Slike strani

ducting them there themfelves: the 17th article, containing only a prohibitory arrangement for the capturing of veffels, could not prohibit them from doing this. It was neceffary then to have recourse to a formal prohibition: befides, as the veffels, 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 authorised to difpofe of their prizes, to fell them, or to difcharge their cargoes; it was neceffary, therefore, to take this right from them in a pofitive manner; it was necellary to prevent them from benefiting by a ftipulation made in favour of humanity. This is the end answered by the 22d article, which is not fuperfluous, as the fecretary of ftate maintains, but, on the contrary, contains a diftin&t ftipulation from that of the 17th." It is then evident from this, that, in the cafes above cited by the underfigned, the ftipulations of the 17th article have been violated. They have been equally fo by the admiffion, in fundry ports, of the Thetis and Huffar frigates, which captured La Prevoyante and La Raifon, French ftore fhips, and by admitting, in the laft inftance, this fame fhip La Raifon, prize to the Thetis, into the ports of the United States.

But, admitting for a moment the conftructions gratuitoufly given by the fecretary 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. la vain were fought, in the refources of a captious and falfe 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.

Thefe wrongs of the American government towards the Re-public, juft ftated by the undertigned minifter plenipotentiary, will foon be aggravated by new ones.

It was a little matter only to allow the English to avail themfelves of the advantages of our treaty; it was neceifary to affure these 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 refufals, the true caufe of which it was requilite incetfantly to' difquife to her under 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 fhadow


of myftery, and covered with the veil of diffimulation. Could the Executive Directory have any other idea of it, on examining its iffue, on feeing all the efforts made by the American government to conceal the fecret from every eye?

In his meffage to the fenate, of the 16th of April, 1794, the prefident declared that Mr. Jay was fent to London only to obtain a redrefs of the wrongs done to the United States; at the fame time the secretary of state communicated to the predeceffor of the underfigned 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 minifter, deceived by this communication, contributed ingenioufly to deceive his government. The American minifter in France removed the fears of the French government as to the mission of this envoy extraordinary, and represented it as the only means of obtaining indemnification for the loffes which the American commerce had fuftained. What has this negotiation produced? The treaty of amity and commerce, which deprives France of all the advantages 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 had also 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 vellels is granted exclufively to that power.

By the 23d article of the treaty of Versailles, the United States have the liberty of freely 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 extenfive 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 refused, 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 conftruction and equipment of velfels. The English then, according to that, enjoy the exclufive commerce of articles proper for the conftruction of


veffels; yet prior to the treaty concluded between John Jay and Lord Grenville, 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 interefts of France, but also thofe of other states, 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 ftipulations 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 fecond article of the treaty of 1778 does not at all extend to the allies, whom the fuccefs of her arms, and the juft refentment infpired by the ambition of England, have definitively given and fhall give to her in Europe. The difpofitions change, during the courfe 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 moment that is injured, France is injured alfo.

After having affured to the English the carriage of naval ftores, the federal government wifhed 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 cafes wherein provisions, 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 merchandife belonging to the enemy, or that they carry to him articles contraband of war. The United States, in their treaty with France, have made ftipulations entirely oppofite to thofe juft 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 veffels going to the ports of France; fubject them to decifions more or lefs 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 will venture to fend veffels into French ports? What commerce will he venture to undertake with the French poffeffions, when it will be certain that his funds, either in going to, or returning from them, run the greateft hazard? Would he not rather prefer trafficking 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 fpeculations? In virtue of the treaty of London, and by the course of VOL. V.



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, fince it has granted to Great Britain advantages denied to France. But every one of these advantages granted to England, was a real wrong to the Republic; and if it is not maintained, without fporting with all principles, that a government may confider itfelf as neutral, in granting to a belligerent power advantages which it refuses to another, it is clear that the government of the United States, after having made its treaty with Great Britain, ceased to be neutral, when it opposed itself to the participation by France, in the favour granted to the English.

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

Were the treaty of London out of the queftion, the measure the Executive Directory now takes would not be lefs conformable to justice. The underligned minifter plenipotentiary has developed to the fecretary of ftate, in his note of the 6th Brumaire laft, principles which leave no doubt in this refpect, and which the anfwer of the fecretary of state is far from destroying. (No. 5.) But the ftipulations of treaties now come to the fupport of general principles. The Republic calls for the execution of the fecond article of the treaty of 1778, which fays that France and the United States mutually engage not to grant any particular favour, as to navigation or commerce, which fhall not immediately become common to the other party. The government of the United States having by the treaty of London facrificed to Eng land the freedom of their flag, the property of the enemies of England, and naval ftores; France, by her treaty, is authorised to claim the fame advantage, to make ufe of it, and the United States have no right to complain.

Certainly it would have been more conformable to the designs of France, and to her principles, to fee the American flag floating without interruption upon the feas; to fee the commerce of the United States enjoy that liberty, that freedom, which fhould belong to neutral nations; but in order to that it was neceffary that the American government fhould know how to maintain that neutrality; it was neceffary that it preferved it free from violation by Great Britain; and if now the execution of the incafures which the Directory is obliged to adopt, gave rife to complaints in the United States, it is not against France they fhould be directed, but against thofe men who, by negotiations



trary to the interefts of their country, have brought the French government to use the prerogatives granted to the English.

When, after having fuffered to be violated the treaties which unite it to France, the government of the United States has affociated itself with England, and has rendered its neutrality as ufeful to that power as it is now injurious to its ally, could the Republic be filent? Her outraged generofity, her wounded honour, prevented her. Her filence were weakness; and, ftrong in her principles as in her proceedings, fhe fhould demand her unacknowledged or forgotten rights.

Thus, therefore, as it refults from the statement which the underfigned minifter plenipotentiary has juft given,

Ift, That the 17th article of the treaty of 1778 has been violated; that in contempt of this article the American tribunals have been permitted to take cognizance of the validity of prizes made by French fhips of war and privateers, under pretext of original armament or augmentation of armament in the United States, or capture within the jurifdictional line of the United States.

2. That the faid article 17th has been equally violated by the admiffion of English veffels in the ports of the United States, which had made prizes on Frenchmen, and by the admiffion of their prizes.

The undersigned minifter plenipotentiary, in the name and by the orders of the Executive Directory, protests against the violation of the 17th article above cited, in contempt of which the American tribunals have taken cognizance of the validity of prizes made by French fhips of war, or privateers, under pretext of original armament or augmentation of armament in the United States, or of capture within the jurifdictional line; claims the replevy of all feizures, and the repeal of all other judicial acts exercised on those prizes; and protests, moreover, against all oppofition to the fale of the faid prizes.

Further, the underfigned minifter plenipotentiary protests against the violation of the 17th article of the treaty of 1778, in contempt of which English veffels, which had made prize on Frenchmen, have been admitted into the ports of the United States; and declares that the Executive Directory cannot regard, as a just conftruction of the treaty, the diftinction which Mr. Randolph, fecretary of state, has established in his letter of May 29, 1795, in which he admits only the exclufion of the English veffels which bring in their prizes, and withes to except from the prohibitory measure the veffels which, after having made prizes, enter the ports of the United States.

The undersigned minifter plenipotentiary moreover declares, that the Executive Directory regards the treaty of commerce con

Nn 2


« PrejšnjaNaprej »