A correspondence respecting the same subject had also taken place at Washington, in which the same complaints of the directory were repeated and other complaints were urged. To the latter Pickering responded thus, in the same note in which he noticed the complaints which had been made in Paris: (1.) Charge.-That the negotiation at London had been "enveloped from its origin in the shadow of mystery, and covered with the veil of dissimulation." Reply.-"To whom was our Government bound to unveil it? To France or to her Minister? Did we stipulate to submit the exercise of our sovereignty to the direction of the Government of France? Let the Treaty itself furnish an answer." (2.) Charge.-That the Government of the United States had made an insidious proclamation of neutrality. Reply.-That "this proclamation received the pointed approbation of Congress," and "of the great body of the citizens of the United States." (3.) Charge.-That the United States "suffered England, by insulting its neutrality, to interrupt its commerce with France." Reply. That a satisfaction had been demanded and obtained in a peaceable manner-by Treaty, and not by war. (4.) Charge.—That they "allowed the French colonies to be declared in a state of blockade." Reply. That the United States, as a neutral, could only question the sufficiency of a blockade, and that they would do so when facts should warrant it. (5.) Charge.-That the United States eluded advances for renewing the Treaties of commerce. Reply.-That Genet was the first French Minister who had been empowered to treat on those subjects, and the reasons for not treating with him were well known; that his successor, Fauchet, had not been so empowered, and that the United States had always been ready to negotiate with Adet, and all obstacles had come from him since the ratification of Jay's Treaty. (6.) Charge.-That the United States were guilty of ingratitude towards France. Reply.-That the United States, appreciating their obligations to France, had done something themselves towards the achievement of their independence; that, "of all the loans received from France in the American war, amounting nearly to 53,000,000 livres, the United States under their late Government had been enabled to pay but 2,500,000 livres; that the present Government, after paying up the arrearages and installments mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, had been.continually anticipating the subsequent installments until, in the year 1795, the whole of our debt to France was discharged by the payment of 11,500,000 livres, no part of which would have become due until September 2, 1796, and then only 1,500,000, the residue at subsequent periods, the last not until 1802." (7.) Charge.-That English vessels were impressing American seamen. Reply. That this concerned the Government of the United States only; and that as an independent nation they are not obliged to account to any other power respecting the measures which they judge proper to take in order to protect their own citizens. Other less important points were discussed, as will be seen by referring to the correspondence. The course of the French was giving rise to many claims-for spoliations and maltreatment of vessels at sea, for losses by the embargo at Bordeaux, for the non-payment of drafts drawn by the colonial administrations, for the seizure of cargoes of vessels, for non-performance of contracts by government agents, for condemnation of vessels and their cargoes in violation of the provisions of the Treaties of 1778, and for captures under the decree of May 9, 1793. Skipwith, the Consul-General of the United States in France, was directed to examine into and report upon these claims; his report was made on the 20th November, 1795.1 8 On the 9th of September, 1796, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was sent out to replace Monroe, with a letter from the Secretary of State, saying: "The claims of the American merchants on the French Republic are of great extent, and they are waiting the issue of them, through the public agents, with much impatience. Mr. Pinckney is particularly charged to look into this business, in which the serious. interests, and, in some cases, nearly the whole fortunes of our citizens are involved." But the directory, early in October, 1793, recalled their Minister from the United States. Before Pinckney could arrive in France, they, "in order to strike a mortal blow, at the same moment, to British industry and the profitable trade of Americans in France, promulgated the famous law of the 10th Brumaire, year 5 (31st October, 1796), whereby the importation of manufactured articles, whether of English make or of English commerce, was prohibited both by land and sea throughout the French Republic"; and, on his arrival, they informed Monroe that the directory would no longer recognize or receive a Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after a reparation of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect."5 11 F. R. F., 753-758. 2 Ib., 742. 3 Ib., 745. 46 Garden, Traités de Paix. 117. 51 F. R. F., 746. Pinckney was thereupon ordered to quit France under circumstances of great indignity,1 and Monroe took his formal leave on the 30th December, 1796. In reply to his speech at that time, the president of the directory said: "By presenting, this day, to the Executive Directory your letters of recall, you offer a very strange spectacle to Europe. France, rich in her freedom, surrounded by the train of her victories, and strong in the esteem of her allies, will not stoop to calculate the consequences of the condescension of the American Government to the wishes of its ancient tyrants. The French Republic expects, however, that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous friendship of the French people with the crafty caresses of perfidious men, who meditate to bring them again under their former yoke. Assure the good people of America, Mr. Minister, that, like them, we adore liberty; that they will always possess our esteem, and find in the French people that republican generosity which knows how to grant peace as well as to cause its sovereignty to be respected.”2 The moment this speech was concluded, the directory, accompanied by the Diplomatic Corps, passed into the audience-hall to receive from an Aide-de-Camp of Bonaparte the four Austrian colors taken at the battle of Arcola. The Diplomatic Corps may, therefore, be presumed to have witnessed this indignity. A French writer of authority thus characterizes these incidents: "Ainsi ce gouvernement prétendait que les États-unis accédassent à ses demandes sans examen, sans discussion préalable; à cet outrage, le gouvernement français en ajouta un autre: lorsque M. Monroe prit publiquement congé du directoire exécutif, Barras, qui en était le président, lui adressa un discours rempli d'expressions qui durent choquer les Américains."4 In closing the sketch of what took place during the administration of President Washington, it only remains to say that in addition to the acts of the 2d of July and the 31st of October, 1796, already re 12 F. R. F., 710. 21 F. R. F., 747. 3 Rédacteur, No. 382, Jan. 1, 1797. 46 Garden, Traités de Paix, 118. "Thus this government pretended that the United States should accede to its demands without examination, without discussion. To this outrage the French Government added another: While Mr. Monroe took public leave of the Executive Directory, Barras, who was the president, made him a speech full of expressions calculated to shock the Americans." ferred to, the Executive Directory, on the 2d of March, 1797, decreed that all neutral ships with enemy's property on board might be captured; that enemy's property in neutral bottoms might be confiscated; that the Treaty of 1778 with the United States should be modified by the operation of the favored nation clause, so as to conform to Jay's Treaty, in the following respects: (1) That property in American bottoms not proved to be neutral should be confiscated; (2) That the list of contraband of war should be made to conform to Jay's Treaty; (3) That Americans taking a commission against France should be treated as pirates: and that every American ship should be good prize which should not have on board a crew-list in the form prescribed by the model annexed to the Treaty of 1778, the observance of which was required by the 25th and 27th Articles.1 The 25th Article made provision for a passport, and for a certificate of cargo. The 27th Article took notice only of the passport; and the model of the passport only was annexed to the Treaty. The Treaty required that the passport should express the name, property, and bulk of the ship, and the name and place of habitation of the master, but it made no provision respecting the crew-list. After the adoption of the Constitution, Congress, by general laws, made provision for national official documents, for proof of, among other things, the facts referred to in the 25th and 27th Articles of the Treaty with France. The name of the ship was to be painted on her stern, and to be shown in the Register;2 her ownership was to be proved on oath, and be stated in the Register, and her tonnage was to be stated in the same instrument, as the result of our official survey. Equally cogent laws were made to ensure an accurate crew-list." It is probable, therefore, that when the decree of March 2, 1797, was made, there was not an American ship afloat with the required document; and it is equally probable that the French Government, which, with the whole civilized world, had acquiesced in the sufficiency of the new national system, knew that to be the fact. The decree was, therefore, equivalent in its operation to a declaration of maritime war against American commerce. The United States had at that time no navy against which such a war could be carried on. The difficulties in dealing with these questions were increased by the attitude of other foreign powers. The Batavian Republic besought the 12 F. R. F., 31. 21 St. at L., 288. * Ib., 289. 4 Ib., 290; see also Ib., 55, et seq. United States Minister to represent to his Government "how useful it would be to the interests of the inhabitants of the two republics, that the United States should at last seriously take to heart the numberless insults daily committed on their flag by the English";1 and the Spanish Minister at Philadelphia formally remonstrated against the British Treaty of 1794 as a violation of a Treaty with Spain concluded a year later, because it did not make the neutral flag secure the goods; because it extended the list of contraband; and because it assumed that Great Britain had the right of navigation of the Mississippi.2 President Adams, in his speech at the opening of the first session of the Fifth Congress (May 16, 1797), said: "With this conduct of the French Government it will be proper to take into view the public audience given to the late minister of the United States, on his taking leave of the Executive Directory. The speech of the President discloses sentiments more alarming than the refusal of a minister, because more dangerous to our independence and union, and at the same time studiously marked with indignities towards the Government of the United States. It evinces a disposition to separate the people of the United States from the Government; to persuade them that they have different affections, principles, and interests from those of their fellow-citizens whom they themselves have chosen to manage their common concerns; and thus, to produce divisions fatal to our peace. Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision which shall convince France and the world that we are not a degraded people, humiliated under a colonial spirit of fear and sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign influence, and regardless of national honor, character, and interest. * "The diplomatic intercourse between the United States and France being at present suspended, the Government has no means of obtaining official information from that country; nevertheless there is reason to believe that the Executive Directory passed a decree on the 2d of March last, contravening, in part, the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, injurious to our lawful commerce, and endangering the lives of our citizens. A copy of this treaty will be laid before you. "While we are endeavoring to adjust all of our differences with France, by amicable negotiation, the progress of the war in Europe, the depredations on our commerce, the personal injuries to our citizens, and general complexion of affairs, render it my indispensable duty to recommend to your consideration effectual measures of defence.3 12 F. R. F., 13. 2 Ib., 14. 8 Annals 5th Cong., 55. |