(1) of the United Netherlands

(4) The Counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on the Delaware

(1) of the United Netherlands

(2) of North America (as in the treaty with France)

(3) determine

(4) subjects and inhabitants

(5) establishing

(6) with avoidance of

(7) by

(8) such ulterior

(9) to found

(10) in

(11) have

(12) of the United Netherlands named the Lords . . . From the midst of the meeting of their High Mightinesses deputed:

(13) North

(13) North

(14) who have agreed and concluded

(1) Lords (2) General of the United Netherlands

(3) North

(4) Netherlands

(5) their subjects and inhabitants (The treaty with France has, and appears to be also more suitable)

(6) and places

(Taken from the 25th article of the truce with Portugal done at The Hague, 12 June 1641, and also the 10th of the treaty with France)11

The mutual subjects and inhabitants irrespective of their nation, condition, state, place, or religion who have been born or have lived in either territory shall be allowed to visit, sail, and trade in all sorts of merchandise and commerce of which the import and export has not been generally forbidden, in all of each other’s provinces, countries, and islands in Europe and North America and elsewhere as with the most favored nations of Europe.

(1) General of the United

(2) of Europe 13

(23) there

(34) foreign

(45) Likewise shall

(56) inhabitants

(67) Netherlands

(78) favored

(9) of Europe

(as in the treaty with France)15

(810) there

(911) foreign

(1012) most favored

(12) of Europe

(1113) And the United States of North America, with their subjects and inhabitants, will leave to those of their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands the peaceable enjoyment of their rights in the countries, islands, and seas in the East and West Indies without any hindrance or molestation.16

(IV unnecessary, and because it cannot be found in the treaty with France, it is to be skipped or to be changed as follows:)

(1) and inhabitants

(2) and no one shall be molested in regard to his worship, provided he submits, as to the public demonstration of it, to the laws of the country.

(3) and inhabitants

(4) the usual burial places, or

And will be permitted for the abovementioned high United States of America in the thirteen respective colonies, and whenever it will later be necessary, that the inhabitants of those countries18 may henceforward obtain the requisite certificates in cases of deaths in which they shall be interested.

(1) General of the United Netherlands, and the United States of North America

(2) mutual

(3) and inhabitants

(4) inland seas, streams, rivers and as far as their jurisdiction extends at sea

(5) vessels of war and convoys, in cases when they may have a common enemy shall

(6) the subjects and inhabitants of either party which shall not be laden with contraband goods, according to the description of them hereafter, for places with which one of the parties is in peace and the other at war, nor destined for any place blocked and which shall hold

(7) go

(8) of the common enemy

(9) their own respective

(VI can be omitted if V is changed as above and phrased reciprocally.)

(Instead of this article, use the 39th article of the Treaty of Naples of 1753, which is as follows:)

The subjects of the contracting parties may, on one side and on the other, in their respective countries and states, dispose of their effects by testament, donation, or otherwise; and their heirs, subjects of one of the parties, residing in the country of the other, or elsewhere, shall receive such successions, even ab intestato, whether in person or by their attorney or substitute, even although they shall not have obtained letters of naturalization, without having the effect of such commission contested under pretext of any rights or prerogatives of any province, city, or private person. And if the heirs to whom such successions may have fallen shall be minors, the tutors or curators established by the judge domiciliary of the said minors may govern, direct, administer, sell, and alienate the effects fallen to the said minors by inheritance, and, in general, in relation to the said successions and effects, use all the rights and fulfill all the functions which belong by the diposition of the laws to guardians, tutors, and curators, provided nevertheless that this disposition cannot take place, but in cases where the testator shall not have named guardians, tutors, curators by testament, codicil, or other legal instrument.

(Because of the ambiguity, omit the underlined words; while it speaks for itself that the judges can appoint lawyers etc., but not just any person upon the demand of someone else, and, whoever it might be, give the power, because he would otherwise not be allowed to do this.)

(1) public

(2) and arrests

(3) will

(1) General of the United Netherlands

(All the words printed in italics should be omitted, it not being unreasonable that if others want to use it, they use the one which the law thereto prefers.)

(And to avoid confusion, add)

(2) As long as one obeys the orders of loading and unloading and the supplying and transporting of goods and wares from and to the ships and from the one place to the other according to the laws so as to prevent frauds unless otherwise stated.

(3) unload against their will, but with their unbroken cargoes to be allowed to sail out to sea again; they will not be forced either to receive any goods against their will into their ships, or wait longer for their cargo than they would like to; but the loading or unloading which are done voluntarily will be subject to the payment of the rights which broken cargoes are subject to.

(4) subjects and inhabitants

(5) General of the United Netherlands, which they will navigate according to the second and third article of this treaty.

(1) coming from the port of an enemy or from their own or a neutral port may navigate freely (2) they shall be nevertheless held whenever it shall be required to exhibit . . . their sea letters and other documents described in the 26th article

(3) and not having any contraband goods for an enemy’s port, they may freely and without hindrance proceed. Nevertheless, it shall not be required to examine the papers of vessels convoyed by vessels of war, but credence shall be given to the word of the officer who shall conduct the convoy.

(1) exhibiting the sea letters and other documents described more particularly in the 26th article of this treaty

(2) General of the United Netherlands

(3) or to subjects

(4) then after that

(5) contraband

(6) (That which is printed in italics appears to be useful against the seizure of ships, but it leads to piracy and therefore should be omitted, and in its stead should be written the following from the 26th article of the treaty with France of April 11th, 1713.)27

But, on the contrary, when by the visitation on land it shall be found that there are no contraband goods in the vessel, and it shall not appear by the papers that he who has taken and carried in the vessel has been able to discover any there, he ought to be condemned in all the charges, damages, and interests of them which he shall have caused to the owners of vessels, and to the owners and freighters of cargoes with which they shall be loaded, by his temerity in taking and carrying them in; declaring most expressly the free vessels shall assure the liberty of the effects with which they shall be loaded, and that this liberty shall extend itself to persons who shall be found in a free vessel, who may not be taken out of her, unless they are military men actually in the service of the enemy.

(Rather to avoid all discussion about the ignorance or knowledge of the declaration)

(1) or within six three 29 months after it, which effects

(2) who shall claim them or cause them to be claimed before the confiscation and sale and be restored in nature

(3) as also their proceeds, if the claim could not be made, but in the space of eight months after the sale, which ought to be public

(1) General of the United Netherlands

(2) North

(3) officers

(4) upon the first complaint which shall be made of it, being found guilty after a just examination, punished by their proper judges

(5) obtain

For further determining of what has been said, all captains of privateers, or fitters-out of vessels armed for war, under commission and on account of private persons, shall be held before their departure to give sufficient caution before competent judges, either, to be entirely responsible for the malversations which they may commit in their cruises or voyages, as well as for the contraventions of their captains and officers against the present treaty, and against the ordinances and edicts which shall be published in consequence of and conformity to it, under pain of forfeiture and nullity of the said commissions.

(1) navigating the high seas without requisite commissions

(2) But concerning the recapture of prizes belonging to each other’s subjects from the common enemy by the warships and commissioned vessels of the mutual contracting parties, reference will be made to the convention of 1 May 1781 between His Majesty the King of France and the States General of the United Netherlands, which being inserted here will remove all doubt regarding this. Copies of this convention and of the rules contained in it shall be attached to this treaty.

Would it not be possible to insert here, word for word, the content of the convention of 1 May 1781 between France and the Republic, without, however, naming the convention itself?

It will also be necessary, in view of the much greater distance from America compared with that from France, to stipulate that in all cases the restitution of prizes retaken from the enemy will be admitted under sufficient surety.

(1) sea-

(Mostly taken from the 35th article of aforementioned treaty of 1713 as follows:)

(2) and the vessels, effects, and merchandises, or the part of them which shall have been saved, or the proceeds of them if, being perishable, they shall have been sold, being claimed within a year and a day by the masters or owners or their agents or attorneys, shall be restored paying only the reasonable charges and that which must be paid in the same case for the salvage by the proper subjects of the country.

(It is unclear whether the addition made in this 18th article, as far as people who find themselves within the country, was taken from several old treaties, in the words if anything be taken from them, which would denote the taking of prizes at sea. If yes, it appears to have no effect. It is hereby proposed to keep the first section and clarify the second section, making it more elaborate as is found in the 41st article of aforementioned treaty of 1713, which reads as follows:)

(1) their High Mightinesses, the States General of the United Netherlands and the United States of North America, there shall always be granted to the subjects on each side the term of nine months after the date of the rupture or the proclamation of war, to the end that they may retire with their effects and transport them where they please, which it shall be lawful for them to do; as well as to sell or transport their effects and goods in all freedom and without any hindrance, and without being able to proceed, during the said term of nine months, to any arrest of their effects, much less of their persons; on the contrary, there shall be given them, for their vessels and effects which they would carry away, passports and safe conducts, for the nearest ports of their respective countries, and for the time necessary for the voyage. And no prize made at sea shall be judged lawful, at least if the declaration of war was not or could not be known in the last port which the vessel taken has quitted. But for whatever may have been taken from the subjects and inhabitants of either party, and for the offenses which may have been given them in the interval of the said terms, a complete satisfaction shall be given them.

(1) General of the United Netherlands

(2) North

(3) and inhabitants

(4) North

(5) inhabitants

(6) North

(7) their High Mightinesses States General of the United Netherlands, or against (8) or inhabitants

(9) states

(10) will

It is proposed to amplify this article with a reciprocal regulation similar to that which has been enacted by their High Mightinesses in their placard of 3 November 1756.

(1) or take in any cargo, according to Art. 9, they shall not be obliged to pay, neither for the vessels nor the cargoes, any duties of entry in or out, nor to render any account of their cargoes, at least if there is not just cause to presume that they carry to an enemy merchandises of contraband.

(XXIInd and the following apparently should be omitted; anyone is at liberty to propose or adopt articles, but not articles that go against treaties with other powers; existing conventions cannot be undone by contrary stipulations with third parties.)

For articles 22 and 23 substitute the following article 22.

This treaty will not be understood to derogate in any way from articles 9, 10, 17, and 2242 of the treaty of commerce in the year 1778 between France and said states of America and shall not hinder in any way his Catholic Majesty from acceding to it and of enjoying the advantages of the said four articles.

(One should be excused from XXIV because it would be onerous and would be the occasion for others with whom her High Mightinesses are in peace and amity to require the same, and to be of no essential use, while the Court of France has taken it up.)

(1) only

(2) warlike stores or

(3) as mortars (4) with their artifices and appurtenances, fusils, pistols, bombs, grenades, gunpowder, saltpeter, sulphur (5) swords

(6) casques, cuirasses, and other sorts of arms, as also soldiers, horses, saddles, and furniture for horses.

(7) All other goods, wares, and

(8) whatever named merchandises, not before specified expressly, and even all sorts of naval matters, however proper they may be for the construction and equipment of vessels of war or for the manufacture of one or another sort of machines of war by land or sea, shall not be judged contraband, neither by the letter nor according to any pretended interpretation whatever ought they or can they be comprehended under the notion of effects prohibited or contraband, so that all effects and merchandises which are not expressly before named may, without exception, be transported.45

(9) but

(10) from and

(11) and those places only shall be held for such which are surrounded nearly by one of the belligerent powers.

(1) inhabitants

(2) each time that the vessel shall return, she should have such her passport renewed, or at least they ought not to be of more ancient date than two47 one years before the vessel has been returned to her own country.

(3) are to be

(4) or sea letters mentioned above, but also with a general passport, or with particular passports or manifests or other public documents which are ordinarily given to vessels outward bound in the ports from whence the vessels have set sail in the last place, containing a specification of the cargo, of the place from whence the vessel departed, and that of her destination, or instead of these, certificates from the magistrates or governors of cities, places, and colonies from whence the vessel left, given in the usual form, to the end that it may be known whether there are any effects prohibited or contraband on board of the vessels, and whether they are destined to an enemy’s country or not.

(5) records

(6) without, however, being bound to do it; and the omission of such expression cannot or ought not to cause a confiscation.

(7) 2 Be it understood that the disposition made in this article will not subject such vessels which, having been unable to return home after the declaration of war, have been been unable to procure the required passports and sea letters. 48

(XXVII apparently can be omitted because it is the same as XX, particularly after the addition proposed to be made to that article.)

(1) sea letter and other records

(This article cannot be admitted in this general form. In peacetime recruiting likely will not be refused for deaths, desertion, or other causes, but one cannot accord a general permission for the recruiting of warships.)

, provided that neither on one side nor the other, they may not take in to their service such of their countrymen who have already engaged in the service of the other party contracting, whether in war or trade, and whether they meet them by land or sea; at least if the captains or masters under the command of whom such persons may be found will,52 of his own consent, discharge them from their service, upon pain of being otherwise treated and punished as deserters.

(This does not belong to a treaty of commerce, rather to a tariff, and the refraction is appropriate for the greater service of commerce.)

shall be regulated, in all equity and justice, by the magistrates of cities, respectively, where it shall be judged that there is any room to complain in this respect.

Most serene, serene, most puissant, puissant, high, illustrious, noble, honorable, venerable, wise and prudent lords, emperors, kings, republics, princes, dukes, earls, barons, lords, burgomasters, schepens, councillors, as also judges, officers, justiciaries, and regents of all the good cities and places, whether ecclesiastical or secular, who shall see these patents or hear them read: We, burgomasters and regents of the city of make known, that the master of of appearing before us has declared upon oath that the vessel called of the burden of about lasts, which he at present navigates, is of the United Provinces, and that no subjects of the enemy have any part or portion therein, directly nor indirectly, so may God almighty help him. And as we wish to see the said master prosper in his lawful affairs, our prayer is to all the abovementioned, and to each of them separately, where the said master shall arrive with his vessel and cargo, that they may please to receive the said master with goodness and to treat him in a becoming manner, permitting him, upon the usual tolls and expenses in passing and repassing, to pass, navigate, and frequent the ports, rivers, and territories to the end to transact his business, where and in what manner he shall judge proper, whereof we shall be willingly indebted.

In witness and for cause whereof, we affix hereto the seal of this city.

(In the margin)

By ordinance of the High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands.

MS not found. Reprinted from “Extract uit het Register der Resolutien van de Hoog Mogende Heeren Staaten Generaal der vereenigde Nederlanden,” 21 May 1782, with written insertions in an unknown hand (Adams Papers); endorsed: “Treaty proposed to me by the Comtee: of their H. M. the 22 of August. 1782”; cover sheet in CFA’s hand: “N.B. Project of a Treaty presented by the authorities of Holland for the consideration of John Adams, the Envoy of the United States 22 August 1782.” This document is filmed at 22–29 Aug. 1782 Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 357. Another copy of the 21 May printed extract is in the Adams Papers and was filmed at 21 May (same). The two documents differ in that the copy that JA received on 22 Aug. consists of pages 3 through 24. The leaf containing pages 1 and 2 may not have been included with the copy submitted to JA on 22 Aug. because page 1 consisted of the instrument by which the States General sub-327mitted the draft treaty to the various Provincial States, containing a brief account of preliminary meetings with JA and the States General’s consideration of the draft to that point, while page 2 was blank. For an explanation of the editors’ decision to reconstruct JA’s draft rather than simply translate the Dutch text, see the Editorial Note to the group document, above. For the sources of the particular articles see the annotation below.

Printed Copy (Adams Papers); endorsed: “Remarks of Amsterdam in Dutch”; accompanied by a French translation by C. W. F. Dumas. All of the handwritten passages on the copy of the draft and suggestions for revisions submitted to JA on 22 Aug. were derived from Amsterdam’s remarks adopted on 9 August. For those passages, as well as Amsterdam’s other comments on JA’s draft, see notes 13, 17–18, 24, 29, 33, 38, 41, 45, 47–48, 51, and 53. Note that the handwritten passages are underlined and have been placed in the right-hand column regardless of where they appeared on the page.

The remainder of the title was set in italics so that, unlike in the remainder of the draft, passages intended to be changed were in roman type and the proposed changes were in italics.

JA appropriated the title from the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Adams Papers; printed: Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:789–798), but where the formula to describe the Netherlands was “the seven United Provinces of the Netherlands.” According to his response to the Dutch proposals for changes, JA changed it to “the Seven United Provinces of the Low Countries” (No. III, below). That was in accord with Congress’ Treaty Plan of 1780 (vol. 10:451), which referred to “the United Provinces of the low Countries.” JA used the revised formula throughout the draft and, as they do here, the Dutch demanded that it be changed to “the United Netherlands” wherever it appeared.

When the Dutch considered JA’s draft they clearly compared it to the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Their objections here and elsewhere to JA’s references to the United States and to the individual states were because the forms used here were different from those used in the treaty with France (Miller, Treaties , 2:3), but Congress’ Treaty Plan of 1780 also referred to the United States of North America (vol. 10:451–457). See JA’s response to the Dutch objections in No. III, below.

This should have continued “and Providence Plantation,” an error that neither JA nor the Dutch caught until the last moment, for which see the first paragraph of the draft’s preamble and No. VIII, below.

The word “Burgeren” (citizens) appears throughout the draft and was inserted by JA, but it was objected to in every case by the Dutch, who preferred “Ingezeetenen” (inhabitants), the form that appears in the final treaty. The Lee-Neufville Treaty and the treaty plan use the word “people.”

With minor variations, the draft’s preamble is identical to that in the Lee-Neufville Treaty. The preamble in the treaty plan, however, is also similar and probably was based on the form in the Lee-Neufville Treaty. See also the Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (Miller, Treaties , 2:3–4).

From this point the italicized passage was replaced in the final treaty, but the new text was considerably different from that proposed here. In fact, this and the following two paragraphs, the first of which was largely retained in the final treaty (No. VIII, below), dealing with the plenipotentiaries authorized to sign the treaty, are JA’s work, for neither the Lee-Neufville Treaty nor Congress’ treaty plan have a comparable section. JA may have used the corresponding sections in the Franco-American treaties of 1778 as a model, although their text is not identical to that in the draft.

JA presumably referred to “Massachusetts Bay” because it was the state’s official name when he was a delegate to the Congress and chief justice. But see his objections to the Dutch proposals to change “Massachusetts” to “Massachusetts Bay” in the title and preamble of the draft in No. III, below.

This article corresponds to Art. 1 of both Congress’ treaty plan (vol. 10:451) and the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The Dutch are making two changes here. The first corrects what was likely an inadvertence by the translator, for “geslagten” would usually be defined as “genders” or328 “families.” The second brings the draft into accord with the official French text of Art. 1 in the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which reads at this point “et de lieux,” which should be translated as “and places.” The unofficial English text, however, translated this phrase as “or places,” and that usage was repeated in Art. 1 of Congress’ treaty plan (Miller, Treaties , 2:5; vol. 10:451).

For Art. 25 of the Dutch-Portuguese truce of 1641 and Art. 10 of the Franco-Dutch Treaty of Navigation and Commerce signed at Utrecht on 11 April 1713, from which the proposed Art. 2 was derived, JA likely consulted Jean Dumont’s compilation, Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens; contenant un recueil des traitez d’alliance, de paix, de trève, de neutralité, de commerce, d’échange (Amsterdam, 1726–1739; 14 vols. in 15, folio, 6:217; 8:378). JA purchased Dumont’s work in 1780, and it is in his library at MB (JA, D&A , 2:438; Catalogue of JA’s Library ). JA rejected the article, which does not appear in the final treaty, because it failed to confer any rights not already contained in Arts. 2 and 3 of the draft (No. III, below). The Dutch proposal was not included in the final treaty.

This article corresponds to Art. 2 of both Congress’ treaty plan (vol. 10:451) and the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The deletion of “van Europa” or “of Europe,” here and later is owing to Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendation that it was unnecessary to add the qualifier to identify the most favored nations.

The italicized article number and the continuation of the numbering of the proposed changes indicate that the Dutch intended for Arts. 2 and 3 to be combined, but they remained separate in the final treaty (No. VIII, below). Congress’ treaty plan includes an Art. 3, but provides no separate text, noting that it was “the converse of article second” (vol. 10:451).

This probably refers to the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce and pertains to the insertion of “aldaar,” meaning “there” or “at that place.” But no equivalent phrasing appears there. JA agreed to the insertion, and it appears in the Dutch text of the final treaty, but no change was made in the English text.

This addition to the end of Art. 3 was included in the final treaty (No. VIII, below), but see JA’s comments regarding it in his response to the Dutch proposals and in his 8 Oct. letter to Robert R. Livingston (Nos. III and XI, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 4 of both the treaty plan (vol. 10:451–452) and the final treaty (No. VIII, below). But the deletion of the objection to the article and the proposed addition at the end, including the reference to the thirteen colonies, were owing to Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendations. The decision to accept the article as revised mooted JA’s expression of support for the article in his first response, but the references to the high United States and the thirteen colonies produced a vigorous protest in his second (No. III, below). The question of how the proposed addition would read was not settled until 29 Aug., when the Grand Pensionary, Pieter van Bleiswyck, offered language that JA found acceptable (No. VI, below).

The remainder of Amsterdam’s proposal was retained in Art. 4 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 5 of both the treaty plan (vol. 10:452) and the final treaty (No. VIII, below), but see note 20.

This article does not appear separately in either the treaty plan or the final treaty. The treaty plan at this point reads “ Ar. VI A reciprocal Stipulation” (vol. 10:452). Congress may have expected, as the Dutch suggested, that both parts be included in a single article, which was done in Art. 5 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

As drafted, this article corresponds to Art. 6 in the treaty plan (vol. 10:452–453), but in Art. 6 of the final treaty, the draft text was replaced, as suggested by the Dutch, with that of Art. 39 of the commercial treaty between the Netherlands and the Two Sicilies signed at The Hague on 27 Aug. 1753 (The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Parry, 231 vols., Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1969–1981, 40:133–134; No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 7 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:453) and of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). In its final form the passage marked for deletion was removed.

This article corresponds to Art. 8 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:453) and of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

As drafted, this article corresponds to Art. 9 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:453–454), but as JA’s replies to the Dutch proposals for changes indicate (No. III, below), it occasioned considerable controversy. The issue329 was not resolved until 29 Aug. when a new, much shorter article, Art. 9 in the final treaty, was proposed and accepted (Nos. VII and VIII, below). This was in line with Amsterdam’s comments of 9 Aug., the crux of which was that the original article and the proposed changes brought unwonted complexity to a relatively simple issue.

This article corresponds to Art. 10 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:454) and of the final treaty, where it incorporated the Dutch proposals with one addition, likely a clarification to the third suggestion, for which see No. VIII, and note 11, below.

This article corresponds to Art. 11 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:454) and of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The proposed addition to Art. 12 is an accurate rendition of Art. 26 of the Franco-Dutch Treaty of Navigation and Commerce signed at Utrecht on 11 April 1713. It was incorporated virtually unchanged into Art. 11 of the final treaty (Dumont, comp., Corps universel, 8:380; No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 12 of the Treaty Plan (vol. 10:454–455) and of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

This reflects Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. suggestion of five or six months as an alternative.

This article corresponds to Art. 13 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:455) and of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

This article, as drafted by the Dutch, was incorporated almost verbatim as Art. 14 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 14 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:455) and Art. 15 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

Both the deletion of the proposal to refer to the Franco-Dutch convention on recaptures of 1 May 1781 and its replacement with the suggestion that the text of the convention be inserted verbatim reflect Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendation. JA responded (No. III, below) that he did not oppose dealing with recaptured vessels but lacked any power or instructions to settle the issue in the treaty. He proposed as an alternative that it be included in a separate convention. The resulting convention (No. IX, below) is a virtually verbatim rendering of the Franco-Dutch convention but with references to France removed. JA had sent Congress an English translation of the convention in his letter of 25 May 1781 (calendared, vol. 11:336).

This article corresponds to Art. 15 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:455) and Art. 16 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). The proposed addition to the article is an accurate rendition of Art. 35 of the Franco-Dutch Treaty of Navigation and Commerce signed at Utrecht on 11 April 1713 and was incorporated virtually unchanged into the article in the final treaty (Dumont, comp., Corps universel, 8:380–381; No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 16 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:456) and Art. 17 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 17 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:456) and Art. 18 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). The proposed addition to the article is an accurate rendition of Art. 41 of the Franco-Dutch Treaty of Navigation and Commerce signed at Utrecht on 11 April 1713 and was incorporated virtually unchanged into the article as it appears in the final treaty (Dumont, comp., Corps universel, 8:381).

This article corresponds to Art. 18 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:456) and Art. 19 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

For JA’s rejection of this proposal, which was one of Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendations, see his response of 27 Aug. (No. III, and note 5, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 19 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:456–457) and Art. 20 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). The proposed addition to the article was included in the final treaty, but the reference to Art. 9 was removed.

This article corresponds to Art. 20 of the treaty plan (vol. 10:457) and Art. 21 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The most contentious issue during the negotiations, or at least the one that provoked the most discussion, involved Dutch objections to Arts. 22 and 23 and their deletion or replacement with a new article. For a detailed explanation from the Dutch perspective of the issues involved, see Adriaan van Zeebergh’s 25 July commentary on the two articles (above). The deletion of the proposal to remove the two articles entirely and the proposed replacement stem from Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendations, and the substitute article is an accurate rendering of Amsterdam’s proposal. But see also JA’s comments in his responses (No. III, below), another suggested replacement that was not used (No. IV, below), and Art. 22 in the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The Dutch objections to the two articles and their initial request that they be removed altogether have substance. This is because neither JA’s draft nor the changes suggested by the Dutch contained anything that would have put the Dutch-American Treaty in any obvious conflict with the 1778 Franco-American treaties of amity and commerce or alliance. And if a conflict did develop, the law of nations required that the earlier treaty take precedence over the later one. Article 22 is identical to Art. 21 of Congress’ Treaty Plan of 1780 except that where Congress referred to “a treaty,” JA identified the two treaties specifically (vol. 10:457). But Art. 23 was wholly JA’s work, for it does not appear in the treaty plan, and in drafting it, he went beyond the terms of Congress’ treaty plan and his instructions. Neither mentioned Spain or its right to accede to the treaty of alliance under the terms of Art. 10 of that treaty or, more specifically, to both treaties according to the “Acte Séparé et Secret” that had also been signed on 6 Feb. 1778 (Miller, Treaties , 2:39, 45–47). In fact, Art. 23 was likely the product of JA’s 16 Aug. 1781 commission and instructions, which he had not disclosed to the Dutch, to conclude a tripartite alliance between the United States, France, and the Netherlands or a quadruple alliance should Spain wish to join under the terms of the Franco-American Treaty (vol. 11:453–456). Indeed, unless the Dutch were aware of the secret provision, Art. 23 must have seemed a very odd article to include in a treaty with the Netherlands because the Franco-American commercial treaty made no mention of any Spanish right of accession.

The articles are numbered according to their order in the ratified treaty, following the deletion of the original Arts. 11 and 12. For the clarification of which articles were being referred to, see Art. 22 of the final version of the treaty (No. VIII, below).

This article corresponds to Art. 10 of the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:791) and Art. 23 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). For the revised article as it appeared in the final treaty, see No. V, below.

As drafted, this article corresponds to Art. 29 of the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:796–797) and appears, much altered, as Art. 24 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). The changes that JA accepted to the article enumerating contraband represent a significant departure from his instructions from Congress for negotiating a Dutch-American treaty and also from the Lee-Neufville Treaty and the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (vol. 10:448; Miller, Treaties , 2:21–23). Instead of a long catalog of items that were not to be considered contraband, the Dutch proposed that any merchandise not specifically designated as contraband be considered free. This was in line with Russia’s 19 May 1780 ordinance concerning commerce and navigation that formed the basis for the Armed Neutrality of which the Netherlands was a member. It should also be noted that the proposal was less detailed, and thus less restrictive, than the provisions of the 26 Jan. 1781 Dutch ordinance concerning commerce and navigation (Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800 , p. 291, 359).

This insertion is an accurate rendering of Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. proposal and was incorporated into the article as it appears in the final treaty.

This article corresponds to Art. 30 of the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:797) and Art. 25 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below). The article as it finally appeared was much longer because of the inclusion of the Dutch proposals, but see notes 47 and 48.

This change is derived from Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. proposals and appears in the final treaty.

This statement reflects the sense of Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendation regarding Art. 26.

This article corresponds to Art. 31 of the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:797) and, as the Dutch proposed, was omitted from the final treaty.

This article corresponds to Art. 32 of the Lee-Neufville Treaty (same, 2:797–798) and Art. 26 of the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

JA’s source for this article is unknown. The removal of the objection was owing to Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendations and resulted in its inclusion in the final treaty as Art. 27. There it incorporated the proposed addition, which is, with minor changes, an accurate rendering of Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. recommendation (No. VIII, below).

At this point in the final treaty the word “niet” (not) was inserted (No. VIII, below).

JA apparently intended that the text of Art. 30 would be determined during the331 negotiations and did not draft a formal article, but see No. III, and note 6, below. The removal of the objection to the article stemmed from Amsterdam’s 9 Aug. proposals, and the proposed text, which follows Amsterdam’s suggestion, appears Art. 28 in the final treaty (No. VIII, below).

The forms for the passport and certificate, with some minor changes, are taken from the Lee-Neufville Treaty (Adams Papers). The italics seem to indicate that the Dutch wished them deleted and replaced by the form for a sea letter, but in the final version of the treaty the passport and certificate were retained and the sea letter was added (No. VIII, below).