the President had given instructions to the proper officers to prosecute all persons who should violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them. To what in all this can the epithet insidious be applied? On the contrary, is not the whole transaction stamped with candour and good faith?

Third," By its chicaneries, it abandoned French privateers to its courts of justice." Abandoned them to its courts of justice! Sir, you know many of the judges personally, and all of them by reputation, and that their characters need no vindication from such an insinuation. They are judges with whose administration of justice our own citizens are satisfied; and we believe they may challenge the world to furnish a proof that they have not administered justice with equal impartiality to foreigners. I will only add here one remark, that the correspondences with the French ministers formerly published, joined to those now furnished you, with the other documents accompanying them, will show how loudly they can complain of the proceedings in our courts, and at the same time with how little justice.

Fourth, "It eluded the amicable mediation of the Republick for breaking the chains of its citizens at Algiers." We did not entertain any doubt of the friendly disposition of the French Republick to aid us in this business. But what was really done we have never known. You will find herewith Mr. Fauchet's letter of June 4, 1794, and the answer of the Secretary of State on the 6th, to which Mr. Adet refers. The information on the subject which Mr. Fauchet expected "in a little time from Europe," probably never arrived: at least it was never communicated to our government. There is surely in the Secretary's answer no evidence that our government were unwilling to accept the mediation of the Republick. On the contrary, we have relied upon it to aid our negotiations with the Barbary powers. Accordingly, when colonel Humphreys went from hence in 1795, clothed with powers for negotiating peace with those states, he was particularly instructed to solicit the mediation of the French Republick; and for that purpose only he went from Lisbon to Paris, where, through our minister, the committee of publick safety manifested their disposition to contribute to the success of his mission. But colonel Humphreys was at

the same time authorized to depute Joseph Donaldson, Esq. (who had been appointed consul of the United States for Tunis and Tripoli, and who went with Col. Humphreys from America) to negotiate immediately a treaty with Algiers: for in a country where a negotiation depended on so many contingencies, it was of the last importance to be ready to seize the favourable moment to effect a peace, whenever it should offer. Such a moment presented on Mr. Donaldson's arrival at Algiers. He had not been there forty-eight hours before the treaty was concluded. It is also a fact, that it was effected without the aid of the French consul at that place. However, with respect to Mr. Donaldson's negotiation, we are well informed that "his not conferring with the consul of France was not his fault and if he had done it, that it would have injured his cause: neither the Republick nor her consul enjoying any credit with the dey." But we are at the same time informed, that the cause of this was transitory, and ought not to hinder us from endeavouring to engage her interest for other places, and in that place for future occasions. Agreeably to this idea, the agent for the United States applied to the French consul, Herculais, at Algiers, the last spring, to recommend a suitable person to negotiate a treaty with Tunis. The person recommended was employed, and we have been informed, had in part succeeded, and was expected to complete a treaty of peace. This information was communicated to our minister at Paris in a letter dated 30th of August last, from the French minister for foreign affairs, accompanied by an extract of a letter from the consul Herculais.

In all these transactions, far from discovering a trace of evidence to support Mr. Adet's charge, the reverse is manifestly proved.

Fifth, "Notwithstanding treaty stipulations, it allowed to be arrested vessels of the state."

While we admit the fact that French vessels have been arrested, we deny that the arrests have infringed any treaty stipulations. The details in this letter and the documents. referred to, appear to us entirely to exculpate the government. And if neither the Executive nor our tribunals could in any case take cognizance of captures which the French privateers called prizes, then they might take our own vessels in our rivers and harbours, and our citizens

be without redress. But*"It is an essential attribute of the jurisdiction of every country, to preserve peace, to punish acts in breach of it, and to restore property taken by force within its limits. Were the armed vessel of any nation to cut away one of our own from the wharves of Philadelphia, and to choose to call it a prize, would this exclude us from the right of redressing the wrong? Were it the vessel of another nation, are we not equally bound to protect it, while within our limits? Were it seized in any other waters, or on the shores of the United States, the right of redressing is still the same; and humble indeed would be our condition, were we obliged to depend for that on the will of a foreign consul, or on negotiation with diplomatick agents.

The same reasoning will apply to captures made by illegal privateers; that is, by such as were armed and equipped in the ports of the United States; for it being by the law of nations the right of our government, and as a neutral power its duty, to prevent such armaments, it must also be its right and duty, by all means in its power, to restrain the acts of such armaments done in violation of its rights and in defiance of its authority. And such were the armaments made by the French people in the ports of the United States. And the most effectual means of defeating their unlawful practices was the seizing of their prizes when brought within our jurisdiction. It is very possible, indeed, that in some cases the irritated subjects or publick agents of nations whose property was taken by French privateers, might commence vexatious prosecu tions: but this is no more than happens frequently among our own citizens; and in every nation in the world: and the only restraints on the vindictive passions of men, in such cases, which the policy of free governments has imposed, are the damages which the courts compel the malicious prosecutor to pay to the injured party. If, as Mr. Adet asserts, damages have in two cases only been granted by the courts to French privateers, even when the decisions have been in their favour, it has arisen from their own conduct; or the omission of their counsel, or from accidental circumstances, which in the opinion of the courts furnished reasonable presumptions against them of

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Morris, Aug. 16, 1793 State Papers, vol. i. p. 137.

having violated the laws, either by illegally arming in our ports, or making the captures within our jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, they have, in the event of contrary decisions been always condemned to pay damages, we may venture to say, it was because they were always in the wrong. For no one will find sufficient ground to impeach the discernment or integrity of our courts.

Sixth, "It suffered England, by insulting its neutrality, to interrupt its commerce with France."

That our commerce has been interrupted by the armed vessels of England, and sometimes with circumstances of insult, we certainly shall not attempt to deny the universal resentment and indignation excited by those injuries were admissions of the fact; but that the government has connived at the practice, (for that Mr. Adet, must have intended to insinuate by the word "suffered,") all its acts most forcibly contradict. It was because of those aggressions that preparations for war were commenced; and to demand satisfaction for them was the leading object of Mr. Jay's mission to London. Satisfaction was demanded; and the arrangements agreed on for rendering it, are now in execution at London. But if by "suffered," Mr. Adet means that we did not arm, that is, make war on England, to obtain the indemnification, when humanity, reason, and the law of nations prescribed the mode of previous peaceable demand-to these very principles we may appeal for our justification: and if it is necessary to go further, we say, that as an independent nation, we must be left to determine in what manner we can most beneficially obviate an evil, and when it is most proper for us to repel an injury. To deny us this right of judgment is to deny our independence. We have not been insensible either to our honour or our interest. If we have manifested much long suffering, we have not been singular. Neutral nations very commonly endure many temporary evils; because these appear light when compared with the calamities of war: and they look forward, as we have done, to a period when returning justice may redress their wrongs. This period we trust will arrive in regard to those we are now suffering from the French Republick. If a nation, not bound to us by treaty, and between whom and ourselves actual circumstances and many recollections

tended to excite peculiar passions, engaged to render us justice, shall we expect less of an avowed friend?

We may here properly inquire, what could have been the understanding of the parties on this point, when the treaty of 1778 was made between France and the United States. She knew that notwithstanding the extent of our country, and its rapid increase in population, many years must elapse before we could form a powerful navy to protect our commerce. She knew the conduct of maritime powers in all their wars; particularly she was acquainted with the maxims and measures of England, towards the commerce of neutral nations, in all her wars with France. And if knowing these things, France then expected that in all subsequent wars, we should compel the maritime powers in general, and Great Britain in particular, to admit our commerce to perfect freedom, then instead of a treaty of commerce containing regulations for conducting it, when France should be at war, she would have demanded from us a stipulation, that in every future war in which she should be engaged with any other maritime power, we also should engage in it as her associate. But this is a condition which France was too just to demand, and to which the United States would never have agreed.

Seventh, "Notwithstanding the faith of treaties, it gave an asylum to these same English, who after having insulted her flag, pillaged her citizens, came also to brave the American people in their ports, and to take a station whence to cruise, on a favourable opportunity, against the French."

This like most others of Mr. Adet's charges, is but the renewal of the complaints of his predecessor, Mr. Fauchet; and the vindication of the government will appear in the answers and communications from the Secretary of State to that minister, in the years 1794, and 1795. The cases particularly noticed, were those of the British frigate Terpsichore and her prize la Montague; and of the British ship Argonaut and her prize l'Esperance. The Thetis and Hussar British frigates, with their French. prizes la Prevoyance and la Raison, are also mentioned, but without any facts or circumstances as subjects of inquiry, which of course is precluded. That of the Terpsiehore and her prize appears to have been the first case of the kind, in which the Executive of the United States and