It will also be convenient here to notice the ftipulstioiis contained in the iad' article. These are, - I ft. That foreign prbvateeri not belonging to French fuUjefts er citizens, having commiilions from any other prince or state in enmity with France, Jhall not fit their (hips in the ports of the United States. 2d. Nor fell their p r izes, nor in any other man per exchange their 'fiiips, merchandises, or any other lading ; 3d. 'Nor purchase victuals, except such, as fhaU be necessary for their going to the nearell port of the prince or state from which they have commii fions. The cases that have accured in tlie course of the present war in relation to our treaty with Franee, particularly the t7th and 22d articles just mention ed, have led to numerous difeuffions, 111 which several points have been deliberately fettled either by legislative or executive afis, or by judicial de cifrons. The firft important executive aft was the procla matiou of neutrality by the Prefideut of the United States. This was iftued on the 22d of April *793- At the next meeting of Congrcfs, on the 3d of December 1793> the President laid thi3 proclama tion before both Houses. The Senate, in their addrefc, in answer to the President's speech, thus cxprefs their opinion of the proclamation. " We deemed it a measure well-timed, and wife: " manifeftiig a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the nation, and calculated ta promote it." The address of the House of Representatives was unanimoujly agreed We read in it this para graph, " The United States having taken no part •• in the war which had embraced, in Europe, the " powers with whom they have the mod extensive • " relations, the-maintenance of peace was justly " to be regarded as one of the mod important du " ties of the magistrate charged with the faithful " execution of the laws. We accordingly witness, " with approbation and pleasure, the vigilance " with which you have guarded against an inter " ruption of that blefiing, by your proclamation, admonirtiing our citizens of the confequenees of 44 illicit or hostile acts towards the belligerent par -4i ties ; and prqmoting, by a declaration »f the ex " ifting legal state of things, an easier admrffion as " our rtghr to the immunities belrkging to our " situation." Yet this is the instrument, thus approved by Congress, and whose only object was to caution our citizens to avoid certain acts which would violat? the laws of nations, which Mr. Adet haß ventured to call " an insidious proclamation of neutrality !" The next executive a<ft noticed by Mr. Adet, is the letter of the 4th of August 1793, written by the President's command, by the Secretary of the Tteafury, to the eolkdlors of the customs, and ac companied by the rules which the President bad - »dopted, for preventing all armaments in favor of any of the belligerent powers. These rules were considered as just and necessary deductions from the laws of neutrality established and received among nations. The letter from the Secretary «f the ' Trealury is explanatory of these rides, and'amsng other inftru&iorts, particularly points the collectors to the 17th and 22d articles,of our treaty with Franac; left by inattention or mrfconception of them, (he might be injured and her enemies bene fitted. Fhe letter concludes with enjoining the colle&or-s to execute those inftru&ions " withvigi " lance, care, activity and impartiality"—" becatife omissions would tend to expose the government " to injurious imputations and suspicions, and " proportionably to commit the good faith and " peace of the country." How could such rules, with fueh reasons to enforce them, not escape ces fui*e ? They were framed and required to be exe cuted with ftrift impartiality ; and confequentiy were to prevent Frenchmen continuing thole ag gressions on our sovereignty and neutrality, which had been commenced under Mr. Genet's orders, and which were calculated to involve us in a war with Britain, Spain and for at that time tbefe were all combined against France. Frenchmen were to have n© other pi eferences than those fecund to them ly treaty ; (except that they 1 were not forbidden to fell their lawful prizes in our j ports) and our citizens were to be retrained from committing hostilities under the banners of France, as well as those of other powers. The third ofTenfive aft was the President's sub mitting to Congress these meafurcs, and fuggelting ; the expediency of extending our legal code, "giving ! competent jurifdiftton to the courts, and provid ing adequate penalties to prevent or puriifh viol'a fions of the laws of nations. The next complaint refpeftstheaft of Congress pafied on the sth of June 1794, <• for the punilh- ! merit of certain crimes against the United States;" j being those to which their attention had been ell led by tire President's speech. Mr. Aoet aflcs, ' " What was its result !" and gives himl'elf the fol lowing answer. " In eonfequence of this law, the greater part of the French privateers have been *» arretted, as well as their prizes 5 not upon formal cepofitions, not upon established teftimeny, llot Vupon a necessary body of proofs, but upon the simple information of the consul of one of the powers at war with the French republic, frequently upon that of lailors of the enemy-power*, some times according to the orders of the governors but oflcn upon the demand of the diftrift attotnies' who alTert upon principles avowed by the govern! ment, that their conviction was fufficient to*aiitho rizetbem, wiihout complaint or regular informa tion, to caufs the privareers to l,e profecutcd in ! virtue of the law above mentioned."—Ani •• w |, en . the ministers of the republic have asked for iuftice of the government, for the vexations experienced by the privateers, .in contempt of the 17th article . l^ e lhe y kawc never been abie to ob-j tain fatlgfa^lon. s, Judging only by these declarations of Mr. A- ! det, a stranger would imagine there had been a combination «f the general and state governments ' and of our courts, to harrafs and do i P juftice to frenchmen engaged in privateering. But our owfrcitizens place a diffe.ent eftimatc on this im ptacliment of theie President, their fenaton and reprefeiitiiti»es in tongrefs, their judges and other public officers: at.d an examination of the cases cited by Mr. Acfet to fiipport his afieitions will manifell their incarreflnefs. Fir(l"-cafe. The French privateer Sans Pareil and her prize the Perfeveraniei On the 26th August 1794 Mr. Fauchet com plained that the prize bad been seized on the pre text that the Sans Pareil had been illegally aimcii in the United States. The answer of September 3d from the secretary of state, which Mr. Adet censures " as indicative of delay," assured him that the secretary had urged the governor of Rhode Island, where the priz* was carried, ta report the cireumftances of the cafe without delay. On the 27th of September, the secretary informed Mr. Fauchet that the governor had decided that the prize should be restored. On the 17th of Octo ber Mr. Fauchet renewed his complaint, for on the suit of the claimant the prize had again been arretted by process from the diftrift court. The secretary of state a*fwered on the Z2d, wiih ia forniation that ought to have fatisiicd Mr. Fauchet. For admitting that agreeably to the law of the Jth °f June 1794, the courts had authority and were bound in duty to take cognizance of captures made wirhin the jimfdiftion of the United States, or by privateers illegally fitted in their ports (the right of doing which Mr. Fauuhet did notcontcft) thcv could not refufe it in the cafe of the prize of the Sans Pareil : the guard against vexatious pro secutions being the j«Ht;ment for cofis and da mages to which an urjnft prosecutor is exposed. The circular letter written on this occasion to the governors of the dates maaifcits the folicitudc of our gavei nment to prevent vexatisus suits. 2dca/e. Glafsand Gfbbs By the copy of the proceedings in the supreme court of the Ujiited States, in this cafe, you will fee that the court did not, as Rated by Mr. Adet, determine, " That the tribunals could decide whe " ther a prize belonged to enemies or to neutrals." The queAion before the court was of the cogniz ance of a captured vcflcl and cargo, the former tie property of a Swede and the latter belonging part ly to fame Swedes and partly to a citizen as the U nitrdStates. The opinion therefore pronounced by the supreme court applied to the cafe in which one of the claimants was a citizen of the United States. And after solemn argument, the court decided " That the diftrift cesrt of Maryland had jtfrif di&ion and should accordingly proceed to determine upoo this cafe agreeably to law and right." I will add only one more remark—That the 17th article, the letter of which we are charged with vi olating, in fuffering our courts t« take cognizance of French prizes, exprefcly refers to " The (hips arid goods taken from their enemiesarid it is the " examination concerning tl.c lawfulnefs of such prizes," which the article foibids. But ks exa mination of such prizes has been attempted by our government or tribunals, unlef3 on clear evidence, or reafonaWle presumption, that the captures were made in circumltanees, which amounted to a viola tion of our sovereignty, and territorial rights. 3d. Cast. The French privateer L'Ami Je U Point a Petre, Captain William Talbot, and her Dutch prize, the Vrouw Christiana Magdalena. To the information containtd in the papers col le&ed iu this cafe. I have ta add, that this cause was finally decrded in tha Supreme court iu Au gust term 1795. The court were unaoiraoufly of opinion that in the particular circamftances »f Tal bot's cafe, netwithlianding his French commiflion, and his taking an oath «f allegiance to the French republic, he continued to be a citizen of the Uni ted States, v But the cause, as I am informed, did not appeaT to have turned on this point. Talbot had afloriated with one Ballard, commanding an armed veflel called the Ami de la Liberie, which had been fitted out in the United States, and badnocsm miffton. Talbot and Ballard cruized together as consorts ; and in faa it was Ballard's vefTel that took the prize; Talbot not coming up till an hour after the capture. Ballard was aftepwards tried before the Circuit court for piracy. Ihe court were of opinion from the tenor of the evidence, that (Talbot's velTel was owned by citfzcns of the United States, to whom the prize money would eventually find its way in cafe of res titution to the captors. Ballard and Talbot were both citizens of Virgi nia. The attempt of the latter to become a French citizen was considered to be fraudulent, being made for thefole purpafe of obtaining a commission, un der colour of which he might plunder the fubjefts of nations with whom the United States were at peace. An observation ought not to be omitted here That although the captors, Talbot and others, had been defeated both in the drftrift and circuit courts yet they carried the cause up to tlfe supreme court.: thus using the legal right" of appealing to the court in the lall resort ; a right which alike ex ercised by rtie fubjefts of powers who were enemies to France, has farmed a principal fubjeft of Mr, Fauchet s and Mr. Adet's continued complaints. 4th. Under the head of complaints for vexati ous prosecutions, Mr. Adet mentions only two ca ses in which damages and interest were allowed to the French raptors, viz, One of la Nuejlra Senora del Carmen at Rhode-Island—and the other of !a Princejfades -djiurias at New-York. " Yet (fays he) the tribunals have aliuays allowed damages " to the captured, when they have declared "the " prizes illegal." How far the fails will warrant this ialt afiertion, I am not pofTefTed of documents to deter mure. I prefrsme it is to be underilood in a general sense only, arid to admit of exceptions. And in this sense there will be 110 difficulty in ad mitting .the truth of the assertion and accounting for it. The captures here referred ta were made either within our jurifdiftional lin», or by illegal privateers, being fueh as were equipped in whole or in part in the ports of the United States. Of these material facts, the faptors could nat be igno rant : consequently they could have no apology for defending their ut.juft claims in our courts ; and of course, weie justly condemned in coils and dama ges. In the eift of the prizas of the printter the Citizen of Merftille,, damages were elaimtd by the captors, but denied. For those pcize» had been eonfidered in the diftridi court to be illeg*J. And although the ice- tenre of that court wae reversed in the circuit .court, \et it was upon the introduflion of nrnu tejiimonj, on the part of the captors. This la ft deciliou was affirm ed in the supreme court, yet without damages; inas much as the teftimouy was coniidered to befo ambigu ous as ro juftify the appeal. The fame remarks apply to the prizes of the priva teer General La-veuux ; with this addition, that »ne of the Judges dii Tented from the opinion of the coar.t, be ing firmly of opinion that this privateer was covered American property. The privlteer the Parijienne has been reg'ftered at an American coajling i>e/;el, under the name of the Hawk. During tic embargo, in the fpriag of 1791, (he flipped out or Charlefion and went to Port dt Paix> where (he was fold to one Blechos, a Frenchman, who armed her and provided her with a eommiffion. Hav ing afterwards arrived at Charleston. (he was recognis ed and pntf'ecuted for a breach of the revenue laws, in haning gtne to a foreign port whilst (be was in the le gal predicament of-a coajhr. 'I he diftri<s\ court con demned her : but en the applicatian of Blochos to have her restored on paying the appraised value, the Judge permitted him to take her, in aJiatt of luarlik* equipment. Shortly afterwards (he put to sea Jc captured two valuable Britilh prizes, the brigantines Cnsfar and FaveHte. On their arrival, the one at Charleston, the other at Savannah, suits were •commenced to obtain their reflitutio* > s having been captured by an illegal privateer. The decrees of the courts were in favor of the captors, but without damages. The supreme court difopproved of the restitution of the privateer without dismantling her ; and confidcred the mistake committed in this refpedl a fufficient rtafon to cover the party prosecuting from the payment of damagts. All the other cases of captures by French privateers which have been brought up to the fnprenne court were deeided at last .Augtift term. In some of theon, the circumstances would not have warranted an award of damages, in others, the counsel for the captors omit ted to ajk for them. —VVhen demanded, you know that it is in the difcreti®n of the court to grant or refufe them: thisdifcretion being: regulated by all the cir cumftanccs of each cafe. Hence when a party is drawn before the Court without good cause and vrxatieufly, damages are always given ; but are denied when there appears a reasonable cause ot controversy. sth. Mr. Adet having briefly noitced several cases by name, (Veins to reserve those of the Vengeance arid Cafiius for a full display of unwarrantable condutft in the Government and Courts of the United States, and therefore descants on thcro at fonte length ; but with so many aberrationsfiom the fa.6l#, with so many er roneous ideas concerningourljurifprudence, and so ma ny injurions infmuations refpefling our Courts and their officers, it will be nccefiiry that you Ihould learn the true history of tliefe cafcs from authentic docu- ments, Cu/e tf thi Frcnch privatetr La Vengttnce, For the full hillory of thi# privateer and her prize I mud refer yoa to the documents in the cafe. The principal fails are these. About the latter end of June, or beginning of July 1795, the pri vateer La Vengeancejirrived at New-York with a valuable Spanish prize called the Piincefia de las Aftu rias, Don Diego Pintado the owner commen ced a suit for his vefTel, on the ground that (he had been taken by an illegal privateer. The was inilituted by Mr. Troup, not wantonly, but upon infoimation which was afterwards verified by the oaths of several witnefles. In the prcgisfs of thecaufe these witnefles were conuadifted by the witnefles produced on behalf sf the captors, far whom a decree was finally given ; the clafhiog e vidence preponderating, in the judge's opinion, in favor of the captors: but he expref»ly declared that there was probable cause for the seizure. * After this suit for the prize had been commen ced, the Spanish Consul Complained to Mr. Hani fou, the Diftrift Attorney, in his official capacity, of a violation of law, on the part of the privateer La Vengeance, in cenfequenceof which a Spanifn fuhjeft had beep injured. Mr) Harrifon upon in quiry found at lesft a probability that the complaint refpefting the privateer was true. This probabi lity arose from what he considered at affording the certainly of materia/proaf : and, therefore, in c»n formiiy with hi. official duly, rommencod a prose cution on the aft of Congress forbidding the arm in;* of privateers in our ports. The dccifion of this and of the priee cause depended tiu the fame evidence. The.decision being in favor of the cap tors, Mr. Harrifon acquiesced in it as it refpe&cd the privateer : and he united, with his affoclate coun eil in the priie cause in ndvifing the like fubmifiion in that cafe. But the Spauifn Consul deemed it his duty to pursue the claim to the court in the last resort' This can warrant no complaint : for Mr. Ha rrifon remarks that perhaps there never were causes in which more contradictory and irieconci leable evidence was offered, and in wkich the minds of the auditors were more divided as to tbc real (late of facts. The second public suit agaisll the privateer was for exporting arms and ammunition fioin the Uni ted Stales, when filch exportation was prohibited bylaw. The evidence, which appeared in the e thercaufes, gave rife te this prosecution : and ti pon the trial the judge condemned the privateer. An appeal from this sentence was iiitcrpofed by the French Consul. The appeal was heard in thecir cuit court : and upon new vvidenct the sentence of the Diftrift Court was leverfed. Mr. Adet complains, that vyhile one suit was ptending for the prize, and another againtt the pri vateer, the Diliri& Attorney should exhibit a fe rond information against the privateer, on which she was arretted anew, for having exported irms in violation of a law of the United States, which was in forie when the Vengeance failed fnpn New- York : and that this information was filed.on the simple declaration of Mr. Giles, the Marshal of the Court, who at informer was to share part of the confiscation. As Mr. Harrifon remaiks, it was in favor of.the privateer, that this second informa tion was filed white the jirji was pending ; because it saved time. Had he postponed the Litter until the firft had been decided might have been some foundation for a charge of unnecefiary delay. Mr. Harrifon's (late of the cafe shews that this se cond information was not made on the declaration of the Marlhal ; but on the evidence thai appealed on the examination of the firft. Mr. Adet having been pleased to eenfure the conduct of the attorney, clerk and marshal of the diftriQ court of NeW-York, in jitftice to tbcm, I have added to theother documents in #iis cafe, the letters of Mr. Harrifon arid Mr. Troup. They will answer the double purpsfe of juftifying them, and of vindicating eurgoTtrßracat and tribunals. Mr. Adet particularly'notice* '!»? pipers he had received from St. Domingo, " Proving (as hefayi) " in the most convincing manner, that the Ven '• pear [la Vengeance] had arrived at Poo de " Paix without any armament or equipment what " ever, and that (he had been fwld, armed and " equipped wholly,and commiHioned as a privateer " on the territory of the republic. These docit., " ments were certificates of the general, the Or " donnateur,'and of the greater part of the prin. cipal officers ef St. Darning®," &c—" He " hastened to communicate to the secretary of " ajid to requett him to order the attorney of " New-York diftriA to ilay the proceedings in " ftituted in the name of the government : there " was nothiiig done with them, and Mr. Harri " son continued his piofecmion." It will appnac by my letter of October iU, 1795, t» Mr. Harrifon, that thtfe pupers were sent to him, and by his an. fwer of October 3d, that he received them. That the bill of sale (one of the papers) was produced to the court, in behalf of the claimant of the pri vateer, but that the certificate of gencial Laveaus could not be considered as evidence in the caife, and if it had been admiflible, " the claimant would " be very cautious of producing it, on account of " its differing from the witnefTe.." 6lh. Cafe of the privateer Le Coffins. For the full hillory of this cafe, I ifiuft also refer you to the documents : and here only prefect yon with a concise statement. The Caffiu", under the name nf lei JumeauK, was fitted and armed for a veflcl of wai in the port of Philadelphia, in violation of a l»«r of the United States. In December (794, having escaped from the port to descend the river, orders were given t» the militia of the state of Delaware to intercept her. The attempt was made and failed—the crew of le» Jumeaux, which was untxpc&edly found to he very numerous, refilled the officers, who went on board, manned their cannon, and brought them to bear on the cutter in whi~h the militia (about 40 in number) were embarked. Their force being in adequate to the enterprise, they retired, with an intention to return the next day with a reinforce, merit. They did so : but le« Jumeaux had failed and gone to sea. The agent, Mr. Guenet, by whom les Jumeaux had been fitted out, was tried in the circuit-court at Philadelphia, conridted of the offcnce, and received sentence of fine and im prifo:iment. Les Jumeaux proceeded te St. Domingo. Sa muel B. Davis, a citizen of the United States* there took the command of her, with a eommif fion from the French government. Davis proba bly failed from Philadelphia in les Jumeaux for the purpufe of finally taking the camm.ind of her.. Her name was new chaiiged to Le Caffius ; aud on a crmze fee took a schooner called the William Lindfay, belonging to Messrs. Yard and Kctland of Philadelphia; Mr. Kctland having purchased an interest in her after her failing. The schooner and her cargo were condemned as prize at St. Do mingo. In Augult 1795, capiain Davis, com manding lc C .lliua, came with her to Philadelphia. She wis immediately kiiewn. Mr. Yard, with a view of obtaining an indemnification for the loss •f the schooner and her cargo, libelled le Callius in the diltri& court, and caused the captain to be arretted. Soon after, the supreme court, being ia session, captain Davis's counfrl applied for and ob tained a prohibition to the diflri£t comt, to stop its proceedings; by \r!iich thefuits bath againfl him and leCaflius were defeated. The prohibition wag granted on this principle ; tkit tJTe trial of prizes taken withoutthe jurifdidlion of the United States, and carried to place* within the jurisdiction of France, for adjudication, by French veficls, and all qucftions incidental to it, belong exclutively to ths French tribunals : And confcquently. that its of war and their officers are not liable to the pro cess of our couits, predicated upon such capture and fubfeqaent proceeding within the jurifdi&ioß of the French government. McfTrs. Yard and Ketland having failed to ob tain an indemnification in this made, procured newr proofs, on the informarionof Mr. Ketland, •« b< issued from the ifccuit conrt by which le Caffius was attached as a vefiel aimed and equipped agji, ftip of war in the port of Philadelphia, with in tent to cruize aad commit hostilities agaiiift nation* with whom the Unitid States weie at peace; in violation of the aft of congress prohibiting fucli armaments. Mr. Adet complained that the proceh was taken out of the circuit court, at he alleged, it had no jurifdf&ion, and that it would be attended with delay, that com.t fitting but twicc a year ; whereas the diftrift court, in which it was said the pr»lecution (if at all permitted) should have been commenced, was always open. I con futed gentlemen of legal knowledge an the point of jurifJi&ion in this cafe, and they were decided in their opinion that the circuit court had jurisdic tion, and cxclufively »'f the diltrift court.' You will fee also, in Mr. Rawlc's astement of this cafe, that this opinion was adopted and supported by two gentlemen of enineacc at the bar. You will fur ther fee in that Itatenieat, 'that tfie government of the United States had no part in originating thit proiecution ; and that the diftrift attorney, in be half of the United States, toek raeafures at each term of the circuit court to prepare the canfe for trial, and on a plea calculated td defeat the cutioii. At length ia O&ober term, 1796, ths cause was brought to a hearing. In the coiirfe of the argument the cjueEHon of jurifdiHion prefeßted itfelf. The court adjourned till the next day t* consider of it, and on the following morning dif mi fifed the suit. As soon as I had received notice of this event (on the 19th of Qftober last,) I wrote to Mr. Adet, informing that le Caffius re-, maincd in the cuftady of' the roarfhall, bvt ready to be deliveied to his order. To this no tnfwer/ was returned : but he mention* the matter in the notes fubjoiaed to hit note of the ijth Horr«ber, intimating thit the Unit<ii States were aolwerabie in this cafe for a violation of Ueaties and for the dwiiagcs the Caffius has sustained. Here the affair ' £Tb It««»((/,] In Saturday s Gatettc the following waioitiit? ted in th# quotation from Mr. Jefferfcm's Urter of 44th July, the word enemy, read art fnt. and the seois of an enemy, found in (bt vefel of a on lawful frizt.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers