fidelity, and to support the American Constitution. On the 8th of August, 1793, he had the command of a schooner out of Portsmouth, in America, which is proven by the passport which had been delivered to him by the President of the Congress; and the Consul of the United States of America, residing in France. attests, in a certificate of the 28th Thermidor, that it is necessary that he be a citizen of the United States to have the command of any vessel, whatever, of his nation. Among these papers, there are some that prove, if they be entitled to credit, that John Bryant was master of the ship Royal Captain; that he was on board of, and commanded her; that, subsequent to the commencement of hostilities between England and France, he purchased her in England of Joshua Johnson. American Consul at London, who had bought her of an English merchant; and that this American built vessel had formerly been captured by the British, and had become their property in virtue of a decree given at the Island of Bermuda, which declared her a lawful prize. Finally, the bills of lading forming a part of these papers, state that the merchandise on board this vessel, had been bought by John Bryant, and consigned to Hepinque, and were destined for Bordeaux. A question has arisen between John Bryant and Citizens Jupet. Sons, & Co. owners of the privateer Le Juret, to know if the ship the Royal Captain and her cargo ought to be declared a lawful prize, and as such confiscated to the benefit of the said owners.

The Tribunal of Commerce, of Boulogne, before which it was tried, decided in favour of complainant. John has sent in an appeal from its judgment. The Commissary of the Executive Power near the Civil Tribunal, sitting at St. Omers, where this appeal is pending, has made me a report of it before he enters his opinion, in conformity with the 3d article of the law of the 8th Floreal last, and I ought myself, in consequence, to refer it to the Executive Directory.

In all matters of this nature, one is placed between two which interest and national honor equally require to be avoided. Care should be taken not to offend a friendly nation in the person of one of its members. The same fear should be had of favoring the commerce and measures of an ambitious and hostile nation. In adopting the laws which are common to the French and American People, there can be no danger incurred. The interest of France will be maintained, and the United States will have neither complaints nor claims to advance.

The 25th article of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, concluded between France and the United States of North America, on the 6th of February, 1778, says, "To the end that all manner of dissensions and quarrels may be avoided and prevented on one side and the other, it is agreed, that in case either of the parties hereto should be engaged in war, the ships and vessels belonging to the subjects or people of the other ally must be furnished with sea letters (lettres de mêr or passeports,) expressing the name, property, and bulk, of the ship; as also, the name and place of habitation of the master or commander of the said ship, that it may appear thereby that the ship really and

truly belongs to the subjects of one of the parties, which passport shall be made out and granted according to the form of this treaty, &c. &c. N. B. The article is recited at length.

This article contains two stipulations. It was as first agreed, when the ships and vessels of one of the parties should have (des lettres de mér or passeports,) sea letters or passports. Why was the convention entered into? This very article explains it, which is to ascertain thereby, that the same vessel is really and truly the property of the citizens of the other Power. Whenever, then, ships or vessels are not provided with (des lettres de mér or passeports,) sea letters or passports, the nation at war cannot consider them as belonging to the subjects of the other. She must look upon them as forbans, pirates, or enemies. She can take possession of them, and they will be lawful prize. By the second, it is agreed, that vessels that are laden, must be provided not only with a passport, but also with certificates containing a minute description of the cargo, a declaration of contraband goods. The article also explains the motive of this second convention, to avoid and prevent all cause of suspicion, dissention, and quarrels on the one side, as well as the other: therefore, the captains and commanders of the ships belonging to a friendly Power, engaged in war, shall be informed immediately of the character of the merchandise on board those vessels, if in whole or in part contraband and prohibited, if those ships, together with their cargoes, be subject to capture and confiscation, or if there be cause to remove from them a part of the contraband goods, in conformity with the 13th article of the same.

The ship Royal Captain, under consideration, was provided with neither (lettre de mér.) sea letter, passport, nor certificate. She was therefore suspected, and in France, it cannot be admitted that she belonged either to the United States, or the inhabitants or citizens of that country. It certainly was evident, that John Bryant, the Captain, was a citizen, and if what took place in England since the commencement of hostilities, can be believed from an account on board, it will appear clearly, that she is American built; that she was captured and condemned by the English at the Island of Bermuda; that she was sold by an English merchant, to the American Consul, resident at London, by whom she was again sold to John Bryant. Were the proof of these circumstances, and facts otherwise unexceptionable, yet it could not, instead of the legal proof, afford the one required by the treaty of the 6th of February, 1778-the only one susceptible of admission. Too much indulgence in this respect, on the part of the French nation, would prove fatal to it; the commerce, frauds, and intrigues, of its enemies would thereby be encouraged. This is not all, if we are to believe the assertion of John Bryant, that he was the owner of the Royal Captain, if, after the discovery of papers on board, we are to consider as a certainty that he acquired the ownership from the Consul of his nation, resident at London, it is also certain that this vessel belonged to the British, and that he purchased her after

hostilities had begun between them and France, and by the terms of the 7th article of the regulation of the 26th July, 1778, without speaking of those of the 23d July, 1744, ships built by, or formerly the property of an enemy, are not to be considered as those of a neutral or ally, unless there be found on board, authentic papers from under the hands of public officers, competent to certify their date, or who can give sufficient proof, that the sale and delivery thereof had been made to a subject of the allied or neutral Powers, before the commencement of hostilities.

The ship Royal Captain cannot then be looked upon as belonging to a neutral or ally, as John Bryant himself furnishes a proof, that she had been British property, and was bought by him after the beginning of hostilities. She is therefore a lawful prize. John Bryant pretends, that, relative to the liberty and safety of navigation and commerce, the treaty of 6th of February, 1778, is the only obligatory law for the ships of the United States; that all previous or subscquent edicts and regulations are foreign to them.

This pretension is true, with regard to conventions expressed in the treaty of 6th of February, 1778, but it is different with regard to the arrangements not therein expressed, and which are found in the edicts, and several regulations before and after this treaty, to render it admissible in this latter case. The treaty ought to have contained an express arrangement for this purpose. John Bryant does not admit that American vessels ought, of necessity, to be provided with (lettres de mér or passeports,) sea letters or passports; it is moreover certain, and acknowledged by the Consul General of the United States, resident in France, that the President of Congress is the only person who can give and sign them. But he says:

1st. That since the purchase of the Royal Captain, he had never been in the United States, consequently, he could not be provided with a (passeport.) passport signed by the President of Congress, and.

2d. That the (passeport) passport given to him by Citizen Coffyn, the American Consul General, resident at Dunkirk, was sufficient authority to sail under American colors. The answer to this presents itself; immediately after the purchase of the said vessel, it was incumbent upon him to proceed to America, to procure a (lettre de mér or passeport.) sea letter or passport; that from Citizen Coffyn would perhaps have been sufficient for his protection during the voyage, but entirely insufficient to authorize him to carry on trade, or it must be admitted, that American Consuls have each at his residence, the same power, and the same rights as the President of Congress.

With regard to the (role d'equipage) crew list found on board the Royal Captain, it was observed to be irregular, that it had erasures, two dates, &c. John Bryant puts in a plea, that, as the treaty of 6th February, 1778, does not impose upon American vessels the necessity of having a (rôle d'equipage) crew list, the Consuls of that nation have alone the power to examine and censure these (rôles) lists. It is true that the treaty makes no mention of a (rôle d'equipage) crew list, but it was alluded to in the execution of the 25th article: it is

said that he to whom the passport is granted, shall exhibit a list, signed and confirmed by witnesses, containing the names, surnames, places of birth and habitation, of those who compose the crew, and of all those who shall embark, whom he shall not receive on board without the knowledge and permission of the officers of marine.”

Thus the argument of John Bryant fails in this circumstance. Citizens Directors. I think he ought to have replied to your Commissary of the Civil Tribunal of the pas des Calais; that he ought to approve of the decision of the Tribunal of Commerce of Boulogne, which declared the ship Royal Captain a lawful prize.

The Minister of Justice,

MERLIN. Approved by the Executive Directory 12th Brumaire, an 5me. L. M. REVELLIER LE PREUX,

True Copy.

President.

By the Executive Directory.

The Secretary General,

LE GARDE.

No. 107.

The Secretary of State to Mr. Thomas Pinckney, Minister of the United States to Great Britain, dated Philadelphia, April 20, 1793.

[EXTRACT.]

"You may, on every occasion, give assurances which cannot go beyond the real desires of this country to preserve a fair neutrality in the present war, on condition that the rights of neutral nations are respected in us as they have been settled in modern times, either by the express declarations of the Powers of Europe, or their adoption of them on particular occasions."

No. 108.

Seeretary of State to Mr. T. Pinckney, Minister to Great Britain, dated Philadelphia, May 7, 1793.

[EXTRACT.]

"In one of your letters of March 13th, you express your apprehensions that some of the belligerent Powers may stop our vessels going with grain to the ports of their enemies and ask instructions which may meet the question in various points of view, intending, however, in the mean time, to contend for the amplest freedom of neutral nations. Your intention in this is perfectly proper and coincides with the ideas of our own Government, in the particular case

you put, as in general cases. Such a stoppage to an unblockaded port would be so unequivocal an infringement of the neutral rights, that we cannot conceive it will be attempted. With respect to our conduct, as a neutral nation. it is marked out in our treaties with France and Holland, two of the belligerent Powers: and, as the du ties of neutrality require an equal conduct to both parties, we should, on that ground act on the same principles towards Great Britain. We presume that this would be satisfactory to her, because of its equality, and because she too has sanctioned the same principles, in her treaty with France. Even our 17th article with France, which must be disagreeable, as, from its nature. it is unequal, is adopted exactly by Great Britain, in her 40th article with the same 'ower, and would have laid her in a like case, under the same unequal obligations against us. We wish then that it could be arranged with Great Britain, that our treaties with France and Hoiland and that of France and Great Britain, (which agree in what respects neutral nations.) should form the line of conduct for us all, in the present war, in the cases for which they provide. Where they are silent, the general principles of the law of nations must give the rule.

the principles of that law as they have been liberalized in latter times by the refinement of manners and morals, and evidenced by the declarations, stipulations, and practice, of every civilized nation. In our treaty with Prussia, indeed, we have gone ahead of other nations in doing away restraints on the commerce of peaceful nations, by declaring that nothing shall be contraband: for, in truth, in the present improved state of the arts, when every country has such ample means of procuring arms, within and without itself, the regulations of contraband answer no other end than to draw other nations into the war. However, as nations have not given sanction to this improvement, we claim it, at present, with Prussia alone."

No. 109.

Secretary of State to Mr. T. Pinckney, dated Philadelphia, June 14th,

1793.

[EXTRACT.]

"I enclose you, also, several memorials and letters, which have passed between the Executive and the Ministers of France and England. These will develope to you the principles on which we are proceeding between the belligerent Powers. The decisions being founded in what is conceived to be rigorous justice, give dissatisfactiont o both parties, and produce complaints from both—it is our duty, however, to persevere in them, and to meet the consequences. You will observe, that Mr. Hammond proposes to refer to his Court the determination of the President, that the prizes taken by the Citoyen Genet could not be given up-the reasons for this, are explained in