CHAPTER II

NEGOTIATIONS

THE administration, while relieved from the embarrassments brought upon it by Genet, was nevertheless for the next four years subjected to the annoyance of incessant complaints on the part of the French department of foreign affairs and its ministers, Fauchet and his successor, Adet. These complaints were made a pretext for hostile acts which bore heavily upon American commerce.

Jefferson, having resigned the office of secretary of state, was succeeded in January, 1794, by Edmund Randolph, and he in turn by Timothy Pickering in December, 1795. Gouverneur Morris, United States minister to France, whose republican principles were not sufficiently radical to suit the French, was recalled in May, 1794, and James Monroe was sent to take his place. Monroe administered American affairs until the arrival in Paris, in December, 1796, of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who was sent to relieve him. Fauchet, the French minister to the United States, was succeeded in June, 1795, by Adet, who was recalled in October, 1796, and six months later left the affairs of his nation in the hands of the consul-general, Letombe.

In the mean time our relations with England

had long been unsatisfactory, as many of the provisions of the treaty of peace of 1783 had not been carried out. Moreover, the European war had subjected American commerce to British as well as to French aggressions. In view of the danger of still further estrangement, it was deemed of vital importance to negotiate a new treaty with Great Britain, and for this purpose John Jay was sent to England in April, 1794. His mission was so far successful that a treaty was concluded November 19, which was finally proclaimed in February, 1796. This treaty was far from satisfactory; it was sharply and justly criticised at the time, and has been ever since. Yet it relieved some of the most pressing matters in dispute, contained the most favorable terms that England could possibly have been induced to yield at that time, and with little doubt prevented war between the two countries. It secured compensation for injuries already inflicted upon American commerce, which was now, for a time at least, free from spoliation at the hands of British cruisers. Jay was unable to provide in the treaty for the protection of American seamen against impressment into the British naval service. This practice, which ultimately led to war between the two nations, was just beginning at this time.

After Genet's recall the complaints of France against the United States continued, but at first grew less acrimonious, and for a time better feeling prevailed between the two governments. Then with

the promulgation of Jay's treaty with England conditions changed again for the worse. This treaty conflicted in some of its provisions with the treaties of 1778 with France, and for this reason it was very offensive to the French, who, moreover, were irritated that the Americans should have been willing to establish amicable relations with their old enemies. The sources of French discontent, repeatedly urged in the course of the correspondence between the two republics from 1794 to 1798, may be summarized under two heads: first, complaints based on alleged inexecution of the treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788; and second, those arising from provisions of the late treaty with England supposed to be unfriendly to France or prejudicial to her interests.1

Under the first head the French complained that United States courts took cognizance of prizes brought into American ports by French cruisers and privateers; but it was shown that in every case alleged there was evidence that the prize had been taken in American territorial waters or by a privateer fitted out in an American port. A case which brought forth loud and long-continued protests from the French was that of the Cassius, which had been originally armed in Philadelphia, had sailed under another name, refitted in the West

1 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 113-499, vol. iii, pp. 5–36, vol. iv, pp. 93– 137. See, also, report of Adet, March 21, 1796, to the French minister of foreign affairs, on Franco-American relations since 1793, Amer. Hist. Assoc. vol. ii, pp. 846-881.

Indies, and then cruised under command of an American citizen. She brought a prize into Philadelphia, and was there seized and her captain arrested. The Vengeance, another privateer that attracted especial attention, was held, tried, and finally released.1 It was charged, moreover, that British vessels of war having taken prizes were admitted, in some cases with their prizes, into American ports, in contravention of the seventeenth article of the treaty of commerce of 1778. The wording of this article 2 is not clear, and there was a difference of opinion as to its precise meaning, the French insisting that all war vessels which had ever taken prizes from them must be kept out, while the American interpretation included only vessels attempting to bring in prizes. In any event, the article stipulated merely that proper measures should be taken to cause such vessels to retire, but it was not within the power of the United States government, with no navy, to force compliance.3

4

Furthermore, the French declared that the ninth and twelfth articles of the consular convention of 1788, granting jurisdiction to consuls in disputes between their own citizens and also the right to

1 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 129–140, 216–227, 234–252, 273–281, 357– 425, vol. iv, pp. 95-97, 105-109, 112-114; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 417, 779, 842, 858-862, 907, 976, 1019.

2 See Appendix II.

8 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 140–142, 148–150, 201-206, 281–357, vol. iv, pp. 109-112; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 650, 666, 684, 696-701, 722, 935.

See Appendix II.

recover deserters from their vessels, had not been effectively executed. In respect to the latter, they complained that American judges refused to issue warrants for the apprehension of deserters until furnished with the original registers of the vessels concerned; this was in accordance with a strict construction of the wording of article nine. As to jurisdiction, the consuls claimed more than the convention allowed or than was practicable.1

Under the second head, relating to the treaty with England, the main French grievance was that the list of contraband was increased, whereas it should have been diminished, in accordance with the liberal principles of the armed neutrality of European powers during the American Revolution. This was a reform earnestly desired by the United States, and which Jay had vainly endeavored to get incorporated into the treaty. As it was, the list of contraband adopted was precisely that recognized by the law of nations, and it was stipulated that when provisions were seized they should be paid for. Another charge was that Jay's treaty prevented the French from selling their prizes in American posts, as they had formerly done and claimed the right to do under their treaty; but the Secretary of State showed clearly that it was not a right, but a privilege which had been temporarily accorded to them. They had the advantage of

1 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 181-184, 497, vol. iii, pp. 8-10, vol. iv, pp. 114-117, 195, 202; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 681, 862.