Befides, if the Government had been impartial, as it has pretended to be, it would not have adopted that flow and circuitous mode, so favourable to the enemies of France, for deciding the cafes relative to its neutrality; it would have preferred the measure propofed by Mr. Jefferfon, on the 25th of June, 1793, to the Minifter of the Republic: these meatures were fimple; they were in comformity with the duties of neutrality, and the interefts of the Republic. The Federal Government had decided questions which interested its neutrality, upon informations furnished by the State Governors and the Agents of the Republic; the prices remained in the hands of the French Conful until this decifion took place, the ftipulations of the 17th Article of the treaty of 1778 were not violated, and the Government at the same time satisfied the obligations of duty and justice. In vain would it say, that it had not this power. Notwithstanding the law of the 5th of June, 1794, giving to the tribunal the right of taking cognizance of cafes in which neutrality had been violated, did not the Prefident, on the 21st of June, 1794, decide, that the ship Wil. liam, taken out of the limits of the waters of the United States, fhould be delivered to the captors? And on the 3d of July, 1794, did he not decide, that the Pilgrim had been taken in the waters of the United States, and that of courfe he should be given up to the owners: In these cales the Prefident not only decided on matters, the cognizance of which had been configned to the tribunals, but likewife gave a retrospective effect to his own decifion upon the protecting line of the United States, which was not notified to the Minister of the Republic till the 8th of November, 1793.

Not fatisfied with permitting the 17th article of the treaty to be violated by its agents and tribunals, the Federal Government alfo fuffered the English to avail themselves of advantages interdicted to them by that article. They armed in the ports of the United States, brought in and repaired their prizes, and in a word found in them a certain afylum.

The English Privateer, Trusty, Captain Hall, was armed at Baltimore, to cruize against the French, and failed notwithftanding the complaints of the Conful of the Republic. At Charlestown, one Bermudian veffel, several Englith veffels, and one Dutch veffel, from the 24th of May to the 6th of June, 1793, took in cannon for their defence, and failed without oppofition.

What anfwer did the Government give to the reprefentations of the Minifter of the French Republic in this respect? He said that these vessels failed fo fuddenly, it was not able to have them arrefted. But the Treaty was not the lefs violable. Some inhabitants of the United States had aided in thefe illegal armaments: what measures were taken against them? Was any starth made to difcover them, to profecute them? Never; and yet the Governr.ent of the United States no fooner learned that, in confequence of an empli ftipulation which the Treaty of Versailles feemed to contain, the French were arming in the ports of the United States, than the most energetic orders were fent for ftopping these armaments. Even citizens of the United States were imprifoned upon fufpicion that they had participated in them. The Minifter cannot omit citing here the following passage of a letter from the Secretary of State, Edmund Randolph, to Mr. Hammond, dated ad June, 1794. a fuggeftion that Citizens of the United States had taken part in the act, (he fpeaks of the armaments in the United States) one, who was defignated, was inttantly committed to prifon for profecution: one or two others have been fince named and committed in like manner, and fhould it appear that there were ftill others, no meatures would be fpared to bring them to justice.” What more could the American Government do in favour of the English, if they had a fimilar Treaty to that with France, and had been fole pofleflors of the advantages affured to her by pofitive ftipulations?

"On

However, in contempt of thele very ftipulations, the Argonaut, an Englith man of war, in January, 1795, conducted into Lynnhaven Bay, the French Corvette L'Efperance, which he had taken upon the coaft; the there

had

had her repaired, in order to fend her on a cruize. Letters were in conquence written by the Secretary of State to the Governor of Virginia and to Mr. Hammond. What was the refult? Nothing. On the 29th of May, 1793, the Federal Government had not yet done any thing poti ive as to the acts which produced the complaint of the Minifter of the Republic. The Secretary of State announced, "That thele tacts fhal be ex. mined, and that it they are verified, the Federal Government will not be in the year of its obligations. To that has the reparation demanded by the Republic been limited. What are we to think of thefe delays, when we fee the Officers of the Government acting with fo much activity against the French, on the flighteft fufpicion that they have violated the neutrality, when, in his letter of the 29th of April, 1794, the Secretary of State antwers the complaints of the English Minifter "We have received no intelligence of the particular racts to which you refer; but, to prevent all unneceflary circuity in firft inquiring into them, and next tranimitting to this city the refult, the proper inftructions will be given to act without further directions." How did the Federal Government conduct itfelt towards the autumn of 1794 The English frigate Terpsichore took the privateer La Montagne into the port of Nortolk. The French Vice Conful claimed the execution of the Treaty of the Governor of Virginia.The Governor answered him, that he would have the neceffary investigation made, and would afterwards take the proper meafures.

The predeceffor of the underfigned then interpofed with the Federal Government; and the Secretary of State aflured him, that he wrote to the GoBut this juftice was limited to vernor of Virginia to have justice rendered. investigations made with fuch flowrels, that five months after this affair was not finished; and, on the 24th of February, 1795, the Secretary of State contented himself with fending to the predecellor of the undersigned, the difparches of the Lieutenant Governor, dated 10th of October, 1794, by which he announces, that he ordered the Commandant of the Milita of Norfolk to make the neceffary inquiries for enabling the Executive of Virginia to render to the Republic the juftice it had a right to expect. The refult of thefe enquiries is not known. However, the fact about which the Minifter Faucher complained to the Secretary of State was notorious, and painful refearches were not n ceffary to convince himself of it. Do we not find in this proceeding a formal defile to elude the treaties, and to favour the English?

If the Government of the United States had wished to maintain itself in that impartiality which its duties prefcribed, if it wifhed freely to execute the treaties, it would not have waited, every time that the English infringed them, for the Minifter to folicit its juftice: fhould it not have given inftructions fo precife, that the Governors of the States and fubaltern Officers of the Federal Government might know what duties they had to fulfil, in order to maintain the execution of treaties? Why have the most energetic orders (such as the Secretary of State, Randolph, mentions) been given, when the uppert of the neutrality inviolate, in favour of the English, came in queftion? Why have the measures taken by the Federal Government operated with to much flownefs when France was interested? Why, in fine, have the multiplied claims of her Minifters never produced the redrefs of the grievances of which they complained.

When the predeceffor of the underfigned Minifter Plenipotentiary claimed the execution of the 17th article of the treaty, interdicting the entry into the American ports of English veffels which fhould have made prizes upon the French, when he cited this fimple and formal ftipulation-" On the contrary, neither afylum nor refuge fhall be given in the ports or harbours of France, or of the United States, to veffels which fhall have made prizes of the French or Americans; and fhould they be obliged to enter, by ten peft, or danger of the fea, all proper means fhall be used to make them depart as foon as poifible," the Secretary of State, in order to avoid fhutting the American ports

Q

against

against the English, interpreted this article in their favour. "But it would

be uncandid to conceal from you the construction which we have hitherta deemed the true one. The first part of the 17th article relates to French fhips of war and privateers entering our ports with their prizes; the fecond hontracts the fituation of the enemies of France, by forbidding fuch as fail cave made prizes of the French, intimating from this connexion of the two claufes, that voffels forbidden are those which bring their prizes with them. It has been confidered that this fection of the treaty was impartially destined to the withholding of protection or fuccour to the prizes themfelves; had it been otherwife, it would have been fuperfluous to have prohibited from failing what they have taken in the ports of the United States."

He faid, moreover, that in his letter of the 29th of May, 1795, "But on the 3d of Augut, the Prefident declared his conftruction of that treaty to be, that no public armed vellels were thereby forbidden from our waters, except thofe which fhould have made prizes of the people or property of France coming with their prizes." But how is it poffible to find, in the ftipulations of the treaty, the lenfe given to them by the Government of the United States ?— This expreffion of the treaty," which shall have made prizes," is general, and applies to all capturing vefiels, whether they enter the ports of the United States with prizes, or enter them alone, after having made prizes. It is evident that the Government adds to the letter of the treaty in this circumstance; and it is not attonithing, that it admits a construction of the treaty, when it expects to find a meaning difadvantageous to France, and in other inftances oppofes all conftruction, when this would be favourable to the Republic. But has it the right of conftruing the treaty, of changing. of its own accord, the fenfe of a clear and precite tipulation, without the confent and concurrence of the other contracting party? Doubtless not, especially when, by fo doing, it wounds her intercits.

The Secretary of State, by the 22d article, pretends to fupport his conftruction of the 17th article. What does this 22d article contain? A prohibition of the enemies of France and of the United States from arming in the respective ports of the two Powers, of felling their prizes, or of discharging all or a part of their cargo there. This article, therefore, applies to the prizes; while the 17th applies to the capturing vellels. Did it not exit, the enemies of France, or of the United States might fend their prizes into the respective ports of the two Powers, without conducting them there themselves: the 17th article, containing only a prohibitory arrangement for the capturing of vellels, could not prohibit them from doing this. It was neceffary then to have recourfe to a formal prohibition: befides, as the vefiels which have made prizes on the French or Americans, are admitted into the ports of France, or of the United States, in cafes of tempeft or danger of the fea, they might, in this cafe, have conceived themfelves authorited to difpofe of their prizes, to fell them, or to difcharge their cargoes; it was neceflary, therefore, to take this 1ight from them in a pofitive manner; it was neceffary to prevent them from benefitting by a ftipulation made in favour of humanity: this is the end anfwered by the 22d article, which is not fuperfluous, as the Secretary of State maintains; but, on the contrary, contains a distinct ftipulation from that of the 17th. It is then evident from this, that, in the cafes above cited by the undersigned, the ftipulations of the 17th article have been violated. They have been equally fo by the admiffion, in fundry ports, of the Thetis and Huifar frigates, which captured La Prevoyante and La Raifon, French store-fhips, and by admitting, in the last inftance, this fame ship La Raison, prize to the Thetis, into the ports of the United States.

But, admitting for a moment the conftructions gratuitously given by the Secretary of State to the 17th article of the treaty of 1778, this article has not the lefs been violated, when the Argonaut, which had quitted Hampton Roads in order to capture L'Efperance, was permitted to enter with that

prize; when the Terpsichore was fuffered to bring in the privateer La Montagne. In vain were fought, in the refources of a captious and falte logic, the means of excufing fuch conduct. The facts fpeak, and every upright mind, not blinded by paffion, will neceffarily yield to their evidence. Yet the prohibitory ftipulation, of the admiffion of prizes made by her enemies, is the only advantage which France expected to enjoy, after having wrought and guaranteed the independence of the United States, at a time when the might, as the price of that very independence, have granted them lefs liberal conditions. There wrongs of the American Government towards the Republic, just ftated by the underligned Minifter Plenipotentiary, will foon be aggravated by new ones.

It was a little matter only to allow the English to avail themselves of the advantages of our treaty; it was neceffary to affine thefe to them by the aid of a contract which might ferve at once as a reply to the claims of France, and as peremptory motives for refulals, the true caule of which it was requi fite inceffantly to diguife to her own fpecious pretexts.

Such was the object of Mr. Jay's miffion to London, fuch was the object of a negotiation enveloped from its origin in the shadow of mystery, and covered with the veil of diffimulation. Could the Executive Directory have any other idea of it, on examining its illue, on feeing all the efforts made by the American Government to conceal the fecret from every eye?

In his meffage to the Senate, of the 16th of April, 1794, the Prefident declared that Mr. Jay was lent to London only to obtain a redress of the wrongs done to the United States; at the fame time the Secretary of State communicated to the predeceffor of the underligned a part of the inftructions of Mr. Jay, reminding him of the intention of the American Government not to deviate from its engagements with the Republic of France. The French Minitter, deceived by this communication, contributed ingenuously to deceive his Government. The American Minitter in France removed the fears of the French Government as to the miffion of this Envoy Extraordinary, and reprefented it as the only means of obtaining indemnification for the lofles which the American commerce had fuftained. What has this negotiation produced? The treaty of amity and commerce, which deprives France of all the advan. tages ftipulated in a previous treaty.

In fact, all that could render the neutrality profitable to England, and injurious to France, is combined in this treaty. Her commercial relations with the United States are entirely broken by the abandonment of the modern public law on contraband, a law which England had confecrated in eleven treaties, and which the Americans nad alfo confecrated in their treaties with France, Holland, Sweden, and Pruffia. From the new arrangements adopted by the United States with regard to England, the free carriage of the articles for the equipment and armament of veflels is granted exclusively to that Power.

By the 23d article of the treaty of Verfailles, the United States have the liberty of treely carrying on commerce with the enemies of France. The 24th article of the treaty with Holland, the 10th article of the treaty with Sweden, and the 13th article of the treaty with Pruffia, contain the fame ftipulation. This last article gives even more extensive rights to the United States, by permitting them to carry to the enemies of this power all the articles enumerated in the lift of fuch as are contraband of war, without their being liable to confifcation. But by the 18th article of London, the articles for arming and equipping veffels are declared of war. The Government of the United States has therefore by this ftipulation granted to the English a right which they had refuted, in confequence of the modern public law, to other nations with whom they have made treaties; that of feizing on board their veffels articles proper for the construction and equipment of velfels. The English then according to that, enjoy the exclusive commerce of articles proper for the con

Q2

ftruction

ftruction of vefiels; vet prior to the treaty concluded between John Jay and Lord Granville, the United States had the right of carrying on commerce with every power; the partiality of the American government in favour of England has therefore been fuch, that not only the intereits of France, but alio thole of other ftates, have been facrificed to her.

In vain will it be objected that France, having the right by her treaty of 1778 to enjoy all the advantages in commerce and navigation which the United States have granted to England, is not injured by the it pulations of the treaty of 1794, relative to the contraband of war, as they become common to her. But the right fecured to her by the iccond article of the treaty of 1778 does not at all extend to the allies, whom the fuccefs of her arms, and the jult resentment infpired by the ambition of England, have dennitively given an i fhall give to her in Europe. The difpofitions change, during the courte of the war, the fituation of the United States towards England, and the belligerent powers allied to France; the intereft of thefe powers is common to France; and from the mo nent that is injured, France is injured alfo.

After having affured to the English the carriage of naval ftores, the federal government wished to affure to them that of meals: in a word, it is defired to have commerce only with England. Thus it ftipulates by the 18th article, that the American veffels laden with grain may be feized, under the frivolous pretext that it is extremely difficult to define the cales wherein provifions, and other articles, which are generally excepted, could be claffed in the lift of contraband of war: thus it ftipulates, in article 17, that the American veffels may be arrested upon the fingle fufpicion, either that they have merchandize belonging to the chemy, or that they carry to him articles contraband of war. The United States, in their treaty with Fiance, have made ftipulations entirely oppofite to thote jut cited; whilft her veffels of war are bound to respect the American flag going to English poffeffions, the English drag into their ports the American vellels going to the ports of France; fubject them to decisions more or leis arbitrary; and often condemn them on account of the name alone of their owners; by which means all the commercial relations between the United States and France are entirely fufpended. What American wiil venture to len i vells into French ports? What commerce will he venture to undertake with the French pofleflions, when it will be certain that his funds, either in going to, or returning from them, run the greatest hazard? Would he not rather prefer trafficing with a country to which his veffels might go without being expofed to other risks than thofe of the fea? Would he not prefer Great Britain to France for his ipeculations? In virtue of the treaty of London, and by the comte of things, would not the commerce of the United States pafs entirely to England during the prefent war?

After having confented to fuch conditions the American government cannot pretend to impartiality; it cannot fay that it has maintained an equal neutrality between France and England, since it has granted to Great Britain advantages denied to France. But every one of thefe advantages granted to England, was aleal wrong to the Republic; and if it is not maintained, without Iporting with all principles, that a government inay confider itlelf as neutral, in granting to a belligerent power advantages which it refufes to another, it is clear that the government of the United States, after having made its treaty with Great Britain, cealed to be neutral, when it oppofed itlelf to the participation by France, in the favour granted to the English.

In confequence the underligned minifter plenipotentiary again declares, that the Executive Directory has just ordered the vellels of war and privateers of the Republic to treat American vellels in the fame manner as they tuffer the English to treat them.

Were the treaty of London out of the queftion, the measure the Executive Directory now takes would not be leis conformable to justice. The under