shall be vindicated, but a violation of law is very remote from a permission of the Government. The uniformly unfriendly treatment which the British officers are said to have experienced in the United States cannot be answered until it shall be more explicity defined. Did this treatment break forth in words or actions not cognizable by law? If so, no complaint can be offered to Government. Or in words or actions, which were so cognizable, our courts are free to foreigners against citizens, and independent of influence. To yourself let me appeal, that on the representations which you thought proper to lay before the President in relation to the British consul at Baltimore, the British consul at Norfolk, and the commander of the Dædalus frigate, the necessary measures were promptly adopted, the result has been transmitted to you, and no objection has been returned. Nor was the Government backward in its interference in the late affair of Philadelphia, and these being the only occurrences of the kind within my knowledge, I trust that no example can be produced of Government refusing to extend its protection on every reasonable occasion. The events at Newport, in Rhode Island, are accurately detailed in the proceedings which I have the honor of inclosing to you. Within the limits of the present letter I cannot do more, as it might be a useless task to detain you with my remarks when none of them might be adapted to the animadversions which you meditate. It is enough therefore for me to engage that these animadversions, whenever they shall appear, shall receive particular attention. Although, sir, your charges against the United States are sketched only, the impression which may have been intended cannot be coun[276] teracted too soon by such general elucidations as at a future *day may be more minutely unfolded. But let these facts be as they will, are they indicative of a hostile disposition in the United States, and ought they ultimately to produce a state of war? This is not the place for us to retort our complaints. But compare them with the whole of your catalogue, and say what may our feelings be, yet we prefer peace. No. 65. Mr. G. Hammond to Mr. Randolph. [Extract.] PHILADELPHIA, June 7, 1794. In adverting to the privateers illegally fitted out at Charleston and allowed to depart from that port under the express permission of the governor of South Carolina, I surely cannot have been considered as imputing that aggression to the General Government. But when Lord Dorchester had alluded to the conduct of American citizens toward the sea, this transaction naturally occurred to me as indicative of the existence of a hostile disposition to the powers combined against France in the chief magistrate and individuals of the State of South Carolina; and I trust you are yourself convinced, from evidence which I have recently submitted to you, that that disposition continues to exist unimpaired. How far Mr. Jefferson's letter of the 5th of June appeared satisfactory to me, you will collect from my memorial of the 7th of the same month in answer to it, which (in conformity to your example) I 1 subjoin to this letter; from that memorial it is evident that, though I rendered justice to the assurances of the General Government, I recited as matters of notoriety the different facts of the illegal equipment of the privateers in question, and expressly and unequivocally asserted, as a circumstance equally notorious, that "they were suffered to pass the fort near Charleston under a written permission from the governor of South Carolina." I have never yet learned, however, that any inquiry has been instituted into the conduct of that officer from any quarter whatsoever. From the same paper it is also evident that I have never acquiesced in the propriety of the determination of this Government not to restore vessels captured previously to the 5th of June, as well for the reasons which I have there stated, as because I have never perfectly comprehended the principles which could legalize the prizes antecedently to that period, and invalidate those which were made subsequently to it. The list of those prizes annexed to the memorial will evince that (whatever may have been "conceived by some") their value was not inconsiderable; but even if their amount had been less considerable, the question in a national point of view could not have been affected by that circumstance. I derive great satisfaction from the assurance that "the Secretary of War has undertaken to ascertain the precise state of the privateers Le Petit Democrat and Carmagnole," since from the latest accounts I have received from New York, I am inclined to apprehend that they both continue there completely armed, have numerous crews on board, and are in every respect in a condition to proceed immediately to sea. It is indeed a matter of some surprise that they should have so long remained in that port, but it is not less singular that you should regard my letter of the 22d ultimo as "bringing the first notice of the omission of their having been dismantled;" for if you refer to a letter from me to your predecessor of the 27th of December, 1793, you will find the following expression: The danger to be apprehended from these last-mentioned vessels (privateers illegally fitted out in ports of the United States) still continues to exist to a very alarming degree; since, notwithstanding the repeated assurances I have received from the Federal Government of its determination to exclude those privateers from any future asylum in its ports, and the sincerity of its desires to enforce this determination, I have reason to infer that, in other quarters means have been successfully devised, either to elude its vigilance or to render nugatory its injunctions. This inference arises from the information I have received, that the privateer Le Citoyen Genet, fitted out at Charleston, was on the 21st of August permitted to return to the port of Philadelphia for the second time, to remain there some days, and then to proceed to sea for the purpose of commencing new depredations, which, as it appears from the public prints, she is now prosecuting in the adjacent seas; that Le Petit Democrat and La Carmagnole, both fitted out in the Delaware, were permitted to enter the port of New York, and to continue therein unmolested during a great part of the months of August, September, and October last; that the latter vessel is still in that port, and that the former having sailed from thence in company with the French fleet under the charge of Admiral Sercy, and having separated from it at sea proceeded first to Boston, and afterward returned for a second time to New York, wherein she at present remains. I have thought it my duty to state these last-mentioned particulars in the manner in which they have been communicated to me; but, if my information has been erroneous, it will afford me the sincerest pleasure to have my error corrected. As you have not controverted the propriety of my alluding to the permission of this Government to the commanders of French armed ships to dispose of their prizes, by sale, in the ports of the United States, but have admitted that "your treaty with France has been so interpreted as not to contemplate a freedom to sell," and that writers on the law of nations entertain different sentiments upon the subject, it is neces sary for me so make only one remark, that, as by the treaty with France prizes made by vessels belonging to the greatest part of the powers combined against her are excluded from admission into the American ports, the operation of the permission to sell that was granted by the Government has been partial, and has been solely beneficial to France. In my assertion that the vessels of France had been permitted to depart from Hampton Roads, notwithstanding the imposition and continuance of the embargo, I certainly did not mean to insinuate that they were allowed to sail under an express permission from the Government; but it is a fact of universal notoriety, that the whole of the con[277] voy under Rear-Admiral Vanstabel, amounting to about 156 vessels (including ships of war and merchant-ships,) did sail from Hampton Roads on the 17th of April, although the imposition of the embargo had been known there for more than a fortnight antecedently to that date, and had been rigidly enforced with respect to all other merchant-ships whatsoever. And I really cannot perceive any very material distinction between an implied permission to those particular French vessels to depart from Hampton Roads, and a neglect of employing any coercive means of preventing them from departing. But I must further remark that not only these French vessels were not so prevented, but, also, that on the 7th of April, Rear-Admiral Vanstabel issued an order to Mr. John Cooper (an American citizen) forcibly to take possession of the American brig Venus, which was laden with flour on account of the French government, and which was detained in Norfolk Harbor in consequence of the embargo; that in conformity to this order Mr. Cooper forcibly took possession of the brig Venus, and on the 8th of April delivered her to Rear Admiral Vanstabel; and that Mr. Wilson, lieutenant-colonel commandant of Norfolk County, whose duty it was to prevent any infraction of the law, previously (on the 5th of April) gave his official sanction to the propriety of this vessel's (the Venus) proceeding to join the French fleet, notwithstanding the provisions of the embargo. The whole of this transaction is contained in the inclosed copies, from authenticated documents in my possession, of the letters of Rear-Admiral Vanstabel, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Wilson. At the very moment when these measures of partiality and favor were pursued at Norfolk toward the French ships, the most scrupulous caution was, as I before stated, employed to prevent any other vessels from contravening the embargo. One or two, which had attempted to sail immediately after the receipt of the intelligence of its being imposed, were brought back and detained during its continuance, and a small schooner, named the Berry, belonging to or being under the direction of Mr. Hamilton, His Majesty's consul at Norfolk, was, on the 5th of April, forcibly seized and stripped of her sails by orders of a General Matthews under pretense that she was preparing to elude the embargo, although Mr. Hamilton had assured General Matthews that it was not his intention to allow the vessel to depart until its expiration, although no master was appointed nor any seamen engaged for her, nor had she any provisions or water on board. From this minute statement of the transactions in the only port to which I alluded, I conceive myself fully justified in having adverted to the conduct which has been observed by this Government, or the officers acting under its authority, toward the powers combined against France in the enforcement of the embargo. With respect to the uniformly unfriendly treatment which British of ficers have experienced in the ports of the United States, I had, exclusively of those instances. on which I have addressed specific complaints to you, several other cases of a similar nature in my contemplaH. Ex. 324-37 tion which it is needless for me at present to enumerate. They are, however, all of them imputable solely to the unauthorized aggressions and insults of individuals, and not in any manner to any ill-disposition in the Government itself. In fact, in no instance whatsoever have any British officers been implicated in any kind of immediate original discussion with the Government, except in the case of the passport which I solicited in behalf of certain British officers who were prisoners of war, anxious on every consideration to return to their native country, and which was refused. I consider the insult offered, at Newport, to His Majesty's sloop-of-war Nautilus, to have been unparalleled, since the measures pursued there were directly contrary to the principles which, in all other civilized states, regulate cases of this nature. For, if on the arrival of a ship of war in an European port, information be given that that ship of war has on board subjects of the sovereign of that port, application is made to the officer commanding her, who himself conducts the investigation. and if he discovers that any such subjects be on board of his vessel, he immediately releases them; but if he be not satisfied that there be any such, his declaration to that effect, on his word and honor, is universally credited. But the legislature and judges of the State of Rhode Island refused to accept the assurances of the commander of the Nautilus, or to allow him to originate or prosecute the inquiry himself, and forcibly detained him and his lieutenant prisoners, by virtue of the act of assembly, until the vessel was searched and the American, or pretended American, seamen were liberated. I am certainly not inclined to dispute the merit which the governor of Rhode Island ascribes to himself for limiting the supplies granted to the Nautilus to such an amount as was merely necessary to carry her to her destined port, though this limitation in the stipulations of the treaty with France is confined to privateers only and does not extend to royal or national ships of war. But I must contend that those individuals of the legislative and judiciary departments of Rhode Island, who were concerned in this trausaction, conducted themselves with neither moderation, with decency, nor with that respect which was due to the commander of a vessel belonging to a sovereign with whom their country was at peace. [Inclosure 1 in No. 65.] General Vanstabel to Commander Cooper. ON BOARD THE TIGRE, April 7, 1794. Mr. COOPER: I have repeatedly sent to the captain and owners of the snow Venus, now lying in Norfolk, to proceed in Hampton Roads, being chartered by J. H. Ls Compte and Richard Gernon, agents, for the French republic, who have shipped on her 1,900 barrels of flour for account of the republic, as appears by Captain McConnell's receipts. But to this moment I have not seen the said snow, and am informed that she does not intend to join any convoy. I then request you, sir, to order her, and see her under way, and should she not obey your orders, I request you to force her to proceed. being my duty to take all French property under my convoy. Your friend, VANSTABEL. [278] *The above is a true copy of General Vanstabel's orders to me, and in cons>quence of which I take possession of the snow Venus, in order to deliver her to General Vaustabel, now on board the Tigre in Hampton Roads. (Signed) JOHN COOPER. I, John Cooper, commander of the ship Vanstabel, lying in the port of Norfolk and Portsmouth, do hereby certify that I have taken possession of the snow Venus, commanded by Alexander McConnell, laden with 1,900 barrels of flour, on freight for the French republic, agreeable to General Vanstabel's orders to proceed to join his convoy and proceed to France, a sight of the general's orders previously being shown to Captain McConnell by me. (Signed) APRIL 8, 1794. JOHN COOPER. [Inclosure 2 in No. 65.] Mr. Wilson to Captain McConnell. TIGRE, April 5, 1794. SIR: General Vanstabel tells me you are under his convoy; you have, therefore, a right to come down and join the fleet. I am, &c., W. WILSON. No. 66. Mr. G. Hammond to Mr. Randolph. PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 1794. SIR: As I did not receive your letter dated the 2d current until late in the afternoon of the 4th, I was incapacitated by that circumstance from returning you an answer on an earlier day than Saturday last; but your letter having been printed, I venture to hope, from the Presi dent's impartiality and candor, that he will be pleased to direct my answer also to be published. I have, &c., GEO. HAMMOND. No. 67. Mr. Randolph to Mr. G. Hammond. PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 1794. SIR: Before I had the honor of receiving your letter of this date, I had requested and obtained from the President of the United States permission to publish your other letter of the 7th instant, and it was immediately given. The clerks in my Department having been particularly engaged to-day, the transcription for the press shall be begun to morrow. Being at present anxious only to make a few observations on a matter of fact, permit me to sum up the material parts of your reasoning in this short reply-that neither the whole passage of Lord Dorchester's speech, nor the whole speech itself, nor the manner of the Indians assembling, whether by invitation or of their own accord, varies the hostile tendency of the sentence which I quoted; that, when the conduct of Governor St. Clair in 1789, and of the commissioners in 1793, is introduced as a justification of the effort on the part of Lord Dorchester to the extent which I have ascribed to him, it may be answered, among many other considerations, that you have, perhaps unintentionally, afforded room to suppose that this effort was dictated by a spirit of reprisal; that, if the measures of the governor or of the commissioners which were directed to peace for ourselves with the savages, not to war |