engagements took place between France & the combined armies on the 1st & 8th of May. In the former, the French have had rather the worst of it, made of the subjects or property of a power at war with France, before they have been carried into some port of France & there comdemned, refusing the like privilege to her enemy? 18. Do those laws authorize the US. to permit to France the erection of courts within their territory & jurisdiction, for the trial & condemnation of prizes, refusing that privilege to a power at war with France? 19. If any armed vessel of a foreign power at war with another, with whom the US. are at peace, shall make prize of the subjects or property of it's enemy within the territory or jurisdiction of the US. have not the US, a right to cause restitution of such prize? are they bound or not by the principles of neutrality so to do, if such prize shall be within their power? 20. To what distance, by the laws & usages of nations, may the US. exercise the right of prohibiting the hostilities of foreign powers at war with each other, within rivers, bays, & arms of the sea, & upon the sea along the coasts of the US.? 21. Have vessels armed for war under commission from a foreign power, a right, without the consent of the US. to engage, within their jurisdiction, seamen or souldiers, for the service of such vessels, being citizens of that power, or of another foreign power, or citizens of the US? 22. What are the articles, by name, to be prohibited to both or either party? 23. To what extent does the reparation permitted in the 19. Article of the treaty with France go? 24. What may be done as to vessels armed in our ports before the President's proclamation? and what as to the prizes they made before and after? 25. May we, within our own ports, sell ships to both parties, prepared merely for merchandize? May they be pierced for guns? 26. May we carry either or both kinds to the ports of the belligerent powers for sale? 27. Is the principle that free bottoms make free goods, & enemy bottoms make enemy goods, to be considered as now an established part of the law of nations? 28. If it is not, are nations with whom we have no treaties, authorized by the law of nations to take out of our vessels enemy passengers, not being souldiers, & their baggage? 29. May an armed vessel belonging to any of the belligerent powers follow immediately merchant-vessels, enemies, departing from our ports, for the purpose of making prizes of them?-if not, how long ought the former to remain after the latter has sailed? and what shall be considered as the place of departure, from which the time is to be counted? and how are the facts to be ascertained? as may be concluded by their loss of cannon & loss of ground. In the latter, they have had rather the best; as is proved by their remaining on the ground & their throwing relief into Condé, which had been the object of both battles. The French attacked in both. They have sent commissioners to England to sound for peace. Genl. Felix Wimpfen is one. There is a strong belief that the bankruptcies & demolition of manufactures through the three kingdoms, will induce the English to accede to peace.E. R. is returned. The affair of the loan has been kept suspended, & is now submitted to him. He brings very flattering information of the loyalty of the people of Virginia to the general government, & thinks the whole indisposition there is directed against the Secretary of the Treasury personally, not against his measures. On the whole he has quieted uneasiness here. I have never been able to get a sight of Billy till yesterday. He has promised to bring me the bill of your ploughs, which shall be paid. Adieu. Yours affectionately. TO THE FRENCH MINISTER. J. MSS. PHILADELPHIA, July 24. 1793. SIR,-Your favor of the 9th instant, covering the information of Silvat Ducamp, Pierre Nouvel, Chouquet de Savarence, Gaston de Nogeré and G. Beustier, that being on their passage from the French West Indies to the United States, on board merchant vessels of the United States with slaves and merchandise of their property, these vessels were stopped by British armed vessels and their property taken out as lawful prize, has been received. I believe it cannot be doubted, but that by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels in the cases above mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked, carried into port and detained, under pretence of having enemy goods aboard, have, in many instances, introduced by their special treaties. another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss. But this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controlling in special cases the general principle of the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only as have so agreed to control it. England has generally determined to adhere to the rigorous principle, having in no instance, as far as I recollect, agreed to the modification of letting the property of the goods follow that of the vessel, except in the single one of her treaty with France. We have adopted this modification in our treaties with France, the United Netherlands and Russia and therefore, as to them, our vessels cover the goods of their enemies, and we lose our goods when in the vessels of their enemies. Accordingly you will be pleased to recollect that in the late case of Holland and Mackie, citizens of the United States, who had laden a cargo of flour on board a British vessel which was taken by the French frigate l'Ambuscade and brought into this port, when I reclaimed the cargo it was only on the ground that they were ignorant of the declaration of war when it was shipped. You observed, however, that the 14th article of our treaty had provided that ignorance should not be pleaded beyond two month after the declaration of war, which term had elapsed in this case by some days, and finding that to be the truth, though their real ignorance of the declaration. was equally true, I declined the reclamation, as it never was in my view to reclaim the cargo, nor apparently in yours to offer to restore it, by questioning the rule established in our treaty that enemy bottoms make enemy goods. With England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria, we have no treaties: therefore we have nothing to oppose to their acting according to the general law of nations, that enemy goods are lawful prize though found in the bottom of a friend. Nor do I see that France can suffer on the whole, for though she loses her goods in our vessels when found therein by England, Spain, Portugal, or Austria, yet she gains our goods when found in the vessels of England, Spain, Portugal, Austria, the United Netherlands, or Prussia: and I believe I may safely affirm that we have more goods afloat in the vessels of these six nations than France has afloat in our vessels and consequently, that France is the gainer and we the loser by the principle of our treaty. Indeed we are the losers in every direction of that principle, for when it works in our favor, it is to save the goods of our friends, when it works against us, it is to lose our own, and we shall continue to lose while the rule is only partially established. When we shall have established it with all nations we shall be in a condition neither to gain nor lose, but shall be less exposed to vexatious searches at sea. Το this condition we are endeavoring to advance, but as it depends on the will of other nations as well as our own, we can only obtain it when they shall be ready to concur. I cannot therefore but flatter myself, that on revising the cases of Ducamp and others, you will perceive that their losses result from the state of war which has permitted their enemies to take their goods tho' found in our vessels; and consequently from circumstances over which we have no control. The rudeness to their persons practised by their enemies is certainly not favorable to the character of the latter. We feel for it as much as for the extension of it to our own citizens their companions, and find in it a motive the more for requiring measures to be taken which may prevent repetitions of it. I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. QUESTIONS AS TO BELLIGERENTS.1 J. MSS. [July 29 1793] 1. Are we free, by the treaty, to prohibit France from arming vessels within our ports to cruize on her enemies? 2. If we are free to prohibit her, are we, by the laws of neutrality, bound to prohibit her? Agreed. 3. What are the articles, by name, to be prohibited to both or either party? 4. May the prohibition extend to the use of their own means e. g. mounting their own guns, transferring guns from one of their own vessels to another &? 5. May they receive on board their armed vessels their own sailors & citizens found within our ports? May they receive other foreigners? 1 This was prepared for consideration at the Cabinet meetings on July 29th and 30th. See vol. I, 250 and 255. The following paper represents the ultimate form: 44 RULES GOVERNING BELLIGERENTS, August 3, 1793. I. The original arming and equipping of vessels in the ports of the United States by any of the belligerent parties, for military service, offensive or defensive, is deemed unlawful. II. Equipments of merchant vessels by either of the belligerent parties in the ports of the United States, purely for the accommodation of them as such, is deemed lawful. III. Equipments in the ports of the United States of vessels of war in the immediate service of the government of any of the belligerent parties, which if done to other vessels, would be of a doubtful nature, as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful, except those which shall have made prize of the subjects, people or property of France coming with their prizes into the ports of the United States, pursuant to the seventeenth article of our Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France. IV. Equipments in the ports of the United States by any of the parties at war with France, of vessels fitted for merchandise and war, whether with or without commissions, which are doubtful in their nature as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful, except those which shall have made prize, &c. V. Equipments of any of the vessels of France in the ports of the United States, which are doubtful in their nature, as being applicable to commerce or war, are deemed lawful. |