into such arrangements all the liberality and spirit of accommodation which the nature of the case will admit.

France has, of her own accord, proposed negotiations for improving, by a new treaty on fair and equal principles, the commercial relations of the two countries. But her internal disturbances have hitherto prevented the prosecution of them to effect, though we have had repeated assurances of a continuance of the disposition.

Proposals of friendly arrangement have been made on our part, by the present government, to that of Great Britain, as the message states; but, being already on as good a footing in law, and a better in fact, than the most favored nation, they have not, as yet, discovered any disposition to have it meddled with.

We have no reason to conclude that friendly arrangements would be declined by the other nations, with whom we have such commercial intercourse as may render them important. In the meanwhile, it would rest with the wisdom of Congress to determine whether, as to those nations, they will not surcease ex parte regulations, on the reasonable presumption that they will concur in doing whatever justice and moderation dictate should be done.

TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
(EDMUND RANDOLPH.)

J. MSS.

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 18. 1793

SIR, The Minister Plenipotentiary of France has inclosed to me the copy of a letter of the 16th inst. which he addressed to you, stating that some libellous publications had been made against him by mr. Jay, chief Justice of the U. S. & mr. King, one of the Senators for the state of New York, & desiring that they might be prosecuted. This letter has been laid before the President, according to the request of the Minister, & the President, never doubting your readiness on all occasions to perform the functions of your office, yet thinks it incumbent on him to recommend it specially on the present occasion, as it concerns a public character peculiarly entitled to the protection of the laws. On the other hand, as our citizens ought not to be vexed with

groundless prosecutions, duty to them requires it to be added, that if you judge the prosecution in question to be of that nature, you consider this recommendation as not extending to it; it's only object being to engage you to proceed in this case according to the duties of your office, the laws of the land & the privileges of the parties concerned. I have the honor &c.

OPINION ON NEUTRAL TRADE.

Dec. 20th, 1793.

Explanation of the origin of the principle that "free bottoms make free goods."

A doubt being entertained whether the use of the word modern, as applied to the law of nations in the President's proclamation, be not inconsistent with ground afterwards taken in a letter to Genet, I will state the matter while it is fresh in my mind,— beginning it from an early period.

It cannot be denied that according to the general law of nations, the goods of an enemy are lawful prize in the bottom of a friend, and the goods of a friend privileged in the bottom of an enemy; or in other words, that the goods follow the owner. inconvenience of this principle in subjecting neutral vessels to vexatious searches at sea, has for more than a century rendered it usual for nations to substitute a conventional principle that the goods shall follow the bottom, instead of the natural one before mentioned. France has done it in all her treaties; so I believe had Spain, before the American Revolution. Britain had not done it. When that war had involved those powers, Russia, foreseeing that her commerce would be much harassed by the British ships, engaged Denmark, Sweden, and Portugal to arm, and to declare that the conventional principle should be observed by the powers at war, towards neutrals, and that they would make common cause against the party who should violate it; declaring expressly, at the same time, that that Convention should be in force only during the war then existing. Holland acceded to the Conven

tion, and Britain instantly attacked her. But the other neutral powers did not think proper to comply with their stipulation of making common cause. France declared at once that she would conform to the conventional principle. This in fact imposed no new obligation on her, for she was already bound by her treaties with all those powers to observe that principle. Spain made the same declaration. Congress gave similar orders to their vessels ; but Congress afterwards gave instructions to their ministers abroad not to engage them in any future combination of powers for the general enforcement of the conventional principle that goods should follow the bottom, as this might at some time or other engage them in a war for other nations; but to introduce the principle separately with every nation by the treaties they were authorized to make with each. It had been already done with France and Holland, and it was afterwards done with Prussia, and made a regular part in every treaty they proposed to others. After the war, Great Britain established it between herself and France. When she engaged in the present war with France, it was thought extremely desirable for us to get this principle admitted by her, and hoping that as she had acceded to it in one instance, she might be induced to admit it as a principle now settled by the common consent of nations, (for every nation, belligerent or neutral, had stipulated it on one or more occasions,) that she might be induced to consider it as now become a conventional law of nations, I proposed to insert the word modern in the proclamation, to open upon her the idea that we should require the acquiescence in that principle as the condition of our remaining in peace. It was thought desirable by the other gentlemen; but having no expectation of any effect from it, they acquiesced in the insertion of the word, merely to gratify me. I had another view, which I did not mention to them, because I apprehended it would occasion the loss of the word.

By the ancient law of nations, e. g. in the time of the Romans, the furnishing a limited aid of troops, though stipulated, was deemed a cause of war. In latter times, it is admitted not to be a cause of war. This is one of the improvements in the law of nations. I thought we might conclude, by parity of reasoning, that the guaranteeing a limited portion of territory, in a stipulated case

might not, by the modern law of nations, be a cause of war. I therefore meant by the introduction of that word, to lay the foundation of the execution of our guarantee, by way of negotiation with England. The word was, therefore, introduced, and a strong letter was written to Mr. Pinckney to observe to Great Britain that we were bound by our treaties with the other belligerent powers to observe certain principles during this war that we were willing to observe the same principles towards her; and indeed, that we considered it as essential to proceed by the same rule to all, and to propose to her to select those articles concerning our conduct in a case of our neutrality from any one of our treaties which she pleased; or that we would take those from her own treaty with France, and make a temporary Convention of them for the term of the present war; and he was instructed to press this strongly. I told Genet that we had done this; but instead of giving us time to work our principles into effect by negotiation, he immediately took occasion in a letter, to threaten that if we did not resent the conduct of the British in taking French property in American bottoms and protect their goods by effectual measures (meaning by arms), he would give direction that the principle of our treaty of goods following the bottom should be disregarded. He was, at the same time, in the habit of keeping our goods taken in British bottoms; so that they were to take the gaining alternative of each principle, and give us the losing one. It became necessary to oppose this in the answer to his letter, and it was impossible to do it soundly, but by placing it on its own ground, to wit: that the law of nations established as a general rule that goods should follow the owner, and that the making them follow the vessel was an exception depending on special conventions only in those cases where the Convention had been made that the exception had been established by us in our treaties with France, Holland, and Prussia, and that we should endeavor to extend it to England, Spain, and other powers; but that till it was done, we had no right to make war for the enforcement of it. He thus obliged us to abandon in the first moment the ground we were endeavoring to gain, that is to say, his ground against England and Spain, and to take the very ground of England and Spain against him. This was my private reason for propos

ing the term modern in the proclamation; that it might reserve us a ground to obtain the very things he wanted. But the world, who knew nothing of these private reasons, were to understand by the expression the modern law of nations, that law with all the improvements and mollifications of it which an advancement of civilization in modern times had introduced. It does not mean strictly anything which is not a part of the law of nations in modern times, and therefore could not be inconsistent with the ground taken in the letter to Genet, which was that of the law of nations, and by no means could be equivalent to a declaration by the President of the specific principle, that goods should follow the bottom.

TO MARTHA JEFFERSON RANDOLPH.

J. MSS.

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 22. 1793.

MY DEAR MARTHA.-In my letter of this day fortnight to mr. Randolph, and that of this day week to Maria, I mentioned my wish that my horses might meet me at Fredericksburg, on the 12th of January. I now repeat it, lest those letters should miscarry. The President made yesterday, what I hope will be the last set at me to continue; but in this I am now immovable, by any considerations whatever. My books & remains of furniture embark tomorrow for Richmond. These will be as much in bulk as what went before. I think to address them to Colo. Gamble. As I retained the longest here the things most necessary, they are of course those I shall want soonest when I get home. Therefore I would wish them, after their arrival to be carried up in preference to the packages formerly sent. The Nos. most wanting will begin at 67. I hope that by the next post I