It cannot escape you, citizen minister, that the argu ments of Mr. Jefferson, concerning the order of the 8th June, apply conclusively to the decree of the 9th May; and that to them are to be added, those arguments which are to be drawn from the hardship of being absolutely compelled, without any alternative, to part with the cargoes in France, and those also which are drawn from the duties imposed by an express and solemn treaty.

Nothing can demonstrate more conclusively the real temper of the United States, than the difference between the reception given to the decree of the convention of the 9th May, and that which was given to the order of the British cabinet of the 8th June.

A large number of American vessels too were for a long time detained at Bordeaux, very much to the injury of the owners, without assigning a motive for such detention, or putting it in the power of the government to conjecture the cause of a measure, which so deeply affected the interest of their fellow citizens-These and other embarrassments were experienced, but they could not diminish the attachment of the United States to France. In the midst of them, prayers were offered up, through the whole extent of the American continent, for the success of this Republick. The government, feeling the same sentiment, displayed it, at least as far as was compatible with the decent deportment required from a nation not a party in the war, and professing neutrality. Such would not have been the conduct of a government and people, in secret unfriendly to France.

Very strong and just resentments were at that time inspired by the hostile conduct of Britain. The instructions of June, 1793, whereby American vessels, laden with provisions for France, were brought into the ports of Britain, there to sell such cargoes, or to give security to sell them in other ports in amity with England, and the still more offensive order of November the 6th, in the same year, whereby vessels laden with the produce of a French colony, or carrying provisions to such colony, were ordered to be brought in for adjudication; added to the pre-existing causes of mutual irritation, had produced such a state of things, as to render it obvious, that the injuries complained of by America must be entirely done away, or that war, was the inevitable consequence.

This state of things was not so altered by the order of the 8th of January, 1794, revoking that of the sixth of November, 1793, as to promise a different result. But as a nation preferring peace to war will ever make a peaceful demand of reparation for injuries sustained, before that reparation is sought by the sword, and as the policy of America has ever been, "to pursue peace with unremitting zeal, before the last resource, which has so often been the Scourge of nations, and could not fail to check the advanced prosperity of the United States, was contemplated;" an envoy extraordinary was deputed to his Britannick majesty. "Carrying with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of his country, it was expected that he would vindicate its rights with firmness, and cultivate peace with sincerity."

Truly desirous, as the American government was, of preserving peace with Britain, its determination was unalterable, not to preserve it, nor to receive compensation for injuries sustained, nor security against their future commission, at the expense of the smallest of its engagements to France. Explicit and positive instructions to this effect were given to Mr. Jay, and those instructions were freely communicated to the minister of this Republick, then at Philadelphia. The negotiation of the American envoy terminated in a treaty in many respects desirable to the United States.

But however desirable its objects might be, the government of the United States would not have hesitated to reject them, had they been accompanied with any stipulation violating or weakening its engagements to France. But it has been able to discern no such stipulation.-The twenty-fifth article of that treaty guards the rights of this Republick by the following clause: "Nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate, contrary to former and existing publick treaties with other sovereigns or states." The treaty with France being a "former and existing publick treaty," and it being thus provided that nothing contained in the treaty with Britain, "should be construed or operate contrary to it," the government of the United States did not apprehend that the treaty with Britain could be considered as affecting its relations to France. But such was its attention to its ally, that' the instrument was, previous to its ratification, submitted

to the consideration of the minister of this Republick, who was invited to communicate freely to the government of the United States, such observations upon it as he might judge proper. Mr. Adet, in a letter addressed to Mr. Randolph, dated 12th Messidor, 3d year of the French Republick, (30th June, 1795) expresses his sense of this procedure in the following words: "This frank measure is to me a sure guaranty of the friendship of the American government towards France, and of the fidelity with which It always marks its conduct towards a faithful ally." He then stated those reflections to which the reading of the treaty had given birth. The articles which relate to enemy goods in neutral bottoms, are mentioned without a comment. He contended, that the list of contraband was swelled, and that the 23d, 24th and 25th articles of the treaty with Britain, ceded to that power advantages inconsistent with the previous cessions to France. This letter was answered by Mr. Randolph, on the 6th of July following, who proves, that no article was enumerated in the list of contraband, in the treaty between the United States and Britain, which was not of that description, previous to its formation, and independent of it; noticed briefly the subject of enemy goods in neutral bottoms; and demonstrated, that the objections of Mr. Adet to the 23d, 24th, and 25th articles were entirely founded on a misconstruction of them. This misconstruction was so apparent, that Britain has never claimed it, nor would the American government ever have admitted it. The letter of Mr. Randolph closes the subject of enemy contraband and of enemy property taken out of neutral bottoms, with a paragraph, to which, citizen minister, your attention is solicited: "Hitherto, however, (says he) I have spoken upon principles of right. Upon any other principles, and more especially upon those of hardship and injury to a friend, it shall be a topick of the negotiation now opening between us. With the temper which will pervade the whole of it, I cannot doubt, that some modification may be devised, and it may be separated from the general treaty, so as not to be delayed by it."

It was then apparent, that the government of the United States, actuated by that friendship which transcends the line of strict obligation, was willing, gratuitously, to reIcase her ally from those stipulations of a former treaty,

which, in the course of events, were deemed, to operate unfavourably to her. This readiness to concede, marked that friendship the more strongly, as the situations in which the two nations found themselves could not have been unforeseen, but was the very situation for which the article provides. The answer of Mr. Randolph concludes, with requesting an opportunity to remove any remaining doubts, should there be such, by further explanations: no remaining doubts were stated, and therefore, as well as for its contents, the letter was believed to be entirely satisfactory to Mr. Adet, and it was hoped, that this government, as well as that of America, would consider the treaty with Britain as an accommodation desirable by the United States, and not disadvantageous to France.

It is not easy to express the chagrin felt by the American government on learning, that in this treaty the United States were supposed to have "knowingly and evidently sacrificed their connexions with this Republick, and the most essential and least contested prerogatives of neutrality." With the firmness of conscious integrity, the United States aver, that they have never knowingly sacrificed or impaired their connexions with this Republick, nor the prerogatives of neutrality; but that they have, according to their best judgment, invariably sought to preserve both.

The undersigned will endeavour faithfully to state the impressions of the government they represent on this interesting subject. The objections made to this treaty by your predecessor in office, in his note to Mr. Monroe, dated 19th of Ventose, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible (9th March, 1796) are,

1st. That the United States, besides having departed from the principles established by the armed neutrality, have given to England, to the detriment of their first allies, the most striking mark of an unbounded condescension, by abandoning the limits given to contraband by the law of nations, by their treaties with all other nations, and even by those of England with the greater part of the maritime powers.

2d. That 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 acknowledg

ed the pretensions raised by England, to create blockades in the colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation.

Mr. Adet, in his letter to Mr. Pickering, dated 25th Brumaire, 5th year of the French Republick, one and in- divisible, (15th November, 1796,) has repeated the same objections, and has been pleased also to superadd some observations relative to the formation of such a treaty generally, and the circumstances attending its negotiation, in terms not to have been expected by the first, and almost only voluntary friend of this Republick.

These having been the only specifick objections officially made to the treaty with Britain, by the government of France, either in Paris or in Philadelphia, are necessarily supposed to be the only objections which have occurred.

They have often been discussed on the part of the United States, but that discussion will be renewed, because, although the undersigned may be unable to suggest any argument not heretofore urged, they cannot resist the hope, that an attentive reconsideration of those arguments may give them a success which has not yet attended them.

The first objection may be supposed to consist of two parts. 1st. The abandonment of the principle, that neutral bottoms, make neutral goods; an objection rather insinuated than expressed; and 2dly, the addition to the catalogue of contraband.

1st. On the first part of the objection, it is observable, that the statements of the late minister of exterior relations, and of Mr. Adet, seem to admit, but certainly do not controvert the position, that previous to the formation of the armed neutrality, a belligerent power could rightfully take out of the bottoms of a neutral the goods of its enemy. This position is believed to be uncontrovertible; some of the arguments in support of it have been already detailed, and it is deemed unnecessary to repeat or to add to them. To this principle of the armed neutrality, with a departure from which the United States seem to be impliedly charged, the note of M. de la Croix does not assign any obligation whatever; nor does he appear to consider it as having been engrafted by that confederation on the law of nations. On this point Mr. Adet has not been more expli