is, that we have permitted Great Britain to treat us in the fame manner, and that the acts on the principle of a just retaliation; and her deluded or debauched adherents are mean or proftitute enough to re-echo the excufe. that of more recent ones. Our flag at this moment proudly waves on the ramparts which had been fo long detained from us; and Indian butcheries along the whole extent of our vaft frontier, have been terminated. More than this-the redrefs obtained from Great Britain was a principal caufe of the happy accommodation of our difpute with Spain-of the recognition of our right to navigate the Miffifippi, and of the establishment of a fouthern boundary equal to our most fanguine wishes*. These are the fruits (and immenfe fruits they are) of a vigorous, though temperate, refiftance to the aggreffions of Great Britain. Let us grant, for argument fake, all that can be pretended on this fub ject, namely, that through want of energy in our adminiftration, or from the opinion which it entertained of the fituation of the country, there has been too much patience under the oppreffions of Great Britain.-Is this really a juftification to France? Is a defect of vigour in the government of one country, or an under eftimate of its means for repelling injury, a fufficient caufe for another government, lavish in profeffions of friendfhip, to imitate towards it the aggreffions which it has fuffered from an oppreffor? What in private life would be faid of the man, who calling himfelf the friend of another, because the laft had too paffively allowed a third, the enemy of both, to wreft from him a portion of his property, fhould deduce from this a pretext to ftrip him of the remainder? Has language epithets too fevere for fuch a cha acter? Is not the guilt of unjust violence, in a cafe like this, aggravated by that of hypocrify and perfidy? But this is not our only reply. The truth is (and a truth we may boldly proclaim) that we never did tolerate the aggreffions of Great Britain; that we have steadily refifted them, and refifted with fuccefs. In the refpectable attitude of an armed negociation, feconded by the felf-denying and very influential measure of an embargowe fent to demand a revocation of the orders under which we fuffered, and retribution for the loffes which we had fuftained. The orders were revoked, and the retribution has been ftipulated, and the ftipulation is in a course of honourable and liberal execution―The redrefs of ancient grievances, on the ground of a reciprocity, demanded by every principle of rectitude, has been fuperadded to "Tis therefore in every fenfe false, that our government has permitted Great Britain to do as France is now doing. Except here and there the accidental irregularity of the commander of a particular fhip, there is not one clear right which the laws of nations entitle us to claim, that is not now refpected by Great Britain, and to a degree unusual in the hiftory of the treatment of neutral nations by great belligerent powers. It follows, that the fuggeftion on which France bottoms her ill treatment of us, is a frivolous and a colourless pretext. "Tis to confound all juft ideas, to confider a temporary forbearance as a permiffion of acquíefcence-to pretend to retaliate upon an injured party the injury which it has endured from another-to pretend, above all, to retaliate that injury after it has paffed, has ceased, and has been redreffed. We are bound NOTE. *This confequence was forefeen and foretold. And the prediction is confirmed by that part of the declaration of war, of Spain against Great Britain, which makes it a charge against the latter, that in the treaty with the United States " fhe had no refpect or confideration for the known rights of Spain;" and in the fudden difappearnce, after that treaty, of the obftacles which had fo long impeded our negociations with Spain. then to conclude, that our real crime, in the eye of France, is, that we had the temerity to think and to act for ourfelves, and did not plunge headlong into war with Great Britainthat the principal ftreams of our commerce, from the natural relations of demand and fupply, flow through the channels of her commerce-and that the booty which it offers to rapacity, exceeds the organized means of protection. But a country, containing five millions of people, the fecond in the number of its feamen, that prime finew of marine force, with a varied industry, and an export of fixty millions of dollars, understanding its rights, not deficient in fpirit to vindicate them, if compelled against its will, to exert its ftrength and refources, will, under the guidance of faithful and patriotic counfels, be at no lofs to convince its defpoilers, that there is as much folly as wickedness in fuch a calculation. This reflection ought at once to confole and animate us; though the remembrance of former friendship, and a spirit of virtuous moderation, will induce us ftill to wish, that there may be fome error in appearances that the views of France are not as violent and as hof tile as they seem to be--that an amicable explanation may yet difpel the impending clouds, and brighten the political horizon with a happy reconciliation. March 7, 1797. AMERICUS. The Warning-No. V.) I HAVE afferted, that the conduct of Great Britain towards us and other neutral powers, has been at no period fo exceptionable, as that of France at the prefent juncture. A more distinct view of this truth may be useful, which will be affifted by a retrofpect of the principal acts of violation on both fides. Though the circumftance was cotemporarily difclofed in all of our newfpapers, yet fo blind and deaf were we rendered by our partiality for France, that few among us, till very lately, have been aware, that the firft of those acts is fairly chargeable upon her. Such, notwithftanding, is the fact.-The firft, in order of time, is a decree of the national convention of the 9th of May, 1793, which, reciting that neutral flags are not refpected by the enemies of France, and enumerating fome inftances of alleged violation, proceeds to authorize the veffels of war and cruifers of France to arreft and conduct into her ports all neutral veffels which are found laden in whole or in part, with provifions belonging to neutrals, or merchandizes belonging to the enemies of France; the latter to be confifcated as prize for the benefit of the captors; the former to be detained, but paid for according to their value at the places for which they were deftined. The inftances enumerated as the pretext for fo direct and formal an attack upon the rights of neutral powers, except two, turn upon the pretenfion to capture the goods of an enemy in the fhips of a friend. Of the remaining two, one is the case of an American veffel going from Falmouth to St. Maloes with a cargo of wheat, which the decree ftates, was taken by an English frigate and carried into Guernfey, where the agents of the English government detained the cargo, upon a promise to pay the value, as not being for French account; the other is the cafe of fome French paffengers going in a Genoefe veffel from Cadiz to Bayonne, who were plundered on the paffage by the crew of an English privateer. There is no queftion but that Great Britain, from the beginning of the war, has claimed and exercised the right of capturing the property of her enemies found in neutral bottoms; and it has been unanfwerably demonftrated, that for this fhe has the fanction of the general law of nations. But France, from the exercise of that right by Great Britain, when not forbidden by any treaty, can certainly derive no juftification for the imita tion of the practice, in oppofition to the precife and peremptory ftipulations of her treaties.-Every treaty which established the rule of "free fhips free goods," must have contemplated the unequal operation of that rule to the contracting parties, when one was at peace, the other at war; looking for indemnification to the correfpondent right of taking friends property in enemies fhips, and to the reciprocal effect of the rule when the ftate of peace and war fhould be reverfed. To make its unequal operation in an existing war, an excufe for difregarding the rule, is therefore a fubterfuge for a breach of faith, which hardly feeks to fave appearances. France, as the once was, would have blushed to use it.-It is one, among many inftances, of the attempts of revolutionary France to dogmatize mankind out of their reafon; as if the expected to work a change in the faculties as well as in the habits and opinions of men. The cafe of the American veffel carried to Guernsey, is that of a clear infraction of a neutral right. But ftanding fingly, it was infufficient evidence of a plan of the British government to purfue the principle. It countenanced fufpicion of a fecret order for the purpofe; but it did not amount to proof of fuch an order. There might have been mifapprehenfion or mifrepresentation; or, if neither was the cafe, the circumstance was refolvable into the mere irregularity of particular agents-it is unjustifiable to afcribe to a government, as the refult of a premeditated plan, and to ufe as the ground of reprifals, a fingle cafe of irregularity happening in a detached portion of the dominions of that government. France was bound to have waited for more full evidence.-There was no warrant in a folitary precedent for general retaliation; even if we could admit the deteftable doctrine, that the injuftice of one belligerent power towards neutral nations is a warrant for fimilar injuftice in another. The violation of the courtesy of war in the inftance of the French paffengers, however brutal in itself, was truly a frivolous pretext for the decree. The frequency of irregular conduct in the commanders and crews of privateers, even in contempt of the regulations of their own governments, naturally explains fuch a tranfaction into the cupidity of individuals, and forbids the imputation of it to their government. There never was a war in which fimilar outrages did not occur, in fpite of the moft fincere endeavours to prevent them. The natural and plain conclufion is, that the decree in queftion was a wanton proceeding in the French government, uncountenanced by the previous conduct either of its enemies, or of the neutral nations who were deftined to punishment for their faults. For, the first order of the British government, authorizing the seizure of provifions, is dated the 6th of June, 1793, nearly a month pofterior to the French decree. As there is not the leaft veftige of any prior order, the prefumption is that none ever exifted. If any had exifted, the course of things has been fuch as to afford a moral certainty that it would have appeared. The fubfequent date of the British order is a ftrong confirmation of the argument, that the affair of the veffel carried to Guernsey was nothing more than a particular irregularity. The publicity of all the proceedings of the French government, and the celerity of communication between Paris and London, leave no doubt, that the decree of May the 9th was known in London before the order of June the 6th. It follows, that France herself furnished to Great Britain the example and the pretext for the moft odious of the measures with which fhe is chargeable; and that, so far as precedent can juftify crime, Great Britain may find in the conduct of France the vindication of her own. An obvious reflection prefents itfelf. How great was the infatuation of France, thus to fet the example of an interruption of neutral commerce in provifions, in the freedom of which fae was fo much more interested than her adverfaries! If the detention of the cargo at Guernsey was a bait, we cannot but be astonished at the ftupid levity with which it was swallowed. We are no lefs ftruck with the eager precipitancy with which France feized the pretext for a formal and fyftematic invasion of the rights of neutral powers; equally regardless of the obligations of treaty, and of the injunctions of the laws of nations. The prefumption of the connivance of a neutral power in infractions of its rights, is the only colourable ground for the French idea of retaliation on the fufferers. Here the yet early ftage of the war, and the recency of the facts alleged as motives to the decree, preclude the fuppofition of connivance. The unjuft violence of France, confequently, in reforting to retaliation, ftands without the flighteft veil. From this prominent trait we may diftinguish, without poffibility of miftake, the real character of her fyftem. March 14, 1797. AMERICUS. The Warning-No. VI. IT has been seen, that the government of France has an indifputable title to the culpable pre-eminence of having taken the lead in the violation of neutral rights; and that the first inftance, on the part of the British government, is nearly a month pofterior to the commencement of the evil by France. But it was not only pofterior, it was alfo lefs comprehenfive; that of France extended to all provifions; that of Great Britain to certain kinds only, corn, flour, and meal. The French decree, as to the United States, was repeatedly fufpended and revived. As to other neutral nations, it continued a permanent precedent to fanction the practice of Great Britain. This decretal verfatility is alone complete evidence of want of princi ple. It is the more cenfurable, becaufe it is afcertained, that it proceeded in part at leaft from a corrupt fource. The facred power of lawmaking became the minifter and the accomplice of private rapine. Decrees, exacted by the folemn obligations of treaty, were facrificed to fea-rovers—— to enable them to enjoy the prey, for the feizure of which they ought to have been condignly punished*. The next and moft injurious of the acts of Great Britain is the order of the 6th of November, 1793, which inftructs the commanders of fhips of war and privateers to ftop, detain, and carry in for adjudication, all fhips, laden with the produce of any French colony, or carrying provifions or other fupplies for the ufe of fuch colony. It was under the cover of this order, that were committed the numerous depredations on our commerce,, which were the immediate caufe of fending an envoy to Great Britain. The terms of this order were ambiguous, warranting a fufpicion that they were defigned to admit of an oppreffive interpretation, and yet to leave room for a difavowal of it. Whether this was really the cafe, or whether the order was in fact mifconftrued by the British officers and tribunals in the Weft Indies, it is certain that the British government, almoft as foon as their conftruction was known in England, not only disclaimed it, but iffued a new order, dated the 8th of January, 1794, revoking that of the 6th of November, and exprefsly reftraining the power to detain and carry in veffels for adjudication, to fuch as were laden with the produce of a French island going from a port NOTE. *The report of the secretary of ftate mentions (as was known at the time) that one repeal was effected by the influence of the owners of a privateer, which had captured the valuable American fhip Laurens, to give effect to her condemnation. in the island to a port in Europe-to fuch as were laden with the like produce belonging to fubjects of France whitherfoever bound-to fuch as were laden in whole or in part with naval or military ftores bound to a French island. The laft order obviated in a great measure the mischief of the former; and though its principles were in fome refpects fuch as we ought never to recognize; yet were they conformable with the practice of the principal maritime powers in antecedent modern wars, especially of France and Great Britain. These acts comprife the whole of thofe on which the British fpoliations have been founded. Taken with all the latitude of conftruction, adopted by the British officers and courts in the West Indies, they amount to this and to no more-"the feizure and appropriation of our corn, flour, and meal, going to a French port, on the condition of paying for them-the feizure and confifcation of our veffels with their cargoes, when laden with the produce of a French colony, or in the act of carrying provifions or other fupplies for the ufe of fuch colony." Our trade with France herfelf, except in corn, flour, and meal, and in contraband articles, has, in the worst of times, remained unmolefted, and has even been allowed to be carried on directly from British ports. : Iniquitous and oppreffive as were the acts of Great Britain, how very far fhort do they fall of the more iniquitous and oppreffive decrees of France as these have been conftrued and acted upon, not only by its colonial administrations, but by fome of its tribunals in Europe! The decree of the 2d of July, 1796, purports, in fubftance, that France will treat the neutral powers as they have permitted her enemies to treat them.But, under this masked battery, the whole of our trade with the enemies of France has been affailed. The two edicts of her proconfuls in the Weft Indies*, proclaim the capture of all neutral veffels bound to or coming from English ports-and the uniform confequence is confifcation of veffel and cargo. We are now likewife officially informed, that a French confular tribunal at Cadiz has condemned neutral veffels carried in there on the fame broad principle. The evil to us has been magnified by various aggravations. Our veffels going from one neutral port to another, even our veffels going to and returning from French ports, have been the victims of the piratical fpirit which dictated thofe edicts. Outrage, imprisonment, fetters, disease, and death, inflicted or brought upon the commanders and crews of our veffels, cause the bitter cup of our fufferings to overflow, and leave the imagination at a lofs for a parallel, without feeking for it in the ferocious regions of Barbary. The ambiguity of the British order of November was a juft fubject of reproach to its authors.-What fhall we fay of the perfidious ambiguity of the French decree of the 2d of July, 1796? When retaliation of the partial injuries which neutral nations had fuffered from the enemies of France, was denounced, who could have dreamt that an univerfal war on their trade was meditated? Who, that has a fpark of the American in his foul, can refuse his utmost indignation as well at the manner as at the matter of this atrocious proceeding? Not only the partifans of France, the advocates for the honour of republican government, but the friends of human nature, muft defire that the final explanation may reject, as a criminal abuse, the practice upon that decree, and repair, as far as poffible, the mischiefs which it has occafioned. But the treaty with Great Britain (ftill exclaim the dupes or hirelings of France) that abominable inftru NOTE. * Santhonax and co. November 27, 1796. Victor Hughes 13th Pluviofe, 5th year of the Republic. |