of a larger installment than was required by the contract, to be expended in the purchase of provisions in the United States:-and the conclusion of a new commercial Treaty. Jefferson declined the former, and as to the latter said that the participation in matters of Treaty given by the Constitution to the Senate would delay any definite answer.1

At length his conduct became so violent and indecent (Garden speaks of Washington as "personnellement insulté dans les actes diplomatiques de M. Genet") that Jefferson, on the 15th of August, 1793, instructed Morris to demand his recall. One of the first acts of his successor was to demand his arrest for punishment, which was refused by the Government of the United States "upon reasons of law and magnanimity."

It was several months before the request for his recall could be complied with. Meanwhile, the United States being without a navy, prizes continued to be brought into their ports, and French Consuls attempted to hold prize courts within their jurisdiction. Genet also applied himself diligently at this time to the greater scheme respecting the Louisianas, which Garden regards as the main object of his mission. An armed expedition was organized in South Carolina and Georgia for an attack upon Florida. Garden says that he had assurances that all Louisiana desired to return under the jurisdiction of France, and he made serious preparations for conquering it. He prepared a co-operation of naval forces, which were to appear off the coast of Florida. The principal land forces were to embark from Kentucky, and, descending the Ohio and the Mississippi, were to fall unexpectedly upon New Orleans." The action of the Government and the recall of Genet put a stop to these expeditions against Spain, although Jefferson at that time thought a war with Spain inevitable."

In retaliation the Executive Provisory Council of the French Republic demanded the recall of Morris. In communicating the fact to him Secretary Randolph said: "You have been assailed, however, from another quarter. Nothing has ever been said to any officer of

11 F. R. F., 568.

28 Garden, Traités de Paix, 43, "personally insulted by the acts of Mr. Genet.❞ 31 F. R. F., 709.

4 Ib., 147.

5 Ib., 309, 426.

68 Garden, Traités de Paix, 42. More detailed account of this affair will be found in 2 Pitkin's Political History, 379.

73 Jefferson's Works, 591.

81 F. R. F., 463.

our Government by the Ministers of France which required attention until the 9th day of April last, when Mr. Fauchet communicated to me a part of his instructions, indirectly but plainly making a wish for your recall. In a few days afterwards a letter was received from the Executive Provisory Council, expressive of the same wish. Mr. Fauchet was answered by me, under the direction of the President, as I am sure your good sense will think inevitable, that the act of reciprocity demanded should be performed."

Washington wrote Morris, when his successor went out: "I have so far departed from my determination as to be seated in order to assure you that my confidence in, and friendship and regard for you, remain undiminished * * and it will be nothing new to assure you that I am always and very sincerely, yours, affectionately;" and when his correspondence was called for by the Senate, Washington himself, in association with Hamilton and Randolph, went over it (and it was voluminous) in order that nothing might be communicated which would put in peril those who had given him information, or which would re-act upon him in France.

* *

When the war broke out in February, 1793, Morris wrote Jefferson: "As to the conduct of the war, I believe it to be on the part of the enemy as follows: first, the maritime powers will try to cut off all supplies of provisions, and take France by famine; that is to say, excite revolt among the people by that strong lever. It is not improbable that our vessels bringing provisions to France may be captured and taken into England." His prescience was accurate. Such instructions were given to British men-of-war on the 8th day of June, 1793. The British measure, however, was anticipated by a decree of the National Convention of the 9th of May, authorizing ships of war and privateers to seize and carry into the ports of the Republic merchant-vessels which are wholly or in part loaded with provisions, being neutral property bound to an enemy's port, or having on board merchandise belonging to an enemy.5 On the 23d of the same month the vessels of the United States were exempted from the operation of this decree ; but on the 5th of December, 1793, President Washington sent

1 Randolph to Morris, April 29, 1794, MS. Dept. of State. 21 F. R. F., 409.

3 Randolph to Morris, April 29, 1794, MS. Dept. of State. 41 F. R. F., 350.

5 Ib., 244.

6 Ib.

a special message to Congress, in which he said: "The representative and executive bodies of France have manifested generally a friendly attachment to this country; have given advantages to our commerce and navigation, and have made overtures for placing these advantages on permanent ground; a decree, however, of the National Assembly, subjecting vessels laden with provisions to be carried into their ports, and making enemies' goods lawful prize in the vessel of a friend, contrary to our Treaty, though revoked at one time as to the United States, has been since extended to their vessels also, and has been recently stated to us."

An embargo was laid upon vessels in the port of Bordeaux, "some exceptions in favor of those vessels said to be loaded on account of the republic" being made.2 Morris was promised daily that the embargo should be taken off, and indemnification be granted for the losses, but it was not done, and “a number of Americans," injured by it, complained to the Minister. The embargo was not removed until the 18th of November, 1794.5

Monroe succeeded Morris, and on the 12th of February, 1795, wrote: "Upon my arrival here I found our affairs ✶✶ in the worst possible situation. The Treaty between the two Republics was violated. Our commerce was harassed in every quarter and in every article, even that of tobacco not excepted. * Our former Minister was not only without the confidence of the government, but an object of particular jealousy and distrust. In addition to which it was suspected that we were about to abandon them for a connection with England, and for which purpose principally it was believed that Mr. Jay had been sent there."

Monroe's and Jay's services commenced nearly simultaneously. Monroe's commission was dated the 28th of May, and Jay's the 19th of April, 1794. Jay's Treaty was proclaimed the 29th of February, 1796. Monroe was not recalled until the 22d of the following August,' but the angry correspondence which preceded his recalls may be said to have been caused by a radical difference of opinion respecting his colleague's mission to London.

Whatever may have been the feeling toward Monroe's predecessor, he himself was well received. The Committee of Public Safety welcomed him "with the most distinguished marks of affection," and offered him a house, which offer he declined. He remained in relations of personal good-will with the different Governments of France, and did not fail to urge in his correspondence with the Secretary of State the policy of settling the differences with Great Britain by an alliance with France: nor did he conceal those opinions from the Government to which he was accredited. While the relations between Great Britain and the United States were balancing themselves in London on the issue of Jay's Treaty, those between the United States and France were held in like suspense in Paris.

Monroe endeavored to obtain from Jay a knowledge of the negotiations and a copy of the Treaty. Jay refused to communicate information, except in confidence, and Monroe declined to receive it unless he should be at liberty to communicate it to the French Government.* A copy was, however, officially communicated to the French Minister at Washington.5 When the fate of that Treaty was ensured, the directory at first resolved (and so informed Monroe) to consider the alliance at an end, but they gave no formal notice to that effect. In lieu of that they lodged with him, on the 11th of March, 1796, a summary exposition of the complaints of the French Government against the Government of the United States, namely, (1.) That the United States Courts took jurisdiction over French Prizes, in violation of the Treaty of 1778. (2.) That British men-of-war were admitted into American ports in violation of the same article. (3.) That the United States had failed to empower any one to enforce consular judgments, which was alleged to be a violation of the Convention of 1788. (4.) That the Captain of the Cassius had been arrested in Philadelphia for an offense committed on the high seas. (5.) That an outrage had been committed on the effects of the French Minister within the waters of the United States. (6.) That by Jay's Treaty the number of articles contraband of war, which a neutral might not carry, had been increased above the list specified in the treaties with France, which was

11 F. R. F., 675.

2 See, among others, his letters in 1 F. R. F. of Nov. 20, 1794, 685; Dec. 2, 1794, 687; Jan. 13, 1795, 691; Feb. 12, 1795, 694; and March 17, 1795, 700.

a favor to England. (7.) That provisions had been recognized in Jay's Treaty as an article contraband of war.1

On the 2d of July, 1796, the directory decreed that all neutral or allied powers should, without delay, be notified that the flag of the French Republic would treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, or to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them.2 Garden says that a second decree relating to the same object was made on the 16th of the same month, and that neither decree has been printed. The translation of the first one is printed among the American documents cited above, as also the translation of a note transmitting it to Monroe. Garden refers to Rondonneau, Répertoire général de la Législation française, Vol. II, p. 311, for the text of the second.*

Pickering, the successor of Randolph, noticed the complaints of the French Government in elaborate instructions to Pinckney, Monroe's successor, on the 16th of January, 1797. His replies were in substance, (1.) That the courts had taken jurisdiction over no prizes, except when they were alleged to have been made in violation of the obligations of the United States as a neutral, and that the cases in which interference had taken place were few in number and insignificant. (2.) That it was no violation of the Treaty with France to admit British ships of war into American ports, provided British privateers and prizes were excluded. (3.) That there was no Treaty obligation upon officers of the United States to enforce French consular judgments, and that the clause referred to was exceptional and ought not to be enlarged by construction. (4.) The facts respecting the Cassius were stated in order to show that no offense had been committed. (5.) That the executive had taken as efficacious measures as it could to obtain satisfaction for the outrage upon Fauchet. (6.) That the United States would gladly have put the definition of contraband on the same basis in its Treaties with both countries; but that Great Britain would not consent, and an independent arrangement had been made which did not affect the other Treaty arrangement made with France. (7.) That the stipulation as to provisions, without admitting the principle that provisions were contraband, would tend to promote adventures in that article to France.

11 F. R. F., 732-3.

2 Ib., 577.

46 Garden, Traités de Paix, 112, note. 51 F. R. F., 559.

* Ib., 739.