State assured me in his letter of 6th July, 1795, that this stipulation of our treaty should be faithfully observed in this respect by the American government. Since notwithstanding the similar right assured to the king of Great Britain by his treaty with the United States, it is stipulated that it should not derogate from former treaties entered into by the United States. It is clear therefore from this, that during the whole course of the present war, we should, in virtue of our treaties, enjoy alone the privilege of bringing in and selling our prizes here. But if at present a law existed, prohibiting, in general terms, the sale of prizes, it would bear upon France alone; and at the same time, that it deprived her of an advantage granted by her treaty, it would tend to affect the balance of neutrality.

In fact, sir, French ships of war and privateers having alone the right of bringing in and selling their prizes here, it would be the interest of England, in case she could not procure the same advantage, to deprive France of it: for to take an advantage from our enemy is a real benefit to us, even though we could not enjoy it. Besides, would not England by that means have new chances in her favour? If our prizes could no longer be sold in your ports they must be conducted to the colonies or to France; and, would not the English then have greater opportunities for intercepting them? It is evident therefore that the law procured for preventing the sale of prizes is entirely in favour of the English, and to our disadvantage. But if it be the duty of a neutral nation neither to grant nor refuse more to one of the belligerent powers than to another, when there do not exist particular stipulations provided for by treaties previous to the war, it follows that the law in question being in favour of Great Britain cannot be conformable to the rules of neutrality.

I venture to hope that you will feel as I do the justness of my observations; and that the government of the United States, will take the necessary measures for preventing the effects of a law contrary to the treaties and to the duties of a neutral nation.

Accept, sir, &c.

P. A. ADET.

No. 132.

From the Secretary of State to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, May 24, 1796.

SIR,-On the 20th, I received your letter of the 18th instant, and in answer have the honour to observe; That although the sale of prizes brought into the ports of the United States by armed vessels of the French Republick has not hitherto been prohibited, yet it has been regarded by us not as a right to which the captors were entitled either by the law of nations or our treaty of amity and commerce with France; the contrary has been explicitly declared by the government of the United States. and assuredly communicated to the French government in the year 1793 by the minister of the United States at Paris. In the letter of the sixteenth of August of that year, from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, are the following passages. "The seventeenth article of our treaty (with France) leaves armed vessels free to conduct whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without paying any duty, and to depart and be conducted freely to the places expressed in their commissions, which the captain shall be obliged to show. It is evident, that this article does not contemplate a freedom to sell their prizes here; but on the contrary a departure to some other place, always to be expressed in their commission, where their validity is to be finally adjudged." On the claim of the French agents at that time. not only to sell their prize goods, but to sell them free of duty, Mr. Jefferson remarks, that this article "does not give the right to sell at all." And afterwards in the same letter he mentions "the exclusive admission to sell here the prizes made by France on her enemies, in the present war, though unstipulated in our treaties, and unfounded in her own practice, or in that of other nations, as we believe." For the sense of France on this point, you will permit me to resort to her treaty of navigation and commerce made with Great Britain in 1786. In the 16th article it is stipnlated, that it should not be lawful for foreigners, not subjects of either crown, and who should have commissions from any other prince or state, an enemy to one or the other, to arm their vessels in the ports of either of the two

kingdoms, to sell there the prizes they shall make, or to exchange them in any manner whatever. This treaty having been made subsequent to the treaty between France and the United States, it is plain, that she did not consider the 16th article as militating with the 17th of her prior treaty with us. The truth is, that the corresponding articles in the two treaties contain only negative stipu lations in regard to the enemies of the respective contracting parties, to prevent the fitting out of privateers and the selling of prizes by such enemies, without any affirmative stipulation that the parties themselves may do either.

Instead of detaining you by any further observations, allow me to refer you to the aforementioned letter of Mr. Jefferson, which has been published, in which the construction we give to the articles of our treaty of amity and commerce with France which you have quoted, is illustrated and maintained with a clearness and force of reasoning that removes every doubt.

It being then a position demonstrated that France has no claim of right to sell prizes in the ports of the United States, nor the latter in the ports of France, it is unnecessary to enter into any consideration of the conveniences or inconveniences which either party might receive or suffer by the permission or prohibition of such sales. Each nation, except where treaties with other nations impose a restraint, has a right to judge for itself. France exercised this right in her aforementioned treaty of commerce with Great Britain: and the United States propose to exercise the same right by a law.

The remaining observations in your letter being grounded on the supposition of a right to sell French prizes in our ports, and this supposed right having been proved not to exist, I may be excused from making any remarks upon them. You quote the assurance given you by the late Secretary of State, that the 22d article of our treaty with France forbidding any of her enemies, and consequently at this time the British, to bring and dispose of their prizes in our ports, would be faithfully observed by the American government: and I may confidently repeat, that it will be observed: the law in question furnishes a proof of it, by the universality of its prohibitions. This form of the proposed law ought to rescue the United States from

the reproach of favouring Great Britain: for a neutral nation can be responsible only for the equality of its rules of conduct towards the belligerent powers, and not for the effects of an exact observance of those rules, which must depend on the situation and circumstances of the warring powers themselves.

I am with great respect, sir, &c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 133.

From the Secretary of State to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, June 13, 1796.

SIR,-The merchants of Philadelphia are extremely alarmed by the conduct of a small privateer called the Flying Fish, bearing, it is understood, a commission from the French Republick. It is said she has been lying in this port for some time, preparing for sea: and it seems that after inquiring and observing what valuable vessels were to sail for foreign ports, she sailed herself to the Capes of Delaware, and not far from thence lay in wait for the vessels she had marked for her prey. Accordingly on the 9th instant, she seized on the ship Mount Vernon belonging to Mr. Murgatroyd, a merchant of Philadelphia, within two hours after the pilot had left her, and within about six leagues of Cape Henlopen, took possession of all her papers, and forced the master, mate and all her crew, save two men, to leave her, and under these circumstances she was sent, they know not whither! For your more particular information of the circumstances of the capture of this ship and the designs of the captors, I enclose the protest of the master and his two mates.

Such conduct has more the appearance of an act of piracy than of the lawful procedure of an armed vessel regularly commissioned by your Republick. Other vessels were on the point of leaving the Delaware Bay; but witnessing or hearing of this outrage, have put back, and returned up the river for safety.

I have been directed, sir, by the President of the United States to represent this case to you, and to request information, if you are possessed of any, concerning this

privateer, her name, the name of her commander, whether she is commissioned by the French Republick, and what instructions or orders accompany the commission to regulate her conduct.

If the papers found on board the ship, or any other evidence, afforded any just ground to believe her to be the property of an enemy to the French Republick, still neither the master nor the mate (especially the former) ought to have been removed, but to have been suffered to continue in the ship, that, to whatever port she might be sent for adjudication, a claim on the part of the owners might have been presented at the proper tribunal, and their right maintained. This flagrant violation of a common rule, the observance of which is essential to the support of justice, induces a suspicion, that the capturing vessel is a pirate, or a privateer violating the authority of a commission and the instructions precribed to regulate her proceedings.

I have only further to express to you, sir, the President's reliance, that if you are possessed of any information on the subject of this letter, you will communicate the same with the candour and frankness due from the representative of a friendly and allied nation.

With great respect I am, &c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

P. S. The publick solicitude is so great on this subject, and so many vessels are in consequence detained, you will permit me to request a speedy answer.

No. 134.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 26 Prairial, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (June 14, 1796, O. S.)

SIR, I have received the letter you did me the honour to write me relative to the seizure of the ship Mount Vernon, by the French privateer the Flying Fish.