ctions of the
southerners on the ground that the treaty did not provide for the
return of their property, while the objection of the North was not so
pressing. In fact, northerners acquiesced in the opinion of Hamilton
who had substantially the same view that Grenville had.[51] Thus we
see the first glimpse of the North becoming estranged from the South
because of the difference of opinion in regard to the Negro.

The leading source of dissatisfaction of the treaty of Jay seemed to
be a failure to get compensation for the Negroes carried away by Great
Britain. The stipulation, moreover, was not definite, for many
constructions could be placed upon it. The words of the treaty,
moreover, were too vague and uncertain to express accurately the
intention of the signers. Whether Negroes whom the British carried
away could any longer be considered American property, seemed to be
the crux of the situation. Although no definite settlement could be
reached by the two nations, authorities of international law[52] give
the case to Great Britain. One rule which was recognized by the
foremost nations of the world was to the effect that a slave escaping
in war becomes free. Concerning this Halleck says that such slaves
cannot be regained by their former masters.[53] Woolsey says that "a
slave sojourning to a free land cannot be treated as his master's
property--as destitute of jural capacity." To the same purport,
Heffter says "in no case is a state bound to allow the slavery which
subsists in others." Dana, in his edition of Wheaton's _International
Law_ supports this contention.[54]

Dissatisfied with results but not discouraged, however, Washington
appointed commissioners, December 7th, 1798, to work with
commissioners from Great Britain and proceed with the infractions of
the treaty. A short time thereafter President Adams in an address to
Congress, November 23, 1797, reported that several decisions on the
claims of citizens of the United States for losses and damages
sustained by reason of irregular and illegal captures or condemnations
of their vessels or other property had been made by the commissioners
in London, conformably to the Seventh Article of the Treaty. "The sums
awarded by the Commissioners," said he, "have been paid by the British
Government; a considerable number of other claims where costs and
damages and not captured property were the only objects in question
have been decided by arbitration, and the sums award