Letter to .-5' V. Pitukney, ■ Minijier PlempHtcihiary of the United States to the French Republic. Continued. [CON TIN U.E D.J Vie fee then, that in forming cojine&ions with us in i-; 8, the Court of France, the a<9ual organ of the lotion, liad 110 regard to the interest of the United Spates.: but that their objeA was, by feiiting the f:on of dismembering the British empire, to diminish the power of a formidable rival : anithat when, after we had carried on a d ift re fling war for seven years, the great objeA for which we had contended, Independ ence, was within our rearfi, that Court endeavored to postpone the acknowledgement of it by GreSt Britain, irnl eventually to deprive us of its faireft fruits—a just extent of territory—the navigation of the Miffifippi— Tiind the Fishery. Snch'being the motives arid condu<S of France, what ir.fpired our truly gratefal fentiraents towards that na -tion ? The ardent afl'edlion, the fincerr friendftiip of A >.iericans to Frenchmen ? We were engaged in a com mon caofrajiirtft Groat' Britain— received loans of lnonry.—we were aided by troops aad Aips in attack ing and conquering tke common enemy in the t.ofom o. our country ; and this afiociation in war produced -acquaintances and perfooal friendships : and experienr ingthefe benefits, we gave way to our feelings, with out inquiring into themotives from which they were rendered. But why are we so often reminded of the debt of -gratitude? Is it really more than gratitude—because compensation is txpefled, to cancel it ? If compensati on is the objeiS, tire treaty of alliance has absolved the claim—" The_contraaing parties declare, that being u resolved to fulfil, each on its own part, the clauses •' and conditions of the present treaty of alliance, ac ' lts own power and circumstances, there ' Jball.be no after claim ef compensation, rm one fide or ' tneither, whatever may bethe event of the war." ■ lam here naturally led to notice Mr. Adet's charge, already mentioned, —That iue have not offered to France the fuse ours which friend/hip might have given •without comprmiit'mg the government. If Mr Adet had fpecified the kind of succours which might thus have been offered, we could better iudjre of the correflnefs of his assertion. But is it true that we have rendered no succours so t ' le following paflages in the Secretary of State s letter of the i&th of August, 1703, to Mr. Morris. ■« \\ e recoiled* with fatisfatfion, that in the « eourfeof two years, by unceasing exertions, we paid up seven years arrearages and instalments of our debt to France, which the irtefficac-y of our firft form of government had fufiered to be accumulating; that " pressing on still to the entire fulfilment of our en gagements, we have facilitated to Mr. Genet the ef " fe<3 of the inftalmentsof the present year, to enable him to fend relief to his fellow-citizens in France, threatened with famine ; that in the firft moment of , U? e "^ which threatened the colony of St. •' Domingo, we stepped forward (so their relief with arms and money, taking freely on ourselves the rife "Of an unauthorized aid, when delay would have been denial'' —that we have given the exclusive ad mission to fell here the prizes made by France on her enemies in the present war, though unftipnlated in our treaties, and unfounded in her own pradlice or ♦' in that of other rations, as we believe.'' To this detail I hjve to add, That, of all the Loans and luppl.;, received from France in the .Vtnericau War, amounting nearly to fifty-three millions of livres, the United States u:i<W their late G»v«rnment had been enabled to pay not two millions and a half of liv ics ; that the present government after paying tip the arrearages and instalments mentioned by Mr. Jefferfon, has been continually anticipating the fubftquent inftal menti, untii in the year 1795 the whole of our debt to france was discharged, by anticipating the payment of eleven millions and a half of livres ;.no part of which ■would have becomc due until the second s>f September, 1796, and then only one million and a half 1 the resi due at subsequent periods ; the last not until the year lies. ' 1 There remain yet various passages in Mr. Adet's Notes on which some observations are to be made In my lettrr of the firft of November last, in an swer to Mr. Adet's note of Oflober 47, in which he communicated the Decree of the Executive Directory of the 2d of July last, declaring that the flag of the republic of France ihould treat the flag of neutrals in the fame manner as these {hall fuffer it to be treated by the English, I afeed an explanation of the decree ; men tioning the circumstances which excited doubts. There feeraed to be lufficient cause for enquiry. Had the Decree referred to the paji captures by the i nglilh, our knowledge of them would have been some guide in forming our epinion of tne threatened captures by tl* French : but the operation of the decree was to depend on the future condutf of the English ; the French were to treat the flag of neutrals as these [/hallfuffer it t» be* treated by the Englift. As this could not be as certained beforehand, we wiftied to know whether the restraints then exercised by the British Government were com'idsred as of a nature t* juftify a denial of those rights which were pledged to us by our treaty •with Fiance ? Whether the orders had aSually been given to eapture the veflels ef the United States ? And ■if given, what were the precise terms of those orders ? Mr. Adet in his reply fays that I appear not to have linderftood either the Decree of the Direflory or his Note which accompanied it. The meaning of the Decree is certainly not very obvious. The manner of executing it, was declared to depend on a contingency —the future condncft of the Englift. How were the French cruifcrs in the four quarters of the World, to determine v>hat was the condufl of the Englift at any given time ? If he could have furnifted a copy of the orders afloally given to French armed vefTels, under the decree, we might have seen clearly what were the in tentions of the Directory. If we are to take the prac tice of the French armed veflels and of some of the )'reach tribunals as the true illustration of the decree, Mr. Adet's own explanation will be very defedlive. Ho has fpecified only two cases, the taking at Englift (or other enemy's) property on board American vessels and the seizure of all the goods classed ,1 contraband in our treaty with; Great Britain. In the cafe of contraband the seizure of them is lawful only when they are deßjned to the.ports of enemies; and 'the contraband goods only are liable to confifration. But the fperial a gents of the Directory in the Weft-Indies order the leizure of all vefTels-haying on board contraband goods, r,o matter whether destined to an enemy's, or to a neu- 1 tral, or even tea French port j and when seized, they < «onmcate not merely the contraband articles, but all , other goods, and the vessel hcrfelf in which they are laden. They also afiigt, in their decrees of confifcation another came of capture and condemnation— that the American vessel has failed to or from a port in pufiTeffi- I on of the Englift. We art not informed that the En- 1 gblh take any neutral vessels for this cause. We have heard of Tevcral American vessels being captured and ' onfifcated by the French merely because they had not 1 a fc-a-letter, when no doubt could have been entertain r'l "[ the property being American. Yet it is concciv- 1 rd that the- want of a f«a letter was never intended to ( .rachitic other proof* of'property.. Further, ought we to have imagined that the I ecutive J)ire£tory intended to leave it to the rfiT'.wtioc of every privateer, and of every inferior tribunal to judge what at any time fulfequtnt to . I heir decree was the eflua'l treatment received by f American vessels from "the Britift > Ought we t° have imagined that the decree was formed in such indefinite terms on purpdfe to give scope for arbi trary conftru&ion, and consequently for Unlimited e . oppreflion ? Ought we to ha»e imagined what Mr/ d' Adet has himfelf declared to fee the meaning of the . decree, that the French armed vcfTcls were not to content themfelvcs wuh capturing American vef- T having English property or contraband .goods e on board, and getting such property and goods J condemned by their tribunals ; but if any English commanders were to praaife «< vexations" towards ft Americans, that Frenchmen were to do the fame ? - Ought we to have imagined that the Diicftory in tended the citizens of France rtiould be encouraged t to take revenge on their frie»(Js for the outrages of " their enemies ? And wliat is to limit fhefe vexati . on « ■ If one Englift commander in a hundred per f. verfely and wanteul) abuses his power, is every French officer to become his rival in dishonor ? Or 1 we are to fuffet only meafuFe far measure (and i surely the decree goes not beyond this) who is to designate the every hundredth French officer who ' is to be the instrument of similar oppression ? But French armed vessels are to wake all these f "P tare ' ln of the treaty, and we arc to e fuffer all these vexations in violation of reafan and - humanity, while we endure them from the Englift f " without an efficacious opposition !'' And what > •ppefition will be deemed ejicacioui t For all cap ' tures made by the British contrary to the law of ea 'jo"' have, agreeably to tkat law, demanded fa r f'?? ' rhe hs(Ve engaged to make us atisfattian ; and commissioners are now fitting to , liquidate those demands. What opposition could 0 have been more efficacious ? What further oapefiti • on can be lawful ) t Instead of further comment* on this -fubjedt, let f mc present to yon some passage* in Mr. Adet's let ter of the 14th of July 1795.* In this letter he , communicated to the secretary of state the decree ' °f 'he committee of public fafety of the 3d of Ta. • nuary repealing the sth article 01" the de j crce of the 1 yth of November 1794.! The lat t ter violated our treaty by fubjefting the property r of the enemies of France on board American ves t iels to capture, and by adding to the lift of ,rti . cles contraband : It was therefore repealed by the ■ Mr. Adet feired this occasion to make ■ the following declaration. «« Yrvu will fee, fir, f „ ,n b , otl » C th e decrees] the undisguised difpafitton and fmcere desire of the French go -1 " y e ["ment religiously to obfeive the engagements ' : it has contrasted with it. allies, and its readiness ; to redrrls inflations which have never taken • " place but from the impulse of circumstances." It is arm id ft her triumphs that the republic loves ' . " to give this striking mark of, its fidelity. Vic- 1 " torious France knows no otherconcern than that ' of justice—no other diplomatic language than truth, to this justice, to this fidelity, we now make our appeal : < From the ftil< of Mr. Adet's complaint of the 1 British Iwgfufered to arm in our ports, it might 1 be imagined the instance* were numerous. None 1 were permitted ; the aHual armaments were few : 1 and are as old as the year 1793, and were repre 1 fented by Mr. Genet to the secretary of state. 1 What answer (aflc. Mr. Adet) did the govern- 1 ment give to the representations of the minister 1 ot the French republic in this refpc& ? It said 1 that these vefTels failed too Suddenly ; that it \yas ' " not able to cause them t»be stopped." The an- 1 fwer was given by the secretary of state in different ' words.J " Those from Charleston and Philadelphia 1 have gone off before it ivat known to the govern " ment, and the former indeed in the firft moments ! " of the war, and before preventive measures could be taken i« so diflant a port." In the cafe of 1 the Trusty Captain Hale, at Baltimore, the Go- 1 vernor of Maryland having been informed that she 1 had been buying gun, had given orders to examine « the fatt •« but /he got off before the officer could ' get on board, having cleared ftit three or four ' da y s before." I have not ebferved that Mr. ' Genet ever renewed his complaint with regard to { any of these vessels, Whence f suppose he was fa- 1 , tished with the answer : as indeed l.e ought to J f"' of-,"', ,T tc two En « li ' b "ffels that failed I from - tiiladelphia escaped even the vigilance ef the k French ConfulJ —both had departed many days be- " fere he had been informed of them. Thisisftated 8 by the Consul himfelf in his report of the 21ft of June 1793, to Mr. Genet. And yet the govern ment is now charged by Mr. Adet with violating the treaty because it did not stop them !—Altho' the officers of the United States had been requi-ed to be watchful, and to report all illegal armaments in our ports, yet it was Natural for the government to cxpeft to derive information from the French Consuls, who doubtless were charged by their own government labe particularly vigilant in regard to all attempts at such armaments by the «nemies of the republic. Mr. Adet remat ks that " some inba " ,aa, I Bef the Um'ed States had aided in these " illegal armaments of the enemies of France and aftcs, «« what measures were taken agaiuft them ? Wat any fearcli made todifcover them—to pro " fccutethem ? Nevc,"_Y, t the veiy letter from Mr. Genet to the secretary of state, in which and its inclofures Mr. Adet has found this fubjeft of complaint, fuggafts a different conclusion. "IS " learn with pleasure (fays Mr. Genet) by your b " letter of the 23d of this month [June 1793] ' that the government of Georgia have caused to a be flopped a vefTel armed in that state, for the K " purpose of cruising against the French, and that lj " the perfors interested in this vessel will be pro- h " fecuted."|| r ti I ftiall fay but a few words on the fubjeft of the 0 letttrs of which Mr. Adet complained they n ' remained unanswered. The firft (of Sept. 29th, u '79f) contained those reproachful insinuations u which were recited in ray letter o.f the ift of Nov. b' Wh T w e.e these introduced by bira if they were not to Le applied ? An answer was draughted on thefubjea of his letter, with animadverfians®n tl # '—: —-— 1 cf 14th Nivofe- 3d year. • r fl f 25 th BrumaiVc, 3<i year. £ Stats Papers, p. 4 r. Juce jc, 170 c. ' J State papers, p. 41. ll j| State >>apsi», p. 40. ' thole inSnuations : bt: desiring to avoid irritat; >ns > the answer was not sent. It was deemed of the l less consequence, feeing in ray letter to Mr. Mon roe of Ihe 12th of September 1 1795, the fenti i, menu and reasonings of the government o» that . and other fubje&s relating '.«> France had been fully t cxprefied, to enable him to make immediate com -1 munications to the French government itfelf *; and it was hoped That the information given in that let s tec, and in otheis written to him the preceding s finamer, would have furnifhed materials (and that 1 these materials would have been timely used) foi s such representations as would have fatisfied the ? French government, that the United States, in . forming the treaty with Great-Britain, had only J exercised an indifputablc right : and neither by f that treaty nor any other aft had infringed a fin . gle article of our treaties with France. On the fubjeft of the imprefles of our seamen, f mentioned in Mr. Adet* s letters ef March and A r pril 1796, I (hall only add, that nothing was more J notorious than that those imprefles had excited uni > rerfal refentw.ent in the United States, and been j the fubjeft of repeated remonstrance from our go vernment to the British court. Thus in Mr. Pinck c ney's note to .Lord Grenville in Aug. 1793, which > was published here that year, in the fame colle&ian 1 of State paper* with Mr. Jefferfon's letter of Sep ! tember 7th* which Mr. Adet has quoted, and on I the sth page next succeeding it, we find the so! lowing : " Under this head, it may be observed, . " that for want of arrangements being made for . " the feenrity of American seamen in the ports«f I " this country (England) they are fubjeft to the , " various hardships Mr Pinckney'has so frequently | " detailed to Lord Grenville." And in the next ■ P a i? e i ' n his letter to Mr. Jefferfon, Mr. Pinckney fays—" The protection afforded our seamen re " mains also on the fame footing ; they (the Bri " tifti government) protrfs a wiUingnefs to secure , 1t to us all real American seamen, when proved to " be such ; but the proof they will not dispense " with." To remove as far as poflible the embar rassments irifing ftom this cause, and more efieftii ally to protest our seamen, was the ohjeft of a bill pending in congress, and the fubjeft of public dc bate, at the time I received Mr. Adet'i letters. This bill was paflsd into a law. All these acts demonstrated that the government did not aflent, but on the contrary that they refif tcd the impressment of American seamen ; and this refinance has been continued confeqtiently we cannot be charged on this ground with a violati on of our neutrality. Among the former fubjefts of complaint not now renewed by Mr. Adet, is that against the go vernment for permitting the purchase and exporta tion of horses, by British agents, in the course of the lift winter and spring. The correspondence on this fubjeft 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 felling to them all kinds of merchandise, or permitting them to come and purchase the fame commodities in neutral territory ; in the latter cafe, not refufing to one power at war what it permits another to purchase ; with this exception in refpeft to articles contraband, that if the cruisers of one of the bel ligerent powers meet at sea with neutral veflels la den with such articles destined to the potts of their enemies, the neutral veflels may be captured, and the contraband goods will be lawful prize to the captors : but the refidne of their cargo and the veflels themselves ire to be discharged. But if there were a»-y doubt on this paint under the law of nations, there can be none in relation to France and the United States ; because this mat ter is specially regulated by their treaty of com inercc. 1 his treaty, so far from retraining the trade of either party remaining neutral, while the other is engaged in war, provides regulations agree ably to which it Jhould be couduSed. The 12th and 13th articles authorize either par. ty that is at war, to flop the neutral merchant ve(- fels of the other destined to the ports of an enemy, upon just grounds of suspicion, concerning the voy age or the lading. If on examining the (hip's pa pers it appears there are any contraband goods on board " consigned for a port under the obedience " of his enemies" (he may be earned into port, and the contraband articles may, by regular pro ceedings in the admiralty, be conhfcated : " saving " always as well the fliip itfelf as any other goods , " found therein, whieh by this treaty are to be ef " teemed free : neither may they be detained on " pretence ot their being as it were infected by ! " the prohibited goods, much less (hall they be " confifcated as lawful prize."—lt further pro- ! vides, that if the matter ef the neutral (hip (hall be willing ta deliver the contraband goods to the cap. tor, and the latter receives them, then is the neu i tral (hip to be forthwith discharged and allowed freely to profeiute her voyage. The 23d article ' goes further—if the neutral (hip (hill have on board the inemiet of the other " they are not to be taken " ont unless they aieftidier; in allualfervice." These articles are so explicit, it may seem strange that a donbt (hould arise concerning them ; I pre sume no doubt did arise j for Mr. Adet, overlooking these provisions of the treaty, demanded that the government (hould flop the exportation of horses, by the British, upon the principle that it was a neu tral duty required by the law of nations. An 1 answer was given to his demands* in which the re- 1 gulations of our treaty with France were particu- 1 larly 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 ef fight. An answer was given to these re- > newed claims ; and we heard no more of the fubjeft < until the French privateers in the Wcit-Indies began 1 to capture American veflels which had horfet on 1 ' board. You will find amoog the documents on c this fubjeft, the copy of a decree of the citizens ' Victor Hugues and Lebas, the special agents of' 1 the Executive Dircftory in the windward islands, condemning an American vejjel and her entire cargo, r for having a small number ef horfet on board not ' hound to their enemy't but to a neutral port. And the special agents ground their decree on the advice r * Mr. Ad«t by mistake dates it September I,3th, s they rtce'vud from Mr. Adet, under the date of the c 14th Mcfridar, beingjuly 2d, 1796. This veflel - and cargo were tlrus condemned without the fight . of a Angle paper belonging tc» Her : the maftjr had t them in his pocket, and would have brought them f home, but for the recollection of the interpreter, • some hours after the sentence of condemnation had i been puffed. These citizens exercise indeed a very - brief authority. The process in the cafe of a second j; American vet Tel, which to complete her lading had t taken on board nineteen horfts, but which was alio t bound to a neutral port, was in this form. The s captain having come before one of the agents, he, 1 without any previous examination or hearing, id )' dressing himfelf to the captain, pronounced len s tence in these words—" 1 have your . vessel and cargo"—closing the sentence with op ptobious language. , Mr. Adet, on the 18th of May'laft, revived his . predeceflor's claim of right by treaty to fell their t prizes in our ports. This occafioncd the corref . pondeuce on this fubjedt, which you will 1 among the documents collected on this occaiion. . He contents himfelf, however, with considering it . as a right granted not positively, but by imp/ieation. , That is, because the treaty forbids the enemies of 1 France to fell their prizes in our ports —therefore it . grants to her a right of felling her prizes. As if my j friend's denial of a favor to my enemy, was in fact a grant of the fame favor to me. Tne limple , llatemeut of the ground of the claim would seem fnfficient to fhev that the treaty will »ot support f it. That tales of French prizes have been at all permitted, has been owing to the indulgence of the 1 government. This indulgence was cwntiuued until it interfered with a new positive obligation : an • obligation precisely the fame that France herfelf contested eight yearsfuhfequent to her treatv with us, and with the fame power. This obligation is found in the 24111 article of our treaty," and the , ifcth of the French treaty, with Great Britain. Thus France and the United States alike engaged to permit no enemy of Great Britain to arm priva teers in their ports, »r te fell their prices there, or in any maniier to exchange them. Consequently had I' ranee remained at peace, and we engaged ir. a war with Great Britain, our privateers wuuld not be permitted to fell theit prizes in French potts. And by the maritime law of France*, prize*, ex cept they are taken from her enemies, can stay in her ports bo more than 24 hours, unless compelled by temped to remain longer; and the sales of fych, prizes are forbidden under severe penalties. But notwithstanding the certainty of our rigi t to tar bid the fa/es of prizes in our ports, and notwitb. (landing the express legal command of the Chief Justice of The United States holding a circuit court m South-Carolina in May last prohibiting the falc of a particular prize (the Britirti ship Amity) at Charleston—the French agents fold the p.iz eve/Tel and the sale received the formal fanaion of the French consul. Yet even this affair has been made a fubjed of complaint by Mr. Adet, because the collefitor of that port rcfufed a clearance to the prize veflel thus fold in defiance of the authoirty of the United States ; and because he also delayed until, in a new cafe, he (hould get advice, to peimit the exportaticn of the cargo of the prize ship, which on a survey had been reported to be irreparable. indeed the French minister has difcorered an aptitude to complain. I may cite, as inftancei, his letters of the 9 th of January and 3 d'of March I7SKJ : the former, because the colours of France, which he had prcfented to the United States, were not permanently fixed and displayed before Con grtis : the latter, because some printers of Alma- Hacks, or other periodical publications it) the United States, in arranging the names of the foreign miniftere and agent, residing amongff us, had pla ed those of Great Britain before those of France and pain, i r. Adet desired my declaration in writing that the government of the United States had no concern m printing the works in wl,i?h the agents of the French ie H ublic were regiltered after those ■ , B " tal "' ' and ,hat the works themfelve* might be fupprefTd. J gav e him ananfwerjn writinr with my corfent to his publithing i, i n the news- EETtH y 10 W ' s The answer itates that ,n matter, of this kind the government | did no nor could not i H ,erfere. With regard t. 1 our for!""' i m " obfcrVf ' ,h>t in what concerns j our foreign relations, the President being the sole ! representative of the United States, fhey were 1 properly preferred to him. He received them ! de»ofit!d P °- h rCfpea ' a " d directed them 10 be , d pofitedwith our,national archives, that both might be prefervej with equal care. , « t! ? e " fumma 'y of complaints rx- I for f • De U Croix ' the F ™ch minister |ps ?" affa "'« <0 Mr. Monroe, our minister at Pans under the date of March 9 th, ,796, ,0 'It" ft la , ,terr « u " answer, under the | date of March , Jt h. These we're inclosed in Mr. Monroe s letter of the ,d of May, and received at the department of state on the 19th of July. .Copies of both papers, and an extract of so much of his letter as relates to the fubjeft, are .mono the do cunents now collefled. F ' rft complaint— I The inexecution fef treaties. 1 he courts of justice have taken and flill take cpgnifance of prize, brought by French priva tee" P 9rt, °/,he United States. , ,t, 2 f ' war ' lavc keen admitted into thole ports, even in cafe, prohibited by the 17th aT ic co 11c treaty ; that is, when they hare made prizes on t e French republic or its citizens ; and have also conduced thither their prizes. , 3<l ' 1 C °nf«l a r Convention has in two points become illusory. ,ft. For WRnt of g!yjng |he consuls the mean, ofhavmg their decisions executed in all difputesl between Frenchmen, of which the consuls have the exclusive ccgnifance. 2d. Because eju ges charged with issuing warrants for appie hend.ng French mariners who desert, require the original roll of the crew to bi firft pioduced. 4th. The arrest of the Corvette Le Caffius and her Cap tain. , r Second Complaint. The impunity of the out. rage committed or the Republic in the person of its Mimfter, the Citizen Fauehet, by the English ship Alnca. in concert with the Vice Cor ful of that nation, within the waters of the Uniud^tatcs. Valin, vt>L p. 7,jt.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers