DOCUMENTS Which accompanied the niefifoge of the President of the United States to bojh Houses of Congress, January 19, 1797. l.etter to Mr. Piucknry, Mittifter Plenipotentiary as the United States to the French Republic. Continued. In his letter of the 3d of June 1796. which yau will find among the papers refpefHng the Caffius, Mr. Adet mentioned the affair of the Favorite at New-York j and intimated an idea that the Execu tive might, in lijte manner, cause the prosecution againfl le Caffius to ceale. But the proceedings in the cafe of the Favorite were wholly ; n the haods ■of the executive officers, who were under the Pre fulent's immediate controul, and to whbra, on evi dence fatisfadory to the Executive, orders were given todifcontinue the process. In this affair of the Favorite, we are fortunate in finding one ease ill which Mr. Adet (contrary to his affertian in his note of November 15th) acknowledges that justice was done by our government. You will obterre in Mr. Faachet's letter of the 23d of Sep tember 179,4., a very formidable complaint in this affair of th* Favorite ; That it was pretended that a privateer, fitted for a cruise, had deposited aims on board her, and that this pretext was used for vifitinjj and pillaging her: Tha* (he was a ship t>f war of the Republic, then serving as a (lor« ship until flic could b~ repaired : 1 hat the sovereignty of France was violated, and her flag insulted. Yet by the letter ot John Eamb, efquiie, collcrsor ef the port of New-York, of the 22 d of November *794, you will fee that at the time the /"eizure was made of the fufpefte'd articles on board the Favor ite, " flie h ivir.g been totally dismantled, her crew «• sent on other (hips of war, and her fails, " and other materials, fold »t public auc tion, fi>e Wris coi liciered as a hulk\ otherwise the " event would not have taken place." The col lator further declares that the charge of pulling down the national flag and hoitling mother in its place, wa-s groundless. • Thcfe are all the cases expressly mentioned by Mr. Adet, in which French privateers and their prizes have been brought under the coghizanre of our courts of just ice ; and all, therefore, to win h an aufwer can be ditefted: Had he qited the other cases, which he fays would fill a volume, we have no doubt that there would be found in thtm, as in those which have been mentioned, abundant reason to juftify the government and the tribunals. Mr. Adet s complaints are not confined to im putations of iujuitice experienced, by French pri. vateers and their prizes, from our courts ; , Ift ' He protests again ft the violation of the 171b article ofthetteaty, in contempt of which " the America,, tribunals have taken cognizance « of the validity of prize, made by French ships " of war or privateers, under pretext of original " * t r mament or augmentation of armament in the " United States; or of capture within their line " ° f i"rifdi£Ho n .*>- But his predeceflor, Mr. Fauchet, after faying tf,at oar admiralty courts interfered :« prize causes on the ground of « seizure || tvifhm thejurifdifiional line ofthe United States, or of armament or augroentdtirn of armament as " thecapturing veffdsi" their pert,.," immediately adds «■ On this fubjeft, fir, yon request me to fpe " Clf y t0 y» u » c ice ii mft an e, in which a prize was " arretted, which did not come under that denomi " "«*»<". an d yhti take the tiouble toeftablifh that " they have a right to interfere in every cafe that || can be brought under thcfe heads. In the firft || place fir, I never have, atleaft to m J recoil,Sion, tontejlea the nght ofy:, U r courts, or ofthe govern ' went, to interfere in matters of the nature of those y<"> mention but 1 complain of the facility with " which prizes have been thrown into those two " clafles, which do not belong to them." He then fays that he cauld cite a great numbar of anj»rs te which he alludes-: but contents himielt with mentioning only two. The firft is the cafe of lalbot, of which I have already given some details, and which, with the docu. ffieHts referred to, will (hew this to have' been an unfortunate instance to Support his com ynint. The other is that of the prizes of the Citi- | *e» of Marseilles, alio already mentioned, and which will not juftify a comprint ; for although the final dectfien was in favor of the privateer, yet the sentence of the diftrift court was not reversed in the •ireuit court but upon the introduction of new tef imeny : and thefupreme court allowed nj damages, because the teftiiaony was so ambiguous as to juftify the appeal. But quitting tie contradiflory declarations of the Frcocli mimfters £ and referring you tc tlip let ter dated Augufl fl6, J793, from the Secretary of State to oui Minister at Paris (which hat been pufclifhed) for the reafoaing of our government, on "this fubjeift, and the demonftrati'on of their right and duty as a neutral power, to prohibit any ef the belligerent powers arming their vefiejs in our ports, eorfequeutly to re ft ore to their proper owners pri w taken and brought in by ' veffils so unlawfully »rmed,~ or when taken within our line of jurifdicti c», I will only add here—That the principles of the rolrs on this fubjeft firft adopted by the Presi dent on the most mature deliberation received after •ward* the fan£ti6n of Congress, by their aft of the sth of June 1794, and of the Judges in all their' judicial proceedings, in the prize causes in queflion. If then the 17th article of die French treaty has been violated, the Executive, the Legislature and the Jodgea of the Federal Courts have all delibe rately concurred in the violation. This no Ame rican citizen will be inclined to believe, and we wight suppose that the confederation of luck cols,, ,currence in one opinion would-any where produce] a pause, and some diffidence in pronouncing it er roneous. Neither the rules adopted by the Prefi. dent nor the aft of congrcfs have made a new law refpefling fucb prizes : tlicy have only directed the nodtt ef proceeding try fv \l VU r neutral duties agree ably tc tie unitierjal lav/ of nations. The judges bav< applied this law j but not without doe atten tion to the obligations of our treaties, which they regardasfupierae laws oft he land. * Letter, June 8, 1795. St*te papers, p. 75. -1. Mr. Adet "protests agatnd the riolatioß of " the 17th article of the treaty, i;' contempt of " which English vessels, -which had made prize or> 4 « Frenchmen, have been admitted into the ports o! " the United States." The conftrn£lion >.f this part of the 17th article for which Mr. Adet, after 'his predecessor Mr. Fauchct, contends, it this— That if a national (hip of war of the enemies of France has at any lime, and in any part of the globe, made prize of a French veflel, such (hip of war is to be allowed no (belter or refuse in our ports, utt lefs file is driven in through Hrefs of weather ; and then (he is to be made to depart as foen at polfi ble. On the contrary, the conllrudtion adopted by the F-xecutive of the United States, and exprefled in the rules before mentioned, which had been trans mitted to the colle&ors in August 1793, was thi ■ — That privateers only of the enemies of France were absolutely excluded from our ports, except as be fore, when compcljcd to enter through llrsrfs of weather; putfuant to the 22d article of the trca ty ; while the national (hips of war of any other nation were entitled to an asylum in our potts, ex ceptirig those which (hould have made prize of the people or property of France, coming in with their prizes. On the 9th of September 1793, the Secretary of State thus expressed to the Bririlh miwifter the determination of the Executive.* u The public [kips " of -war of both nations [French and Enijlilh] " enjoys perfect equality i«, our ports—ill, inca " fesof urgent nescfikv—2d, in cases of cotnfort " »nd convenience—<3c 3d, in the time theychoofe '• to continue, and though the admission of prizes " and privateers of Frauce 11 exclafive, yet it is the " efttift of treaty/' Jcc. In fuppojt of onr conftruftion of the treaty, it has been oUferved, that " fthe firft part of the " 17th article relates to French ships of war and " privateers entering our ports with their prir.es : " the 3d, coniralls the situation ot the enemies of " France by forbidding such as (hall have made prize of the French ; intimating from this con " ne£lio« o* the two elaufes, that those forbidden, " are <h»fe which bring their prizes with them." To thcfe obfervatians I- will add—That if the lite ral ivnftru&ian contended for by the French mi r.iflers were admitted, then although the public ships of war which had made prize of French people or would be excludeo from oar ports, yet the prizes of such public (hips might be received, and they might be fold too ; far the prohibition in the 22d aiticle of the treaty applies only ta priva teers and their prizes ; while the government of the United States judged that the 17th article was in tended to exclude the prizes made en the French by public (hips as war as well at those made bypri vateers ; and gave directions accordingly to have thera excluded. Further, if it had been intended to exclude from our ports th * public /hips of war of the enemies of France, coming "without any prize, then they would doubtless have been comprehended in one provision with the privateers in the 22i ar ticle : for privateers are thereby excluded, whether they came with 01 without prizes. But public (hips of war are not comprehended, or at all referred to in the 2id article ; whence the conclusion is fair, that it was no! intended to forbid them coming alone { and consequently that the exclusion provi ded in the 17th article applies ta them only when they would come into our pons -with their prizes ; this last claufc of the fame article being in its form opposed to the firft clause which admits the entrance of French (hips <with their prizes. Betides, if a public ship of war of the enemies of France comes into our ports without any prize, how is it to be known whether (he has or has not made prize of the people or properly of the French ? Who is to create a tribunal to inweftigate and pronounce on the fa& ? Bui if (he comes with a prize the cafe presents no difficulty ; (he brings with her the Evi dence which goes to the exclusion of her and h»r prize. I mud now advert to some others of Mr. Adet's charges against the government of the United Slates. I ift. "It [the government of the Ulfited State*] j " put in question whether it Ihould execute the j " treaties, or receive the agents of the rebel and " proscribed princes." And is there any thing in this uujuftifiable or extraordinary ? Was it easy for a nation distant as ours, to obtain promptly such accurate informal ion as would enable it duly to e ft i mate the varying condition of Fiance? In 1791 the eonflitution formed by the conllituent afltmbly was accepted by Louis the 16th ; it was notified to the United States in March 1792. Congress tltfirod the Prcfident to communicate to the king of the French their congratulation on theOccafioq. In 1792 the kinjf was suspended. In Sep temhr'r royalty was aboliih-'d; and in January '93, Loais the 16th tried and condemned by the con vention, fuffererf death. Was it easy to keep paca with the rapid futvtiiion of such revolutionary e veats ? And wa« it unlawful for our government ur.drr such cirrumftances even to deliberate ? I do ■ ret that information of the death of the king : was received from oar miVifter at Paiis until May ift, 1793. The news howevet had previously ar rived in such manner as to attrad the attention of government; for in April the President had deter mined to receive a minister from the F+encti repab. lie. And it is remarkable that this was before he knew that a minister had arrived in tbe United States. This promptitude in deciding a leading question dees not,bear any strong marks of hesita tion. And was there 110 merit in this Tcady de termination to acknowledge the French republic ?'' ! Had it been before acknowledged by any power /Ten the glnbe ? How long did France Fxfttate to the republic of the United States? j A year and a half. And under what circuradances j was the acknowledgment finally made ? Aftfr the: capture of a whole British army appeared to have . eftablilhed our independence. But of this more j hereafter.—ln matters of importance (and what i could de more important than the decifiun ofa neu. | tral and allied nation on queliions perhaps involving j war or peace ?) is it the part of wisdom to rqe# jail deliberation even on paints whisk do net #bvi- * Sta'e papers, p. 77. f Secretary of State to Mr. F»ud»«t, jejpt. 7,1794, otafly pvefent diSk ul'tes? Will not prudence d'e tatr 10 ! im who is to decidc great national quef tionsTather to deliberate long than rifle the coafe quence of hasty decilions ? 2,1. " It made ail in£dious proclamation of neu- .tiality." I have already remaiked that this proclamation received the pointed approbation of Corigrefs; and I might truly add of thegre.it body of the citi zens of the United Slates. And what was the general objedt of this proclamation? To picferve us in a (late of peace. And have not the miniftcrs of France declared that goveinment did not desire us to enter into the war ? And how was peace to be prVferved ? By an impartial Neutrality. And was it not then the duty of the chief magi strate to proclaim this to -our civzerss, and to in form them what a&9 would be deemed departures from their neutral duties ? This was done by the prochtraation. It declared it to be the du'y, inter est an 1 disposition of the United States to adopt and ptirfue a co; du<st friendly and impartial to ward the belligerent powers: It warned the citi zens to avoid all acts yvhich might contravene that disposition : it declared that whafoever of the ci tizens (hould render himfelf liable to or forfeiture under the law of nations, by comnfftisg or abetting hostilities igainft any of those powers, or by carrying to any of them Articles deemed con traband of war, would not receive the protection of the United States against such punifcment and forfeiture: and that the Pivfident had given,in ftrnftiotn to the proper officers to prosecute all per sons who Ihould violate the'aw of nations wttb re fpecVto the powers at war or any of them. To what in all thi« can the epithet inftdious be applied ? On the contrary, is not the whole tranfadion Damped with candor and good faith ? 3d. " By its chicaneries, it abandoned French " privateers to its couris of jtiftice." Abandoned them to its courts of jujlice ! Sir, yon know many ef the judges personally, and nil of them by repu tation, and that their characters need no vindication from fuoh an infinuationi They are judges with whole adminifttation of juftiee our citizens are fa tisfied i and we believe they may challenge the world to furnilh a proof that they have n«t admi nistered juftiee with equal impartiality to foreign ers. I will only add here one remark, that the correspondences with the French remitters formerly published joined to those now furmfbed you with the other documents accompanying them, will (how how htudly they can complain of the proceedings in our courts, and at the fame time with how lit tle juftiee. 4th- " It eluded the amicable mediation of the " republic, for breaking the chains of its citizens " at Algiers." We did not entertain any doubt of the friendly disposition »f the French republic to aid us in tfail bufinefj. Bui what was teally dune we have never known. You will find herewith Mr. Fnuchet's letter of June 4th, 1794, aad the answer of the fecretiiy of lUte, on tbe6ih, to which Mr. Adct refers. The infoi mation en the fubjefi, which Mr. Fauchet expe&cd " in a little time from En rope," probably never arrived : at least it was never communicated to our government. There is surely in the secretary's answer, no evidence that our go vernment were unwilling to .accept the mediation ef the republic. On the contrary, we have relied upon it to aid our tiegoiiaiiuns with the Barbary powers. Accordingly, when colonel Humphreys went from hence in 1795, clothed with powers for negotiaring peace with those dates, he was particularly in iiru&ed to solicit the mediation of the French republic ; and for that purpose only, he went from Lifban to Paris, where, through our minider, the committee of Public Safery mniiifcftcd their dif position to contribute to the success of his miffiou. But colonel Humphreys was at the fame time au thorised to depute Jofcpfe Dor.aldfon, cfquite, (who had been appointed confiif of the United States for Tunis and Tripoli, and who went wi;h colonel Humphreys from America) to negotiate iramedi atcly a Ueaty with Algiers : for in a country where a negotiation depended on so many contingencies, it was of the laH imparlance to be ready to feii; the favorable moment to e(Fc4\ a peace whenever it (heuld offer* Such a moment prefeutcd on Mr. Dosaldfon's arrival at Algiers. He had not been there forty-eight hours before the treaty, was con cluded. It is also a fa& that it was effected with out the aid of the French consul at that place. However, with respect to Mr. Donaldfon's nego tiation, we are well infortned that «■ His net eon " ferring with the consul of France was not his " fault; and if he had done it, that it would have " injured his cause. Neither the republic nor her " consul enjoying any credit with the dey." But we are at the fame time informed that the caule of this was transitory, and ought not to hinder us from endeavoring to engage hei* interest sos other places and in t%at place for future occasions. Agreeably ta this idea, the agent ps the United States ap plied to the French consul, Herculais, at Algiers, the last Spring, to recommend a fuitablc person to negotiate a treaty with Tunis. The person recom mended was employed, and we have been informed, had in part succeeded, and was expected to com plete a treaty ofpeace. This information was com. municated to our minider at Paris, in a letter dated 30th of August last, from the French miniftet for toreign affairs, accompanied by an excradt cf a let ter from the consul Herculais. In all these Hanfaftions, far from difcovertng a trace of evidence ts support Mr. Adet's charge, the revcrfe is manifefily proved. sth. " Net wit hftaiiding treaty fy'ptilationi, it " allowed ta be arretted vefrcls of the Hate." While we admit the fail that French vefTtls have been arretted, we dehy that the arreils have in fringed any treaty ttipulationa- The details in this letter and the documents referred to appear to US' entirely to .exculpate the government. And if neither the executive nor our tribunals could in aay wife take cognizance ef captures which the French privateers called frizes then they might take our own veffejs in our rivers and harbors and our citi. Zens be without redress. But: " *it is an ciTential " attribute of the junWiftion of every country to * Letter fr»m the Secretary of State to Mr. Morris, Aviguft 16) »7Ji, Sute Papers, page " priicrv tvac ■. 'o pmtifh afls in h-rach of if, ** and ta ftHufe p.upnty idketi by iorcc vvitliiij " its limits. Were the drmcd vtffcls of any na'. " tion to cut away one of our o*n from ihe " wharves »f Philadelphia, and tociiufe to call it " a piize, would this exclude us from the right of " reditffing the wrong ? Were it the vcffel of ano " iher nation, are we n#t equally hound to protect " it, while within our limits? Were it fiized m " any other waters or on the shores of the United " States, the right of tedrc-fling is Hill the fame; " and humble indeed would be jui condition were " we obliged to depend for that on the will of a " foreign cotiful, ar on negotiation with diploma tic agents." The fame reasoning will apply to captures made by illegal privatceis; that is, by fiieh as wereann ed and equipped 1b the pons of the United Stales j for it being by the law of nations the tight of our government, ai:d at a neutral p,>wer, iis duty tu prevent such armaments, it mull also be its right and duty .by all means in its piower, to teftrain the i arts of such arincoaent» done in violation of ug rights and in defiance of its authority. And'fuch wetethe armaments made by French people in the ports of the United States. And the mod effec tual means o defeating their unlawful pradticet was the feiznig of their prizes whe.: trought with in our jmifdi&mn. it is very puffible, iuiieed, that in feme cales the initaced subjects or public agents of n.-.:ions whose jSrcperty was taken bv French p ivateeis might commence vexatious pru fseuticjns: but this it tip more than happens fre quently our own citizens, and in every na tion in the w^rld; and the only rcftraints on the vindictive of men, in fu h cases, which the policy of free governments has, imposed, are the damages which the courts compel the mtlieiou* prosecutor to pay to the injured par.y. If, as Mr. Adet affeits, damages have in Uv® cases only been granted by the cjurts to French privatierS, even when the deciiions have been in their favor, it has arisen from their own c#nduft ; or the om'ffion of their counsel; or from accidental circumllances,' which, ir. the opinian of the courts, furnifhed rea. fonable preemptions agnintt them of having vio lated, the laws, either by illegally arming in our ports or making the captures within our juiifdic tien. If, on the other hand, tfa. y have, in tha event of con rary decisions, been always condemn, ed te pay damages we may ven'ure to fay, it was because they were always in the wrsng. For no one will 6nd fufficient ground to impeach the idif> cernmeat or integrity of our courts 6th. " It fuffered England, by insulting its " neutrality to interrupt its commerce with Francc." That our commerce has been interrupted by the armed vessels of England, and sometimes with cir cuailtancesof insult, wt certainly ihall r,ot attempt to deny: the universal rsfentracHt and indignation excited by those injuries, were admiffians of the {*& : but that the government has coinived at the practice (for that Mr. Adet mull have intended to infitituleby the ward " faffcied") all its ads mot forcibly contradict. It was because of those ag"- greffions that preparations far war were commenced; and to demand fatiifaftion for them was the leading objedt of Mr. Jay's miflioa to London. Satisfaftioa was demanded ; and the arrangements agreed on for rendering it, are low in execution at London. But if by " fuffered" Mr. Adet means that we did not arm, that is, make war on England, to obtain the indemnification, when humanity, reason and the law of nations prefciibe the mode of pre viaus peaceable demand—to thei'e very principle* we may appeal for our juftification ; if it is ne. crfiary to go further, we fay, That, as an inde pendent nation, we mult be left to determine in what manner we can mo ft beneficially obviate an evil, and when it is most preper !or us to repel an injury. To deny us this right of judgment, is 1® deny our independence. We have .not been mfeßfi ble either to our honor or our iotcreft. If we have manifefted much leng-fuffenng, we have not been fmgwlar. Neutral nations very commonly en dure many temporary evils ; because these appeal light when compared with the calamities of war} and ihey lock forward, as we have done, to a period when returning juflice may redress their wrongs. Tins period, we trust, will arrive in regard to thof« we are now fuffcring from the French republic. If a nation not bound to us by treaty, and betwee* whom and ourselves adtual circumttances am! many recollcftions tended to excite peculiar paffiofii, en. gaged to tender us justice, shall wis expedt less of an avowed friend ? We may hci* properly enquire, what could have been the of the parties on this point when the treaty of 1778 was nude betweea France arid the United States ? She knew that notwith ttanding the extent of our count! y and its rapid increase in population, many years must tlapfe be. foie we could form a powerful navy to proltrdi our commerce. She knew the conduit of maritimd powers in all their wars : particularly she was ac* qsainted with the maxims and measures of Eng» land, towards the commerce of r.eutral nations, in all her wars with France. And if knowing ilitfe things, France then expefled that in all subsequent wars we fhouid compel the maritime powers in ge neral and Great Britain in particular to admit cur commerce to peifeft freedom, then inltead of a treaty of commcrct containing regulations f </■ r, conducting it, when France fliould be at war, flic would have demanded from ue a flipulation, that in ereiy future war ia which we ftiould be engaged nith any oth«r maritime power; we also fliould etr. gage in if as her associate. But this is a condition which France w*as too just to demand, and to which the United State* would never have agreed, [Tip be Continued Philadelphia and Lancaftei* Company, 5 . January & 1797. . * of the President and, Managers, a di» vidend of five dollars per (hare, was <lecl»rfd for the law half year, which will be paid tQ the -Stepkholder6> or their representatives any t>me after the »tft «f th» mouth. TENCH FRAftCJS, Treasurer, Jan. 6. * ■»
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers