Slike strani

ducting them there themselves : the 16th article; containing only a prohibitory arrangement for the capturing of vessels, could not prohibit them from doing this. It was necessary then to have recourse to a formal prohibition : besides, as the vessels, which have made prizes on the French or Americans, are admitted into the ports of France or of the United States, in cases of tempelt on danger of the sea, they might, in this case, have conceived them selves authorised to dispose of their prizes, to sell them, or to discharge their cargoes; it was necessary, therefore, to take this right from them in a positive manner; it was nieceilary 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 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 cases above cited by the underligned, the stipulations of the 17th article have been violated. They have been equally so by the admislion, in sundry ports, of the Thetis and Huffar frigates, which captured La Prevoyante and La Raison, French store ships, and by adınitting, in the lastinstance, this same thip La Raifon, prize to the Thetis, into the ports of the United States.

But, admitting for a moment the constructions 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'Esperance, was permitted to enter with that prize ; when the Terplichore was suffered to bring in the privateer La Montagne." In vain were fought, in the resources of a captious and falfe logic, the means of excusing such conduct. The facts speak, and every upright mind, not blinded by passion, will neceffarily yield to their evidence. Yet the prohibitory ftipulation, of the admission 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 she might, as the price of that very independence, have granted them less liberal conditions.

These wrongs of the American government towards the Republic, just stated by the underligned minister plenipotentiary, will focn be aggravated by new ones.

It was a little matter only to allow the English 10 avail themselves of the advantages of our treaty; it was neceilary to affure these to them by the aid of a contract which might terve at once as a reply to the claims of France, and as peremptory motives for refusals, the true cause of which it was requilite incesantly to dilquile 10 her under fpecious pretexts.

Such was the object of Mr. Jay's mission to London, such was the object of a negotiation enveloped from its origin in the lhadow


of mystery, and covered with the veil of diffimulation. Could the Executive Directory have any other idea of it, on examining its issue, on seeing all ihe efforts made by the American government to conceal the secret from every eye?

In his message to the senate, of the 16th of April, 1794, the president declared that Mr. Jay was sent to London only to obtain a redress of the wrongs done to the United States; at the same time the secretary of state communicated to the predecessor of the underligned a part of the instructions 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 minister, deceived by this communication, contributed ingeniously to deceive his government. The American minister 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 losses which the American commerce had sustained. 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 Eng. land, 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 consecrated in eleven treaties, and which the Americans had also confecrated in their treaties with France, Holland, Sweden, and Prussia. 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 vessels is granted exclusively 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 roth article of the treaty with Sweden, and the 13th article of the treaty with Prussia, contain the same 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 list of such as are contraband of war, without their being liable to confiscation. But by the 18th article of London, the articles for arming and equipping vessels 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 consequence of the modern public law, to other nations with whom they have made treaties; that of seizing on board their vessels articles proper for the construation and equipment of vessels. The English then, according to that, enjoy the exclusive commerce of articles proper for the construction of

veifels; · vessels ; 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 interests of France, but also those 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 coinmon to her. But the right fecured to her by the second article of the treaty of 1778 does not at all extend to the allies, whom the success of her arms, and the just resentment inspired by the ambition of England, have definitively given and fhall give to her in Europe. The dispositions change, during the course of the war, the situation of the United States towards England, and the belligerent powers allied to France; the interest of these powers is common to France; and from the moment that is injured, France is injured also.

After having assured to the English the carriage of naval stores, the federal government wished to assure to them that of meals; in a word, it is desired to have commerce only with England. Thus it ftipulates by the 18th article, that the American vessels Jaden with grain may be seized, under the frivolous pretext that it is extremely difficult to define the cases wherein provisions, and other articles, which are generally excepted, could be classed in the list of contraband of war : thus it ftipulates, in article 17, that the American vessels may be arrested upon the single suspicion, either that they have merchandise 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 opposite to those just cited; whilst her vessels of war are bound to respect the American flag going to English poffefsions, the English drag into their ports the American vessels going to the ports of France; subject them to decisions more or less 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 send vessels into French ports? What commerce will he venture to undertake with the French porfessions, 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 trafficking with a country to which his vessels might go without being exposed to other risks than those of the sea? Would he not prefer Great Britain to France for his speculations? 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 present war?

After having consented to such conditions the American government cannot pretend to impartiality; it cannot say 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 these advantages granted to England, was a real wrong to the Republic; and if it is not maintained, without sporting with all principles, that a government may consider it felf 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 consequence the undersigned minister plenipotentiary again declares, that the Executive Directory has just ordered the vetsels of war and privateers of the Republic to treat American vessels in the same manner as they suffer the English to treat them.

Were the treaty of London out of the question, the measure the Executive Directory now takes would not be less conformable to justice. The underligned minister plenipotentiary has developed to the secretary of Itate, in his note of the 6th Brumaire last, principles which leave no doubt in this respect, and which the answer of the secretary of state is far from destroying. (No. 5.) But the stipulations of treaties now come to the support of general principles. The Republic calls for the execution of the second 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 shall 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 stores; France, by her treaty, is authorised to claim the fame advantage, to make use of it, and the United Siates have no right to complain.

Certainly it would have been more conformable to the designs of Srance, and to her principles, to see the American flag floating without interruption upon the seas; to see the commerce of the United States enjoy that liberty, that freedom, which should belong to neutral nations; but in order to that it was necesary that the American government should know how to maintain that neutrality; it was necessary that it preserved it free from violation by Great Britain ; and if now the execution of the incalures which the Directory is obliged to adopt, gave rise to complaints in the United States, it is not against France they thould be directed, but against those men who, by negotiations



[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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

When, after having suffered to be violated the treaties which unite it to France, the government of the United States has alsociated itself with England, and has rendered its neutrality as useful to that power as it is now injurious to its ally, could the Republic be silent? Her outraged generosity, her wounded honour, prevented her. Her silence were weakness; and, strong in her principles as in her proceedings, she should demand her unacknowledged or forgotten rights.

Thus, therefore, as it results from the statement which the undersigned minister plenipotentiary has just 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 ships of war and privateers, under pretext of original armament or augmentation of armament in the United States, or capture within the jurisdictional line of the United States.

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

The undersigned minister 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 ships of war, or privateers, under pretext of original armament or augmentation of arınament in the United States, or of capture within the jurisdictional line; claims the replevy of all seizures, and the repeal of all other judicial acts exercised on those prizes; and protests, moreover, against all opposition to the sale of the said prizes.

Further, the undersigned minister plenipotentiary protests against the violation of the 17th article of the treaty of 1778, in contempt of which English vessels, 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 construction of the treaty, the distinction which Mr. Randolph, secretary of state, has established in his letter of May 29, 1795, in which he admits only the exclusion of the English vessels which bring in their prizes, and withes to except from the prohibitory measure the vessels which, after having made prizes, enter the ports of the United States.

The undersigned minister plenipotentiary moreover declares, that the Executive Directory regards the treaty of coinmerce conN in 2


« PrejšnjaNaprej »