:

tion for it would be unjust to exact a deviation from principles in its favour, and by committing this fault the neutral government would soon or late hazard a departure from its position."

But, sir, when I requested that the English might not be allowed to export horses from this country, I tacitly obligated myself in the name of the Republick, not to cause any exportation of a similar nature. I do not conceive that you could ever reproach me of having wished to lead you from the limits of neutrality in our favour; having always requested that that neutrality should be equally observed towards our enemies and us. Hence, sir, you should be far from suspecting that I wished to profit of an advantage, which I desired to see refused to the enemies of my country; and the government of the United States should, I conceive, admit my claim, on demanding an explicit declaration from me of the restriction which you justly imagined I had tacitly imposed on myself. For "the declaration being made (says Galliani)* to the neutral state, desiring that it should grant no contraband of war to the belligerent powers should always be received with deference by the neutral nation, unless this prohibition should cause an extreme and insupportable injury to her, because every thing serving immediately to the destruction of humanity, should rather be refused than granted, in all cases where a just and wise government has the choice. Such a demand comports more with a real impartiality, with sincere friendship, and with the desire of acting fairly as to the belligerent nations, than to subscribe with these sentiments to a contrary conduct."

I had every reason to hope, that, penetrated with these principles, the government of the United States did not expect, in requesting that the English might not be permitted to export horses, I should declare in the name of the Republick, that she imposed on herself the condition not to export them; but since it is required, I make that declaration, sir, and I venture to flatter myself, that by conforming to the principles I have developed to you, it will be followed with the effect I expect from it. I do not conceive, sir, that you should avail yourself of the excep tions contained in the passage of Galliani, which I have

* Vide book 1. ch. 9. 3. of the work already cited.

cited, to answer my demand in the negative; for horses do not constitute the principal branch of your commerce. Your exports in 1792 states the number of horses to have been 4551, which at a mean price of $40, amount to about 891,220 livres Tournois, but what is this sum in comparison to 115,530,000 Tournois, the whole amount of your exports? Besides, by preserving your horses in the country, and keeping them at a moderate price, by not exporting them, would you not promote agriculture, and the interest of your country; would it not accord with the rules. of policy?

But supposing that the exportation of the horses constitute a principal branch of your commerce, could this fact be made use of to authorize the exportation of that species of contraband of war? Could it be said that the government of the United States would only imitate the conduct of all people in similar circumstances? No, sir, the conduct which Denmark, Sweden, the city of Hamburgh, and particularly the Swiss, have held in the present war, is entirely opposed to that assertion. It would be too tedious to offer you all the examples I could cite: I shall content myself with speaking of the Swiss, of whose commerce the exportation of horses forms a principal branch.

You know, sir, that neither the wisdom of the Swiss, their knowledge, their ancient experience, their exact observance of treaties, nor their respect for the law of nations, can be doubted; you know that their country is situated between France and the territory of her enemies, and that it consequently offers great resources to the belligerent powers, of the various articles of contraband of war: each power has endeavoured to profit from the advantages of this situation: but as soon as one of the powers wished to draw from the Helvetick territory, merchandises contraband of war, and the others presented complaints on the subject, the Swiss immediately stopped the exportation. They have moreover prohibited the exportation of all contraband of war, even that of horses, which constitute their principal branch of commerce; and they conceived it more consistent with the character of a neutral people and friends to peace, to restrain their commerce, by refusing to their neighbours all contraband of war, than to extend their commercial relations, by furnishing each with the means of continuing the war.

I know that the conduct of one government does not always serve as a rule to another; I know that I have no means to engage the government of the United States to follow the example which I cite to it; but I should make known to it that the principles which I have laid down are not foreign to a free and enlightened policy.

Besides, sir, were all people to prefer their commercial interests to the principles of neutrality which I have developed, should that be a reason for the United States to imitate them, when France and her enemies are in question? Did not our republican government sacrifice its interests to yours with respect to the law of nations? When the English seized your neutral vessels, it caused them to be seized in like manner; but as I mentioned to you in my letter of the first of September, 1795, which remains unanswered, it was not from the same motive. No, sir, it was indirectly to support the right of neutral nations. Moreover, did she long follow the example of her enemies? did she not revoke the orders which had been given? are not the decrees of the 25th Brumaire and 14 Nivose, in the 3d year, which I sent you with my letter of the 26th Messidor, evident proofs of it? When in the course of last summer Great Britain again caused your vessels to be arrested, to prevent their carrying grain to France, did the French government do so? Has she not strictly respected the right of neutral nations and the liberty of your flag, even to the injury of her own interests? But if the amicable relations of two people are reciprocal, why at this time should you refuse to acknowledge the fidelity of France, by an act equally faithful? especially when that act would not compromit your interests, and would be conformable to the laws of neutrality, and in certain respects to the obligation of treaties. It is with the conduct of governments as with that of individuals-it is not by words but by actions that friendship and attachment are proved.

You will perhaps object to this, sir, that you would promote the anger of Great Britain against the American government, by prohibiting the exportation of horses: but in allowing it, might it not be said that you would equally promote the anger of France? and would you not better fulfil the object that all neutral nations should propose to themselves, that of maintaining a good understanding with the belligerent parties, by at once refusing to France and

England the right of withdrawing from you an article contraband of war, which the latter power cannot export without the Republick of France experiencing a real injury? Besides why should England complain? A general measure operating upon all, injures no one in particular.

If I have proved to you, sir, as I cannot doubt from all I have said, that it comports with the laws of neutrality, with your relations as to the belligerent powers, to stop the exportation of the horses which the English draw from you, the request I have made in this respect was founded; and I conclude upon the first question that the government of the United States should, agreeable to the laws of neutrality, arrest the exportation of an article contraband of war purchased by the enemies of France.

Having resolved one of the questions which form the subject of this letter, I páss to the second.

It is conceived in these terms. Can the government of the United States, without compromitting its neutrality, permit its citizens to serve on board of vessels belonging to the enemies of France ?

This question relates to the manœuvres practised by the English in Virginia, and which they are still carrying on in Massachusetts and Connecticut. They purchase American vessels, and man them with American captains and sailors. It is to this conduct of the English that this phrase of my letter of 22 Nivose related. "If your citizens are not to serve the cause of France, they should not range themselves under the flag of Great Britain." I conceived it had a meaning sufficiently precise to strike. you at first, and that you would see I claimed the most perfect neutrality on the part of your citizens with regard to France and England; that is to say, that they should not serve in the military operations of the two nations. But I have still had the misfortune of being deceived on this head, and I shall enter into new explanations on the subject.

You allow, sir, that agreeable to the laws of nations, and to those of the United States, your citizens cannot enrol themselves in the service of any foreign prince or state: That is to say, that your citizens cannot aid in any manner the military operations of any foreign prince or power; but can the military operations of a foreign prince

or power be aided only in the above mentioned characters? You think so, sir; I venture to hope that you will permit me to be of a contrary opinion. Can your citizens man vessels destined to transport troops and ammunition from one place to another without serving in the war? Do not the transports filled with troops and ammunition, sailing with and debarking under the protection of a fleet, form a part of that fleet? Are they not necessary means to the success of the projected operation? And are the captains and sailors of these transports useless beings in the expedition? And because they are not on board of ships of war, it may be said they are not in the service of the belligerent power, that they do not aid its operations! No sir, such an assertion can never be fairly advanced; it would be to torture words, and to fall into puerile distinctions which should never be met with in free and faithful discussions.

I think, sir, that these principles being admitted, you will readily conceive, that if the laws of the United States and our treaties are silent on the circumstance just cited, that if it has not been foreseen and explicitly declared contrary to neutrality, it is not the less so in itself, and should be prevented by every nation who wishes to preserve her neutrality.

But, sir, are not the American vessels purchased by the English become, by the very act of sale, English property? Although you found no difference

"Between the citizens of a neutral nation hiring their unarmed vessels, with their crews to transport provisions and stores for one of the powers at war, and selling and then manning the same vessels for the same service."

Still, however, there will exist between the two cases the following distinction:

In the first, your fellow citizens man American vessels: in doing this they use the right appertaining to them, and which no one can contest-on the contrary, in the second -they are English vessels caused to be navigated under the American flag, and by American captains and sailors, and which have no right to your protection since they are enemies property. For you know, sir, that in order to acknowledge an armament as belonging to a nation, the vessel and two thirds of the crew must belong to that nafion. This being admitted-are not those vessels destined