"All neutral or allied powers fhall, without delay, be notified, that the flag of the French Republic will treat neutral vessels, either as to confifcation, as to fearches, or capture, in the fame manner as they fhall fuffer the Englis to treat them. "The minifter of foreign relations is charged with the execution of the prefent refolve, which fhall not be printed. (Signed) A true copy. CARNOT, Prefident. Reply of the Executive Government of America to Citizen Adet's Note, inclofing the Decree of the Directory respecting Neutral Veffels. SIR, HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note, of the 27th Ime covering a decree of the Executive Directory of the French Republic, concerning the commerce of neutral nations. This decree makes no diftinction between neutral powers, who can claim only the rights fecured to them by the law of nations, and others between whom and the French Republic treaties have impofed ipecial obligations. Where no treaties exist, the Republic, by feizing and confiicating the property of their enemies found on board neutral veffels, would only exercile an acknowledged right under the law of nations. If, towards fuch neutral nations, the French Republic has forborne to execute this right, the forbearance has been perfectly gratuitous. The United States, by virtue of their treaty of commerce with France, itand on different ground. In the year 1778, France voluntarily entered into a commercial treaty with us, on principles of perfect reciprocity, and exprefsly ftipulating that free ships Jhould make free goods. That is, if France fhould be at war with any nation with whorn the United States fhould be at peace, the goods (except contraband) and the perfons of her enemies (foldiers in actual fervice excepted) found on beard the veffels of the United States, were to be free from capture. That on the other hand, if the United States should engage in war with any nation, while France remained at peace, then the goods (except contraband) and the perions of our enemies (foldiers in actual fervice excepted) found on board French veffels, were alfo to be free from capture. This is plainly expreffed in the 23d article of that treaty, and demonftrates that the reciprocity thereby ftipulated was to operate at different periods; that is, at one time in favour of one of the contracting parties, and of the other at another time. At the prefent time, the United States being at peace, they poffefs by the treaty the right of carrying the goods of the enemies of France, without fubjecting them to capture. But what do the ipirit of the decree of the Executive Directory and the current of your obfervations require?-That the United States thould now gratuitously renounce this right. And what reafon is affigned for denying to us the enjoyment of this right? Your own words furnith the answer: "France, bound by treaty to the United States, could find only a real ditadvantage in the articles of that treaty, which caufed to be refpected, as American property, English property found on board American vellels." This requifition, and the reafon affigned to fupport it, alike excite furprife. The American Government, Sr, conicious of the purity of its intention, of its impartial obfervance of the laws of neutrality, and of its inviolable regard to treaties, cannot for a moment admit, that it has forfeited the right to claim a reciprocal obfervance of ftipulations on the part of the Frenc Republic, whole friendship moreover it has every reafon to cultivate with the most perfect fincerity. This right, formerly intringed by a decree of the National Convention, was recognized anew by the repeal of that decree. Why it fhould be again queftioned we are at a lofs to determine. We are ignorant of any new restraint A2 reftraints on our commerce by the British government; on the contrary, we poffefs recent official information, that no new orders have been issued. The captures made by the British of American veffels, having French property on board, are warranted by the law of nations. The force and operation of this law was contemplated by France and the United States, when they formed their treaty of commerce, and their special ftipulation on this point was meant as an exception to an univerfal rule; neither our weakness nor our ftrength have any choice, when the question concerns the oblervance of a known rule of the law of nations. You are pleased to remark, that the conduct of Great Britain, in capturing veffels bound to and from French ports, had been the subject of a note, which on the 29th of September, 1795, was addreffed to the fecretary of state, but which reinained without an anfwer. Very fufficient reafons may be affigned for the omiffion. The fubject, in all its afpects, had been officially and publicly difcuffed, and the principles and ultimate meafures of the United States, founded on their indufputable rights, were as publicly fixed. But if the fubject had not, by the previous difcuffions, been already exhaufted, can it be a matter of furprife that there fhould be a repugnance to answer a letter containing fuch infinuations as these? "It must then be clear to every man, who will difcard prejudices, love, hatred, and, in a word, all the paffions which lead the judgment aftray, that the French Republic have a right to complain, if the American government fuffered the English to interrupt the commercial relations which exift between her and the United States; if by a perfidious condefcenfion it permitted the English to violate a right which it ought, for its own honour and intereft, to defend ; if, under the cloak of neutrality, it prefented to England a poniard to cut the throat of its faithful ally; if, in fine, partaking in the tyrannical and homici dal rage of Great Britain, it concurred to plunge the people of France into the horrors of famine!" For the fake of preferving harmony, filence was preferred to a comment upon thefe infinuations. You are alfo pleafed to refer to your letters of March and April laft, relative to imprefles of American feamen by British fhips, and complain that the government of the United States had not made known to you the steps they had taken to obtain fatisfaction. This, Sir, was a matter which concerned only that Government. As an independent nation, we are not bound to render an account to any other of the meafures we deemed proper for the protection of our own citizens; fo long as there was not the flighted ground to fufpe&t that the government ever acquiefced in any aggreffion. But permit me to recur to the fubject of the decree of the Executive Directory. As before obferved, we are officially informed that the British Government have iffued no new orders for capturing the veffels of the United States. We are alfo officially informed, that on the appearance of the notification of that decree, the minifter of the United States at Paris applied for information, "Whether orders were iffued for the feizure of neutral veffels, and was informed, that no fuch order was issued, and further that no fuch order would be iffued, in cafe the British did not feize our veffels." This communication from the minister of the United States, at Paris, to their minifter at London, was dated the 28th of August; but the decree of the Directory bears date the 14th Meffidor, anfwering to the ad of July. Thefe circumftances, together with fome obfervations in your note, leave the American government in a state of uncertainty of the real intentions of the government in France. Allow me then to ask, whether, in the actual ftate of things, our commerce is confidered as liable to fuffer any new restrictions on the part of the French Republic? Whether the reftraints now exercised by the British Government are confidered as of a nature to justify a denial of those rights, which are pledged to us by our treaty with your nation? Whether orders have been actually given to the fhips of war of the French Republic to capture the veffels of the United States? And what, if they exift, are the precife terms of thofe orders? The questions, Sir, you will fee, are highly interefting to the United States. It is with extreme concern that the government finds itfelf reduced to the neceffity of afking an explanation of this nature; and if it fhall be informed that a new line of conduct is to be adopted towards this country, on the ground of the decree referred to, its furprife will equal its regret, that principles fhould now be questioned, which, after repeated difcuffions, both here and in France, have been demonftrated to be founded, as we conceive, in the obligations of impartial neutrality, of ftipulations by treaty, and of the law of nations. I hope, Sir, you will find it convenient, by an early anfwer, to remove the fuipente in which the government of the United States is now held on the question above stated. I fall close this letter by one remark on the fingularity of your caufing the publication of your note. As it concerned the United States, it was properly addreffed to its government, to which alone pertained the right of communicating it in fuch time and manner as it should think fit to the citizens of the United States. I am, Sir, with great respect, United States, Philadelphia, Nov. 3. Translation of a Note from the Minifter of the French Republic, to the Secretary of State of the United Provinces. THE HE undersigned Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic now fulfils, to the Secretary of State of the United States, a painful but facred duty. He claims, in the name of American honour, in the name of the faith of Treaties, the execution of that Contract, which affured, in the United States, their existence, and which France regarded as the pledge of the molt facred union between two people the freeft upon earth: in a word he announces to the Secretary of State the refolution of a Government, terrible to its enemies, but generous to its allies. It would have been pleafing to the undersigned Minister Plenipotentiary to have only to expreis, on the prefent occafion, the attachment which his Government bears to the American People, the vows which it forms for their profperity, for their happinets. His heart, therefore, is grieved at the cir cumitances which impote upon him a different tafk. With regret he finds himfelf compelled to fubititute the tone of reproach for the language of friendfhip. With regret alfo, his Government has ordered him to take that tone, but that very friendship has rendered it indifpenfible. Its obligations, facred to men, are as facred to Governments, and, if a friend, offended by a friend, can justly complain; the Government of the United States, after the underfigned Miniiter Plenipotentiary shall have traced the catalogue of grievances of the French Republic, will not be furprised to fee the Executive Directory manifesting their too just difcontents. When Europe rofe up against the Republic at its birth, menaced it with all the horrors of war and famine; when on every fide the French could not calculate upon any but enemies, their thoughts turned towards America; a fweet fentiment then mingled itself with thole proud fentiments which the prefence of danger, and the defire of repelling it produced in their hearts. In America they faw friends. Thofe who went to brave tempefts and death upon the ocean forgot all dangers, in order to indulge the hope of vifiting that American Continent, where, for the first time, the French colours had been displayed in favour of liberty. Under the guarantee of the law of nations, under * under the protecting fhade of a folemn treaty, they expected to find in the ports of the United States, an afylum as fure as at home: they thought, if I may use the expreffion, there to find a fecond country. The French Government thought as they did. O hope, worthy of a faithful people, how halt thou been deceived! So far from offering to the French the fuccours which friendship might have given without compromifing it, the American Government, in this refpect, violated the letter of treaties. The 17th article of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, states, that French vetiels of war, and thofe of the United States, as well as thofe which hall have been armed for war, by individuals of the two States, may freely conduct where they please the prizes they shall have made upon their enemies, without being fubject to any Admiralty or other duty; without the faid veffels, on entering into the harbours of France, or of the United States, being liable to be arrested or feized, or the officers of those places taking cognizance of the validity of the faid prizes; which may depart and be conducted freely and in full liberty to the places expreffed in their commiffions, which the captains of the faid veffels fhould be obliged to fhew; and that, on the contrary, no fhelter or refuge fhall be given to those who shall have made prizes upon the French or Americans; and that, if they fhould be forced by stress of weather or the danger of the fea to enter, they shall be made to depart as foon as poflible. In contempt of thefe ftipulations, the French privateers have been arrested in the United States as well as their prizes; the tribunals have taken cognizance of the validity or invalidity of thofe prizes. It were vain to leek to jultify thofe proceedings under the pretext of the right of vind.cating the compromifed neutrality of the United States. The facts about to be itated will prove, that this pretext has been the fource of fhocking perfecutions againit the French privateers, and that the conduct of the Federal Government has been but a feries of violations of the 17th article of the treaty of 1778. On the 4th of Auguft, 1793, a circular letter of the Secretary of the Treatury was fent to all the Collectors of the Cuftoms. It accompanied regulations adopted by the Prefident, prohibiting all armaments in favour of the Belligerent Powers. Thefe regulations immediately acquired the force of law, and the agents of the Government and the Tribunals concurred in their execution. They gave them a retrospective effect, and caused to be feized, in the ports of the United States, the armed veffels and prizes which had come in prior to that time. But even before thefe regulations, adopted by the Prefident, had establifhed any rule whatever upon the prohibition of armaments, the Tribunals had already, by order of the Government, assumed the cognizance of prizes made by French veffels. (No. 1.) One of the predeceflors of the undersigned protested against this, but in vain. The Tribunals ftill continue their profecutions. On the 3d of December, 1793, the Prefident afked of Congress a Law, confirming the measures contained in the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, above-mentioned. (No. 2.) This law was paffed on the 5th of June, 1794. What was its refult? In confequence of this law, the greater part of the French privateers have been arretted, as well as their prizes not upon formal depositions, not upon established testimony, not upon a necessary body of proofs, but upon the fimple information of the Conful of one of the Powers at war with the French Republic; frequently upon that of failors of the enemy powers; fometimes according to the orders of Governors, but often upon the demand of the District Attornies, who affert, upon principles avowed by the Government (No. 3.), that their conviction was fufficient to authorize them, without complaint, or regular information, to cause the privateers to be profecuted in virtue of the law above-mentioned, (No. 4-) When the Ministers of the Republic have asked justice of the Government tor for the vexations experienced by the privateers, in contempt of the 17th article of the Treaty, they have never been able to obtain fatisfaction. Thus, when, on the 9th Fructidor, third year (26th August, 1794) the predeceffor of the undersigned addreffed a complaint to the Government on this ubject, the Secretary of State antwered, on the 3d of September, 1794, by a phrafe indicative of delay. Thus, when the fame Minifter, on the 27th Vendemaire, 3 year (17th October, 1794,) reminded the Secretary of State of the means he had propofed to him, for putting an end to the meatures adopted against the French pri vateers; when he caused him to see that this means, which consist in requiring fecurity from thofe who claimed the prizes as illegal, would prevent the ene mies of the Republic from inftituting fo many fuits, of which they themfelves perceived the injuftice; he obtained no other answer than that his propofition relative to fecurities was inadmiffible. When, on the 13th Floreal, 3d year, the fame Minifter expreffed himself in thefe terms, in a letter to the Secretary of State-" You have alledged, Sir, that the Government of the United States cannot interfere in the affairs of which the Tribunals have taken cognizance. In admitting this objection for all the bufinefs now in fuit, I do not lefs think that your Government could, by general measures, bring back the jurif fiction of the American Tribunals, concerning prizes made by our veffels, within the limits prefcribed by our treaties, which make part of the Supreme Law of the Land: it might make known that the facility, with which your Courts of Admiralty admit, without distinction, all the chicanery which our enemies create against us in the prefent war, is evidently contrary to the fpirit of the Treaty." The Government paid no attention to thefe reflections, and the anfwer of the Secretary of State merely notices the particular fact which had occafioned the Note of Citizen Fauchet. What was the undersigned Minister Plenipotentiary able to obtain in the affair of the Caffius and of the Vengeance? Nothing. The Government of the United States must have feen, however, by the claims which the Minifters of the Republic addreffed to it, and by the great number of facts of which it has had a knowledge, how much the execution of the measures of the Prefident, and of the law of the 5th of June, 1794, was contrary to the 17th article of the Treaty; how much the agency of the Tribunals, who ought not to have any cognizance of the validity or invalidity of prizes, tending to annul that article, and to deprive the Republic of theļadvantages which it affures to her. In fact, was it not evident that, when the Powers at war with the Republic had the privilege, in virtue of the law of the 5th of June, 1794, of caufing to be arrested the privateers and their prizes, of detaining them in the ports of the United States, of ruining them by confiderable colts, by the exceffive expences which they occafioned them, they drew from that privilege an immenfe advantage, to the detriment of France? Doubtlefs it was but of little import to them that fometimes the privateers obtained justice in the last resort, if they detained the privateers for a length of time, and if they by that means fheltered from their purfuit the commerce of the enemy of France. The neutrality of the United States in this cafe was altogether to their advantage, and the Federal Government, on feeing this ftate of things, fhould, out of refpect to its neutrality and to treaties, folicit from the Congrels the means of conciliating the duties of the former, with the obligation of the latter. The government very well knew how to lolicit the law of the 5th of June, When the law was to bear on France alone, when it gave the tribunals a right which has been abufed, and which enables them to decide upon prizes, why, on feeing the inconveniences of this law, has it not endeavoured to remedy them? Should it wait to be folicited on this head! Should it not anticipate all claims? and, when thofe were prefented by the Minilters of the Republic, fhould it not do justice? 1794. |