Act of June 14, 1797. to the French government. In October, 1796, the Circuit Court dismissed the proceedings upon the technical ground that jurisdiction properly belonged to the District Court. The French minister refused to acknowledge property in the vessel with the intention of holding the United States government responsible for the loss. Just what answer the court would have given to the question, whether the subsequent transfer of the vessel to the French government should exempt it from confiscation because of illegal acts committed before the transfer, it is difficult to say. The action of the government in refusing to interfere to take the vessel from the custody of the judiciary would seem to indicate that it favored holding the vessel responsible; and this attitude is supported by Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, in a letter of October 1, 1795, to the French minister on the ground that otherwise "the design of the law, the prevention of illegally fitting out privateers, would generally be defeated; transfers would be promptly made, on purpose to evade the law." It may be suggested that as forfeiture of the vessel immediately operated upon the conviction of the person concerned in the unlawful act of arming it, the principle could be advanced that no subsequent transfer could be valid under the circumstances. On May 16, 1797, shortly after his accession to the presidency, John Adams delivered an address to Congress in which he called attention to the fact that, under the guise of armed merchantmen, privateers were being fitted out in the ports of the United States. "It remains," he said, "for Congress to prescribe such regulations as will enable our seafaring citizens to defend themselves against violations of the law of nations [in the form of piracy], and at the same time restrain them from committing acts of hostility against the Powers at war." In addition, he mentioned "that some of our citizens resident abroad, have fitted out privateers, and others have voluntarily taken the command, or entered on board of them, and committed spoliations on the commerce of the United States." In response to the call of the President, on June 14, 1797, Congress passed a bill entitled "An Act to prevent citizens of the United States from privateering against nations in amity with, or against citizens of the United States." The act goes a step further than the Act of 1794, first, by providing punishment for acts committed "without the limits of" the United States, and secondly, by inserting the clause "or upon the citizens of 114 Fed. Cases, No. 7,743. 2Am. State Papers, For. Rel., I, 634. the United States, or their property" after the clause "to cruise or commit hostilities, upon the subjects, citizens or property of any prince or state with whom the United States are at peace.' The position of the United States in relation to the wars between France and Europe remained for more than a decade a source of great anxiety to the several cabinets which succeeded to that of Washington. Evident as were the sympathies of Jefferson with the French republic in 1793, his attitude had changed notably by the time of his election. to the presidency. Relations with France had become greatly strained during the year 1797 owing to the attempt on the part of the French Directory to intimidate the American envoys. Republican sympathy for France yielded before the Federal cry of "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Under successive decrees issued by the French Directory between 1793 and 1799, American commerce had been subjected to embargoes in French ports and to ruinous restrictions in trade; and although a convention was concluded with Napoleon as First Consul in 1799, securing better terms for neutrals, no indemnity was obtained for the losses suffered by American merchants. In 1803 war again broke out between France and England. The Jefferson's policy in 1803. Republicans had come into power, but there was no clamor for an alliance with France. In his message to Congress on October 17, 1803, Jefferson expressed his "gratitude to that kind Providence which, inspiring with wisdom and moderation our late legislative councils while placed under the urgency of the greatest wrongs, guarded us from hastily entering into the sanguinary contest." He then proceeded to outline the attitude of neutrality which the government intended to pursue. In the course of this conflict let it be our endeavor, as it is our interest and desire, to cultivate the friendship of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and of innocent kindness; to re1 For the text of the Act, see App., p. 176. As far as regards the act of privateering against citizens of the United States it would seem that there were already in existence laws which covered that act. Sec. 9 of an "Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," passed on April 30, 1790, provided that "if any citizen shall commit any piracy or robbery aforesaid, or any act of hostility against the United States, or any citizen thereof, upon the high sea, under colour of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretence of authority from any person, such offender shall, notwithstanding the pretence of any such authority, be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a pirate, felon, and robber, and on being thereof convicted shall suffer death." Sec. 8 of the same Act was sufficiently broad to have included the act of cruising or committing hostilities against citizens of the United States independently of any assumed commission from a foreign state; and it was so interpreted in the case of United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat., 610. Neutrality in relation to South American colonial wars. Miranda's expedition. ceive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the sea, but to administer the means of annoyance to none; to establish in our harbors such a police as may maintain law and order; to restrain our citizens from embarking individually in a war in which their country takes no part; to punish severely those persons, citizen or alien, who shall usurp the cover of our flag for vessels not entitled to it, infecting thereby with suspicion those of real Americans and committing us into controversies for the redress of wrongs not our own; to exact from every nation the observance toward our vessels and citizens of those principles and practices which all civilized people acknowledge; to merit the character of a just nation, and maintain that of an independent one, preferring every consequence to insult and habitual wrong. Congress will consider whether the existing laws enable us efficaciously to maintain this course with our citizens in all places and with others while within the limits of our jurisdiction, and will give them the new modifications necessary for these objects.1 The wars of the South American provinces to secure their independence opened up a new period in the history of the neutrality laws of the United States. The collapse of the Spanish monarchy in 1808 and the establishment of Joseph Bonaparte upon the throne loosened the bond between the Spanish colonies and their mother country, and one after another they threw off their allegiance and set up independent governments of their own. For fifteen years the struggle continued, and it was natural that the sympathies of the United States as a nation, and especially of its citizens as individuals, should have gone out to those who were following the example set by the United States in 1776. It was doubtless in many cases not only the cause of liberty which induced American adventurers to take part in the struggle, but the opportunity thereby offered of sharing in the rich harvest of plunder to be obtained by preying upon the commerce of Spain. While the government of the United States strictly refrained from giving any aid to the struggling colonies, it found great difficulty in preventing individual citizens from taking up the cause of the revolutionists. In 1806, two years before the overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty, a serious complication had arisen between the United States and Spain growing out of the alleged failure on the part of the United States to observe its duties as a neutral. Francesco de Miranda, a native of Caracas, had for many years been endeavoring to obtain the support of England, France and the United States for the furtherance of his 1 Richardson's Messages, I, 361. schemes for the liberation of the South American colonies. In Feb ruary, 1806, a military expedition organized in New York by Miranda set sail in a ship named the Leander and proceeded to the northern coast of South America. On April 1st of the following year the expedition encountered the Spanish fleet, and two schooners accompanying the Leander were captured. On board these schooners were thirtysix Americans, who were convicted of piracy by a Spanish tribunal and imprisoned at Carthagena. On September 16, 1808, these prisoners presented a petition to Congress stating that they had been entrapped into the service of General Miranda by assurances from him that they were to be employed in the service of the United States under the authority of the government; moreover, they had no opportunity, they said, to escape from the service of Miranda once they were on board the ship.1 The release of the prisoners was secured at the intervention of the government. In the meantime, Samuel Ogden, the owner of the Leander, and Colonel W. S. Smith, surveyor of the port of New York, were prosecuted for violating the Neutrality Act of 1794 by setting on foot an armed expedition. The defendants set up the allegation that the expedition had been begun with the knowledge of the government, and they summoned as witnesses the Secretary of State and other officers. The court refused to enforce the summons on the ground that the act of the defendants was equally in violation of the statute, whether sanctioned by the President or not. In spite of the evidence produced and of the charge of the judge against the defendants, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. On November 27th of the same year (1806), President Jefferson issued a proclama- Neutrality proclation declaring that information had been received of preparations for mation of 1806. an expedition against the dominions of Spain and warning all persons against taking any part in it. The proclamation was a public answer to the charges made against Jefferson that the expedition led by Miranda had been organized with the knowledge and sympathy of the executive. Seven years later, on September 1, 1815, when the revolutionary Proclamation wars of the South American colonies were at their height, President of 1815. Madison issued a proclamation directed to the same end as that of Jefferson. The Bourbon dynasty had been restored, and diplomatic relations were renewed between the United States and Spain in December of the same year. The Spanish minister, Luis de Onis, who had long been resident in the United States as a private citizen and 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., III, 257. 2United States v. Smith, 27 Fed. Cases, No. 16,342a. Complaints of who had kept a record of violations of the neutrality laws, now began to force these facts upon the attention of the administration. In a letter addressed to the Secretary of State on December 30, 1815, he instances a long series of breaches of neutrality. It was, he said, "universally public and notorious" that bands of insurgents in the province of Louisiana kept up an "uninterrupted system of raising and arming troops to light the flame of revolution in the kingdom of New Spain;" enlistments were being publicly made, and arms transported. There was, he said, at that time a minister of the insurrectionary Mexican Congress in New Orleans who had delivered fifteen hundred blank commissions to be given to officers recruited in the United States. He then requested the President to give orders that the collectors of customs should refuse to admit into the ports of the United States vessels bearing the flag of the insurrectionary colonies.1 In his reply on January 19, 1816, Secretary of State Monroe called attention to the fact that Spain had long neglected to indemnify the United States for the losses suffered by its merchant marine at the hands of Spain. Moreover, there was no evidence forthcoming of any such expeditions as those complained of; there was nothing in the law of nations to require the United States to punish Spanish citizens for crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States. In reply to the demand that the ships of the insurgents be excluded from the ports of the United States, Monroe informed the minister that, owing to the frequent changes of the ruling authority in the Spanish colonies, the President had given orders to the collectors of customs "not to make the flag of any vessel a criterion or condition of its admission into the ports of the United States."2 In order to ascertain the facts of the case, Monroe applied to the United States district attorney in Louisiana, who answered that while attempts at arming and increasing the force of vessels had been frequent, they had been "in no instance successful, except where conducted under circumstances of concealment that eluded discovery and almost suspicion, or where carried on at some remote point of the coast beyond the reach of detection or discovery." He enclosed a list of eight persons who had been prosecuted during the year 1815, of six vessels libelled for illegal outfits, and of nine vessels restored to their owners because the ships which captured them had been armed or had increased their force. within the waters of the United States.3 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., IV, 423. 2Ibid. 425. 3Ibid. 432. |