would not give any relief to the commerce of the United States. The Doctor not contesting my arguments or opinions, said that more was intended to be done; but that the Directory could not accomplish it of themselves, seeing it depended on the laws which the Legislative Councils alone could change.

I answered that this was easy to be done; that as the Directory, on the 18th Fructidor, (September 4th, 1797,) had garbled the two Councils, and banished some and dismissed others of the best members, all who were firmly opposed to their views; and as on the new elections to supply the vacancies, and the new third of the Councils, the Directory sent home every new member who was not agreeable to them, every body must see that the Directory had but to declare its will, and it would be obeyed. The Doctor said that the Directory was very well disposed towards the United States, and desired a reconciliation; that they would promote a revision of the laws in regard to privateering, so as to put the rights of neutral nations on a just footing; but that it would take some time to bring this about, the people concerned in privateering having gained a very great influence in the two Councils." Is it necessary to inquire how this very great influence has been obtained? Are the leading members owners of privateers? or do they receive their shares of prize money from those who are? Do the Legislative Councils really act independently of the Directory? or does the same" influence" actuate both? The printed despatches of our Envoys, under the date of October 29, 1797, state, on the information of Mr. Talleyrand's private agent, X, that Merlin, one of the members, and now or late President of the Directory, was to receive no part of the douceur demanded of the Envoys, because he was paid by the owners of priva teers, and in respect to the loan then demanded, on which subject it was suggested that one of the Envoys should go to America to consult the Government, the Envoys asked Mr. X if, in the mean time, the Directory would order the American property not yet passed into the hands of the privateersman, to be restored? He said explicitly that they would not. The Envoys asked him whether they would suspend further depredations on our commerce. He said they would not: but Mr. Talleyrand observed, that on this subject we could not sustain much additional injury, because the winter season was approaching, when few additional captures could be made. Here we see our Envoys inquiring, not whether the two Councils would suspend those depredations, but whether the Directory would do it; and Mr. Talleyrand's agent, X, without intimating that the Directory wanted power, or that they could only endeavor to provoke in the Legislature a revision of their maritime laws,' answered peremptorily that the Directory would not suspend the depredations, The truth is, that it was an act of the Directory alone, (their decree of the 2d March, 1797,) which authorized and produced more extensive depredations on the commerce of the United States than any other decree or law of the French Republic. To effect a repeal of that decree, no application to the Legislative Councils could be ne

6

cessary. They could also have repealed another of their own decrees, that of the 2d of July, 1796, which subjected neutral property, and particularly that of American citizens, to the discretion of their Consuls and cruisers in the European seas, as well as of their privateers and agents in the West Indies, and on which these agents have founded other numerous decrees, which have occasioned those shocking depredations and abuses there and on the coast of the United States, which the Directory, by their decree of the 31st of July last, affect to restrain.

When the Executive Directory wished to enlarge the field of depredations on neutral commerce, and on the fourth of January, 1798, proposed to the two Councils the project of the iniquitous law to declare to be good prize every vessel and cargo, to whomsoever be- . longing, if any part of the cargo came from England or her possessions." there was a ready obedience. "The Directory thinks it urgent and necessary to pass the law. The plan of a decree is reported to the Council of Five Hundred on the 11th; and urgency' being declared, is immediately and unanimously adopted. It goes to the Council of Ancients; that Council approves the act of urgency, and on the 18th of January the project of the Directory becomes a law.

This law was necessary for the French Government: so many American vessels had been entrapped by the Directory's decree of March 2d, 1797, requiring the rôle d'équipage, that the residue were now generally provided with that paper: some new pretext was, therefore, requisite for fleecing the People of the United States of their property and an ordinance of one of the Kings of France, made near a century past, having declared lawful prize the vessels and their cargoes in which was found English merchandise, belonging to enemies, the Directory declare that the provisions of this ordinance ought to be extended to comprehend the vessels and cargoes of friends; that is, of allied and neutral nations.

This Directory knew that the United States, whose inhabitants were chiefly cultivators, required a greater supply of English manufactures than any other neutral country of equal population; and those manufactures too were, from the course of American commerce, combined with almost all our mercantile operations, and pervaded entirely our great coasting trade.

Hence, it is evident that this law was chiefly aimed at them.”

No. 295.

Secretary of State to the American Consul, Havana, dated Department of State, 25th January, 1799.

SIR: A Mr. Dickrick, residing in Philadelphia, and calling himself a citizen of the United States, has a son-in-law named Peter Brabandt, a Frenchman, now at Havana, who writes to him that he is unable to obtain a passage to this country, on account of the opinion prevailing there, among the masters of American vessels, that it is unlawful to bring Frenchmen to the United States. As this opinion is erroneous, there being no law at present existing to prohibit them from coming hither, I have desired Mr. Dickrick to write to his son-in-law to apply to you, who would explain away the scruples on this point, of the master of the vessel in which he might choose to take his passage.

I am, Sir, &c. TIMOTHY PICKERING.

P. S-It will be desirable. however, to avoid any encouragement, generally, to the coming of Frenchmen to the United States.

No. 296.

Secretary of State to Mr. Letombe, late Consul General of France in the United State

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Philadelphia, February 4, 1799.

SIR: I have received your letter of the 29th ultimo, occasioned by my introducing into my late report on French affairs, relative to the United States, your repeated declarations to me, of your collecting and transmitting to your Government, the accounts of the depredations committed by French privateers on the commerce of the United States, as a proof that the Directory of the French Republic had been, not recently, as they pretend, but long since, acquainted with them, the fact of your repeated declarations to me, as stated in my report, you do not call in question: but you say you always told me that you believed your Government was not informed of them. This addition I do not remember. But whether you did, or did not, so express your belief, is of no consequence: I stated a fact: you admit it: the public will, from that and other concurring facts, draw their own inferences. It was impossible that I should believe, as you say you always professed to me to believe, that the Directory were uninformed of the depredations of which we are speaking: nobody

will believe that your letters, for two or three years past, have not reached Paris, when you have yourself sent to France several flags of truce, and American vessels have all that time been going from the United States to France. I do not, therefore, think "my justice at all concerned to give publicity to your letter." If I had erroneously stated any fact respecting you, be assured I would most readily correct the statement, and with the same publicity; it is by the force of truth alone that I ever expect to establish my positions.

The rest of your letter, about your writing to a member of the Directory, and to the Minister of Foreign Relations, and inviting your colleague Du Pont, to inform your Government of those depredations, and your letters to Hedouville, the agent in Saint Domingo: these things are also of no consequence. Doubtless, the principal object of the information was to convince the Directory that we would no longer patiently bear their insults and injuries; and that they must change their measures; or, at least, profess to change them. to prevent a rupture." Hence, as you inform me in your letter, Mr. Dupontfelicitates himself on his return to France;" because it has not a little contributed to prevent a rupture so fatal to the two Republics."

As to Hedouville's arret of the 18th July last, to which, and his arret of the 17th, you refer me, telling me that you think I shall therein see the rights of neutrals, and the laws of nations respected" the very suggestion is an insult. His arret of July 18th, in declaring that American (as well as other neutral) vessels, destined to the ports of St. Domingo remaining faithful to the Republic—that is, to French ports. in distinction from the ports of other nations, and especially English ports-shall not be seized by the vessels of war, or privateers, of the Republic, is a confirmation of former decrees violating the laws of nations, and the rights of the United States in particular. Who gave to the French Republic and its agents. a right to regulate the commerce of the world? Whence does it derive its pretensions to prescribe to neutrals the ports and nations with whom they may trade, and the ports and nations independent of France with which neutrals shall have no commerce? Inordinate ambition, whose success will gratify so many other passions, is the source of those pretensions. The justice, or injustice, of a measure, has long since ceased to be a point of any consideration with the French Government: this is demonstrated by its acts towards neutral nations in general, and especially towards the United States.

I am. sir,

Your obedient servant,

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 2964

Secretary of State to General Etienne Desfourneux, particular Agent of the French Executive Directory at Guadaloupe and its dependencies, dated Department of State, Philadelphia, March 16, 1799.

SIR: Your letters to the President of the United States should have been addressed to the Department of State: they have. however, been submitted to his consideration. The Retaliation being on the point of departure with French prisoners, in exchange for the Americans you liberated, 1 must reply in a few words.

I can only observe, that the depredations committed on the commerce of the United States, by French armed vessels, in violation of the law of nations, obliged the United States to take such measures as they judged best adapted to protect their commerce and to cause their rights to be respected. One measure has been to restrain and prohibit all commercial intercourse between the United States and every part of the French dominions. These restraints and prohibitions cannot be withdrawn. unless their cause be first removed. The depredations of French armed vessels must wholly cease. Their conforming to the laws of the French Republic will not satisfy. depredations of which we have so long complained have originated in those laws. But when the French Republic, or any Island belonging to it, shall cease to violate our rights by such depredations, so that the President of the United States may deem it safe, expedient. and for their interest; to remit and discontinue the restraints and prohibitions abovementioned, our commercial intercourse may be renewed. For your further information, I take the liberty of enclosing the law of the United States for suspending the commerce between the two nations.

The

I am, with due consideration, Sir, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 297.

Secretary of State to Messrs. Adams and Loring, Boston, dated State Department, March 30th, 1799.

"I now enclose the passports of Messrs. William Rice Apthorp, and Charles Ward Apthorp, and return to you the certificates from Mr. Cooper, concerning their nativity, with the date of my certificates to the latter corrected.

“Without being apprized of the allegation against the sufficiency of the papers on board of your vessels, I feel some embarrassment in giving a formal opinion upon them; since the question embraces considerable detail and is influenced by circumstances. I think it probable the defect of the role d'equipage is what you wish to obvi