strict right upon the neutral to refrain from the trade of contraband of war. In the mean time, the desire of the belligerent, who possesses no full right to ask, must be declared in decent and temperate terms: and the request cannot be considered as discreet and acceptable, when it occasions too great inconvenience to the party to whom it is addressed."

I will close this letter with a few observations.

It is well known, that a considerable portion of the exports of the United States consists of articles contraband of war. It is well known, that these have, during the whole of the present war, been freely exported to the dominions of France, as well as to those of the other belligerent powers. It seems then too late (agreeably to Galliani's 4th position) for France to desire, that the citizens of the United States should now abandon a commerce, of which she has availed herself during the several years of the war to this time and still less ought she, while continuing to enjoy an otherwise unrestrained trade in contraband goods, to expect such an abandonment of only a particular article of contraband, of which she may have no need, and is therefore willing to renounce, because it may chance to be very useful to her enemy. Under these circumstances, a compliance, on the part of the United States would compromit their interests as well as their neutrality. The wants of two or more belligerent powers may together embrace the general objects of the commerce of a neutral nation: but if each were possessed of a right to require the neutral nation to renounce that portion of its commerce which was peculiarly useful to its enemy, the entire commerce of such neutral pation might be annihilated.

The article of horses, although not constituting a principal part of the entire commerce of the United States, yet forms a very essential item in the trade of some of them, particularly of Connecticut; and from the first settlement of the country, it has been a valuable article of exportation from many of the colonies (now states) to all parts of the West Indies; and during the whole of the present war, horses and mules (and oxen, which may be used for military purposes, as well as either) have been freely exported to the French, as well as to the English Islands.

You cite the example of the Swiss, that in the present war, they have prohibited the exportation of contraband

goods to all the belligerent powers. Without doubting the fact (of which I had no previous knowledge) I must suppose that very particular motives influenced the Swiss to this determination, which, however full of wisdom at this time, is repugnant to the common practice of those people for ages. "Amidst all the wars of Europe (says Vattel) the Switzers keep their country in an unexceptionable neutrality. Every nation indiscriminately is allowed to come thither, and purchase provisions, if the country has a surplus, horses, military stores," &c.

I will now notice the other question, which you again bring into view; whether the United States can, without compromitting their neutrality, allow their citizens to serve in the vessels of the enemies of France ?

Having in my former letter entered into a full consideration of this subject, and the force of the distinctions and reasons then taken and urged appearing to me still unshaken, I will content myself with a few remarks.

I must still rely on the distinction taken in the law of the United States, between our citizens serving on board of armed and unarmed vessels. Had the legislature viewed the latter as contrary to the law of nations or our neutral duties, it would certainly have been forbidden, as well as the former. To admit that our citizens cannot lawfully enrol themselves in the direct military land or sea service of one of the powers at war, is very different from your position, that they cannot, in any manner, aid the military operations of a foreign power: for this would exclude them from carrying, even in their own vessels, not only soldiers, horses, arms, &c. but even provisions: for to the success of military operations, the latter are as essential as the former. Probably there is not one of the maritime belligerent powers, that has not, in the course of the present war, derived important aid in its military operations, from provisions and other supplies lawfully furnished by the citizens of the United States. Further: in my former letter, I proved, from our commercial treaty with France, that it was lawful for the citizens of the United States, to transport, not only contraband goods, but her enemies, and even soldiers in actual service. For when the two nations, in the 13th and 23d articles, regulated the course of pro ceedings in such cases, they clearly admitted, the legality of the measure, reserving only to each, the right of seizing

such goods and making prisoners of such soldiers. Had the contrary been their intention, instead of regulating, they would have prohibited the trade or carriage of contraband goods, and the transportation of troops.

Admitting these conclusions to be just (and such they appear to me) how shall we draw a line between the strong case you have stated, and the transportation of troops and stores in ordinary cases? The case you state is that of a fleet and army destined for some military expedition, and you ask, whether the transports of neutrals, following in the train of such an armament, would not make a part of it?-I confess to you, that the question presents some difficulty but as the case does not exist, it is not necessary for me to answer it. I am not informed what is the custom of the maritime powers in this respect. The question between us, regards only the detached trasportation of articles contraband of war, either in our own vessels or the unarmed vessels of one of the belligerent powers. On this point, for the reasons now and formerly given, no doubt exists. To restrain the naval and commercial pursuits of neutrals, because they indirectly aid the powers at war, would, in its tendency, be to annihilate their navigation and trade. It is the very principle on which Great Britain has, in many of her wars, grounded her practice of capturing neutral vessels, carrying on the simple commerce of her enemies, particularly of France. If, said she, neutral vessels are permitted to transport the commodities of France and her colonics, then her sailors, taken from the service of her merchants, will enable her to man more numerous ships of war. But although Britain thus captured the vessels of neutrals, she never considered the persons employed in such commerce, or the nations to which they belonged, as her enemies.

From the manner in which you recite the concluding sentence of my former letter, you seem to consider it as very exceptionable. You will therefore permit me to explain it. In your letter, to which that was an answer, you had stated the object and brought into view the possible consequences of allowing the British to export horses from the United States. It was natural then, after answering your objection, and showing, that they were not supported either by treaty or the law of nations, and that an impartial neutrality forbade the government to impose

the restraint you demanded, to remark, that if the predicted consequences should follow the measures you opposed, the government had no right to restrain them. If you imagined that even an indifference, much more an unfriendly disposition to the interests of France, gave rise to the remark, the sentiments of the government have been wholly misconceived. I have the honour to be, &c. TIMOTHY PICKERING.

No. 131.

TRANSLATION.

The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, near the United States, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, the 29th Floreal, 4th year of the French Republick, one and indivisible, (May 18, 1796, O. S.)

SIR, I have just been informed indirectly, that the House of Representatives has passed a bill for preventing the sale of the prizes which shall be brought in by the ships of war of the belligerent powers. If this law did not appear to me to destroy the effects of our commercial treaty; if it did not appear to me opposite to the duties of an impartial neutrality, I should remain silent; but the interest of my nation and the positive orders I have received on the subject from my government, oblige me at present to transmit some observations which seem to me calculated to merit your attention.

By the 17th and 22d articles of their commercial treaty, the United States and France agree in an explicit manner, that in case one of the two powers should be at war, its enemies should be excluded from the ports of the other, when they shall have made prizes on its citizens. When they mutually guarantied a free admission of their ships of war, of their privateers and of their respective prizes into these ports, it is clear that they implicitly assured to each other the right of there selling these prizes. In fact, France having no continental possessions in America towards the latitude to which English, vessels must go on their return to England, it was to her of extreme importance to have friendly ports into which her vessels might

conduct their prizes and sell them, without exposing them anew to the risks of the sea; which would be the case if they were obliged to send them to France or to her colonies. It was also interesting to the Americans engaged in a war with an European power, to have ports into which they might conduct and freely sell their prizes made upon the coast of Europe, without being forced to cross the Atlantick.

These considerations leave no doubt that by the 17th and 22d articles of the treaty concluded between the United States and France, each nation had implicitly secured to herself the right of selling in the ports of the other the prizes which her ships of war or privateers should have made. This right which the two nations should enjoy has been acknowledged by our enemies, by the courts, and by the government of the United States.

Whenever our enemies have attacked a prize made by a privateer, it has been only under the pretext that the privateer had been armed in the United States, and that she had therefore derogated from both the laws of neutrality and the President's proclamation.

The American courts have never condemned French prizes but upon the fact of having armed in the United States; and when the contrary has been fully proved, the privateer had the right of selling the prizes without any obstacle. Yet in virtue of what act could she sell her prize? Of the 22d article of our commercial treaty. This article has already afforded a vast field for discussion upon the implicit right it appears to grant to one of the two nations to arm in the ports of the other. The American government conceived that this construction could not be given to the 22d article; it explained itself formally in this respect; but did not object to the right of selling prizes; it has even expressly acknowledged it, since it has constantly permitted the French ships of war and privateers to enjoy it.

The enemies of France could not accuse you of violating the rules of neutrality by leaving to her the free exercise of this right, as it resulted from the Casus federis, and the obligations prescribed by a treaty do not lead a neutral nation from the line of neutrality whenever she acquits herself of them. Therefore, sir, the English cannot for that reason bring in their prizes here. The Secretary of