"danger is tacitly and necessarily reserved in every "treaty."*

If too, as no sensible and candid man will deny, the extent of the present combination against France, is in a degree to be ascribed to imprudences on her part; the exemption to the United States is still more manifest and complete. No country is bound to partake in hazards of the most critical kind, which may have been produced or promoted by the indiscretion and intemperance of another. This is an obvious dictate of reason, with which the common sense and common practice of mankind coincide.

To the foregoing considerations, it may perhaps be added with no small degree of force, that military stipulations in national treaties, contemplate only the ordinary case of foreign war, and are irrelative to the contests which grow out of revolutions of government; unless where they have express reference to a revolution begun, or where there is a guarantee of the existing constitution of a nation, or where there is a personal alliance for the defence of a prince and his family.t

The revolution in France is the primitive source of the war in which she is engaged. The restoration of the monarchy, is the avowed object of some of her enemies, and the implied one of all. That question then is essentially involved in the principle of the war; a question certainly never in the contemplation of the government with which our treaty was made, and it may thence be fairly inferred, never intended to be embraced by it.

The inference is, that the United States fulfilled the utmost that could be claimed by the nation of France, when they so far respected its decision as to recognize the newly constituted authorities; giving operation to the treaty of alliance for future occasions, but considering the present war as a tacit exception. Perhaps too, this exception is, in other respects, due to the circumstances under which the engagements between the two countries were contracted. It is impossible, prejudice apart, not

See Book III, Chap. VI, Sec. 92.

Puffendorf, book VIII, Chap. IX, Section 9.

to perceive a delicate embarrassment between the theory and fact of our political relations to France.

On these grounds, also, as well as that of the present war being offensive on the side of France, the United States have valid and honourable pleas to offer against the execution of the guarantee, if it should be claimed by France. And the president was in every view fully justified in pronouncing, that the duty and interest of the United States dictated a neutrality in the war.

No. IV.

A THIRD objection to the proclamation is, that it is inconsistent with the gratitude due to France, for the services rendered to us in our revolution.

Those who make this objection, disavow, at the same time, all intention to maintain the position, that the United States ought to take part in the war. They profess to be friends to our remaining at peace. What then do they mean by the objection?

If it be no breach of gratitude to refrain from joining France in the war, how can it be a breach of gratitude to declare, that such is our disposition and intention?

The two positions are at variance with each other; and the true inference is, either that those who make the objection really wish to engage this country in the war, or that they seek a pretext for censuring the conduct of the chief magistrate, for some purpose very different from the public good.

They endeavour in vain to elude this inference by saying, that the proclamation places France upon an equal footing with her enemies; while our treaties require distinctions in her favour, and our relative situation would dictate kind offices to her, which ought not to be granted to her adversaries.

They are not ignorant, that the proclamation is reconcileable with both those objects, as far as they have any foundation in truth or propriety.

It has been shown, that the promise of "a friendly "and impartial conduct" towards all the belligerent

any

powers, is not incompatible with the performance of stipulations in our treaties, which would not include our becoming an associate in the war; and it has been observed, that the conduct of the executive, in regard to the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of commerce, is an unequivocal comment upon the terms. They were, indeed, naturally to be understood, with the exception of those matters of positive compact, which would not amount to taking part in the war; for a nation then observes a friendly and impartial conduct towards two contending powers, when it only performs to one of them what it is obliged to do by stipulations in antecedent treaties, which do not constitute a participa tion in the war.

Neither do those expressions imply, that the United States will not exercise their discretion in doing kind offices to some of the parties, without extending them to the others, so long as they have no relation to war: for kind offices of that description may, consistently with neutrality, be shown to one party and refused to another.

If the objectors mean, that the United States ought to favour France, in things relating to war, and where they are not bound to do it by treaty; they must in this case also abandon their pretension of being friends to peace. For such a conduct would be a violation of neutrality, which could not fail to produce war.

It follows then, that the proclamation is reconcileable with all that those who censure it contend for taking them upon their own ground, that nothing is to be done incompatible with the preservation of peace.

But though this would be a sufficient answer to the objection under consideration; yet it may not be without use, to indulge some reflections on this very favourite topic of gratitude to France; since it is at this shrine that we are continually invited to sacrifice the true interests of the country; as if all for love, and the world "well lost," were a fundamental maxim in politics.

Faith and justice between nations, are virtues of a nature the most necessary and sacred. They cannot be too strongly inculcated nor too highly respected. Their

to perceive a delicate embarrassment between the theory and fact of our political relations to France.

On these grounds, also, as well as that of the present war being offensive on the side of France, the United States have valid and honourable pleas to offer against the execution of the guarantee, if it should be claimed by France. And the president was in every view fully justified in pronouncing, that the duty and interest of the United States dictated a neutrality in the war.

No. IV.

A THIRD objection to the proclamation is, that it is inconsistent with the gratitude due to France, for the services rendered to us in our revolution.

Those who make this objection, disavow, at the same time, all intention to maintain the position, that the United States ought to take part in the war. They profess to be friends to our remaining at peace. What then do they mean by the objection?

If it be no breach of gratitude to refrain from joining France in the war, how can it be a breach of gratitude to declare, that such is our disposition and intention?

The two positions are at variance with each other; and the true inference is, either that those who make the objection really wish to engage this country in the war, or that they seek a pretext for censuring the conduct of the chief magistrate, for some purpose very different from the public good.

They endeavour in vain to elude this inference by saying, that the proclamation places France upon an equal footing with her enemies; while our treaties require distinctions in her favour, and our relative situation would dictate kind offices to her, which ought not to be granted to her adversaries.

They are not ignorant, that the proclamation is reconcileable with both those objects, as far as they have any foundation in truth or propriety.

It has been shown, that the promise of "a friendly "and impartial conduct" towards all the belligerent

powers, is not incompatible with the performance of any stipulations in our treaties, which would not include our becoming an associate in the war; and it has been observed, that the conduct of the executive, in regard to the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of commerce, is an unequivocal comment upon the terms. They were, indeed, naturally to be understood, with the exception of those matters of positive compact, which would not amount to taking part in the war; for a nation then observes a friendly and impartial conduct towards two contending powers, when it only performs to one of them what it is obliged to do by stipulations in antecedent treaties, which do not constitute a participa-tion in the war.

Neither do those expressions imply, that the United States will not exercise their discretion in doing kind offices to some of the parties, without extending them to the others, so long as they have no relation to war: for kind offices of that description may, consistently with neutrality, be shown to one party and refused to another.

If the objectors mean, that the United States ought to favour France, in things relating to war, and where they are not bound to do it by treaty; they must in this case also abandon their pretension of being friends to peace. For such a conduct would be a violation of neutrality, which could not fail to produce war.

It follows then, that the proclamation is reconcileable with all that those who censure it contend for taking them upon their own ground, that nothing is to be done incompatible with the preservation of peace.

But though this would be a sufficient answer to the objection under consideration; yet it may not be without use, to indulge some reflections on this very favourite topic of gratitude to France; since it is at this shrine that we are continually invited to sacrifice the true interests of the country; as if "all for love, and the world "well lost," were a fundamental maxim in politics.

Faith and justice between nations, are virtues of a nature the most necessary and sacred. They cannot be too strongly inculcated nor too highly respected. Their