The neutral position taken by the administration, as to the war now began between France and Great Britain, made it proper to forbid all naval armaments in the ports of the United States, and by citizens thereof, against either of the belligerent powers, and this was accordingly distinctly and expressly done, in the summer of 1793, by the President, in addition to his proclamation previously issued. The opposition party of that period censured the measure, as pusillanimous, as well as ungrateful to the French people, in whose friendship America had before largely shared. One or two public journals, under the control of his invidious political enemies, were incessant and shameless in their criminations. Washington did not condescend to notice these virulent attacks, in a public manner; but his private letters to some personal friends showed that he was not insensible to the cruel charges brought against his official character. He was not one of those politicians, who, if sustained by the majority, disregarded the complaints of other portions of the people; but being a sincere patriot and truly desirous of the prosperity, the welfare, and the liberty of the United States, he acted from honorable and pure motives, in public as well as private concerns, and to be represented as an enemy to civil freedom, or as regardless of his country's true glory, was therefore more than even he could bear without deep sensibility, conscious as he was of patriotic and upright intentions.

The public conduct of M. Genet, at first wore some semblance of moderation and propriety, for he declared France did not expect the United States to join that nation in the war with England. But his conduct soon after discovered a desire to excite the war fever; and if the measures he recommended to be pursued had not been checked by the President, war with England must have followed in a short time. He gave commissions to armed vessels in the ports of the United States to attack British vessels, and he assumed or claimed a right to appoint commissioners to decide on the validity of captured vessels brought into American ports. This was assuming a power belonging only to the supreme executive of the United States, and a jurisdiction in which none had due authority but the federal courts and judges.

When this presumptuous attempt to exercise authority within the United States, by a foreign agent, was justly rebuked by the President, the French Envoy became still more insolent; and more than intimated that Washington was a secret enemy to republican freedom, had exceeded

his constitutional power, and was justly obnoxious to the indignation of the people who had clothed him with civil authority. Genet also addressed an insolent letter to the Secretary of State, at this time, denying the right of the President to revoke his recognition and permission to M. Duplaine to act as French Consul in Massachusetts, which had been done on account of his improper conduct.

Genet impugned the authority of the President; and pretended that the state authority of Massachusetts, or the people, had the sole right to dismiss the consul. This minister of France was chargeable with several other similar acts of gross impropriety.

The President, therefore, requested the rulers of France to recall M. Genet. And soon after, his commission was withdrawn, and a successor appointed in his place.* But if more prudent than Genet, he possessed much of his spirit; and like him urged upon the government of the United States the supposed obligations of America to make common cause with France, which it was alleged, was engaged in support of civil liberty and the rights of

man.

The conduct of the British government, at this period, added to the difficulties with which the federal administration was surrounded. The forts on Lake Erie and vicinity, which should have been given up to the United States, according to the treaty of 1783, were still occupied by British forces, though the President had frequently complained of the high impropriety of their retention. Most of the States had also agreed to pay the debts claimed by a class of refugees, as the treaty provided. And as the States were sovereign and independent, when the treaty was made, the federal government had not an entirely undisputed right to enforce payment. It did recommend a compliance with this article of the treaty, and the States very generally admitted the justice of the measure, and made provision to pay the debts claimed. Still the western parts within the United States were occupied by the British, and it now became proper for the President to speak with more emphasis and decision, on the subject, to the Court of England. Another act of the British ministry added to the public reasons for calling on that nation to justify its conduct towards the United States, and a more express demand for justice and good faith. The British government had often advanced

* M. Genet remained in the United States; and afterwards married a daughter of Mr. Clinton, Governor of the State of New York.

a doctrine relating to blockades, which the other nations of Europe denied, or admitted with reluctance, under peculiar circumstances. With a view to annoy and distress France, and perhaps, to restrict the commerce of the United States, the ministry of England issued orders, prohibiting the importation of grain and bread stuffs, as well as warlike stores, into the French ports, and authorizing the seizure of vessels carrying such articles; and thus subjecting a great portion of American vessels and their cargoes to detention and confiscation. The President of the United States expressly impugned this doctrine; and firmly remonstrated against it, as highly injurious to the commercial interests of the country. In May, 1793, the national convention of France adopted an order similar to that of the British above mentioned, in which it was declared, "that French ships of war and privateers may stop and bring into the ports of the republic such neutral vessels as are loaded either with provisions belonging to neutrals and destined to an enemy's ports, or with merchandise belonging to an enemy." "But so far was this order from affecting the the sentiments of America towards France, that it was scarcely noticed."*

Another practice, allowed by the British government, and much resorted to at this period, which produced a great excitement in the United States, was the impressment of seamen, belonging to merchant vessels of other nations; though generally with the pretence that they were British-born subjects. And it was often extremely difficult to distinguish between those born in England and bona fide Americans. The citizens of the United States were thus, in many instances, pressed into the naval service of Great Britain. The rulers of England did, indeed, disclaim the right of impressing those who could prove that they were Americans; but this was of little avail in practice, such being the difficulty of producing immediate proof; and most of the British naval commanders, when in need of recruits, would not go into the inquiry, but conducted in a very arbitrary manner in this respect.

President Washington was sensible, that a crisis was approaching which would involve the United States in a war with England, unless another effort should be made to avert the calamity by negotiation. The British orders in council were highly injurious to the commerce of the United States, and the impressment of American seamen was still

* Judge Marshall.

more irritating. It was no just excuse, that the French government captured American merchant vessels under similar pretexts, and treated the sailors with great severity and cruelty. The Envoy from the United States, at the court of London, had remonstrated, by order of the President, against the conduct of the British, but without effect. And the voice of the whole people was in favor of decisive measures with England for these aggressions.

In 1794, therefore, the President concluded to send a special Envoy to the court of London, to make known the great sensibility of the American government and people on this subject, and in a firm and manly spirit to seek redress; at the same time, to give assurances of a sincere desire, on the part of the administration, to maintain peace with the British nation. By this measure, General Washington displayed those great traits of character for which he had always been distinguished; which united, in a happy degree, firmness with caution, and warm patriotic feelings with just sentiments of national respectability and honor.

At the time the President nominated Mr. Jay as a special Envoy to England, which he stated to the Senate was a pacific measure, and which he had the hope would prevent war with that nation, there was a large party in Congress which proposed to coerce Great Britain to treat the United States with more liberality and justice, by suspending all commercial intercourse between the two countries. Resolutions for that purpose had been introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Madison, a very distinguished member from Virginia; and a leader of the party then opposed to the general policy and measures of the administration. These resolutions were in accordance with a report made by the Secretary of State, some time before; and were supported by those in favor of commercial restrictions and non-intercourse with England, rather than of further negotiation.

It was contended, that the refusal to trade with England, would greatly distress her commercial and manufacturing interests; and would soon induce her rulers to seek the friendship and secure the trade of the United States. The proposition, therefore, though made by the President to the Senate, as was constitutionally proper, for a special embassy to England, was opposed, in that body, by those not desirous of conciliating that haughty nation, as it was called. The propriety of the measure was also discussed in the House of Representatives, and warmly combated,

as inefficient and pusillanimous. And it was pretended that the adoption and execution of the resolutions for nonintercourse, would produce a better effect than an extra mission.

By the friends of the administration, it was contended, that the resolutions would irritate, rather than coerce Great Britain: that though it might produce some inconvenience to that nation, its resources and its naval power were such as to sustain her, though all trade were at an end with the United States: that the commerce of this country would suffer severely, and the effect be to prevent the prosperity of America, and greatly to reduce the revenue, so necessary to pay the public debt; and that a new attempt to negotiate would probably succeed, and thus the evils of war be averted.*

A great constitutional question arose in 1793, relating to the powers of the federal courts, and whether a State was amenable to their jurisdiction. The question came up, on the occasion of the State of Georgia having been sued before a court of the United States, by a citizen of South Carolina; and Massachusetts, by an alien, and a subject of the King of Great Britain. The case in which the State of Georgia was defendant was brought before the court, and the majority of the Justices of the Supreme gave an opinion for sustaining the suit, as constitutional; which was founded in the second section of the third article of the federal compact; which gives the Judiciary of the United States authority to decide in " controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; and between a State and the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." One of the Judges, however, expressed doubts whether the Constitution intended to give such authority to the federal courts; as it would be a denial of the sovereignty of the States.

The suit commenced against the State of Massachusetts was not brought to trial; for the legislature, at a special session in September, 1793, called by the Governor, to consider the subject, soon after he had been served with a legal process, or notice, from the federal court, as a principal officer or agent of the State, to appear, and make answer

* The members of the House of Representatives who opposed these resolutions, were Smith, of South Carolina; Smith, of Maryland; Ames, Goodhue, and Dexter, of Massachusetts; Hartley, and Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; Tracy, and Hillhouse, of Connecticut; and others.