tween the United States and Great Britain, it behooved the government of the former to countermand the permission formerly given to French privateers to sell their prizes in our ports. Such sales, you have seen, the United States had always a right to prohibit; and by the above mentioned stipulation this right became a duty. These, sir, are the foundations of the orders which have been given to prevent the sale of the prizes lately carried into Boston by French privateers, to which you refer; it being understood, that the prizes were British property. Those orders have since been made general, and communicated to the collectors in all the ports of the United States. But at present, those orders are confined to prizes brought into our ports by privateers.

I have the honour, &c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING,

No. 140%

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 21st Vindemiaire, 5th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (12th October, 1796, O. S.)

SIR,-The French privateer Leo took into Charleston an English vessel called the Mary. The English consul required, that the sale of this vessel should be prohibited in virtue of the 24th article of the treaty concluded between the king of Great Britain and the United States.

The government of South Carolina, uncertain as to the interpretation, which the 24th article should receive, deferred its decision for some days. In the mean time the French consul condemned the prize and the unlading was commenced. It was stayed by a warrant in the hands of the marshal, who obliged the agents of the privateer to appear before the admiralty.

A decision rendered by the chief justice (Ellsworth) in a special court, interdicted the sale of the prize, in virtue of the 24th article of the treaty concluded with England. This decision was confirmed by the circuit court of Caro

lina, and when they were going to throw in an appeal to the supreme court, the circular letter from the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the sale of our prizes was made known, and it was conceived that an appeal became useless.

In the mean time the vessel being ready to sink, she was examined and condemned. The privateer agents, of whom judge Ellsworth took a bond of 10,000 dollars as a security that they would not sell the prize, solicited permission to export the cargo in neutral vessels: this was refused: and the cargo, which consisted of 87,000 weight of sugar, became a prey to the flames, during the fire at Charleston. Permission, however, has been given to export a trifling part of the cargo, saved from the confiagration.

The condemned vessel was purchased and repaired by an American. His project was to go and sell her in the Antilles; but he was obliged to abandon her, and to cancel his bargain, because he was refused American papers.

The privateer agents then wished to send off this vessel in ballast, with French papers; the collector of the customs, Mr. Holmes, opposed it, and the vessel remains in the port of Charleston, notwithstanding the protest of the French consul, of the 16th Fructidor.

Such are the facts of which the consul of Charleston has rendered me an account, about which I spoke to you yesterday, and to which I call your attention. Such is the violation of our treaty, against which I solicit your justice.

Our

The 17th article of our treaty secures to our privateers the faculty of entering into the ports of the United States, and going out of them with their prizes. The 24th article of the treaty concluded with Great Britain in truth interdicts the privateers of the country at war with that power from entering the ports of the United States, but by the 25th article our rights are acknowledged, and the government has assured me, that it would maintain them. privateers have therefore the liberty of freely bringing in and taking out their prizes. The Mary could and should then go out of the port of Charleston without any obstacle, as she entered there; and therefore the collector of the customs violated our treaty when he prevented her going out. But how shall I qualify the refusal given to the agents of the privateer Leo to export in neutral vessels the cargo

of this prize? upon what can such an act be supported? Is there in the treaty concluded with Great Britain any explicit stipulation, which can be brought forward? Doubtless there is none; and yet because our treaty does not contain in an explicit manner the right of selling our prizes, it is contested with and refused to us! By a forced interpretation of the treaty concluded with Great Britain, will it be found that we have not the right to export, in a case of necessity, the cargo of our prizes, in neutral vessels? This manner of reasoning is beyond a doubt inadmissible, and a just and impartial man will never use it. Besides, facts support what I have the honour of saying to you, since the permission which was refused at first was afterwards granted. The state of things had not been changed; and if the collector of the customs thought he could permit the wreck of the cargo of the Mary to be exported in neutral vessels after the conflagration of Charleston, why did he not allow it before? He was therefore moved not by the spirit of justice, which ought to direct his actions, but by a partiality of which it is difficult to give an account; for he should merely have taken care, according to the orders transmitted to him, that the prize was not sold in the United States, and it was not for him under any pretext to give a greater extent than really existed to the stipulations of the treaty concluded with the English, in order to make them bear heavy on us. this conduct appertain to the agent of a neutral government? In consequence of it, have I not a right to require, that the collector of the customs be punished for having violated the treaty on the one hand, and for having certainly exceeded his orders by retarding the exportation of the prize's cargo, which he had no right to do.

Does

I could wish, sir, it were in my power here to stop my just complaints, but there are other facts, which I cannot pass over in silence, and of which it is requisite I should inform you.

The French privateer Bellona has carried into Wilmington, North Carolina, the Betty Cathcart and the Aaron, prizes made upon the English.

The sale of these prizes has been prohibited. They were very leaky. Two tradesmen, named by the collector James Read, have certified, that they could not be sent out again to sea. The privateer and her agents have requesti

ed permission to unlade these prizes in order to repair the vessels. The collector refused, upon the basis of the 24th article of the treaty concluded with Great Britain. But L now have that article before me, and I see no stipulation which could authorize the collector James Read to take the step he has done.

Notwithstanding the solicitations and protestations of the agents of the privateer against his refusal, James Read still persisted in it, although the leaks of the Betty Cathcart were such that she made between 30 and 40 inches of water in an hour.-In this latter circumstance he founds his conduct on the orders of government.

I cannot believe, sir, that the collector James Read then advanced a fact. I cannot believe, that the federal government, by hindering the unlading of prizes not in a condition to go to sea, thereby wished to aggravate the conditions of a treaty made with our enemies, when they are already so disadvantageous to us. I cannot believe that it wished by its own motion to add to the wrongs which the English well know how to do us by their treaty with the United States.

But be this as it may, it is no less true, that the officers and crew of the Bellona, as well as those of the Leo, have experienced considerable losses by the conduct of the collectors of the customs of Charleston and Wilmington, that these collectors were not at all authorized thus to act, that on the one hand our treaty has been violated, and on the other an arbitrary proceeding, which cannot be justified by any means, has been allowed against French citizens coming into your ports under the faith of previous treaties and conventions, and when they were in no way notified that these conventions were changed. It is no less true, that these citizens have experienced real damage from the doings of the officers of the government, and that they ought therefore to be indemnified in one way or another. This is what I request, sir, in the name of justice, besides invoking your severity against the collectors James Read and Holmes.

I hope, sir, that I shall obtain the object of these requests, that the Mary may freely go out under a French flag, and that I shall have only a satisfactory account to render to my government under these circumstances: but in order to avoid in future claims of a like nature, I re

quest you to be pleased to answer the following ques

tions:

1. Will the prizes made by the ships of the Republick upon the English continue to be sold here?

2. Will the prizes made by our privateers upon others than the English be sold here?

3. Shall we unconditionally enjoy the right of unlading. the prizes in case of damage, and of having them repaired?

4. Can a part of the prize sufficient only for the expense of repairs be sold?

It is useless, sir, for me to enter into any detail to lead you to conceive how important it is for the interests of our privateers, that I should be able to say to them in a precise manner what they are to expect on coming into your ports.

shall be much obliged to you also if you will be pleased to answer me as speedily as possible, in order that I may inform my government of your ulterior resolutions. Accept, &c.

P. A. ADET.

No. 141.

From the Secretary of State to Mr. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. Department of State, November 15, 1796.

SIR, On the 13th ult. I had the honour to receive your letter of the 12th, but not being possessed of any information on the subject, I laid it before the Secretary of the Treasury, under whose immediate superintendence the collectors of the customs are placed. He has favoured me with the letters of the collectors of Charleston and Wilmington, against whom you complain, with sundry documents describing their proceedings in regard to the British ship Amity (which you call the Mary) that was carried into the port of Charleston, as a prize to the French privateer Leo; and to the British ship Betty Cathcart and the snow Aaron, which were carried into the port of Wilmington, as prizes to the French privateer Bellona.