On the subject of the first claim, which has been objected to as groundless, I will observe that I am not satisfied that the construction given by the British government to that article of the treaty is justified even by the letter of the article.  That construction rests on the supposition that slaves come under the general denomination of booty, and are alienated the moment they fall into possession of an enemy, so that all those who were in the hands of the British when the treaty of peace was signed, must be considered as British and not as American property, and are not included in the article.  It will, however, appear by recurring to Vattel when speaking of the right of “Postliminium,” that slaves cannot be considered as a part of the booty which is alienated by the act of capture, and that they are to be ranked rather with real property, to the profits of which only the captors are entitled.  Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the construction given by America is that which was understood by the parties at the time of making the treaty.  The journals of Mr. Adams, quoted by a gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Coit, prove this fully; for when he says that the insertion of this article was alone worth the journey of Mr. Laurens from London, can it be supposed that he would have laid so much stress on a clause, which, according to the new construction now attempted to be given, means only that the British would commit no new act of hostility—­would not carry away slaves at that time in possession of Americans?  Congress recognized that construction by adopting the resolution which has been already quoted, and which was introduced upon the motion of Mr. Alexander Hamilton; and it has not been denied that the British ministry during Mr. Adams’ embassy also agreed to it.

But when our negotiator had, for the sake of peace, waived that claim; when he had also abandoned the right which America had to demand an indemnification for the detention of the posts, although he had conceded the right of a similar nature, which Great Britain had for the detention of debts; when he had thus given up everything which might be supposed to be of a doubtful nature, it might have been hoped that our last claim—­a claim on which there was not and there never had been any dispute—­the western posts should have been restored according to the terms of the treaty of peace.  Upon what ground the British insisted, and our negotiator conceded, that this late restitution should be saddled with new conditions, which made no part of the original contract, I am at a loss to know.  British traders are allowed by the new treaty to remain within the posts without becoming citizens of the United States; and to carry on trade and commerce with the Indians living within our boundaries without being subject to any control from our government.  In vain is it said that if that clause had not been inserted we would have found it to our interest to effect it by our own laws.  Of this we are alone