330 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20. 



the gentlemen who assented to it. ist. That British delits, to a great amount, 

 had been paid into some of the State Treasuries, or loan offices, in paper 

 money of very little value, either under laws confiscating debts, or under 

 laws authorizing payment of such debts in paper money, and discharging the 

 debtors. 2nd. That tender laws had existed in all the States; and that by 

 some of those laws, a tender and a refusal to accept, by principal or factor, 

 was declared an extinguishment of the debt. From the knowledge that such 

 laws had existed there was good reason to fear that similar laws, with the 

 same or less consequences, might be again made (and the fact really hap- 

 pened), and prudence required to guard the British creditor against them. 

 3rd : That in some of the States property, of any kind, might be paid, at an 

 appraisement, in discharge of any execution. 4th: That laws were in force 

 in some of the States, at the time of the treaty, which prevented suits by 

 British creditors. 5th : That laws were in force in other of the States, at 

 the time of the treaty, to prevent suits by any person for a limited time. All 

 these laws created legal impediments, of one kind or another, to the recovery 

 of many British debts, contracted before the war; and in many cases com- 

 pelled the receipt of property instead of gold and silver. "''" 



And the Court held it to be the very evident intendment of the lan- 

 guage used in the treaty to effectuate the three objects already set 

 forth. This case of Ware vs. Hylton in which these foregoing 

 observations are found, will be examined later in detail. ^°'* The 

 judge merely recited facts of universal knowledge. Under the 

 Articles of Confederation Congress indeed had the exclusive power 

 to make treaties, but nowhere was any power vested in the Federal 

 government to enforce the provisions of treaties. State after State 

 either passed new acts violative of the treaty of peace, or proceeded 

 to enforce existing acts equally obnoxious. Dr. McMaster 

 observes : 



" The open contempt with which, in all parts of the country, the people 

 treated the recommendation of Congress concerning the refugees and the 

 payment of the debts, was no more than any man of ordinary sagacity could 

 have foretold."^'"'" 



And elsewhere the same historian states: 



" There were some Articles [of the treaty] which the people had long 

 before made up their minds never should be carried out."^*"' 



'"'Ware vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas, p. 238. 

 '"^ Infra, pp. 135-146. 



"'"A History of the People of the United States," John B. McMaster. 

 Vol. I,, p. 130. 



"^ Ibid., p. 107. 



