oppression on one hand, and to discharge our neutral functions on the other?

Although little would be hazarded by asserting, that few, if any, of those seizures were exempt from the animadversion of the Executive rules in 1793; and it would be a laborious undertaking to discuss them in all their minutiæ; yet will not that undertaking be declined whensoever it shall be desired and a list shall be produced. We are aware of the usual remark, that the enthusiasm of privateers may be damped by interruptions in their career: and can affirm with truth, that it was duty, not the prospect of this consequence, which governed the conduct of the Executive. If foreigners or our own citizens, will en danger our neutrality by the illicit arming of vessels in our territory, the practice must be suppressed to the utmost of our ability. În acquitting ourselves of this high duty, we are solicitous to obviate every collateral injury to others. But the consequence is imputable to the wrong doers only; and he who is disposed to engage in naval warfare, may protect the fruits of his enterprise, by being previously sure, that the vessel, on which he embarks, is not disqua lified for reception and countenance in a neutral port. In vain would neutral nations represent to the warring pow ers, that commerce was discouraged by the scrutiny or boarding of merchant ships on the ocean. It would be replied, that such a discouragement is distant from their wishes; but that the greater consideration of distressing the trade of their enemy, overwhelms the consequential embarrassment to that of others.

Second, Small is the number of captures within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Grange which was restored for this cause to her former British owners, has long ceased to be a topick of controversy; and if any other example of restitution shall be adduced, I pledge myself to prove its propriety. The William of Glasgow was indeed after much research, determined to be wrongfully arrested. But the evidence against her was violently presumptive, and it was difficult to fix the preponderance of either scale. By imposing on the claimant, according to strict law, the burden of maintaining his own pretensions, and by repudiating testimony, which was exceptionable, not from a defect of character in the witness, but from a eritical application of judicial maxims, the captors regain

'ed their prize-nor did we stop here. The damages incurred by the William, are ready to be paid when the amount shall be liquidated.

Third, As to prizes, made by legal cruisers on the high seas, it never was the intention of the President to interpose, he having abstained (as the 17th article of our treaty of commerce imports) from examining into their lawfulness. If to his instructions may be ascribed any vexation of genuine prizes; they may perhaps have been mistaken, for prizes of the two foregoing obnoxious kinds. But even for these mistakes, we ought not to be questioned, until they shall have been notified to us, and satisfaction has been refused.

That the admiralty tribunals may have awarded process for bringing prizes before them, is not denied. But the cases have been stated to be generally of this description. The captured property has been supposed to belong to our own citizens or neutral nations. The proprietors could not be silent spectators of their ruin; but addressed our courts. The captors were summoned; and insisted that by the treaty of commerce, what they should call a prize, was exalted beyond the judicial sphere. Some judges yielded to this argument: others repelled it. But it has been since maturely settled by the supreme court of the United States, that relief ought to be administered, where it is bona fide prayed. If it were otherwise, the substance of our citizens would be the sport and plunder of every sea rover who carried a French commission in his pocket. The treaty shields prizes from an enemy; not rapine from our own citizens or from other neutral people. Farther than to rescue captures of this denomination, it is not contended, that our courts are competent.

There was indeed once room to fear, that claimants sometimes embraced the double chance of executive and judicial redress. But the promptitude, with which this ma nœuvre was counteracted is evinced by my letter to you and to the governours on the 22d of October, 1794.

Second, Your next imputation is, that "far from using the same means of coercion towards the English, when they send into our ports prizes made from the French, the rigour, which our treaties demand, has not been exercised." For the elucidation of this charge, let us resort to your own citations. They consist, 1st, in the British vessels, which

had captured American and French bottoms, laden with provision for France under the convoy of the Concorde; and in the squadron of admiral Murray, putting into the the harbour of Norfolk, and enjoying an asylum therein: -2d, in the British frigate Terpsichore, coming into Hampton with the French privateer La Montagne :-3d, in another British ship, the Argonaut, having anchored at Hampton, quitting that port upon the advice of a pilot to go, and attack L'Esperance, a corvette of the French Republick, and an American vessel, both of which were discovered at the opening of the bay; returning with the corvette into the Chesapeake; re-arming her; sending her out to cruise; and being permitted to defy our magistracy: and 4th, in suffering the British frigate Thetis, on her return from her piracies on our own vessels, to repair completely in our ports the heavy damage, which she had sustained in the ardour of pursuit.

First, unless our treaty with France opposes the granting of access to the publick armed vessels of the nations with whom we are at peace; custom has established, that they may enter our ports impelled by necessity, or induced by comfort or convenience. This was announced by the Executive on the 9th of September, 1793.

Notwithstanding that treaty, it has not been yet disputed, that the same allowance may be extended to the enemies of France, provided they have not captured French property or people. But on the 3d of August, 1793, the President declared his construction of that treaty to be, that no publick armed vessels were thereby forbidden from our waters, except those which should have made prize of the people or property of France, coming with their prizes, although, when you allude to my letter of the 7th of September, 1794, which was occasioned by yours of the 21st of August, 1794, and drew forth a reply on the 18th of September, 1794. You insinuate that "pains have been taken by me to interpret the treaty in favour of your enemies," yet, was it an interpretation advised by all the heads of departments, and the attorney general, with whom the President was in the habit of consulting. You differ from us in the construction. What: is to follow? Nothing I trust and believe between our two governments, which is not customary and cordial between friends. "In a case like the present, where the

missionary of one government construes differently from that to which he is sent, the treaties, which are to form a common rule of action for both, it would be unjust in either to claim an exclusive right of construction. Each nation has an equal right to expound the meaning of their common rules, and reason and usage have established in such cases, a convenient and well-understood train of proceeding. It is the right and duty of the foreign missionary to urge his own constructions; to support them with reasons, which may convince, and in terms of decency and respect, which may reconcile the government of the country to a concurrence. It is the duty of that government to listen to his reasonings with attention and candour, and to yield to them when just. But if it shall still appear to them that reason and right are on their side, it follows of necessity, that exercising the sovereign powers of the country, they have a right to proceed on their own constructions and conclusions, as to whatever is to be done within their limits. The minister then refers the case to his own government; asks new instructions, and in the mean time acquiesces in the authority of the country. His government examines his constructions; abandons them, if wrong; insists on them if right; and the case then becomes a matter of negotiation between the two nations." This quotation is from the letter, which conveyed to the French Republick the sensations of our government towards Mr. Genet. To its terms we shall be always willing to conform, and if, contrary to our present impressions, the treaty with France, which we deem sacred, shall appear to your Republick to require the expulsion of every British ship of war, which may have taken a French prize in any part of the world, let us be convinced; we will renounce the ancient opinion; and fulfil, whatsoever else may be right.

Thus thinking, we could not banish that part of admiral Murray's squadron, which had not come in with French prizes. But if they have used the waters of the United States as a station, from whence to carry on hostile expeditions, they will fall within the animadversions of the President's order on the 16th ultimo; and when the facts shall be ascertained, he will not be backward in support. ing his declarations.

Second, The British frigate Terpsichore, is considered by you, as offending our own interpretation of the treaty, and being nevertheless tolerated in our ports. We will, therefore, trace the transactions concerning her to their origin.

On the 18th of September, 1794, you represented to me in a letter received on the 20th, that" she had cast anchor at Norfolk with the French privateer La Montagne, which she had taken that the consul of the French Republick had written to the governour of Virginia to complain of this infraction, and a long time had elapsed without the governour condescending to return an answer." On the 1st of October you sent to me the answer of the governour dated on the 12th of September to the letter of the French consul; saying that he would with very great pleasure make the necessary inquiries and then pursue the conduct which the President's instructions enjoin." At the same time you request to know the instructions of the President to the governour, or at least the issue of your reclamations against what you denominate manifest violations of the 17th article of the treaty. It being always better to rely on writings of the moment, as expositors of the sentiments then prevailing, I hope to be excused for transcribing here portions of my answer to you on the 2d of October, and my letter on the next day to the governour of Virginia."It was my intention to have replied to the case of the Terpsichore in the answer which I purpose to make to your letter of the 18th ultimo. But I have no hesitation in delivering it to you, as my opinion, that her coming into our ports with a prize, is inadmissible by our treaty with France. It is more. It is contrary to the rules, which have been long ago prescribed by the President of the United States, to the governours of the individual states, and which governour Lee in his letter of the 12th ultimo to consul Oster, undertakes to execute."

"From the circumstances, however, of governour Lee being possessed of standing instructions and powers, adequate to the exigency, and of Mr. Oster having laid the matter before him: it could not be presumed, that he had affected an unnecessary procrastination. Nor did you specify in your letter of the 13th ult. the interval between Mr. Oster's application and the retardment of governour Lee's answer. Hence as it was known to me, that it