99

give to the representations of the Minister of the French Republic in this respect? It said that these vessels sailed too suddenly; that it was not able to cause them to be stopped." The answer was given by the Secretary of State in different words. Those from Charleston and Philadelphia have gone off before it was known to the Government, and the former indeed, in the first moments of the war, and before preventive measures could be taken in so distant a port.' In the case of the Trusty, Captain Hale, at Baltimore, the Governor of Maryland having been informed that she had been buying guns, had given orders to examine the fact, but she got off before the officer could get on board, having cleared out three or four days before." I have not observed that Mr. Genet ever renewed his complaint with regard to any of these vessels; whence I suppose he was satisfied with the answer as indeed he ought to have been. The two English vessels that sailed from Philadelphia, escaped even the vigilance of the French Consul,† both had departed many days before he had been informed of them. This is stated by the Consul himself, in his report of the 21st of June, 1793, to Mr. Genet, and yet the Government is now charged by Mr. Adet, with violating the treaty, because it did not stop them! Although the officers of the United States had been required to be watchful, and to report all illegal armaments in our ports, yet it was natural for the Government to expect to derive information from the French Consuls, who doubtless were charged by their own Government, to be particularly vigilant in regard to all attempts at such armaments, by the enemies of the Republic. Mr. Adet remarks, that some inhabitants of the United States had aided in these illegal armaments" of the enemies of France: and asks, "what measures were taken against them? Was any search made to discover them to prosecute them? Never." Yet the very letter from Mr. Genet to the Secretary of State, in which. and its enclosures, Mr. Adet has found this subject of complaint, suggests a different conclusion. "I learn with pleasure (says Mr. Genet) by your letter of the 23d of this month, [June, 1793]that the Government of Georgia have caused to be stopped a vessel armed in that State for the purpose of cruising against the French, and that the persons interested in this vessel will be prosecuted."

I shall say but a few words on the subject of the letters of which Mr. Adet complained that they remained unanswered. The first (of September 28th, 1795) contained those reproachful insinuations which were recited in my letter of the 1st of November last. Why were these introduced by him, if they were not to be applied? An answer was draughted on the subject of his letter, with animadversions on those insinuations: but desiring to avoid irritations, the answer was not sent. It was deemed of the less consequence, seeing in my letter to Mr. Monroe of the 12th of September, 1795, the sentiments and reasonings of the Government on that and other subjects, relating to

* State Papers, Vol. I page 112. June 30, 1793.

State Papers, Vol I. p 110.

+ State papers, Vol. I. p. 110.

France, had been fully expressed, to enable him to make immediate Communications to the French Government itself; and it was hoped that the information given in that letter, and in others written to him the preceding summer, would have furnished materials (and that these materials would have been timely used) for such representations as would have satisfied the French Government that the United States, in forming the treaty with Great Britain, had only exercised an indisputable right; and neither by that treaty nor any other act, had infringed a single article of our treaties with France.

66

On the subject of the impresses of our seamen, mentioned in Mr. Adet's letters of March and April, 1796, I shall only add. that nothing was more notorious, than that those impresses had excited universal resentment in the United States, and been the subject of repeated remonstrance from our Government to the British Court. Thus, in Mr. Pinckney's note to Lord Grenville, in August, 1793, which was published here that year, in the same collection of State Papers, with Mr. Jefferson's letter of September 7th, which Mr. Adet has quoted, and on the 5th page next succeeding it, we find the following: Under this head, it may be observed, that for want of arrangements being made for the security of American seamen in the ports of this country, (England) they are subject to the various hardships Mr. Pinckney has so frequently detailed to Lord Grenville," And in the next page, in his letter to Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Pinckney says, the protection afforded our seamen remains also on the same footing; they (the British Government) profess a willingness to secure to us all real American seamen, when proved to be such; but the proof they will not dispesne with." To remove, as far as possible, the embarrassments arising from this cause, and more effectually to protect our seamen, was the object of a bill pending in Congress. and the subject of public debate, at the time I received Mr. Adet's letters. This bill was passed into a law. All these acts demonstrated that the Government did not assent, but on the contrary, that they resisted the impressment of American seamen: and this resistance has been continued; consequently, we cannot be charged on this ground with a violation of our neutrality.

66

Among the former subjects of complaint, not now renewed by Mr. Adet, is that against the Government, for permitting the purchase and exportation of horses, by British agents, in the course of the last winter and spring. The correspondence on this subject is lengthy; and yet the question lies within a very narrow compass.

Perhaps no rule is now better established, than that neutral nations have a right to trade freely with nations at war; either by carrying and selling to them all kinds of merchandise, or permitting them to come and purchase the same commodities in the neutral territory; in the latter case not refusing to one Power at war what it permits an other to purchase; with this exception, in respect to articles contraband, that, if the cruisers of one of the belligerent Powers meet at sea

* Mr. Adet by mistake dates it September 13.

with neutral vessels laden with such articles destined to the ports of their enemies, the neutral vessels may be captured, and the contraband goods will be lawful prize to the captors: but the residue of their cargo and vessels themselves, are to be discharged.

But if there were any doubt on this point under the law of nations, there can be none in relation to France and the United States, because the matter is specially regulated by their treaty of commerce. This treaty, so far from restraining the trade of either party remaining neutral, while the other is engaged in war, provides regulations agreeably to which it should be conducted.

The 12th and 13th articles authorize either party, that is at war, to stop the neutral merchant vessels of the other, destined to the ports of an enemy, upon just grounds of suspicion, concerning the voyage, or the lading. If. on examining the ship's papers, it appears there are any contraband goods on board, consigned to a port under the obedience of his enemies,' she may be carried into port, and the contraband articles may, by regular proceedings in the admiralty, be confiscated saving, always, as well the ship itself, as any other goods found therein, which, by this treaty, are to be esteemed free; neither may they be detained on pretence of their being, as it were, infected by the prohibited goods; much less shall they be confiscated as lawful prize. It further provides, that, if the master of the neu tral ship shall be willing to deliver the contraband goods to the captor, and the latter receives them, then is the neutral ship to be forthwith discharged, and allowed freely to prosecute her voyage. The 23d article goes further-if the neutral ship shall have on board the enemies of the other, they are not to be taken out, unless they are soldiers in actual service.'

These articles are so explicit, it may seem strange that a doubt should arise concerning them; I presume no doubt did arise: for Mr. Adet, overlooking these provisions of the treaty, demanded that the Government should stop the exportation of horses by the British, upon the principle that it was a neutral duty required by the law of nations. An answer was given to his demands, in which the regulations of our treaty with France were particularly brought into view, as well as the rules of the law of nations. Mr. Adet, however, after some time, renewed his claims; but, again, kept the treaty out of sight. Au answer was given to these renewed claims, and we heard no more on the subject until the French privateers, in the West Indies, began to capture American vessels which had horses on board. You will find, among the documents on this subject, the copy of a decree of the citizens Victor Hughes and Lebas, the special agents of the Executive Directory in the Windward Islands, condemning an American vessel, and her entire cargo, for having a small number of horses on board, not bound to their enemy's, but to a neutral port. And these special agents ground their decree on the advice they received from Mr. Adet, under the date of 14th Messidor, being July 2d, 1796. This vessel, and cargo were thus condemned, without the sight of a single paper belonging to her: the master had them in his pocket, and would

have brought them home, but for the recollection of the interpreter, some hours after the sentence of condemnation had been passed. These citizens exercise, indeed, a very brief authority. The process in the case of a second American vessel, which, to complete her lading, had taken on board nineteen horses, but which was also bound to a neutral port, was in this form: The captain having come before one of the agents, he, without any previous examination or hearing, addressing himself to the captain, pronounced sentence in these words-I have confiscated your vessel and cargo,' closing the sentence with opprobrious language.

Mr. Adet, on the 18th of May last, revived his predecessor's claim of right, by treaty, to sell their prizes in our ports. This occasioned the correspondence on this subject, which you will find among the documents collected on this occasion. He contents himself, however, with considering it as a right granted, not positively, but by implication. That is, because the treaty forbids the enemies of France to sell their prizes in our ports, therefore it grants to her a right of selling her prizes. As if my friend's denial of a favor to my enemy was, in fact, a grant of the same favor to me. The simple statement of the ground of the claim would seem sufficient to show that the treaty will not support it. That sales of French prizes have been at all permitted, has been owing to the indulgence of the Government. This indulgence was continued until it interfered with a new positive obligation; an obligation precisely the same that France, herself, contracted eight years subsequent to her treaty with us, and with the same Power. This obligation is found in the 24th article of our treaty, and the 16th of the French treaty with Great Britain."

No. 261.

Report of the Secretary of State on the Memorial of sundry Citizens of the United States, residing in the city of Philadelphia, referred to him by order of the House, on the 7th of May, 1796.

FEBRUARY 27, 1797.

The Secretary of State, in pursuance of an order of the House of Representatives of the 7th of May, 1796, on the memorial and petition of sundry citizens of the United States, residing in the City of Philadelphia, relative to the losses they had sustained by the capture of their property by French armed vessels, on the high seas, or in consequence of the forced or voluntary sales of their provisions and merchandise, to the officers of the colonial administrations of the French Republic, having examined the same, together with accounts of similar losses sustained by the American citizens from the French, in the European seas, or in the ports of France, which, in the details, were necessarily connected with the former, respectfully reports: That, since the commencement of the present war, various and continual complaints have been made by the citizens of the United

44

States to the Department of State, and to the Minister of the United States in France, of injuries done to their commerce under the authority of the French Republic and by its agents. These injuries were, 1st. Spoliations and maltreatment of their vessels, at sea, by French ships of war and privateers:

2d. A distressing and long continued embargo laid upon their vessels, at Bordeaux, in the years 1793 and 1794 :

3d. The non-payment of bills, and other evidences of debts due, drawn by the colonial administrations in the West Indies:

4th. The seizure or forced sales of the cargoes of their vessels, and the appropriating of them to public use without paying for them, or paying inadequately, or delaying payment for a great length of time. 5th. The non-performance of contracts, made by the agents of the Government, for supplies:

6th. The condemnation of their vessels and cargoes, under such of the marine ordinances of France as are incompatible with the treaties subsisting between the two countries: and

7th. The captures, sanctioned by a decree of the National Convention, of the 9th of May, 1793, (hereto annexed, and marked A,) which, in violation of the treaty of amity and commerce, declared enemy's goods, on board of their vessels, lawful prize, and directed the French ships of war and privateers to bring into port neutral vessels, laden with provisions, and bound to an enemy's port. It may be proper to remark here, that this decree of the Convention, directing the capture of neutral vessels, laden with provisions and destined for enemy ports, preceded, by one month, the order of the British Government for capturing "all vessels loaded with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of France."

Such was the general nature of the claims of the citizens of the United States upon the French Republic, previous to the departure of Mr. Monroe, as Minister Plenipotentiary to France, in the summer of 1794, and since his residence there. To him were entrusted the documents which had been collected to substantiate particular complaints; and he was instructed to press the French Government to ascertain and pay what might be found justly due. From time to time, as additional cases arose, they were transmitted to him with the like view. In September, of that year, he assigned to his Secretary, Mr. Skipwith, (with the provisional appointment of Consul for Paris,) the charge of stating the cases, and placing them in the proper train of settlement; reserving to himself the duty of fixing general principles with the Government, and of patronizing and superintending his proceedings.

In conformity with the direction of the Minister, Mr. Skipwith, shortly afterwards, made a general report on the injuries and difficulties and vexations to which the commerce of the United States was subjected by the regulations and restraints of the French Government, or by the abuses practised by its agents; to which he added a number of particular cases. A copy of the whole, marked (B) is hereto annexed.