they were obliged to send them to France or to her colo-
nies. It was also interesting to the Americans engaged
in a war with an European power, to have ports into
which they might conduct and freely sell their prizes
made upon the coast of Europe, without being forced to
cross the Atlantick.
These considerations leave no doubt that by the 17th
and 22d articles of the treaty concluded between the Unit-
ed States and France, each nation had implicitly secured
to herself the right of selling in the ports of the other the
prizes which her ships of war or privateers should have
made. This right which the two nations should enjoy has
been acknowledged by our enemies, by the courts, and by
the government of the United States.
Whenever our enemies have attacked a prize made by
a privateer, it has been only under the pretext that the
privateer had been armed in the United States, and that
she had therefore derogated from both the laws of neu-
trality and the President's proclamation.
The American courts have never condemned French
prizes but upon the fact of having armed in the United
States; and when the contrary has been fully proved, the
privateer had the right of selling the prizes without any
obstacle. Yet in virtue of what act could she sell her
prize ? Of the 22d article of our commercial treaty. This
article has already afforded a vast field for discussion upon
the implicit right it appears to grant to one of the two nations
to arm in the ports of the other. The American govern-
ment conceived that this construction could not be given
to the 22d article ; it explained itself formally in this
respect ; but did not object to the right of selling prizes ;
it has even expressly acknowledged it, since it has con-
stantly permitted the French ships of war and privateers
to enjoy it*
The enemies of France could not accuse you of violat-
ing the rules of neutrality by leaving to her the free exer-
cise of this right, as it resulted from the Casus federis, and
the obligations prescribed by a treaty do not lead a neu-
tral nation from the line of neutrality whenever she acquits
herself of them. Therefore, sir, the English cannot for that
reason bring in their prizes here. The Secretary of
STATE PAPERS. 469
State assured me in his letter of 6th July. 1795, that this
stipulation of our treaty should be faithfully observed in
this respect by the American government. Since not-
withstanding the similar right assured to the king of Great
Britain by his treaty with the United States, it is stipu-
lated that it should not derogate from former treaties
entered into by the United States. It is clear therefore
from this, that during the whole course of the present
war, we should, in virtue of our treaties, enjoy alone the
privilege of bringing in and selling our prizes here.
But if at present a law existed, prohibiting, in general
terms, the sale of prizes, it would bear upon France alone ;
and at the same time, that it deprived her of an advantage
granted by her treaty, it would tend to affect the balance
of neutrality.
In fact, sir, French ships of war and privateers having
alone the right of bringing in and selling their prizes here,
it would be the interest of England, in case she could not
procure the same advantage, to deprive France of it : for
to take an advantage from our enemy is a real benefit to
us, even though we could not enjoy it. Besides, would
not England by that means have new chances in her
favour ? If our prizes could no longer be sold in your
ports they must be conducted to the colonies or to France ;
and, would not the English then have greater opportuni-
ties for intercepting them ? It is evident therefore that the
law procured for preventing the sale of prizes is entirely
in favour of the English, and to our disadvantage. But if
it be the duty of a neutral nation neither to grant nor re-
fuse more to one of the belligerent powers than to an-
other, when there do not exist particular stipulations pro-
vided for by treaties previous to the war, it follows that
the law in question being in favour of Great Britain can-
not be conformable to the rules of neutrality.
I venture to hope that you will feel as I do the justness
of my observations ; and that the government of the Unit-
ed States, will take the necessary measures for preventing
the effects of a law contrary to the treaties and to the
rjuties of a neutral nation.
Are ent, sir, &c.
P. A. ADET.
470 AMERICAN''
No. 132.
From the Secrciary of State to Mr. Adet, Minister Pleni-
potentiary of the French Republick. Department of
State, May 24, 1 796.
Sir,— On the 20th, I received your letter of the 18th
instant, and in answer have the honour to observe ; That
although the sale of prizes brought into the ports of the
United States by armed vessels of the French Republick
has not hitherto been prohibited, yet it has been regarded
by us not as a right to which the captors were entitled
cither by the law of nations or our treaty of amity and
commerce with France ; the contrary has been explicit-
ly declared by the government of the United States.
and assuredly communicated to the French government
in the year 1 793 by the minister of the United States
at Paris. In the letter of the sixteenth of August of
that year, from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, are the fol-
lowing passages. " The seventeenth article of our treaty
(with France) leaves armed vessels free to conduct
whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from
their enemies, without paying any duty, and to depart
and be conducted freely to the places expressed in their
commissions, which the captain shall be obliged to show.
It is evident, that this article does not contemplate a free-
dom to sell their prizes here ; but on the contrary a depar-
ture to some Other place, always to be expressed in their
commission, where their validity is to be finally adjudg-
ed.*- On the claim of the French agents at that time, not
only to sell their prize goods, but to sell them free of duty,
Mr. Jefferson remarks, that this article " does not give
the right to sell at all." And afterwards in the same let-
ter he mentions " 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."
For the sense of France on this point, you will permit me
to resort to her treaty of navigation and commerce made
with Great Britain in 1786. In the 16th article it is stipu-
lated, that it should not be lawful for foreigners, not sub-
jects of either crown, and who should have commissions
from any other prince or state, an enemy to one or the
other, to arm their vessels in the ports of either of the two
- C 1TB PAPERS. 471
kingdoms, to sell there the prizes they shall make, or to ex-
change them in any manner whatever. This treaty hav-
ing been made subsequent to the treaty between France
gtnd the United States, it is plain, that she did not con-
sider the 16th article as militating with the 17th of her
prior treaty with us. The truth is, that the correspond-
ing articles in the two treaties contain only negative stipu-
lations in regard to the enemies of the respective con-
tracting parties, to prevent the fitting out of privateers
and the selling of prizes by such enemies, without any
affirmative stipulation that the parties themselves may do
either.
Instead of detaining you by any further observations,
allow me to refer you to the aforementioned letter of Mr.
Jefferson, which has been published, in which the con-
struction we give to the articles of our treaty of amity
and commerce with France which you have quoted, is
illustrated and maintained with a clearness and force of
reasoning that removes every doubt.
It being then a position demonstrated that France has
no claim of right to sell prizes in the ports of the United
States, nor the latter in the ports of France, it is un-
necessary to enter into any consideration of the conve-
niences or inconveniences which either party might
receive or suffer by the permission or prohibition of such
sales. Each nation, except where treaties with other na-
tions impose a restraint, has a right to judge for itself.
France exercised this right in her aforementioned treaty
of commerce with Great Britain: and the United States
propose to exercise the same right by a law.
The remaining observations in your letter being ground-
ed on the supposition of a right to sell French prizes in
our ports, and this supposed right having been proved not'
to exist, I may be excused from making any remarks upon
them. You quote the assurance given you by the late
Secretary of State, that the 22d article of our treaty with
France forbidding any of her enemies, and consequently
at this time the British, to bring and dispose of their
prizes in our ports, would be faithfully observed by the
American government : and I may confidently repeat, that
it will be observed : the law in question furnishes a proof
of it, by the universality of its prohibitions. This form of
the proposed law ought, to rescue the United States from
472 AMERICAN
the reproach of favouring Great Britain : for a neutral
nation can be responsible only for the equality of its rules
of conduct towards the belligerent powers, and not for the
effects of an exact observance of those rules, which must
depend on the situation and circumstances of the warring
powers themselves.
I am with great respect, sir, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
No. 133.
From the Secretary of State to Mr. Adet, Minister Pleni-
potentiary of the French Republick* Department of
State, June 13, 1796.
Sir, — The merchants of Philadelphia are extremely
alarmed by the conduct of a small privateer called the
Flying Fish, bearing, it is understood, a commission from
the French Republick. It is said she has been lying in
this port for some time, preparing for sea : and it seems
that after inquiring and observing what valuable vessels
were to sail for foreign ports, she sailed herself to the
Capes of Delaware, and not far from thence lay in wait
for the vessels she had marked for her prey. According-
ly on the 9th instant, she seized on the ship Mount Ver-
non belonging to Mr. Murgatroyd, a merchant of Phila-
delphia, within two hours after the pilot had left her, and
within about six leagues of Cape Henlopen, took posses-
sion of all her papers, and forced the master, mate and all
her crew, save two men, to leave her, and under these
circumstances she was sent, they know not whither ! For
your more particular information of the circumstances of
the capture of this ship and the designs of the captors, I
enclose the protest of the master and his two mates.
Such conduct has more the appearance of an act of
piracy than of the lawful procedure of an armed vessel
regularly commissioned by your Republick. Other ves-
sels were on the point of leaving the Delaware Bay ; but
witnessing or hearing of this outrage, have put back, and
returned up the river for safety.
I have been directed, sir, by the President of the Unit-
ed States to represent this case to you, an(J to request
information, if you are possessed of any, concerning this
STATE PAPERS. 473
privateer, her name, the name of her commander, whether
she is commissioned by the French Republick, and what
instructions or orders accompany the commission to regu-
late her conduct.
If the papers found on board the ship, or any other
evidence, afforded any just ground to believe her to be
the property of an enemy to the French Republick, still
neither the master nor the mate (especially the former)
ought to have been removed, but to have been suffered
to continue in the ship, that, to whatever port she might
be sent for adjudication, a claim on the part of the owners
might have been presented at the proper tribunal, and
their right maintained. This flagrant violation of a com-
mon rule, the observance of which is essential to the
support of justice, induces a suspicion, that the capturing
vessel is a pirate, or a privateer violating the authority of
a commission and the instructions precribed to regulate
her proceedings.
I have only further to express to you, sir, the Presi-
dent's reliance, that if you are possessed of any informa-
tion on the subject of this letter, you will communicate
the same with the candour and frankness due from the
representative of a friendly and allied nation.
With great respect I am, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
P. S. The publick solicitude is so great on this subject,
.and so many vessels are in consequence detained, you
will permit me to request a speedy answer^
No. 134.
TRANSLATION.
The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near
the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of
the United States. Philadelphia. 26 Prairial, 4th year
of the French Republick, one and indivisible (June 14,
1796, O.S.)
Sir, — I have received the letter you did me the honour
-to write me relative to the seizure of the ship Mount
Vernoto, by the French privateer the Flying Fish.
VOL. II. 60
474 AMERICAM
I am vexed, sir, not to have it in my power to give you
the information you request of me. I cannot say whether
the privateer, which is certainly a vessel commissioned
by the Republick and come from St. Domingo to this
port, has or has not acted conformably to orders which
have been transmitted to her ; I do not know the instruc-
tions given by the Directory to its commissioners in the
colonies, nor do I know what conduct it has prescribed to
them to cause to be observed by the armed vessels under
their orders, in regard to neutrals trading with the ene-
mies of the Republick. It is impossible for me at this
moment to furnish you with precise explanations ; I shall
therefore write to the colonies to obtain them, and I will
immediately transmit to you what shall'come to my know-
ledge, as well as to this point, as concerning the event
which is the object of your letter. Accept, sir, &c.
P. A. ADET.
No. 135.
Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, to Mr. Adel, Minister
Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department
of State, Oct. 5, 1796.
Sir, — Some time in June last, I troubled you with an
inquiry about the privateer called the Flying Fish, which
had captured the ship Mount Vernon. The answer you
then gave would have superseded any application at this
time, had not the owner and officers of the privateer
abused your authority, or that of the French consul of
Philadelphia, or both : for I am informed that the owner
reports that from you he had his particular orders to take
the Mount Vernon and many more vessels ; and a deposi-
tion now before me states, that some of his officers de-
clare that the consul expressly told them to take the ship
Mount Vernon, and that if she was not covered British
property, he would indemnify them.
Under these circumstances, the owners deem it impor-
tant, in the prosecution of their claim, to be furnished
with some document which shall enable them to repel the
groundless assertions above mentioned of Paris and his
officers. Hence I trust you will pardon my troubling you
STATE PAPERS. 470
again on this subject, and requesting that you will be
pleased to direct the consul to make out an official certi-
ficate for that purpose.
With great respect, I am. sir, Lc.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
No. 136.
The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick to
the United Slates, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State
of the United States. Philadelphia, 16th Vindemiairc,
5th year of the Republick, one and indivisible (1th Oct.
1796, O.S.)
Sir, — I have received with astonishment the letter you
did me the honour to address to me on the 5th October.
I have interrogated the consul on the subject of which
it treats, and I have the honour to inform you, that I have
forbidden him to subscribe any declaration relative to an
affair in which individuals have undertaken to introduce
his and my name without any authority for so doing.
In remaining a stranger to this affair, you may rest as-
sured I observe a conduct as favourable as possible to
the interests of the American citizens, in the name of
whom the Mount Vernon was fitted out.
Accept, sir, &c.
P. A. ADET.
No. 137. •
From the Secretary of State to the Minister Plenipotentiary
of the French Republick. Department of State, July 1,
1796.
Sir, — It being the duty of the Executive of the United
States to watch over their interests, I am instructed by
the President to request of you an explanation on the
subject of the following questions.
1. Whether the government of France have decreed
any new regulations or orders relative to the commerce
of the United States ?
2. Whether these regulations or orders (if such exist)
are confined to vessels laden wholly or in part with pro-
47G AMERICAN
visions ? If not so confined, to what other articles they
extend ?
3. Whether American vessels, laden wholly or in part
with provisions, and destined to any other ports than those
of France or her dominions, particularly if destined to any
English ports, are directed to he captured and carried into
French ports, and their cargoes entire, or such parts there-
of as consist of provisions, or other specified articles, ap-
plied to the use of the French Repuhlick or its citizens ?
4. If such captures are authorized by the French Re-
puhlick, or by the decrees or orders of any branch of its
government, on what grounds such authority, decrees or
orders have been given ?
These questions you will perceive, sir, have relation to
reports of designs relative to the commerce of the United
States which cannot fail to excite apprehensions in the
minds of our merchants. The general interests of the
United States are intimately blended with theirs. Hence
the propriety of asking such explanations as may serve to
tranquillize our commercial citizens, and continue the good
understanding and friendship between the two nations,
which it has been the uniform desire of the American
government to maintain.
Permit me to request an early answer to this letter.
With great respect, I am, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING.
No. 138.
TRANSLATION.
The Minister Plenipotentiary from the French Repuhlick to
the United States of America, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary
of State of the United States. Philadelphia, the 26th
Messidor, 4th year of the French Repuhlick, one and
indivisible (14th July, 1796, 0. S.)
Sir, — The business with which 1 have been burdened
has prevented me from answering sooner the letter you
did me the honour to write to me on the 1st of July.
I am sorry, sir, to be obliged to leave you in an uncer-
tainty, in which I myself participate. I do not know the
nature of the orders which may have been given by my
government to the officers of the ships of war of the Re-
STATE PAPERS. 477
publick, or what conduct it has prescribed to them to
hold with regard to the neutral vessels trading with our
enemies. I am not informed whether the ancient arrets
of the committee of publick safety relative to the com-
merce of the United States are still in force or not. Some
considerable time having elapsed since I have received
news from France, I cannot have recourse to old dates to
resolve your doubts. I can only refer to the answer which
I had the honour of giving to your letter relative to the
Mount Vernon.
The consul at Boston has just informed me that the
collector of the customs there has prevented the unlading
and sale of the prizes carried into that port by two French
privateers. The consul has ineffectually complained to
him. The collector founds his refusal upon a letter which
he says he received from you.
I request you, sir, to inform me whether the President
has caused orders to be given for preventing the sale of
prizes, conducted into the ports of the United States by
vessels of the Republick, or privateers armed under its
authority, and if so, upon what foundation this prohibition
rests.
Accept sir, &c.
P. A. ADET.
No. 139.
From the Secretary of State to the Minister Plenipotentiary
of the French Republick, Department of State, July 19,
1796.
Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 14th instant, in answer to mine of the 1st. You
embraced the occasion to communicate the information
you had received from the consul at Boston, that the col-
lector of the customs there has prevented the unlading and
selling of the prizes carried into that port by two French
privateers ; grounding his proceeding on a letter received
from me : and you inquire whether the President has given
orders to prevent the sale of prizes carried into the ports
of the United States by vessels of the Republick or pri-
vateers armed under its authority? and on what founda-
tion this prohibition rests ? I will be very frank, sir, in an-
478 AMERICAN
swering these questions, after making some preliminarj
observations.
The question about the sale of prizes is not a new one.
It was agitated and the point of right settled in the year
1793. Among the state papers communicated to Congress
at the close of that year, and which have been published,
is a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, dated the 16th
August, in which is the following passage: " The 17th
article of our treaty [meaning with France] leaves armed
vessels free to conduct, whithersoever they please, the
ships and goods taken from their enemies, without paying
any duty, and to depart and be conducted freely to the
places expressed in their commissions which the captain
shall be obliged to show. It is evident, that this article does
not contemplate a freedom to sell their prizes here ; but on
the contrary, a departure to some other place, always to be
expressed in their commission where their validity is to be
finally adjudged. In such case it would be as unreason-
able to demand duties on the goods they had taken from
an enemy, as it would be on the cargo of a merchant ves-
sel touching in our ports for refreshment or advices. And
against this the article provides. But the armed vessels
of France have been also admitted to land and sell their
prize goods here for consumption; in which case it is as
reasonable they should pay duties as the goods of a mer-
chantman landed and sold for consumption. They have
however demanded, and as a matter of right, to sell them
free of duty : a right, they say, given by this article of the
treaty, though the article does not give the right to sell at
It is plain that France understood this 1 7th article in the
same sense. And accordingly in her treaty of commerce
with Great Britain, in 1786, she entered into a stipulation
which in the case of a war between the United States and
Great Britain, would have prevented the vessels of the
United States from arming as privateers, or selling their
prizes in the ports of France. In like manner the United
States in their commercial treaty with Great Britain agreed
on a similar prohibition. Indeed the 24th article of the
latter treaty is but a translation of the 16th between France
and Great Britain.
Under this view of the case, sir, as soon as provision
was made on both sides to carry into effect the treaty be-
STATE PAPER,?. 479
Iwecn the United States and Great Britain, it behooved
the government of the former to countermand the permis-
sion formerly given to French privateers to sell their pri-
zes in our ports. Such sales, you have seen, the United
States had always a right to prohibit ; and by the above
mentioned stipulation this right became a duty. These,
sir, are the foundations of the orders which have been given
to prevent the sale of the prizes lately carried into Boston
by French privateers, to which you refer ; it being under-
stood, that the prizes were British property. Those orders
have since been made general, and communicated to the
collectors in all the ports of the United States. But at
present, those orders are confined to prizes brought into
our ports by privateers.
I have the honour, &c.
TIMOTHY PICKERING,
No. 140.
TRANSLATION*
The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near
the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of
the United States. Philadelphia, 21st Vindemiaire, 5th
year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (12th
October, 1796, 0. S.)
Sir, — The French privateer Leo took into Charleston
an English vessel called the Mary. The English consul
required, that the sale of this vessel should be prohibited