Chapter IV: Part III: Continued (3)

GENTLEMEN,--Complaint having been made to the government of the United States of some instances of unjustifiable vexation and spoliation committed on our merchant vessels by the privateers of the powers at war, and it being possible that other instances may have happened of which no information has been given to the government, I have it in charge from the President to assure the merchants of the United States concerned in foreign commerce or navigation, that due attention will be paid to any injuries they may suffer on the high seas, or in foreign countries, contrary to the law of nations, or to existing treaties, and that on the forwarding hither well-authenticated evidence of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief. The just and friendly dispositions of the several belligerent powers afford well-founded expectation that they will not hesitate to take effectual measures for restraining their armed vessels from committing aggressions and vexations on our citizens or their property.

There being no particular portion or description of the mercantile body pointed out by the law for receiving communications of this nature, I take the liberty of addressing it to the merchants of Savannah for the State of Georgia, and of requesting that through them it may be made known to all those of their State whom it may concern. Information will be freely received either from the individuals aggrieved or from any associations of merchants who will be pleased to take the trouble of giving it in a case so interesting to themselves and their country.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient servant.

TO J. MADISON.

August 25, 1793.

SIR,--You will perceive by the enclosed papers that Genet has thrown down the gauntlet to the President by the publication of his letter and my answer, and is himself forcing that appeal to the people, and risking that disgust which I had so much wished should have been avoided. The indications from different parts of the continent are already sufficient to show that the mass of the republican interest has no hesitation to disapprove of this intermeddling by a foreigner, and the more readily as his object was evidently, contrary to his professions, to force us into the war. I am not certain whether some of the more furious republicans may not schismatize with him.

TO J. MADISON.

September 1, 1793.

SIR,--My last was of the 25th, since that I have received yours of the 20th, and Col. M's of the 21st. Nothing further has passed with Mr. Genet, but one of his consuls has committed a pretty serious deed at Boston, by going with an armed force taken from a French frigate in the harbor, and rescuing a vessel out of the hands of the marshal who had arrested her by process from a court of justice; in another instance he kept off the marshal by an armed force from serving a process on a vessel. He is ordered, consequently, to be arrested himself, prosecuted and punished for the rescue, and his exequatur will be revoked. You will see in the newspapers the attack made on our commerce by the British king in his _additional instruction_ of June 8. Though we have only newspaper information of it, _provisional_ instructions are going to Mr. Pinckney to require a revocation of them, and indemnification for all losses which individuals may sustain by them in the meantime. Of the revocation I have not the least expectation. I shall therefore be for laying the whole business (respecting both nations) before Congress. While I think it impossible they should not approve of what has been done disagreeable to the friendly nation, it will be in their power to soothe them by strong commercial retaliation against the hostile one. Pinching their commerce will be just against themselves, advantageous to us, and conciliatory towards our friends of the hard necessities into which their agent has drawn us. His conduct has given room for the enemies of liberty and of France, to come forward in a state of acrimony against that nation, which they never would have dared to have done. The disapprobation of the agent mingles with the reprehension of his nation, and gives a toleration to that which it never had before. He has still some defenders in Freneau, and Greenlief's paper, and who they are I know not: for even Hutcheson and Dallas give him up. I enclose you a Boston paper, which will give you a specimen of what all the papers are now filled with. You will recognize Mr. A---- under the signature of Camillus. He writes in every week's paper, and generally under different names. This is the first in which he has omitted some furious incartade against me. Hutcheson says that Genet has totally overturned the republican interest in Philadelphia. However, the people going right themselves, if they always see their republican advocates with them, an accidental meeting with the monocrats will not be a coalescence. You will see much said, and again said, about G.'s threat to appeal to the people. I can assure you it is a fact. I received yesterday the MS. you mentioned to me from F----n. I have only got a dozen pages into it, and never was more charmed with anything. Profound arguments presented in the simplest point of view entitle him really to his ancient signature. In the papers received from you, I have seen nothing which ought to be changed, except a part of one sentence not necessary for its object, and running foul of something of which you were not apprized. A malignant fever has been generated in the filth of Water street, which gives great alarm. About 70 people had died of it two days ago, and as many more were ill of it. It has now got into most parts of the city, and is considerably infectious. At first 3 out of 4 died, now about 1 out of 3. It comes on with a pain in the head, sick stomach, then a little chill, fever, black vomiting and stools, and death from the 2d to the 8th day. Everybody who can, is flying from the city, and the panic of the country people is likely to add famine to disease. Though becoming less mortal, it is still spreading, and the heat of the weather is very unpropitious. I have withdrawn my daughter from the city, but am obliged to go to it every day myself. My threshing machine has arrived at New York. Mr. Pinckney writes me word that the original from which this model is copied, threshes 150 bushels of wheat in 8 hours, with 6 horses and 5 men. It may be moved either by water or horses. Fortunately the workman who made it (a millwright) is come in the same vessel to settle in America. I have written to persuade him to go on immediately to Richmond, offering him the use of my model to exhibit, and to give him letters to get him into immediate employ in making them. I expect an answer before I write to you again. I understand that the model is made mostly in brass, and in the simple form in which it was first ordered, to be worked by horses. It was to have cost 5 guineas, but Mr. Pinckney having afterwards directed it to be accommodated to water movement also, it has made it more complicated, and costs 13 guineas. It will thresh any grain from the Windsor bean down to the smallest. Adieu.

TO MR. GORE.

PHILADELPHIA, September 2, 1793.

SIR,--The President is informed through the channel of a letter from yourself to Mr. Lear, that M. Duplaine, consul of France at Boston, has lately, with an armed force, seized and rescued a vessel from the officer of a court of justice, by process from which she was under arrest in his custody: and that he has in like manner, with an armed force, opposed and prevented the officer, charged with process from a court against another vessel, from serving that process. This daring violation of the laws requires the more attention, as it is by a foreigner clothed with a public character, arrogating an unfounded right to admiralty jurisdiction, and probably meaning to assert it by this act of force. You know that by the law of nations, consuls are not diplomatic characters, and have no immunities whatever against the laws of the land. To put this altogether out of dispute, a clause was inserted in our consular convention with France, making them amenable to the laws of the land, as other inhabitants. Consequently, M. Duplaine is liable to arrest, imprisonment, and other punishments, even capital, as other foreign subjects resident here. The President therefore desires that you will immediately institute such a prosecution against him, as the laws will warrant. If there be any doubt as to the character of his offence, whether of a higher or lower grade, it will be best to prosecute for that which will admit the least doubt, because an acquittal, though it might be founded merely on the opinion that the grade of offence with which he is _charged_ is higher than his _act_ would support, yet it might be construed by the uninformed to be a judiciary decision against his amenability to the law, or perhaps in favor of the jurisdiction these consuls are assuming. The process therefore, should be of the surest kind, and all the proceedings well grounded. In particular, if an arrest, as is probable, be the first step, it should be so managed as to leave room neither for escape nor rescue. It should be attended with every mark of respect, consistent with safe custody, and his confinement as mild and comfortable also, as that would permit. These are the distinctions to which a consul is entitled, that is to say, of a particular decorum of deportment towards him, indicative of respect to the sovereign whose officer he is.

The President also desires you will immediately obtain the best evidence it shall be in your power to procure, under oath or affirmation, of the transaction stated in your letter, and that in this, you consider yourself as acting as much on behalf of M. Duplaine as the public, the candid truth of the case being exactly that which is desired, as it may be the foundation of an act, the justice of which should be beyond all question. This evidence I shall be glad to receive within as few days, or even hours, of delay as possible.

I am also instructed to ask the favor of you to communicate copies of any memorials, representations or other written correspondence which may have passed between the Governor and yourself, with respect to the privateers and prizes which have been the subject of your letters to Mr. Lear.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient servant.

TO MR. HAMMOND.

PHILADELPHIA, September 5, 1793.

SIR,--I am honored with yours of August the 30th. Mine of the 7th of that month assured you that measures were taking for excluding from all further asylum in our ports, vessels armed in them to cruise on nations with which we are at peace, and for the restoration of the prizes, the Lovely Lass, Prince William Henry, and the Jane of Dublin, and that should the measures for restitution fail in their effect, the President considers it as incumbent on the United States, to make compensation for the vessels.

We are bound by our treaties with three of the belligerent nations, _by all the means in our power_ to protect and defend their vessels and effects in our ports or waters, or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and restore the same to the right owners, when taken from them. If all the means in our power are used, and fail in their effect, we are not bound by our treaties with those nations to make compensation.

Though we have no similar treaty with Great Britain, it was the opinion of the President that we should use towards that nation the same rule which, under this article, was to govern us with the other nations; and even to extend it to captures made on _the high seas_ and brought into our ports, if done by vessels which had been armed within them.

Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use _all the measures in our power_ for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August the 7th, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances, and brought in after the 5th of June and _before the date of that letter_, yet where the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due.

As to prizes made under the same circumstances, and brought in _after the date of that letter_, the President determined that all the means in our power should be used for their restitution. If these fail us, as we should not be bound by our treaties to make compensation to the other powers, in the analogous case, he did not mean to give an opinion that it ought to be done to Great Britain. But still, if any cases shall arise subsequent to that date, the circumstances of which shall place them on similar ground with those before it, the President would think compensation equally incumbent on the United States.

Instructions are given to the Governors of the different States, to use all the means in their power for restoring prizes of this last description, found within their ports. Though they will, of course, take measures to be informed of them, and the General Government has given them the aid of the Custom House officers for this purpose, yet you will be sensible of the importance of multiplying the channels of their information, as far as shall depend on yourself or any person under your direction, in order that the government may use the means in their power, for making restitution. Without knowledge of the capture, they cannot restore it. It will always be best to give the notice to them directly; but any information which you shall be pleased to send to me also, at any time, shall be forwarded to them as quickly as the distance will permit.

Hence you will perceive, Sir, that the President contemplates restitution or _compensation_, in the cases _before_ the seventh of August, and, _after_ that date, _restitution_, if it can be effected by any means in our power; and that it will be important that you should substantiate the fact that such prizes are in our ports or waters.

Your list of the privateers illicitly armed in our ports, is, I believe, correct.

With respect to losses by detention, waste, spoliation, sustained by vessels taken as before mentioned between the dates of June the 5th and August the 7th, it is proposed, as a provisional measure, that the collector of the customs of the district, and the British consul, or any other person you please, shall appoint persons to establish the value of the vessel and cargo, at the times of her capture and of her arrival in the port into which she is brought, according to their value in that port. If this shall be agreeable to you, and you will be pleased to signify it to me, with the names of the prizes understood to be of this description, instructions will be given accordingly, to the collectors of the customs where the respective vessels are.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO MR. PINCKNEY.

PHILADELPHIA, September 7, 1793.

SIR,--We have received, through a channel which cannot be considered as authentic, the copy of a paper, styled "Additional Instructions to the Commanders of his Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers," &c., dated at St. James's, June 8, 1793. If this paper be authentic, I have little doubt but that you will have taken measures to forward it to me. But as your communication of it may miscarry, and time in the mean will be lost, it has been thought better that it should be supposed authentic; that on that supposition I should notice to you its very exceptionable nature, and the necessity of obtaining explanations on the subject from the British government; desiring at the same time, that you will consider this letter as provisionally written only, and as if never written, in the event that the paper which is the occasion of it be not genuine.

The first article of it permits all vessels, laden wholly or in part with corn, flour or meal, bound to any port in France, to be stopped and sent into any British port, to be purchased by that government, or to be released only on the condition of security given by the master, that he will proceed to dispose of his cargo in the ports of some country _in amity with his Majesty_.

This article is so manifestly contrary to the law of nations, that nothing more would seem necessary than to observe that it is so. Reason and usage have established that when two nations go to war, those who choose to live in peace retain their natural right to pursue their agriculture, manufactures, and other ordinary vocations, to carry the produce of their industry for exchange to all nations, belligerent or neutral, as usual, to go and come freely without injury or molestation, and in short, that the war among others shall be, for them, as if it did not exist. One restriction on their natural rights has been submitted to by nations at peace, that is to say, that of not furnishing to either party implements merely of war for the annoyance of the other, nor anything whatever to a place blockaded by its enemy. What these implements of war are, has been so often agreed and is so well understood as to leave little question about them at this day. There does not exist, perhaps, a nation in our common hemisphere, which has not made a particular enumeration of them in some or all of their treaties, under the name of contraband. It suffices for the present occasion, to say, that corn, flour and meal, are not of the class of contraband, and consequently remain articles of free commerce. A culture which, like that of the soil, gives employment to such a proportion of mankind, could never be suspended by the whole earth, or interrupted for them, whenever any two nations should think proper to go to war.

The state of war then existing between Great Britain and France, furnishes no legitimate right either to interrupt the agriculture of the United States, or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all nations; and consequently, the assumption of it will be as lawful hereafter as now, in peace as in war. No ground, acknowledged by the common reason of mankind, authorizes this act now, and unacknowledged ground may be taken at any time, and at all times. We see then a practice begun, to which no time, no circumstances prescribe any limits, and which strikes at the root of our agriculture, that branch of industry which gives food, clothing and comfort to the great mass of the inhabitants of these States. If any nation whatever has a right to shut up to our produce all the ports of the earth except her own and those of her friends, she may shut up these also, and so confine us within our own limits. No nation can subscribe to such pretensions; no nation can agree, at the mere will or interest of another, to have its peaceable industry suspended, and its citizens reduced to idleness and want. The loss of our produce destined for foreign markets, or that loss which would result from an arbitrary restraint of our markets, is a tax too serious for us to acquiesce in. It is not enough for a nation to say, we and our friends will buy your produce. We have a right to answer, that it suits us better to sell to their enemies as well as their friends. Our ships do not go to France to return empty. They go to exchange the surplus of one produce which we can spare, for surplusses of other kinds which they can spare and we want; which they can furnish on better terms, and more to our mind, than Great Britain or her friends. We have a right to judge for ourselves what market best suits us, and they have none to forbid to us the enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts which we may obtain from any other independent country.

This act, too, tends directly to draw us from that state of peace in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party, which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which might lead to war with France; and between restraining it ourselves, and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully, is no difference. She would consider this as a mere pretext, of which she would not be the dupe; and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthorized act of Great Britain into a war with which we meddle not, and which we wish to avoid if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable us to avoid it. In the case where we found ourselves obliged by treaty to withhold from the enemies of France the right of arming in our ports, we thought ourselves in justice bound to withhold the same right from France also, and we did it. Were we to withhold from her supplies of provisions, we should in like manner be bound to withhold them from her enemies also; and thus shut to ourselves all the ports of Europe where corn is in demand, or make ourselves parties in the war. This is a dilemma which Great Britain has no right to force upon us, and for which no pretext can be found in any part of our conduct. She may, indeed, feel the desire of starving an enemy nation; but she can have no right of doing it at our loss, nor of making us the instruments of it.

The President therefore desires, that you will immediately enter into explanations on this subject with the British government. Lay before them in friendly and temperate terms all the demonstrations of the injury done us by this act, and endeavor to obtain a revocation of it, and full indemnification to any citizens of these States who may have suffered by it in the meantime. Accompany your representations by every assurance of our earnest desire to live on terms of the best friendship and harmony with them, and to found our expectations of justice on their part, on a strict observance of it on ours.

It is with concern, however, I am obliged to observe, that so marked has been the inattention of the British court to every application which has been made to them on any subject, by this government, (not a single answer I believe having ever been given to one of them, except in the act of exchanging a minister) that it may become unavoidable, in certain cases, where an answer of some sort is necessary, to consider their silence as an answer. Perhaps this is their intention. Still, however, desirous of furnishing no color of offence, we do not wish you to name to them any term for giving an answer. Urge one as much as you can without commitment, and on the first day of December be so good as to give us information of the state in which this matter is, that it may be received during the session of Congress.

The second article of the same instruction allows the armed vessels of Great Britain to seize for condemnation all vessels, on their first attempt to enter a blockaded port, except those of Denmark and Sweden, which are to be prevented only, but not seized, on their first attempt. Of the nations inhabiting the shores of the Atlantic ocean, and practising its navigation, Denmark, Sweden and the United States alone are neutral. To declare then all _neutral_ vessels (for as to the vessels of the _belligerent_ powers no order was necessary) to be legal prize, which shall attempt to enter a blockaded port, except those of _Denmark and Sweden_, is exactly to declare _that the vessels of the United States_ shall be lawful prize, and those of Denmark and Sweden shall not. It is of little consequence that the article has avoided naming the United States, since it has used a description applicable to them, and to them alone, while it exempts the others from its operation by name. You will be pleased to ask an explanation of this distinction; and you will be able to say, in discussing its justice, that in every circumstance, we treat Great Britain on the footing of the most favored nation where our treaties do not preclude us, and that even these are just as favorable to her, as hers are to us. Possibly she may be bound by treaty to admit this exception in favor of Denmark and Sweden. But she cannot be bound by treaty to withhold it from us. And if it be withheld merely because not established with us by treaty, what might not we, on the same ground, have withheld from Great Britain during the short course of the present war, as well as the peace which preceded it?

Whether these explanations with the British government shall be verbal or in writing, is left to yourself. Verbal communications are very insecure; for it is only to deny them or to change their terms, in order to do away their effect at any time. Those in writing have as many and obvious advantages, and ought to be preferred, unless there be obstacles of which we are not apprized.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant.

TO J. MADISON.

September 8, 1793.

I have received and am charmed with No. 5. I thought the introduction an useful lesson to others as I found it to myself, for I had really, by constantly hearing the sound, been led into a pretty free use of it myself. I struck out the passage you desired in the page. I struck out also the words "and neutrality" in the following passage, "taking the proclamation _in its proper sense_ as reminding all concerned, that as the United States were at peace, the laws of peace _and neutrality_ were still obligatory," also a paragraph of four lines that a minister from France was hourly expected when the proclamation issued. There was one here at the time; the other did not arrive in six weeks. To have waited that time should have given full course to the evil.

I went through Franklin with enchantment; and what peculiarly pleased me was, that there was not a sentence from which it could be conjectured whether it came from north, south, east or west. At last a whole page of Virginia flashed on me. It was in the section on the state of parties, and was an apology for the continuance of slavery among us. However, this circumstance may be justly palliated, it had nothing to do with the state of parties, with the bank, encumbered a good cause with a questionable argument. Many readers who would have gone heart and hand with the author so far, would have flown off in a tangent from that paragraph. I struck it out. Justify this if you please to those concerned, and if it cannot be done, say so, and it may still be re-established. I mentioned to you in my last that a French consul at Boston had rescued a vessel out of the hands of a Marshal by military force. Genet has, at New York, forbidden a Marshal to arrest a vessel, and given orders to the French squadron to protect her by force. Was there ever an instance before of a diplomatic man overawing and obstructing the course of the law in a country by an armed force? The yellow fever increases. The week before last about three a day died. This last week about eleven a day have died; consequently, from known data about thirty-three a day are taken, and there are about three hundred and thirty patients under it. They are much scattered through the town, and it is the opinion of the physicians that there is no possibility of stopping it. They agree it is a nondescript disease, and no two agree in any one part of their process of cure. The President goes off the day after to-morrow, as he had always intended. Knox then takes flight. Hamilton is ill of the fever, as is said. He had two physicians out at his house the night before last.

TO MR. HAMMOND.

PHILADELPHIA, September 9, 1793.

SIR,--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your two memorials of the 4th and 6th instant, which have been duly laid before the President of the United States.

You cannot be uninformed of the circumstances which have occasioned the French squadron now in New York to seek asylum in the ports of the United States. Driven from those where they were on duty, by the superiority of the adverse party in the civil war which has so unhappily afflicted the colonies of France, filled with the wretched fugitives from the same scenes of distress and desolation, without water or provisions for the shortest voyage, their vessels scarcely in a condition to keep the sea at all, they were forced to seek the nearest ports in which they could be received and supplied with necessaries. That they have ever been out again to cruise, is a fact we have never learned, and which we believe to be impossible, from the information received of their wants and other impediments to active service. This case has been noted specially, to show that no inconvenience can have been produced to the trade of the other belligerent powers, by the presence of this fleet in our harbors. I shall now proceed to more general ground.

France, England and all other nations have a right to cruise on our coasts; a right not derived from our permission, but from the law of nature. To render this more advantageous, France has secured to herself, by a treaty with us, (as she has done also by a treaty with Great Britain, in the event of a war with us or any other nation) two special rights. 1. Admission for her prizes and privateers into our ports. This, by the seventeenth and twenty-second articles, is secured to her exclusively of her enemies, as is done for her in the like case by Great Britain, were her present war with us instead of Great Britain. 2. Admission for her public vessels of war into our ports, in cases of stress of weather, pirates, enemies, or other urgent necessity, to refresh, victual, repair, &c. This is not exclusive. As then we are bound by treaty to receive the public armed vessels of France, and are not bound to exclude those of her enemies, the executive has never denied the same right of asylum in our ports to the public armed vessels of your nation. They, as well as the French, are free to come into them in all cases of weather, piracies, enemies, or other urgent necessity, and to refresh, victual, repair, &c. And so many are these urgent necessities, to vessels far from their own ports, that we have thought inquiries into the nature as well as the degree of the necessities which drive them hither, as endless as they would be fruitless, and therefore have not made them. And the rather, because there is a third right, secured to neither by treaty, but due to both on the principles of hospitality between friendly nations, that of coming into our ports, not _under the pressure of urgent necessity_, but whenever their comfort or convenience induces them. On this ground, also, the two nations are on a footing.

As it has never been conceived that either would detain their ships of war in our ports when they were in a condition for action, we have never conceived it necessary to prescribe any limits to the time of their stay. Nor can it be viewed as an injury to either party, to let their enemies lie still in our ports from year's end to year's end, if they choose it. Thus, then, the public ships of war of both nations enjoy a perfect equality in our ports; first, in cases of urgent necessity; secondly, in cases of comfort or convenience; and thirdly, in the time they choose to continue; and all a friendly power can ask from another is, to extend to her the same indulgences which she extends to other friendly powers. And though the admission of the prizes and privateers of France is exclusive, yet it is the effect of treaty made long ago, for valuable considerations, not with a view to the present circumstances, nor against any nation in particular, but all in general, and may, therefore, be faithfully observed without offence to any; and we mean faithfully to observe it. The same exclusive article has been stipulated, as was before observed, by Great Britain in her treaty with France, and indeed is to be found in the treaties between most nations.

With respect to the usurpation of admiralty jurisdiction by the consuls of France, within these States, the honor and rights of the States themselves were sufficient motives for the executive to take measures to prevent its continuance, as soon as they were apprized of it. They have been led by particular considerations to await the effect of these measures, believing they would be sufficient; but finding at length they were not, such others have been lately taken as can no longer fail to suppress this irregularity completely.

The President is duly sensible of the character of the act of opposition made to the serving of legal process on the brig William Tell, and he presumes the representations made on that subject to the minister of France, will have the effect of opening a free access to the officer of justice, when he shall again present himself with the precept of his court.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO MR. GENET.

PHILADELPHIA, September 9, 1793.

SIR,--In my letter of June the 25th, on the subject of the ship William, and generally of vessels suggested to be taken within the limits of the protection of the United States by the armed vessels of your nation, I undertook to assure you it would be more agreeable to the President, that such vessels should be detained under the orders of yourself or the consul of France, than by a military guard, until the government of the United States should be able to inquire into and decide on the fact. In two separate letters of the 29th of the same month, I had the honor to inform you of the claims lodged with the executive for the same ship William and the brig Fanny, to enclose you the evidence on which they were founded, and to desire that if you found it just, you would order the vessels to be delivered to the owners; or, if overweighed in your judgment by any contradictory evidence which you might have or acquire, you would do me the favor to communicate that evidence; and that the consuls of France might retain the vessels in their custody, in the meantime, until the executive of the United States should consider and decide finally on the subject.

When that mode of proceeding was consented to for your satisfaction, it was by no means imagined it would have occasioned such delays of justice to the individuals interested. The President is still without information, either that the vessels are restored, or that you have any evidence to offer as to the place of capture. I am, therefore, Sir, to repeat the request of early information on this subject, in order that if any injury has been done those interested, it may be no longer aggravated by delay.

The intention of the letter of June the 25th having been to permit such vessels to remain in the custody of the consuls, instead of that of a military guard (which, in the case of the ship William, appeared to have been disagreeable to you), the indulgence was of course to be understood as going only to cases which the executive might take, or keep possession of, with a military guard, and not to interfere with the authority of the courts of justice in any case wherein they should undertake to act. My letter of June the 29th, accordingly, in the same case of the ship William, informed you that no power in this country could take a vessel out of the custody of the courts, and that it was only because they decided not to take cognizance of that case, that it resulted to the executive to interfere in it. Consequently, this alone put it in their power to leave the vessel in the hands of the consul. The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in judiciary matters; are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor opposition from any other branch of the government. We learn, however, from the enclosed paper, that the consul of New York, in the first instance, and yourself in a subsequent one, forbid an officer of justice to serve the process with which he was charged from his court, on the British brig William Tell, taken by a French armed vessel within a mile of our shores, as has been deposed on oath, and brought into New York, and that you had even given orders to the French squadron there to protect the vessel against any person who should attempt to take her from their custody. If this opposition were founded, as is there suggested, on the indulgence of the letters before cited, it was extending that to a case not within their purview; and even had it been precisely the case to which they were to be applied, is it possible to imagine you might assert it within the body of the country by force of arms?

I forbear to make the observations which such a measure must suggest, and cannot but believe that a moment's reflection will evince to you the depth of the error committed in this opposition to an officer of justice, and in the means proposed to be resorted to in support of it. I am therefore charged to declare to you expressly, that the President expects and requires that the officer of justice be not obstructed in freely and peaceably serving the process of his court, and that in the meantime the vessel and her cargo be not suffered to depart till the judiciary, if it will undertake it, or himself if not, shall decide whether the seizure has been made within the limits of our protection.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO MR. COXE.

September 10, 1793.

Thomas Jefferson presents his compliments to Mr. Coxe. He directed a census to be sent him in the moment of receiving his note of the 5th. With respect to the placing consuls in the British Islands, we are so far from being permitted that, that a common mercantile factor is not permitted by their laws. The experiment of establishing consuls in the colonies of the European nations has been going on for some time, but as yet we cannot say it has been formally and fully admitted by any. The French colonial authority has received them, but they have never yet been confirmed by the national authority.

TO MR. MORRIS.

PHILADELPHIA, September 11, 1793.

DEAR SIR,--My late letters to you have been of August 16, 23, and 26, and a duplicate of the two first will accompany this. Yours lately received are April 4, 5, 11, 19, May 20, and June 1, being Nos. 26 to 31. I have little particulars to say to you by this opportunity which may be less certain than the last.

The north-western Indians have refused to meet our commissioners, unless they would agree to the Ohio as our boundary by way of preliminary article; and this being impossible on account of the army locations and particular sales on that side the river, the war will go on. We may shortly expect to hear that General Wayne is in motion. An infectious and mortal fever is broke out in this place. The deaths under it the week before last were about forty, the last week about fifty, this week they will probably be about two hundred, and it is increasing. Every one is getting out of the city who can. Colonel Hamilton is ill of the fever, but is on the recovery. The President, according to an arrangement of some time ago, set out for Mount Vernon on yesterday. The Secretary of War is setting out on a visit to Massachusetts. I shall go in a few days to Virginia. When we shall reassemble again may perhaps depend on the course of this malady, and on that may depend the date of my next letter.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem and respect, dear Sir, your most obedient servant.

TO MR. GENET.

September 15, 1793.

SIR,--The correspondence which has taken place between the Executive and yourself, and the acts which you have thought proper to do, and to countenance, in opposition to the laws of the land, have rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the President, to lay a faithful statement of them before the government of France, to explain to them the reasons and the necessity which have dictated our measures, to renew assurances of that sincere friendship which has suffered no intermission during the course of these proceedings, and to express our extreme anxiety that none may be produced on their part. This has accordingly been directed to be done by the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, in a letter, a copy of which I now enclose to you;[2] and, in order to bring to an end what cannot be permitted to continue, there could be no hesitation to declare in it the necessity of their having a representation here, disposed to respect the laws and authorities of the country, and to do the best for their interest which these would permit. An anxious regard for those interests, and a desire that they may not suffer, will induce the executive in the meantime to receive your communications in writing, and to admit the continuance of your functions so long as they shall be restrained within the limits of the law, as heretofore announced to you, or shall be of the tenor usually observed towards independent nations by the representative of a friendly power residing with them.

The President thought it respectful to your nation as well as yourself, to leave to yourself the restraining certain proceedings of the consuls of France within the United States, which you were informed were contrary to the laws of the land, and therefore not to be permitted. He has seen with regret, however, that you have been far from restraining these proceedings, and that the duty has devolved on him of suppressing them by the authority of the country. I enclose to you the copy of a letter written to the several consuls and vice-consuls of France, warning them that this will be done if any repetition of these acts shall render it necessary. To the consul of France at Boston, no such letter has been written. A more serious fact is charged on him, which, if proved as there is reason to expect, will render the revocation of his Exequatur an act of immediate duty.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient servant.

FOOTNOTE:

[2] See p. 31.

TO MR. GENET.

MONTICELLO, October 3, 1793.

SIR,--In a former letter which I had the honor of writing you, I mentioned that information had been received that M. Duplaine, vice-consul of France, at Boston, had been charged with an opposition to the laws of the land, of such a character, as if true would render it the duty of the President immediately to revoke the Exequatur, whereby he is permitted to exercise the functions of vice-consul in these United States. The fact has been since inquired into, and I now enclose you copies of the evidence establishing it; whereby you will perceive how inconsistent with peace and order it would be, to permit, any longer, the exercise of functions in these United States by a person capable of mistaking their legitimate extent so far, as to oppose, by force of arms, the course of the laws within the body of the country. The wisdom and justice of the government of France, and their sense of the necessity in every government, of preserving the course of the laws free and unobstructed, render us confident that they will approve this necessary arrestation of the proceedings of one of their agents; as we would certainly do in the like case, were any consul or vice-consul of ours to oppose with an armed force, the course of their laws within their own limits. Still, however, indispensable as this act has been, it is with the most lively concern, the President has seen that the evil could not be arrested otherwise than by an appeal to the authority of the country.

I have the honor to be, with great esteem and respect, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO ----.

MONTICELLO, October 17, 1793.

DEAR SIR,--I have carefully considered the question whether the President may call Congress to any other place than that to which they have adjourned themselves, and think he cannot have such a right unless it has been given him by the Constitution, or the laws, and that neither of these has given it. The only circumstance which he can alter as to their meeting, is that of _time_ by calling them at an _earlier day_ than that to which they stand adjourned, but no power to change the place is given. Mr. Madison happened to come here yesterday, after the receipt of your letter. I proposed the question to him, and he thinks there was particular caution intended and used in the direction of the Constitution, to avoid giving the President any power over the place of meeting; lest he should exercise it with local partialities. With respect to the Executive, the Residence law has fixed our office at Philadelphia till the year 1800, and therefore it seems necessary that we should get as near them as we may with safety. As to the place of meeting for the Legislature, were we authorized to decide that question, I should think it right to have it in some place in Pennsylvania, in consideration of the principles of the Residence bill, and we might furnish no pretext to that state to infringe them hereafter. I am quite unacquainted with Reading and its means of accommodation. Its situation is perhaps as little objectionable as that of Lancaster, and less so than Trenton or perhaps Wilmington. However, I think we have nothing to do with the question, and that Congress must meet in Philadelphia, even if it be in the open fields, to adjourn themselves to some other place. I am extremely afraid something has happened to Mr. Bankson, on whom I relied for continuance at my office. For two posts past I have not received any letter from him, nor dispatches of any kind. This involves new fears for the duplicates of those to Mr. Morris. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and attachment, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO ----.[3]

GERMANTOWN, November 2, 1793.

I overtook the President at Baltimore, and we arrived here yesterday, myself fleeced of seventy odd dollars to get from Fredericksburg here, the stages running no further than Baltimore. I mention this to put yourself and Monroe on your guard. The fever in Philadelphia has so much abated as to have almost disappeared. The inhabitants are about returning. It has been determined that the President shall not interfere with the meeting of Congress. R. H. and K. were of opinion he had a right to call them to any place, but that the occasion did not call for it. I think the President inclined to the opinion. I proposed a proclamation notifying that the Executive business would be done here till further notice, which I believe will be agreed. H. R. Lewis, Rawle &c., all concur in the necessity that Congress should meet in Philadelphia, and vote there their own adjournment. If it shall then be necessary to change the place, the question will be between New York and Lancaster. The Pennsylvania members are very anxious for the latter, and will attend punctually to support it, as well as to support much for Muhlenburg, and oppose the appointment of Smith (S. C.) speaker, which is intended by the Northern members. According to present appearances this place cannot lodge a single person more. As a great favor, I have got a bed in the corner of the public room of a tavern; and must continue till some of the Philadelphians make a vacancy by removing into the city. Then we must give him from four to six or eight dollars a week for cuddies without a bed, and sometimes without a chair or table. There is not a single lodging house in the place. Ross and Willing are alive. Hancock is dead. Johnson of Maryland has _refused_ Rec. L. and McE. in contemplation; the last least. You will have seen Genet's letters to Moultree and to myself. Of the last I know nothing but from the public papers; and he published Moultree's letter and his answer the moment he wrote it. You will see that his inveteracy against the President leads him to meditate the embroiling him with Congress. They say he is going to be married to a daughter of Clinton's. If so, he is afraid to return to France. Hamilton is ill, and suspicious he has taken the fever again by returning to his house. He of course could not attend here to-day; but the President had showed me his letter on the right of calling Congress to another place. Adieu.

FOOTNOTE:

[3] [Probably to Mr. Madison.]

TO MR. GENET.

GERMANTOWN, November 8, 1793.

SIR,--I have now to acknowledge and answer your letter of September the 13th, wherein you desire that we may define the extent of the line of territorial protection on the coasts of the United States, observing that governments and jurisconsults have different views on this subject.

It is certain that, therefore, they have been much divided in opinion, as to the distance from their sea coast to which they might reasonably claim a right of prohibiting the commitment of hostilities. The greatest distance to which any respectable assent among nations has been at any time given, has been the extent of the human sight, estimated at upwards of twenty miles; and the smallest distance, I believe, claimed by any nation whatever, is the utmost range of a cannon ball, usually stated at one sea league. Some intermediate distance have also been insisted on, and that of three sea leagues has some authority in its favor. The character of our coast, remarkable in considerable parts of it for admitting no vessels of size to pass the shores, would entitle us in reason to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever. Not proposing, however, at this time, and without a respectful and friendly communication with the powers interested in this navigation, to fix on the distance to which we may ultimately insist on the right of protection, the President gives instructions to the officers acting under his authority, to consider those heretofore given them as restrained, for the present, to the distance of one sea league, or three geographical miles, from the sea shore. This distance can admit of no opposition, as it is recognized by treaties between some of the powers with whom we are connected in commerce and navigation, and is as little or less than is claimed by any of them on their own coasts.

Future occasions will be taken to enter into explanations with them, as to the ulterior extent to which we may reasonably carry our jurisdiction. For that of the rivers and bays of the United States, the laws of the several States are understood to have made provision, and they are moreover, as being land-locked, within the body of the United States.