Ottoman Algeria in Western Diplomatic History with ... - Bibliothèque

Lear would be able to prevail on the Dey to receive money in lieu of naval
stores.” 67 Madison’s justifications, particularly the loss on payments, sound not
to be convincing arguments for explaining dues.
Based on Madison’s argument, it appears that the United States had
already taken a move towards a revision of the treaty of 1795. Was it
necessary? One may concede that, after a decade or so since the treaty had
been concluded, prices had forcibly changed. But the treaty, anticipating that
possibility, included a clause which fixed the value of stores to twelve thousand
Algerine Sequins ($21,600) and stipulated that “Should the United States
forward a Larger Quantity [of maritime stores] the Over-Plus Shall be Paid for
in Money by the Dey & Regency.” 68 As Madison’s report did not allude to any
Algerine violation of the treaty on this side, i.e.: non-payment for the surplus,
one may need go back to the circumstances which surrounded the signature of
the treaty, precisely the position of Jefferson on the question, to try to find an
explanation for United States ‘occasional’ failures to honor a treaty which it
had made according to its own terms—or rather copied on other treaties
without taking into consideration the original treaty written in Turkish.
In 1792, in his instructions to the commissioners Jefferson wrote: “we
will not furnish them naval stores, because we think it not right to furnish them
means which we know they will employ to do wrong.” 69 Later, he anticipated
difficulties with Algiers and modified his instructions: “reserve the right to
67 ASP/FA, 3:33, Report of the Secretary of State, April 12, 1808.
68 SaL, 8:137, Treaty of Peace and Amity (1795).
69 SPPD, 10:264, To Admiral John Paul Jones, June 1, 1792.
354