Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

to France, which the inefficacy of our first form of government had suffered to be accumulating: that pressing on still to the entire fulfilment of our engagementss, we have facilitated to Mr Genet the effect of the instalments of the present year, to enable him to send relief to his fellow citizens in France, threatened with famine; that in the first moment of the insurrection which threatened the colony of St. Domingo, we stepped forward to their relief with arms and money, taking freely on ourselves the risk of an unauthorized aid, when delay would have been denial; that we have received, according to our best abilities, the wretched fugitives from the catastrophe of the principal town of that colony, who escaping from the swords and flames of civil war, threw themselves on us naked and houseless, without food or friends, money or other means, their faculties lost and absorbed in the depth of their distresses; that the exclusive admission to sell here the prizes made by France on her enemies, in the present war, though unstipulated in our treaties, and unfounded in her own practice, or in that of other nations, as we believe; the spirit manifested by the late grand jury in their proceedings against those who had aided the enemies of France with arms and implements of war; the expression of attachment to his nation, with which Mr Genet was welcomed, on his arrival and journey from south to north, and our long forbearance under his gross usurpations and outrages of the laws and authority of our country, do not bespeak the partialities intimated in his letters. And for these things he rewards us by endeavors to excite discord and distrust between our citizens and those whom they have entrusted with their government; between the different branches of our government; between our nation and his. But none of these things, we hope, will be found in his power. That friendship, which dictates to us to bear with his conduct yet awhile, lest the interest of his nation here should suffer injury, will hasten them to replace an agent, whose dispositions are such a misrepresentation of theirs, and whose continuance here is inconsistent with order, peace, respect, and that friendly correspondence which we hope will ever subsist between the two nations. His government will see too that that the case is pressing. That it is impossible for two sovereign and independent authorities to be going on within our territory, at the same time, without collision. They will foresee that if Mr Genet perseveres in his proceedings, the consequences would be so hazardous to us, the example so humiliating and pernicious, that we may be forced even to suspend his functions before a successor can arrive to continue them. If our citizens have not already been shedding each others blood, it is not owing to the moderation of Mr Genet, but to the forbearance of the government.It is well known that if the authority of the laws had been resorted to, to stop the Little Democrat, its officers and agents were to have been resisted by the crew of the vessel, consisting partly of American citizens. Such events are too serious, too possible, to be left to hazard, or to what is worse than hazard, the will of an agent whose designs are so mysterious. Lay the case then immediately before his government; accompanying it with assurances, which cannot be stronger than true, that our friendship for the nation is constant and unabating; that, faithful to our treaties, we have fulfilled them in every point to the best of our understanding; that if in any thing, however, we have construed them amiss, we are ready to enter into candid explanations, and to do whatever we can be convinced is right; that in opposing the extravagances of an agent, whose character they seem not sufficiently to

have known, we have been urged by motives of duty to ourselves, and justice to others, which cannot but be approved by those who are just themselves; and, finally, that, after independence and self-government, there is nothing we more sincerely wish than perpetual friendship with them. I have the honor to be, &. TH: JEFFERSON.

83. Opinion of the Secretary of State, Mr Randolph, in 1793, On the hostile armament, organized in Kentucky, against Louisiana. Extract. That foreigners should meddle in the affairs of a government where they happen to be, has scarcely ever been tolerated, and is often very severely punished. That foreigners should point the force of a nation against its will, to objects of hostility, is an invasion of its dignity, its tranquillity, and even safety. Upon no principle can the individuals on whom such guilt shall be fixed, bid the government to wait until their numbers shall defy the ordinary animadversions of law, and until they are incapable of being subdued by the force of arms. Nor is this offence of foreigners expiated or lessened by an appeal to a presumed right in the citizens of Kentucky to enlist under such banners without the approbation of their country. In a government instituted for the happiness of the whole, with a clear delineation of the channels in which the authority derived from them, must flow, can a part only of the citizens wrest the sword from the hands of those magistrates, whom the whole have invested with the direction of military power? They may, it is true, leave their country, they may take arms and provisions with them, but if these acts be done not on the ground of mere personal liberty, but of being retained in a foreign service for purposes of enmity against another people, satisfaction will be demanded, and the state, to which they belong, cannot connive at their conduct without hazarding a rupture. The laws have rendered it lawful for the President, in case of invasion, to call forth the militia, or to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer of the militia as he shall think proper. They have empowered him to call forth the militia of one state for the suppression of an insurrection in another, under certain circumstances, and to subdue by the militia any combinations against the laws which may be too powerful for ordinary judicial proceedings.

8-1. General Pinckney to the Secretary of State.

Non-reception of the American Minister by the French Directory. Extract. Paris, Dec. 20th, 1796. M. De la Croix on the 21st Frimaire, wrote to Mr. Monroe, and informed him," that he had laid before the directory, the copy of his letters of recall, and of the letters of credence of M. Pinckney, whom the President of the United States had named to succeed him in quality of minister plenipotentiary of the said states near the French Republic." From the character with which I was invested, must be apparent both to the directory and to the minister of foreign affairs, and that in that character, I was entitled to the protection of the laws of nations, whether the directory received me or not: If they permitted me to remain until I heard from my government, I was under the protection of those laws: If they ordered me to quit the territories of the Republic, I was still entitled to letters of safe conduct, and passports on my journey out; that this was the case even with Ministers of belligerent powers, much more ought it to apply between us who were at peace. He said, supposing M. De la Croix had been mistaken in

having desired my letters of credence, in seeing me, in his laying those letters of credence before the directory, such mistake of the minister could not be binding on the directory. I replied that it was impossible for me to admit that the minister of foreign affairs had committed a mistake in his official duty; he was held forth to the world as minister, all his acts must be accredited as performed within the line of his duty and under a competent authority; and that his letter to Mr Monroe, showed he was desirous that the established usage should be complied with. He said he did not allege that there was a mistake; he had only for argument sake, urged a supposition which might be unfounded; that he would communicate what I mentioned to M. De la Croix; I desired him at the same time to inform De la Croix, that I requested whatever further passed might be in writing, that no mistakes might happen by verbal communication, and that I might know explicitly, what were the intentions of the directory. Since this conversation I have not heard from the directory, or any of the ministers or agents. C. C. PINCKNEY.

85. Mr C. C. Pinckney to the Secretary of State.

Disclosing an attempt, by a lady, to procure a gratuity from the American Ministers, for the restoration of Friendship between France and the United States. Extract. Paris, December 21, 1797. On the twentieth of December, a lady* who is well acquainted with M. Telleyrand, expressed to me her concern, that we were still in so unsettled a situation: "But," adds she, "why will not you lend us money? If you would but make us a loan, all matters would be adjusted:" and, she added, “When you were contending for your revolution, we lent you money." I mentioned the very great difference there was between the situation of the two countries at that period and the present; and the very different circumstances under which the loan was made us, and the loan was now demanded from us. She replied, "We do not make a demand; we think it more delicate that the offer should come from you: but M. Talleyrand has mentioned to me (who am surely not in his confidence) the necessity of your making us a loan: and I know that he has mentioned it to two or three others; and that you have been informed of it; and I will assure you, that if you remain here six months longer, you would not advance a single step further in your negotiations, without a loan." "If that is the case," I replied, "we may as well go away now." "Why that possibly," said she, "might lead to a rupture, which you had better avoid; for we know we have a very considerable party in America, who are strongly in our interest." There is no occasion to enter into a further detail of the conversation. I have only noted this part of it as expressive of what I believe (as far as relates to the loan, and a party in America in their favor) to be the sentiments of the French government with regard to us. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY.

86. Secretary of State to Mr Pinckney, at Paris.

French depredations on Neutrals.-Modification of the Mutual Guaranty, &c.—Belligerents leaving Ports, &c. Extract.

Philadelphia, June 12, 1797. Although the reparation for losses, sustained by the citizens of the United States, in consequence of irregular or illegal captures, or condemnations, or forcible seizures, or detentions, is of very high importance, * Understood to be Mad. de Villette, the Belle et Bonne of Voltaire-connected with the W. X. Y. Z. conversations.

and is to be pressed with the greatest earnestness, yet it is not to be insisted on as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, 'to renounce those claims of our citizens, nor to stipulate that they be assumed by the United States, as a loan to the French government.

In respect to the alterations of the commercial treaty with France in the two cases, which have been principal subjects of complaint on her part, viz. enemies' property in neutral ships, and the articles contraband of war; although France can have no right to claim the annulling of stipulations at the moment, when by both parties they were originally intended to operate, yet, if the French government presses for alterations, the President has no difficulty in substituting the principles of the law of nations, as stated in the 17th and 18th articles of our commercial treaty with Great Britain, to those of the 23d and 24th articles of our commercial treaty with France; and in respect to provisions and other articles, not usually deemed contraband, you are to agree only on a temporary compromise, like that in the 18th article of the British treaty, and of the same duration. If, however, in order to satisfy France, now she is at war, we change the two important articles before mentioned, then the 14th article of the French treaty, which subjects the property of the neutral nation, found on board enemies' ships, to capture and condemnation, must of course be abolished.—Great Britain has often claimed a right, and practised upon it, to prohibit neutral nations carrying on a commerce with her enemies, which has not been allowed in time of peace. On this head, it will be desirable, to come to an explicit understanding with France, and, if possible, to obviate the claim by an express stipulation.

Such extensive depredations have been committed on the commerce of neutrals, and especially of the United States, by the citizens of France, under pretence that her enemies (particularly Great Britain) have done the same things, it will be desirable to have it explicitly stipulated, that the conduct of an enemy towards a neutral power shall not authorize or excuse the other belligerent power in any departure from the law of nations, or the stipulations of the treaty: especially that, the vessels of the neutral nation shall never be captured, or detained, or their property confiscated, or injured, because bound to or from an enemy's port, except the case of a blockaded port, the entering into which may be prevented, according to the known rule of the law of nations. And it may be expedient to define a blockaded place or port to be one, actually invested by land, or naval forces, or both, and that no declaration of a blockade shall have any effect without such actual investment. As a substitute for the reciprocal guaranty may be proposed a mutu al renunciation of the same territories and possessions, that were subjects of the guaranty and renunciation in the sixth and eleventh articles of the treaty of alliance. Such a renunciation, on our part, would obviate the reason assigned in the instruction to M. Genet, before cited, of future danger from the rapidly growing power of the United States. But if France insists on the mutual guaranty, it will be necessary to aim at some modification of it. The existing engagement is of that kind, which, by writers on the law of nations, is called a general guaranty; of course the casus fœderis can never occur except in a defensive war. The nature of this obligation is understood to be, that when a war, really and truly defensive, exists, the engaging nation is bound to furnish an effectual and adequate defence in co-ope

ration with the power attacked: whence it follows, that the nation may be required in some circumstances to bring forward its whole force. On the part of the United States, instead of troops or ships of war, it will be convenient to stipulate for a moderate sum of money, or quantity of provisions, at the option of France. The provisions to be delivered at our own ports in any future defensive wars. The sum of money, or its value in provisions, ought not to exceed two hundred thousand dollars a year during any such wars. The reciprocal stipulation, on the part of France, may be to furnish annually the like sum of money, or an equivalent in military stores, and clothing for troops, at the option of the United States, to be delivered in the ports of France. Particular caution, however, must be used in discussing this subject, not to admit any claims on the ground of the guaranty in relation to the existing war, as we do not allow that the casus fœderis applies to it. And if the war should continue after your arrival in France, and the question of the guaranty should not be mentioned on her part, you may yourselves, be silent on the subject, if you deem it most prudent. The ports of the United States being frequented by the vesels of different belligerent powers, it became necessary to regulate the times of their sailing. The President, therefore, adopted what was understood to be the received rule in Europe, and ordered, that after the sailing of a vessel of one of the belligerent powers, twenty-four hours should elapse before an armed vessel of the enemy of the former should set sail. This rule has been duly respected by the armed vessels of France and Great Britain.

On the supposition, that a treaty will be negotiated to alter and amend the treaties, which now exist between France and the United States, the following leading principles, to govern the negotiation, are subjoined; that no aid be stipulated in favor of France during the present war. That no engagement be made inconsistent with the obligations of any prior treaty. That no stipulation be made under colour of which tribunals can be established within our jurisdiction, or personal privileges claimed by French citizens, incompatible with the complete sovereignty and independence of the United States, in matters of policy commerce and government. T. PICKERING.

87. From the Secretary of State to Judge Bee. Surrender of Thos. Nash, alias Jonathan Robbins, a British Subject, charged with Mutiny. Department of State, Philadelphia, June 3d, 1799.-Sir, Mr Liston, the minister of his Britannic majesty, has requested, that Thomas Nash, who was a seaman on board the British frigate Hermoine, and who he is informed is now a prisoner in the jail of Charleston, should be delivered up. I have stated the matter to the President of the United States. He considers an offence committed on board a public ship of war, on the high seas, to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the ship belongs. Nash, is charged, it is understood, with piracy and murder, committed by him, on board the abovementioned British frigate, on the high seas, and consequently "within the jurisdiction" of his Britannic majesty; and therefore, by the 27th article of the treaty of amity with Great Britain, Nash ought to be delivered up, as requested by the British minister, provided such evidence of his criminality be produced, as by the laws of the United States, or of South Carolina, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of the

« ZurückWeiter »