Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.