Republick, believes that he has reason to complain of the treatment which French prizes have too often received in our ports.

He represents, that by the machinations of the enemies of his country, the captors are harassed by seizures, arrests and detentions, the most vexatious and cruel: that as soon as the claimants are foiled in one attempt, they betake themselves to another. On my part, as from the confidence which the President reposes in the executives of the states, they have been requested to fulfil the general rules laid down by him, I could only undertake to address your excellency upon the subject.

Mr. Fauchet is anxious, that a bond should be given by the claimants before the executives shall interpose in any case of a prize. Doubting the legality and expediency of this suggestion, I have it not in my power to recommend it. But I have assured him, that none of the chief magistrates of the states will ever interfere without a strong presumption of title. A late circumstance has, however, brought to view the practicability of oppression, unless precautions be adopted by the executives. The claimants may often pursue a double chance by first procuring a trial before the governours; and if defeated, by next resorting to the courts of law. It is desirable therefore, that, whensoever an application shall be made to your excellency with respect to a prize, you should cause it to be examined well, whether the courts have jurisdiction to inquire into the affair. If they have, then it seems proper that your excellency should not interpose. If the courts have not jurisdiction, and you are convinced that there is good ground for detaining the prize, in order to comply with the rules established by the President last year, then, and then only your excellency will so proceed. By these means, the vexation complained of will be avoided, as far as lies in the power of the Executive of the united or individual states: and the construction of the treaty will be left to the judiciary, who are more particularly the expositors of it. By these means also, the article of that treaty will be best preserved from violation, and the honour of our nation sustained.

But nothing, which I have now taken the liberty of offering to your excellency's consideration, is intended to

check the succour, which at any time you may find it necessary to give to the officers, charged with the execution of legal process.

I have the honour to be, &c.

EDM. RANDOLPH.

No. 16.

In the Supreme Court of the United States. United States, ss.

Alexander S. Glass and others, Appellants,

vs.

The sloop Betsey and cargo,&c. and Pierre
Arcade Johannene, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Maryland District.

Ar a supreme court of the United States held at Philadelphia, the same being the present seat of the national government, on Saturday the eighth day of February in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, before the honourable John Jay, Esq. chief justice, and the honourable William Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair, and William Patterson, Esquires, associate justices of the said court, came the parties, as well appellants as appellee in the above appeal, by their respective advocates, and after full hearing of all and singular the matters and things set forth and contained in the record and minutes of the proceedings, in the said appeal, as well of the circuit court for the Maryland district, as of the district court for the said district, and solemn argument being had thereon by the said advocates; the said supreme court, sitting and adjourning from day to day, until the 12th day of February instant, took the same into consideration and held the same under advisement until the 18th day of February aforesaid.

At which day the said supreme court of the United States being met, and the advocates aforesaid attending, the court proceeded to the publication of their final sentence or decree, which being read and filed is in the words following; to wit:

This court being decidedly of opinion, that every district court in the United States possesses all the powers of a court of admiralty, whether considered as an instance or as a prize court, and that the plea of the aforesaid appellee, Pierre Arcade Johannene, to the jurisdiction of the

district court of Maryland is insufficient; therefore it is considered by the supreme court aforesaid, and now finally decreed and adjudged, by the same, that the said plea be, and the same is hereby over-ruled and dismissed, and that the decree of the said district court of Maryland, founded thereon, be and the same is hereby revoked, reversed and annulled.

And the said supreme court being further clearly of opinion, that the district court of Maryland has jurisdiction competent to inquire and to decide, whether, in the present case, restitution ought to be made to the claimants, or either of them, in whole or in part, that is, whether such restitution can be made consistently with the laws of nations, and the treaties and laws of the United States; therefore it is ordered and adjudged, that the said district court of Maryland do proceed to determine upon the libel of the said Alexander S. Glass and others agreeably to law and right, the said plea to the jurisdiction of the said court notwithstanding.

And the said supreme court being further of opinion, that no foreign power can of right institute or erect any court of judicature of any kind within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as may be warranted by, and be in pursuance of treaties; it is therefore decreed and adjudged, that the admiralty jurisdiction, which has been exercised in the United States by the consuls of France, not being warranted, is not of right.

It is further ordered by the said supreme court, that this cause be, and it is hereby remanded to the district court for the Maryland district, for a final decision, and that the several parties to the same do each pay their own costs. A true copy,

JACOB WAGNER,
Clk. Sup. Ct. U. S.

No. 17.

TRANSLATION.

Joseph Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick near the United States, to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 27th Fructidor, 2d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (13th Sept. 1794.)

SIR,-I am about to lay before you an affair, which I have often mentioned to you in conversation. I could have wished that it were possible to present you at the same time an account of the vexations of which I complained in my letter of the 9th Fructidor,* and of which Charleston has been the principal scene. It is painful to me to be obliged to recur so often to subjects of this nature; but I could delay no longer to communicate to you the affair, which shall constitute the subject of this letter, and on which I think it my duty to claim the speedy justice and good offices of the federal government.

The French privateer L'Ami de la Pointe a Petre, captain William Talbot, commissioned at Guadaloupe, scized near the island of Cuba, a Dutch brigantine called De Vrouw Christiana Magdalena. This vessel had been originally captured by a French armed vessel, called L'Amour de la Liberte, but having been met with and visited by - L'Ami de la Pointe a Petre, and the prize master, who had been put on board by the first captor, not being able to produce a commission, the latter manned her and brought her to Charleston. Having arrived at that port, captain Talbot was arrested at the suit of the Dutch captain, as a pirate, and security to the amount of fourteen thousand dollars was demanded from him for his liberty. Proceedings were immediately instituted against the captors in the court of admiralty, and notwithstanding the representations of the French consul, notwithstanding the documents furnished in favour of Talbot, and which, as you will soon see, were not of a nature to be refused, the prize was adjudged illegal, and restored to the claimants. could have wished, sir, to have it in my power to send

Aug. 26, 1794.

you a formal copy of the decree pronounced by the court; but if the enclosed extract from the gazette of Charleston may be deemed sufficient information, it appears that the sentence was grounded on the illegal equipment of the capturing vessels, on captain Talbot's being a citizen of the United States, and his vessel armed at Charleston.

On the first point I will observe, that L'Ami de la Pointe a Petre should have been considered as the only legitimate captor, the schooner L'Amour de la Liberte, not having any right, and her existence as a vessel armed for a cruise being absolutely out of my knowledge; that it was by address, that the claimants instituted an action on the ground of the illegality of this first captor; that intrigue suppressed the just representations which Talbot might have substantiated, and confounded him with the other. I will add, sir, that as soon as I was informed of the manner in which L'Amour de la Liberte had been armed and commissioned, I sent pressing orders to Charleston to do justice on the occasion, desiring thereby to give your government a new proof of the fidelity with which we keep our promises.

To illustrate the second point, I enclose, sir, a copy of the oath which citizen Talbot took to the French Republick before the municipality of Point a Petre, an oath which assures to him the rights of a French citizen, which, agreeably to the laws of your country he had a right to take, and in virtue of which I find myself obliged to maintain him in the exercise of the privileges it acquires for him. I send you at the same time a copy of the commission which he obtained from citizen Collot, then governour of Guadaloupe. You will thereby see, that the vessel which he commands is French property, belonging to citizen Samuel Riddick, of Point a Petre. These documents, sir, which were officially communicated to me by the consul of Charleston, are the same which were produced in support of Talbot's claim, and I have reason to be very much surprised, that their validity should appear to have been drawn in question by the judge of the court of admiralty. Acts passed by a French municipality or delivered by French publick officers, acknowledged as such, ought not to have been submitted to the control of the American courts, and it is without doubt in consequence of a mistake in the form of the proceedings, or of an inaccuracy in the