Abstract
The first conference 1) of the negotiations, held on the 28th of August 1817, was merely preparative and explanatory. Full powers were exchanged and verified. Gallatin for the United States, Goldberg for the Netherlands, stated and elucidated the existing laws and regulations and the tendencies arising from them concerning the commercial and tariff policies of their respective countries 2).
“The radical principle of all commercial intercourse between independent nations is the mutual interest of both parties”.
(President John Q. Adams, Annual Message to Congress, December 4, 1827.)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Most data on the course of the negotiations are found in the official protocol of its sessions — the American copy being signed by Appleton and Gallatin, the Dutch copy by Delprat (see p. 267 footnote 6) — with enclosures, consisting of the “Notes explicatives” and “Notes officielles” exchanged during the negotiations (D. o. S. Despatches Netherlands vol. 4; R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209, 211 and R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724). To these documents many of the following statements are referred, even when this is not expressly stated. Another source of information is the official report of the American plenipotentiaries to their government (Sept. 22 1817, Gallatin and Eustis to Adams, D. o. S. Desp. Neth. vol. 4) and the report of the Dutch negotiators (The Hague, Oct. 27 1817, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724; published in „Economisch-Historisch Jaar-boek” I p. 226); both with many informative documents.
That these policies were so unevenly liberal was not mentioned in the protocol itself, but was stated in the concept-protocol of the first session, as draughted by Delprat (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209).
Report of Sept. 22 1817.
Protocole Seconde Séance.
Lagemans, Recueil, I p. 218 No. 60. Cf. p. 254.
Report Goldberg and Van der Kemp, Oct. 27 1817.
„Notules non-officielles de la conférence du 30 Août 1817” (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209).
Sept. 2 1817, Van der Kemp to Goldberg (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210). He admitted that this was a matter for their own concern, and not for the Dutch. Yet, it shows that the doubt existed whether the Americans should be taken entirely seriously or not; whether they could grant what they promised. The question treated here is similar to the one found in Wichers’ objections to Goldberg’s project.
In this opinion he must have been strengthened by an address of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce (Aug. 28 1817, ’t Hoen and Westrik to Goldberg, R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724; enclosure No. 18 to Report of Oct. 27 1817), who urged, upon the grounds of justice and reciprocity, that they obtain from the United States a total repeal of the discriminations on tonnage and import duties levied in American ports on vessels of the Netherlands.
As Goldberg later on assured Appleton: “that during the late negociations he was tenacious on no other point but that of the colonies. That it was Mr. Van der Kemp who objected to the extension of the principle of equality to the indirect trade”. (Memorandum of Appleton enclosed with July 311818, Gallatin to Adams, D. o. S. Desp. France vol. 18.)
Enforced by law of March 6 1818 (Staatsblad No. 10). See chapter XIX.
It resulted in the law on the tea-trade of Dec. 24 1817. See chapter XIX. Also Van der Kemp had used this argument to refute Goldberg’s treaty project.
Report of Oct. 27 1817.
This had been laid down already at the end of 1815 in Zimmermann’s memorandum to his treaty project (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210). See p. 246.
Sept. 3 1817.
„ ... les droits sur les marchandises, pour celles chargées effectivement dans un des deux pays pour être exportées ou importées en droiture d’un pays à l’autre”. 2) Report of Oct. 27 1817.
Report of Oct. 27 1817.
Report Gallatin and Eustis, Sept. 22 1817.
As Adams, Clay and Gallatin himself had experienced in 1815 at London, when negotiating the commercial convention with Great Britain. The same questions with regard to colonial trade, to the West Indies, to the equivalent demanded, etc. had arisen there as would come up here. (Correspondence in A. S. P. Foreign Relations, IV p. 8, 11 f.)
Sept. 3 1817, Eustis to Monroe, private, (L. o. C. Monroe Papers, vol. 16). 2) This proposition is not inserted in the Protocol. It is found as a special enclosure (No. 3) with the report of Gallatin and Eustis of Sept. 22 1817.
Ratification of a compromising provision on this head in a treaty concluded with Sweden in 1816 had been withheld by the Senate for the same reason. See below p. 335.
Report Sept. 22 1817.
The American note of Sept. 8th, the Dutch note of Sept. 12th, the American reply of Sept. 16th and the final Dutch answer of Sept. 30th. 2) In R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210.
In this wording: „les plénipotentiaires du Roi se trouvent dans la nécessité de déclarer qu’ils ne peuvent faire aucune stipulation à l’égard de la navigation et du commerce des Etats Unis dans les colonies de S. M. le Roi, avant que Messieurs les plénipotentiaires des Etats Unis se trouvent à même de proposer tel équivalent”.
Upon the consideration that the extension of the U. S. by Louisiana, after 1782, was sufficiently counterbalanced by the extension of trade possibilities which the Netherlands offered to the U. S. by the addition of Belgium to their former territory.
In their report of Oct. 27 1817 the Dutch afterwards explicitly declared „dat het voorbeeld van Engeland in dezen niet toepasselijk is, omdat de belangen verschallend zijn”.
R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210.
Report Sept. 22 1817.
They dwelt also on the eventual balance of commercial interest between Louisiana and the Southern Netherlands.
Report Sept. 22 1817. Quoted also by Henry Adams: The Life of Albert Gallatin, p. 568.
Sept. 1817, to Goldberg (R.A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210).
Report Oct. 27 1817.
For example: „Un fabriquant d’Allemagne et de la Suisse pourrait convenir sur un marché avantageux avec une maison de commerce à Philadelphie, à Boston, à New York, et faire passer sa marchandise en transit par le territoire des Pays-Bas pour être transportée dans un navire ámericain, tandis que le négociant néerlandais ne pourra débiter cette même marchandise qui fait partie de l’assortiment qu’il conserve à grand fraix, ni choisir un navigateur compatriote pour transporter sa marchandise, à fraix égaux avec le navigateur américain”.
The note went on defending its case by poorer motives, e.g. the possibility of frauds, a free-trade argument never successful with a power whose general commercial system does not recognize its value.
Report of Sept. 22 1817. The same thing had been admitted by England in 1667, at the peace of Breda, where she consented, in one of the additional articles of navigation and commerce to the treaty of peace, to exempt from the provisions of the Acts of Navigation the goods of the German hinterland, carried in transit by Dutch vessels: “II. That for the elucidation of that act which the King of Great Britain caused to be published in the year 1660, for the encouragement of navigation in his own subjects, whereby strangers are prohibited to import any commodities into England, but such as are of their own growth or manufacture; it may be lawful for the States General, and their subjects, to carry also into England in their ships, all such commodities as growing, being produced, or manufactured in Lower or Upper Germany, are not usually carried so frequently and commodiously unto seaports (thence to be transported to other countries) any other way but through the territories and dominions of the United Netherlands, either by land or by rivers”.Translation, from the Latin text, in “A collection of treaties between Great Britain and other powers, by George Chalmers”, I (London 1790), p. 152.
See below, chapter XVIII, p. 336.
This argument was later on emphasized by Adams, to Ten Gate (Jan. 3 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 541).
Report American delegation, Sept. 22 1817.
Also in the discussions of the 6th Conference, Sept. 18th.
As appears from two letters, Sept. 16 and 23 1817, of Delprat to Van Nagell, who was on a vacation on his estate in Guelderland (R. A. Coll. Van Nagell).
Report American plenipotentiaries, Sept. 22 1817.
R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210.
Ibid. Cf. p. 254.
See p. 242.
Compare chapter IV p. 69 f.
Econ. Hist. Jaarboek I p. 225, art. 15. See p. 248.
Aug. 19 1817. See p. 258 f.
The final report of the American commissioners to their government states this reason as the prevailing objection used on the Dutch side. A note in pencil-writing to Art. 5 of a copy of the old treaty (in R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210) expresses however the more plausible opinion that this article was to be reserved for a treaty of alliance in case of war.
Report of Sept. 22 1817.
Report of the Dutch commissioners, Oct. 27 1817: „de Stelling van „vrij schip, vrij goed”, welke in net slot van artikel 11 van het traktaat van 1782 uitdrukkelijk wordt gehandhaafd en welke de voorzigtigheid gebiedt tegenwoordig of geheel met stilzwijgen voorbij te gaan of niet dan voor zooverre mogelijk obligatoir te maken”. — The relative paragraph of article 11 stipulates “most expressly” that “the free vessells shall assure the liberty of the effects with which they shall be loaded, and that this liberty shall extend itselff equally to the persons who shall be found in a free vessell, who may not be taken out of her, unless they are military men actually in the service of an enemy”.
See chapter IV, p. 63.
Report of Sept. 22 1817.
Both Goldberg and Van der Kemp were occupied by their regular offices during most of the time.
James Gallatin, l.c. p. 112. As soon after the termination as he had made out in cooperation with Eustis the report to their government, he left for Paris.
See, besides the protocol, a P. M.-document, written by Delprat, on the actual course of this last session (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209).
P. M. by Delprat.
As such it was represented for instance to the King in a provisional report of the two commissioners de dato September 22 1817 (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209). The same opinion was officially expressed in a notification inserted in the „Staatscourant” of Sept. 25th. Eustis duly protested against this representation and obtained a better wording and amended view on the matter by a new notification („Staatscourant” of October 8) stating that the negotiations were provisionally suspended, both governments being referred to by the respective plenipotentiaries (Compare R.A.B.Z. 1817 I. S. No. 4329 in Verbaall. S. No. 118). Likewise on Sept. 23 Delprat stated to Van Nagell (R. A. Coll. Van Nagell): „Aujourd’hui M. Gallatin repart pour Paris d’où nous l’attendrons en bonne dévotion”.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). The Negotiations. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive