The American herald of liberty — Exeter, N.H., 1794-01-07 00:00:00, page 1

: American Herald of Liberty.
National Affcmbly, and in the general
demeanor of the nation towards ns, to
Scribe to them things of so contrary a
cbra&er. Our firft duty, therefore, wat
to draw a ftohg line between their mten
lions, and the proceedings of their Min
ifl er ; opr second to Uy those proceed
ings faithfully before them.
On the declaration of war between
France and England, the United States,
being at peace with both, their situation
was fp new and unexperienced by them
selves, that their citizens were not, in the
firft instant, sensible of the heW duties
resulting therpftom, and ®f the restraints
i{ would impose even on their difpftions
towards the belligerent powers. Some
of them imagined, and chiefly their
transient fea-Uring citizens, that they
were free to indulge those dispositions,
to take fide with either party, and enrich
themselves by depredations on thecem
pierce of the other, and were meditating
enterpriser of this nature as there was
reason to believe, h this flat* of the
public mind, and before it should take
an erroneous direction, difficult to be set
tieht. and dangerous to themselves apd
their country, The Present thought it
expediejW.through the channel of a proc
bwauop to remind opr Wlow-cmjcM
that we were in, a ftateof peace with all
- the belligerent powers, that in that Rate
it was our duty neither ter aid nor injure
any ; to exhort and warn them against
, a si which might contravene this duty,
and particularly those of pofidvc
ty, for the punishment of which the laws
would be appealed to ; And to put them
on their guard also as to the rtfks they
would run if they Md attempt to car
rv articles of contraband to any..
^ochmatWß, ordered on the 19th and
mam In the course of these rranfaltions,
.it has been a great comfort to us to be
lieve that nohe of them were within the
Philadelphia, dec. 17
*Ue following authentic Leiter, is taken
from the papers relative to France, com.
tn undated to the House of Reprejenta
tives, in a menage from the President of
the United States, of Dre. ^th. 179^ »
ano' which are novi printed for the use
.of the members.
Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State, to
Mr. MORRIS, Minister Plenipoten
tiary of the United Statet.
Philadelphia, J:guft i6tb, 1793.
s I R,
IN my letter of June 13th, I ehdofed
to you the copies oh several letters,
. which had passed between Mr. Ternanr,
Mr. Genet, and- myfelf, on.the occur
rences to which the present war had giv
en rife within oor ports. The object of
this communication was to enable you'
to explain the principles on which our
government, has conducting itfelf to
wards the belligerent parties ; principles
which might not in all cales be faristac
lory to all, blit were meant to be just
and impartial to all. Mr. Genet -had
been then but a little time with us: and
but a Ijrtle more was necessary to devel
ope in him a character and conduit, so
unexpelted, and so extraordinary as to
place ns in the most diftrefting dilemma,
between our regard for his nation.which
is constant and sincere, and a regard for
our laws,the authority of which must be
maintained ; for the peace of our coun
try which the Executive magistrate is
charged to preserve, for its honor, offend
ed in the perfen of that magistrate; and
fpr its charalier grossly traduced in the
converfationa and letters of this gentle-
.intentions or expedations of his emplyO.
^rs* These bad been too recently ex
.pressed in alls which nothing could dif
' colour; in the letters of the executive
Council, in the letter and decrees of the
Volume VIII.]
EXE T E &(New-Hamp/hire) Printed and Publilhed by Sterns and Winslow, in Main-Street,. at pet annum.
Important Letter.
On the day of its publication, we re
ceived through the channel of the news
papers thefirft intimation that Mr. Gen
et had arrived on the Bch of the month
at Charlefton,in the charader of Minister
Plenipotentiary from his nation to the
United States, and fbon after, that he
had sent on to Philadelphia the vessel in
which he came, and would himfelf per
form the journey by land. His lancing
at one pf the most distant pons of the o
nion from his points, both of departure
and deftioation, was calculated to excite
attention; and very soon afterwards we
learnt that he was undertaking to author
ize the fining and arming of vessels in
that port, enlisting men, foreigners and
citizens, and giving them commiflions
to cruise and commit hoftilides on nations
at peace with us, that these vessels were
taking and bringing prizes into our ports
—•that the co ^>ls of France were assum
ing to hold courts of admiralty on them,
to try, condemn and authenfe their sale
as legal prizes, and all this before Mr.
Genet had presented bimfelf >or his
Credentials to the President, before he
was received by him,without hisconfent
or confutation, and diredly in contra
vention of the state of peace existing, and
declared to exist in the President’s proc
lamation, and incumbent on him to pre
serve till the conftitutiontl -authority
fhpuld otherwise declare. These pro
ceedings became immediately, as was
naturally to be expelled, the fubjed of
complaint by the representative here of
chat power against whom they would;
chiefly operate. The British Minister
presented several memorials thereon, to
which we gave the anfwerof May 15 th,;
heretofore epclofed to you, corresponding
in fubfiance with a letter of the fame
date, written to Mr. Ternant, the min-j
iffer of France, when residing here—>a
copy of which I fend herewith.
On the next day Mr. Genet reached
this place, abont five or fix weeks after
he bad arrived at Charleston, and might
have been at Philadelphia, if he had
fleered for it diredly. He was immedi
a ejy presented to the President. and re
ceived by him as the minister of the Re
public: and as the conduit before fisted:
seemed to befpdlk a design of forcing us>
into the war, without allowing us the
exercise of any free will in the case, no
thing could be more assuaging than his
afftirances to the President at his re cep
tiop .which he repeated to me afterwards
in conversation, and in public to the citi
zens of Philadelphia, in anfwlr to an ad
dress from them, that, oh account of our
remote firuation and other circumstanc
es, France did not elped that we should
become a party to the war, but wished
co fee us pursue buy. prpfperity and hap
piness in peace, In a conversation a few
days after, Mr. Genet told me that M.
de TerDant had delweied him my letter <
of May iph, heYpoke something of the
case of the Grange, and then of the ar
mament at. Charkflon, explained the
circumstances which had led him to it
before he had been receded by the Gov
ernment, and consulted its wiH, expeefl*
cd a hope that thp President had not so
absolutely decided against the measure,
but thft he would hear what was to be
’ said in support of it, that he would write
ime a letter on the fubjell, in which he
I thought be could juftify it under our tree
; ty; but tba< if the president fhouldflnal.
■ ly determine otherwise, he mtfft fobmit :
i for that alluredly his inftrP&ions were to
Ido what would be,agreeable to. ns. He
accordingly wrote the letter of May 27.
The President took the case again into
consideration, and foohd nothing in that
letter, which could fluke the grounds
/•' er o.
signed the sad day of April, was sent
to you in my letter of the 26th of the
fame month.
TUESDAY, January 7, 1794.
Os his former decision. My letter of
Jane ; h notifying this to him, hia of
Jane 8 and 14, mine of the 17th,'and
his again of the zxd, will shew what fur
ther passed on this fubjed,and that he was
lar from retaining hia disposition to ac*
Juteice in the ultimate will of the Pre
dent. It would be tedious to pursue this
md our subsequent correspondences thro*
dl their details. Referring therefore
tor these, to the letters themfelvcs, which
Jiall accompany this,- I will present a
summary view only of the points of dif
ference which have, arisen, and the
grounds on Which they rest.
I ft. Mr. Genet asserts his right of
arming in our ports, and of enlisting our
citizens, and that we have no right to
restrain him or punish them. Examin
ing this question under the law of na
tions, founded on the general fenle and
usage of mankind, we have produced
proofs from the most enlightened and ap
proved writers on the fubjell,ihat a neu
tral nation most, in all things relating to
the war, observe an exalt impartiality
towards the parties; that favors to one
to the prejudice of the other, would im
port a fraudulent neutrality, of which
no nation is the dupe; that no fuccour
should be given to either, unless stipu
lated by treaty, in men, arms, or any
thing else direlty serving for war; that
the right of railing troops, being one of
the rights of sovereignty, and confe
quenily appertaining exclusively to the
nation itfelf,no foreign power orperfon can
levy men,within its territory, without its
consent; and he who does, may be right
fully and severely punilhed, that if the
United Stales have a right to refufe the*
permission to arm vessels and raise men
within their ports and territories, they
are bound by the laws of neutrality to
exercise that righty and to prohibit foch
armaments and enliflments. To these
principles of the law of nations, Mr.
Genet answers by calling them a diplo
matic subtleties,” sod aphprifms of Vat
el and others.** But Something more
than this is necessary to disprove them ;
and till they are disproved, we hold it
certain that the law of nations, and the
rules of neutrality forbid our permitting
either party to arm in our ports.
But Mr- Genet fays, that the 2ad-ar
ticle of our Treaty; allows him eXfrtfdy
to arm io oor ports. Why has he nct
quoted, the very words of that article
expressly allowing it. For that would
have put an end to all further question
The words of the article are, “It (ball
pot be lawful for any foreign privateers
not belonging to fubjelts of thuhoft
Christian King, nor citizens of the said
United States, who have commissions
from any Prince ©r-ftate, in enmity-with
either nation, to fit their ships in the
ports of either the one or the other of
the aforefaid parties.” . Translate this
from the general terms in which it here
Sands into the special case produced by
the present war. Privateera not be
longing to France or the United States,
and having commiflions from the ene
mies Os one of them** are, -in the pre
sent state of things, ** British. Dutch and
Spanilh privajeera.” Subfiftuting these
then for the equivalent terms, it will
stand thus, M lt shall hot be lawful sos
dritilh, Dutch or Spanish privateers to
> fit their ships in the porta of the United
- States.** Is thia an express permission
to France to do it ? Does the negative
: to the enemies of France, and silence as
•to France berfelf, imply an affirmative
ito France ? Certainly not; it leaves
I the question at to-France open and free
j to be. decided according to.eircomftanc
ies; and if the. parties had meant an ab
firmative ftipuiauon, they/would have
■ provided for it exprefaly $ they v^omd
■never have left so important » point to
be inferred from mere silence, or im
plication. Suppose they had desired to
stipulate a refufal to their enemies, but
nothing as to themselves, what form of
exprefiwn would they have used ? Cer
tainly the one they have used : an ex
jrefs stipulation as to their enemies, and
Hence as to themselves. And such an
intention corresponds not only with the
words, but with the circumstances of the
crimes. It was of value to each party
to exclude its enemies from a*ming in
the ports of the other, and could in.no
case embarrass them. They therefore
stipulated so far mutually. But each
might be embarrassed, by permitting
the other to arm rh its ports. They
therefore wopld not stipulate to permit
that. Let us go back to the state of
things in France, when this treaty waa
made, and we Ihall find several cases
wherein France could not have permit
ted us to arm in her ports. Suppose n
war between these States and Spain.
We know tha^by the treaties between
France and Spain, the former could not
permit the enemies cf the laWbr to arm
in her ports. It was honest in her, there
fore, not to deceive us by filch a ftipu-
Jation. Suppose a war between these
States and Great-Britain. By the tree*
ties between France and Great-Britain,
in force at the signature of ours,we could
not have been permitted to arm in the
ports of France. She could not then
have meant in this article to give us foeb
a right. She ha; manifefted ihe fame
sense of it again in her subsequent treaty
with England, made eight years after
the date of ours, fhpulating in the 16th
article of it, as in our 23d, that fore go
privateers, not being fubjeSs of either
cro^n^ should not arm against either in
the ports of the other, if this had a
mounted to an affirmative stipulation,
that the fubjeds of the other crown
might arm in her ports again/} uj, it
would have been in direQ contradidion
to her 22d article with u*. So thht to
give to these negative ftipuiations an as.
hrmative effed, is to render them incon
fiften with each other, and gbod faith':
To give them only their negative and
natural efted, is to reconcile them to
one another, and to good faith, and ia
clearly to adopt the sense in which
France herfelf has expounded them.
We may judly conclude, then, that the
axticle only obliges us to refute th is right,
in the ptefcntcale, to Great Britain,and
the other enemies of France, it does
aot go on to give it to France, cither ex.
prefsly, or by implication. We may
jhen refute it, and since we are bound
by treaty to refute it to the one party,
wears bound by the laws of neutrality
to refufe it to the other. The aiding
either party then, with vessels, arms, or
men, being unlawful by the law of nt
lions, and not rendered lawful by the
treaty, it is made aquefticn whether our
citizens, joining in these unlawful en
terprises may be punished ? The Unit*
ed States being in a state of peace with
the belligerent powers' by treaty, and
with all of them by the laws of nature,
murders and robberies committed by out
citizens, within our territory, or on the
high fea#, and those with whom we ere
so at peace, are puoifhable, equally as if
committed on oaf own inhabitants. If
I might vanture to reason i Httle formal
ly, without being,charged .with running
into ^fubtleties and aphorisms,” I would
fay that if one citizen has a right to go
to war of his own authority, evety citi
zen has the famh. If every citizen bat
। that right, the nation (whichis compof
|edof*ll;ks citizens) hm^ to goto
war by. the. authority of its individual'
citiaens. But thia is not true, either on
the general principles of society, or by
ot&conlUUuon, which gives the power
t , -
[Number 27.