If the French consul at Charleston, Mr. Dupont, had correctly stated the facts respecting the ship Amity, I trust you would have found no cause to complain against the collector, Mr. Holmes, whose conduct appears evidently to have been guided by an honest sense of his duty and the laudable spirit of a citizen, when he saw the laws and authority of his country treated with disrespect. Permit me then to state the case from the papers now before me. On the 7th of April last the privateer Leo carried her prize, the Amity, into Charleston. The prize was entered at the customhouse, and security given, as usual, for the duties on her cargo. The federal circuit court being in session, the British vice consul applied and obtained an injunction prohibiting the sale of the prize. Then the captors represented to the collector, that the prize ship was so disabled, that she could not proceed to the nearest French port, agreeably to our treaty with France. Thereupon the collector directed a survey of the ship to be made. The persons, who surveyed her reported, on the 30th of May, various defects in her bottom, beams, decks, masts, yards, rigging and sails, to prove her to be unfit for sea; and Mr. Vessey, an agent for the captors, asserted, that the ship was incapable of being fitted for sea, and that it was impossible for her to be refitted so as to carry her cargo to any foreign port; a cargo of the immense weight of near 600 hogsheads of sugar, rum, &c. Hence it appeared reasonable to the collector, that the captors should be allowed to ship the prize goods in other bottoms; and after taking advice, which confirmed his opinion, he, on the application of the agents, gave the requisite permission. And in consequence, "the greatest part of the cargo was shipped in neutral bottoms, for the benefit of the drawback; the duties having been previously secured." Thus far all was very well; and I cannot but observe, that the proceedings of the collector are marked with liberality. But now the difficulties began. After the survey had been made, and the greatest part of the cargo shipped in neutral bottoms, the captors or their agents, in defiance of the laws of the United States (for the British treaty had then become a publick law) and in direct contempt of the injunction of the federal court, sold the prize ship to Ame rican citizens and the French consul, Mr. Dupont, sanctioned the sale. The purchasers immediately repaired the prize ship, which had been declared to be irreparable and applied to the collector for her clearance as an American vessel. The collector seeing the deception which had been practised upon him, and considering the violation of the laws, and the contempt of the authority of the United States, very properly refused his concurrence to render those deceitful and illegal acts finally successful. Your letter, grounded on Mr. Dupont's information, and a memorial of Messrs. North and Vessey, to the Secretary of the Treasury, state that the collector refused permission to lade the prize cargo on board neutral vessels, until after a part of it had been destroyed by fire. But the papers before me show, that the collector had satisfied himself, as early as the 30th of May, that the prize cargo might lawfully be carried away in neutral or other bottoms, the prize ship having been considered as irreparable. Hence it appears highly improbable and nearly impossi ble, that after the 30th of May, the collector should have refused his permission to export the cargo in neutral vessels. In the interval between the 30th of May, and the 13th of June, (when it seems the great fire happened at Charleston) it is possible, that no application was made to the collector to permit the exportation of the cargo in neutral vessels. But at no time has the collector discovered a disposition to throw unnecessary difficulties in the way and his suspense, in a case as new as it was important, continued only until he obtained advice which sound discretion required him to ask. You are under a mistake about the portion of the prize cargo, which was destroyed by fire: permit me to exhibit the facts, as stated by Messrs. North and Vessey, the agents for the prize. The cargo of the ship Amity consisted of 490 hogsheads of sugar, wt. gross, 786,398 do. 310 bags of pimento, 27 hhds. of rum, do. 70,870 857,268 pounds 33,488 pounds 2,939 gallons Consumed in the fire at Charleston, June 13th 52 hhds. of sugar 87,292 lbs.-which is but little more 2 tierces do. S than a tenth part of the cargo, and it is not intimated, that any other part of her cargo was destroyed. From this state of facts, no blame appears to attach to any officer of the United States. The sale of the prize and her cargo was lawfully prohibited; but by a liberal construction of the treaty with the French Republick, permission was given to export the cargo in other vessels, when the prize ship was in effect condemned as utterly unfit ever again to go to sea. It is true, that when the collector found himself deceived by the agents; when he found, that the ship had been illegally sold to American citizens, and then promptly repaired, he refused those American citizens a clearance for her departure. It is true, that after the proofs and acknowledgment of the sale to those American citizens, after the American flag had for several days been flying on board her, he refused to permit her departure as a French prize, he refused her to the consul Dupont, who, not respecting the laws and authority of the United States, knowingly sanctioned the sale and under all these circumstances, will not his refusal be deemed excusable ? In respect to the two prizes carried into Wilmington in North Carolina, there does not appear in the conduct of the collector, Mr. Read, any designed rigour, beyond the requisitions of the laws of the United States. In his letter of the 26th of July to the Secretary of the Treasury, which is now before me, he manifests a desire merely to perform his duty according to his conception of the meaning of the laws; but requests instructions for his guide. On the 20th of August (the day after his letter was received) the Secretary wrote him directions, particularly to permit the unlading of the prizes, if upon examination it appeared necessary to the repairing of them. The collector's temporary opposition to this measure arose evidently from a mistaken construction of a former letter from the Secretary of the Treasury. This mistake was promptly corrected; and it is now upwards of two months since they were going to unload both vessels. Any damage that may have ensued from the involuntary crrours of the collector, the captors or their agents will do well to state for consideration. With respect to the losses, which may have been sustained by the captors of the prize ship Amity, at Charleston, the documents with which I have been furnished prove that they must be the result of their own misconduct, or of an accident which no human foresight could prevent. If the agents of the prize shall produce counter-proofs, they will receive all due consideration. To the four questions stated in your letter be pleased to accept the following answers. 1st. Will the prizes, made by the ships of the Republick upon the English continue to be sold here ?” I have had the honour, in some former letters, to state to you the sense of the government on this point, with the reasons to support it. Permission to sell prizes was considered by the government not demandable as of right. The power permitting could therefore restrain the sales. The only restraint yet imposed has respected captures made by privateers. "2d. Will the prizes, made by the privateers of the Republick upon others than the English be sold ?” As the original permission to sell prizes extended to those taken from all the enemies of the French Republick; and as the restraint lately imposed refers merely to British vessels, pursuant to the article of the treaty just mentioned, so the indulgence in other respects is to be considered as remaining at present on its original footing. "3d. Shall we unconditionally enjoy the right of unlading the prizes in case of damage, and of having them repaired ?" The right of unlading prize vessels, when they are so damaged as to be unfit to proceed to sea without repairs, will not be controverted: but the unloading and storing of the cargoes must be under the inspection of the proper officers of the United States, as a necessary precaution against a transgression of our laws. And in case the prize vessels are really irreparable, and in consequence are regularly condemned as unfit ever to proceed to sea, their cargoes may be exported as French property in other bot toms. "4th. Can a part of the prize, sufficient only for the expense of the repairs be sold?" So much of the prize cargo may be sold, as shall bona fide be necessary for the repairs, without which the vessel will be unfit to proceed to sea. But such sales must be made under the inspection of the collectors, pursuant to the instructions from the Treasury Department, for securing the duties on imports and confining the amount of the sales to the necessity of each case. With respect to the ship Amity at Charleston, the collector of that port will be instructed to permit her depar ture as a French prize. This letter, in substance, as it now appears, was prepared to be sent you in the last month; but doubts arose on some points concerning which legal opinions were taken, and occasioned the further delay to this time. I have the honour to be, &c. TIMOTHY PICKERING. No. 142. TRANSLATION. The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, 19th Nivose, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (9th Jan. 1796, O. S.) SIR,-Instructed to watch over the interests of my country, instructed not to allow either its rights or its honour to be violated, instructed to maintain peace and good harmony between France and the United States, I should betray the confidence of my government and the duties which my station impose on me, were I now to remain silent on a circumstance which must make all France discontented, and were I not to hasten to give you information of it. When the National Convention decreed that the French flag should be presented by its minister to the United States, there was but one opinion as to the place in which it should be deposited. A decree had placed yours in the hall of the legislative body.-Every one thought that the French flag would with you receive the same honour: all my fellow citizens have one after another contemplated that pledge of your friendship, and each one believed that the Americans would also have the same eagerness to view the |