Newspaper Page Text
The GEORGIA JOURNAL.
AND
Independent Federal Register.
Pub. twice a week .]
Vol. I.]
In paint of order the following Ictte,
should have preceded that of mr. Genet,
which appeared in our last —hut mr.
G-'s letter having come to hand jo much
earlier than this, as to be in Jome mca
fure preparedfor publication, occejioncd
a tranfpojition which without this ex
planation might feern unaccountable.
Mr. JEFFERSON, secretary of state,
to mr. MORRIS, minister plenipo
tentiary of the United States, at Pa
ris.
Philadelphia , Augufl i6, 1793,
Sir,
In my letter of June 13th, I en
closed to. you the copies ot several
letters which had passed between mr.
Ternant, mr. Genet, and myfelf, on
the occurrences to which'the prelent
war had given rife, within our ports.
The object of this communication
was, to enable you to explain the .
principles on which our government
was conducting itfelf towards the bel*
ligerant parties ; principles which 1
might not in all cases be fatisfartory to 1
all, but w ere meant to be just and ; i
impartial to all. Mr. Genet had been I
then but a little time with us, and but
a little more was necessary to dev elope 1
‘rtl Vltrrs- Ctt l’ and CCnduClL'iO Ut)“
,experted and so extraordinary, as to ]
place us in the moll distressing dilem- j
ma, between our regard for his na- j
tion, which is constant and fmcere, 1
and a regard for our laws, the audio- j
rity of which must be maintained ,
for the peace of our country, which |
the executive magistrate is charged to ;
preserve ; for its honour, offended in |
✓the person of that magistrate ; and for ,
its character, grolsly traduced in the
conversations and letters of this gen
tleman. In the course of thele tranl-’
a&ions, it has been a grear comlort to;
us to believe that none of them were
within the intentions or expectations
of his employers. These had been
too recently expressed in arts which
nothing could dilcolour, in the letters
of the executive council, in the letter
and decrees of the national assembly,
and in the general demeanour of the
nation towards us, to aferibe to them
things of so contrary a character.
Our fir ft duty, therefore, was to
draw a strong line between their in
tentions, and the proceedmgs-of their
miniftcr : our second, to lay thole
proceedings faithfully before them.
On the declaration of war, be
tween France and England, the li
nked States, being at peace with
both, their lituation was so new and
unexperienced by themselves, that
their citizens were not, in the fir ft
instant, sensible of the new duties re
lulting therefrom,and of the restraints
it would impose even on their dijpojiti
tns towards the belligerant powers.
Some of them imagined (and chiefly
their transient fca-faring citizens)
that they were free to indulge thofc
disposition, and take fide with either
party, and enrich themselves by de
predations on the commerce of the
other, and were meditating enter
prises of this nature, .as there was
reason to believe. In this slate ot
the public mind, and belore it fliould
“ WHERE LIBERTY DWELLS, THERE IS MY COUNTRY.”— Franklin.
SAVANNAH: PRINTED BY JAMES CARET, ON THE BAY, NEAR THE COFFEE-HOUSE.
take an erroneous direction, difficult
to be let right, and dangerous to
themselves and their country, the pre
sident thought it expedient, through
the channel of a pro lamation, to re
mind our fellow-citizens that we were
in a slate of peace with all the bellige
rant powers, that in that state it was
our duty neither to aid nor injure
any ; to exhort and warn them against
acts which night contravene this duty,
and particularly thole of positive hos
tility, for the punilhmenr of which,
the laws would be appealed to : and
to put them on their guard, also, as
to the rilks they would run, if they
should attempt to carry articles of
contraband to any. This proclama
tion, ordered on the 19th and ligned
the 22d day of April, was lent you
in my letter of the 26th of the fame
month.
On the day of its publication, we
received, through the channel of the
newi'papcrs, the firft intimation that
mr. Genet had arrived on the Btn of
the niQnth at Charleston, in the cha
racter of minister plenipotentiary from
his nation to the United States, and
soon after, that he had sent on to
Philadelphia the vessel in which he
came, and would himfelf perform the
journey l.y land, liis landing at one
|of the mod distant parts of the union
[from his points both of departure and
Idefbnation, was calculated to excite
‘attention : and very loon afterwards
|we learnt, that he was undertaking
‘to aurhorife the fitting and arming of
jveffels in that port, enliliing men, fo
| reigners and citizens, and giving them
1 commiflidns to cruise and commit hos
tilities on nations at peace with us ;
that these veflels were taking and
bringing prizes into our ports, that
| the consuls of France were assuming
Sto hold courts of admiralty on them,
to try, condemn, and authorife their
faie as legal prize, and all this before
mr. Genet had* presented himfelf, or
his credentials to the president, be
fore he was received by him, without
his consent or consultation, and di
rectly in contravention of the state of
peace existing, and declared to exist
in the prefldent’s proclamation, and
incumbent on him to p.referve till the
constitutional authority Ihould other
wise declare.
These proceedings became immedi
■ ately, as was naturally to be expected,
the fubjert of complaint by the repre
sentative of that power here, against
whom they would chiefly operate.
The British minister presented several
memorials thereon, to which we gave
the answer of May 15th, heretofore
enclosed to you, correl’ponding in sub
• stance with a letter of the fame date
: written to mr. Ternant, the minister
of France then reflding here, a copy
. of which I fend herewith. On the
next day mr. Genet reached this place,
about five or fix weeks after he had
: arrived at Charleston, and might
: have been at Philadelphia, if he had
■ steered for it directly. Hewasimme
; diately presented to the president,
and received by him as the minister
; of the republic ; and as the conduct
’ before stated, seemed to bespeak a de
sign of forcing us into the war, with-
SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1794.
out allowing us the exercise of any
free will in the case, nothing could be
more afluaging than his assurances to
the president at his reception, which
he repeated to me afterwards in con
versation, and in public to the citizens
of Philadelphia, in answer to an ad
drels from them, that, on account of
our remote situation and other cir
cumstances, France did not expert
that we should become a party in the
war. But wifiied us to purlue our
prosperity in happiness and peace. In
a conversation a few days after, mr.
Genet told me that mr. Ternant had
delivered him my letter of May 15 f L,
he spoke something of the cale of the
Grange, and then of the armament at
Charleston, explained the circumstan
ces which had led him to it before he
had been received by the government
and eonfulted its will, exprclTed a
hope that the president had not so ab
foiutely decided against the measure,
but that he would hear what was to
be said in support of it, that he would
write me a letter on the fubjert, in
which he thought he could juftify it
under our treaty ; but that if the
president should finally determine o
therwiie, he muft’ submit : for that
assuredly his inftrurtions were to do
wlut would be agreeable to us. He
accordingly wrote the letter of May
27. The president took the case again
into confederation, and found nothing
in that letter which could shake the
grounds of his former deciiion. My
letter of June sth, notifying this to
him, his of June 8 and 15, mine of
the 17th, and his again of the 22d,
will shew what farther passed on this
fubjert, and that he was far from re
taining his disposition to acquiesce in
the ultimate will of the president. It
would be tedious to pursue this and our
subsequent correspondence through all
their details. Referring, therefore,
for these to the letters themselves,
which will accompany this, I will
present a summary view only of the
points of difference which fiave arisen,
and the grounds on which they rest.
1 ft. Mr. Genet asserts Ills right of
arming in our ports, and of enlisting
our citizens, and that \vc have no
right to restrain-him or punifii them.
Examining this question under the
law of nations, founded on the general
sense and usage of mankind, we have
produced proofs from the ntoft en
lightened and approved writers on the
fubjert, that a neutral nation must,
in all things relating to the war, ob
lerve an exist impartiality towards
the parties; that favours to one to
the prejudice of the other would im
port a fraudulent neutrality, of which
no nation would be the dupe; that
no luccour should be given to either,
unless stipulated by treaty, in men,
arms, or any thing else directly serv
ing for the war ; that the right of
railing troops, being one of the rights
of sovereignty, and consequently ap
pertaining exclusively to the nation
itfelf, no foreign power or person can
levy men, within its territory, with
out its consent ; and he who does,
may be rightfully and severely pu
nished : that if the United States have
a right to refufc the permiflion to
arm veflels and raise men within their
ports and territories, they are bound
by the laws of neutrality to exercise
that right, and to prohibit such ar
maments and enkftments. To these
principles of the law of nations, mr.
Genet answers by calling them ‘ dip
lomatic fib tie ties? and * aphorisms of
Vit tel and others,* But something
more than this,is necessary to disprove
them : and till they are disproved, we
hold it certain that the law of nations,
and the rules of neutrality forbid our
permitting either party to arm in our
ports.
But mr. Genet fays, that the 22d
article of our treaty allows him ex
pr.fly to arm in our ports. VVliy has
he riot quoted the very words of that
article, txprefsly allowing it. For
that would have pur an end to all
further question. The words of the
article are, ‘ it shall not be lawful
for any foreign privateers not belong
ing to the fiibjerts of the molt Chris
tian king, nor citizens of the said
United States, who have comrifilfions
from any prince or state, in enmity
with either nation, to fit their fliips
in the ports of either the one or the
other of the aforefaid parties.’ Tranf
latc this from the general terms in
which it here flands in the lpecial case
produced by the present war, ‘ pri
vateers not belonging to France or
the United States, and having com
millions from the enemies of one of
1 them/ are, in tire present ftaie of
j things, ‘ British, Dutch, and Spanish
: privateers.’ Substituting these then
i for the equivalent terms, it will Hand
thus, 4 It lhall not be lawful for Rri
tifli, Dutch, or Spanish privateers to
fit their ftiips in the ports of the ‘li
nked States.’ Is this an express per
mission to France to do it ? Does the
negative to the enemies of France,
and silence as to France herfelf, im
ply an affirmative to France ? cer
tainly not. : it leaves the question as
to France open and free to be decided
according to circumstances ; and if
the parties had meant an affirmative
flipulation, they would have provided
for it expressly ; they would
have left so important a point to be
inferred from mere silence, or impli
cation. Suppose they had desired to
ftipuiate a refufal to their enemies,
but nothing as to themselves, what
form of expreflion would they have
used ? Certainly the one they have
used : an express flipulation as •to
their enemies, and silence as to rhern
felves. And such an intention corres
ponds not only with the words, but
with the circumstances of times. It
was of value to each party to exclude
its enemies from arming in the ports
of the other, and could in no case em
barrafs them. They therefore stipu
lated so far mutually. But each might
be embarrassed by permitting the o
ther to arm in its ports. The;/ thareU
fore would not ftipuiate to permtl
that. Let us go back to the state of
things in France when t listrea.v was
made, and we lhall find fev.-r; 1 cafet
wherein France could not have per
mitted us to arm in her ports. Sup
pole a war between thele itafes and
• Spain. We know that, by die tren-
[6 Dollars per anu.
[No. 14.