well as I recollect) call the sum paid then 1,252,407 dollars 60 cents. By the Treasury Report, page 38 (new edition), it appears that the surplus of domestic revenue to the end of 1790, appropriated to this object, was 1,374,656 dollars 10 cents; and page 34, that the moneys drawn from Europe on account of the foreign loans, were not the instrument of these purchases; and in some part, to which I am not able to turn, I recollect pretty certainly that it is said these purchases were actually carried to account, as was proper, against the domestic surplus; consequently they are not to be allowed in the foreign account also; or if allowed in this, the sum will then be due from the surplus account, and so must lessen the sum to be borrowed from the sinking fund, which amounts to the same.

2. The first instalment due to the bank-200,000 dollars. Though the first payment of the subscription of the United States to the bank might have been on the first instant, out of the foreign moneys, to be immediately repaid to them by the money borrowed of the bank, yet this useless formality was avoided, and it was a mere operation of the one on paper, without the displacement of a single dollar (see Report, page 12); and in any event the final reimbursement was never to be made out of the foreign fund, which was appropriated solely to the Payment of the FOREIGN and purchase of the GENERAL debt. These two sums, therefore, of 284,901 dollars 89 cents and 200,000 are to be added to the balance of 565,464 dollars 28 cents; subject to future disposition, and will make 1,050,386 17 cents actually here and still to be applied to the proper appropriation.

However, this account, as before observed, being only of a part of the moneys borrowed, no judgment can be formed from it of the expediency of borrowing more; nor should I have stopped to make a criticism on it, but to show why no such sums as the two above mentioned were inserted in the general account sketched for the President, June 5. I must add, that the miscellaneous sum of 49,000 dollars in this account is probably covered by some other articles of that, as far as it is chargeable in this fund; because that account, under one form or another, takes up all the articles chargeable in this fund which had appeared in the printed reports. I must therefore proceed to renew my statement

of June 5, by inserting therein the first instalment of the Dutch loan of 484,000 dollars 40 cents, payable this month, which not having been mentioned in any of the reports heretofore published, was noticed in no statement. I will add a like sum for the year 1794, because I think we should now prepare for the

year.

of that

As the Secretary of the Treasury does not seem to contemplate the purchasing any fixed sum for the sinking fund, I shall leave that article of the account, add to its result any

sum he may decide to have purchased to that fund.

THE TRUST FOR LOANS, Dr.

To net amount of loans to June 1, 1792. the loan now going for 2,000,000 florins.

755,912 dollars.

Cr.

By charges on remittance to France,

By reimbursement to Spain,

By interest paid to foreign officers,

By amount of French debt, principal and interest, payable to end

of year 1791,

By do. for 1792,

By do. for 1793,

By first instalment of Dutch debt, 1st June, 1793,

By instalments and interest to France for 1794,

By instalment to Holland for 1794,

Balance will then remain in hands of the Trust,

$

So that it appears there will be a balance in the hands of the Trust-the clear sum of 499,393 dollars 84 cents-were no moneys to be furnished in the mean time to the sinking fund. But should the President determine to furnish that, with the 90,000 dollars proposed in my statement of June 5, then a loan would be necessary for about 405,000 dollars—in near round numbers, 1,000,000 of guilders, in addition to the 2,000,000 now borrowing. I am, individually, of opinion that that sum ought to be furnished to the sinking fund, and consequently that an additional loan to this

VOL. VI.-20

extent should be made, considering the subject in a legal point of view only. The reasons in favor of the extensions are :

The apprehension of the extension of our war to other Indian nations, and perhaps to Europe itself. The disability this might produce to borrow at all [this is in my judgment a weighty consideration].

The possibility the government of France may become so settled, as that we may hazard the anticipation of payment, and so avoid dead interest.

The reasons against it are :

The possibility that France may continue for some time yet so unsettled as to render an anticipation of payments hazardous.

The risk of losing the capital borrowed, by a successful invasion of the country of deposit, if it be left in Europe; or by an extension of the bankruptcies now shaking the most solid houses; and when and where they will end we know not.

Loss of interest on the dead sum, if the sum itself be safe.

The execution of a power for one object, which was given to be executed for a very different one.

The commitment of the President, on this account, to events, or to the criticisms of those who, though the measure should be perfectly wise, may misjudge it through error or passion.

The apprehension that the head of the department means to provide idle money to be lodged in the banks ready for the corruption of the next legislature, as it is believed the late ones were corrupted, by gratifying particular members with vast discounts for objects of speculation.

I confess that the last reasons have most weight with me.

CABINET OPINION ON FRENCH PRIVATEERS.

J. MSS.

June 17, 1793.

At a meeting of the heads of departments at the President's this day, on summons from him, a letter from Mr. Genet of the 15th inst. addressed to the Secretary of state on the subject of the seizure of a vessel by the Governor of New York, as having been armed, equipped & manned in that port, with a

design to cruize on the enemies of France, was read, as also the draught of an answer prepared by the Secretary of state which was approved.

Read, also, a letter of June 14th from Mr. Hammond to the Secretary of state, desiring to know whether the French privateers, the Citizen Genet, & Sans culottes, are to be allowed to return or send their prizes into the ports of the U. S. It is the opinion that he be informed that they were required to depart to the dominions of their own sovereign, and nothing expressed as to their ulterior proceedings; & that in answer to that part which states that the Sans culottes has increased its force in the port of Baltimore, & remained there in the avowed intention of watching the motions of a valuable ship now lying there, it be answered that we expect the speedy departure of those privateers will obviate the inconveniences apprehended, & that it will be considered whether any practical arrangements can be adopted to prevent the augmentation of the force of armed vessels.

SIR, -I shall now have the honor of answering your letter of the 18th instant, and so much of that of the 14th (both of which have been laid before the President) as relates to a vessel armed in the port of New York and about to depart from thence, but stopped by order of the Government. And here I beg leave to premise, that, the case supposed in your letter, of a vessel arming for her own defence, and to repel unjust aggressions, is not that in question, nor that on which I mean to answer, because not having yet happened, as far as is known to the Government, I have no instructions on the subject. The case in question is that of a vessel armed, equipped, and manned in a port of the United States, for the purpose of committing hostilities on nations at peace with the United States.

As soon as it was perceived that such enterprises would be at

tempted, orders to prevent them, were dispatched to all the States and ports of the Union. In consequence of these, the Governor of New York, receiving information that a Sloop, heretofore called the Polly, now the Republican, was fitting out, arming, and manning in the port of New York, for the express and sole purpose of cruising against certain nations, with whom we are at peace; that she had taken her guns and ammunition aboard and was on the point of departure, seized the vessel. That the Governor was not mistaken in the previous indications of her object, appears by the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterieve, consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the Governor, reclaims her as "Un vaisseau armé en guerre, et pret à mettre à la voile," and describes her object in these expressions: "Cet usage etrange de la force publique contre les citoyens d'une nation amie qui se reunissent ici pour aller defendre leur freres," &c. and again "Je requiers, monsieur, l'autorité dont vous etes revetu, pour faire rendre à des Francois, à des alliés &c. la liberté de voler au secours de leur patrie." This transaction being reported to the President, orders were immediately sent to deliver over the vessel, and the persons concerned in the enterprise to the tribunals of the Country, that if the act was of those forbidden by the Law, it might be punished, if it was not forbidden, it might be so declared, and all persons apprized of what they might or might not do.

This we have reason to believe is the true state of the case, and it is a repetition of that which was the subject of my letter of the 5th instant, which animadverted not merely on the single fact of the granting commissions of war, by one nation, within the territory of another, but on the aggregate of the facts; for it states the Opinion of the President to be "That the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom we are at peace, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States; that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to commit their peace "-and this opinion is still conceived to be not contrary to the principles of natural law, the usage of nations, the engagements which unite the two people, nor the proclamation of the President, as you seem to think.