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.