within one hundred leagues of any Consul of their nation: how compel their attendance before him? How execute the judgment afterwards? For the Tribunal of one country to call in the aid of the officers of another, to execute its decrees or judgments, is an institution, at least, objectionable; but, to send those officers round the country, through the range of one hundred leagues, is more so.

Permit me, then, to ask, what are the motives, on your or our part, for such an institution? In what respect are you or we interested, that your or our Consuls should have the exclusive jurisdiction of controversies between your and our citizens, in each other's country? Why not submit those controversies, in common with all others, to the Tribunals of each nation? Some considerations, in favor of the institution. it is true, occurs; but, yet, they are light and trifling, when compared with the numerous and strong objections that oppose it. So much, however, by way of digression.

4. Your fourth and last example, under this head, states, that the Captain of the Corvette Cassius was arrested in Philadelphia for an act committed on the high sea, contrary, as you suggest, to the 19th article of the treaty of commerce, which stipulates, That the com“mandants of vessels, public and private, shall not be detained, in any "manner whatever," and of well-known rights of nations, which put the officers of public vessels under the safeguard of their respective flags; and that the said Corvette was, likewise, seized, though armed at the Cape, upon the pretext that she was armed, sometime before, in Philadelphia.

As you have not stated what the act was, with the commission whereof the Captain was charged, I can, of course, give no explanation on that head. Satisfied, however, I am, that, if the crime was of a nature to authorize our Courts to take cognizance of it, he could not be exempted from their jurisdiction by the article of the treaty in question since that article, as you perceive, was intended to establish a general principle in the intercourse between the two countries; to give a privilege to the ships of war of each to enter and retire from the ports of the other; and not to secure, in favor of any particular delinquent, an immunity for crimes. Nor, in my opinion, does the law of nations admit of a different construction, or give any other protection. I am happy, however, to hear that he is released, since it furnishes an additional proof that the whole transaction was a judicial one; regular, according to the course of our law, and mingling nothing in it, in any view, that ought to give offence here.

With respect to the seizure of the Corvette, upon the pretext that she was armed in Philadelphia, I have only to say, that, if she was armed there, it was the duty of our government to seize her; the right to arm not being stipulated by treaty; and, if that was alleged upon sufficient testimony, as I presume was the case, there was no other way of determining the question than by an examination into it, and, in the interim, preventing her sailing. It would be no satisfaction to the other party to the war, for us to examine into the case after she was gone, provided the decision was against her. On the

contrary, such conduct would not only expose us to the charge of committing a breach of neutrality, but of, likewise, doing it collusively.

Second. Your second complaint states an outrage, which was committed by a British ship upon your Minister, the Citizen Fauchet, in concert with a British Consul, in boarding the Packet in which he embarked, opening his trunks, &c. within the waters of the United States, and remaining there, afterwards, to watch the movements of the Frigate in which he sailed; and which, you say, was not resented, as it ought to have been. by our government-since, you add, the measures which were taken by it, in regard to that vessel, and the Consul, were the effect of another and subsequent outrage. The punishment which was inflicted by our Government upon the parties who committed that outrage, by revoking the exequatur of the Consul, and ordering that all supplies should be withheld from the vessel; as, likewise, that she should forthwith depart from the waters of the United States, was, I think you will admit, an adequate one for the offence. Certain it is, that, as we have no fleet, it was the only one in our power to inflict; and that this punishment was inflicted, in consequence of that outrage, you will, I presume, likewise admit, after you have perused the act of the President upon that subject; a copy of which, I, herewith, transmit to you; and by which you will perceive, that there was no distinct outrage offered to the United States, upon that occasion, by the parties in question; but that both the one and the other act, (the attempt made upon the Packet-boat in which your Minister had embarked, by the Captain of a British ship of war, and which constituted the first-and the writing of an insolent letter, by the same Captain, to the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, in concert with the British Consul there, and which constituted the second.) were only several incidents to the same transaction, forming, together, a single offence; and for which that punishment was inflicted on those parties.

I think proper here to add, as a further proof that the President was neither inattentive to what was due to your rights upon that occasion, nor to the character of the United States, that he gave orders to our Minister at London to complain, formally, to that Government, of that outrage; and to demand of it such satisfaction upon the parties as the nature of the insult required; and which has, doubtless, either been given, or is still expected.

Third. Your third and last complaint applies to our late treaty with England; and which, you say, has sacrificed, in favor of that Power, our connection with France, and the rights of neutrality the most

common.

1. In support of this charge you observe, that we have not only departed from the principles of the armed neutrality adopted in the course of the last war; but have abandoned, in favor of England, the limits which the rights of nations, and our own treaties with all other Powers, and even England in her treaties with many other Powers, have given to contraband.

2. That we have also consented that provisions should be deemed

contraband, not when destined to a blockaded port only, as should be the case, but in all cases, by tacitly acknowledging the pretensions of England, to place at pleasure, and by proclamation, not only your islands. but even France herself in that dilemma. The principles of the armed neutrality, set on foot by the Empress of Russia, in harmony with the other neutral Powers, at the time you mention, and acceded to by all the Powers then at war against England, are extremely dear to us; because they are just in themselves, and in many respects very important to our welfare; we insert them in every treaty we make with those Powers who are willing to adopt them; and our hope is that they will soon become universal.

But even in the war of which you speak, and when the combination against England was most formidable, and the maritime Powers being arrayed against her, you well know that she never acceded to them. How compel her then, upon the present occasion, when that combination was not only broken, but many of the Powers then parties to it, and against England, were now enlisted on her side, in support of her principles? You must be sensible, that, under these circumstances, it was impossible for us to obtain from that Power the recognition of those principles; and that, of course, we are not culpable for having failed to accomplish that object.

I regret, also, that we did not succeed in obtaining from that Power a more liberal scale of contraband than was obtained: For, as our articles of exportation are chiefly articles of the first necessity, and always in great demand here, and every where else, it was equally an object of importance to enlarge the freedom of commerce in that respect, by diminishing the list of contraband. Perhaps no nation on the globe is more interested in this object, than we are. But here too, the same difficulty occurred that bad in the preceding case; and it was in consequence deemed expedient, for the time, to relinquish a point we could not obtain; suffering the ancient law of nations to remain unchanged in any respect. Is it urged that we have made any article contraband, that was not so before, by the known and well established law of nations; which England had not a right to seize by that law, and did not daily seize, when they fell in her way? This cannot be urged; because the fact is otherwise: For, although we have not ameliorated the law of nations in that respect, yet certainly we have not changed it for the worse; and which alone could give you just cause of complaint. With respect to the objection stated to a clause in the 18th article of the treaty with England, which presumes we are thereby prohibited bringing provisions from the United States to France, I have only to add, that no such prohibition is to be found in it, or other stipulation which changes the law of nations in that respect: On the contrary, that article leaves the law of nations where it was before; authorizing the seizure in those cases only where such provisions are contraband, by the exisiting law of nations,' and according to our construction, when carrying to a blockaded port; and in which case payment is stipulated; but in no respect is the law of nations changed, or any right given to the

6

British to seize other than they had before; and such, I presume, you will agree, is the true import of that article.

1

You will observe by the article in question, that when our provisions destined for a blockaded port are seized, though by the law of nations subject to confiscation, they are nevertheless exempted from it; and the owners of such provisions entitled to the payment of their value. Surely this stipulation cannot tend to discourage my countrymen from adventuring with provisions into the ports of this republic; nor in any other respect prevent their enterprizes here: On the contrary, was it not probable, that it would produce the opposite effect; since thereby the only penalty which could deter them, that of confiscation in the case abovementioned, was completely done away?

Thus, Citizen Minister, I have answered, according to the views of our Government, and the light I have upon the subject, the objections you have stated against several of its measures, adopted in the course of the present war; and I hope to your satisfaction. That any occurrence should take place in the annals of the Republics, which gave cause for suspicion that you doubted, in any degree, our sincere and affectionate attachment to your welfare, is a circumstance that cannot otherwise than give pain to our Government and our people. That these, however, should be removed by a fair and candid examination of your complaints, on both sides, is the best consolation that such an occurrence can admit of. If, by my feeble efforts, I can contribute in any degree to promote that end, and preserve the harmony and affection which have so long subsisted between us, and, I trust, will always subsist, be assured that I accomplish an object the most grateful to my feelings that I can possibly accomplish.

I am, &c.

J. MONROE.

No. 71.

French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Mr. Monroe, dated Paris, 7th Messidor, 4th year of the Republic, (June 25th, 1796.)

Our last intelligence informs us that the House of Representatives of the Congress, has consented, by the majority of fifty-one against forty-eight votes, to carry into execution the treaty concluded at London, between the United States and Great Britain, in November, 1794. As this advice is derived only from the gazettes, I desire, citizen, that you will be pleased to inform me what official information you have upon this subject. After the chamber of Representatives has given its consent to this treaty, we ought, without doubt, to consider it in full force: And as the state of things which results from it, merits our profound attention, I wish to learn from you, in what light we are to consider the event, which the public papers announce, before I call the attention of the directory to those consequences which ought specially to interest this Republic.

CH. DE LA CROIX.

No. 72.

French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Mr. Monroe, dated Paris, 19th Messidor, 4th year of the Republic, (July 7th, 1796.)

CITIZEN MINISTER: The hope of seeing depart daily the new min ister whom the executive directory proposed to send to the United States, prevented my sooner answering your letter of the 25th Ventose (15th of March) last. You call my attention in your note of the 9th of this month (27th of June) to the arguments which that letter contains relative to our complaints against the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain. Time, citizen minister, has sufficiently ripened the points that were then in discussion, and far from being enfeebled, our complaints against that treaty have acquired since, in our estimation, new force. I will content myself then, without entering into details, to announce to you that the opinion of the directory has never varied upon that point. It has seen in this act, concluded in the midst of hostilities, a breach of the friendship which unites the United States and this Republic; and in the stipulations which respect the neutrality of the flag, an abandonment of the tacit engagement which subsisted between the two nations upon this point, since their treaty of commerce of 1778. The abandonment of the principles, consecrated by this treaty, has struck us with greater force, from the consideration that all the other treaties which the United States have made, contain them. as from the further one, that these principles are since so generally acknowledged, that they now form the public law of all civilized nations.

After this, citizen minister, the executive directory thinks itself founded, in regarding the stipulations of the treaty of 1778, which concern the neutrality of the flag, as altered and suspended in their most essential parts, by this act, and that it would fail in its duty, if it did not modify a state of things which would never have been consented to, but upon the condition of the most strict reciprocity. CH. DE LA CROIX.

No. 73.

Mr. Monroe to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated Paris, July 14th, 1796 (26th Messidor) and 21st year of the Independence of the United States of America.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic.

CITIZEN MINISTER: I have received your favor of 19th Messidor (7th July) and am sorry to find by it, that the answer I gave to yours of 19th Ventose containing the exposition of your objections to our