No. 37.

Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, to Mr. Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Philadelphia, August 20, 1794.

SIR, I should have done myself the honour before this day of transmitting to you a copy of certain rules, instituted by the President of the United States in relation to the belligerent powers, if I had not taken it for granted, that your intercourse with your predecessor had rendered it unnecessary. But I take the liberty of now enclosing them, as having a direct connexion with my letter to you of the 14th instant, and with your reply on the 16th.

The correspondence from the Department of State with Mr. Genet, will inform you of the motives upon which these rules are founded. They have created a system of obligation on our part towards those powers, and therefore require our attention.

But the Carmagnole (or Columbia) has been the subject of particular letters from governour Clinton to Mr. Genet and the French consul at New York; and the result has been an assurance, that she should no longer offend those rules. This assurance has produced a great degree of anxiety, that she should not now enter our ports, under the circumstances which were first offensive to the government, and contrary to its sense as has been often expressed concerning her. It is very far from the wish of the President that your despatches should be at any time interrupted. The step of dismantling which is desired, is merely to fulfil an engagement, which has been frequently made.

Whether the Carmagnole be at present in the Delaware, we cannot at this place ascertain. If she has sailed, Į have only to cummunicate to you the hope and expectation of the President, that you will by your orders prevent her from returning to our ports in her military equipment. If she has not sailed, we must repeat our confidence, that you will cause her to be dismantled. The rules above referred to will not permit an illicit privateer, as she has been deemed to be, to make any reparations within the United. States.

Permit me to request an early answer to this letter; and to learn, that you will direct the necessary measures to be

immediately adopted, and cut off the painful necessity of measures adequate to the end, being pursued by the government. I have the honour, sir, to be, &c.

No. 38.

EDM. RANDOLPH.

TRANSLATION.

Joseph Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick near the United States, to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 4th Fructidor, 2d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (21st Aug. 1794, O. S.)

SIR, I told you verbally, and repeat it in writing, that the Cornelia and the Columbia had sailed for France. Then my intention was that they should not return armed into the ports of the United States. But they were com pelled to take shelter by the pursuit of the English vessels of war, which at this time block up all your ports. It would be as unjust as unreasonable to impute to them as a crime this return, which was rendered necessary by so unhappy a circumstance; unless it be wished that these two vessels should become the prey of the English; and I avow it with profound sorrow, that I have been tempted to entertain this opinion, when I learnt that at New York, orders had been given to the Cornelia immediately to quit that port, although it was known that two English frigates were to have seized her on her departure. But, sir, it is too painful for me to harbour a doubt injurious to the publick officers of a free nation, to give myself up to this im pression, and at the same time it is too grateful to me to prove with what strictness we fulfil our treaties and our engagements, to omit giving to you the following details.

The first of these two vessels, the Cornelia, which is at New York, is about to go to Boston, to be there completely dismantled. The second, the Columbia, which was in the Delaware, departed thence on the 11th of this month. I am surprised, sir, that you were not informed of her departure with as much care as you were of her arrival. Perhaps it was not the duty of the same person to give the two advices which might have prevented your complaints. But, sir, when the federal government fulfil

with so much exactness the new obligations, which it has imposed upon itself in relation to England, is it not just to require from it the same scrupulous observance of sacred treaties, which it has long since contracted with France? Why then is an asylum refused to an unfortunate barque, which in her flight had thrown into the sea some of her cannon and of her water, when it is given, though against the tenour of those very treaties, to the vessels of war which have taken prizes from the citizens of the Republick? Without doubt, sir, this violation, which is so fatal to us, takes place through forgetfulness only. It would be horrible to me to attribute it to any other motive: therefore I content myself with subjoining here an extract of the 17th article, in order to recall it to your remembrance. "Art. 17th. And on the contrary, no asylum or retreat shall be given in their ports or harbours to those who shall have taken prizes from the subjects of his majesty or the said states; and if they are compelled to enter them by tempest or the danger of the seas, they shall be obliged to depart as soon as possible."

Neither tempest nor the danger of the seas have compelled the English vessels of war to enter your ports; notwithstanding, they have been there supplied; notwithstanding, they remain there to interrupt your commerce and our supplies! and notwithstanding, we are your nearest allies. Accept, sir, &c.

JH: FAUCHET.

No. 39.

Mr Randolph, Secretary of State, to Mr. Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Philadelphia, Sept. 7, 1794.

SIR,-Feeling, and at all times acknowledging as the President of the United States does, the obligations of our treaties with your nation; and banishing every consideration which comes into competition with them, he read, not without regret, the following passage in your letter of the

21st ult.

"Why then was an asylum refused to an unhappy barque, which in its flight had thrown into the sea a part of its cannon and of its water, while it was granted, con

trary to the tenour of these very treaties, to vessels of war, which had made prizes from the citizens of the Republick? Without doubt, sir, this violation, which is so fatal to us, has arisen from forgetfulness only. It would be horrible to me to attribute it to any other motive. I therefore content myself with subjoining hereto an extract from the 17th article, to recall it to your remembrance," &c.

There was, sir, during the existence of your predecessor's functions, a period at which we were obliged to summon all the strength and fervour of our friendship for the French Republick, to combat the various forms of aggression, which he offered to our government. But let these be now buried in eternal oblivion, sealed, as it has been, by the justice rendered to our wishes, in the removal of him, and in the deportment of his successor. This period is therefore revived for a moment, merely for the purpose of referring you to those of our remonstrances, which are to be found among your papers of office, and which speak the sensibility of the United States, at the equipment of privateers within their limits. And it is recollected even now, not from the most distant apprehension that the measure will be repeated under your countenance, but to point to the reasons which produced our solicitude on the

occasion.

Except vessels of this description, all belonging to the French Republick or French citizens have been admitted into our ports with cordiality. Where an asylum in general has been refused to any, it was a consequence of an infraction of our sovereignty. If, in the particular instance to which you allude, the denial of asylum has been aggravated by circumstances of improper severity, it is more than we knew, until your communication: it is what the President would absolutely disapprove.

If your interpretation of the treaty of commerce be ac curate, that is, if no ship of war, which had made prize of French vessels, could be received into our ports, still no complaint of this kind has yet reached the Executive of the United States from any functionary of France, or any other authentick source. But it would be uncandid to conceal from you the construction, which we have hitherto deemed the true one. The first part of the 17th article relates to French ships of war and privateers, entering our

ports with their prizes: the second contrasts the situation of the enemies of France by forbidding such as shall have made prize of the French; intimating from this connexion of the two clauses, that the vessels forbidden are those which bring their prizes with them. It has been considered that this section of the treaty was principally destined to the withholding of protection or succour to the prizes themselves. Had it been otherwise, it would have been superfluous to have prohibited in the 22d article foreign privateers from selling what they have taken in the ports of the United States.

Be assured, sir, of this truth, that it would be a painful reflection to the President of the United States, if our treaties with the French nation had ever been infringed with his assent; and farther, that if they ever shall be, he will be ready, as he always has been, to hear and inquire, and to cause offences against them to be punished, errours to be rectified, and injuries to be duly compensated.

I have the honour to be, &c.

No. 40.

EDM: RANDOLPH.

TRANSLATION.

Joseph Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, the 2d of the Suns Culotides, 2d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (18th September, 1794, O. S.)

SIR. In assuring me of the true sentiments of the President you do no more than confirm the opinion I have entertained of his virtues, and especially of his sincerity and attachment to the sublime cause of liberty, for which he has fought, as the French republicans are now fighting. It is very agreeable to me to partake of this opinion with all those who abhor despots and love men. But how, sir, must I have excited his regret by laying before him the attacks which I believe to have been made upon treaties which unite our two nations? He has not done the injury, and he can apply the remedy. It was not then reproaches I made to him, but an opportunity I afforded him of exerising his natural inclination to do what is just and be