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