Island, not by a lawless collection of the people, but by the governor and council of that State, to the British flag, in the violent measures pursued toward His Majesty's sloop of war Nautilus, and in the forcible detention of the officers by whom she was commanded. I have, however, forborne to expatiate on these points, because I am not disposed to consider them, as I have before stated, as necessary elucidations of the immediate object of your letter, and much less to urge them, in their present form, as general topics of recrimination. No. 60. Mr. G. Hammond to Mr. Randolph. PHILADELPHIA, May 24, 1794. SIR: I have the honor of acquainting you that I have received information, from His Majesty's vice-consul at Charleston, that the Spanish launch St. Joseph, which had been brought into that port as prize to a privateer named L'Ami de la Pointe à Petre, and commanded by William Talbot, an American citizen, was permitted to depart from Charleston, on the 9th current, in virtue of a permission from Governor Moultrie, dated the 23d of April last, notwithstanding she had been detained by the collector of the customs at Charleston, who conceived her to be strictly included in the provisions of the embargo, and who communicated that circumstance in writing to the commandant of Fort Johnston. This vessel, armed with ten guns, manned with a crew amounting to fifty-one in number, of whom eight only were Frenchmen, and commanded by a person named Sweet, who, with his first lieutenant, Mitchell, are both American citizens, was, within a day or two after her departure, captured by a British privateer. On board of her were found several copies of the commission of L'Ami de la Pointe à Petre, attested by the French consul at Charleston. From these copies, one of which I inclose, it is manifest that the St. Joseph herself had no com[273] mission, but was, as His Majesty's *vice-consul at Charleston had previously apprised me, considered merely as the tender of L'Ami de la Pointe à Petre. I have deemed it my duty, sir, to submit these facts to you, since they evince most satisfactorily that the governor of South Carolina continues to persevere in that system of justifying by his sanction the commission of illegal acts of hostility on the subjects of the powers combined against France which he began originally to adopt in the month of May, 1793, and to which I have had occasion frequently to refer. I have also learned from a quarter entitled to every degree of credit, that five or six other privateers are now arming in the port of Charleston, and will, I doubt not, be permitted to proceed under the same authority. I have, &c., GEO. HAMMOND. No. 61. Mr. Randolph to Mr. G. Hammond. PHILADELPHIA, May 25, 1794. SIR: Your letter of yesterday has been this moment communicated to the Secretary of War, within whose department the subject of it lies. He will institute an immediate inquiry, and the result shall be communicated to you. I have, &c., EDM. RANDOLPH. No. 62. Mr. G. Hammond to Mr. Randolph. PHILADELPHIA, June 5, 1794. SIR: I have the honor of submitting to you a deposition, which I have this day received from His Majesty's consul at Norfolk, and from which it appears that, on the 27th of May last, the British ship Charles and British schooner Delight were captured as they were lying at anchor (the former at the distance of one mile, and the latter at the distance of half a mile from the shore) off the capes of Virginia, by a French armed ship, which I have reason to believe is a privateer named the Liberty, that had been for some weeks previously at Baltimore. Though I have not been able to ascertain precisely the name of the French armed ship which took these vessels, I have esteemed it my duty, nevertheless, not to delay this information, in order that, if the prizes should be brought into any American ports, they may be immediately detained for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the circumstances of their capture. I have, &c., GEO. HAMMOND. [Inclosure in No. 62.] Deposition of James Craig. On Tuesday, the 27th of May, 1794, at 4 o'clock a. m., got under way with the schooner Delight from the lower end of the Horse Shoe, with a light breeze of wind at N. N. W., and made sail at 9 a. m.; discharged the pilot at 10 a, m.; perceived a ship coming up very fast, and observed, with my spy-glass, she was an armed vessel; spoke Captain Langford of the British ship Charles at the same time, and we agreed to haul in for the land to be within the limits of neutrality, which we did; about 1 p. m. observed the French ship (as we afterward discovered her to be) give chase to the Charles, the Charles then being at anchor within one mile of the land. I saw her, the said French ship, under French colors, fire one gun, and about five minutes after fire two more guns, and in a short time after I saw the ship Charles's boat to go on board the French ship with five men, and return immediately on board the Charles with ten or eleven men. I then concluded she was taken, and used my best endeavors to get into the capes again, but the wind being northerly and an ebb tide, I could gain no ground. I then determined to run close to the land and come to anchor within half a mile of it, which I did at 2 o'clock P. m., and let go both my anchors, got my boat out and abandoned the schooner Delight, and went on shore with my crew, and remained on the beach until half past 4 p. m., when the said French ship came up close to her, hoisted out her boat, boarded her with eleven men, weighed the starboard anchor and cut the larboard cable, and made sail with the said schooner Delight, and carried her off together with the ship Charles, Captain Langford, in presence of myself and crew, and a number of spectators on the shore. Sworn to before me at Norfolk, this 29th day of May, 1794. (Signed) JNO. HAMILTON, Consul. [274] *No. 63. Mr. Randolph to Mr. G. Hammond. PHILADELPHIA, June 6, 1794. SIR: I have directed a copy of the letter with which you honored me yesterday, to be prepared for the Department of War; and proper measures will be adopted for manifesting the unrelaxed purpose of the Executive to persist in neutrality. I have, &c., EDM. RANDOLPH. No. 64. Mr. Randolph to Mr. G. Hammond. [Extract.] PHILADELPHIA, June 2, 1794. Among the points to which you intimate that you might have adverted is enumerated the fitting out of two privateers at Charleston, in South Carolina. Whatever this transaction might have been, it probably occurred at the commencement of the war, and before the existence of the war was communicated to our Government by any of the powers engaged. Had such a transaction been known to the President in time, you can well judge from his actual conduct what he would then have done. His proclamation on the 22d of April, 1793, his call upon the State governors on the 26th of the same month to co-operate with him in the work of impartiality and peace, the system of rules which he es tablished, and which were imparted to you, are unerring indications of the spirit of those measures on which he had determined. He sup. pressed the consular courts, which attempted to pass sentences of condemnation on captures; he restored several vessels to British owners; prosecutions have been instituted against the violators of neutrality. In a word, sir, what has been required, under the sanction of the law of nations, which has not been fulfilled? How many things have been spontaneously done to evince our impartiality! Let me request you to review my predecessor's letters to you of April 22, May 15, June 5, August 7, 8, 25, September 5 and 12, 1793, and to say if more could be well expected from us. After such demonstration, it might have been hoped that the equipment of these two privateers would not rise again in the shape of a charge; but the letter of the 5th of June being conceived of itself to be satisfactory, is here inserted; In the letter which I had the honor of writing you on the 15th May, in answer to your several memorials of the 8th of that month, I mentioned that the President reserved for future consideration a part of the one which related to the equipment of two pri vateers in the port of Charleston. The part alluded to was that wherein you express your confidence that the Executive Government of the United States would pursue measures for repressing such practices in future, and for restoring to their rightful owners any captures which such privateers might bring into the ports of the United States. The President, after a full investigation of this subject, and the most mature consideration, has charged me to communicate to you that the first part of this application is found to be just, and that effectual measures are taken for preventing repetitions of the act therein complained of; but that the latter part, desiring restitution for the prizes, is understood to be inconsistent with the rules which govern such cases, and would therefore be unjustifiable toward the other party. The principal agents in the transaction were French citizens. Being within the United States at the moment a war broke out between their own and another country, they determined to join its defense; they purchased arms, and equipped a vessel with their own money, manned it themselves, received a regular commission from their nation, departed out of the United States, and then commenced hostilities by capturing a vessel. If, under these circumstances, the commission of the captors was valid, the property, according to the laws of war, was, by the capture, transferred to them; and it would be an aggression on their nation for the United States to rescue it from them, whether on the high seas or coming into their ports. If the commission was not valid, and consequently the property not transferred by the laws of war to the captors, then the case would have been cognizable in our courts of admiralty, and the owners might have gone thither for redress, so that on neither supposition would the Executive be justifiable in interposing. With respect to the United States, the transaction can in nowise be imputed to them. It was in the first moment of the war, in one of their most distant ports, before measures could be provided by the Government to meet all the cases which such a state of things was to produce, impossible to have been known, and therefore impossible to have been prevented by that Government. The moment it was known, the most energetic orders were sent to every State and port in the Union to prevent a repetition of the accident. On a suggestion that citizens of the United States had taken part in the act, one, who was designated, was instantly committed to prison for prosecution; one or two others have been since named, and committed in like manner, and should it appear that there were still others, no measures will be spared to bring them to justice. The President has even gone further; he has required, as a reparation of their breach of respect to the United States, that the vessels so armed and equipped shall depart from our ports. You will see, sir, in these proceedings of the President, unequivocal proofs of a line of strict right, which he means to pursue. The measures now mentioned are taken in justice to the one party; the ulterior measure of seizing and restoring the prizes is declined in justice to the other, and the evil thus early asserted will be of very limited effect; perhaps, indeed, soon disappear altogether. As to the permission from the governor of South Carolina for the departure of those privateers from port, you may assure yourself of a proper inquiry, and I take the liberty of requesting any evidence which you may have of it. [275] *With so many direct proofs in your hands of the opinion constantly maintained by our Government against the legality of captures in general, made by illegal privateers, it is not easily explained why the validity of those before the 5th of June, 1793, should be argued from a refusal to restore them. The above recited letter of that date neither affirms nor disaffirms their validity, but declines the granting of a restitution as being inconsistent with the rules which govern such cases. These rules are, that if the commission be good, the capture is good; if the commission be bad, the capture is bad, but whether it be good or bad is not decided, it being enough to prove that the transaction for the reasons assigned can in nowise be imputed to the United States. But if captures of this kind, prior to the 5th of June, 1793, do really amount (as is conceived by some) to no very considerable value, this would of itself lessen the importance of the insinuation. The Secretary of War has undertaken to ascertain the precise state of the privateers Le Petit Democrat and Le Carmagnole, and the result will be communicated to you; in the mean time it is a matter of some surprise that vessels, whose single employment and profit must consist in cruising on the ocean, should have remained in the port of New York during the whole winter and probably up to the date of your letter, (May 22, 1794.) May it not be presumed that their activity has been checked by the intervention of the Government? But, sir, if they have not been dismantled, your letter brings the first notice of the omission. It is true that the sale of prizes made by French cruisers has not been prohibited in the United States, and that our treaty with France has been so interpreted as not to contemplate a freedom to sell. The next resort was to the law of nations, which was scrupulously searched by the Executive, with the pure desire of discovering truth and justice to all. Upon this, as on many other occasions, the civilians differ, Natal declaring that a privateer may carry his prize into a neutral port, and then freely sell it. Martens affirming the same doctrine, if it has not been otherwise regulated by treaty, and others opposing it. In this schism among the writers, it was resolved by the President of the United States to impose no restraint upon those sales, and to refer them, as affairs of legislation, to Congress at the earliest moment of the session. Thus much has been observed, not as my final answer, but merely to introduce an assurance that I will follow you in the main discussion whensoever you shall bring it forward in detail. Undoubtedly, sir, you have been misinformed that the vessels of France have been permitted to depart from our ports, notwithstanding the embargo. As the history of the executive proceedings is neither long nor entangled, it shall be frankly stated to you. As soon as the embargo was laid, expenses and advice boats were dispatched to notify the officers of the customs and revenue-cutters, and all others concerned in its execution. The resolutions imposing it involved all foreign nations; the instructions from the President of the United States favored no nations directly or indirectly. A French snow, La Camille, which had descended the river Delaware as low as New Castle on her voyage, was stopped by an officer of the United States, and the President, adhering to perfect impartiality, could not think himself justified to gratify the minister of the French republic with a passport. Passports being kept under the special view of the President were issued only after his examination of each case, and the total number of them does not exceed twenty-six. Among them was one to yourself, one to an agent, who was sent to the West Indies upon a business connected with the late captures, and condemnations in various British courts of admiralty, one to a citizen whose vessel was under trial at Bermuda, and who was anxious to forward the British instructions of the 8th of January, 1794, with the hope of rescuing her from confiscation; one to the friends of Joshua Barney, then in Jamaica; twenty for the accommodation of several unfortunate inhabitants of St. Domingo, to some of whom our Government was advancing money for their support, and who could no longer endure their separation from home; one to some other persons in peculiar circumstances, desirous of returning to the West Indies; and, in the last instance, one to the minister of the French republic. If, therefore, by any other passport or permission the embargo has been relaxed, it was unauthorized by the President, and unlawful. The dis tance of Hampton Road from the city being more than three hundred miles, the officers of Government resident here could not learn at the moment what was passing there. No intelligence of an official nature, or of any real importance, no complaint from any other foreign minister or any other person has since reached us. If, sir, you should happen to possess the information, I ask it as a favor of you to designate who granted the permission, and under what circumstances the French vessels left that road. An investigation, however, has been and shall be pursued on our part without delay; if the law has been violated it |