Judge Iredell's CHARGE, Con tinued. The general duties of neutrality underthe guidanceofthe refpeaable&appovedautlio rities I have alluded foj may "lie thus Briefly toir.prihendfd : Voluntarily ro furnifn nei therpArty with troops,arms, amm unit ion or any tiling of direst use in war; nor indiredt lv to favour one.party to the prejudice of the otllef, by the grr.hr of privileges, other wise indifferent, if done for the expreis purpflfe blaflifting one party in its coi.teft with the other, since this would be taking a tide which the ftrift laws of neutrality for- Bsd. - But theex reife oHndependent rights with no view to favour one party to the prejudice of the other, merely on recount Oifthewar, such (for example) as the car rying oh any accustomed trade from com mercial motives only in any articles what soever, is no breach of neutrality, though the particular instance fpecifitd is liable to this teftniTtion, that all commodities which arJ nfually termed contraband, and by which are underftobd all articles peculiarly subservient to war, tho' the particulars are not perfectly agreed upon, if bbund to any port ps one of the belligerent powers, or articles of any kind, whether such as are ufualfy termed contraband or otherwise, bound to a plaie actually besieged or block aded, are liable to feizurc and condemnati on. These appear to me to be the general principles as to the conduct of a netitral power ; but th:re are special exceptions in particular instances, where in virtue of previous treaties the engagements of the neutral power contain stipulations more in favour of one of the parties than the other. !n refpedt to the prefeftt war, the Uiiited States are a netitral power bf this defcrip ion, they being expressly bound by their ■ ommtrcial treaty with France to grant certain privileges to French vessels of war 3nd privateers, which they are not at liber 1' to grant t& any other. So far however :, they confine themselves to a faithful per ; irmance of this treaty, upon its true con ftruftion, and are in all other refpecls neu 'ral, they are undoubtedly entitled to all t ie privileges andbtnefits of a neutral na tion. With regard to all the queftioiis which may arise either on the duties of neutra lly abftraiStly considered, or the particular conftruaion of the treaty constituting cer tain exceptions to the general principles of it, the limits of a discourse proper for this occafior. will by no means admit of a full discussion 6f them. But I deem it my in dispensable duty to give you my opinion upon two pretensions, which have been ve ry confidently urged, and have been at tempted to be supported in such a manner as tended in an alarming degree tq disturb the good order of our cpuntry, and pro ducethegreat. ftmifchiefaf. ~ Jlas greatest disgrace that can ever happen toany ; thein trodudfionof foreign influence tocounteraft the e::fcutiou of the laws by that authority entrusted y the people with this portion of their power, and in every mftaiiee re fponnble for the due exercile of it. Hap pily however, all danger of this kind has been honorably removed by an additional proof of national attention and refpedl which must be highly grateful to every friend of his cbuntry. The two pretensions upon whith I have to remark are these : r. A claim on behalf of the French to fit out privateers in the ports of the United States. a. A right in the French ration, to en list any of the citizens of the United States, fither on board their armed vcffels, or e ven on ihtire and in tne vtSy bosom of our territory, without the consent of the go vernment, upon thcprincipie that any '"ci tizen has a right to expatriate himl'elf at his pleasure. The firft claim is grounded upon the ijd article of the treaty of Amity and Com merce, which is in these words : " It (hall not be lawful for any foreign " privateers, not belonging to fub;e<fts of " the Most Chrillian King, nor citizens " of the said United States, who have " commissions from any other prince or " state in enmity with either nation to fit " their fjiips in the ports of either the one " or the other of the aforefaid parties, to " f e " what they have taken, or in any " other manner whatfbever to exchange " their (hips, merchandizes, or any other " lading ; neither shall they be allowed e " ven to purchase victuals, except fnch as " shall be tieceffary for their going to the " next port of that prince or state from " which they have commissions." The true conftruaion of this article is of the higheit importance, because if the French derive under it the right which has been infilled on. it is ur doubtediy a breach of faith in the United States to deny them the exercise of it; if on the other hand, : the treaty confers no such right, it will be a violation of the neutrality to permit it, ar . if supposed to be done deliberately and partia iv, and not merely from amiftaken conftru&ion, would be a juftifiable cause of war. Fortunately the conftruaion is ! not so difficult as it is important. If words alone are to be regarded, they contain nothing more (so far as they afl'a the present question) than a stipulation that an enemy of either party stall not be! permitted to fit out privateers in the other's ports. Whether the citizens of the Unit ed Mates lhall be permitted to fit out pri vateers m the ports of France, ortheFrench in the ports of the United States, the arti cle does not fay. Theufual way to ascertain the meanine pt parties is to consider the words they use by which their meaning is or ought to be expressed. It must however be "admitted! that a meaning is sometimes to be colle£t <d by implication, and it may be alledged jn support of this Claim that the implication in this cafe is fufficient to convey the right contended for. ... To such an allegation the following ob je&ions occur. 1. That a conftruaion by implication is never to be received, but where such con ftruaion is necessary and unavoidable, or the meaning of the parties can be colleaed either ftom the context or concurring cir cumft«nces. If such a conftruaion was admitted upon any other principle, no man in any contraa could be fate, unless he ex cluded every possible implication by direa negative expressions, a thing impdfiible to be praaifed, and highly irrational to be re quired. 2. There is not the least heceffity for such a conftruaion, the meaning being ve ry feiifrble and compleat without it. Was it not important to llipulate for the exclu sion of an enemy bf either from the ports of the other, without At the fame time a greeing to permit either of the coiitraaing parties to arm in the other's ports ? Do hot the two cases stand on a very different footing, and have toe not a right to fay, that as the bne is stipulated for, and the o ttier not, the fonfler mull be granted, but the latter may be refufed ? The article be ing silent on the fubjea is easily to be ac counted for, an express grant of the right would have imminently hazarded the peace of either cpuntry in cafe the other was en gaged in a war in which they had no com mort concern. An express negation of it would very idly have excluded voluntary favours altogether in the power of either party to grant ortorefufe, and would have been a stipulation (the firft: perhaps of the kind) for the benefit of other countries, withbut the least possible utility to either of the contraaing parties. Imightadd, if the fame provision was not tb be found in other treaties wherethe circumstances wen different, that the fitnation of the two countries at the time naturally diaated the fileftee bbfei ved upon this fubjea. The treity of comtnerce was signed on the fame day with the treaty of alliance. The for mer was permanent j the latter as tb Its 1 principal bbjea temporary. While the war subsisted, in which both parties were fully engaged on one fide, the ports of ei ther would of course be open to the yeffels of war and privaieers of the other. When peace took place, and the principal objea of the nlliaece was thereby obtained, it be came of moment to both that neither should be endangered, without a new engage ment, by lioftilities which the subsisting one had nbt contemplated. The cafe there fore was properly left at large to the dis cussion of either party, as future contin gencies and the honour and interest of their rel'peaive countries might require. 3. There not only is nothing in the con text or any concurrent circumstances re quiring theconftruaioncontendedfor, but there are very material circumstances to e vince thatfuchcouldnothavebeen the inten tion ofthe parties. I might instance its incon ftency with .the famous family compaa en tered into between Fiance and Spain and the king of the Two Sicilies ( a treaty uni versally known long before our conneaion I with Faatice), but as" that ltands on pecu- | liar greunds of its own I chufe to confine myfelf to some striking circumstances of inconsistency, where the cases are exaaiy parallel, 111 relation to the refpeaive com mercial connexions, of Great Britain (be fore theprefentwar), andtheUnited States with France. At the time of the signature of our treaties with France, a commercial treaty bet vveen Great Britain and France was in full force, contain ng substantially, if not in the very fame words, an article like that of the 2id in burs. The treaty (if I recollea right, for I have not the book by me, tho' I am certain of the faa in substance, because I have compared the treaties) was the cbmmercial treaty of U trecht of 1711-13, renewed as to this point from time to time, and finally by the trea ty of Paris, of 1663'. In the commercial treaty beiween Great Britain and France in there is also an article to the very fame import. It is therefore apparent, in cafe the conftruaion which was claimed against us be right, that under the joint operation of either of the treaties between France and Great Britain, and that be tween France and the United States, if we had been at wEr with Great Britain and France neutra, France would have been bound by her treaty with Grtat Britair) to admit her privateers to arm & exclude ours; bo her treaties with us, to admit ours, and exclude theirs. A consequence so absurd or so iniquitous we fuaely have no right to fix on any engagement, without the least colour of evidence ; and most ungrateful as well as weak should we be to attempt it in regard to a treaty, which we haveuniform ly acknowledged and sincerely believe was coijduaed, together with that which ac companied it, on the part o the French government towards us with lingular mag nanimity and candour, and on the part of bur own with extraordinary ability, vigi ance, and precaution. It is highly pro bable, that the American negociators who signed, andthe Congreft. of the United States who ratified the treaty, were well acquainted with the contents of the com mercial treaty'of Utrecht, which was exe cuted so many years before, and 1 doubt not had been repeatedly publilhed, with I its feverrl confirmations ; and it is certain that Great Britain when Ihe executed the treaty in 1786 well knew all the particu lars of ours of 1778, a compleat copy of it having been publilhed in England (as I have lately had an opportunity to know) soon after its execution. She therefore could not have been deceived, if we were, had there been any real perfidy in the cafe, a supposition which unsupported as it is by ei «f r evidence or probability we reie<ft with disdain. J (Dbjeaions like these would, in my o pmion, be fufficient to destroy any con- Itrua.on, even if the words were doubt ful, but in the face of such objeaions to : contend for such a conftruftion by impli cation is paying very little deference to the underftandirigs. or relying very much on the paflions bf thoffe who are expected to acquiesce in it. I therefore have not the smallest doubt, that the pretension I have been',confiderifig is utterly groundless. The second pretension involves ths very important question as to the right of the French or any other foreign nation (for in this refpeft they are all on the fame foot ing( to enlist citizens of the United States, either for their naval or land service within the territory of the United States, without the confent.of the government. This is so palpably contrary to the Law of Nations, that it has scarcely been attempted to be supported upon its own ground, but a co lour has been devised for it one of the most extraordinary which to be sure ever was at tempted in a country where common rea son had any sway. When a citizen of the United States is charged with this offence against his country, he very gravely de fehds himfelf by faying, that he has a right to quit his country when he pleases ; that no country has a right to confine him as a prisoner for life ; that it is at his op tion when he thinks proper to cease to be come a citizen of the United States, and become a citizen of another country ; that he did so in the present instance, and there fore his conduit was innocent. All this time however he forgets that it is mate rial to prove the fa<St, or experts that we will take his word for it. Gentlemen, no thing but the prevalence of high passions, in disregard or contempt of the duty in cumbent on all to refpeit and maintain the laws of their country, could among men of sense give currency to an ab surdity like this. Let this right of ex patriation be admitted, in the language of its warmest advocates, to be a natural and unalienable right, incapable of any modification even by Legislative authority, to guard against injuries to the rights of others by an abuse of the exercile of this ; yet common fe'nfe mult ihform every man, that this important, and perhaps irreco verable aft ought to be done with some degree of deliberation and solemnity,—that it should take place before any ait incon fiftant with the duty of a citizen is com mitted —and that in cafe of the fait be ing drawn in question it lhould be capable of proof, Juries in all cases being to be guided by proofs, and not by the allegations of any parties whatever. No person will be so absurd as to fay, that a citizen of the United States may not if he pleases, with out abandoning his country or intending to abandon it, enlist himfelf on board a fo reign vessel or in a foreign regiment, run ning the risk of detection and punishment for this breach of a citizen's duties. What would have been thought of one of your citizens, when he was on his trial for trea son in the late war, if he had alledged in his defence that the mere act of jo.ning the enemy of his country conftituled him a British fubjedt, and ofcourie hj was enti tled to be deemed a prisoner to war, and -J3Pt !ir to be tried -for treai«»4—'Vfal difference of joining a friend or enemy is is nothing as to the queftton of|expa(riation. Joining the former in hostilities cOntraty to law is equally an offence, though not in the fame degree as the latter, & when once a man is really expatriated he has certain ly a right to chufe his future country, whethcr it be that of a friend or an enemy, if he can get admitted by either. The fact therefore which is to constitute the vindication must in all instances be fatis fadtorily proved. What may amount to a real expatriation, as it is a point much quefiioned among able men, had better be reserved for discussion when a cafe of the kind fliall arrive. I doubt rfuch whether in all the instances which have occurred of citizens of the U nited States enlisting themselves in the service any cafe has happened where there was a previous deliberate at tempt at expatriation apon any principle. "o far as I have observed or heard the crime itlelf has been alledged to form its juftification. It would give me pleasure, howeYer, to find in any instance a more favorable cafe than that which 1 have sup posed. But expatriation alone does not immediately entitle a man to be a citizen of any oiher country he chooses to adopt. It will therefore beneceffary always to in quire further, whether the laws of his new favorite country have really recogzed him as such, before we admit him to the privileges of that character. The immi nent danger, gentlemen, to which your country has been and may yet be exposed by secret and un authorized endeavours to raise troops among you, for the purpose (as it is alledged) of ading against some of the enemas of France, will particular ly induce you to use the utmost vigilance in your inquiries upon this subject. No ! power on earth but the Congress of<he U- 1 nited States can authorize such a measure. 1 Every step out of the usual course, by which a neutral nation extends a favour c to one of the belligerent powers, to the - intnry of another, has a direct tendency , to produce, if it does not juftify, a war . against luch neutral nation by the party ' injured. If a war takes placeagainft the 1 united States, all the citizens of the Uni- ' ted States must be involved in it. 1 It is therefore as just as it is constitutional i that their Representatives alone should give authority to any hostilities which may oc casion it. It certainly ought not to de pend on a few unauthorized individuals whether we are to enjoy the blessings of or be exposed to all the calamities of ( war .The danger too of such a practice to the , internal peace of our country as a considerati on of no small moment. The power of raif- ! ing troops,even by regular authority, i, a 1 very formidable one. There can be no 1 fecunty that when raised for one purpose - they will not be employed.for another, un- 1 less they are under the vigilant eye men fully responsible for their cohdudl, and within the reach of being called to a strict account for it. The prevention of mif chiefby them is often found difficult under the belt regulations—but what security can we have against foreign officers, and men who pretending to have abandoned their country thay be expected to pay little de ference to its interests I The weight of these confident ions every reflecting man must be sensible of, and they have already appeared to have had their proper influence upon a people who value liberty, and na turally jealous even of armies raised by their own authority, feel proportionable indignation at an attempt to raise one in defiance of it. (To be Continued■) For the Gazette of the United States. Mr. Fen^o, Mr. Monroe's apologist, replies to the observation, " that the legislature of Virginia might have appointed a suc cessor to Mr. M. had he attempted to retain his feat," by remarking that if the two cases are parrallel, the President ought on the fame principle to consider the office of Chief Justice as vacated and to merit a fucceflor. Without dwelling on the material diftindtion between a trull limited to a few months, and one which may conti nue for years, it is fufficient to observe, with refpeft to Mr. J. that either there is a constitutional incompatibility, or there is not. If there be a constitutional incompatibility, then Mr. J. is no longer Chief JuJlice ; and there can be no con fute Qii him for a supposed neglect of I judicial fun&ions. If there be no con stitutional incompatibility, then it be comes a mere question of expediency, concerning which the President and Se nate may exercise their judgment nnd discretion. They have done so, and have feledted Mr. J. as the jittejl man. This may be disagreeable to the friends of other people, and they will manifeft their anger by vindictive and indecent attacks on the President. But in so do ing they have involved themselves in an inextricable embarraflment in the cafe of Mr. M's appointment, being compelled either to relinquish a much coveted ob je6t, or to impugn their own princi ples recently eftabli/hed. How does the apologist flounder through his vindication; at one time Mr. J. must be deemed to be no longer Chief JuJlice, at another, he is criminat ed for a neglect of duty as Chief JuJlice. On this head, it may well be aflsed which of the two characters is most liable to censure for negleß of tie duties for which they had been ekded, previously to tKeir recent appointments. Mr. J. will return to this country befoie the feflion of the Supreme Court in Februa ry. He will be only absent from the Supreme Court in August: there are five other Judges, and four constitute a a quorum. At any feflion of that court, one or other of the judges is absent, and the attendance of the Chief Justice is no more required by law or propriety than one of the afiociate judges. On the Circuit, his tour of duty will be per formed by one of his brethren, who will be remunerated for this extra trouble on a future occalion by a reciprocation of service. Now for Mr. M.—ln the ab sence of his colleague, he accepts a foreign embafly, (having it isfaid previously de clared that he would resign his feat, if appointed) rcfigns his feat in the Se nate, leaving the state which sent liim, unrepresented; a state which though the j largest in the Union, has but the fame representation as Delaware, and whose ' members should therefore be peculiarly J I fixed to their stations, and at a critical period when a number of the mojl impor tant hills -were there depending, viz. all the i new revenue bills, the bill for the pro- ( tedtion of the frontiers, the bill for the . advance of money to France, the bill , for building the gallics, the appropria- { tion bill, and many others, at a time when the questions of excise, raising j troops, providing veflels of war, grant ing power to the executive, and other j momentous concerns were depending on one or two votes :—Let the candid pub- lie judge to which fide negleß of duty may be charged. The apologiftpo/itively denies Mr. M's ( opposition to any embafly to France, when Mr. G. M. was nominated. The fact can be easily ascertained ; report at the time and since aflerted the fact to be as stated ; an appeal to the mem bers of that time will determine the ? truth : the writer of this had it from 1 good authority, and believes it. a. b. £ For the Gazette of the United States. fc Mr. Fenno, li I never was more sensible of the in- b fignificance of my' character than last ii evening. I called to fee an old ac- a quaintance, my former fchool-fellow ; t he married young and has a number of t prattlers about him, that have often t almost excited in me an envy of his t happiness, His eldest son is about ten f I r- p daughter- hifl next f Dn is 1" r seven years old ; he is in the h&it n f xer cifing Ins children in the learni - n m which their teachers are inftrufti r them—reading in English, conttruei - trom other languages, were parts the entertainment of the evening. v Your paper of the day was introd . ' e ced, and after an observation that was enlarged, a handsome boy was o Y der « l t0 , read a paragraph in it alone e to (hew his ability and improvement II he ft left ed that in which your Lancal ter correspondent is attempted to be ri diculed, for not understanding or mis. understanding the Greek words from which Aristocracy and Democracy are derived. j The child was puzzled by some hard - words which occurred in your Corref • pondent s paragraph—upon which, my > friend ordered the paper into the hands f of his elder son, a pupil at the Univer t fity; and the following conversation took place, which I (hall never forget. 1 It made me regret my not being a fa ther, not having a son who could do I me so much honor—but I mull quit t this fubjeft to do justice to the convcr fation which was the exciting cause of , it. : Father. Whence is the word Arif • ocracy derived ? 1 Son. From the Greek word Ac/c- T ©~an adjective of the superlative de gree formed from A>«6©„ the pofi r tive, fignifying bonus in Latin, and good in Englifh—A/xi/iav compara . tive, melior, better; superlative, A flf . , T©„optimus, the belt. Father. In what other senses hath ; this word been used ? [ Son. By a figure in rhetoric called metonimy, it is sometimes >_fed to figni i fy the bell things or best men ; thus ot aristoi h as been applied to the Nobili ty of a Country, who had no other merit than being born to the pofleffion i of wealth and power j and from this " circufnftance those men became odi- • I ous. Father. How is this compounded in Aristocracy ? Son. The word iis a fub ftative derived from the verb traiein ■ in Latin gubernare to govern, and fig nifying government or power; thejuoc tion of these two words fignifies the government of the country, by the bed people in it—such us our master tells us is the government of the United States. v The father ordered a kxicon, which he and I understood when we were at school but have long since declined the use of—it was brought and the expla nation verified by it : We then turned to the Encyclopedia & found the child was right. 1 was edified by the con versation, but hurt at the idea that my friend had about him children capable of teaching me what their father knew nothing more of than I knew, about fifteen years ago, and what your cor respondent in the paper of the evening, appears to know much less of, than either of us. Yours, A BACHELOR. Foreign Intelligence. CONSTANTINOPLE,March i. The Capt. Pacha, since his return from the Archipelago, has given subse quent marks of his severity, and much abuses the authority given him by the Grand Signior. He has lately beheaded a young Greek, a relative to tjie widow of he late Hofpodor of M >ldavi . Ifmct Bi-ly, formerly Plenropotenti; ry at ihe Congfefs of Sziftove, is disgraced and biniflied into Asia. Fire 6 again become frequent. On the 15th, the place where the (hips are careened, was set fire to, and burned fix hours : there was another fire on the 22d, and a third one the 26. The gra,nd-fcn of the famous Kouli Khan, is at tfye head of 20,000 men in the environs of Bagdad. This new re bellion is supposed to be in consequence of a manoeuvre of the court of Peterf burgh, with a view to divide the Ot toman forces, in cafe of rupture. WARSAW, March 26. The Ruffian Minister, Baron Ingle ftrhon, has formally requested an invfti gation and account of the disturbances in the Nurer, Lomzyner, and other dif trifts of the Waywodefhips of Mafuren fl , towards South. Pruffin ; and on being ini formed that the insurgents were headed by a Nobleman, a brigadiei of the Po lifti national troops, who refufed to dis band according to thelate orderfor reduce ing the army,the Ruffian Minister made a further demand in 'Writing, fignifying, that as the disturbances were occafioncd by an internal commotion, the troops of the Republic ffiould be sent to quell the the disorder. Upon this the. coir.mif fariesof war informed the council that
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers