Newspaper Page Text
361
to St. Domingo, wasfcized in virtue of
an order from the diftrift court of the
United States, for the (late of PennlVl
vania, and her captain wa arreiledat
the suit of a merchant of Philadelphia,
toanfwcr for a pretended illegal capture
ma 1c in virtue of his commission, and
out of the jurifoiftion of the United
Stares.
The undersigned minister plenipoten
tiary complained of this violation at the
treaties and of the law of nations, and
requeued the government to cause, as
toon as podible, the release of the cor
vette Le Cassius and her captain, fie
conceived himfelf so much tne more
grounded in this requeit, as he knew
that a like interpolation was not new in
the annals of the United States; as Ik*
knew that the executive power of the
(late of Pennsylvania had interpoied ia
a fi nilarcafe, and in the fame manner, in
favor of the Itafe of Virginia,and as this
mca'ure, dictated by a profound know
ledge of the law of nations and of the
reciprocal kitias of nations, had been ap
proved and ratified by the tribunals, or
gans of the law. (a) But Mr. Ran
dolph, secretary of (tatc of the United
States replied to the underiigned on the
15th Augult 1795 —“ As long as the
quell ion is in the hands of our courts, the
executive cannot withdraw it from
them.”
The undersigned infilling on the Ift
Fructidor, in the third year (ißrh Au
guli 1795) exprefied himfelf in these
terms, “ 1 do not know nor ought I to
know other than the government of the
United States ; I cannot under any
shape admit the competency of your tri
bunals in the different circtimflances
which arise on the execution or inexecu
tion of the treaties. If these tribunals
are the tirfl to violate them, I can only
address myfelf to the government for
reparation of that violation; otherwise
it would be to render the agents of the
French government —the French go
vernment itfelf amenable to these tri
bunals ; which would be .0 reverie prin
ciples.” Informed that the Calfiusand
her captain might be liberated on giving
security, the undersigned requeued, by
the fame letter, that the government of
the United States would itfelf furnilh
this security ; and knowing that the
supreme court of the United States,
which wasiiicn i 1 feifion had the power
in certain ernes of arreiling the proceed
ings of the inferior courts, on their iig
utiving to them a prohibition, he fug
gc ced to the lecretary to adopt this lure
u.,u prompt method toputan end to this
yexatious procedure. Both tnefe re
qur ,i were ret used. The captain of Le
Cailnu then a idreifed himfelf to the fu
preme tri’ianal, requested the prohibi
tion, vis übumed it. The diftrift
court e ijoiued immediately to flop
the pi :e.lings which had been com
me need, and to lioerate captain Davis
and his veiled.
But at the very instant in which the
mavjrjal wasdefired toexecutc the ordei
of t : * e l ipreme court, he had already in
pofleinon a •v crier from another tri
bunal(’ 1 t court) enjoining him to
aircl: 1.1- t iiel rt/Tiou, upon the char ge
of ;n • iagliHi merchant and naturalifed
A: -rican, Hating that this veil'd had
lceu formerly armed in the United
States; and coufcquently requelled that
flic In o n > be conlilcated, one moiety to
himfeo, ihc other moiety to the govern
m 1 -t* Ihe underiigned being unin
formed whether this veil'd had ever
been armed in the ports of the United
States, lie was alfoallured that fotne in
dividuals had only attempted to put on
board arms and ammunition, and which
they were prevented from doing at the
time ; but he rakes upon him to affirm,
that iincc this velfci has become the pro
perty of the V rench republic. General
1 aveaux armed and equipped her whol
ly at St. Domingo; and that at herar
nvaihere, (hehad not acanuon,or pound
of powder which had not been put on
board her in the territory of France.
This new order was signed by one of
the judges of the supreme court (in quali:
ty of circuit judge) who having already
ordered the prohibition in the tirfl in.
fiance, mult have known very well that
this veil'd was the property of the French
republic ; and who mull aifo have known
that the circuit court was not compe
tent to this proceeding; which the law
and ufags ha\c conllantly attributed to
thediftrict tribunals. But the dntriH
court then fat but once a year at Phila
delphia , its approaching yet dnlant
iellion was to be at \ ork-town, and the
prosecutor had adopted this round-about
mi Hie to take away every means from
the f rench republic of obtaining refli
tuuun of her vert'd legally, before the
-/Vw-t;?! 0 n'l'”" V r s lhr comr onwenUK
Columbian ißtueum, £&♦
expiration oi near a year. In the inter
val, Ihc was to rot at the quays of Phi
ladelphia. This has taken place. The
undersigned, from a spirit of concilia
tion, made an ufclefs attempt with one
of the judges of the circuit court to ob
tain the liberation of the veflel, on giv
ing security ; the reply was that tne
judge could do nothing of iiimleit; tuat
the court whenaiTcmblcd could alone de
termine.
The undersigned minister plenipoten
tiary made new reprefcntations to the
floret ary of Hate of the United States
upon the foregoing fads. Mr. Picker
ing then secretary of Hate, in hisanfwer
.f ill Augull 179 j—repeats this phrase
of Mr. Randolph. “As long as the
question is in the hands of our courts,
the Executive cannot withdraw it from
i;.em, M adding thereto this remarkable
ex r-ffion ; “ and therefore is not char
geable with differing a violation of tiic
treaties exillingbetween the two repub
lics.” Tne underiigned complained that
the new fiiit commenced againtl the
Cassius had been carried to an incompe
tent tribunal, and in the fame letter of
isl Auguil 179 j, the secretary of Hate
replied on this head to the undersigned,
“ the counsel who have told you that
such is the law, have led you into an
error,” &C.—maintaiiinj the compe
tency of the tribunal.
The undersigned minifler in these cir
cumilances, saw himfelf obliged to dis
arm the vcfl'el, to discharge the crew
that during these tranfaCtions he had
supported at great expeiice, and aban
doned the Cassius to ti:e government of
the United States—protecting againtl
the illegality of her arrell.
The underiigned minifler is not ac
quainted with the details of what hap
pened fmee that time relative to this
affair; he only knows that in the month
of October last, the circuit court declar
ed itfelf incompetent, notwithstanding
the ail'ertion of tne Secretary of date,
and quashed all the proceedings. In con
fequcnce, the Secretary olfered him the
Cassius; as if after having retained, in
contempt of treaties, a State vefiei after
having left her to rot in port the govern
ment of the United States were not to
anfwcr both for the violation of the trea
ties, and for the damages the Caifius has
fu ft ained.
(No. 5.) The secretary of (late, by
his public letter of the isl of November
•aft—in anfwcr to the note of the under
signed minister plenipotentiary of the I
6th of Brumairelalt, appears not to have
understood cither that note or the de
cree of the executive directory ot the
14th Meffidor of the 4th year.
I'his decree does not limply contain
the order tor seizing Enrglifh property
>n board of neutral veileis, and otcourfe
>n board of American vends; it orders
i hat the verteis of the republic fhali act
cowards neutrals in the fame manner as
lcurrals lhail lufier the English to treat
them.
Phis decree consequently implies, not
mly the feizurc of enemies property on
board of American verteis, agamft the
principle free Jbips makefree goods, a prin
ciple the American government aban
doned after having recognized it by ac
ceding to the declaration of Ruifia in
1780—-not only the feizurc of articles
darted as contraband in the treaty con
cluded between Lord Greenville and
Mr. Jay, and declared innocent merch
andizes by the treaty of 1778, but also
reprifais for all vexations, contrary to
the law of nations and to the treaties,
which the Americans fhali endure on the
part of the Englifii, without an effica
cious oppolition.
The secretary offtatehas bcenpleafed
to observe, that France and the United
Mates, by a reciprocal treaty, had con
ecrated the principle, free Jhips make free
‘oods, and dtminifnei the lift of articles
leizable as contraband. Upon this basis
lie built reasoning which he might have
tpared if he had been pleased to remem
ber the 2d article of the treaty of 1778.
I lie secretary, has also been pleased
to reply in part to the note of the under
signed minister plenipotentiary dated fix
brumairc, relative to the press cxercifed
on the American Sailors, that the federal
government were not to givean account
to any nation ot the measures it takes
tor the protection of its citizens; if such
an aniwer required a reply, the under
iigned minifler plenipotentiary would
request the secretary of (late to observe,
that ttic object ot his note ot 6 Brumairc
and of his letters ot the 9 and 19 Ger
minal last, which are there referred to,
was not at all to know the steps flken
by the federal government, for the pro
tection of its citizens; but the mealures
pursued by it for preventing its citizens
from increasing the maratime forces of
the enemies ot the French republic its
*Hy It is evident tnat in this case the
federal government should expect, and
tiic French republic would have a right
to regard, its lilence as a tacit content
to that met fare an la real hostility. ;
The undersigned minister plenipoten
tiary can no longer be fufpefted of hav
ing demanded of the government of the
United States, explanations foreign to
the relations which exist between that,
government, and the French republic, of
having had the intention to wound the
federal government, in hi* letter ot 7
Vendimaire in tiic 4 year, since after the
paflage cited by the secretary of state,
is the following paragraph; “ But l am
convinced, it will not ue so. The Ame
rican government, is too much attache \
to the laws of an exaft neutrality, it
knows too well that the cauie ot irec
people is linked to that of I ranee, to al
l >w to be usurped by the Englifii a right
injurious to the interest of the republic.”
“ It is in this conviction that I have
written you this letter, perfuadc l that
it is perhaps fuperfluous to addreis to
you thele reclamations. Ido not doubt
but the American government will pro e
to all Europe the intention it has of main
taining the moll exact neutrality with
regard to the belligerent powers, that
it will oblige England to violate no
longer the rights of nations, and that it
will not henceforward reduce France to
the pain of addrelfing new claims upon
this subject.”
(No. 6.) In the General Advertiser,
publiflied at Philadelphia on the 9th 01
June 1796, may be seen th# queilions
proposed by the President on the 18th
of April 1 793 to the heads of the depart
ments. The underiigned minister pleni
potentiary contents himfelf with giving
here an ext raft.
Queflion 2. Shall a minister from the
republic of France be received ?
Question 3. If received, fhali it be
abfoiutcly,or with qualifications, and if
with qualifications, of what kind ?
Question 4. Are the United States
obliged by good taith, to confider the
treaties heretofore made with France as
applying to the prefect situation of the
parties—may they either renounce them
or hold them suspended, till the govern
ment of Franee fhali be eftablilhed ?
Question 12. Should the future regent
of France fend a minister to the United
Slates, ought he to be received ?
(No. 7.) The French government
jealous of giving to the United States
proofs of its attachment, had commenced
negociations with the Regency of Al
giers, in order to put an end to the war
which that power was making on the
commerce of the United States. The
minister for foreign affairs, by a letter
of the jth January, 1794, inftrufted the
predeccifor of the underiigned to com
municate to the federal government the
steps which the French government had
taken in this refpeft. The predecertor
of the undersigned in confequenee wrote
to the secretary of state, on the i6rh
Prarial in the 2d year, the following
letter—l have already had the piealure,
fir, to inform you, verbally, oi the in
tcrell which the committee of public iafe
ty of the National Convention had ear
ly taken in the truly unhappy situation
of your commerce in the Mediterranean.
I now fulfil the duty imooted on me
by the government, by calling to your
recollection in waiting, the steps which
are to be taken by our agent with the
Day of Algiers, for repreiling this new
manoeuvre of the Britirn adminiitration,
which has put the finilhing ftroketoits
proofs of malevolence towards free peo
ple. The dispatch of the minister com
municating tltis meal'ure tome, is dated
the sth January, and did not come to
my hands till fifteen days ago ; Ido not
yet know by what route ; I could have
wiihed it had been less tardy in coming
to me, that I might sooner have fulfilled
the agreeable talk of proving to you by
fafts, the prote fiat ions of friendfhip of
which I have so often spoken in the
name of the republic of Franee.
The information which I ftiail receive
from Europe in a little time, willdoubt
lefs po fiefs me of the success of those ne
gociations which were to have been op
ened in January last. If the situation of
your affairs is yet luch with refpeft to
that barbarous Regency as that our in
tervention may be oflome utility, I pray
you to invite the l’refident to cauie to
he communicated to me the means that
he will join to those of the committee of
public fafety, for the greatell success of
the measures already taken. It is in
virtue ot theexprefs request of the min
ister that I solicit of the President feme
communication on this fubjeft : I (hall
be finished to be able to transmit it by a
very early conveyance which I am now
preparing for France.
The Secretary of State replied to him
on the 6th June 1794, by a letter of
which the following is an extraft.
“ Your other letter of the 4th of June,
is a powerful demonstration of the inte
rett which the republic of France takes
in onr welfare. I will frankly com
municate to you our measures and ex
peftations, with regard to Algiers ; bur
as you will so soon receive the detail of
those measures, which your government
have pursued in our behalf, and'after the
rising of Congress fome new arrange
ment will probably be adopted by the
executive, it will be better perhaps to
polipone our interview on this matter,
until the intelligence, which you further
expect, fhali arrive.”
Then Mr. Jay was charged to nego
ciate with the British Government, and
the Citizen Fauchtt did not afterwards
receive any communication on the fub
jeft.
( No, 8.) On the 13th Floreal in the
third year of the republic (2d May 1794)
i’.ic predeccifor of the undersigned Min
ister Plenipotentiary exprefied himfelf
in these terms to the Secretary of State
upon the blockade of the French Co
lonies.
“ After so many useless attempts, Sir,
you niuii be sensible of the pain I expe
rience in tracing this pifture so differ
e it from that which the French Repub
lic gives whatever justice towards you
is in question, even though her interefta
are conipromittcd. It was when a ter
rible war was inceflantiy devouring her
thar fiie rigouroufty fulfilled her treaties
with you ; in this initance lhe demand*
bur and cannot obtain it. On
the contrary, ihc Ices her enemies ad
mitted to an intimacy with you, at the
moment in which your Commerce and
your fen .’crcignry are alike insulted by
them ; at the moment when adding Je
rifion to injustice they defpoii you anew
upon the leas, when they promise to
indemnify you for former afts. This
reflection, Sir, becomes much more
grievous when we fee polled up under
your eyes the official legalization of a
proclamation, which prohibits your
commerce with ou: colonies, and sus
pends to you alone the law of nations. I
know Sir, what refpeft imposes on me
as to what immediately interefls your
affairs and your relations as a people.—►
But I cannot entirely pais in iilence
tranfaftions to which the Republic is no
flranger, bccaufe they aredirefted againlt
her; and that to fubferibe by an excess
of courtfey to such orders, were to quit
the neutral position which the Ameri
cans profefs. Examine I pray yon, 6ir,
whether this neutrality can be said to
exist, when on the one hand you can no
longer maintain your treaties, and ou
the other you are obliged to abandon
your relations exclusively to the difere
tion of England, who doubtlcfs will soon
declare ail the universe blockaded, ex
cept her pofi'clfions. What account do
you conceive I can render to the French
Government, of the means you take for
rendering your neutrality rcfpeftable ?
‘fet on that my inftruftiom infill and it
is on that more ei'pecially that France is
uneaf'y.”
The Secretary of State replied on the
29th May 1795, to this paflage of Citi
zen Fauchets letter in the following
manner—
“ The predicaipent of a neutral nation
is always peculiar and delicate, and em
inently so, while it defends itfelf against
charges ofpartiality from one 01 the war
ring powers, left it should seem to pal
liate the mif'doings of another. But yon
are not to infer from any juftification
of the E xecutive, that the validity of the
proclamation of blockade is aflented to.
We did read on the 10th of April 1795,
a publication from his Britannic Majes
ty’s Confui general for the middle and
southern slates of America, giving pub
lic notice that he had received official
communications, that the I (lands of Gua
daloupe Marigalante and Defiradc were
by proclamation issued by his Britannic
majesty’s general and vice-admiral,com
manding in the Weft-Indies, declared to
be in an aftual ltate of blockade ; and
that neutral vclTeis were by that proc
lamation prohibited from attempting
to enter any of the ports or places of the
said Islands, with provisions or supplies
of any nature or kind whatsoever, under
penalty of being “ dealt with conforma
ble to exilling treaties, and as
ranted by the established law of nations.”
So highly valued has the Weft Indian
commerce always been that this exclu
sion was often revolved in the mind of
the Executive. It was acknowledged
that neutrals are interdifted oy the law
of nations from a blockaded port. Frotm
fome quarter or other blockade mud be
notified ; or elfc nentrals would be a con
ilant, unfufpefting prey ; not being in a
condition to colled this information for
themselves. Who then are to notify the
military investment of a place ? Surely,
not the besieged : but the beftegers
No. Bg.