Excerpts from The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792

Robert A. Rutland, ed., 3 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1970).

1786 Documents

26 Feb 1786 To William Fitzhugh, p. 846.

"I suppose you have heard that the Compact, between Maryland and Virginia, is signed."

[ca. 19 Aug 1786] From James Monroe, pp. 851-852.

Ed. Note: Monroe was a Virginia delegate in the Continental Congress and a member of a special committee studying a proposed Spanish treaty advocated by John Jay. Monroe wrote Jefferson on this day with a full explanation of Jay's plan to appease Spain by surrendering American navigation rights on the Mississippi for as long as 30 years in return for liberal terms in a commercial treaty. Monroe regarded Jay's proposition as in "every way highly injurious" (Boyd, X, 275-276). On 29 Sept. 1786, Monroe wrote Madison that he had sent a letter to GM "some weeks since . . . upon this subject . . . but have received no answer from him, from which circumstance, as well as that of R. H. Lee's being in the opposite sentiment, there is room to conjecture he is not with us" [because Lee and GM so often agreed] (quoted in Rowland, II, 95). Advocates of free navigation on the Mississippi and its tributary, the Ohio, were numerous in Virginia because of the importance of river transportation to the trans-Allegheny region. Monroe's fellow delegate in Congress, Henry Lee, sounded Washington on the critical matter and suggested that if the General Assembly took a stance "much will depend on Mr. Mason's sentiments." Why Monroe assumed that Richard Henry Lee would influence GM to favor surrender of navigation rights is a mystery, for Lee had long been a supporter of free use of the western rivers (Lee to Gov. Patrick Henry, 14 Feb. 1785, Ballagh, ed., Lee Letters, II, 332). Washington assured Henry Lee that GM, if "able to attend the Assembly . . . will advocate the navigation of that [Mississippi] River (letter to H. Lee, 31 Oct. 1786, Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of Washington, XXIX, 35).

28 Nov 1786 To John Fitzgerald, pp. 858-859.

p. 858: "I am lately inform'd there is now a strong Party for establishing only one Port at Norfolk; & that a Bill was brought in last week for that purpose. I always knew (& have often told the Gentlemen of Alexandria) that this was the original Scheme & Purpose of the contrivors & patrons of the Port-Law. . . . Such a Law will ruin the Trade of Virginia upon Potomack River, & force it into a smuggling channel with Maryland: indeed the former Port Bill wou'd have done this, tho' in a much smaller Degree."

p. 859: The rumor GM heard of a strong Party for establishing only one Port was not founded on fact. . . . The real object of GM's wrath was the Port-Law passed at the May 1784 session of the General Assembly (Hening, XI, 402-404) which limited all foreign vessels (i.e., ships not owned by citizens of Virginia) to five port cities "and at no other ports or places therein." GM regarded the restrictions oppressive and at about this time wrote a protest against the port bill; see immediately below.

[Nov-Dec?, 1786] Protest by "A Private Citizen" against the Port Bill, pp. 859-864.

p. 860: "Is there any greater, or more dangerous error in government, then that of governing too much?"

"Will not the Port Bill be particularly hurtful to the revenue and trade of Virginia in Potowmack river, by inducing many vessels, which would otherwise enter and load in both States, to enter and load only in the State of Maryland? And will not the inhabitants of [Virginia] counties . . . have just cause to complain of the unnecessary charge of freight to Alexandria, on their Indian corn and other bulky produce of their lands; and instead . . . be compelled to buy them in future, burthened with the charge of freight to and from Alexandria, or running the risk of smuggling them from Maryland?"

p. 861: "Has not every man a just right to the natural advantages accruing from the situation of his estate?"

"Are not all the lands upon tide water, in consideration of these advantages, rated in our tax laws much higher than lands of superior quality without them?"

p. 863: Ed. Note: A port bill passed by the May 1784 session of the General Assembly had generated much controversy. . . . The bill "to restrict foreign vessels to certain ports within this commonwealth (Hening, XI, 402-404) was meant to encourage the ownership and navigation of shipping by Virginians, to make smuggling more difficult, and to encourage the easier collection of duties upon imported goods. . . . The 1784 act had limited oceangoing vessels owned by foreigners (i.e., persons who were not Virginia citizens) to the ports at Norfolk-Portsmouth, Bermuda Hundred, Tappahannock, York, and Alexandria.