No. 126.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, the 1st Floreal, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (April 21, 1796, O. S.)

SIR,-I had the honour of writing to you on the 9th of last month, relative to the impress exercised on board of your vessels by the English.

The vice consul at Alexandria, announces to me the return of Messrs. Evelitts and Scamman, captains of the schooners Chloe, Anne and Industry, whose entire crews have been impressed at the Mole.

Twenty-five vessels purchased by Mr. Cavan are still in that port, and recent orders have been given to him for expediting fifty more.

Mr. Kenna, captain of the schooner Free Mason, is also arrived from Martinique, where he left twenty vessels, whose crews as well as his own, have been forcibly carried off.

I do not add a single reflection to my former letter.

Mr. Henry Alexander of Baltimore, in whose favour you requested my intervention with general Rigaud, informs me by a letter this moment received, that he is restored to the affections of his family.

Accept, sir, the expression of my respect,

P. A. ADET.

No. 127.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 22 Nivose, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (the 12th Jan. 1796, O. S.)

SIR, Letters from the French consuls at Baltimore, Norfolk, and Alexandria, announce to me that the English have purchased a great quantity of flour in Maryland and

Virginia, and that they have laden it on board Américan vessels which they have likewise purchased. This flour is destined to support the English army directed against the French colonies. It is not without the most severe chagrin, that I have observed the enemies of my country drawing from yours means of subsistence, without which they must have renounced every species of attempt, and that I have found myself incapable of preventing them. Indeed, who could arrest the exportation of this flour, if not the government of the United States? and if I had solicited it of them, could I have calculated upon their condescending to my request, when they would have regarded that condescension rather as a favour than as a duty rising out of their neutrality? But, sir, there is another circumstance, upon which the letters from the consuls leave me no doubt, and to which the laws which the American government have prescribed to itself for its neutrality oblige it to pay attention. The vessels which the English have purchased, are commanded and manned by American seamen. If your fellow citizens are prohibited from serving in the cause of France, neither should they be permitted to range themselves under the British flag-otherwise the neutrality would be only a vain term, and a certain mean of assisting secretly, and without ruhning any risk, a power which no one would dare to aid openly.

There is also another object, sir, upon which I should fix your attention. The consul at Norfolk informs me that the English have caused to be purchased a great number of horses in Virginia, and that even stables are established near Norfolk for receiving them. These horses are destined for the English cavalry, to be debarked at St. Domingo, to attempt the conquest, and to endeavour to bring about the ruin of that place. If France be interested in frustrating these projects, should not the United States also, perhaps under certain relations, prevent the execution of them? Besides, their neutrality imposes on them the obligation of arresting the exportation of horses, which constitute the principal force of the English army. The horses are contraband of war; you are sensible of this, sir, and no contraband of war can be furnished to a power at war, without the other power having the right of opposing it in any manner whatever.

(So says Vattel, vol. 2. book 3. chap. 7. § 113, Amsterdam edition, 1775.)

"The nation which makes war, has the greatest interest in depriving its enemy of every foreign assistance, and therefore has a right to regard, if not absolutely as enemies, at least as people who care very little about injuring them, those who carry to their enemy the things which they require for war; they punish them by confiscating their merchandise. If the sovereign of the latter should undertake to protect them, it would seem as though he himself wished to furnish this kind of succour; a step contrary to neutrality."

It is therefore evident, sir, from this passage, that no neutral government can protect contraband of war. But would not the American government protect it, if it should permit to be exported from its territory, horses destined for the English army? Indeed, sir, if after being informed of the designs of the English, it could stop the exportation of the horses which they have purchased, and did not do it, it is evident that the omission would constitute a proof of its consent and approbation.-And what difference is there in this case between tolerating contraband and protecting it?

It is useless, sir, to spin out this letter any further. I think that the facts are so self evident, that I now flatter myself with receiving a proof of that friendship of which the United States have so often given assurances to the Republick. Accept, sir, the assurances of my esteem, P. A. ADET.

No. 128.

Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, to Mr. Adel, Afinister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, Jan. 20, 1796.

SIR, On the 15th I received your letter of the 12th instant, and laid the same before the President of the United States.

The principle of an impartial neutrality, and the established practice agreeably to the laws of nations, furnish answers on the subjects you have been pleased to bring

into view.

You admit, that with respect to the flour which the "English have purchased in Maryland and Virginia," it would be an act of "courtesy" in the American government to forbid its exportation. But such courtesy, you must be sensible, would violate our duty as a neutral power, and of course it cannot be rendered: the purchase. and exportation of flour to the dominions of the French Republick having been, during the whole of the present war, perfectly free.

You also represent, that the English are purchasing horses in Virginia, "and horses are contraband of war." That horses are contraband will not be questioned; but your position, "that what is thus contraband cannot be furnished to one of the powers at war, without giving the other the right of opposing it in any manner whatever," cannot be admitted. If the subjects of a neutral power export contraband goods, the passage you have cited from Vattel shows, what kind of opposition may be given to it: the neutral exporters may be "punished by the confiscation of their merchandise," if taken at sea by the belligerent power against whom it is destined to be used. But the same chapter in that book informs us, that all the powers at war have a right to resort to a neutral country "to purchase provisions, horses, and in general every thing of which they stand in need." Horses have always been a considerable article in the commerce of this country: and in the same book we find the following passage. "If a nation trades in arms, timber, ships, military stores, &c. I cannot take it amiss, that it sells such things to my enemy, provided, that it does not refuse to sell them to me also." The justness of this doctrine is indisputable, and has, moreover, been explicitly assented to by one of your predecessors.

Mr. Hammond, the late British minister in the United States, had represented, "that arms and military accoutrements were buying up by a French agent in this country with an intent to export them to France." To this it was answered, on the part of the United States, "that our citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms that it is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern,,

would scarcely be expected. It would be hard in princi ple and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, has not required from them such an internal derangement in their Occupations. It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced in the President's proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the hands of the belligerent powers, on their way to the ports of their enemies." This you will see stated in Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Ternant, of the 15th of May, 1793. This letter was delivered by Mr. Ternant to Mr. Genet, whose answer to Mr. Jefferson, on the 27th of the same month, contains this expression. "I have no knowledge of the purchase of the arms in question, and at all events the reply you have made to Mr. Hammond, would convince him of the nullity of his observations."

But there is a third point stated by you, which required some investigation, and has occasioned the delay in answering your letter. You inform, that the flour, purchased by the English in Maryland and Virginia, is laden on board American vessels which they have purchased, and that these vessels are manned by American masters and sailors; and observe," that if our citizens are forbidden to serve the cause of France, they ought not to range themselves under the flag of Great Britain." This observation, being too indefinite to admit of a precise answer, you will allow me to proceed further in stating our rights and duties in relation to the belligerent powers; from which I trust it will appear, that the interference of the American government in any of the cases mentioned in your letter would be improper.

So far as selling and carrying supplies of provisions and goods of all kinds to France and her dominions can be viewed as serving its cause, our citizens have been and continue free to sell and transport them. They have never been forbidden to do this. They have merely been admonished by the proclamation of the President, that if any of these goods should be of the kind deemed contraband, and as such should be seized and confiscated, they would not receive the protection of the United States. But this rule is not confined to France; it is to be observed towards all the belligerent powers; because towards.