8. That the English had been permitted to arm privateers in the ports of the United States, and to bring in and repair their prizes.

To this charge the reply was made that the United States had used every effort to prevent violations of neutrality by the English, while French privateers illegally armed in the United States continued on the coast, using the harbors to cruise from.

9. That the United States had permitted England to violate their neutrality by taking enemies' goods out of their ships.

Answer was made that it was not a violation of neutral rights to seize enemies' goods, the rule of free ship free goods resting on treaty.

10. That the United States allowed the French colonies to be declared in a state of blockade, and its citizens to be interdicted the right of trading with them.

Reply was made that the blockade was proclaimed as an actual one, and that it applied equally to all neutrals.

11. That the United States had permitted England to impress their

seamen.

Answer was made that the United States had not assented to such impressment, but had resisted it, and that this resistance had been continued. 12. That the United States had ceased to permit the sale of French prizes in their ports.

Answer was made that such permission was originally granted as a favor, and that the indulgence was withdrawn when it came in conflict with a new and positive stipulation in the treaty with Great Britain, similar to that which France herself contracted with the British Government eight years after her treaty with the United States.

13. That the Government of the United States "suffered England, by insulting its neutrality, to interrupt its commerce with France."

*

Answer: "That our commerce has been interrupted by the armed vessels of England, and sometimes with circumstances of insult, we certainly shall not attempt to deny * *. It was because of those aggressions that preparations for war were commenced; and to demand satisfaction for them was the leading object of Mr. Jay's mission to London. Satisfaction was demanded; and the arrangements agreed on for rendering it are now in execution at London."

14. That the United States had exhibited "ingratitude" to France, and had failed to render the "succors" that might have been given without compromising the government.

Answer was made that while the United States were not disposed to question the importance of the aid actually derived from France, the exertions of France were made for the purpose of advancing her own interests and securing her own safety. But was it true that the United States had rendered no succors to France? In a letter to Mr. Morris of August 16, 1793, the Secretary of State had said: "We recollect with satisfaction, that, in the course of two years, by unceasing exertions, we paid up seven years' arrearages and installments of our debt to France, which the inefficacy of our first form of government had suffered to be accumulating; that, pressing on still to the entire fulfillment of our engagements, we have facilitated to Mr. Genet the effect of the installments of the present year, to enable him to send relief to his fellow

餐

citizens in France, threatened with famine; that, in the first moment of the insurrection which threatened the colony of St. Domingo, we stepped forward to their relief with arms and money, taking freely on ourselves the risk of unauthorized aid, and when delay would have been denial; that we have given 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." "To this detail," said Pickering, “I have to add, that, of all the loans and supplies received from France in the American war, amounting to nearly fifty-three millions of livres, the United States under their late government had been enabled to pay not two millions and a half of livres; that the present government, after paying up the arrearages and installments mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, has been continually anticipating the subsequent installments, until, in the year 1795, the whole of our debt to France was discharged, by anticipating the payment of eleven millions and a half of livres; no part of which would have become due until the second of September 1796, and then only one million and a half; the residue at subsequent periods; the last not until the year 1802."

While these discussions were progressing, the French Decree of July 2, 1796. Government adopted certain measures which prefigured the Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon. On the 1st of June 1796, the President of the United States approved an act of Congress, making it the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a form which, when approved by the President, should be used as the form of a passport for American vessels. This measure bore evidence of a desire to secure protection for such vessels by an amicable arrangement. On the other hand the French Directory on the 2d of July 1796, made the following decree:

"The Executive Directory, considering that, if it becomes the faith of the French nation to respect treaties or conventions which secure to the flags of some neutral or friendly powers commercial advantages, the result of which is to be common to the contracting powers, those same advantages, if they should turn to the benefit of our enemies, either through the weakness of our allies, or of neutrals, or through fear, through interested views, or through whatever motives, would, in fact, warrant the inexecution of the articles in which they were stipulated, decrees as follows:

"All neutral or allied powers shall, without delay, be notified that the flag of the French republic will treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them."2

Agents.

Under this decree widespread and indiscriminate Decrees of Special depredations were committed on the commerce of the United States. But it was supplemented by other decrees issued by special agents of the Directory in various places. On the 1st of August 1796 the special agents to the Windward Islands promulgated a decree declaring all vessels laden with articles "designated by

1 Stats. at L. 489.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 577. See Davis's Notes, Treaty Volume, 1778-1887, p. 1300.

the name of contraband, as arms, instruments, munitions of war of what kind soever, horses and their furniture," should be seized and confiscated. This decree, besides taking no account of the destination of such articles, was enforced without regard to the forms of legal procedure.' By the special agents of the Directory to the Leeward Islands a decree was issued on the 27th of November 1796, directing the capture of "American vessels bound to English ports, or coming from the said ports," and their detention in the ports of the colony till otherwise ordered. This decree was understood to come within the intention of the decree of the Directory itself, and was, at least in some places, so construed. On the 1st of February 1797, the special agents of the Directory to the Windward Islands issued another decree authorizing the capture and condemnation as prize of all neutral vessels destined to any of the Windward or Leeward islands held by the English and occupied and defended by the French emigrants.1

Pinckney.

Against these decrees the United States protested in Refusal to receive vain. For three years the relations between the two countries had remained in a state of uncertainty which it was impossible to preserve. The ratification of the Jay Treaty brought on a crisis which was sure sooner or later to come. By fixing the position of the United States as a neutral, it ended the irreconcilable conflict between the policy of actual, substantial neutrality, which the United States had from the beginning sought to maintain, and the policy-based partly on the treaties of 1778 as France interpreted them, and partly on considerations of sympathy-which Genet and his successors commended, but which could not long have retained even the name of neutrality. The French Government, besides issuing the decrees which have just been described, recalled its minister from the United States, and reduced the grade of the mission. Monroe was recalled, and in his place was sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, a brother of Thomas Pinckney, who was then minister to England. Pinckney was particularly charged to press the claims for spoliations. He arrived in Paris early in December, and just as the arrangements for his reception seemed to be complete the minister of foreign affairs informed Monroe that the Executive Directory had decided "that it will no longer recognize nor receive a minister plenipotentiary from the United States until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French republic has a right to expect." The Directory refused to give Pinckney a permit to sojourn in Paris as a private stranger, and afterward sent him a notice to quit the territories of the republic. He then retired to Amsterdam to await developments."

995

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 749, 759.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 748-752.

3 Trescot's American Diplomatic History, 162-171; Monroe's View of the Conduct of the Executive in Foreign Affairs.

4 Am. State Papers For. Rel. I. 742. 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 746.

6 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 10.

Decree of March 2, 1797.

On the 2d of March 1797, the Directory promulgated a new decree by which it was ordered that neutral ships laden in whole or in part with enemy's property should be captured, and that all such property found on board should be deemed good prize. By a singular process of reasoning it further declared that by the operation of the most-favored-nation clause the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778 was to be considered as modified by the provisions of the Jay Treaty, in the following particulars:

1. That all enemy's property and all property "not sufficiently ascertained to be neutral, conveyed under American flags, shall be confiscated." 2. That to the list of contraband in the treaty of 1778 should be added articles used in arming and equipping vessels.

3. That Americans accepting commissions from the enemies of France, or serving as seamen in enemies' vessels, should be treated as pirates.

4. That every American ship should be deemed good prize, which should not have on board a crew list (rôle d'équipage) in the form prescribed by the model annexed to the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, the observance of which was required by the twenty-fifth and twentyseventh articles.

The part of the foregoing decree that bore most hardly on American ships was that in regard to the documentation of vessels. By the twentyfifth article of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, in order to avoid disputes, it was agreed that in case either of the contracting parties should be engaged in war, the vessels of the other should be furnished with sea letters or passports expressing the name, property, and bulk of the ship, and the name and residence of the master, according to the form annexed to the treaty, and also with certificates showing the character of the cargo and the places of its origin and destination. By the twenty-seventh article it was provided that, in case a ship should be visited, she should, on exhibition by the master of his passport concerning the property of the ship, made out according to the form annexed to the treaty, be at liberty to pursue her voyage free from molestation or search. By that form, the oath concerning the property of the ship was required to be annexed to the passport, but no other paper was required to be so annexed. By various acts of Congress provision was made for the documentation of vessels, including the matters referred to in the treaty of 1778. Particular rules were established as to registry, ownership, tonnage, and crew list. When the decree of March 2, 1797, was issued, American vessels had for years been carrying the documents prescribed by the acts of Congress, and though the war had been in progress for four years no others had been required. The decree, therefore, amounted to a declaration of general and summary confiscation of American vessels. Moreover, the old marine ordinances of France were revived and enforced with severity, both in Europe and the West Indies. Informalities in bills of lading, crew lists, or other papers were made a ground of condemnation, though the proofs of property were indubitable; and in many cases in the West Indies, when vessels were brought to

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 12, 30, 180.

21 Stats. at L. 31, 53, 288, 289, 290.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 180, 302.

trial, they and their cargoes were condemned without admitting the owners or their agents to make defense. In a report of February 28, 1798, Pickering summarized the depredations on American commerce as follows: (1) Spoliation and maltreatment of their vessels at sea by French ships of war and privateers. (2) A distressing and long-continued embargo on their vessels at Bordeaux in the years 1793-1794. (3) The nonpayment of bills and other evidences of debts due drawn by the colonial administrations in the West Indies. (4) The seizure or forced sales of the cargoes of vessels, and the appropriation of them to public use, without paying for them, or paying inadequately, or delaying payment for a great length of time. (5) The nonperformance of contracts made by the agents of the government for supplies. (6) The condemnation of vessels and cargoes under such of the marine ordinances of France as were incompatible with the treaties subsisting between the two countries. (7) Captures, detentions, and condemnations under various decrees which have been described.

At the opening of the first session of the Fifth ConMission of Pinckney, gress, on May 16, 1797, President Adams referred to the Marshall, and Gerry. state of the relations with France, and recommended the consideration of effectual measures of defense. In particular he adverted to the depredations on American commerce, in violation of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, and to the speech made by Barras, the president of the Directory, when Monroe, on the 30th of December 1796 took his formal leave.3 Desirous, however, of trying all possible means of conciliation, President Adams, on the 31st of May 1797, nomi

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 28-29. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 748.

3 Barras said: "By presenting to-day your letters of recall to the Executive Directory, you offer to Europe a very strange spectacle. France, rich in her liberty, surrounded by a train of victories, and strong in the esteem of her allies, will not stoop to calculate the consequences of the condescention of the American Government to the wishes of its former tyrants. The French republic expects, however, that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous friendship of the French people with the crafty caresses of certain perfidious persons who meditate to bring them again under their former yoke. Assure the good American people, sir, that like them we adore liberty; that they will always possess our esteem; and that they will find in the French people that republican generosity which knows how to grant peace, as well as to cause its sovereignty to be respected. As to you, Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary, you have combatted for principles; you have known the true interests of your country: depart with our regret. In you we give up a representative to America, and retain the remembrance of the citizen whose personal qualities did honor to that title." (Am. State Paper For. Rel. II. 12.) "The moment this speech was concluded, the Directory, accompanied by the diplomatic corps, passed into the audience hall to receive from an aid-de-camp of Bonaparte the four Austrian colors taken at the battle of Arcola. The diplomatic corps may therefore be presumed to have witnessed this indignity." (Davis's Notes, Treaty Vol., 1776-1887, p. 1302.)