&tiz&U 0 fUttiuhcPM?
A NATIONAL PAPER, PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS JOHN FENNO, No. 34 , NORTH FJFTH.STREET, PHILADELPHIA
[No. 12 r of Vol. IV..]
FOR THE GAZETTE.
No. VTI.
' I "'HE remaining obje&ion to the Proclama-
JL tion of neutrality, fuiil to be discussed, is
*hit it wai out of trtnc and unnecefiary.
To givee«lmir to this objeflion it is ?fkt'd—
why did n<»t the Proclamation appear when the
war comrostrict<i with Auftriaand t'ruffia f why
w»6 it forborne, tiUGre*'. Britain, Holland and
Spain became engaged ? why did not the go
vernment wait til! the arrival at Philadelphia
i>f the Minjfter of the Frenth Republic ? why
did it volunteer a declaration rot required of it
by any «f the b=llig-rent parties ?
'iy> moil of these questions falid an Avers have
already appeared in the public prints. Little
more can be done than to repeat & enforce them.
Austria a;;d Prufliaare not maritime powers.
Contraventions of neutrality as again II them
were not likely to take place to any extent, or
in a shape that would attra& their notice. It
woild therefore have been "useless, if not ridicu
lous, to have made a formal declaration on tfye
fubjeel, while they were the only parties oppo
sed to France.
But the reverse of this is the cafe with regard
to Spain, Holland and' England. These are ail
commercial maritime nations. It was to be cx
pe&ed, that their 'attention would b« immedi
ately drawn towards the United States, with sen
sibility and even with jealousy. It was to be
feared, that some of our citizcns might be
tempted by the profpeit of gain to go into
measures, which would injure them and coni
,mit the peace of the country. Attacks by some
of these powers upon the poflefiions of France
ju America were to be looked for as a matter of
.course. While the views of the United State*
as to that particular, were problematical, they
would naturally consider us as a power that
might become their enemy. This they would
have been the more apt to do, on account ©f
'thofe - public demenilrations of attachment to
the cause of France, of which there has been so
great a display. Jealousy, every body knows,
Specially if ftiarpened by resentment, is apt to
lead to ill treatment ; ill treatment to hoftil r .
In proportion to the probability of our being
regarded with-a fui'picious and cOnsequently an
unfriendly eye, by the powers at war with
-.Fiance ; in proportion to the danger of inapru
&o*K.teA being committed by any of our citizens,
which might occaiion a rupture with them—
the policy on the pare o the government, of
removing all doubt, as to its own difpofiiion,
of deciding the condition of the United
States, in tjie view of the parties concerned, be
came obvious and urgent.
Were the United States now what, if we do
lot raftily throw aw-ty the advantages we pof
fefH» they may expe& to hi in fifteen or twen
ty years; there would have been more room for
fn insinuation which hag been thrown out—
namely, that they to have feairod to
themselves some advantage, as the cotifiderkci- i
on of their neutrality y an idea however of which
the juilice and magnanimity cannot be com
mended. But in their present situation, with
their present (Irength and relources, an attempt
of that kind tould htive ohly served to display
pretentions at once excdFive and unprincipled. }
The chance of obtaining any collateral advan
tage, if itkh a chance there was, by leaving'a
doubt upon our intentions, as to. peace or war,
could not wifely have been put for.a single in
stant in competition wirh the tendency of a con
trary coiuludt to secure our peace.
T'ie conducivenefs of the declaration of neu
trality to that end was not the only recommend
ation to the adoption of the mcaiure. It was of
Yg'reM importance that our own citizens fliould
uiid>:rftand, as' soon as poflible, the opinion
■fohkb the government entertained of the na
ture of our relations to the warring parties and
of the propriety or exptdiency of our taking a
tide or remaining neliter. The arrangements
•of our merchants could not but be very different
ly afte&ad, by the one hypothetic, or the other ;
and it would neceflarily have been very de
trimental and perplexing to them to have been
left in unceitainty. It is not requisite to fay
how much our agriculture an-J other intereflt
would have been likely to have buffered, by erti
barrafcmenta to our merchants.
The idea of its having been incumbent on the
tgovernment to delay the measure for the com
ing of the Minister of the French Republic, is
as absurd as it is humiliating. Did the ex
ecutive stand in need of tht logic of a foreign a
gent to enlighten it as to the duties or interests
of the nation ? or was it baand toaflc his con
tent to a'ftep which appealed to itfelf confident
with the former and conducive to the latter ?
The i'enfc bf our treaties was to be learnt from
tfoe-trcitiesthemfelves. It was not difficult to
proßour.te before hand,' that we had a greater
interest in fhc preiervation of peace, than in a
-11 y advantages with which France might tempt
oar participation in the war. Commercial pr:-
vikges were all that (he could offer of reai
value in our estimation, and a mrte blanche on
thread would have been an inadequate recom
pence lor renouncing peace and committing
to the chances of so preca
rious and perilous a war. Besides, if the privi
leges which might have been caupetitd were pot
Saturday* July 27, 1793-
founded in a real permanent mutual inter <:(l—
of whit value would be the tj ez\y tfeat ftlould
concede them ? not th. ralciihrinn,
such cafe, to be npr>b a speedy refußiptirati A>! ■
them, with perhaps a quarrel as the preKxt ?
on the other hand may we not trull,' th-attoai
mercial privileges, which are truly founded in
mutual inUretf will grow out of that irtterrft ;
without the nectffity ul giving a premium lor
them at the expence ol our peace ?
To what putpofe then was the executive to
have waited for the arrival of the miniftcr !
was it to give opportunity to contention* discus
fions—to intriguing machinations—to die cla
mor* of a faction vDaa to a foreign intcreft ?
Whether the declaration of neutrality iflued
upon or without the requisition of any of the
belligerent po.wcrs, can only be known to their
rcfpe&ive ministers and to the proper offi
cers of our government. But if it be *ue that
it iflued without any such requiiition, it is an
additional indication of the wildom of the mea
sure.
It is of much importance to the end of preserv
ing peace, that the belligerent powers (houid
be thoroughly convinced of the finceri-ty of our
intentions to observe the neutrality we profefs ;
and it cannot fail to have weight in producing
this conviction that the declaration of it was'a
spontaneous adl— not stimulated by any requisi
tion cn the part of either of them—-proceeding
purely from our own view of our duty and iu
tereft.
It was not surely neceflary for the govern
ment to wait forfuch a requisition; while there
were advantages and no disadvantage* in antid-j
pating it. The benefit of an early notification
to our merchants, conspired with the considera
tion just mentioned, to recommend the course
which was pursued.
If in addition to the reft, the early manifefta
tion of the views of the government has had a
ny effedt in fixing the public opinion on the fub
jc&, and in counteracting the success of the ef
fort- which it was to be forefeen would be made
to disunite it, this alone wojild be a great re
commendation of the policy of having fuffered
no delay to intervene.
What has been already fa id in this and in pre
ceding papers affords a full answer to the sug
gestion, that the Proclamation-was unnecefiary.
It would .be a wade of time to add asy tiling
more.
But there has been a critrcifm several times
repeated, whicamay deserve a moment's atten
tion. It has been urged, that the Proclamation
ought to have contained some reference to our
treaties, and that the generally of the promise
to observe a conduct "friendly and impartial to
wa ds the belligerent powers oughc to have
been qualified with exprefltons equivalent to
these—" as far as may conjjjl ivitb the treaties of
the United States**
The infrrtion 6f such a clause would hare in
tirely defeated the objedt of the Proclamation,
by rendnring the intention of the government e
q./ivo«al. That objedl wasto assure the powers
at war and our own citizens, that in the opinion
of the executive it was confident with the duty
and interest of the nation to observe a neutrali
ty in the war, and that it was intended to pur
ine a condudl co responding with that opinion.
Words equivalent to those contended for would
.have rendered the other part of the declaration
nugatory ; by leaving it uncertain •whether tin
executive did or did not believe a JlateoJ neutrality to
be conjtjlent ■with our treaties. Neither foreign
powers nor our own citizens would have been a
ble to have drawn any conclusion from the
Proclamation, and both would have had a right
to consider ic as a mere equivocation.
By not inserting any such ambiguous sxpref
liqns, the Proclamation was fufceptjble of an
intelligible and proper conftrudion. While it
denoted on the on*; hand, that in the judgment
of the executive, there was nothing in our trea
ties obliging us to become in the xvdr, it
> left it to be utpe&cd on the other—that all sti
pulations compatible with neutrality* according
to the laws and usages of nations, would be en
forced. It follows, that the Proclamation was
in this particular exaiSly what it ought to have
been.
The words " make known the disposition of
the United' States" have also given a handle to
cavil. • It has been a Iked how could the Presi
dent undertake to declare che disposition of the
United States. The people for aught he knew
may have been in a very differenc sentiment .
Thus* a conformity with republican propriety
and modesty is turned into a topic of accusation.
Had the President announced his own dispo
sition, he would have been chargeable with egot
ism if not presumption The constitutional or
gan of ihte*ct>urfe between the United Stktes
and foreign nations whenever he (peaks to
them, it is in that capacity ; it is in the name
and on behalf of the United States, it mull
therefore be with greater propriety, that he
(peaks of their disposition than o( his own.
It is easy to imagine, that occasions frequent
ly occur in the communications to foreign go
vernments and foreign agents, which render it
necessary to speak of the friendihip or friendly
disposition of the United States,of their difpofit'wn
to cultivate harmony and good undemanding,
- 481-
to reciprocate neighbourly offices, ice. &c. It
i= usual for example when public mini iters are
for . i.wry erpreffio»» t«
be interchanged. It is presumable, that the late
toception of the French miniftcr did not pas»,
tvithovt some afiurance on the part of the Prefi
' dent of the friendly disposition of the United
StaUs towards France. Admitting it to have
happened, would it be deemed a* improper ar
rogation ? if not, why was it more so, to declare
the difpefition of the United States to observe
a neutrality in theexilling war ?
In all such cases nothing more is to he under
ilood than an official expreflion of the political
djfpotiftnof the nation inferred front rt* politi
cal relations, obligations and intetefts. It is
never to be supposed that the expreflion is meant'
to convey the precifit ilate of the individual fen*
timents or opinions of the great mafc of the peo
ple.
Kings and Princes speak of their own dispo
sitions. The ma giftratct. ef republics of the dis
positions of their nations. The Prefldent there
fore has evidently used the style adapted to his
thecriticifm upon it if plainly a ca
vil. PACIFICUS,
V ■$*?¥ Tfit wigimdti timiim' •
Mr. Russell,
THE qucftion whether a date is fuablc <Jr
nor, will fpeedrty arrest the attention of
the public. Every information on fa impor
tant a fabjsft, ought to have free circulation.
The rant of fihool-boy declamation, and the
thunder of partizan champions, will doubtlcfs
be palmed on the public for argument and
fact. To them then, early in the field,
and to oppofti to their bombast, real argu
ment, iffuingf om a man, whose abilities, in
tegrity, republican virtue, and unshaken in
dependence are known and acknowledged by
every citizen, I Tend you a copy of the opin
ion of Judge Cufhing, late chief juttice of this
Commonwealth, oh the fubjedV— with a re
quest that it may appear in the Centinel. It
was delivered in the cafe decided in the supe
rior court of the United States in February
last. The quefrion is not the fame in this
cafe, a l * in that which is now agitating ; but
the principles therein-contained apply with
additional weight in favor of n foreign ci
tizen. VERITAS. *
JUDGE CUSHING.
THE grand and principal qneftion in this
ca e is—whether a ffate can, by the federal
coniHtution, be sued by an individual citizen
of another Hate ?
The point funis not upon the law or'prac
tice of England, although perhaps it may be in
funic tneifure elucidated thereby, nor upon
the law of any other country whatever ; but
upo,n the cofiftitution effab iflied by the peo
pie of the United States; and particularly
upon the extent of powers given to the fede
nl judicial in the IdTe(sl inn «f the 3d article
of the constitution. It is there declated that
—" The judicial power stall extend to all
cafe ,in law and equity arilinp under this
constitution, the laws of the Unit«d S.tates,
or treaties made or which (hall be made un
der their authority ; to all cases affecting am
bnflTadors or other public miniJlers and con
sul»; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurifdiftion ; to cont'd verges between two
or more States and c itizens of another State;
between citizens of different States; between
cifiz"ns of the fame State claiming lands un
der grants of different States ; and between a
State and citizens thereof and Joreign States, citi
zens ar faijeOi."
Tie judicial power, then, is expressly fx
tendrd to " enntroverfus between a State and citi
zens of another State.'* When a c tiacn makes a
demand against a State, of which be is not a
citizen,-it is as really a contruverfy between
a State and a citizen of another State, as if
f»ch State made a demand agairil such citi
zen. 'Tiie cafe, then, feenis clearly to tall
within the letter of the conlt tution. It may
be fnggefted that- it could not be intended to
fubjsftaState to be a defendant, bccaii'e it
would affect the fovereiijnty of State*. If
that be the ckfe, what (hall we do with the
immediately preceding cli'u c, lt Contmccrfcs
between two or more bates,"—where a State
must of neceflity he defendant i If it was not
the.intent in the very next claul'e alio, that a
State inig'lt be made defendant, why was it
so exo'efled as naturally to lead to and com
prehend that idea ? Why was not an excep
tion m ule if one was intended ?
Again—What are we to do with the last
clause of the jeftjon of judicial powers, viz.
" tort'overJiei SrtL een a lute or the citizens there
of, ar.d foreign States or citizen i f"
Here again, States most be fitable or liable
to be made defendants by this clanfc which
has a (imilar mode nf language with the two
other clawfes I |iave remai ked npon. For it"
the judicial power extends to a controverly
between one of the United Stales and a fii
reignState, as the clause exprctfes, one ef
them must be defendant—And then, what be
come! of the A>vereignty nf States as. far at
filing affects it i But although the words ap
pear reciprocally to affect the S«ate here and
a foreign State, and put them on the fame
$o
[Whole No. 445.]
fioting as f.ir'as may bp, yet inftrnu tv may
fay—that the State l en-may U- but ca illicit
be sued—but that rfce foreign KfMc n u !-c
foed but cknftwt (ue. We snaf touch foreiun
foveieijjnties but not our own: Uiit i c'in
teive the re»fu\i of the thingj as \v.-il *s the
word? of the constitution, tend to (hew, rhat
the federal judicial powef i-xfench to a To't
brought by a f"teij;n state any one K'
the Uoited State?. Ooe of the perietal
government W3s for managing the af
fairs of peace and war, ai d the general'de
fence, which were impofiible to be conduftt d,
with fafety, by the States [tpnrctzh. Inci
dent to thef'e power?, and for preventing con
troversies between foreign powers or citizens
from rising to extremities and to an appell t»
the sword. a national tribunal was r.eceflavy,
amicably to decide tliem, and thus ward off
such fata!, public calamity. Thus, slates at
home and their citizens, and foreign itates
and their citizens aie put together wifhout
diftinClion upou the fame footii g, as far as
may Ik-, as to contrm e.riies between them.
So also with r Tpeft to cuntrnverfie * be
tween a ft.ite and citizens of another (lata
(at hoiijC l comparing all tie clauses togetler,
the remedy is reciprocal—tJic t!d>m to jofiiie
equal.' As controversies between flare and
(late, and between a (late and citizens < t' ano
ther ftjte, might tend gradually to i rive
dates in war and bloodflied, a d!flnter(;fteii ci
vil tribunal was intended to lie trftifo. i cf.to
decide Inch controvei fie;, and preserve peace
and fricndfhipv
Further ; if a (late is.entitled to judice in
the federal court against a citizen ofanother
State, why not I'ucß citizen the I'ate,
when the fajne iangu:.ge equally comprehends
both ! The rights of individuals, and the jus
tice due to them are as dear and precious as
tbo.fe of States—lndeed the latter ai.'e found
ed upon til - former ; and the great ri d and
ohjeft of them mutt be to fecu'eaud support
the rights ot ,ii)di\iduals, or elie van is go
vernment-
But still :t may be insisted, that this will
redoce Hates to mere corporations, and take
away al! rovereign'tj. As to corpoiatTons, all
states whatever are corporations or bodies pit.
litic. The onjy qucftioti is—What a:e their
powers !
As to individual States and the United
Starts, theronfhtntion marks the bovntlary
ot powers. Whatever power is depofitea
with the Union by the people for their own
nepeffary security, is so far a curtailirg of
tbfl power and prerogatives,of (lutes.
This :s, as it were, a felf evident proposi
tion ; at Jer.ft it clnnot be contested. Thus
the powers of declaring war—.making peace
—railing and ("upporting aim es for public de
fence—laying duties, excises and taxes, if
npceUaiy, with many other powersare lodged
in Conjtref**-and are a nioft essential abridge
ment of State sovereignty.
A»ain, the reftr'tftons upon states,
ftr)te (h ill enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation, coin money, emit bills of cre
dit, make any thing but gold and Jilver a ten
der in payments of debts, pals any law impair
ing the obligation of contracts; thef'e, with a
number of others, are imporrant reft ftiors
of the power of Hates, and were thought ne
celfary to preserve the Union—and to eflab
lifh foine fundamental", uniform principles of
public juftce throughout the whole Union.
So that I fliini, tie argument of force can
be taken from the foveveignty of ft a ten—
Where it has been abridged, it was thought
neceflary for the g-eater, indispensable good
of t ie whole.
If the coiiftitution is fonnd inconvenient in
practice in this or any other particular, it U
well that a regular mode is pointed cut for
amendment.
But while it remains, all officers legislative,
executive and judicial, both of the ft;,tes, and
of" the Union, are bound by oath to support it.
One other objection has been fDggefted,that
if a state may be sued by a citizen of another
(late, then the United States may be sued by
a citizen of any of the' slates, or in other
words, by any of their own citizens. If this
be a necetfary consequence, it must be so. I
doubt the consequence, from the different
wording of the different clauses, connected
with other reasons.
When speaking of the United States, the
confiitution fays, " Controversies to which
the United States dial! be s party"— not cor.
troverlies between the United States and any
of their citizens.
When (peaking of states, it fays—" Contro
verts between two or more states; between
;i state and citizens of another state."
As to reasons for citizens suing a differ
ent state, which do not hold equally good for
fumj: the' United States; one good one may
be, that as controversies between a state and
citizens and citizens of another state, might
have a tendency to involve both states In a
-coDteft, and perhaps in war, a common um
pire to decide such controversies, mav havff
a tendency to prevent the mifchief that aa
ohjeft of this kind was had in view by th«
lVamers of the corflitntion, I Jiave no doubt,
when I confaler the ctafhing interfering laws
which were made in the neighboring ftatet