The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1798-07-10 00:00:00, page 1

Publyfbed by Authority.
The Aéis pajfed at a session of the
General-Court holden at Hop
kinton, Fune 1798.
An ACT in addition to an 2&, intitled,
¢t an alt for arranging the militia of this
State into divisions,” pafled Dec. 27, 1792
BE it enalled by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court con
vened, That the companies in the towns of
Concord and Lyman be annexed to the se
cond batralion in the thirteenth regiment,
and the companies in the towns of Lancaster,
Littleton and Dalton, Franconia and State
Hill, and Jecfterfon shall form the firft bat
talion, and the companies in the towns of
Northumberland, Piercy, Stratford, and in
a'l the towns north and above Stratford in
the county of Grafton, thall form the second
battalion, which shall confiitate the twenty
fourth regiment.
AAd be it further enafled, That that part
ofthe laws heretofore making different ar
sangements of the companies in the towns
and places mentioned 1n this a&d, be, and
hereby are repealed.
dgproved jJune 18, 1798,
An ACT (ufpending in certain cases the
operation of an aft, intitled, ¢ an ak for
the limitation of athions, and for prevent
ing of vexauous suits,” passed the six
teenth day of June, one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-one.
BE it enalled by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court con
vened, That the several periods {pecified in
said aét shall be computed from the 15th
day of September 1793, instead of from the
ﬁér}ﬁ day of July, 1791, as exprefled in said
act, ; ~
Provided nevertheless, That this a&t {hall
not be construed to effeft any judgment-or
decision of any court heretofore rendered
by virtue of {aid a&t.
Approved June 18, 1798,
An ACT to repeal an alt, intitled, ¢‘an 2t
for the preservation of Salinen in Am
monufluck river,” passed June ded, 1786.
BE it enaéled by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court con
wened, That the above recited a&l, for the
preservation of Salmon in Ammonufuck
siver, be, and it hereby is rejefted.
Approved Fune 20, 1798.
An ACT to pofipone the operation of an
all, intitled, *¢ an aft to regulate {cale
beams, {teelyards, weightsand measures,”
pafled the 12th day of Dec. 1797.
BE it enalled by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court con
vened, That the operation of the aforemen
ticned a&t, and every matter and clause
therein, be postponed until the end of the
next {efiion of the General Court, and no
longer. :
Approved June 20, 1798.
I T .
The Ministers Plenipotentiary and
Enwvoys Extraordinary,
From the Uniced States of America to
the French Republic.
To the Minister of Exterior Re
lations.
- (Continued from our lafl.)
IT would {eem ‘to be incanteftible, that
the -principle asserted by the United
States, which indeed is an unquestionable
principle, has been admitted in its utmost
latitude by France. It is believed that in
the exccution of this principle the govern
ment and Tribunals have only been guided
by a {enfe of duty and the obligations of
justice. If in any cale that can be feleéled,
wrong has unintentionally been committed,
that wrong has grown inevitably out of the
situation o% the United States, dut of the con
dué of persons they have been unable to con
troul, and will with readinels be correfled.
Secondly, That againit the textual {eafe
of the treaty, the government has permitted
the ships of the enemy to come too, in their
ports, after having captured property in
vellels belonging to French citizens.
It 1s to be regretted that you have not
been pleased to slate some particular case,
if the cale be founded on a fa&t, which has
manifefied this permission, orif it be found
ad in principle, the precile difference be
tween the conflruflion given by the Presi
dent of the United States to the article of
the treaty of the 6th February, 1798, rela
tive to this {ubje&, and that for which you
may contend. - }-‘or the want of such a guide
the undersigned may difculs unneceflary
points without giving you compleat fatis
taftion” on that which in your mind may
constitute the real difficaliy. -
‘The 17th article is in these words. It
{hall be lawful for the thips of war of ei
sher party and privateers freely 10 carry
whitherfoever they pleale the ships and
goods taken from their enemies. without
being obliged 10 pay any duty to the officers
of the admiraity or other judges ; nor shall
such prizes be arrested or seized when they
come to or enter the ports of either party,
nor shall the searchers, or other officers of
those places, search the fame, or make ex.
amination concerning the lawfulnels of such
prizes, but they may hoist {ail at any time
and depart, and carry their- prizes to the
places exprefledin their commissions, which
the commanders of such {hips of war thall
Vol. XLlL.—Numb. 2171.]
L ”’——A——_——‘-'-'-"-_‘—_'-_--"‘—-_-ﬁl'-l‘-—-—-——--——-——-—---—--——-_—.-_—~—,.______.__-_-___-__-__-—_u
PORTSMOUTH: (New-Hampsdire)— PuBLisHED EVERY TUESDAY MORNING BY JOHN MGLCHER, PRINTER TO THE StaTE, AT His OFFICE CORNER OF MAKRKET STREET,
WHERE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THIS PAPER, ADVERTISEMENTS, AND ARTICLES OF INTELLICENCE ARE THANKFULLY RECEIVED.
et Bampshie Gasette.
be obliged to shew ; on the contrary, no
shelter or refuge shall be given in their
ports to foch as shall bave made prize of
the fubjells, people or property of either of
its parties ; but if fach shall come in, be
ing forced by ftrels of weather or the dan
gers of the sea, all proper means shall be
vigorously used that they go out and retire
from thence as soon as possible.” Do you
contend, Citizen Minister, that this article
ought to be rigidly construed according to
its Jetter ; If you do, it becomes neceflary
to ascertain what are the disabilities to which
its lewter really fubje&ts the veflels belong
ing to the enemies of France. They are
1. That no shelter or refuge shall be
given in the ports of the United Staies to
the ships of war, or privateers belonging to
the enemy, w#.ch shall have made prize of
the fubjefls, people or property of France.
—zedly. I'bat if such thips of war or pri
vateers shall come in, being forced by stress
of weather or the danger of the seas, all
proper means shall be rigorously uled that
they go out and retire from thence as soon
as po?ﬁblc.
The lerter of the article does not exclude
generally the ships of war belonging to the
enemy, but thole only which have made
prize of the fubjeéls, people or property of
France.. That the veflel shall have made a
prize is a part and an eflential part of the
delcription. Whether the veflel be or be
not within this difcription is a salt, the as
certainment of which must precede the
measures to be taken in consequence of that
fat. When the fa&t shall have been al
certained, the letter of the article denies
refuge or shelter to the ships of war or pri
vateer ; but not to the prize which may
have been'made. You well know citizen
minister, that if the letter of the article is
to be fer up against its spirit, when the
former is most favorable to the views of
France, the letter must fill be adhered 10,
though it should counteraét those views.
The situation of the United States bound
them to observe, between the belligerent
powers, and exalled neutrality, in all cases
where their previous treaties had not ﬁipu;
lated advantages or imposed dilabilities,
They could not refufe to one belligerent
power thole rights of ordinary hospitality
which were enjoyed by athers, which the
common usages of nations permit, and
which were forbidden by no particular trea
ty. Such refufal would hgve been mani
feftly partial, and a plain departare from
that neutral position in which the United
States found themselves, and which good
faith, integrity and their best interests im
pelled them religiously to maintain.—Thus
circumstanced it was the duty of the gov
ernment to give its true conflruftion to a
treaty granung advantages to one of the
bclli‘gcrcnt powers, and imposing difabil.
ties on another. In searching for this true
corftruttion, its best judgment ought to be
exercised, and the diftates of that judgment
ought to be obeyed. The United States
have done so. They have refufed shelter
in their ports to the prizes made on the
French republic, or to Ihe ships of war be
longing to the enemy and accomnpanying
such prizes. They have permited ships
of war not bringing prizes with them, to re
main in their ports without inflituting triby
nals to enquire whether such ships iavc at
any time captured French cruisers or French
property, The reasoning on which this
decision was founded, and which appears to
the undersigned to have been conclusive
will not now be repeated, It has been de
tailed in several letters from the secretary
of state of the United States to the Minifler
of France in Philadelphia—The undersign
ed will only observe that the conftruiion
supposed to be just, and for that reason ac.
tually put upon the article, is believed to
be more favourable than the literal con
{truftion to the interests of France.
Ships of war which have made prizes on
this republic, if they enter the ports of the
United States without such prizes, ought
mdeed under the letter of the asticle, to be
ordered to depart as soon as the fal can
have been alcertained, but the prizes them
selves are permitted to remain in fafety,—
By the aftual confiruftion, a ship of war
entering without a prize, is permitted to re
main, but all shelter is refufed to a ship of
war which is accompanied by a prize, and
also the prize itfelf. It would seldom hap
pen thata ship of war, not driven in by
ftrels of weather, or the danger of the seas,
would wish to continue in port longer than
the time which would unavoidably be con
sumed in ascertaining the fat of her having
made a prize ; but it must often happen
that a prize now excluded from the ports of
the United States, would find shelter in
them if the literal conftruflion of the treaty
fbould be adopted. .
This exposition given by the United
States to this article was made koown in
1793.—~France has never fignified a wish
that the literal conftruétion throughout
{bould be pursued. Thisfirengthens the o
pinion entertained by the underfligned, that
the rule on this fubje&, so early eltablithed
by the American government, is considered
by the Republic as more favorable to its
intereils, than a rule conforming entirely to
the letter of that article.
gdly. The government of the United
States has ordered the arrest of a +“National
Corverte* anchored at the port of Philadel
phia, and the arreflation has been extended
to the Captain Commandant.”
_The undersigned beg leave to slate the
case which is the foundation of Ihis com
‘pleint. In the Ratement itfelf they trust
“LeCofius = :
— OUR COUNTRY’s GOOD OUR CONSTANT AIM —
TUESDAY, July 10, 1798.
will be found a complete juftification of the
condull of the United States,
The Cassius, under the name of ¢‘les Ju
meaux” was fitted and armed for a veffc] of
war in the port of Philadelphia, ip viola
tion of the law of the United States. In
December, 1794, having elcaped from the
port to descend the river, orders were given
to the militia of the slate of Delaware, to
intercept her, The attempt was made and
failed ; the crew of les Jumeaux, which
was unexpeftedly found to be very nume
-lous, resisted the officers who went on board,
manned their cannon and brought them to
bear on the Cutter in which the militia, a-
Bout forty in number, were embarked.
Their force being inadeqaate to the enter
prize, they retired with an intention to re
turn the next day with a reinforcement.
They did f{o, but les Jumecaux had failed
and gone to sea. The agent, Mr. Genet,
by whom les Jumeaux bhad been firted
out, was tried at the Circuit court, in Phi.
ladelphia, convifted of the offence, and re
ceived sentence of fine and imprisonment,
Les Jumeaux procecded to St. Domingo,
Samuel Davis, a citizen of the United States,
there tock the command of her, with a com- .
miflion from the French government. Davis
probably failed from Philadelphiain les Ju
meaux, for the purpose of finally taking the
command of ber. Her name was now
changed to ¢‘le Cassius” and on a cruize she
took a schooner called the William Lindsay,
belonging to Meflrs. Yard and Ketland of
Philadelphia. Mr. Ketland having parchal
ed an interest in her after her failing. The
schooner and ber cargo were condemned as
prize at St. Domingo.—ln August, 1793,
Capt. Davis, commanding the Cassius, came
with her to Philadelphia. She was imme
diately known. Mr. Yard, with a view of
obtaining an indemnification for the loss of
the schooner and her cargo, libelled the
Caflius in the dillri&k court, and caused the
Capt. 10 be arrested. Soon after the Su
preme Court being in session, Capt. Davis's
counsel applied for and obtained a probibi
tion to the diftri&t court, to itop its proceed
ings, by which the suits both against him
and le Callius, were defeated. The pro
hibition was granted on this principle, that
the trial of prizes taken within the jurif
diftion of the United States, and carried to
places within the jurifdiftion of France for
adjudication, by French veflels, and all
queitions incidental to it, belong exclusively
to the French tribunals ; and consequently
that Its vellels of waz and their officers are
not liable to process of our courts, predi
cated vpon such capture and subsequent
proceeding within the ju:iifdition of the
French government,
Meflrs. Yard and Ketland having failed
to obtzin indemnification in this mode, pro
cured new process, on the information of
Mr. Ketland, to be iflued from the circuit
court, by which le Caflius was attached
as a veflel armed and equipped as a ship of
war, in the pout of Philadelphia, with in
tent to cruize and commit hoflilities against
nations with whom the United States were
at peace, in violation of the a& of Congress,
probibiting such armament. Mr. Adet
complained thmt the process was taken out
of the circuit court ; because, as he alledg
ed, it had no jurifdi&ion, and that it would
be artended with delay ; that court fitting
but twice a year ; whereas the diftriét court
in which it was said the profecation, if at all
permitted, thould bave been commenced,
was always open. Gentlemen of legal
knowledge were consulted on the point of
junidi&tion 1n this case, and they were de
cidedly of oipinion.‘ that the Circuit
Court had jurifdi®tion, and exclusively of
the diftrift court. The government of the
United States had no part in eriginating this
prosecution, and the diftri&& attorney in be
half of the United States, took measures at
each term of the Circuit Coust, to prepare
the cause for trial, and on a plea calculated
to defeat the prosecution. At length, in
Oétober term 1796, the cause was brought
to a hearing. 1n the course of the argument
the queflian of jurifdiétion presented nfelf.
—The Court adjourncd until next day to
confider of it, and on the following morn
ing dismissed the {uit. '
The undersigned may be permitted to ask
whether in a change of situation, placing
France precisely in the circumstances of the
United Stares, either the corvette or her
Captain would have elcaped.
4thly, The refufal to provide the means
to exccute the Consular Convention of
-the 14th Nov, 1788. ; :
As you have not felefled the particular
parts of this Convention supposed to re
‘main unexecuted, the undersigned, must
necessarily confider the more definite charges
heretofore made on'the fame fubje&t as be
ing adopted by you. . :
Your predecessor in office, in his letter
to Mr. Munroe of the 19th Ventofe 4th
year (gth March 1796) complains 1. that
the clause granting to French consuls the
nght o;judging\cxcluﬁvcly in disputes be
tween Frenchmen, is become illusory, for’
the want of laws giving them the means
baving their decisions executed. -
ei. The right of cauling mariners who
desert to be arrefled, is rendered ineffeftual,
because the judges charged by the laws with
ifluing the mandates of arrest have lately re
quired the presentation of the original roll of
the crew, in contempt of the sth article ad
mitting in the tribunals of both powers,
copies certificd by the conlul. : »
It is then uinderflood to be required,
1&t. That the officers of the Upited States
thould execute the judgments of the consuls.
~endly. That the judges of the United
States should issue mandates of arrest against
- persons charged with being deserters, with
out 2 view of the original roll of the crew.
Itis very jultly oblerved by Mr., Jeffer
fon, in his letter to Mr. Morris which has
been already cited, that, ‘‘every nation has,
of natural right, entirely and exclusively all
the jurildiftion which may be righifully
exerciled in the territory it cccupies. 1f it
cedes any portion of that jurildiftion 1o
Jjadges appointed by another nation, the
limits of their power must depend upon the
instrument of ceflion.” The partics to the
convention profefs its obje& to be, ¢*to de
fine and eftablith in a reciprocal and per
manent manner the funlions and privileges
of consuls and vice consuls.”
It is to be expelted then, as well from
the intention of the convention efablithing
the tribunal, as from the nature of the tn
bunal itfelf, which is a foreign court, con
stituted by a foreign authority, governed by
foreign laws, and amenable for Its conduél
to a foreign government, that no power is
to be implied, and that it pollefles no capa
city, which is not expressly given to it. To
alcertain then the precise extent of the Ripu
lation, let the conventionitfelfbe considered.
The firft point refls exclusively on Ihe
12th article, which is in these words, ¢'all
differences and suits between the {ubjeéls of
his most Chniflian Majesty in the United
States, or between the citizens of the U,
States within the dominions of the most
Christian King, and particalarly all disputes
relative to the wages and terms of engage
ment of the crews of the relpe&tive veflels,
and all differences, of whatever nature they
may be, which may arise between the pri
vates of the said crews, or between any of
them and their Captains, or between the
Captains of different veflels or their nations,
shall be determined by the refpelive con
suls and vice consuls, either by a reference
to arbitrators, or by a {fummary judgment,
and without costs, No officer of the coun
try, civil or military, shall interfere therein,
or lake any part whatever in the matter ;
and the appeals from the {aid consular, {en
tences shall be carricd before the tribunals
of France or of the United States to whom
it may appertain to take cognizance thereof.”
In this article no engagement is made to
furnifh the means of executing consular
judgments. 1f therefore the preceding po
sitions be jußt, there is an end to the quel
tion. But other arguments present them
selves in support of the conaru&ion con
tended for by the United Siates. The
consular authority in a foreign country, is
usually either voluntary or enforced by the
laws of the pations to which the consuls be
long, and which may bind their own citizens,
or {ubjefts under peoalues to be inflified on
their return, or otherwise. Upon this idea
it was fufficient to flipulate a permission of
the jurifdi&tion in exclusion of the courts of
the country ; on any other idea, it would
have been neceflary to have been flipulated
explicitly and perhapsin detail the manner in
which its sentences should be executed. To
accede to the demands of France would be
to ereftin a foreign country complete courts
of jultice with effeftval process to compel
the appearance of parties and witnesses, and
to execute their decisions. And as the
tranfaftiors in commerce could not in the
nature of things be confined to foreigners
alone, the citizens of the country mulft
often be neceflary witnefles to thole tranf
a&ions, and of course rendered amenable
to this foreign junfdiftion in their own
country ; whereas the jurifdiftion granted
by the article, is only of French conluls
over French citizens in the United States,
and reciprocally of American consuls over
the citizens of the United States in France.
This would be to extend, by implicartion,
the acﬂhority of a foreign [government]over
persons not contemplated by the treaty as
fubjeét to it. The article deelares too,
¢sthat no officer of the country, civil or
military, shall interfere therein, or take
any part in the matter.”” But fheriffs, mar
shals and their deputies, or any other persons
appointed by, and afling under the laws of
the country, are “‘officers of the country,”
and consequently cannot aid in the execu
tions of consular decisions, because they are
exprelsly forbidden ‘‘to interfere therein or
take any part whatever in the matter.”
But was it meant that the laws should
give consuls the power to appoint such
executive ufficers of their own nation ? or
should it be conceded that a person so ap
pointed eould not be considered as an officer
of that nation by virtue of and according to
“whose laws he held his office, fhil we find
_no such thing in the convention. Oan the
contrary in the cafle of deserters from veflels,
mentioned in the gth article, whom. the
coafuls are authonized to caufle to be arrest
ed, they are expressly directed to applysin
writing to the ‘“courts, judges and officers
competent’’ to make the arrefls, meaning
the courts, judges and officers of the country.
where the consul resides. In addition to,
this, if power could be given to consuls to
appoint officers to execute their decisions,
thele officers must of course have thciﬁcsﬁ
~of compensation to be paid by one or Sther
‘of the parties. But the article giving the
jurifdiftion declares that the consular judg
ments {hall be ‘‘without cofls.”
The second complaint is that the judges
of the United States'have required the ex
hibition of the original roll of the crew as
a teflimony which would authorize the
issuing a mandate, 1o apprehend a French
mariner charged a 5 a deserter. The right
to require these mandates is founded entire
‘ly on the gth anicle of ‘the ‘confular con
venuen. ¢ Tenr 5 o
That declares ““that the conluls and viee
consuls shall addsefs themselves lo]the
[ One Dollar & half pr- Annum.
courts, judges and officers competent, and
shall demand the said deserters in wriing,
proving by an exhibiticn of the regifier of
the vessel or Juip’s roll, that thele men were
part of the {aid crews; and on this demand
so proved, (saving however where the con
trary 1s proved) the delivery shall not be
refufed.
It would be 2n id-e waste of iime to ar
tempt to prove 10 you, citizen Minill ry
that a register of the vefel or thip’s ro.,
is not a copy of that paper, or that a copy
does not fatisfy a law which peremprnr y
requires the exhibition of the onginal. Youe
predeceilcr has thought proper 1o refer to the
sth article of that inflrument ; bura ] ght
perusal of that article will convince you
citizen Minister, that it does not apply 1o
the cale. When the judges of the United
States determined that the mandate of arrefd
could not be iflued on the exhibition of a
*‘copy of the regifler of the veflc] or thip’s
roll,” they did not so decide for the pur
pose of giving effe& tothe fyllem of ihe gov
ernment, but becavfe the treaty was clearly
underflocd by them positively 10 require
the prefentanon of the original,
The unde:figned regret, citizen Minister,
that your researches concerning the United
States have not extended to their courts,
You wonld have perceived and admired
their purity ; you would bhave perceived
that America may repose herfelf securely
on the integrity of ber judges, and your
justice would have spared the infinuvation
concerning them which has closed this pait
of your lctter,
The undersigned will now cnfider what
you have slated with relpeét to the treaty ¢ f
Amity, Commerce and Navigation formed
with Great Britain,
You complain, citizen minister, in very
strong terms, of the deception alledged 1o
have been praflifed with reipe&.to the ob
je&ts of Mr. Jay’s miifion to London, a d
also of the contents of the treaty which that
miflion produced.—You are pleased to ob
serve that it was then said, that Mr. Jay
had been {ent to London only 10 negociate
arrangements relative’ to the depredations
committed on the American cominerce by
the cruizers of Great Britain,
By whom, citizen minifler, was this said ?
.Not by the President in bis meflage to the
Senate, announcing the nomination of Mr.,
Jay ; nor by the then Secrerary of State, in
communicatingto Mr. Fauchetthe fubjett of
that mission. The documents with refpef
to this allertion have been slated and have
been fully commented on. It has been
fully demonitrated that the American gove
ernment did not seize this occasion to prace
tice a decepiion so unneccflury, so foreign
to its well known charafter, and which
could produce only mifchief to itfelf, Ap
you have in no degree weakened the teftie
mony which is relicd on as disapproving
the allegation, or produced any fort of evie
dence -in {upport of ir, the vnderfigned
cannot but mingle some degree of furprize
with the regrets they feel at {eeing it repeate
ed, accompanicd with the charge of that
“‘diffimulation,” of which all who examine
well the conduél of the government of the
United States. will {o readily pronounce it
to be incapable. You allo criminate the
secrecy which attended this negociation.
To this complaint, when formerly insisted
on, 1t was aniwered, that so much of it as
was material to this republic was immedia
ately communicated to her minister ; and
that she had noright to enquire further, or to
be diffatisfied that other obje&ts were noe difs
closed : That it is not the praftice of France, -
nor of any other nation, to communicate 1o
others, the pdrticular fubje€ls of negociae
tion which may be contemplated, and that
no nation could be independent which ade.
mitted itfeif 1o be accountable to another
for the manner in which it might judge
proper to regulate its own concerns onm
points in which that other was not interest
ed ; or which was bound to give previous
intimation of every articie which might be
inserted in a treaty formed on the avowed
principle of leaving in foll force all pre
existing engagements. This reafloning is
answered only by termiog ita * fophitm,””
*‘an insidious fubterfuge.” May not any
reasoning, on any fubje®, be answered in
the fame manner ? But can such an answer
impair Its force 7 Without doubt, citizen
minister, the goveroment of the United
States, when it informed Fiance that the
negociations of Mr. Jay would not in any
refpet weaken its engagements to this ree
public, would have added, thae they. might
eventually extend, to a comwmercial treaty,
if it had been {uppoled that the omission to
give such infomgation could really be con
sidered as a breach of legitimate obligation,
or as an evidence of diminithed frieod(hap.
The information was molt probably not
given, because it was unusual, and because
it could nenher be confidered.as proper, as
necessary, or as material, The undersigned
trust that the painful and unavailing difs
cuflions on this fubjeél, rendered so unplea
sant by the manner in which it bas been
treated, will never again be renewed.
Pafling to.the treaty ifelf, you fay that
the {mall majority by which it was fan&ione
ed in the Iwo boufes of Congre(s, and the
number of refpeQable voices raised aﬁ_a_igﬂ_
1t in the nation depole honorably in favor
of the opinion which the:French governs
ment has entertained of it. Bot you must
“be sensible, citizen minifler, that the criteris
on by which you afccna’r? the merits of the
infliument in queflion, is by no means ine
fallable, nor can it warrant the inference
you draw from it, l"%ﬂﬂb‘k like that"
“of the United Su;::, h\' , :ﬂ&uﬁwrgﬁ
fears 10 utter what his judgment or his
paflions may diftate, where an unreflrained