Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The questions submitted by Washington involved his two ablest Cabinet members in a notable controversy, which resulted in the formulation and adoption of our American policy of non-intervention in the political affairs of another nation. Jefferson's very able argument was marked somewhat by his democratic tendencies. He held that all acts by public agents under the authority of the nation, were acts of the nation, and could not be annulled or affected by any change in the form of government, or of the persons administering it. The treaties in question, therefore, were treaties between the United States and France and not between the United States and Louis Capet; and in spite of the fact that both nations had since changed their form of government, both had remained in existence and their treaties had not been annulled thereby.' Jefferson drew an analogy between contracts between nations and contracts between individuals, maintaining that non-performance was not immoral if performance was impossible, and that, if performance should become self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overruled the law of obligation to others. He conceded that no nation had a right either to suspend or to annul its obligations merely because they were either useless or disagreeable; but in case they were dangerous, it was, he affirmed, a matter of the degree of the danger; and by a close chain of reasoning, he held that the degree of danger in this case did not justify annulment.2 Jefferson concluded that the treaties were still binding, without regard to changes in government; that the clause of guarantee only suggested danger, and that only remotely; that extreme danger, and neither uselessness nor disagreeableness, was the test of the right of annulment or suspension; that the question of receiving a minister did not con1 Jefferson, Writings, by Ford, vol. vi, p. 217. 'Ibid., vol. vi, p. 220.

cern the treaty obligation; that the United States held at all times the right of suspension or annulment where the question of self-preservation was involved; and finally, that allowing the treaties to remain in operation did not amount to a breach of neutrality, while their abrogation would amount to such a breach, giving France just cause for war.1

While Jefferson's treatment of the case was scientfic and liberal, Hamilton took what he thought to be a more expedient view. He was imaginative enough, however, to anticipate a situation. In answering question III (whether the minister should be accorded an absolute or qualified reception, and if with qualifications, what kind), Hamilton held that the United States should previously declare to the French minister before his reception that the American government, desiring to maintain cordial relations and friendly intercourse with France, would accept his credentials and receive him as minister; yet, on account of the relations originally contracted between the two countries and the present state of affairs in France, the United States reserved the question of the temporary and provisional suspension of the treaties to future decision; and that the French minister should be apprised of the reservation."

Hamilton relied upon a brief recital of the facts of the situation in France to strengthen his contention. The treaties were between the United States and the king of France, his heirs and successors. A new constitution accepted by the king had not changed the status of things. The seizure of the king and the declared suspension of the royal government was effected by a body unauthorized to destroy any other constituted authority. No convincing evidence had been produced against the king. Not mentioning other irregularities, the king had been put to death, bringing up 'Jefferson, Writings, by Ford, vol. vi, p. 231.

the question whether or not it was an act of national justice. That the new government was irregular and had not established itself was evidenced by the fact that all Europe regarded it as an act demanding armed intervention to restore the royalty to power. The question, then, was concerning the future goverment of France-would the royal authority be restored or would a republic be established? Hamilton's contention was that the facts and circumstances proved that the revolution was not a free, regular and deliberate act of the French nation.1

Arguing that the treaties ought to be renounced in the interests of peace, Hamilton declared that the existence of an option and its non-use were equivalent to adandoning neutrality for an alliance, hence giving the enemies of France just reason to regard the United States as an enemy; and if under the treaties we were not bound to go to war, it was due to casualty or inability; the former relieving us only in case of an offensive war, and the plea of inability being the weakest means of maintaining neutrality. The latitude other governments were taking in giving sanction to French treaties; the embarrassments ensuing in regard to the clause of guarantee, should the French cause fail; the refusal of European nations to treat with the new government, and their armed intervention in behalf of royalty; and the prudence of requiring the reservation of the question until the circumstances of the case furnished light for a right and safe decision; were arguments conclusive of the right of the United States to sever her alliance with France. In answer to the fourth question it was advanced that ap plying the principle of the first one taking up arms as conducting a defensive war, the facts revealed France as engaged in a war of offense only, while the alliance was clearly a defensive one.2

'Hamilton, Works, by Lodge, vol. iv, p. 373

'Ibid., vol. iv, p. 397.

While arguing from different points of view, and assuming a given state of facts in certain cases, Jefferson and Hamilton in this Cabinet controversy made possible the policy of the United States before the actual circumstances arose to test the policy. It must be remembered that the questions were submitted by Washington before Morris informed the President of Genêt's plans in America. In trying to appraise the value of the opposing arguments, one is compelled to conclude that Jefferson was more academic and more liberal, with a greater appreciation of the duties of the United States under the treaties, and yet with a due regard for American rights and interests as well. Hamilton was governed purely by practical considerations. With him, the circumstances were the determining factor. Justifying renunciation on the grounds of danger to the United States, he entertained the same opinion of the French government as the enemies of France held, and he thought the American view should be identical with the European. They differed, naturally, in interpreting the authorities on the question of alliances. Jefferson believed that to renounce the alliance would be just cause for a declaration of war by France; Hamilton believed just as firmly that maintaining the alliance would lead to war with the enemies. of France, and if war came, it would be better to fight for non-intervention and neutrality as permanent national foreign policies rather than to fight for the purpose of maintaining a questionable alliance. Jefferson regarded the French government as regular and the treaties as binding because, every nation having a right to change its form of government, the alliance existed between the nations and not between the governments. He accorded the revolutionary government both a de jure and de facto character. Hamilton, however, while admitting the right of a nation

be continued by a change in government. If the revolution be consummated and the government established and recognized, with strength to secure the performance of the alliance, the treaty would hold. But he took into account the probable circumstances. Without determining the de jure status of the French government (for which reasonable doubt was entertained), Hamilton refused to accord to the new French government a de facto character until it had established itself. With all Europe in arms, refusing to recognize the government as de facto, and intervening to restore the monarchy, the United States could not be guilty of a breach of neutrality by continuing an alliance with a government not as yet able to maintain itself, but would be guilty of an act of intervention by being the ally of a government the rise of which many governments regarded as in itself a ground for intervention. By insisting upon a reservation of the question of suspension and annulment until the circumstances of the case could be examined, and by declaring for the renunciation of the treaties, which in itself was a denial of the de facto character of the French government, Hamilton attempted to commit the United States to the extreme policy of abandoning treaty relations with a government which proved itself able to offer effective resistance to nearly all the states of Europe, on the grounds of non-recognition and intervention by enemy states opposed to the liberal form of government adopted by the French nation. To have followed Hamilton's course would have constituted a disparagement of revolution, both as a right and as basis of governmental succession, would have led to a test of governmental efficacy common to the old world but antagonistic to our principles, and would have led to an unwarranted discrimination between the French state and the French government. It would also have meant the unnecessary suspension or annulment of treaties at a

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »