representative of a people, generous and confident in their friends, I have already given proofs of the sentiments with which they are animated, in causing to be restored, without examination, on the requisition of the federal government, the English ship Grange, taken by a vessel of the Republick. I shall in all my conduct show an equal deference; but at the same time, sir, I should expect from your government all the support, which I at present stand in need of, to defend in the bosom of the United States the interests, the rights and the dignity of the French nation, which persons, on whom time will do us justice, are labouring secretly to misrepresent. GENET.

TRANSLATION.

THIS day, the 7th June, 1793, in the 2d year of the Republick of France, before us Francis Dupont, consul of the said Republick, at Philadelphia, appeared the citizen Pierre Barriere, agent ad hoc of the ship William, and of the brigantine Active, taken by the galliot the Citizen Genet, captain Johanen, who has declared, that this day, at 11 o'clock, A. M. being occupied in the sale of the cargo of the ship William, a deputy marshal of the Court of Admiralty of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, presented himself to him, where he was making the said sales on Warder's Wharf, pretending that the said ship William, and her cargo, were seized by the said court of admiralty, wishing, in consequence, to stop the sale, which was nevertheless continued, the appearer having conceived that the admiralty could not, in any manner whatever, meddle in this business, agreeably to the 17th article of the treaty of commerce between France and the United States. Notwithstanding, to the great prejudice of the interested in the sales, the said deputy marshal of the admiralty discouraged the bidders, and even suspended their bidding, leading them to believe that the sale of the said vessels was not valid; whence it resulted that they sold below their value. However, the sale of the cargo being made, the said agent proceeded to that of the brigantine; but as soon as he commenced, the said deputy marshal again forbid the continuance, which led several persons present into an errour, supposing that the seizure extended to the brig Active, as well as the ship William; whence it resulted, that the said brigantine did not sell for

more than a third of her real value, having been estimated worth 600l. The appearer, having afterwards proceeded to the sale of the ship William, the said deputy marshal again, in the name of the aforesaid court of admiralty, forbid it; whence has also resulted a considerable loss to the interested in the said prize, which was struck off at only 500%. which does not amount to one fourth of her value.In consequence of which, the said appearer protests for all damages and interests accrued, and to accrue, against the said court of admiralty-those who have set on foot this prosecution, and generally against all those whom it may concern, being therein fully justified by the tenour of the treaties:-Of all which the said appearer has requested of us an act, and has signed with us, the day and year above FROIS. DUPONT.

written.

PIERRE BARriere.

Compared by us, chancellor of the consulate of the Republick of France, with the original deposited in the chancery, the 8 June, 1793, 2d year of the French Republick. J. BRE. LEMAIRE.

We, Consul of the Republick of France, at Philadelphia, certify and attest, to whom it may concern, that citizen J. Bre. Lemaire, who has signed the above extract, is our chancellor, to whose signature faith should be given, as well in as out of judgment.

In testimony whereof, we have signed the present, and have caused to be affixed thereto the seal of [L. S.] the Consulate, at Philadelphia, the 8 June, 1793, 2d year of the Republick of France.

FROIS. DUPONT.

New York, June 9, 1793, 2d year of the French Republick.

SIR, I have just been informed, that last night a French vessel, armed for war, and ready to hoist sail, has been arrested by authority, and that even the captain has not been permitted to go on board. This strange use of publick force, against the citizens of a friendly nation, who assemble here to go and defend their brethren, is a signal violation of the laws of neutrality, which I cannot impute but to a misconception, which your attention, and

your equity, will not fail to rectify, as soon as you shall be informed of it.

I require, sir, the authority with which you are clothed, to cause to be rendered to Frenchmen, and allies, and Í must add to freemen, of whatever nation they may be, the liberty of flying to the succour of their country. It is not in a country where Frenchmen have spilt their blood, in the cause of humanity, that they ought to find in the laws obstacles to their following yet again the most pleasing of their propensities, and to fulfil the most sacred of their duties. HAUTERIVE,

Consul of the French Republick, New York. To the Governour of the State of New York.

Consulate of New York.

WE Alexander Hauterive, Consul of the Republick of France to the United States, at New York, certify that in consequence of a requisition made by us to the mayor of New York, and to the governour of the state of the same name, dated 9th June current, to obtain a replevy of the detention, made by authority in this port, of a French vessel called the Republican, belonging to Louis Alexis Hochquet Caritat, and commanded by the citizen Orset, the governour of the said state replied to us by a letter under his signature, that it was in conformity to the injunction of the President of the United States, that he had ordered a detachment of militia of this state to detain the said vessel, until the President of the United States should be informed of the circumstances of the facts, upon which we have delivered to him an act certified and signed by us. Done at New York, the 10th June, 1793, 2d year of the Republick of France. HAUTERIVE,

Consul of the Republick of France at New York.

Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to Mr. Genet, Minister Plenipotentiary of France. Philadelphia, June 17, 1793.

SIR,-I shall now have the honour of answering your letter of the 8th 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 merely 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 attempted, orders to prevent them were despatched to all the states and ports of the Union. In consequence of these the governour 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 governour was not mistaken in the previous indications of her object, appears by the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterive, consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the governour, reclaims her, as*"Un vaisseau armé en guerre et pret à mettre à la voile," and describes her object in these expressions,† "Cet usage étrange de la force publique, contre les citoyens d'une nation amie qui se reunissent-ici pour aller defendre leurs freres," and again,‡ "Je requiers, monsieur, l'autorité dont vous etes revetu, pour faire rendre à des François, 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.

Translation of passages in letter to Mr. Genet, June 17, 1793.

"A vessel armed for war, and ready to put to sea.

+"This strange use of publick force against the citizens of a friendly nation who are united here, in order to go in defence of their brothers."

"I require, sir, the authority with which you are vested, to cause to be rendered to Frenchmen, to allies, &c. the liberty of flying to the succour of their country."

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 they 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.

Surely not a syllable can be found in the last mentioned instrument, permitting the preparation of hostilities in the ports of the United States. Its object was to enjoin on our citizens "a friendly conduct towards all the belligerent powers;" but a preparation of hostilities, is the reverse of this.

None of the engagements in our treaties stipulate this permission. The XVII article of that of commerce permits the armed vessels of either party to enter the ports of the other, and to depart with their prizes freely: but the entry of an armed vessel into a port, is one act; the equipping a vessel in that port, arming her, manning her, is a different one, and not engaged by any article of the treaty.

You think, sir, that this opinion is also contrary to the law of nature, and usage of nations. We are of opinion it is dictated by that law and usage; and this had been very maturely inquired into before it was adopted as a principle of conduct. But we will not assume the exclusive right of saying what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says, 1. 3, s. 104,* Tant qu'un

*"As long as a neuter nation wishes to enjoy this situation with certainty, it ought to show, in every thing, an exact impartiality between those who are at war. For if it favour the one to the prejudice of the other, it cannot complain when that other shall treat it as an adherent and associate of its enemy. Its neutrality would be a fraudulent one, of which none