lated was to operate at different periods; that is, at one time in favour of one of the contracting parties, and of the other at another time. At the present time, the United States being at peace, they possess by the treaty the right of carrying the goods of the enemies of France, without subjecting them to capture. But what do the spirit of the decree of the executive di rectory and the current of your observations require? - That the United States should now gratuitoufly renounce this right. And what reason is affigned for denying to us the enjoyment of this right? Your own words furnish the answer: "France, bound by treaty to the United States, could find only a real disadvantage in the articles of that treaty, which caused to be respected, as American property, English property found on board American veffels." This requifition, and the reason afsigned to fupport it, alike excite surprize. The American government, t, onfcious of the purity of its intentions, of its impartial observance of the laws or neutranty, and of its inviolable regard to treaties, cannot for a moment admit, that it has forfeited the right to claim a reciprocal observance of stipula tions on the part of the French republic, whose friendship moreover it has every reason to cultivate with the most perfect fincerity. This right, formerly infringed by a decree of the national convention, was recognized anew by the repeal of that decree. Why it should be again questioned we are at a loss to determine. We are ignorant of any new reftraints on our commerce by the British government; on the contrary, we poffefs recent official information, that no new orders have been issued. The captures made by the British of American vessels, having French property on board, are warranted by the law of nations. The force and operation of this law was contemplated by France and the United States, when they formed their treaty of commerce, and their special stipulation on this point was meant as an exception to an universal rule; neither our weakness nor our strength have any choice, when the question concerns the observance of a known rule of the law of nations. You are pleased to remark, that the conduct of Great Britain, in capturing vessels bound to and from French ports, had been the subject of a note, which on the 29th of September, 1795, was au dressed to the secretary of state, but which remained without an answer. Very fufficient reasons may be affigned for the omiffion. The subject, in all its afpects, had been officially and publicly difcuffed, and the principles and ultimate measures of the United States, founded on their indifputable rights, were as publicly fixed. " But if the subject had not, by the previous difcuffions, been already exhausted, can it be a matter of surprise that there should be a repugnance to answer a letter containing such infinuations as these? "It must then be clear to every man, who will discard prejudices, love, hatred, and, in a word, all the paffions which lead the judgment aftray, that the French republic have a right to complain, if the American government fuffered the English to interrupt the commercial relations which exift be tween tween her and the United States; if by a perfidious condescension it permitted the English to violate a right which it ought, for its own honour and interest, to defend; if, under the cloak of neutrality, it presented to England a poniard to cut the throat of its faithful ally: if, in fine, partaking in the tyrannical and homicidal rage of Great Britain, it concurred to plunge the people of France into the horrors of famine!" For the fake of preserving harmony, filence was preferred to a comment upon these infinuations. You are also pleased to refer to your letters of March and April last, relative to impresses of American seamen by British ships, and complain that the government of the United States had not made known to you the steps they had taken to obtain fatisfaction. This, fir, was a matter which concerned only that government. As an independent nation, we are not bound to render an account to any other of the measures we deemed proper for the protection of our own citizens; solong as there was not the flightest ground to fufpect that the government ever acquiesced in any aggreffion. But permit me to recur to the fubject of the decree of the executive directory. As before observed, we are officially informed that the British government have issued no new orders for capturing the vessels of the United States. We are also officially informed, that on the appearance of the notification of that decree, the minifter of the United States at Paris applied for information, "Whether orders were issued for the seizure of neutral vessels, and was informed, that no fuch order was issued, and further, that no fuch order would be issued, in cafe the British did not feize feize our veffels." This communication from the minister, of the United States, at Paris, to their minifter at London, was dated the 28th of August; but the decree of the directory bears date the 14th Meffidor, answering to the 2d of July. These circumstances, together with some obfervations in your note, leave the American government in a state of uncertainty of the real intentions of the government in France. Allow me then to ask, whether, in the actual state of things, our commerce is confidered as liable to fuffer any new restrictions on the part of the French republic? Whether the restraints now exercised by the British government are confidered as of a nature to justify a denial of those rights, which are pledged to us by our treaty with your nation? Whether orders have been actually given to the ships of war of the French republic to capture the veffels of the United States? And what, if they exist, are the precise terms of those orders? The questions, fir, you will fee, are highly interefting to the United States. It is with extreme concern that the government finds itself reduced to the neceflity of asking an explanation of this nature; and if it shall be informed that a new line of conduct is to be adopted towards this country, on the ground of the decree referred to, its furprise will equal its regret, that principles should now be questioned, which, after repeated discussions, both here and in France, have been demonftrated to be founded, as we X3 conceive, conceive, in the obligations of impartial neutrality, of ttipulations by treaty, and of the law of nations. I hope, fir, you will find it convenient by an early answer, to reremove the suspense in which the government of the United States is now held on the question above stated. I shall close this letter by one remark on the fingularity of your caufing the publication of your note. As it concerned the United States, it was properly addressed to its government, to which alone pertained the right of commumunicating it in such time and manner as it should think fit to the citizens of the United States. I am, fir, with great respect, your most obedient servant, TIMOTHY PICKERING. United States, Philadelphia, Νου. 3. To M. Adet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic. Substance of the memorial presented by Citizen Adet to the American Secretary for Foreign Affairs, previous to bis announcing that he was no Longer to be confidered as the Minifter of the French republic. THE minifter of the French republic, through the whole of his note, speaks as acting under the express orders from the executive directory. After expreffing the attachment of his government for the American people, he complains, in the name of the directory, of a violation on the part of our executive of the 17th article of the treaty of 1778. The first part of that article stipulates, that the French shall be at liberty to bring their prizes into our ports without its being lawful for any of our officers to take cognizance of their validity. In contempt of this ftipulation, he states that several French prizes brought into our ports have been seized, tried, and restored to their original owners, with various degrees of delay, vexation, injustice and injury. He complains, that the English were fuffered to arm in our ports in various instances, and that the complaints of the agents of the French republic ever proved ineffectual in stopping them. Persons suspected of having afsisted in arming French privateers were immediately thrown into prifon, while those concerned in arming British vessels were never molested : the executive in these instances exhibiting an evident partiality for the English and no regard for the maintenance of their neutrality. The second stipulation in article 17th, prohibits all English ships that shall have made French prizes from entering our ports. Our executive have, in their construction of this ftipulation, confined its prohibitory effect to British vessels attempting to come in with their prizes The minister protests, in the name of the directory, againft the propriety of this construction. He confiders it as an attenipt to add to, not to explain, the article. Even on the supposition that the article is doubtful, he infifts on the impropriety of an ex parte conftruction. He cites fundry examples of English ships of war having entered our ports, contrary to this ftipulation, having made them convenient stations the better to annoy the French, and having, even contrary to the forced interpretation given to the 17th article by our executive, brought their prizes into our ports, and there refitted them to cruize againft the French. The 1 The minister next adverts to The minifter proceeds to proteft, Jay's miffion. He states, that France was deceived by the declarations of our executive when that business was set on foot; and that the directory confiders the British treaty as depriving France of all the advantageous Ripulations intended to be secured to her by the treaty of 1778, as tending to render the neutrality of America advantageous to England to the detriment of France. This treaty abandons the modern law of nations, which even England had fanctioned in eleven treaties, and we in every prior commercial treaty with European nations. It gives the Englith the facility of obtaining the transportation of naval stores and warlike implements whithersoever they please under the shelter of the American flag, while this facility is denied to France; and thus it changes, during the war, the respective footing of the belligerent powers with refpect to us. The treaty he further states, cuts off the fupplies of provisions, which France looked for from this country, by ftipulating that the British may in every fituation feize our provifion vessels bound to the ports of their enemies. In short, he confiders it as a breach of our neutrality, unless the French be allowed to partake in the advantages it holds out to Great Britain. He also claims this participation in pursuance of the second article of the treaty of 1778, which grants the French all the advantages of commerce and navigation enjoyed by the most favoured nations. And in this point of view the orders to the French vessels of war to treat the American flag in every respect as we shall fuffer it to be treated by the English have been iffued. in the name and by the orders of the executive directory, against the violation of the 17th article. He claims replevy of all seizures, and the annulling of all judicial acts with respect to the French prizes, and protests against all oppofition to the sale of prizes. He protests against the violation of the fame articles by our admitting into our ports British armed vessels, and against the interpretation put by our executive upon that article. He declares, that the directory confiders our treaty with Britain as a violation of their treaty with us, and as equivalent to a treaty of alliance with that nation; and, in consequence, orders him to fufpend his minifterial functions here. The directory declare, that they do not wish this measure to be confidered in the light of a rupture, but as a mark of their sense of injury, which is to last until they can obtain fatisfaction. They reiterate their expreffions of friendship for the people, notwithstanding the wrongs of the executive. The minifter concludes by frating, that the French republic always had it at heart to cultivate harmony by a mutual interchange of good offices; but that our adminiftration have as conftantly endeavoured to break afunder the ties which connect the two nations. Early under the republic, the French colonies were opened to us; the ports of France alfo on the fame footing as to their own vessels. When England violated the neutral flag, France, obliged to make use of reprisals, exempted from the measure the Americans; and though forced, for a while, much againft their inclination, to withdraw the X4 exemption, exemption, they early renewed it. While France was thus, even during the tempeft of a revolution, treating the Americans with marked attention; what, asks the note, where the executive of the United States employed in? They were questioning whether they would acknowledge the republic and receive their ambaffador; whether they should confider the treaty, the price of American liberty, as binding; whether the envoys from exiled and rebellious princes should be received; an ambiguous proclamation of neutrality was framed; French privateers were harrassed; England was fuffered to sport with our neutrality, and to cut up our commerce to the detriment of France; English ships of war were admitted in our ports; the advances of France for a renewal of the treaty of commerce were eluded under the most frivolous pretexts, while our executive courted the British, and folicited a treaty, by which, prostituting our neutrality, we facrificed France to her enemies; and this whilst a review of late events, whilft every object around still reminds us of the tyranny of Britain, and the generous assistance of France. The note concludes by calling on Americans to remember, that, if generous minds are alive to injuries, they can forgive; and that the French, when they are treated as friends, will still be found faithful friends and ge generous allies. The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic with the United States of America, to the French Citizens who refide or travel in the United States. CITIZENS, FROM the dawn of our revolution, the tri-coloured cockade bas been the rallying point of those energetic men, whose generous efforts gave the first blow to arbitrary power. At their call, the French nation, bent for centuries under the yoke, thook off that long drowfiness; twenty-four millions of men adopted that august symbol; they exclaimed, "We shall be free," and all oppofition was defeated, and the throne tumbled down in the duft, and all Europe armed againft them, has been vanquished. The republic decorates all her citizens with those national colours, the facred symbol of liberty which they have won. Frenchmen who are abfent from their native land ought not, amidst nations allied with theirs, lay afide the distinctive mark which, by making them known, secures to them the protection and reciprocal respect guaranteed by our treaties with those nations. Those who, from a guilty indifference, thould flight the right, exempt themselves from that duty - those could lay no claim to that protection, they would renounce the support of the agents of the republic. But, citizens, I am perfuaded that at the call of the minifter of the French republic, you will haften to put on the symbol of a liberty, which is the fruit of eight years toils and privations and of five years victories. Thus you will draw a line of demarcation between you and those contemptible beings, whose unfeeling hearts are callous to the facred name of native land, to the noble pride with which the freeman is animated |