, towards the close of the first session of the 17th congress, (1st May, 1822,) and the general policy of our commercial system, with particular reference to the act of 3d March, 1815, and the subsequent measures resulting from it, had been reviewed in the message of 5th December, 1821, at the commencement of the same session. The principle offered by the Norwegian government could not, however, then have been accepted, without great disadvantage to the United States. Our direct trade with the British colonies in America, was interdicted by our own and British laws. That with France was under countervailing regula

tions of both parties, equivalent to interdiction. To have granted then to Norwegian vessels, unrestricted admission into our ports, upon the same terms with our own, would in fact have granted them privileges which our own did not, and could not enjoy. Our own being under the operation of restrictions and prohibitions, ordained by Britain and France from which the Norwegian vessels would have been exempt.

Our direct trade with the British American colonies has since been opened, and that with France has been restored; both, however, shackled with countervailing restrictions and regulations, burdensome to those by whom it may be carried on. As the act of congress of 3d March, 1815, and all the regulations founded upon it, will expire on the 1st of January next, the whole subject will again be before that body at their next session, for revisal. In this state of things, it may be perhaps most prudent, in the commercial negotiations with the republic of Colombia, to adhere to the principle of equal favor to the most friendly nation, leaving that of equal favor with the native, for future consideration and concert between the parties.

To the same extent however, as we are already bound by treaty with Great Britain, until October, 1828, and with Sweden, until September, 1826, you may safely proceed, taking the second article of each of those compacts for a model, and forming an article embracing the stipulations of both. Thus far we may safely go with any one, or more foreign nations, without endangering, by the liberality of our engagements with

them, the interests of our own country, to be affected by the restrictive ordinances of others. An exception must be made with regard to the ports of St. Augustine, and Pensacola, where, by the 15th article of the late treaty with Spain, special privileges are secured to Spanish vessels, until the 22d of May, 1833.

Among the usual objects of negotiation in treaties of commerce and navigation, are the liberty of conscience and of religious worship. Articles to this effect have been seldom admitted in Roman Catholic countries, and are even interdicted by the present constitution of Spain. The South American republics have been too much under the influence of the same intolerant spirit; but the Colombian constitution is honorably distinguished by exemption from it. The 10th and 11th articles of our treaty with Prussia, or articles to the like effect, may be proposed for insertion in the projected treaty; and after setting the first example in South America, of a constitution unsullied by prohibitions of religious liberty, Colombia will deserve new honors in the veneration of present and future ages, by giving her positive sanction to the freedom of conscience, and by stipulating it in her first treaty with these United States. It is, in truth, an essential part of the system of American independence. Civil, political, commercial, and religious liberty, are but various modifications, of one great principle, founded in the unalienable rights of human nature, and before the universal application of which, the colonial domination of Europe, over the American hemisphere, has fallen, and is crumbling into dust. Civil liberty