scarcely expect, with the aid of those two certificates only, to succeed. I have the honour to be, &c.

May 28, 1796.

W. RAWLE.

No. 103.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick near the United States of America, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 15th Prarial, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (3 June, 1796, O. S.)

SIR, By abandoning the corvette Le Cassius to the United States as I have done, the French Republick is become absolutely unconnected in the suit prosecuted on account of her seizure.

Before this abandonment, I complained to the federal Executive, whom I alone can and should know, against the illegal arrest of a vessel of war of the Republick.

The letter written to my predecessor by the Secretary of State on the 17th November, 1794, on the subject of the Favourite, recognised a principle, according to which I should flatter myself that you would cause this attack by a court, whose forms and authority cannot extend to the French Republick, to cease.

The justice you rendered in the affair of the Favourite leads me to think that if I have not received it in the case of the Cassius, it doubtless arises from the effect of some circumstances which changed your situation: I am not to examine them, sir, and it was for that reason, that upon your refusal, I abandoned the vessel.

Now this affair is become yours, I shall give no other answer to the communication you have thought proper to make as to her situation, than that a vessel of war never was navigated with any other vouchers than the captain's commission and the roll of the crew, that no other proof has ever been required for establishing the ownership

Whether she was purchased or built on account of a state; or was taken from an enemy, or in fine acquired in any manner whatever, she becomes a publick vessel when manned by mariners commissioned by the state.

But what I have the honour of saying to you in this respect you know, sir, as well as myself, and notwithstanding the desire of doing what may be, agreeable to you, I cannot derogate from the rights of my nation by furnishing other proofs than those which have been given, the captain's commission and my certificate, which was also supererogatory.

I notify you, sir, that the minister for foreign affairs has ordered me to ascertain with you the reparation for the injuries and damages arising from the proceedings you have ordered or permitted with respect to this corvette; but I defer treating on this point of right until I shall have received new orders from my government in virtue of the abandonment I made to you of this vessel, which they could not have learned until a few days after the departure of my first directions. Accept, sir, &c.

P. A. ADET.

No. 104.

The Secretary of State to Mr. Adel, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, Oct. 19, 1796.

SIR,-The marshal of the district of Pennsylvania has just produced to me a transcript from the minutes of the circuit court of its proceedings in the case of the ship Cassius, on the information of John Ketland against her. The court on the 15th instant "ordered that the information be dismissed," it appearing to the court that they had no jurisdiction.

The ship remains at present in the custody of the marshal, but ready to be delivered to your order.

I have the honour to be, &c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 105.

Case of Le Cassius.

In pursuance of the request of the Secretary of State, the attorney for the district of Pennsylvania has the honour

to return the following statement, which he hopes will be found correct.

The case of the Cassius, although selected by Mr. Adet as one of his grounds of complaint against the government of the United States, forms a striking instance of friendly inclination towards the French Republick, tempered with a necessary adherence to the obligations of neutrality.

The ship Cassius arrived at the port of Philadelphia the 4th of August, 1795, from Port de Paix, and as a publick ship of war an account of her force was given to the customhouse. officers, agreeably to the usual practice.

On the 5th of August Mr. James Yard, a native American citizen and merchant of Philadelphia, filed a libel against her, in the district court of Pennsylvania, and prayed process of attachment against the vessel, and of arrest against the captain.

The libel stated, that a schooner called the William Lindsay, with a cargo on board, both belonging to the libellant, were captured on a voyage from the island of St. Thomas to the city of St. Domingo, in the island of His paniola, by the Cassius, under the command of Samuel B. Davis, who pretended an authority from the French Republick, but really was a citizen of the United Statesthat the said schooner was carried into Port de Paix, and there wrongfully detained, without compensation to the libellant, and that the Cassius had been illegally fitted out from the port of Philadelphia.

In consequence of this application, the vessel was attached, and the captain arrested by the marshal.

Before the return of the process Mr. Adet wrote a letter to Mr. Randolph, then Secretary of State (dated 22d Thermidor, 3d year of the Republick, answering to the 9th of August) complaining of the detention and arrestreferring to the 15th and 19th articles of the treaty with France, and requesting the Secretary of State, 1st. To take the necessary measures to restore the captain to his liberty, and release the vessel; and 2d, to cause the complaint to be referred to the French government, which would repair the injury if the captain had acted without

orders.

About the same time, complaints were made on the part of the British resident, earnestly urging that the Cassius

having been, as alleged, illegally fitted out, should be detained, and that government would enforce the laws against both the vessel and the captain, as an American citizen holding a commission under one of the belligerent powers. On these opposing pretensions, the attorney of the district of Pennsylvania was personally consulted by Mr. Randolph. It became obviously necessary to determine, in the first place, and as speedily as possible, what the law required, before the political obligations which might arise from the occasion could be considered. It appeared to the district attorney that if the French government had made a fair and unsuspecting acquisition of the property of a vessel then lying in their own ports and out of the reach of the jurisdiction of the United States, a cause of forfeiture previously existing, but unknown at the time of the purchase, could not at a future day revive so as to subject the same vessel, still remaining the property of a sovereign nation, to the process of our courts."* "Penal laws are strictly local, and affect only what they can reach." The change of property in a foreign country is therefore valid. Without interfering with the question of the effect of a purchase by an individual, the right acquired by a foreign sovereign appears, on the principles of national policy, to be superior to the pre-existing right of forfeiture.

One sovereign is not amenable to the tribunals of another.

What cannot be done directly, ought not to be done indirectly.

Process of information and seizure indirectly brings the sovereign to submit to the tribunal, or to abandon the property. There is indeed little difference between the direct and indirect mode of effectuating this event, since an attachment of some moveable article must be, in general, the mode of compelling the appearance of a foreign sovereign. Inconceivable evils would result from the allowance of the first experiment. An imprudent individual might at least endeavour to detain a whole squadron by process which it would be fortunate if it only exposed the judicial authority to ridicule and did not involve our coun

Dallas, p. Camp vs. Lockwood, Cowp. 343. Huberus, vol. ii. 538.

try in hostilities.* In respect to the charge against captain Davis, the district attorney was of opinion, that an acceptance and exercise of a foreign commission, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, were necessary to constitute an offence within the act of Congress entitled an Act in addition to the Act for punishing certain crimes and offences against the United States. That although by coming into the port of Philadelphia, with the command of the Cassius, the exercise of the commission was complete; yet the acceptance of it appearing to have taken place in a foreign country, he could not be deemed liable to prosecution.

The former of these opinions being verbally communicated to Mr. Randolph, produced a request on his part that the speediest method for obtaining a decision of the question should be adopted.

In the mean time some propositions for an amicable adjustment of the complaint of Mr. Yard afforded a prospect of another termination of the controversy; but these failing, the district attorney, in obedience to his instructions, prepared a suggestion to the district court, a copy of which will be found in the annexed exemplification of the record, and which he exhibited in court on the twentyfirst of August, where it was received and filed.

This mode of proceeding, being somewhat novel, may require an explanation.

The French minister disclaimed the jurisdiction of the court, and called, as it appeared, with no very clear conception of the constitutional powers of the Executive, for a direct interference to annul the judicial proceedings.

A claim in the name and behalf of the French nation or a plea in the same name and behalf to the jurisdiction of the court would have been consistent with the technical forms of proceeding: But the district attorney had no authority to use their name-he had no warrant of attorney to produce from them, if required. The United States,

* This train of reasoning was supported by the authorities of Vattel prelimin. S. 18. S. 20 Vattel Č. 2 S. 36. Burlamaq. C. 9. Vol. i. p. 69. Dallas p. Nathan vs. Virginia, &c.

And slightly opposed by Martens and Bynkershoek-Martens b. i. S. 8 -Bynk. de foro legatorum C. IV.

On the operation of forfeiture by penal laws-See Henry Blackstone's Reports 135-5 Term Repts. 112. 1 Term Repts. 260.