were opened for eighteen guns, with ring bolts, &c. and appeared to have about forty men on deck (and it was believed a number more in the hold.) She was deep waisted, near five feet high in her waist, and well found: as soon as we boarded her, the commanding officer was asked, if the ship was called the Jumeaux, and if his name was Rualt; to both of which questions he answered in the affirmative. The marshal and myself made known to captain Rualt, that we were civil officers of the United States, and by virtue of authority to us given for that purpose, do now seize the ship Jumeaux, for having vio lated the laws of the United States, by contravening our neutrality; and demanded of the captain forthwith to return with his ship to the port of Wilmington, to stand trial: captain Rualt, after much hesitation and equivocation, submitted reluctantly and promised to carry the ship back; and he accordingly weighed anchor and stood up the bay about three miles. Soon after the pilot, named Jos. Brussel, in consequence (as it appeared) of threats from the crew and the command of captain Rualt (as it was in French) bore away the ship and stood down the river again-captain Montgomery ordered the pilot to alter his course and stand up the river; he said he dare not act contrary to captain Rualt's orders: captain Montgomery took hold of him to send him on board the cutter; upon which several of the crew seized him, and by force and violence detained him. Captain Montgomery then hailed the cutter and ordered her to keep close on board; upon which there was an immediate cry of citizens to arms; and the boatswain also piped to arms: captain Montgomery knocked the pipe out of the boatswain's mouth, for which he was very much insulted, so much so that he laid his hand on his sword; and after which we were all treated very rude and insulting. They immediately manned their cannon and brought them to bear on the cutter, and run into the round house for their armscaptain Rualt said he could not command his men, that they were determined to go to sea, and would not return -night approaching, it was thought most advisable to leave the ship (though the marshal wished to stay all. night.) The captain said he would not sail that night, but would come to an anchor, which he did-we accordingly returned to the cutter; and not having sufficient

force to stand her cannon, without sacrificing a number of good citizens, and perhaps to no effect, we returned to Port Penn about 10 o'clock that night. The next day major Grantham put as many men on board the revenue cutter as she could carry, and got a small sloop with the remainder of the troops on board, and the revenue barge, with a determination to board the ship-we got under way and proceeded down the bay, but could not find the ship, she had taken her departure with a fair wind and was out of sight. We then returned to Port Penn and the troops were ordered to their respective places to be dismissed.

Wilmington, January 5, 1795.

DAVID ROBINETT.

N. B. The boatswain, a Frenchman, and four of the men took the ship's boat the night after we left the ship and made their escape. He says they were discovered just as they left the ship; the officers ordered some of the passengers to fire on them, as they said they were all passengers, but none would fire: he reports they had ninety-five men on board, and plenty of ammunition; the ship he said got under way about nine or ten o'clock P. M. the night after we left them.

D. R.

No. 93.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of the Department of War, charged with the Department of State. Philadelphia, the 1st Vindemiaire, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (September 22, 1795, O. S.)

SIR,-Possessing full confidence in the sentiments of the government of the United States, I presented to it my claims with regard to the corvette Le Cassius. If they were urgent, they were founded in justice.

In my first letter to Mr. Randolph, I complained of the arrest of the corvette Le Cassius in violation of our treaties; my complaints were just, and the supreme, prohi

biting the district court, from pursuing this affair is an evidence of it. Individual interest had confounded the principles developed in my letter of the twenty-second Thermidor to Mr. Randolph. The supreme court far from favouring the abuse committed, rendered homage to them. But, sir, individual interest does not always calculate upon principles: if in taking a step it misses the object it proposed to attain, it withdraws, and pursues another route.

The new arrest of the Cassius perhaps furnishes us with a proof of this truth. Perhaps the individual who first obtained a warrant against this vessel has been induced under the shadow of your laws to invent the story which compelled the authority to cause the Cassius to be arrested anew. Has Mr. Ketland who perhaps informed against the corvette Le Cassius, as having armed in the United States, wished only to serve the interest and feelings of friendship? Have not other sentiments probably dictated the step? His origin, his connections in this city, the desire of serving the country which gave him birth, by paralyzing in your ports a vessel of the Republick, by embarrassing the American government between its laws and the treaty, by troubling the harmony which subsists between your country and mine, and which certain people are interested in destroying? These perhaps are the true motives of an information coloured with the specious love of the laws. I am far from insisting upon these conjectures. I conceive I might have spared them, but they presented themselves to my imagination, and the confidence which your character inspires in me, doubtless authorizes me to transmit them to you.

Whatever may be the reasons which have influenced Mr. Ketland in the present circumstances, it appears to me that his information whether founded or not does not change the state of things, and that the violation of our treaty is not less manifest.

I shall not lead you to observe, sir, in order to support the conjectures I have presented to you, that the information of Mr. Ketland did not appear until the very day in which the seizure of the Cassius was taken off. I shall not wait to give you new suppositions which perhaps are not destitute of foundation, but will immediately pass to the proofs in support of my opinion before I inform you

of the course which these circumstances oblige me to take.

I conceive, sir, that admitting the armament of the Cassius in the United States, her seizure is invalid. For this vessel now belongs to the Republick, and the nineteenth article of our treaty expressly states that state vessels may freely enter and sail from the ports of the United States without receiving the least hindrance. The literal meaning of the article then permits the entry of the Cassius. If it were otherwise the Republick would become (in the hypothesis of armament in the United States) responsible for the faults, or wrongs of an individual. A vessel by changing owner would then always be a security for the faults of her first proprietor. If a frigate of the Republick should take an English vessel armed in the United States, and if from the fortune of war the Cassius should fall into the hands of these vessels, would they in that case be seizable? This conclusion, sir, naturally results from the state of things, but it is presumable that Mr. Ketland would not draw it if the English flag had waved on board the Cassius.

In the distribution of ordinary justice would it be equitable to seize the arms of a citizen, because before they belonged to him they might have been in the service of an assassin to commit murder? Would these arms be guilty of the crime of which they had been the instrument? Would their new owner by possessing them participate in the crime of their first proprietor, and if he were deprived of them for that reason, would he not have a right to complain? Whether the question relates to an individual or a nation, the principles are the same, justice is the same. And in cases in which an individual would be injured, so would a nation, if the nature of the relations and circumstances were always the same. Is not the example which I have just cited applicable to the arrest of the Cassius? The Republick therefore have a right to complain of the arrest of this vessel. She then has a right to demand the execution of the nineteenth article of her treaty with the United States, since no subsequent stipulation has suspended the execution of it.

But if in the hypothesis that the vessel armed in the United States, the Cassius should be delivered to

the Republick, by a much stronger reason, in the contrary position, should the seizure of this vessel be annulled.

You know as well as I do, sir, that the pretext for the arrest of the Cassius, is that this vessel under the name of les Jumeaux was formerly armed for war in the port of Philadelphia. But, sir, when this vessel arrived last year at Philadelphia (the time of the pretended armament) she was armed with four cannon and two swivels. The proofs of this fact must be in the customhouse. It is true also that one Guenet was convicted for having attempted to put cannon on board les Jumeaux which were intercepted on the way. But this attempt although punishable in the terms of your laws, is not an armament, and even had it succeeded, it would have been but an augmentation of force-and an augmentation of force is not an armament, and does not, according to the law of 5th June, 1794, occasion the confiscation of the vessel.

How shall we therefore, qualify the conduct of Mr. Ketland who could not be ignorant of the law? How shall we avoid seeing in it a formal design to insult the French Republick, especially when it is observed that he began the suit in a court which is incompetent to decide the case in question. Mr. Ketland and his counsel know very well that agreeable to your laws, it belongs exclusively to the district courts to decide in cases of forfeiture. Yet it was by the circuit court, which you know has only appellate jurisdiction that they have had the Cassius seized. This court has but two sessions in a year. It sits but once at Philadelphia. The district court on the contrary is always in session. If the affair of the Cassius had been brought there, a decision would have been obtained in a short time, but a considerable time elapses before a decision can be obtained in the circuit court; it will not fail therefore to declare itself incompetent. Of what importance is it to the men who have promoted the arrest of the Cassius, and who on that account are applauded? They will enjoy the satisfaction of having insulted the French Republick with impunity, and of having abused your laws in order to satisfy the hatred of England.

Whatever reason I had to complain on seeing a discussion relative to the execution of our treaties brought before your ordinary tribunals when it appertains according to all established rules among nations, to the government