been arranged in a like annual publication in Boston. In the Massachusetts Register for 1796, they stand in this order. Those from the French Republick, the United Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Prussia, and last of all those from Great Britain. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion whether this arrangement is erroneous or correct: or whether among nations equal by their sovereignty and independence, there can be any precedency as of right: but I may presume that the government of the United States will not attempt, by any official arrangement, voluntarily to determine questions of rank among foreign powers, who will be no more inclined to submit them to their consideration, than to be governed by their decisions. I can have no objection, sir, to your publishing this answer to your letter, agreeably to your desire. I have the honour to be, &c. TIMOTHY PICKERING. No. 146. Extract of a Letter from Mr. Monroe, dated at Paris, May 2, 1796, to the Secretary of Stale. "I INFORMED YOU in my last, of the 25th of March, that I was promised by the directory, in an audience I had obtained of that body, that the minister of foreign affairs should state to me such objections as were entertained by this government to certain measures of our own, and in the interim that no step should be taken under the existing impression, nor until my reply was received and fully weighed and I have now the pleasure to transmit to you the result of the communication which afterwards took place between the minister and myself on that subject. "I do not know what effect my reply has had upon the mind of the directory, because it was only sent in a few days since I shall endeavour to ascertain this if possible, STATE PAPERS. and in case I do, will immediately afterwards apprize you of it. "I think proper here to communicate to you an incident which took place between the minister and myself, after I had obtained from the directory a promise that he should state the objections above referred to, and discuss their merits with me, and which was as heretofore intimated to you on the 8th of March last. Soon after that period I received from the minister the communication promised, in a note of the same date, but differing in some other respects from the present one, and particularly in the number of complaints, two of the catalogue being now given up by him, and to which I replied as soon as I could prepare my reply, in a note bearing likewise the same date with that which I now enclose you. After he had perused my reply, he was sensible that he had insisted on consequence some points that were not tenable, and in asked that I would permit him to retake his note returning mine that he might correct himself, and of course that I would consider the discussion, as yet to be commenced. I told him immediately that I would do so with pleasure, because I did not consider myself in the light of a solicitor bound to catch at and take advantage of little errours: that I wished upon all occasions and with every one, and especially upon the present occasion with him, to act with candour, and in consequence I soon afterwards restored him his note, and took back my own. "At the time when I made the minister this promise, I thought it in my power to comply with it. I had it is true, according to custom, written and enclosed you a copy of both papers, but yet I thought doctor Brockenbrough to whom I had intrusted my letter for you was in France, within my reach, so that I might recover it. Upon inquiry however, I found that he had departed by way of Dunkirk for England, a route I knew he intended to take, and in which state of things all that I could do was to write and request him to return me that letter, and which I immediately did. I have not yet heard from him, and of course As soon cannot tell whether I shall recover it or not. however as I knew that he was gone, I apprized the minister of it as likewise of the above circumstances, satifying him that I had acted with good faith so far as depended on me in fulfilling in every respect the promise I had made: and in communicating the above to you, I do it as well to explain this transaction, and which will require explanation in case you receive that letter, as to make known to you as far as depends on me, the condition on which you receive it. "The minister thought proper to give his second communication the same date with the former one, although more than a fortnight had intervened between the one and the other and in consequence I followed his example giving my latter reply the same date with the former one. His motive I did not inquire into: mine was that the directory might see that the delay which took place did not proceed from me." No. 147. TRANSLATION. Summary Statement of the complaints of the French Republick against the Government of the United States: First complaint.-The incxecution of the treaties. 1st. The courts of justice of the United States have taken and still take cognizance of prizes which our privateers conduct into their ports, notwithstanding the express clause of the treaty against it. Our ministers have proposed various arrangements for limiting these usurpations. The federal government had itself proposed measures on this subject, the first propositions were not accepted, and the latter measures fell into disuse. The disgusts, the delays, the losses resulting to our seamen from such a state of things, are palpable. They almost entirely deprive the Republick of the advantages which it should expect from this article of the treaty. 2d. The admission of English ships of war, even in cases where they are excluded by the 17th article of the treaty, that is when they have made prizes on the Republick or on its citizens. The weakness with which the federal government conceded this point in the first instance has increased the pretensions of Great Britain, and now the ports of the United States have become a station for the squadron of admiral Murray who for two years past has there victualled his ships in order to cruise on the American commerce, and to pillage our property. This division carries its audacity even to the conducting thither its prizes. 3d. The consular convention, forming a part of our treaties, is equally unexecuted in its two most important clauses: the first granting to our consuls the right of judging exclusively in disputes arising between Frenchmen is become illusory for the want of laws giving to the consuls the means of having their decisions executed. The consequence of this inability tends to annihilate the prerogative of our consuls, and materially to injure the interest of our merchants. The second gives to our consuls the right of causing our mariners who desert to be arrested. The inexecution of this part of the convention affects beyond all expression, our maritime service, during the stay of our vessels in the American ports. The judges charged by the laws with issuing the mandates of arrest, have lately required the presentation of the original roll of the crew in contempt of the 5th article admitting in the tribunals of both powers copies certified by the consul. Local circumstances in a thousand instances oppose the production of the original roll, and then the seamen are not liable to be apprehended. 4th. The arrestation in the port of Philadelphia in the month of August, 1795, of the captain of the corvette the Cassius for acts committed by him on the high seas. This is contrary to the 19th article of the treaty of commerce which stipulates, "That the commanders of publick and of private vessels shall not be detained in any manner," besides it violates the most obvious law of nations which places the officers of publick vessels under the safeguard of their flag. The United States have had sufficient proofs of deference on the part of the Republick, to count upon its justice in this instance. The captain was imprisoned notwithstanding the consul of the Republick produced bail. Scarcely was he set at liberty when the corvette although very regularly armed at the Cape by general Laveaux, was arrested (and it appears she is still so) under pretext, that eight months before, she sailed from Philadelphia suspected of having armed in that port. Second complaint-The impunity of the outrage committed on the Republick in the person of its minister, the VOL. II. 63 citizen Fauchet by the English ship Africa in concert with the vice consul of that nation. The arrestation in the waters of the United States of the packet boat having citizen Fauchet on board, the search made in the trunks of that minister with the avowed object of seizing his person and papers, merited an example. The insult was committed on the first of August, 1795 (O. S.) the ship all the rest of the month blocked up the Medusa frigate belonging to the Republick at Newport, and did not receive orders to depart till after the sailing of that vessel. For a new outrage on the United States by a menacing letter, the exequatur was withdrawn from the consul merely for having taken a part in the latter insult. Third complaint-The treaty concluded in November, 1794, between the United States and Great Britain. It will be easy to prove that the United States in this treaty have knowingly and evidently sacrificed their connections. with the Republick and the most essential and least contested perogatives of neutrality. 1. The United States besides having departed from the principles established by the armed neutrality during the war for their independence, have given to England to the detriment of their first allies, the most striking mark of an unbounded condescension, by abandoning the limit given to contraband by the law of nations, by their treaties with all other nations, and even by those of England with a greater part of the maritime powers. Is it not evidently straying from the principles of neutrality to sacrifice exclusively to that power the objects proper for the equipment and construction of vessels? 2. They have gone still further. They have consented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provisions. Instead of pointing out particularly as all treaties do, the cases of the effective blockade of a place as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article they have tacitly acknowledged the pretensions raised by England to create blockades in our colonies and even in France by the force of a bare proclamation. This abandonment of the independence of their commerce is incompatible with their neutrality. Mr. Jefferson has himself acknowledged it in his letter of 7th September to the mimister plenipotentiary of the United States at London on |