their own citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country." About the end of May two American citizens who had enlisted on a French privateer were arrested, and were judged by the attorney-general to be indictable for disturbing the peace of the United States.1

Genet was everywhere received with great enthusiasm by the people, and expected the warm support of the government in the cause of France. Consequently the reserve of the administration was disappointing to him. Even Jefferson, who at first regarded him with favor, was soon repelled by his actions. In a letter to Madison, July 7, he says:

66

Never, in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made as that of the present Minister of F. here. Hot headed, all imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful & even indecent towards the P." 2

In June the sale of prizes brought into Philadelphia by a French vessel was stopped by a United States officer, and another French vessel, which had been fitted out at New York and was on the point of sailing, was detained. These acts aroused a vehement protest from Genet and from the French consuls at Philadelphia and New York. They claimed exclusive jurisdiction in the disposition of prizes, by reason of their consulates having been

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 77–86; Washington, vol. xii, p. 317; Jefferson, vol. vi, pp. 273–276.

2 Jefferson, vol. vi, pp. 323, 338.

constituted complete courts of admiralty by the National Convention of France. This assumption of power by the French government was not recognized by the United States, inasmuch as it had been conferred neither by treaty nor by the consular convention of 1788.1

Another grievance of Genet's related to the debt of the United States to France, which it had been arranged by convention to pay in installments covering several years. The French government proposed that it should now be paid all at once, the amount to be expended in the United States in the purchase of provisions and naval stores, of which the French were greatly in need. The condition of the national finances at that time, however, was such as to make it impossible for the United States to accept this proposal.2

The guarantee by the United States of the French West Indies made no trouble at this time. Jefferson wrote to Madison, June 9: "Genet mentions freely enough in conversation that France does not wish to involve us in the war by our guarantee." In fact the fulfillment of this obligation was never insisted upon by France, perhaps partly from motives of policy, not wishing to be pressed too hard herself on the subject of treaty stipulations, but more likely because it was thought that the Americans would

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 86-100, 144, 145.

2 Ibid. vol. i, pp. 51-67, 100-104; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 256, 282.

be more useful as neutral carriers of provisions than as belligerent allies unable to keep the sea in the face of England's navy. However, the matter is occasionally mentioned in the correspondence of the time, and assumed importance in the negotiations of 1800.1

In spite of the remonstrances of the administra tion, Genet continued to fit out privateers in American ports. He insisted that the twenty-second article of the treaty of commerce of 1778 expressly conferred the right to arm and fit out vessels of war in our ports and to sell the prizes taken by them, whereas the article simply denied this right to the enemies of either party, leaving open the question as to French and American vessels, for reasons which appeared sufficient at the time. He also claimed that under the seventeenth article 2 the United States had no right to detain vessels believed to have been captured within territorial limits. Genet's conduct at this time brought down upon him a severe reprimand from his own government in a letter, dated July 30, 1793, from the minister of foreign affairs of the French Republic."

Meanwhile the French were not the only offend

1 Jefferson, vol. i, p. 248, vol. vi, pp. 260, 293, 502; St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 162, 421, vol. iii, pp. 82, 462, vol. iv, pp. 28, 97, vol. x, pp. 299-303; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 209, 649, 726, 1064.

2 See Appendix II for these articles.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 96, 141, 145; Amer. Histor. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p. 228.

ers, as an English privateer fitting out in Georgia was seized under general orders issued by the President, and Genet complained of certain other English vessels of the same class. He also protested against the seizure by the English, on the high seas, of French goods in American vessels, which he called an insult to the American flag. Yet these seizures were made in accordance with international law. In the case of the United States and France free ships made free goods, according to the twenty-third article of the treaty of commerce, but there was no such agreement between the United States and England.1

The actions of the French minister and consuls were becoming every day more offensive, and as the United States had no navy it was impossible to check them. In July the British and French ministers were informed by the Secretary of State that the President expected certain vessels of both parties to be held in port until a legal opinion could be obtained on the various points under discussion. Among the French vessels was a prize of the Embuscade, the Little Sarah, which had been fitted out and armed as a privateer at Philadelphia. In spite of the President's request and Genet's verbal assurance to Jefferson, the Little Sarah was allowed to sail on a cruise. At last, on August 7, Jefferson informed the minister in a peremptory letter that all prizes

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 109–114, 124–136; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p. 255.

taken by French vessels after June 5, when the position of the administration had been defined, must be restored or the French government would be held responsible for the indemnification of the owners. 1

By this time it had become evident that forbearance could no longer serve any good purpose, and on August 1 a cabinet meeting was held "to consider what was to be done with Mr. Genet," and it was decided that he must go." Accordingly the Secretary of State wrote a long letter, dated August 16, 1793, to Gouverneur Morris, United States minister to France, instructing him to request the recall of Genet. In this letter Jefferson expounds the disputed articles in the treaty of 1778 at great length, and clearly exposes the fallacies of Genet's interpretation of them. He gives an account of the minister's proceedings, and quotes several insulting passages from his letters to the administration. A copy of this letter was sent to Genet, and elicited from him a response, in which he denied the right of the President to request his recall and demanded that all the matters in dispute should be referred to Congress as representing the sovereign people in whom alone authority rested; and he complained that Congress was not called in extraordinary session for this purpose. Congress subsequently pro

3

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 123-125, 136; Washington, vol. xii, pp. 302, 308-318; Jefferson, vol. i, pp. 237-241, vol. vi, pp. 339–345. 2 Jefferson, vol. i, p. 252.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 137-165.