Slike strani
PDF
ePub

with all he had hitherto done, immediately applied to the fupreme court of the United States, which was not more favourable to him, and confirmed the fentence of the circuit court. The government, notwithstanding the reprefentations of the underfigned minifter plenipotentiary, took a decided part in the appeal, and gave it in charge to Mr. Lee, the attorney general, to argue, which he did with much eloquence, but with the fuccefs fuch a caufe merited.

Affair of the Caffius.

In the month of Thermidor, of the 3d year (Auguft 1795), the corvette Le Caffius, belonging to the Republic, commanded by Captain Davis, and fent by General Leveaux to the underfigned minifter plenipotentiary on a particular miffion, requiring her immediate return to St. Domingo, was seized in virtue of an order from the district court of the United States, for the state of Pennsylvania, and her captain was arrested at the suit of a merchant of Philadelphia, to anfwer for a pretended illegal capture made in virtue of his commiffion, and out of the jurifdiction of the United States.

The undersigned minister plenipotentiary complained of this violation of the treaties and of the law of nations, and requested the government to caufe, as foon as poffible, the release of the corvette Le Caffius and her captain. He conceived himfelf fo much the more grounded in this request, as he knew that a like intèrposition was not new in the annals of the United States; as he knew that the executive power of the ftate of Pennsylvania had interpofed in a fimilar case, and in the fame manner, in favour of the state of Virginia, and as this meafure, dictated by a profound knowledge of the law of nations, and of the reciprocal duties of nations, had been approved and ratified by the tribunals, organs of the law. Mr. Randolph, fecretary of ftate of the United States, replied to the undersigned on the 15th of August, 1795—“ As long as the "question is in the hands of our courts, the executive cannot with"draw it from them."

*But

The underfigned infifting, on the 1ft Fructidor, in the third year (18th Auguft, 1795), expreffed himself in thefe terms: "I do "not know, nor ought I to know, any other than the govern"ment of the United States; I cannot under any shape admit the competency of your tribunals in the different circumftances "which arife on the execution or inexecution of the treaties. If ❝ these tribunals are the first to violate them, I can only addrefs "myfelf to the government for reparation of that violation; other

66

* Simon Nathan verfus the Commonwealth of Virginia. Dallas's Reports, p. 77.

"wife it would be to render the agents of the French goverment--the French government itfelf-amenable to thefe tribunals; "which would be to reverfe principles." Informed that the Caffius and her captain might be liberated on giving fecurity, the underfigned requelted, by the fame letter, that the government of the United States would itfelf furnish this fecurity; and knowing that the fupreme court of the United States, which was then in feffion, had the power in certain cafes of arrefting the proceedings of the inferior courts, on their fignifying to them a prohibition, he fuggefted to the fecretary to adopt this fure and prompt method to put an end to this vexatious procedure. Both thefe requests were refufed. The captain of Le Caffius then addreffed himself to the fupreme tribunal, requested the prohibition and obtained The diftrict court was enjoined immediately to stop the proceedings which had been commenced, and to liberate Captain Davis and his veffel.

But at the very inftant in which the marfball was defired to execute the order of the fupreme court, he had already in poffeffion a new order from another tribunal (the circuit court) enjoining him to arreft the veffe! anew, upon the charge of an English merchant and naturalised American, ftating that this veffel had been formerly armed in the United States; and confequently requested that fhe fhould be confifcated, one moiety to himfelf, the other moiety to the government. The underfigned being uninformed whether this veffel had ever been armed in the ports of the United States, he was alfo affured that fome individuals had only attempted to put on board arms and ammunition, and which they were prevented from doing at the time; but he takes upon him to affirm, that fince this veffel has become the property of the French Republic, General Laveaux armed and equipped her wholly at St. Domingo; and that, on her arrival here, he had not a cannon or pound of powder which had not been put on board her in the territory of France. This new order was figned by one of the judges of the fupreme court (in quality of circuit judge) who, having already ordered the prohibition in the firft inftance, must have known very well that this veffel was the property of the French Republic; and who muft alfo have known that the circuit court was not competent to this proceeding; which the law and ufage have conftantly attributed to the district tribunals. But the district court then fat but once a year at Philadelphia; its approaching yet diftant feffion was to be at York Town, and the profecutor had adopted this roundabout mode to take away every means from the French Republic of obtaining reftitution of her veffels legally before the expiration of near a year. In the interval fhe was to rot at the quays of Philadelphia. This has taken place. The undersigned, from a fpirit of conciliation, made an ufelefs attempt with one of the

judges

judges of the circuit court to obtain the liberation of the veffel, on giving fecurity; the reply was that the judge could do nothing of himfelf; that the court when affembled could alone determine.

The underfigned minifter plenipotentiary made new reprefentations to the fecretary of ftate of the United States upon the foregoing facts. Mr. Pickering, then fecretary of state, in his answer of 1ft August, 1795, repeats this phrafe of Mr. Randolph. "As "long as the queftion is in the hands of our courts, the executive "cannot withdraw it from them," adding thereto this remarkable expreffion" and therefore is not chargeable with fuffering a viola"tion of the treaties exifting between the two Republics." The undersigned complained that the new fuit commenced against the Caffius had been carried to an incompetent tribunal, and in the fame letter, of 1ft Auguft, 1795, the fecretary of state replied on this head to the underfigned, "the counfel who have told you that "fuch is the law, have led you into an error," &c. maintaining the competency of the tribunal.

The undersigned minifter, in thefe circumftances, faw himself obliged to difarm the veffel, to discharge the crew, that during these transactions he had fupported at great expenfe, and abandoned the Caffius to the government of the United States, protefting against the illegality of her arrest.

The underfigned minifter is not acquainted with the details of what happened fince that time relative to this affair; he only knows that, in the month of October laft, the circuit court declared itself incompetent, notwithstanding the affertion of the fecretary of state, and quafhed all the proceedings. In confequence the fecretary offered him the Caffius; as if, after having retained, in contempt of treaties, a ftate veffel, after having left her to rot in port, the government of the United States were not to anfwer, both for the violation of the treaties, and for the damages the Caffius has fuftained.

(No. 5). The fecretary of state, by his public letter of the 1ft of November laft, in anfwer to the note of the undersigned minifter plenipotentiary of the 6th of Brumaire laft, appears not to have understood either that note or the decree of the Executive Directory, of the 14th Meffidor, of the 4th year.

This decree does not fimply contain the order for feizing English property on board of neutral veffels, and of courfe on board of American veffels; it orders that the vellels of the Republic fhall act towards neutrals in the fame manner as neutrals fhall fuffer the English to treat them.

This decree confequently implies, not only the feizure of enemies property on board of American veffels, against the principle free fhips make free goods, a principle which the American government abandoned, after having recognized it by acceding to the

decla

declaration of Ruffia in 1780; not only the feizure of articles claffed as contraband in the treaty concluded between Lord Grenville and Mr. Jay, and declared innocent merchandizes by the treaty of 1778, but also reptifals for all vexations, contrary to the law of nations, and to the treaties, which the Americans fhall endure on the part of the English, without an efficacious oppofition.

The fecretary of state has been pleased to obferve, that France and the United States, by a reciprocal treaty, had confecrated the principle, free fhips make free goods, and diminished the lift of articles feizable as contraband. Upon this bafis he built reafoning which he might have fpared, if he had been pleased to remember the 2d article of the treaty of 1778.

The fecretary has alfo been pleafed to reply, in part, to the note of the underligned minifter plenipotentiary, dated 6th Brumaire, relative to the prefs exercifed on the American failors, that the federal government were not to give an account to any nation of the measures it takes for the protection of its citizens; if fuch an anfwer required a reply, the underfigned minifter plenipotentiary would request the secretary of ftate to obferve, that the object of his note of the 6th Brumaire, and of his letters of the 9th and 19th Germinal laft, which are there referred to, was not at all to know the steps taken by the federal government, for the protection of its citizens, but the measures purfued by it for preventing its citizens from increasing the maritime forces of the enemies of the French Republic, its ally. It is evident that in this cafe the federal government fhould expect, and the French Republic would have a right to regard, its filence as a tacit confent to that measure, and a real hoftility.

go

The undersigned minifter plenipotentiary can no longer be fufpected of having demanded of the government of the United States explanations foreign to the relations which exift between that vernment and the French Republic, of having had the intention to wound the federal government, in his letter of the 7th Vendimiaire in the 4th year, fince, after the paffage cited by the fecretary of state, is the following paragraph: "But I am convinced "it will not be fo. The American government is too much at"tached to the laws of an exact neutrality, it knows too well that "the cause of free people is linked to that of France, to allow to "be ufurped by the English a right injurious to the interest of "the Republic."

"It is in this conviction that I have written you this letter, per"fuaded that it is perhaps fuperfluous to addrefs to you thefe re"clamations. I do not doubt but the American government will prove to all Europe the intention it has of maintaining the most "exact neutrality with regard to the belligerent powers, that it VOL. V. " will

[ocr errors]

PP

"will oblige England to violate no longer the rights of nations, "and that it will not henceforward reduce France to the pain of "addrefling new claims upon this fubject."

(No. 6.) In the General Advertiser, published at Philadelphia on the 9th of June, 1796, may be seen the questions propofed by the Prefident, on the 18th of April, 1793, to the heads of the departments. The undersigned minifter plenipotentiary contents himself with giving here an extract.

Question 2. Shall a minifter from the republic of France be received?

Question 3. If received, fhall it be abfolutely, or with qualifi cations, and if with qualifications, of what kind?

Queftion 4. Are the United States obliged, by good faith, to confider the treaties heretofore made with France as applying to the prefent fituation of the parties; may they either renounce them or hold them fufpended till the government of France fhall be established?

Question 12. Should the future regent of France fend a minifter to the United States, ought he to be received?

(No. 7.) The French government, jealous of giving to the United States proofs of its attachment, had commenced negotiations with the regency of Algiers, in order to put an end to the war which that power was making on the commerce of the United States. The minifter for foreign affairs, by a letter of the 5th of January, 1794, inftructed the predeceffor of the undersigned to communicate to the federal government the steps which the French government had taken in this refpect. The predeceffor of the underfigned in confequence wrote to the fecretary of state, on the 16th Prairial, in the 2d year, the following letter-I have already had the pleafure, Sir, to inform you, verbally, of the interest which the committee of Public Safety of the National Convention had early taken in the truly unhappy fituation of your commerce in the Mediterranean.

I now fulfil the duty impofed on me by the government, by calling to your recollection, in writing, the fteps which are to be taken by our agent with the Dey of Algiers, for repreffing this new manoeuvre of the British adminiftratjon, which has put the finishing troke to its proofs of malevolence towards free people. The dif patch of the minifter communicating this meafure to me, is dated the 5th of January, and did not come to my hands till fifteen days. ago; I do not yet know by what route: I could have wished it had been lefs tardy in coming to me, that I might fooner have fulfilled the agreeable talk of proving to you, by facts, the proteftations of friendship, of which I have fo often fpoken in the name of the Republic of France.

The information which I fhall receive from Europe in a little time will doubtlefs poffefs me of the fuccefs of thofe negotiations

2

which

« PrejšnjaNaprej »