sented themselves to imagination, and the confidence which your character inspires in me, doubtless, authorizes me to transmit them to you.

Whatever may be the reasons which have influenced Mr. Ketland in the present circumstances, it appears to me that his information, whether founded or not, does not change the state of things, and that the violation of our treaty is not less manifest. I shall not lead you to observe, Sir, in order to support the conjectures I have presented to you, that the information of Mr. Ketland did not appear until the very day in which the seizure of the Cassius was taken off. I shall not wait to give you new suppositions, which, perhaps, are not destitute of foundation, but will immediately pass to the proofs in support of my opinion, before I inform you of the course which these circumstances oblige me to take.

I conceive, Sir, that, admitting the armament of the Cassius in the United States, her seizure is invalid. For this vessel now belongs to the Republic, and the nineteenth article of our treaty expressly states, that State vessels may freely enter, and sail from, the ports of the United States without receiving the least hindrance. The literal meaning of the article, then, permits the entry of the Cassius. If it were otherwise, the Republic would become, (in the hypothesis of armament in the United States,) responsible for the faults or wrongs of an individual. A vessel, by changing owner, would then always be a security for the faults of her first proprietor. If a frigate of the Republic should take an English vessel, armed in the United States, and if, from the fortune of war, the Cassius should fall into the hands of these vessels, would they, in that case, be seizable? This conclusion, Sir, naturally results from the state of things; but it is presumable too, Mr. Ketland would not draw it, if the English flag had waved on board the Cassius.

In the distribution of ordinary justice, would it be equitable to seize the arms of a citizen, because, before they belonged to him, they might have been in the service of an assassin to commit murder? Would these arms be guilty of the crime of which they had been the instrument? Would their new owner, by possessing them, participate in the crime of their first proprietor; and, if he were deprived of them for that reason, would he not have a right to complain? Whether the question relates to an individual, or a nation, the principles are the same-justice is the same. And, in cases in which an individual would be injured, so would a nation, if the nature of the relations and circumstances were always the same. Is not the example which I have just cited applicable to the arrest of the Cassius? The Republic, therefore, have a right to complain of the arrest of this vessel. She, then, has a right to demand the execution of the nineteenth article of our treaty with the United States, since no subsequent stipulation has suspended the execution of it.

But if, in the hypothesis that the vessel armed in the United States, the Cassius, should be delivered to the Republic, by a much stronger reason, in the contrary position, should the seizure of this vessel be annulled.

You know as well as I do, Sir, that the pretext for the arrest of the Cassius, is, that this vessel, under the name of Les Jumeaux, was formerly armed for war in the port of Philadelphia. But, Sir, when this vessel arrived last year at Philadelphia, (the time of the pretended armament,) she was armed with four cannon and two swivels. The proofs of this fact must be in the Custom-House. It is true, also, that one Guenet was convicted for having attempted to put cannon on board Les Jumeaux, which were intercepted on the way. But this attempt, although punishable in the terms of your laws, is not an armament; and, even had it succeeded, it would have been but an augmentation of force-and an augmentation of force is not an armament, and does not, according to the law of the 5th of June, 1794, occasion the confiscation of the vessel.

How shall we, therefore, qualify the conduct of Mr. Ketland, whe could not be ignorant of the law? How shall we avoid seeing in it a formal design to insult the French Republic, especially when it is observed that he began the suit in a Court which is incompetent to decide the case in question? Mr. Ketland and his counsel know very well that, agreeable to your laws, it belongs exclusively to the District Courts to decide in cases of forfeiture. Yet it was by the Circuit Court, which you know has only appellate jurisdiction, that they have had the Cassius seized. This Court has but two sessions in a year. It sits but once at Philadelphia. The District Court, on the contrary, is always in session. If the affair of the Cassius had been brought there, a decision would have been obtained in a short time; but a considerable time elapses before a decision can be obtained in the Circuit Court; it will not fail, therefore, to declare itself incompetent. Of what importance is it to the men who have promoted the arrest of the Cassius, and who, on that account, are applauded? They will enjoy the satisfaction of having insulted the French Republic with impunity, and of having abused your laws, in order to satisfy the hatred of England.

Whatever reason I had to complain, on seeing a discussion relative to the execution of our treaties brought before your ordinary tribunals, when it appertains, according to all established rules among nations, to the Government of the United States, although I should, in such cases, only address myself to the Government of the United States, in order to obtain justice, it being charged with the execution of treaties, yet I did not wish to neglect any means of conciliation in my power, and, latterly, caused security to be proposed to obtain the replevy of the vessel, reserving to myself, and to you, the privilege of determining on an affair, unpleasant in all its aspects, by subsequent negotiations.

In these hopes I have been deceived; the security was refused, and the affair is, of course, abandoned to the decision of the Courts.

Justly alarmed at delays which nothing could control; at the expenses occasioned to the Republic, by supporting a vessel which rendered it no service; fearing, with just reason, lest the crew, (a part of which has been corrupted,) should desert after having been so ex

pensive to the Republic, I have ordered her to be disarmed; and, from this moment, I abandon her to the Government of the United States, under the reservation of referring the matter to the French Govern

ment.

I venture to hope, Sir, that the Government of the United States will take proper measures to prevent the forces of the Republic from being paralyzed in its ports, and evil-minded People from abusing the laws, in order to arrest every French vessel coming into the United States. For. if a single information be sufficient to stop one vessel, there is no reason why the first frigate which shall arrive from EuHope, should not be seized as having armed in the United States. P. A. ADET.

No. 211.

[TRANSLATION.]

The French Minister to the Secretary of State, dated Philadelphia. 22d Nivose. 4th year of the French Republic, (the 12th of Jan. 1796, O. S.) SIR: Letters from the French Consuls at Baltimore, Norfolk, and Alexandria announce to me that the English have purchased a great quantity of flour in Maryland and Virginia, and that they have laden it on board American vessels. which they have likewise purchased. This flour is destined to support the English army directed against the French colonies. It is not without the most severe chagrin that I have observed the enemies of my country drawing from yours means of subsistence, without which they must have renounced every species of attempt, and that I have found myself incapable of preventing them. Indeed, who could arrest the exportation of this flour, if not the Government of the United States? and, if I had solicited it of them, could I have calculated upon their condescending to my request, when they would have regarded that condescension rather as a favor than as a duty rising out of their neutrality? But sir. there is another circumstance upon which the letters from the Consuls leave me no doubt, and to which the laws which the American Government have prescribed to itself for its neutrality oblige it to pay attention. The vessels which the English have purchased, are commanded and manned by American seamen. If your fellow-citizens are prohibited from serving in the cause of France, neither should they be permitted to range themselves under the British flag; otherwise the neutrality would be only a vain term, and a certain mean of assisting secretly, and without running any risk, a Power which no one would dare to aid openly.

There is, also. another object, sir, upon which I should fix your attention. The Consul at Norfolk informs me that the English have caused to be purchased a great number of horses in Virginia, and that even stables are established, near Norfolk, for receiving them.

These horses are destined for the English cavalry, to be debarked at St. Domingo to attempt the conquest, and to endeavor to bring about the ruin of that place. If France be interested in frustrating these objects, should not the United States also, perhaps under certain relations, prevent the execution of them? Besides, their neutrality imposes on them the obligation of arresting the exportation of horses, which constitute the principal force of the English army. The horses are contraband of war; you are sensible of this, sir, and no contraband of war can be furnished to a Power at war, without the other Power having the right of opposing it in any manner whatever. (So says Vattel, vol. 2, book 3, ch. 7, § 113, Amsterdam ed. 1775.)

"The nation which makes war has the greatest interest in depriving its enemy of every foreign assistance, and therefore has a right to regard, if not absolutely as enemies, at least as people who care very little about injuring them, those who carry to their enemy the things which they require for war; they punish them by confiscating their merchandise. If the sovereign of the latter should undertake to protect them, it would seem as though he himself wished to furnish this kind of succor; a step contrary to neutrality."

It is therefore evident, sir, from this passage, that no neutral Go< vernment can protect contraband of war. But would not the American Government protect it, if it should permit to be exported from its territory, horses destined for the'English army? Indeed, sir, if, after being informed of the designs of the English, it could stop the exportation of the horses which they have purchased, and did not do it, it is evident that the omission would constitute a proof of its consent and approbation: and what difference is there in this case between tolerating contraband and protecting it?

It is useless, sir, to spin out this letter any further. I think that the facts are so self-evident, that I now flatter myself with receiving a proof of that friendship of which the United States have so often given assurances to the Republic.

Accept, sir, the assurances of my esteem.

P. A. ADET.

No. 212.

[TRANSLATION.]

MARCH 9, 1796.

Summary statement of the complaints of the French Republic against the Government of the United States.

First complaint. The inexecution of the treaties.

1st. The courts of justice of the United States have taken, and still take cognizance of prizes which our privateers conduct into their ports, notwithstanding the express clause of the treaty against it. Our Ministers have proposed various arrangements for limiting these

usurpations. The Federal Government had itself proposed measures on this subject; the first propositions were not accepted, and the latter measures fell into disuse. The disgusts, the delays, the losses resulting to our seamen from such a state of things, are palpable. They almost entirely deprive the Republic of the advantages which it should expect from this article of the treaty.

2d. The admission of English ships of war, even in cases where they are excluded by the 17th article of the treaty; that is, when they have made prizes on the Republic, or on its citizens. The weakness with which the Federal Governinent conceded this point in the first instance, has increased the pretensions of Great Britain, and now the ports of the United States have become a station for the squadron of admiral Murray, who, for two years past, has there victualled his ships, in order to cruise on the American commerce, and to pillage our property. This division carries its audacity even to the conducting thither its prizes

3d. The consular convention, forming a part of our treaties, is equally unexecuted in its two most important clauses: the first granting to our Consuls the right of judging exclusively in disputes arising between Frenchmen, is become illusory for the want of laws giving to the Consuls the means of having their decisions executed. The consequence of this inability tends to annihilate the prerogative of our Consuls, and materially to injure the interest of our merchants.

The second gives to our Consuls the right of causing our mariners, who desert, to be arrested. The inexecution of this part of the convention affects, beyond all expression, our maritime service, during the stay of our vessels in the American ports. The judges charged by the laws with issuing the mandates of arrest, have lately required the presentation of the original roll of the crew, in contempt of the 5th article, admitting in the tribunals of both Powers copies certified by the Consul. Local circumstances, in a thousand instances, oppose the production of the original roll, and then the seamen are not liable to be apprehended.

4th. The arrestation, in the port of Philadelphia, in the month of August, 1795, of the Captain of the corvette the Cassius. for acts committed by him on the high seas. This is contrary to the 19th article of the treaty of commerce, which stipulates That the commanders of public and of private vessels shall not be detained in any manner;" besides, it violates the most obvious law of nations, which places the officers of public vessels under the safeguard of their flag. The United States have had sufficient proofs of deference on the part of the Republic, to count upon its justice in this instance. The Captain was imprisoned, notwithstanding the Consul of the Republic produced bail. Scarcely was he set at liberty, when the corvette, although very regularly armed at the Cape, by General Laveaux, was arrested, (and it appears she is still so,) under pretext that eight months before, she sailed from Philadelphia suspected of having armed in that port.

Second complaint. The impunity of the outrage committed on the Republic in the person of its Minister, the citizen Fauchet, by the English ship Africa, in concert with the Vice Consul of that nation.