range themselves under the flag of Great Britain," I
conceived it had. a meaning sufficiently precise to strike
you at first, and that you would see 1 claimed the most,
perfect neutrality on the part of your citizens with regard
to France and England ; that is to say, that they should not
serve in the military operations of the two nations. But I
have still had the misfortune of being deceived on this
head, and I shall enter into new explanations on the
subject.
You allow, sir, that agreeable to the laws of nations ?
and to those of the United States, your citizens cannot
enrol themselves in the service of any foreign prince or
state : That is to say, that your citizens cannot aid in any
manner the military operations of any foreign prince or
power 5 but can the military operations of a foreign prince
vol. ii. 53
438 AMERICAN
or power be aided only in the above mentioned charac-
ters ? You think so, sir ; I venture to hope that you will
permit me to be of a contrary opinion. Can your citizens
man vessels destined to transport troops and ammunition
from one place to another without serving in the war ?
Do not the transports tilled with troops and ammunition,
sailing with and debarking under the protection of a fleet,
form a part of that fleet ? Are they not necessary means
to the success of the projected operation ? And are the
captains and sailors of these transports useless beings in
the expedition ? And because they are not on board of
ships of war, it may be said they are not in the service of
the belligerent power, that they do not aid its operations !
No sir, such an assertion can never be fairly advanced ; it
would be to torture words, and to fall into puerile dis-
tinctions which should never be met with in free and
faithful discussions.
I think, sir, that these principles being admitted, you
will readily conceive, that if the laws of the United States
and our treaties are silent on the circumstance just cited,
that if it has not been foreseen and explicitly declared
contrary to neutrality, it is not the less so in itself, and
should be prevented by every nation who wishes to pre-
serve her neutrality.
But, sir, are not the American vessels purchased by the
English become, by the very act of sale, English proper-
ty ? Although you found no difference
" Between the citizens of a neutral nation hiring their
unarmed vessels, with their crews to transport provisions
and stores for one of the powers at war, and selling and
then manning the same vessels for the same service."
Still, however, there will exist between the two cases
the following distinction :
In the first, your fellow citizens man American vessels :
in doing this they use the right appertaining to them, and
which no one can contest — on the contrary, in the second
— they are English vessels caused to be navigated under
the American flag, and by American captains and sailors,
and which have no right to your protection since they are
enemies property. For you know, sir, that in order to
-acknowledge an armament as belonging to a nation, the
vessel and two thirds of the crew must belong to that na-
tion. This being admitted — are not those vessels destined
STATE PAPERS. 452
10 transport the horses, ammunition and troops designed
for the conquest and devastation of our colonics ? That
therefore the American captains and sailors on board of
them will serve in the expedition ? And after what I have
said, can you allow this without injuring your neutrality ?
Can you without injuring us, furnish to our enemies an
arm to aid them in their conquests ? You are not uninform-
ed that the English military marine is furnished by that of
commerce : but if a foreign nation furnishes that marine
with auxiliaries for its service, it is clear that she so much
augments the force of the military marine : and also when
transports and other unarmed vessels are placed among
those of commerce and serving in a military operation, it
is certain that the nation furnishing these vessels with sea-
men, contributes to the increase of the military force of a
belligerent power. Can she do this without compromit
ting her neutrality, and is not this the case now that your
citizens are serving on board of English vessels ?
What I have said is I conceive sufficient to prove that
the United States should not permit their citizens to man
any English vessel whatsoever : but it is necessary that 1
should answer some of the observations you have ad-
vanced in support of a contrary opinion.
I need not make any remark on the distinction you ad-
mit between an armed and an unarmed vessel ; it is, I con-
ceive, destroyed by the reasoning presented to you ; but
I should call your attention to the identity you wish to
establish between that which at present gives rise to my
complaints, and a previous circumstance in order to prove
that the Americans having ranged themselves under the
French flag, could not be prevented from putting them-
selves under that of Great Britain. But, sir, how do you
find an analogy in two cases which are dissimilar ? Be
pleased to recollect that the vessels which sailed from your
ports under the escort of French ships of war, were not
American but French property, and that if any others
bearing your flag, took advantage oi that escort, it was to
avoid (if you please) the piracies of the English who then
seized your vessels, and not to aid us in a military opera-
tion. Is it therefore impartial to permit American seamen
to aid the military operations of the English ?
To support the system of neutrality pursued by the go-
vernment in not prohibiting your seamen from serving ob
460 AMERICAN
board of English vessels, you then suppose, sir, that your
seamen have served on board of ours. But you are not
ignorant that the pay of American sailors is higher than
that of our mariners : when a man labours for a livelihood,
he will not quit a station in which he finds much profit for
one less lucrative. Seamen therefore have not spontane-
ously quitted your vessels, to enter on board of ours ; nei-
ther force nor violence have been used to obtain them —
never have seamen been impressed in France — never have
our officers at sea exercised this atrocious act with regard
to neutral nations. By your supposition, therefore, one
might be supported in tolerating an infraction of the neu-
trality of the United States.
I conceive, sir, that having proved to you that American
vessels purchased by the English, being English property,
your seamen cannot serve on board of them, I may con-
clude (hat the United States cannot, without compromitting
their neutrality, permit their citizens to serve the enemies
of France.
I shall not make any reflection upon the last sentence of
your answer. " I shall conclude that whatever conse-
quence may result from the measures which are the sub-
jects of your letter, these measures the government of the
United States have no right to restrain."
It is the province of my government to which I shall send
your letter, to explain and to draw the consequences re-
sulting from it. Accept, sir, the assurance of my esteem.
P. A. ADET.
No. 130.
From the Secretary of State to the Minister Plenipotentiary
of France. Department of State, May 25, 1 796.
Sir, — I intended long since to have returned an answer
to your letter of the 11th of March, in which you renew
your objections to the purchase and exportation of horses
by the (British from the United States. It was some time
before it was in my power to consider your remarks and
examine the authority of Galiiani, which you quoted; but
that consideration and examination convinced me, that the
line of conduct which the government of the United States
had prescribed to itself, was that which it ought still to
STATE PAPERS. 461
pursue. I considered the right of the citizens of the
United States to sell and export contraband goods to any
of the belligerent powers, as incgntrovertibly established
in our commercial treaty with France. The arguments
which I drew from this source, and which in my view con-
tained a demonstration of this right, you have passed over
in silence, and recurred to the authorities of Yattel and
Galliani, especially of the latter on the rights and duties of
neutral powers. These authorities, however, appear to
me as little to support your claims, as the articles of the
commercial treaty formerly adduced.
Referring toVattel, book 3. ch. 7. (the object of which
entire chapter is to delineate the rights and duties of neu-
rntlity) your first remark is, that the 113th section, which
you quoted, has no relation to the 1 10th, cited by me. But
permit me to observe, that it would be a novel mode of in-
terpreting an author, to take up a single paragraph, and
detach it from all his other remarks and reasonings in the
same chapter and on the same subject. Doubtless (as the
same author says elsewhere) " we ought to consider the
whole discourse together, in order perfectly to conceive
the sense of it." (b. 2. ch. 17. § 285.) In both the sec-
tions cited (110 and 113) the rights of neutrals to trade in
articles contraband of war is clearly established ; in the
first by selling to the warring powers, who come to the
neutral country to buy them ; in the second, by the neutral
subjects or citizens carrying them to the countries of the
powers at war and there selling them.
The same just rule of interpretation applied to the dis-
course of Galliani on this subject, will exhibit a result not
less justificatory to the conduct of the United States.
Your first quotation from that author is a marginal note,
importing, that if a belligerent power cannot seize contra-
band articles sold to an enemy, it may nevertheless object
against it, complain of it as an injury, and demand and do
itself that justice, which an injured sovereign has a right to
exact.
To this I will subjoin a passage from the 4th section of
the same chapter and book which you have cited :. " I re-
peat it then once for all, that neutral nations must observe
the most conscientious sincerity, as well in refraining
from the sale of contraband of war, as from all exportation
of it, except only in the cases I have above spoken o/," A
46"2 AMERICAN
recurrence to these exceptions, and to the other observa-
tions of this writer will show, that his doctrine does not
oppose the principles adopted by the government of the
United States. It would be too tedious to recite all his
reasoning on this subject. I shall content myself with
quoting a few of his remarks.
Book i. ch. 9. § 3. " Much greater is the number of
those, who believed that every belligerent power posses-
ses essentially the right of forbidding neutral powers to
sell arms and warlike stores to its enemy ; and that this is
a full right, that is, a right of strict justice. They do not
distinguish the circumstance, when the neutral powers car-
ry on trade with one of the belligerents, and supply it with
arms and warlike stores, and when with perfect impartiali-
ty they trade with both. In the first case, the preference
of one party is apparent, and thenceforward the slighted
and neglected party begins to possess a right in regard of
the neutral state : for friendship with it is at an end : but
as in the other case friendship does not appear to have
ceased, there is not yet to be discovered any reason to act
inimically on this account towards a friend."
" And in truth this reflection has led many writers to
conclude, that neutral powers cannot be forbidden to exer-
cise a free trade even in contraband, as long as they ex-
ercise it in an impartial manner, with both belligerent
parties, or are 7cilling to do so. I too cannot say that they
decide xcry unjustly J"*
" I say then, that for those nations, who have not oth-
erwise bound themselves by express compact, it is not a
duty of strict right to carry no contraband articles to the
belligerent powers. For, if even a belligerent power had
a full and complete right to set itself against such trade,
yet between two sovereigns, who are placed in the situa-
tion of natural equality, freedom and independence, the
full right of the one is not annulled by the full right of the
cither. And in regard of neutral nations, the renunciation
of their own convenience in favour of the greater conve-
nience of another, is only a duty of equity, but not of es-
sential and strict right."
" Hence it follows, that we must often inquire and dis-
tinguish, whether the trade in those goods, which are called
contraband, is of greater or less importance to the nation,
wliicft exercises it. In the first case, since we arc discussing
STATE PATERS. 463
u duty of favour, which admits of infinite gradations, we
cannot confidently expect an extraordinary and very af-
ig sacrifice, as we may when it extends only to a
s. '.all inconvenience."
Then follow, what the author states as the true positions
on this matter, some of which you have cited :
1. When a belligerent nation desires a friendly neutral
ha tion to carry no contraband to its enemy, it must formally
disclose its wish ; silence importing a satisfaction in the
natural state of things.
2. When it has thus disclosed its request, it must itself
renounce all pretensions to be furnished with contraband
goods.
3. When a neutral state has entered into a treaty of
peace and commerce with one of the belligerent powers,
stipulating to carry no contraband to the enemy, there is
always a condition implied, that the like goods shall be
denied to both the belligerent powers without distinction.
4. " Consequently the belligerent state, which has never
disclosed to its neutral friend, that it did not see with con-
tentment the latter supplying its enemy with contraband of
war, and much more if it has availed itself of this privilege,
has bought arms and other sorts of military stores, or what,
is of more account, has received from it soldiers, recruits,
horses, has no further right to expect, that the neutral should
not show the like to the mem?/."
5. " And finally I say, that the desire expressed to the
neutral state, that it should not, during the war, carry any
contraband of war to the belligerent powers, must always
be followed, when it does not induce a very great and in-
tolerable inconvenience ; in as much as what tends imme-
diately to the destruction of mankind is with better reason
refused than permitted : and therefore this desire, much
more than its opposite, comports with true impartiality,
sincere friendship, and the good of mankind."
I will cite only one more passage from Galliani, which
appears to be the result of his considerations on this sub-
ject.
B. i. eh. 9. § 4. " If we reflect more upon it, it must be
acknowledged, that the first position of the principle, which
I have above established, recurs, that belligerent powers
have no full right to make this demand (not to carry con-
traband to the enemy) as also, that there lies no duty of
464 AMERICAN
strict right upon the neutral to refrain from the trade of
contraband of war. In the mean time, the desire of the
belligerent, who possesses no full right to ask, must be
declared in decent and temperate terms : and the request
cannot be considered as discreet and acceptable, when it
occasions too great inconvenience to the party to whom
it is addressed."
I will close this letter with a few observations.
It is well known, that a considerable portion of the ex-
ports of the United States consists of articles contraband
of war. It is well known, that these have, during the
whole of the present war, been freely exported to the do-
minions of France, as well as to those of the other bellige-
rent powers. It seems then too late (agreeably to Gal-
liani's 4th position) for France to desire, that the citizens
of the United States should now abandon a commerce, of
which she has availed herself during the several years of
the war to this time : and still less ought she, while con-
tinuing to enjoy an otherwise unrestrained trade in contra-
band goods, to expect such an abandonment of only a par-
ticular article of contraband, of which she may have no
need, and is therefore willing to renounce, because it may
ehance to be very useful to her enemy. Under these cir-
cumstances, a compliance, on the part of the United States
would compromit their interests as well as their neutrality.
The wants of two or more belligerent powers may together
embrace the general objects of the commerce of a neutral
nation : but if each were possessed of a right to require the
neutral nation to renounce that portion of its commerce
which was peculiarly useful to its enemy, the entire com-
merce of such neutral nation might be annihilated.
The article of horses, although not constituting a prin-
cipal part of the entire commerce of the United States, yet
forms a very essential item in the trade of some of them,
particularly of Connecticut ; and from the first settlement
of the country, it has been a valuable article of exportation
from many of the colonies (now states) to all parts of the
West Indies ; and during the whole of the present war,
horses and mules (and oxen, which may be used for milita-
ry purposes, as well as either) have been freely exported
to the French, as well as to the English Islands.
You cite the example of the Swiss, that in the present
war, they have prohibited the exportation of contraband
STATE PAPERS.
463
goods to all the belligerent powers. Without doubting the
fact (of which I had no previous knowledge) I must sup-
pose that very particular motives influenced the Swiss to
this determination, which, however full of wisdom at this
time is repugnant to the common practice of those people
for ages. "Amidst all the wars of Europe (says Vattel)
the Switzers keep their country in an unexceptionable neu-
trality. Every nation indiscriminately is allowed to come
thiiiu r, and purchase provisions, if the country has a sur-
plus, horses, military stores," &c.
1 will now notice the other question, which you again
bring into view ; whether the United States can, without
compromising their neutrality, allow their citizens to serve
in the vessels of the enemies of France 1 ?
Having in my former letter entered into a full considera-
tion of this subject, and the force of the distinctions and
reasons then taken and urged appearing to me still un-
shaken, I will content myself with a few remarks.
I must still rely on the distinction taken in the law of
the United States, between our citizens serving on "board
of armed and unarmed vessels. Had the legislature view-
ed the latter as contrary to the law of nations or our neu-
tral duties, it would certainly have been forbidden, as well
as the former. To admit that our citizens cannot lawfully
enrol themselves in the direct military land or sea service
of one of the powers at war, is very different from your
position, that they cannot, in any inanner, aid the military
operations of a foreign pow T er : for this would exclude
them from carrying, even in their Own vessels, not only
soldiers, horses, arms, &c. but even provisions : for to the
success of military operations, the latter are as essential
as the former. Probably there is not one of the maritime
belligerent powers, that has not, in the cdurse'of the pre-
sent war, deiived important aid in its military operations,
from provisions and other supplies lawfully furnished by
the citizens of the United States. Further: in my former
letter, 1 proved, from our commercial treaty with France,
that it was lawful for the citizens of the United States, to
transport, not only contraband goods, but her enemies, and
even soldiers in actual service. For when the two nations, in
the 1 3th and 23d articles, regulated the course of pro^
ceedings in such cases, they clearly admitted, the legality
of the measure, reserving only to each, the right of seizing
VOL. II. 59
4Gtf AMERICAN
such goods and making prisoners of such soldiers. Had
the contrary been their intention, instead of regulating,
they would have prohibited the trade or carriage of contra-
hand goods, and the transportation of troops.
Admitting these conclusions to be just (and such they
appear to me) how shall we draw a line between the strong
case you have stated, and the transportation of troops and
stores in ordinary cases ? The case you state is that of a
fleet and army destined for some military expedition, and
you ask, whether the transports of neutrals, following in
*he train of such an armament, would not make a part of
it ? — I confess to you, that the question presents some dif-
ficulty : but as the case does not exist, it is not necessary
for me to answer it. I am not informed what is the cus-
tom of the maritime powers in this respect. The question
between ns, regards only the detached trasportation of
articles contraband of war, either in our own vessels or the
unarmed vessels of one of the belligerent powers. On
this point, for the reasons now and formerly given, no
doubt exists. To restrain the naval and commercial pur-
suits of neutrals, because they indirectly aid the powers
at war, would, in its tendency, be to annihilate their navi-
gation and trade. It is the very principle on which Great
Britain has, in many of her wars, grounded her practice of
capturing neutral vessels, carrying on the simple com-
merce of her enemies, particularly of France. If, said
she, neutral vessels are permitted to transport the com-
modities of France and her colonies, then her sailors,
taken from the service of her merchants, will enable her
lo man more numerous ships of war. But although Bri-
tain thus captured the vessels of neutrals, she never con-
sidered the persons employed in such commerce, or the
nations to which they belonged, as her enemies.
From the manner in which you recite the concluding
sentence of my former letter, you seem to consider it as
very exceptionable. You will therefore permit me to ex-
plain it. In your letter, to which that was an answer, you
had stated the object and brought into view the possible
consequences of allowing the British to export horses
from the United States. It was natural then, after an-
swering your objection, and showing, that they were not
supported either by treaty or the law of nations, and that
'an impartial neutrality forbade the government to impose
. E PATERS.
46.'
the restrain) you demanded, to remark, that if the predict-
ed consequences should follow the measures you opposed,
the government had no right to restrain them. If you
biagini d th il even an indifference, much more an unfriend-
ly disposition to the interests of France, gave rise to the
remark, the sentiments of the government have been
wholly misconceived. I have the honour to be, &c,
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
No. 131.
TRANSLATION.
TJie Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republiek, neat
the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of Stat*.
of the United States. Philadelphia, the 29th Floreal, Ath
year of the French Republiek. one and indivisible, (May
18, 1796. O. S.)
Sir, — I have just been informed indirectly, that the
House of Representatives has passed a bill for preventing
the sale of the prizes which shall be brought in by the
ships of war of the belligerent powers. If this law did
not appear to me to destroy the effects of our commercial
treaty ; if it did not appear to me opposite to the duties of
an impartial neutrality, I should remain silent ; but the
interest of my nation and the positive orders I have re-
ceived on the subject from my government, oblige me
at present to transmit some observations which seem to
me calculated to merit your attention.
By the 17th and 22d articles of their commercial treaty,
the United States and France agree in an explicit man-
ner, that in case one of the two powers should be at war.
its enemies should be excluded from the ports of the other,
when they shall have made prizes on its citizens. When
, they mutually guarantied a free admission of their ships
of war, of their privateers and of their respective prizes
into these ports, it is clear that they implicitly assured to
each other the right of there selling these prizes. In fact,
France having no continental possessions in America to-
wards the latitude to which English vessels must go on
their return to England, it was to her of extreme impor-
tance to have friendly ports into which her vessels might
468 AMERICAN
conduct their prizes and sell them, without exposing them
anew to the risks of the sea ; which would be the case if