be shown."

The resolutions, as reported, were supported by Mr. Madison, Mr.
Baldwin, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Clymer, Mr. Page, and Mr. Jackson.

They relied much upon the public sentiment which had, they said, been
unequivocally expressed through the several state legislatures and
otherwise, against placing foreign nations generally, on a footing
with the allies of the United States. So strong was this sentiment,
that to its operation the existing constitution was principally to be
ascribed. They thought it important to prove to those nations who had
declined forming commercial treaties with them, that the United States
possessed and would exercise the power of retaliating any regulations
unfavourable to their trade, and they insisted strongly on the
advantages of America in a war of commercial regulation, should this
measure produce one.

The disposition France had lately shown to relax with regard to the
United States, the rigid policy by which her counsels had generally
been guided, ought to be cultivated. The evidence of this disposition
was an edict by which American built ships purchased by French
subjects became naturalized. There was reason to believe that the
person charged with the affairs of the United States at that court,
had made some favourable impressions, which the conduct of the
American government ought not to efface.

With great earnestness it was urged, that from artificial or
adventitious causes, the commerce between the United States and Great
Britain had exceeded its natural boundary. It was wise to give such
political advantages to other nations as would enable them to acquire
their due share of the direct trade. It was also wise to impart some
benefits to nations that had formed commercial treaties with the
United States, and thereby to impress on those powers which had
hitherto neglected to form such treaties, the idea that some
advantages were to be gained by a reciprocity of friendship.

That France had claims on the gratitude of the American people which
ought not to be overlooked, was an additional argument in favour of
the principle for which they contended.

The discrimination was opposed by Mr. Benson, Mr. Lawrence, Mr.
Wadsworth, and Mr. Sherman.

They did not admit that the public sentiment had been unequivocally
expressed; nor did they admit that such benefits had flowed from
commercial treaties as to justify a sacrifice of interest to obtain
them. There was a commercial trea