ratification. This was debated the 26th and 27th. Read, Lee, Williamson,
and Jeremiah Chase urged that ratification was a mere matter of form;
that the treaty was conclusive from the moment it was signed by the
ministers; that, although the Confederation requires the assent of nine
states to enter into a treaty, yet, that its conclusion could not be
called the entrance into it; that supposing nine states requisite, it
would be in the power of five states to keep us always at war; that nine
states had virtually authorized the ratification, having ratified
the provisional treaty, and instructed their ministers to agree to a
definitive one in the same terms, and the present one was, in fact,
substantially, and almost verbatim, the same; that there now remain
but sixty-seven days for the ratification, for its passage across the
Atlantic, and its exchange; that there was no hope of our soon having
nine states present in fact, that this was the ultimate point of time
to which we could venture to wait; that if the ratification was not
in Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty would become void; that if
ratified by seven states, it would go under our seal, without its being
known to Great Britain that only seven had concurred; that it was a
question of which they had no right to take cognizance, and we were only
answerable for it to our constituents; that it was like the ratification
which Great Britain had received from the Dutch, by the negotiations of
Sir William Temple.

On the contrary, it was argued by Monroe, Gerry, Howel, Ellery, and
myself, that by the modern usage of Europe, the ratification was
considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until which, it
was not obligatory.* That the commission to the ministers, reserved the
ratification to Congress; that the treaty itself stipulated, that it
should be ratified; that it became a second question, who were competent
to the ratification? That the Confederation expressly required nine