L. S. 224 April, 1793. By the PRESIDENT of the United States of America. WH A PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS it appears that a ftate of war exifts between Auftria, Pruffia, Sardinia, Great-Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other, and the duty and intereft of the United States require, that they should with fincerity and good faith adopt and fue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers: pur I have therefore thought fit by thefe prefents to declare the difpofition of the United States to obferve the conduct aforefaid towards those powers refpectively; and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in any manner tend to contravene fuch difpofition. And I do hereby alfo make known that whosoever of the citizens of the United States fhall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding or abetting hoftilities against any of the faid powers, or by carrying to any of them thofe articles, which are deemed contraband by the modern ufage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against fuch punishment or forfeiture: and further, that I have given inftructions to thofe officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be inftituted against all perfons, who fhall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the Law of Nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any of them. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have caufed the Seal of the United States of By the President. GO. WASHINGTON. TH: JEFFERSON. a number ready for sea, he proceeded to the seat of the national government by land. On the way he incited the people to hostility against Great Britain, and received such demonstrations of sympathy as to strengthen his confidence in the success of the course on which he had entered. The posture of affairs between the United States and France was complicated and difficult. By the treaty of commerce of 1778, the ships of war and privateers of the one country were entitled to enter the ports of the other with their prizes, without being subjected to any examination as to their lawfulness, while cruisers of the enemy were in like circumstances to be excluded, unless in case of stress of weather. By the treaty of alliance, the United States, as has been seen, had guaranteed to France her possessions in America. For the moment, however, the situation was much simplified by reason of the fact that the French Republic did not ask of the United States the execution of the territorial guarantee. This may be accounted for by either of The general arming of the whole population and the exhaustive devotion of the resources of the country to military purposes had caused a scarcity in France both of money and of provisions. The United States, as a neutral, formed a source of supply of both. An intimation to this effect was made by the French government to Morris not long before the issuance of Washington's proclamation of two reasons. neutrality; and the same idea was strongly expressed in a report of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, in June, 1793, in which it was said that the United States became "more and more the granary of France and her colonies.' But there may have been yet another reason. It is not improbable that the National Assembly, while balancing the advantages of American neutrality against those of the treaty of alliance, doubted whether the guarantee was precisely applicable to the conditions then existing. This doubt is suggested by the original instructions to Genêt, which, although they were given before the conflict with England began, were written in contemplation of hostilities with that country as well as with Spain; and in these instructions, which looked to the formation of a new commercial and political connection with the United States, adapted to the conditions which the French Revolution had produced, Genêt was directed to bring about "a national agreement, in which two great peoples shall suspend their commercial and political interests, and establish a mutual understanding to defend the empire of liberty, wherever it can be embraced." When Genêt arrived in Philadelphia, an unqualified reception was promptly accorded him. In presenting his letters of credence, he stated that his government knew that "under present circumstances" they had a right to call upon the United States for the guarantee of their islands, but declared that they did not desire it; in a subsequent communication, he proposed that the two peoples should, "by a true family compact, establish a commercial and political system" on a "liberal and fraternal basis." The administration, however, was indisposed to quixotic enterprises. On the contrary, it was soon fully occupied with its efforts to vindicate its proclamation of neutrality, which was constantly violated by the fitting-out of privateers, the condemnation of prizes by French consuls sitting as courts of admiralty, and even by the capture of vessels within the jurisdiction of the United States. These proceedings, in which he was himself directly implicated, Genêt defended as being in conformity not only with the treaties between the two countries, but also with the principles of neutrality. When Jefferson cited the utterances of writers on the law of nations, Genêt repelled them as "diplomatic subtleties" and as "aphorisms of Vattel and others." He especially insisted that, by the treaty of commerce of 1778, the authorities of the United States were precluded from interfering in any manner with the prizes brought into their ports by the French privateers. The United States, on the other hand, denied that the contracting parties, in agreeing that prizes should not be subject to examination as to their lawfulness, deprived themselves of the right to prevent the capture and condemnation of vessels in violation of their own neutrality and sovereignty. In the correspondence to which these differences gave rise, Jefferson, always perspicacious in his deductions from fundamental principles, expounded with remarkable clearness and power the nature and scope of neutral duty. Its foundations he discovered in two simple conceptions-the_exclusive Sovereignty of the nation within its own territory and the obligation of impartiality towards belligerents. As it was "the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits," so it was, he declared, "the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers." Hence, "no succor should be given to either, unless stipulated by treaty, in men, arms, or anything else, directly serving for war." The raising of troops and the granting of military commissions were, besides, sovereign rights, which, as they pertained exclusively to the nation itself, could not be exercised within its territory by a foreign power, without its consent; and if the United States had "a right to refuse permission to arm vessels and raise men" within its ports and territories, it was "bound by the laws of neutrality to exercise that right, and to prohibit such armaments and enlistments." Such, briefly summarized, was the theory of neutral duty formulated by Jefferson. But the admin |