government would have been importuned for something more than the general protection, which is the birthright of all our citizens. The clamour would have been for a special indemnity; and under such a cloak, frauds innumera'ble might have been covered.

If by the forfeitures, incident to a blockade, our own citizens have suffered, we are as much at liberty to controvert the existence of the blockade, as we were when it was ushered into the world through the newspaper. If inconveniences have arisen to the French Republick by an interruption of our commerce with those islands; let them be ascribed to the actual position of our affairs. It may, however, be remarked, that the Executive have not been unmindful of arrangements which might soften the severity of the laws of blockade.

Fifth, The first part of your fifth allegation, which implies "That the United States quit the neutrality which they profess by subscribing through an excess of circumspection (menagement) to an order, like the proclamation" has been just anticipated. To the second part, which asserts that we also quit the neutrality, which we profess by being unable to maintain our treaties; we answer that although to the best of our ability and understanding we have maintained our treaties, yet if any occasional or real inability has been shown this cannot be transformed into a ⚫ renunciation of neutrality. Prove to us that this supposed inability has sprung from an unfriendly motive; that it has not been inseparable from the infancy and situation of our government; that it could have been remedied by any expedient at our command, except war or reprisal or the forerunners of both; then and not till then, will it be incumbent upon us so to account for it further. "That we have been obliged to abandon our relations exclusively to England" (as in the third place you have affirmed) is a question of fact between us. We deny it. The American navy cannot yet dispute the ocean; but American rights. have not been relinquished. Of the time, mode, and style of enforcing them, the United States are the sole judge.

Sixth, Throughout your letter, you have dispered allusions to the late treaty of the United States with Great Britain. To this, as to a centre, the whole series of your observations has tended, and we are taught from one pas

sage at least, to view it as a prelude to representations, which you meditate to the French Republick.

That treaty has been communicated from the department of state, only to the chief magistrate of the Union. But it will not be conceived, that reasons peculiar to the case, caused this reserve. We were acquainted with no duty towards foreign nations, which should lead us to infringe the usage of suspending the publication of treaties, until the ratifications have been exchanged; or to impart to them more than has been already imparted to the committee of publick safety in France by our envoy in London through our minister in Paris. Yes, sir, you say, that you demand justice only: justice you shall have; and I repeat in the name of the President the promises, which I admit myself to have often made to you, that our treaties with France shall be sacred. No nation upon earth can control our will, unless preceding engagements be violated. To save the rights of the French Republick was an ultimatum in the instructions to our envoy the President and Senate are the final arbiters whether the treaty shall exist. It is with them to pronounce, with whom treaties shall be made, and upon what terms; they will doubtless move under the awful responsibility attached to the guardianship of national honour, faith and independence.

The President is willing to superadd any orders, which can with propriety be expected from him, for the execution of our treaties with France; if any such can be suggested beyond those already given. Every charge which can be brought against the government, we shall meet at the proper season, and in the armour of political integrity. We confide that the wisdom and magnanimity of the French Republick which resisted past machinations to disturb our harmony, will receive with caution, suspicions which may be hereafter thrown on our fidelity. For her happiness we pray, and may our connexion be perpetual.

I have the honour to be, &c.

EDM. RANDOLPH.

No. 67.

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 20th Prairial, 3d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (June 8, 1795.)

SIR,-Your letter of the 29th of May was received by me on the 2d instant. The different subjects therein discussed, meriting the most serious consideration, I have taken some time to prepare an answer which I shall now give with all the candour the subject requires.

In the first place I shall observe, sir, that in writing my letter of the 2d of May in consequence of a crowd of complaints which were brought to me, I had not proposed to myself a plan so extensive as that you have pursued in your despatch. It is observed that in order to give a motive for the conduct of the Executive in every circumstance that might infringe the interest of France, you have united under a single view my former and my present representations. I shall now communicate to you, freely, what the whole of your letter appears to me to enforce, and the reflections its object has otherwise suggested.

What, sir, is in question between us, and upon what can we rest our discussions? Upon the prescriptions of positive contracts or the general laws of nations. France being in a state of war, considers America as a neutral and an allied power. In the first situation she has rights common to all the belligerent powers; in the second she has particular rights which she is entitled to by treaties, and which America can allow her without ceasing to be neutral. If therefore, on the one hand, positive engagements giving us a right to certain privileges have been neglected or executed with indifference; if on the other certain rights common to all are become doubtful as to us, by too much moderation in regard to the acts of other powers; I would say if your neutrality has been restrained by their arbitrary decisions, my complaints have been founded: for it is that to which they are reduced; they rest upon fact alone: and still do I require it to be observed that I have hitherto

avoided touching the latter point, and that latterly I have spoken on it with all the circumspection and regard that could be desired, although my instructions oblige me constantly to ask what measures the United States take for the efficacious support of the neutrality of their flag.

The first object then is that upon which a great part of my correspondence has treated since my arrival here. A correspondence which on both sides could not but be painful. I wrote to you in the first instance on the useless vexations, which the prizes of our privateers sent into your ports, were permitted to suffer. These vexations, have hitherto been continued under different pretexts. The admiralty courts have always ceded to the entreaties of our enemies for their intervention in prize causes, in truth, frequently and almost constantly by using the double plea, of which you spoke to me, that is to say by arguing either of seizure within the jurisdictional line of the United States, or of armament or of augmentation of armament of the capturing vessels in their ports. On this subject, sir, you request me to specify to you a circumstance in which a prize was arrested which did not come under that denomination, and you take the trouble to establish that they have a right to intervene in every case that can be brought under those heads. In the first place, sir, I never have, at least to my recollection, contested the right of your courts or of the government to interfere in matters of the nature of those you mention. But I have complained of the facility with which prizes have been thrown into those two classes which do not belong to them. I might, therefore, in answer to your request cite to you a great number of affairs of the kind to which I allude, and it will be easy more at leisure to support them from the different consulates. I could for example bring on the tapis the affair of citizen Talbot, which is not yet determined, and in which your courts contest a prize upon the validity of a commission delivered by a governour of Guadaloupe. This case as you will see does not come within the two you mention. They support themselves in this circumstance with the treaty which the United States have with Holland, when that very treaty gives to us the privileges of the 17th article of ours and I could cite in proof of the facility with which they bring under the two classes in question, prizes which do not belong to them, the affair of les Citoyen de Marseille. This

privateer armed and commissioned at the Cape arrived here armed and commissioned, and having sailed from thence, had just sent prizes into New York and Charleston. In the former port her prizes have been sold without opposition, and in the latter they have been seized and judged illegal. With these I conclude, as it is not intended here to give a list of the cases, I confine myself to assuring you that almost all these prizes have been subjected to those vexations, and that one of the most unpleasant parts of my functions has been to answer the just claims of my injured countrymen. I could have wished that the govern ment had taken decisive measures as well to prevent unjust chicaneries as to maintain its regulations on the armaments or augmentation of armaments in the ports of the United States. In 1793, something similar was done. In the first instance the local, and in the last, the general government had the power of deciding cases of capture within the limits of the United States, and in the interim the contested prizes remained in the hands of the consul. These regu lations appear to have been communicated by the corres pondence of your department with my predecessor on the 25th June, 1793. Measures for terminating the examina tions in a summary manner, by voluntary arbitrations between the parties were afterwards instituted, or by the cross examination of contradictory witnesses upon which the government of the United States were to judge. These were communicated in November, 1793. It were to be wished that these proceedings had been extended to the cases of prizes legally made by vessels duly commissioned, and contested at all hazards by our enemies before your tribunals. I have since proposed to you as an additional measure for expediting these affairs to subject the prose cutors to furnish security for the damages occasioned by their suits. My proposition was not accepted. The former rules fell into disuse: our enemies having the choice of conforming to them or of recurring to the courts, prefer the latter in which they have the advantage of local cir cumstances; and by that means they have succeeded in creating prosecutions which at all events deceive us, often even by obtaining decisions which encroach upon our treaties, since according to your theories, your courts are uncontrollable in such matters. My desire had been to prevent their being put into their hands by the previous