of the United States, although I should in such cases only address myself to the government of the United States in order to obtain justice, it being charged with the execution of treaties, yet I did not wish to neglect any means of conciliation in my power, and latterly caused security to be proposed to obtain the replevy of the vessel, reserving to myself and to you the privilege of determining on an affair unpleasant in all its aspects, by subsequent negotiations.

In these hopes I have been deceived, the security was refused, and the affair is of course abandoned to the decision of the courts.

Justly alarmed at delays which nothing could control; at the expenses occasioned to the Republick, by supporting a vessel which rendered it no service; fearing with just reason lest the crew (a part of which has been corrupted) should desert after having been so expensive to the Republick, I have ordered her to be disarmed; and from this moment I abandon her to the government of the United States under the reservation of referring the matter to the French government.

I venture to hope, sir, that the government of the United States will take proper measures to prevent the forces of the Republick from being paralyzed in its ports, and evil minded people from abusing the laws in order to arrest every French vessel coming into the United States. For if a single information be sufficient to stop one vessel, there is no reason why the first frigate which shall arrive from Europe should not be seized as having armed in the United States.

Mr. Pickering, Secretary of War, charged with the Department of State, to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, October 1, 1795.

SIR,-You have seen that the President of the United States, to maintain the respect due to them, had antici

pated towards the British vice consul at Newport, that severity which in your letter of the 10th ult. you considered his offensive conduct required.

In your other letter of the 10th ult. you mention the violation of the rule prescribed by the President (conformably with the usage of European nations) to regulate the sailing of armed vessels of the belligerent powers, in the case of the British ship the Africa which pursued the Medusa immediately on her leaving the harbour of Newport. This additional insult and injury by captain Home, commander of the Africa, was represented in the first despatches, afterwards sent to the minister of the United States at London, who was required to demand reparation.

With great pleasure I acknowledge the very different deportment of the officers and company of the French frigate Medusa, of whom not a whisper of complaint has been lisped, and who I have reason to believe conducted with exemplary propriety and respect for the laws. Such would be the conduct of all foreign officers, in neutral ports, if they consulted either their nation's honour or their

own.

On the 24th ult. I received your letter of that date and one of the 22d.

On the subject of the privateer La Vengeance and her prize, of which till the receipt of your letter of the 24th ult. I had no knowledge. I have written to the district attorney of New York, enclosing a copy of your letter, and of the four papers accompanying it, and desiring him to furnish me with such information as may satisfy the supreme Executive of the United States of the conduct it ought in this case to observe. Here I must rest this matter until his answer shall be received.

With regard to the armed vessel le Cassius, which is the subject of your letter of the 22d ult. I have some observations to make.

In the letter which I had the honour to write you on the 25th of August, I said that any delays which had happen ed in the district court, on the first process against the Cassius, were not to be ascribed to the court: I may now add, that if the counsel for the Cassius, had brought before the judge of that court, the same facts and evidence which were afterwards exhibited to the supreme court, to obtain the prohibition, this step would doubtless have been found

unnecessary: the district judge, influenced by the same principles, would probably have dimissed the libel. But that decision did not, I conceive, necessarily involve the present question.

Now that a new action has been commenced against the Cassius, I must repeat what has been already stated, "That as long as the question is in the hands of the courts, the Executive cannot withdraw it from them ;" and therefore is not chargeable with suffering a violation of the treaty subsisting between the two republicks.

The fact, that the Cassius, under the name of Les Jumeaux, was originally fitted out as an armed vessel, in the port of Philadelphia, is incontrovertible. This was established on the trial of Guenet who superintended her equipment. You have been misinformed on this as well as some other points, both of law and fact. A vessel may be loaded with cannon and arms, and yet not be an armed vessel. The reason of this remark applies to Les Jumeaux when she arrived in the port of Philadelphia.

Now by the law of the United States, to which you refer, a vessel so originally armed and equipped is declared to be liable to confiscation. Whether the subsequent transfer of the property to the French Republick will exempt it from confiscation, is the question in court now to be determined. If the Executive were to attempt (and it could only attempt—for it would be the duty of the court to resist its mandate) to remove the question from the judiciary, it would be a violation of the constitution: and you will see immediately that the measure would be as unsafe as unconstitutional.

A fair investigation of the case of the Cassius might lead to this conclusion-That by the law of the United States, she was really liable to confiscation. This admitted, let us suppose her to be now discharged, by the consent of government without a trial: and that in her first cruise she should take from the enemies of the French Republick, prizes of very great value: what would be the consequence? The nations to whom, or to whose subjects the prizes belonged, would demand, and expect to be paid that value, whatever might be the amount-and it might be immense-by the United States. What also would be the consequence, if the mere act of transferring the property of the vessel would rescue her from condemnation? Ob

viously that the design of the law-the prevention of illegally fitting out privateers-would generally be defeated: transfers would be promptly made, on purpose to evade the law. But the forfeiture of the vessel with all her equipments, much more than the personal punishment of the agents concerned in fitting her out, was considered by the law as the most effectual guard against the violation of our neutrality. And as to the legal consequence of a transfer, you have taught me to say, "that whether the question respects an individual or a nation, principles are the same -justice is the same."

You have been informed that the circuit court is a tribunal incompetent to take original cognizance of the question of which we are treating: that of this the prosecutor could not be ignorant: and thence you see in this measure the design of a formal insult to the French Republick. But, sir, the counsel who have told you that such is the law, have led you into an errour. The question does not respect a confiscation for the breach of the laws of trade-of which the district court has jurisdiction-but for the infraction of a criminal law; for which the penalties are a forfeiture of vessel and equipments-a fine against the persons concerned in equipping her, which may rise to five thousand dollars-and imprisonment which may extend to three years to declare and inflict all which the circuit court is competent: but the district court can take cognizance of no crimes where the penalties may exceed one hundred dollars, and imprisonment for six months.

What were the motives of the prosecutor, in this case, Ι am not to inquire. Though once a foreigner, he is now a citizen of the United States. The laws of the country where he resides are in this respect impartial: giving no more countenance or support to him, than under the like circumstances they would give to an original citizen of France or Holland. Without resorting, however, to national antipathies, a nearer cause may be assigned, comprehending interest and resentments much more likely to be operative. The prosecutor was part owner of the prize taken by the Cassius; to obtain indemnification for which the first arrest was made: and in the pursuit of which he was defeated. Should the Cassius and her equipments be confiscated on the present suit, the law will give to the prosecutor, Mr. Ketland, one half their value. But whether

national or personal interests and resentments prompted his last step, or whatever were his motives, the court could not reject his claim presented in the form which the laws prescribe. I will close this subject with one remarkThat if courts were permitted to take cognizance of those complaints only which originated merely in a love of order and pure reverence for the laws, few-very few criminals would be brought to justice.

You will see the difference between a prosecution grounded on the law of the 5th of June, 1794, when brought against the Cassius, a vessel, clearly proved on a judicial investigation to have been equipped in violation of that law, and a prosecution against a French "frigate coming from Europe, under the pretence of her having armed in the United States." No one, it is imagined, would be so unwise, if he could be so unprincipled, as to attempt an arrest of the latter, and subject himself to the damages recoverable, I presume, for prosecuting a groundless and vexatious suit. Nor can I believe our ministers of justice would be so blind as not to discern the entire dis tinction between the two cases; or that they would not instantly reject the information founded only on pretence, while they as readily admitted the litigation of a question of law arising on a fact previously established before a judicial tribunal.

After the many assurances which have been given to the ministers of the French Republick, that the government of the United States holds itself bound as well by inclination, as by duty, faithfully to observe its treaties, it is unpleasant to receive so frequent intimations of its violating or suffering them to be violated. There are powerful motives to induce its exact adherence to them; and among these, a regard to its own dignity and reputation and a love of justice are not the least. But I ascribe what I complain of to its proper cause, misinformation from gentlemen conversant in our laws; but who ought to be more correct or less sanguine in their legal opinions. In the case you mention, where "neglecting no means of conciliation in your power, you directed security to be offered to obtain a release of the vessel," the judge himself finding no law to warrant the measure, called on the counsel of the Cassius to produce it; one of them, more skilful in the laws