"quent to that event, from his native allegiance " (the contrary of which appears to have been the "case) his return to, and having been on the side " of his said native allegiance at the peace, would " have secured to him the benefit of the said fourth "article of the treaty :-that accordingly, having "been on the side of his Britannic Majesty at the "date of the treaty of peace, and being a natural "born subject of his said Majesty, not barred by "the acceptance of citizenship, from the right of "complaining against the United States, the "claimant is entitled, under the treaty of amity, " to complain to this Board of the said act of at"tainder and confiscation before recited, as being "a lawful impediment within the description of the "fourth article of the treaty of peace, and the sixth "article of the treaty of amity, to the recovery of "such debts as he shall prove, to the satisfaction "of the Board, within the meaning of the said " treaties."

"Our readers will also observe, that the claimant produced abundant proof, that persons, who left the state of Pennsylvania long after he left it, and who had been attainted in like manner, had been tried, in courts of Pennsylvania, for treason, and had been acquitted, notwithstanding the evidence of the act of attainder, on the ground of their being British subjects, and not citizens of the State. It was, indeed, notorious, that this act of attainder had long been universally exploded as a tissue of abominable falsehoods, and it was only resorted to as evidence on this occasion, because no other more plausible subterfuge was to be found.

" It appears that a great number of claims were rejected, and always with the cordial concurrence of American Commissioners. In one solitary instance they did also give their assent to a favourable and final award!!! The claim amounted, indeed,

:

to

to no more than the trifling sum of 370l.; but, no matter, an award was made, and Mr. M'Donald shall now inform us of the curious evasion, by which the honest government undid what their too. liberal Commissioners had done.

"The Board having unanimously agreed, as already stated, that an award should be given in favour of the claimants, and of course that the case was within the description of the treaty, an order was made on the General Agent for claimants, to make up an account of the debt; and on the Agent for the United States, to prepare the draft for such an assignment of the debt, as he would propose to have executed in their favour.

66

a

The Attorney-General having, however, thought it his duty to instruct the Agent for the United States, not to comply with the order; insisting, that he was not bound to make such drafts; the Board, who had made that arrangement on the principle that the agent of the party, for whose benefit deed was to be executed, should prepare the draft; and for the purpose also of preventing little controversies, or objections, which might otherwise be stated to any draft that could be proposed,, were afterwards induced, (though against their opinion of propriety) to order the General Agent for claimants to make the draft.A draft was accordingly made by him, it was ob jected to by the Agent for the United States;-the award was thereby delayed; and while the whole Board still concurred in the opinion, that the claimants should have an award, none in fact was ever given.

" And thus, after having exhausted the sources of quibbling and procrastination, after seceding and returning, and seceding and returning again, for twenty times; after rejecting claim upon claim, without completing a single award, the American

G2

Com

Commissioners seceded for the last time in the month of July, 1799, just at the time that their government had received fresh assurances of the friendly disposition of France! We now call the attention of our readers to the termination of this scandalous transaction.

"There were other opinions which a majority of the Board had often occasion to declare; such as did not specially rise out of any particular case, but were essential to the execution of the article, and may therefore be here in like manner concisely stated.

66

They held, that those acts of secession, which had been practised in particular cases, could not affect the validity or operation of the opinions which they were meant to defeat: for the very act of secession implied, what had indeed been formerly minuted, that those opinions were the opinions of the majority, which had been declared in a Board, completely constituted: and all that the subsequent secession of some of the members could effect, was but to prevent, what the treaty did not require, namely, the declaration of opinions, by the formality of a vote: that formality being the accustomed, but not the exclusive, mode of ascertaining the fact; which, if prevented by an evasive proceeding, might be supplied by the admission, or other evidence, that such had been the fact. They therefore held, that the opinions which had been declared, by a majority of the Board, were as much the opinions of the Board, under the express provisions of the article, as if the form of a vote had not been so prevented.

"They considered it as clear, that there was no room for explanation, when a majority of the Board had no doubt: that every such explanation would be an alteration of the treaty, which they had sworn to execute as it stood; that therefore, as soon as the Commissioners had formed an opinion, they had no choice of proceeding, no power of compromise, no capacity to receive, or to act upon instructions, in opposition to what they themselves conceived to be the plain meaning of the instrument before them.

"The general views, with which the two nations had settled the article, seemed to them to be very apparent. With a view to particular cases, the object was the dispensation of justice, according to the special merits of every distinct case, either by an award of compensation, where the complaint of injury, from past delay, was well founded; or, by a conclusive rejection of the demand putting it to silence for ever, if it appeared to be groundless and, in either case, dispatch was essential; a dilatory cure for past delay, being a mocker in terms, as well as in effect; and a speedy rejection of ill founded complaints, amounting to no more than strict justice to the rights and character of the party charged. In a larger view, the object was, a termination by means, which neither of the two nations could control, of a complicated dispute between them, such as they could not themselves decide: a radical remedy for an old sore, which had long rankled in the hearts, and interrupted the confidential intercourse of many of the most valuable subjects of both. In construing the article, a majority of the Board was, therefore, well convinced, that every opinion which tended to uncertainty, indecision, and delay, was most essentially erroneous; and every proceeding, which went to convert a solemn national arbitration, for the known and declared purpose of final settlement, into the worst species of protracted negotiation, was totally inadmissible under the treaty.

"A bare perusal of the article, every line of which anticipated the occurrence of difference of opinion; (unavoidable, as from the variety of involved matter to be settled, it certainly was) ;which provided for it, not only in express terms, by declaring that the opinion of the majority should, ' in all cases, both as to the justice of the complaint, and the amount of the sum to be paid, be final and conclusive;' but also by the structure and conformation of the Board, which was made to consist of an unequal number ofmembers (either five or three), for the very purpose of giving certainty of decision, in all cases whatsoever; in cases of division, as well as unanimity-was sufficient to prevent, as they conceived, the possibility of any serious apprehensions, that mere difference of opinion on any subject, whether it respected the justice of the claim within the meaning of the treaty, or the amount of the damages incurred, could be made a pretext for disappointing the whole spirit, as well as the letter of the article.

"They believed, that as neither of the two nations could be supposed capable of appointing men to the confidential situation of national arbitrators, to decide upon a subject so extensive and involved, and with powers so absolute, as to offer ample means of secret perversion and abuse; such as might be practised with so much plausibility of appearance, and good agreement among themselves, as to prevent detection, or even general censure; nay, perhaps, to attract applause:-as neither of the two nations were capable of appointing men to such a situation of important trust, without the recommendation of unblemished reputation, and competent ability, there was, in the characters of such men, and the assurance of an oath, the only guarantee for just and impartial determination, which