ingly returned to the cutter: and not having sufficient
400 AMERICAN
force to stand her cannon, without sacrificing a number of
good citizens, and perhaps to no effect, we returned to
Port Penn about 10 o'clock that night. The next day
major Grantham put as many men on board the revenue
cutter as she could carry, and got a small sloop with the
remainder of the troops on board, and the revenue barge,
with a determination to board the ship ā we got under
way and proceeded down the bay, but could not find the
ship, she had taken her departure with a fair wind and
was out of sight. We then returned to Port Penn and
the troops were ordered to their respective places to be
dismissed.
DAVID ROBINETT.
Wilmington, January 5, 1795.
N. B. The boatswain, a Frenchman, and four of the
men took the ship's boat the night after we left the ship
and made their escape. He says they were discovered
just as they left the ship ; the officers ordered some of the
passengers to fire on them, as they said they were all
passengers, but none would fire : he reports they had
ninety -five men on board, and plenty of ammunition ; the
:ship he said got under way about nine or ten o'clock
P. M. the night after we left them.
D. R.
No. 93.
TRAXSLATIOX.
The J\fmistcr Plenipotentiary of the French Republic/c near
the United States, to Mr, Pickering, Secretary of the De-
partment of War, charged zvith the Department of State,
Philadelphia, the 1st Vindemiaire, Ath year of the French
Republick, one and indivisible, [September 22, 1795,
O. S.)
Sir, ā Possessing full confidence in the sentiments of
the government of the United States, I presented to it my
claims wiih regard to the corvette he Cassius, If they
were urgent, they were founded injustice.
In my first letter to Mr. Randolph, I complained of the
arrest of the corvette Le Cassius in violation of our trea-
ties; my complaints were just, and the supreme, prohi-
STATE PAPERS. 401
biting the district court, from pursuing this affair is an
evidence of it. Individual interest had confounded the
principles developed in my letter of the twenty-second
Thermidor to Mr. Randolph. The supreme court for
from favouring the abuse committed, rendered homage to
them. But, sir, individual interest does not always calcu-
late upon principles: if in taking a step it misses the
object it proposed to attain, it withdraws, and pursues
another route.
The new arrest of the Cassius perhaps furnishes us
with a proof of this truth. Perhaps the individual who
tlr.^t obtained a warrant against this vessel has been in-
duced under the shadow of your laws to invent the story
which compelled the authority to cause the Cassius to be
arrested anew. Has Mr. Ketland who perhaps informed
against the corvette Le Cassius, as having armed in the
United States, wished only to serve the interest and feel-
ings >f friendship 1 Have not other sentiments probably
dictated the step ? Ui> origin, his connections in this city,
the desire of serving the country which gave him birth,
by paralyzing in your ports a vessel of the Republick, by
embarrassing the American government between its laws
and the treaty, by troubling the harmony which subsists
between your country and mine, and which certain people
are interested in destroying? These perhaps are the true
motives of an information coloured with the specious love
of the laws. 1 am far from insisting upon these conjec-
tures. I conceive I might have spared them, but they
presented themselves to my imagination, and the confi-
dence which your character inspires in me, doubtless
authorizes me to transmit them to you.
Whatever may be the reasons which have influenced
Mr. Ketland in the present circumstances, it appears to
me that his information whether founded or not does not
change the state of things, and that the violation of out
treaty is not less manifest.
I shall not lead you to observe, sir, in order to support
the conjectures I have presented to you, that the informa-
tion of Mr. Ketland did not appear until the very day
in which the seizure of the Cassius was taken off. I shall
not wait to give you new suppositions which perhaps are
not destitute of foundation, but will immediately pass to
the proofs in support of my opinion before I inform you.
vofc. iu 51
402 AMERICAN
of the course which these circumstances oblige me to
take.
I conceive, sir, that admitting the armament of the Oas-
sius in the United States, her seizure is invalid. For this
vessel now belongs to the Republick, and the nineteenth
article of our treaty expressly states that state vessels may
freely enter and sail from the ports of the United States
without receiving the least hindrance. The literal mean-
ing of the article then permits the entry of the Cassius. If
it were otherwise the Republick w r ould become (in the hy-
pothesis of armament in the United States) responsible
for the faults, or wrongs of an individual. A vessel by
changing owner would then always be a security for the
faults of her first proprietor. If a frigate of the Repub-
lick should take an English vessel armed in the United
States, and if from the fortune of war the Cassius should
fall into the hands of these vessels, would they in that case
be seizable ? This conclusion, sir, naturally results from
the state of things, but it is presumable that Mr. Ketland
would not draw it if the English flag had waved on board
the Cassius.
In the distribution of ordinary justice would it be equita-
ble to seize the arms of a citizen, because before they be-
longed to him they might have been in the service of an
assassin to commit murder ? Would these arms be guilty
of the crime of which they had been the instrument ?
Would their new owner by possessing them participate in
the crime of their first proprietor, and if he w r ere deprived
of them for that reason, would he not have a right to com-
plain ? Whether the question relates to an individual or a
nation, the principles are the same, justice is the same.
And in cases in which an individual would be injured, so
would a nation, if the nature of the relations and circum-
stances were always the same. Is not the example which
I have just cited applicable to the arrest of the Cassius ?
The Republick therefore have a right to complain of the
arrest of this vessel. She then has a right to demand
the execution of the nineteenth article of her treaty with
the United States, since no subsequent stipulation has
suspended the execution of it.
But if in the hypothesis that the vessel armed in
the United States, the Cassius should be delivered to
STATE PAPEBS. 40v>
the Republick, by a much stronger reason, in the contrary
position, should the seizure of this vessel be annulled.
You know us well as I do, sir, that the pretext for the
arrest of the Cassius, is that this vessel under the name of
Its Jwnraux was formerly armed for war in the port of
Philadelphia. But, sir. when this vessel arrived last year at
Philadelphia (the time of the pretended armament) she was
armed with four cannon and two swivels. The proofs ot
this fact must be in the customhouse. It is true also that
one Guenet was convicted for having attempted to put
cannon on board les Jumcaux which were intercepted on
the way. But this attempt although punishable in the
terms of your laws, is not an armament, and even had if
succeeded, it would have been but an augmentation of
force ā and an augmentation of force is not an armament,
and does not, according to the law of 5th June, 1794,
occasion the confiscation of the vessel.
How shall we therefore, qualify the conduct of Mr. Ket-
land who could not be ignorant of the law ? How r shall we
avoid seeing in it a formal design to insult the French Re-
publick, especially when it is observed that he began the
suit in a court which is incompetent to decide the case in
question. Mr. Ketland and his counsel know very well
that agreeable to your laws, it belongs exclusively to the
district courts to decide in cases of forfeiture. Yet it was
by the circuit court, which you know has only appellate
jurisdiction that they have had the Cassius seized. This
court has but two sessions in a year. It sits but once at
Philadelphia. The district court on the contrary is always
in session. If the affair of the Cassius had been brought
there, a decision would have been obtained in a short
time, but a considerable time elapses before a decision
can be obtained in the circuit court ; it will not fail there-
fore to declare itself incompetent. Of what importance
is it to the men who have promoted the arrest of the Cas-
sius, and who on that account are applauded ? They will
enjoy the satisfaction of having insulted the French Re-
publick with impunity, and of having abused your laws in
order to satisfy the hatred of England.
Whatever reason I had to complain on seeing a discus-
sion relative to the execution of our treaties brought be-
fore your ordinary tribunals when it appertains according
to all established rules among nations, to the government
404 AMERICAN
of the United States, although I should in such cases only
address myself to the government of the United States in
order to obtain justice, it being charged with the execu-
tion of treaties, yet 1 did not wish to neglect any means of
conciliation in my power, and latterly caused security to
be proposed to obtain the replevy of the vessel, reserving
to myself and to you the privilege of determining on an
affair unpleasant in all its aspects, by subsequent ne-
gotiations.
In these hopes I have been deceived, the security was
refused, and the affair is of course abandoned to the deci-
sion of the courts.
Justly alarmed at delays which nothing could control ;
at the expenses occasioned to the Ptepublick, by support-
ing a vessel which rendered it no service ; fearing with just
reason lest the crew (a part of which has been corrupted)
should desert after having been so expensive to the Re-
publick, I have ordered her to be disarmed ; and from this
moment I abandon her to the government of the United
States under the reservation of referring the matter to the
French government.
I venture to hope, sir, that the government of the Unit-
ed States will take proper measures to prevent the forces
of the Republick from being paralyzed in its ports, and
evil minded people from abusing the laws in order to ar-
rest every French vessel coming into the United States.
For if a single information be sufficient to stop one vessel,
there is no reason why the first frigate which shall arrive
from Europe should not be seized as having armed in the
United States*
Accept, sir, &c.
P. A. ADET.
No. 94.
Mr. Pickering, Secretary of War, charged with the Depart-
ment of State, to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of
the French Republick. Department of State, October
1, 1795.
Sir, ā You have seen that the President of the United
States, to maintain the respect due to them, had anticr-
STATE PAPERS. 40.>
pat! d towards the British vice consul at Newport, that se-
verity which in your letter of the 10th ult. you considered
his offensive conduct required.
In jrour other letter of the 10th ult. you mention the vio-
lation of the rule prescribed by the President (conformably
with the usage of European nations) to regulate the sailing
of armed vessels of the belligerent powers, in the case ot
the British ship the Africa which pursued the Medusa im-
mediately on her leaving the harbour of Newport. This
additional insult and injury by captain Home, commander
of the Africa, was represented in the first despatches, after-
wards sent to the minister of the United States at London,
who was required to demand reparation.
With great pleasure I acknowledge the very different
deportment of the officers and company of the French fri-
gate Medusa, of whom not a whisper of complaint has
been lisped, and who I have reason to believe conducted
with exemplary propriety and respect for the laws. Such
would be the conduct of all foreign officers, in neutral
ports, if they consulted either their nation's honour or their
own.
On the 24th ult. I received your letter of that date and
one of the 22d.
On the subject of the privateer La Vengeance and her
prize, of which till the receipt of your letter of the 24th
ult. I had no knowledge. I have written to the district
attorney of New York, enclosing a copy of your letter, and
of the four papers accompanying it, and desiring him to
furnish me with such information as may satisfy t the su-
preme Executive of the United States of the conduct it
ought in this case to observe. Here I must rest this
matter until his answer shall be received.
With regard to the armed vessel le Cassius, which is
the subject of your letter of the 22d ult. I have some
observations to make.
In the letter which I had the honour to write you on the
25th of August, I said that any delays which had happen-
ed in the district court, on the first process against the
Cassius, were not to be ascribed to the court : I may now
add, that if the counsel for the Cassius, had brought before
the judge of that court, the same facts and evidence which
were afterwards exhibited to the supreme court, to obtain
ihe prohibition, this step would doubtless have been found-
4t36 AMERICAN
unnecessary : the district judge, influenced by the same
principles, would probably have dimissed the libel. But
that decision did not, I conceive, necessarily involve the
present question.
Now that a new action has been commenced against
the Cassius, I must repeat what has been already stated,
" That as long as the question is in the hands of the courts,
the Executive cannot withdraw it from them ;" and there-
fore is not chargeable with suffering a violation of the
treaty subsisting between the two republicks.
The fact, that the Cassius, under the name of Les Ju-
meaux, was originally fitted out as an armed vessel, in the
port of Philadelphia, is incontrovertible. This was estab-
lished on the trial of Guenet who superintended her equip-
ment. You have been misinformed on this as well as
some other points, both of law and fact. A vessel may he
loaded with cannon and arms, and yet not be an armed
vessel. The reason of this remark applies to Les Ju-
meaux when she arrived in the port of Philadelphia.
Now by the law of the United States, to which you re-
fer, a vessel so originally armed and equipped is declared
to be liable to confiscation. Whether the subsequent
transfer of the property to the French Republick will ex-
empt it from confiscation, is the question in court now
to be determined. If the Executive were to attempt (and
it could only attempt ā for it would be the duty of the court
to resist its mandate) to remove the question from the ju-
diciary, it would be a violation of the constitution : and
you will see immediately that the measure would be as
unsafe as unconstitutional.
A fair investigation of the case of the Cassius might lead
to this conclusion ā That by the law of the United States,
she was really liable to confiscation. This admitted, let
us suppose her to be now discharged, by the consent of
government without a trial : and that in her first cruise she
should take from the enemies of the French Republick,
prizes of very great value : what would be the conse-
quence ? The nations to whom, or to whose subjects the
prizes belonged, would demand, and expect to be paid that
value, whatever might be the amount ā and it might be
immense ā by the United States s What also would be the
consequence, if the mere act of transferring the property
of the vessel would rescue her from condemnation ? Ob-
STATE PAPERS . 40/
viously that the design of the law ā the prevention of ille-
gally fitting out privateers ā would generally be defeated :
transfers would be promptly made, on purpose to evade
the law. But the forfeiture of the vessel with all her
equipments, much more than the personal punishment of
the agents concerned in fitting her out, was considered by
the law as the most effectual guard against the violation of
our neutrality. And as to the legal consequence of a trans-
fer, you have taught me to say, t; that whether the question
respects an individual or a nation, principles are the same
ā -justice is the same."
You have been informed that the circuit court is a tribu-
nal incompetent to take original cognizance of the question
of which we are treating : that of this the prosecutor could
not be ignorant : and thence you see in this measure the
design of a formal insult to the French Republick. But,
sir, the counsel who have told you that such is the law,
have led you into an errour. The question does not re-
spect a confiscation for the breach of the laws of trade ā of
which the district court has jurisdiction ā but for the in-
fraction of a criminal law ; for which the penalties are a
forfeiture of vessel and equipments ā a fine against the per-
sons concerned in equipping her, which may rise to five
thousand dollars ā and imprisonment which may extend to
three years ; to declare and inflict all which the circuit
court is competent : but the district court can take cogni-
zance of no crimes where the penalties may exceed one
hundred dollars, and imprisonment for six months.
What were the motives of the prosecutor, in this case, I
am not to inquire. Though once a foreigner, he is now a
citizen of the United States. The laws of the country
where, he resides are in this respect impartial: giving no
more countenance or support to him, than under the like
circumstances they would give to an original citizen of
France or Holland. Without resorting, however, to na-
tional antipathies, a nearer cause may be assigned, com-
prehending interest and resentments much more likely to
be operative. The prosecutor was part owner of the prize
taken by the Cassius ; to obtain indemnification for which
the first' arrest was made : and in the pursuit of which he
was defeated. Should the Cassius and her equipments be
confiscated on the present suit, the law will give to the
prosecutor, Mr. Ketland, one half their value, But whether
408 AMERICAN
national or personal interests and resentments prompted
his last step, or whatever were his motives, the court could
not reject his claim presented in the form which the laws
prescribe. I will close this subject with one remark ā
That if courts were permitted to take cognizance of those
complaints only which originated merely in a love of order
and pure reverence for the laws, few ā very few criminals
would be brought to justice.
You will see the difference between a prosecution
grounded on the law of the 5th of June, 1794, when
brought against the Cassius, a vessel, clearly proved on a
judicial investigation to have been equipped in violation of
that law r , and a prosecution against a French " frigate
coming from Europe, under the pretence of her having
armed in the United States." No one, it is imagined,
would be so unwise, if he could be so unprincipled, as to
-attempt an arrest of the latter, and subject himself to the
damages recoverable, I presume, for prosecuting a ground-
less and vexatious suit. Nor can I believe our ministers
of justice would be so blind as not to discern the entire dis-
tinction between the two cases ; or that they would not
instantly reject the information founded only on pretence,
whiie they as readily admitted the litigation of a question
of law arising on a fact previously established before a judi-
cial tribunal*
After the man) assurances which have been given to the
ministers of the French Republick, that the government of
the United States holds itself bound as well by inclination,
as by duty, faithfully to observe its treaties, it is unplea-
sant to receive so frequent intimations of its violating or
suffering them to be violated. There are powerful mo-
tives to induce its exact adherence to them : and among
these, a regard to its own dignity and reputation and a love
of justice are not the least. But I ascribe what I com-
plain of to its proper cause, misinformation from gentlemen
conversant in our laws ; but who ought to be more correct
or less sanguine in their legal opinions. In the case you
mention, where u neglecting no means of conciliation in
your power, you directed security to be offered to obtain
a release of the vessel," the judge himself finding no law
to warrant the measure, called on the counsel of the Cas-
.sius to produce it : one of them, more skilful in the laws
STATE TAPERS. *1 () ''
or more ran lid, confessed he knew of none; zndtherefore
the security was refused.
After this detail, it will be unnecessary for me to de-
clare to you, sir, that the government of the United States
will not knowingly suffer " the force of the Rcpublick to
be paralyzed, or her vessels detained in our ports by ill
infentioned people in abuse of the laws."
I am, with great respect, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
No. 95.
from Mr. Pickerings Secretary of State, to Mr. Jidtt, Min-
ister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Depart
ment of State, April 15, 179G.
Sir, ā In my correspondence with you on the subject of
the armed vessel the Cassius, which you claimed as the
property of the French Republick, I had the honour to
inform you, that such was the nature of the prosecution
against her, the Executive must wait for the decision of
the judiciary power. The court is now sitting in which
that decision was expected.
In order to bring the cause to a fair trial, the attorney
for the United States, at the preceding court, filed a sug-
gestion, stating that the vessel had, in a foreign port,
bona fide, become the property of the French Republick.
I have now to request, sir, that if you have any documents
or testimony to support that suggestion, you will be pleas-
ed to communicate the same to me, to be put into the
hands of the attorney of the United States ; or that you
would instruct the legal counsel, whom you employ for
the French Republick, to make the proper use of those
documents and testimony, to substantiate the claim of the
Republick to the Cassius.
The informants, by whom the prosecution was com-
menced, will probably press for a trial at this term.
I have the honour to be, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
vol. ii. 52
41Ā© AMERICAN
No. 96.
TRANSLATION.
The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near
the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of
the United States. Philadelphia, the 2d Floreal, 4th
y.ear of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (22c?
April, 1796, O. S.)
Sir, ā You requested by your letter of the 15th of April
a communication of documents or testimony relative to
the purchase by the French Republick of the corvette
le Cassias.
The French Republick has not to prove its contracts to
foreign courts ; 1 had the honour, sir, in the correspon-
dence which took place between us, on the subject of this
affair, to declare to you that I knew no relations but with
the Executive of the United States, and that whatever
were their interior regulations, I could not and should not
address myself but to it in every case for which our recip-
rocal treaties and conventions have not pointed out a re-
course to a particular authority.
The arrest of a state vessel is one of those for which I
should address myself only to the American government ;
the only fact to be proved is that of the property, and to
establish that, sir, my declaration should suffice. The
dignity of nations does not permit their good faith to be
brought into question.
I have therefore upon the principle of the arrestation of
the Cassius furnished a certificate stating that she was
French property and a state vessel. This certificate is
probably among the documents of the prosecution carried
on by the government of the United States, on account of
the abandonment which I made to it of the Cassius, under
the reservation of the right to her.
However, to comply with your desire, I have the honour
to send you a second more explicit than the former, of
which you will make what use you may think proper.
Accept, sir, the assurance of my respect,
P. A. ADET.
-TATE PAPERS. 41 1
No. 97.
Vhe French Republick, The Minister Plenipotentiary of
the French Republick, near the United States of Ame-
rica,
Declares to all whom it may concern, that the corvette
le Cassius was a corvette of war belonging to the Repub-
lick of France ; that she was sent to him as such by gene-
ral Laveaux, governour of St. Domingo ; that she was