Title: Pacificus No. VII, [27 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 27, 1793]

The remaining objection to the Proclamation of Neutrality, still to be discussed, is that it was [out of time and unnecessary.]
To give colour to this objection it is asked—why did not the Proclamation appear when the war commenced with Austria & Prussia? Why was it forborne till Great Britain Holland and Spain became engaged? Why did not the Government wait till the arrival at Philadelphia of the Minister of the French Republic? Why did it volunteer a declaration not required of it by any of the belligerent Parties?
To most of these questions solid answers have already appeared in the public Prints. Little more can be done than to repeat and enforce them.
Austria and Prussia are not Maritime Powers. Contraventions of neutrality as against them were not likely to take place to any extent or in a shape that would attract their notice. It would therefore have been useless, if not ridiculous, to have made formal Declaration on the subject, while they were the only parties opposed to France.

But the reverse of this is the case with regard to Spain Holland & England. These are all commercial maritime Nations. It was to be expected, that their attention would be immediately drawn towards the UStates with sensibility, and even with jealousy. It was to be feared that some of our citizens might be tempted by the prospect of gain to go into measures which would injure them, and commit the peace of the Country. Attacks by some of these Powers upon the possessions of France in America were to be looked for as a matter of course. While the views of the UStates as to that particular, were problematical, they would naturally consider us as a power that might become their enemy. This they would have been the more apt to do, on account of those public demonstrations of attachment to the cause of France; of which there has been so great a display. Jealousy, every body knows, especially if sharpened by resentment; is apt to lead to ill treatment, ill treatment to hostility.
In proportion to the probability of our being regarded with a suspicious and consequently an unfriendly eye, by the Powers at war with France; in proportion to the danger of imprudencies being committed by any of our citizens, which might occasion a rupture with them—the policy on the part of the Government of removing all doubt as to its own disposition, and of deciding the condition of the UStates in the view of the parties concerned became obvious and urgent.
Were the UStates now what, if we do not rashly throw away the advantages we possess, they may expect to be in 15 or 20 years, there would have been more room for an insinuation which has been thrown out—namely that they ought to have secured to themselves some advantage, as the consideration of their neutrality; an idea however of which the justice and magnanimity cannot be commended. But in their present situation, with their present strength and resources, an attempt of that kind could have only served to display pretensions at once excessive and unprincipled. The chance of obtaining any collateral advantage, if such a chance there was, by leaving a doubt upon our intentions as to peace or war could not wisely have been put for a single instant in competition with the tendency of a contrary conduct to secure our peace.
The conduciveness of the Declaration of neutrality to that end was not the only recommendation to an early adoption of the measure. It was of great importance that our own citizens should understand, as soon as possible, the opinion which the Government entertained of the nature of our relations to the warring parties and of the propriety or expediency of our taking a side or remaining neuter. The arrangements of our merchants could not but be very differently affected by the one hypothesis, or the other; and it would necessarily have been very detrimental and perplexing to them to have been left in uncertainty. It is not requisite to say how much our agriculture and other interests would have been likely to have suffered by embarrassments to our Merchants.
The idea of its having been incumbent on the Government to delay the measure, for the coming of the Minister of the French Republic, is as absurd as it is humiliating. Did the Executive stand in need of the logic of a foreign Agent to enlighten it either as to the duties or the interests of the Nation? Or was it bound to ask his consent to a step which appeared to itself consistent with the former and conducive to the latter?
The sense of our treaties was to be learnt from the treaties themselves. It was not difficult to pronounce beforehand that we had a greater interest in the preservation of Peace, than in any advantages with which France might tempt our participation in the war. Commercial privileges were all that she could offer, of real value in our estimation, and a carte blanche on this head would have been an inadequate recompence for renouncing peace and committing ourselves voluntarily to the chances of so precarious and perilous a war. Besides, if the privileges which might have been conceded were not founded in a real permanent mutual interest—of what value would be the Treaty, that should concede them? Ought not the calculation in such case, to be upon a speedy resumption of them, with perhaps a quarrel as the pretext? On the other hand may we not trust that commercial privileges, which are truly founded in mutual interest will grow out of that interest; without the necessity of giving a premium for them at the expence of our peace?
To what purpose then was the Executive to have waited for the arrival of the Minister? Was it to give opportunity to contentious discussions—to intriguing machinations—to the clamors of a faction won to a foreign interest?
Whether the Declaration of Neutrality issued upon or without the requisition of any of the belligerent Powers can only be known to their respective Ministers and to the proper Officers of our Government. But if it be true that it issued without any such requisition, it is an additional indication of the wisdom of the measure.
It is of much importance to the end of preserving peace, that the Belligerent Powers should be thoroughly convinced of the sincerity of our intentions to observe the neutrality we profess; and it cannot fail to have weight in producing this conviction that the Declaration of it was a spontaneous Act—not stimulated by any requisition on the part of either of them—proceeding purely from our own view of our duty and interest.
It was not surely necessary for the Government to wait for such a requisition; while there were advantages and no disadvantages in anticipating it. The benefit of an early notification to our merchants, conspired with the consideration just mentioned to recommend the course which was pursued.

If, in addition to the rest, the early manifestation of the views of the Government has had any effect in fixing the public opinion on the subject and in counteracting the success of the efforts which it was to be foreseen would be made to disunite it, this alone would be a great recommendation of the policy of having suffered no delay to intervene.
What has been already said in this and in preceding papers affords a full answer to the suggestion that the proclamation was unnecessary. It would be a waste of time to add any thing more.
But there has been a criticism, several times repeated, which may deserve a moment’s attention. It has been urged, that the Proclamation ought to have contained some reference to our Treaties, and that the generality of the promise to observe a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers ought to have been qualified with the expressions equivalent to these—“as far as may consist with the Treaties of the UStates.”
The insertion of such a clause would have entirely defeated the object of the Proclamation, by rendering the intention of the Government equivocal. That object was to assure the Powers at War and our own Citizens, that in the opinion of the Executive it was consistent with the duty and interest of the Nation to observe a neutrality in the War and that it was intended to pursue a conduct corresponding with that opinion. Words equivalent to those contended for would have rendered the other part of the Declaration nugatory; by leaving it uncertain whether the Executive did or did not believe a state of Neutrality to be consistent with our Treaties. Neither foreign Powers nor our own citizens would have been able to have drawn any conclusion from the Proclamation; and both would have had a right to consider it as a mere equivocation.
By not inserting any such ambiguous expressions, the Proclamation was susceptible of an intelligible and proper construction. While it denoted on the one hand, that in the judgment of the Executive, there was nothing in our treaties obliging us to become a party in the war, it left it to be expected on the other—that all stipulations compatible with neutrality, according to the laws and usages of Nations, would be enforced. It follows, that the Proclamation was in this particular exactly what it ought to have been.

The words “make known the disposition of the UStates” have also given a handle to cavil. It has been asked how could the President undertake to declare the disposition of the UStates. The People for aught he knew may have been in a very different sentiment. Thus a conformity with republican propriety and modesty is turned into a topic of accusation.
Had the President announced his own disposition, he would have been chargeable with egotism if not presumption. The constitutional organ of intercourse between the UStates & foreign Nations—whenever he speaks to them, it is in that capacity; it is in the name and on behalf of the UStates. It must therefore be with greater propriety that he speaks of their disposition than of his own.
It is easy to imagine, that occasions frequently occur in the communications to foreign Governments and foreign Agents—which render it necessary to speak of the friendship or friendly disposition of the U States, of their disposition to cultivate harmony and good understanding, to reciprocate neighbourly offices &c. &c. It is usual for example when public Ministers are received, for some complimentary expressions to be interchanged. It is presumeable that the late reception of the French Minister did not pass, without some assurance on the part of the President of the friendly disposition of the UStates towards France. Admitting it to have happened, would it be deemed an improper arrogation? If not, why it was more so, to declare the disposition of the UStates to observe a neutrality in the existing War?
In all such cases nothing more is to be understood than an official expression of the political disposition of the Nation inferred from its political relations obligations and interests. It is never to be supposed that the expression is meant to convey the precise state of the Individual sentiments or opinions of the great mass of the People.
Kings and Princes speak of their own dispositions. The Majistrates of Republics of the dispositions of their Nations. The President therefore has evidently used the style adapted to his situation & the Criticism upon it is plainly a cavil.
Pacificus


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 27 July 1793
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

(Private)
Philada. 27. July 1793
Dear sir,

After giving the subject of Loans the most attentive consideration I am able under the several explanations which have been required & received from you, my mind has resolved itself into the form of the enclosed paper. But if there is any material objection to the measure there directed unadverted to by me, I am ready & willing to hear it—otherwise it may be carried into effect without delay. There is a blank to fill up, to do which I pray you to furnish me with the sum.
I am &a.

Go. Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [27 July 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 27, 1793]
Sir.

I have considered your application for liberty to borrow three millions of Florins in addition to the one million, now in train of being borrowed.
It appears from the documents which you have laid before me that 284,901 Dollars 89 Cents have been applied to the purchase of the general debt; and that by the Act of 2d. March 1793. 200,000 dollars, of the money for that use, have been employed in discharging the installment due to the Bank of the United States. The sum then which may still be borrowed under the act of the 12 of August 1790, being 1,515,098 Dollars 11 Cents—& it being very desireable to embrace the present season for purchasing, I am of opinion that a loan should be opened to that amount.
In like manner, as the balance of foreign loans, now in the Treasury, which appears from the same documents to be 565,484 D. 28 Cts. may be absorbed by the installments of the French Debt due in September & November next; & another installment of the Dutch loan will fall due in June 1794 & will require the sum of 1,000,000 of florins, I am also of opinion that a Loan ought to be effected to that amount.

Go. Washington
PhiladelphiaJuly 27, 1793.


Title: Proposed Rules Concerning Arming and Equipping of Vessels by Belligerents in the Ports of the United States, First Version, [29–30 July 1793]
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To:

[Philadelphia, July 29–30. 1793]

[First Version]
Rules proposed by Attorney General

   Agreed

  Agreed
  II.
  That all equipments purely for the accommodation of vessels, as merchantmen, be admitted.

  Agreed
  III.
  That all equipments, doubtful in their nature, and applicable equally to commerce or war, be admitted, as producing too many minutiae.

  Agreed
  IV
  That all equippments, solely adapted to military objects be prohibited.

  Rules proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury

  Agreed
  I
  That the original arming and equipping of Vessels for military service offensive or defensive in the ports of the UStates be considered as prohibitted to all.

  NegativedThe Secretary of the Treasury only holding the opinion.
  II
  That Vessels, which were armed before their coming into our ports, shall not be permitted to augment their military equipments in the Ports of the UStates, but may repair or replace any military equipments, which they had when they began their voyage for the UStates; that this however shall be with the exception of Privateers of the Parties opposed to France who shall not refit or repair.

  Agreed.
  V
  That, for convenience, vessels armed & Com~ before they come into our Ports may engage their own Citizens, not being inhabitants of the UStates.

I concur in the rules proposed by the Attorney general as far as respects materials or means of annoyance furnished by us—and I should be for an additional rule that as to means or materials brought into this country & belonging to themselves they are free to use them.

Th: J.


Title: Proposed Rules Concerning Arming and Equipping of Vessels by Belligerents in the Ports of the United States, Second Version, [29–30 July 1793]
From: Randolph, Edmund,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Second Version]

  2.
  That all equipments of merchant vessels, purely for the accommodation of them as Such be admitted.

  3.
  That all equipments, [vessels armed for merchandize and war with or without commission,] which are doubtful in their nature, being applicable to commerce or war be admitted, except [such] as Shall have made prize of &c as no. 1. A

  5.
  That no equipments of any kind of privateers, of the powers at war with France be admitted.

  5
  That all equipments which shall be solely adapted to military objects be prohibited; except No. 1 & 2 B.

  4
  That all equipments of Vessels of War, in the service of the Government of the respective parties at war with France which are doubtful in their nature being applicable to commerce or war be admitted except such as shall have made prize of & as No. 1 That all equipments which are doubtful in their nature &c. be admitted to all the Vessels of France.

  Out of the permissions contained in the II & 3 of the above rules are to be excepted

      A
      I
      The case of vessels which shall have made prize of the subjects people or property of France coming with their prizes into the Ports of the UStates according to the XVII article of our Treaty with France.

  II
  The case of privateers of the powers at War with France according to the XXII article of our Treaty with her. But vessels of war in the public service of those powers & private vessels armed for merchandize and war called in English Letters of Marque are understood to be not comprehended in the term privateers.

  Out of the prohibition contained in the IV of the above rules are to be excepted

        B
        {

  I
  The case of stranded & wrecked Vessels mentioned in XVIII article of our Treaty with France the XVI of our Treaty with the UNetherlands the IX of our Treaty with Prussia.

  II
  The case of Vessels putting into the Ports of the UStates through stress of weather pursuit of pirates or enemies or any other urgent necessity or accident specified in the 19 Article of our Treaty with France in the 17 of our Treaty with the U Netherlands in the 18th of our Treaty with Prussia.

  These Vessels may repair or replace their military equipments so as to put them in the same condition in which they were immediately preceding the accident or necessity described in the said articles respectively.


Title: George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, [29 July 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Jefferson, Thomas,Knox, Henry,Randolph, Edmund

[Philadelphia, July 29, 1793]
Gentlemen,

It will not be amiss, I conceive, at the meeting you are about to have to day, to consider the expediency of directing the Customhouse Officers to be attentive to the arming or equipping Vessels, either for offensive or defensive war, in the several ports to which they belong; and make report thereof to the Governor or some other proper Officer.
Unless this, or some other effectual mode is adopted to check this evil in the first stage of it’s growth, the Executive of the UStates will be incessantly harrassed with complaints on this head, & probably when it may be difficult to afford a remedy.

Go. Washington
Philadelphia29 July 1793


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Andrew G. Fraunces, 30 July 1793
From: Fraunces, Andrew G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 30, 1793. On August 2, 1793, Fraunces wrote to Hamilton: “As I informed you on the 30th.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, 31 July 1793
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia July 31st 1793
Sir

The question, arising upon Mr Lovell’s letter, turns upon the identity of the vessel. If she remain a french bottom, a Register cannot be granted; if she has been converted into an american bottom it may.
I shall enter into no subtle disquisition on such an occasion; but shall conform myself to practical ideas. It seems to be agreed in England and Philadelphia, that a vessel of the description in that letter, has not changed her country; but is still French. I am therefore of opinion, that nothing short of the process, suggested by Mr Lovell will justify a register; but that will.
I have the honor Sir, to be &c

Edm. Randolph


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Fitzgerald, [July 1793]
From: Fitzgerald, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Alexandria, Virginia, July, 1793]
Sir!

By an Act of Congress in the Year 1790, the Gold Coins of France, England, Spain and Portugal were made a legal tender, in the receipt and payment of all monies received and paid by virtue of said Act, at the rate of 89 cents for every penny-weight thereof.
By an Act past last Session, the Gold Coins of Britain and Portugal were made a legal tender after the 1st. Instant, at the rate of 100 Cents for every 27 Grains actual weight thereof, and not otherwise. In consequence of which regulation, a loss of ⅛th of one per cent will be sustained by each Officer of the Customs, on the balance of Cash on hand the said 1st. July Instant, as no person holding a Draft on them, whether drawn prior or subsequent to that date will receive payment otherwise than agreeably to the last act, and I presume you will see the propriety of allowing the difference in the next settlement of our accounts.
A small difference of opinion has arisen between the Surveyor of this District and myself, respecting the fees for the admeasurment of Vessels. He is of the opinion that the proviso in the Law which says, that “in all cases where the Tonnage of any Ship or Vessel shall be ascertained by any person appointed for that purpose, such person shall be paid a reasonable compensation therefor, out of the fees aforesaid, before any distribution thereof, as aforesaid” makes it clear in his favour; I think however that this construction would operate too severely; as in my case (there being no Naval Officer) I should pay two thirds of the compensation to a person appointed merely to ease the Surveyor, and to do that duty which he in person has a right to perform. I am strengthened in this opinion by a letter of yours to Mr. Lee on this subject dated the 18th. of January 1792 wherein you say “The Surveyor of your District has written to me on the subject of a person who should be authorized by you to aid him in the admeasurement of Vessels, this appointment you will perceive is attended with no expense to the United States, no provision for the compensation of such a person being made, the wages he receives will be defrayed by the Surveyor out of his Emoluments. It should seem therefore, if he wants such assistance, and the person he recommends to you is unexceptionable, that it might be well to appoint him.” I request you will examine this matter and see if any thing has happened since the above letter was written to cause a change in your opinion.
As I have had no instructions, what fee should be charged for filling up and signing Passports or Sea Letters, and not thinking it of moment to trouble you about them I have charged 20 Cents as for a Certificate, as this does not appear to me to be in proportion to the trouble, I will be much obliged by having your opinion respecting it.
I am Sir   Your most Obedient Servant

John Fitzgerald, Collector


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Lewis, [July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lewis, William

[Philadelphia, July, 1793]
Dr Sir

I send you all the Books you sent me. There appears to me a passage important to Mr Rawle Questiones Juris Pub Lib 1 Chap VIII Page 178.
I mean what relates to the People of Munster who made out of the territories of Spain incursions into those of Holland. It shews by an example that military expeditions out of the territory of a neutral Power cannot rightfully be made by a Power at War & that if permitted the Neutral Nation is answerable. A fortiori The means of such expeditions cannot be prepared in a neutral territory.

A H


Title: Cabinet Meetings. Proposals Concerning the Conduct of the French Minister, [1–23 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Jefferson, Thomas,Knox, Henry,Randolph, Edmund
To:

[Philadelphia, August 1–23, 1793]

At meetings of the heads of departments & the Attorney General at the President’s on the 1st. & 2d. of Aug. 1793. On a review of the whole of mr Genet’s correspondence & conduct, it was unanimously agreed that a letter should be written to the Minister of the US. at Paris, stating the same to him, resuming the points of difference which had arisen between the government of the US. & mr Genet, assigning the reasons for the opinions of the former, & desiring the recall of the latter: and that this letter with those which have passed between mr Genet & the Secretary of state, & other necessary documents, shall be laid by mr Morris before the Executive of the French government.
At a meeting of the same at the President’s Aug. 15 the rough draught of the 2d letter having been prepared by the Secretary of state was read for consideration, and it was agreed that the Secretary of the treasury should take measures for obtaining a vessel either by hire or purchase, to be sent to France express, with the dispatches when ready.
At a meeting of the same at the President’s Aug. 20. the 2d: letter was read & corrected by paragraphs & finally agreed to.
At a meeting of the same at the President’s Aug. 23. it was agreed that the preceding letter should bear the date of the last document which is to accompany it, to wit, Aug. 16 & the draught of a second letter to our Minister at Paris was read & unanimously approved, & to bear date this day. Stated & signed this 23d. day of Aug. 1793.

Th: Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
H Knox
Edm: Randolph.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Abijah Hammond, 1 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hammond, Abijah

Philadelphia August 1. 1793
Sir

Please to pay to Jonathan Burrall Esquire or order on demand One Thousand Eight hundred and Eleven Dollars and ten cents for so much due me by the Society for establishing useful manufactures.
Your obedient servant

Alexander Hamilton
Abijah Hammond EsquireCashier of the Society for establishinguseful manufactures.


Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [2–10 August 1793]
From: Hammond, George,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 2–10, 1793]

The executive government, though it will feel itself strengthened by, had not waited for, this approbation of the influential members of the community. It had long before been sensible of the necessity of immediately pursuing vigorous measures, and had been convinced that delay would confirm its opponents, and might probably commit, to the hazard of the contest, the preservation of its tranquillity internal as well as external, and even the duration of its existence. Your Lordship will collect from a letter of Mr. Jefferson’s, dated the 12th of July, that the judges were convened by the President, for the purpose of consultation. But these gentlemen refused to give any opinion on questions of a political nature. The members of the Cabinet have therefore been left to form their own decisions, and I have now learnt from a confidential quarter, (which your Lordship will easily conjecture) the final and unanimous result of their discussions. It has been determined to prepare, an ample and complete reply to all Mr. Genet’s memorials and an exposition of his proceedings ever since his arrival in this country—to apprize him that the privateers, which had been fitted out in the ports of the United States, would be excluded from future asylum in them, and, if they attempted to return to any of them, would be expelled by force. And that for any prizes, which they had made or might happen to make subsequently to the 5th of June (the period at which the Charleston privateers were ordered to depart) the United States would, if they were not restored by the captors, allow full compensation to the owners of them out of the sums due to France—and it has been farther determined to inform Mr. Genet that his conduct has been so exceptionable, as that this government can tolerate him no longer, and that his constituents will be immediately informed of this determination, accompanied by a request that they would recall him without delay. In the mean time, in consideration of his distance from home, his functions would not be entirely suspended, but that he would still be allowed to make any communications, in writing on ordinary business.
With respect to the resolution of excluding the privateers from these ports, and of compensating for the prizes taken by them—your Lordship will see the proof of it, in a letter to me from Mr. Jefferson upon the subject. And as to the determination of applying to France for Mr. Genet’s recall—exclusive of the information I have received, I have reason to imagine that a very fast sailing vessel is now preparing for the purpose of conveying this requisition to that country, and will be ready to sail in the course of a few days.
Should the national convention determine to support its minister, whose conduct indeed seems to be but consentaneous with the practice of his employers, be unwilling to submit quietly to the dereliction of the advantages, which it expected to derive from the circumstance of the ports of this country being open to French privateers, or, in this instance alone, forgo those immediate schemes of rapine and plunder, which, in every other instance of inability to bend a neutral power to its views, it has uniformly practised—this order of things must issue in a war between France and this country, an event, to which I know this government looks forward, as neither improbable nor distant.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Etienne Dutilh and John G. Wachsmuth, 2 August 1793
From: Dutilh, Etienne,Wachsmuth, John G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 2, 1793. On August 19, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Dutilh and Wachsmuth: “I am to acknowlege the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Andrew G. Fraunces, 2 August 1793
From: Fraunces, Andrew G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, August 2, 1793.  Five o’clock, P. M.
Sir,
As I informed you on the 30th. instant, I have written to the President, and have stated the claim I hold upon the public, on account of the Treasury warrants presented by me to you for acceptance, to which I have received no answer. I now inform you that I shall, unless I receive a more satisfactory answer than I have from you (seeing I have received none from the President) state every thing I know relative to the affair to the People—the Umpire—who are to judge of the conduct of their servants, and by whose decision I will only abide.
P. S. By the bearer I expect an answer.
I am Sir, your obedient servant,

Andrew G. Fraunces, Filbert-Street.
Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew G. Fraunces, 2 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Philadelphia, August 2, 1793.
Sir,
I have received your letter of this date, at which I am astonished more than I can express. Do you imagine that any menaces of appeal to the people, can induce me to depart from what I conceive to be my public duty!
As to what you call the affair of the Umpire, I cannot even divine what you mean by it. But whatever it may be—whatever guilty project you may have entered into, to better your condition by defaming me—I set you and all your accomplices at defiance. Begin as soon as your please; but beware of what attempt.

A. Hamilton
Mr. Andrew G. Fraunces.


Title: Notes for a Letter to Gouverneur Morris, [2–16 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 2–16, 1793]

  I
  explanation of fitting out privateers Charlestown put on footing of their being no law

  II
  Letter persisting in objection to it

  III
  reclaims Gideon Henfield

  IV
  very moderate answer that Courts will do right

  V
  Concerning Sloop Republican

  I
  Issuing Commissions a mere consular act—

  II
  insists on right of army for defence—

  III
  speaks of Treaty permitting to enter

  IV
  armed—to equip themselves—

  V
  France always in practice of issuing Commissions

  VI
  Will give orders to consuls to take precautions to respect our Territory & political opinions of President—

  VII
  Insists on right of arming vessels—abandonning unworthily its friends—in waiting till the Representatives of the sovereign had resolved to adopt or reject—

  VII
  Complaint of proceedings of District Court, against the William—persons labour secretly to have misunderstood—

  VIII
  Letter concerning Debt accomplish informal system since the fœderel Govt. without consulting Congress

  IX
  Awkwardness Governor avails himself of political opinions

  ☞ X
  Letter—opinions private & public of President— on j’est empressé tu Je ne scais sous quelles influence—empressions etrangers complains of obstruction to consular jurisdiction

  X
  Letter concerning Ship William requiring relinquishment

  XI
  Letter concerning another Vessel on same situation

  XII
  Letter concerning Little Democrat—taken on account of the State to augment the marine of France—Commission &c

  I
  Blamed in a conversation the judicial proceedings of the Consul—Ought only to have made a ministerial Inquiry—

  I
  Case of the Swallow


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [2 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, August 2, 1793]

The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor respectfully to submit to the President the enclosed communication from the Commissioner of the Revenue, accompanied with a Contract for the Stakeage of the shoals in Cape Fear river.
It appears to the Secretary that a ratification of the Contract would be for the interest of the Public service.

A Hamilton
Treasury Depmt.  2d. August 1793.


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Proposed Rules Governing Belligerents, [3 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 3, 1793]

At a Meeting of the Secretary of State The Secretary of the Treasury The Secretary at War and the Attorney General at  the .

The following rules were agreed to—

I
The original arming and equipping of vessels in the Ports of the UStates, by any of the belligerent parties, for Military service offensive or defensive, is deemed unlawful.

II
Equipments of Merchant vessels by either of the belligerent parties in the Ports of the UStates, purely for the accommodation of them as such is deemed lawful.

III
Equipments in the Ports of the UStates of vessels of war in the immediate service of the Government of any of the belligerent parties which if done to other vessels would be of a doubtful nature, as being applicable either to Commerce or War, are deemed lawful; except those which shall have made prize of the subjects people or property of France coming with their prizes into the Ports of the UStates pursuant to the 17th article of our Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France.

IV
Equipments in the Ports of the UStates by any of the parties at war with France of Vessels fitted for Merchandize and War, whether with or without Commissions, which are doubtful in their nature as being applicable either to commerce or war are deemed lawful; except those which shall have made prize &c

V
Equipments of any of the vessels of France in the Ports of the UStates which are doubtful in their nature, as being applicable to Commerce or War, are deemed lawful

VI
Equipments of every kind in the Ports of the UStates of privateers of the Powers at War with France are deemed unlawful.

VII
Equipments of vessels in the Ports of the united States which are of a nature solely adapted to war are deemed unlawful; except those stranded or wrecked as mentioned in the 18th. Article of our Treaty with France the 16th of our Treaty with the United Netherlands the 9th of our Treaty with Prussia and except those mentioned in the 19th article of our Treaty with France the 17 of our Treaty with the UNetherlands the 18th of our Treaty with Prussia.

VIII
Vessels of either of the parties not armed or armed previous to their coming into the ports of the UStates which shall not have infringed any of the foregoing rules may lawfully engage or inlist therein their own subjects or citizens not being inhabitants of the UStates; except privateers of the Powers at War with France and except those vessels which shall have made prize &c


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Fitting Out of Privateers in the Ports of the United States, [3 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 3, 1793]
That The Minister of the French Republic be informed that the President considers the UStates as bound pursuant to positive assurances; given in conformity to the laws of neutrality, to effectuate the restoration of, or to make compensation for, prizes which shall have been made of any of the parties at war with France subsequent to the fifth day of June last by privateers fitted out of their ports.
That it is consequently expected, that he will cause restitution to be made of all prizes taken and brought into our Ports subsequent to the abovementioned day by such prizes privateers; in defect of which The President considers it as incumbent upon The UStates to indemnify the Owners of those prizes—the indemnification to be reimbursed by the French Nation.
That besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting out of Privateers in the Ports of The UStates, they will not give asylum therein to any which shall have been at any time so fitted out, and will cause restitution of all such prizes as shall be hereafter brought within their Ports by any of said Privateers.
That instructions be sent to the respective Governors in conformity to the above communication.
The foregoing having been duely considered and being now unanimously approved they are submitted to The President of The United States August 3, 1793.

Th: Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
H Knox
Edm: Randolph


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew G. Fraunces, 3 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Philadelphia, August 3, 1793.
Sir,
I find on a second reading of your letter yesterday, that I mistook the expressions contained in it, and was led to give to it a meaning which is entirely foreign to it.
I hasten to correct my error, and to assure you, that I am extremely pained at the harsh inference I was led to draw and to express. I feel myself bound without loss of time to apologize to you for it, and to declare to you my sincere regret. You will receive in the course of the day another answer to your letter.
I am Sir, your obedient servant,

Alexander Hamilton.
Mr. Andrew G. Fraunces, Filbert-Street.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew G. Fraunces, 3 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Philadelphia, August 3, 1793.
Sir,
Your letter of yesterday I received last night. The contents of it surprize me. Could you imagine that the menace of an appeal to the people, would induce me to swerve from what I thought my public duty?

If you believe that it will be of any advantage to you, I have no objection to your making it, whenever you think proper.
The President has put into my hands your letter, in order that I may give him information upon the subject of it. This will be done as soon as more urgent official concerns will permit; and his decision will of course govern me.
I do not think it proper to notice to you any thing in that letter, except the part by which you seem to insinuate, that some sinister motives, known only to a few, have produced my refusal to pay for the present, the warrants. If this be your meaning, it is incumbent upon you, and I call upon you to declare what those motives are, and the evidence you have of them.
I am, Sir, your humble servant,

Alexander Hamilton.
Mr. Andrew G. Fraunces,(to be left with his Father, at the Presidents’.)


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 3 August 1793
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York Saturday 3d. Augt. 1793.

The french fleet from the Chesapeak arrived here yesterday, and are in the north river above the Battery. The Ambuscade also arrived last Evening and her accounts, confirmed by those of many Spectators of the combat, have no doubt of the Flight of the English Frigate.
(You will have seen in our news papers, an invitation for a meeting in the Fields to address Mr. Genest who is daily expected here. This business originated with M. Smith Gelston, Osgood, B. Livingston, Nicholson, and others of like political Character; between two & three Hundred Persons assembled, and I am told, they were generally antifederal. Nicholson was in the Chair, an Address was produced, & adopted, and a Committee of thirty or Forty Persons appointed to present it.) These Gentlemen will not be stopped by Trifles, they already affirm that the Cause of France is that of america, that it is time to distinguish its friends from its Enemies, that in respect to the rumour of Mr. Genest’s appeal to the People from the Decision of the Executive the people are competent Judges of their own Interest & obligations, that there can be no Danger to them from the free exercise of their Judgment on so great & interesting an Occasion. True it is that their Decision may displease men in high Authority, but that will not prove their Judgment to have been erroneous. Nay some of these Gentlemen go further, and not only excuse, but applaud, the Decree of the french Convention, which not only contravenes our Treaty of commerce, but grossly violates the best established Rules in the law of Nations. In short my friend, unless the Executive will quickly & vigorously exercise its powers in checking the influence of Mr. Genest, it may experience the mortification of seeing them perish in its hands. Our Chamber of Commerce will on Tuesday pass Resolutions, approving the Proclamation &c, and we are resolved to try the Citizens for the like Purpose. But this is altogether wrong. We have with great Trouble established a Constitution which vests competent powers in the hands of the Executive—it is the duty of that department to see that the Laws are executed, & the peace and order of the Community preserved. It was never expected that the executive should sit with folded Arms, and that the Government should be carried on by Town Meetings, and those irregular measures, which disorganize the Society, destroy the salutary influence of regular Government, and render the Magistracy a mere pageant.
This decree of the french Convention has thrown the mercantile people into the greatest embarrassments—insurance on american Vessels & Cargoes cannot be made without paying war Premiums. I am told that where four & five per Cent was given, Eighteen & twenty are now required.
Adieu   yours &c

R King.


Title: George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, [3 August 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Jefferson, Thomas,Knox, Henry,Randolph, Edmund

[Philadelphia, August 3, 1793]
Gentlemen,
Fresh occurrences, but communicated thro’ private channels, make it indispensable that the general principles which have already been the subject of discussion should be fixed, & made known for the government of all concerned, as soon as it can be done with propriety.
To fix rules on substantial ground, conformably to treaties & the Laws of nations, is extremely desireable.
The verdict of the late Jury, in the case of Henfield, & the decision of yesterday, respecting the French Minister, added to the situation of Indian Affairs—& the general complexion of public matters induce me to ask your advice, whether it be proper, or not, to convene the Legislature at an earlier day than that on which it is to meet by Law? And, if it be thought adviseable, at what time?

Go Washington
Philadelphia3d: Augt. 1793.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [3 August 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 3, 1793]
Dr. Sir,
Motives of Justice, friendship & candour induce me to send the enclosed for your perusal. Let me know the truth of this matter. What answer is proper to be given to it, and by whom.

The writer is urgent to receive one, having called once or twice since the delivery of it, for This purpose.
I am &c.

Go. Washington
Philada. 3d. Augt. 93.


Title: George Washington to Andrew G. Fraunces, 3 August 1793
From: Washington, George
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Phila. Augt. 3d. 1793
Sir

I have received your Letter of the 30th. of July. The matter of it being of a serious nature I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to report to me in writing how far the Representation is founded in fact and the reasons on his part for declining the payment of the Warrants. But I do not expect that he can, consistently with objects of a more general concern, make his report ’till some time in the ensuing week; in the course of which you will be informed of the result of your application.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Andrew G. Fraunces, 4 August 1793
From: Fraunces, Andrew G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, August 4, 1793.
Sir,
My father delivered me this morning your letter of yesterday, which is the third I have received in answer to mine of the 2d. instant. On mature consideration, I find myself warranted in deferring as particular an answer as might be given to them. It is not my intention to make any communication to you, but in your official capacity, and it appears to me these are considered by you as private. When I am assured you have meant them as official, and after your report which you are directed to make to the President; I shall fully and pointedly endeavor to clear up every hint and direct assertion given or made in my letter in question, of the 30th. ultimo.
I enclose you a copy of the information I have received from the President, and conclude with observing, that whether I better my situation or not, at the present moment, from an appeal to the people, I shall at least prove among the rest—that you have not acted in your official capacity, with that uniformity of conduct which might have been expected.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Andrew G. Fraunces.
The Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 4 August 1793
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Philadelphia, August 4th, 1793.
Sir,
It appearing that repeated contraventions of our neutrality have taken place in the ports of the United States, without having been discovered in time for prevention or remedy, I have it in command from the President, to address to the collectors of the respective districts a particular instruction on the subject.
It is expected, that the officers of the customs in each district, will in the course of their official functions have a vigilant eye upon whatever may be passing within the ports, harbours, creeks, inlets and waters of such district, of a nature to contravene the laws of neutrality, and upon discovery of any thing of the kind will give immediate notice to the governor of the state and to the attorney of the judicial district, comprehending the district of the customs within which any such contravention may happen.
To assist the judgment of the officers on this head, I transmit herewith a schedule of rules, concerning sundry particulars, which have been adopted by the President, as deductions from the laws of neutrality, established and received among nations. Whatever shall be contrary to these rules will, of course, be to be notified, as abovementioned.
There are some other points, which, pursuant to our treaties and the determinations of the executive, I ought to notice to you.
If any vessel of either of the powers at war with France should bring or send within your district a prize made of the subjects, people or property of France, it is immediately to be notified to the governor of the state, in order that measures may be taken, pursuant to the 17th article of our treaty with France, to oblige such vessel and her prize, or such prize when sent in without the capturing vessel, to depart.
No privateer of any of the powers at war with France, coming within a district of the United States, can, by the 22d article of our treaty with France, enjoy any other privilege than that of purchasing such victuals as shall be necessary for her going to the next port of the prince or state, from which she has her commission. If she should do anything beside this, it is immediately to be reported to the governor and the attorney of the district. You will observe by the rules transmitted, that the term privateer is understood not to extend to vessels armed for merchandize and war, commonly called with us letters of marque; nor, of course, to vessels of war in the immediate service of the government of either of the powers at war.
No armed vessel which has been or shall be originally fitted out in any port of the United States by either of the parties at war is henceforth to have asylum in any district of the United States. If any such armed vessel shall appear within your district, she is immediately to be notified to the governor and attorney of the district; [which is also to be done in respect to any prize that such armed vessel shall bring or send in.] At foot is a list of such armed vessels of the above description as have hitherto come to the knowledge of the executive.
The purchasing within, and exporting from, the United States, by way of merchandize, articles commonly called contraband (being, generally, warlike instruments and military stores) is free to all the parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If our own citizens undertake to carry them to any of those parties, they will be abandoned to the penalties which the laws of war authorise.
You will be particularly careful to observe, and to notify as directed in other instances, the case of any citizen of the United States, who shall be found in the service of either of the parties at war.
In case any vessel shall be found in the act of contravening any of the rules or principles which are the ground of this instruction, she is to be refused a clearance until she shall have complied with what the governor shall have decided in reference to her. Care, however, is to be taken in this, not unnecessarily or unreasonably to embarrass trade or to vex any of the parties concerned.
In order that contraventions may be the better ascertained, it is desired that the officer who shall first go on board any vessel arriving within your district shall make an accurate survey of her then condition, as to military equipment, to be forthwith reported to you, and that prior to her clearance a like survey be made, that any transgression of the rules laid down may be ascertained.
[But as the propriety of any such inspection of a vessel of war in the immediate service of the government of a foreign nation is not without question in reference to the usage of nations, no attempt is to be made to inspect any such vessel till further order on the point.]

The president desires me to signify to you his most particular expectation that the instruction contained in this letter will be executed with the greatest vigilance, activity, care and impartiality. Omissions will tend to expose the government to injurious imputations and suspicions, and proportionably to commit the good faith and peace of the country; objects of too much importance not to engage every proper exertion of your zeal.
With consideration, I am, Sir   Your obedient servant,

A Hamilton

List referred toCitizen GenetSans CulottesVainquer De Bastille
}
Fitted out at Charleston

Petit DemocratCaramagnole

PhiladelphiaDelaware


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion Respecting Certain French Vessels and Their Prizes, [5 August 1793]
From: Jefferson, Thomas,Hamilton, Alexander,Knox, Henry
To:

[Philadelphia, August 5, 1793]
At a meeting of the heads of departments & the Attorney general at the Secretary of state’s office Aug. 5. 1793.
The case of the Swallow letter of marque at New York, desired to be sent out of our ports, as being a privateer. It is the opinion that there is no ground to make any order on the subject.
The Polly or Republican, in the hands of the Marshal at New York, on a charge of having been armed in our ports to cruize against nations at peace with the US. It is the opinion there is no ground to make any new order in this case.
The Little Democrat, the Vainqueur de la Bastille, the Citoyen Genet, & the Sans Culottes. A letter to be written to mr Genet as was determined on the 3d. instant, and an instruction in conformity therewith be given to the governors. Mr Hammond to be informed thereof & to be assured the government will effectuate their former resolution on this subject.
The Lovely Lass, the Prince William Henry, & the Jane of Dublin, prizes to the Citoyen Genet. Mr Genet to be written to as was agreed on the 3d. inst.
The brig Fanny and Ship William reclaimed as taken within the limits of our protection. As it is expected that the court of Admiralty may very shortly reconsider whether it will take cognisance of these cases, it is thought better to take no new measure therein for the present.
The Schooner fitting out at Boston as mentd. in a letter of mr Gore to mr Lear. The Governor of Massachusets to be written to to suppress her.
Mr. Delany’s letter of the 24th. of July on the question whether duties are to be paid on prize goods landed for sale. It is the opinion the duties are to be paid.
A letter from mr Genet of the 4th. of Aug. informing the Secretary of state that certain inhabitants lately arrived from St. Domingo are combining to form a military expedition from the territory of the US. against the constituted authorities of the sd island. It is the opinion that the Governor of Maryland be informed thereof (because in a verbal communication to the Secretary of state mr Genet had named Baltimore as the place where the combination was forming) and that he be desired to take measures to prevent the same.

Th: Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
H Knox

The Secretary of State and Attorney General are of opinion that Mr. Hammond be informed that measures are taking to procure restoration of the prizes the Lovely Lass The Prince William Henry and the Jane of Dublin, and in case that cannot be effected that Government will take the subject into further consideration.
The Secretaries of the Treasury and of War are of opinion that Mr. Hammond be informed that measures are taking to effect the restoration of the prizes The Lovely Lass, The Prince William Henry and the Jane of Dublin; that in case this shall not be effected the President considers it as incumbent upon the UStates to make compensation for those Prizes; and that prizes in similar circumstances which shall be hereafter brought into the Ports of UStates will be restored.


Title: No Jacobin No. II, [5 August 1793]
From: “No Jacobin”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 5, 1793]

The next charge of breach of Treaty exhibited by the Jacobin against the Executive of the UStates, is to use his own language—“the seizure of prizes made known to the Agents of the French Republic at the moment those prizes were held up for sale—the orders given to the Military to take possession of a French Vessel without previous complaint explanation or communication with the Agents of the French Republic.”—said to be contraventions of the XVII article of the Treaty of Commerce; by which it is provided “that it shall be lawful for the Ships of War of either party and privateers freely to carry whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty or any other Judges; and without those vessels or their prizes entring into the Ports of the one party or the other, being liable to be arrested or seized; nor can the Officers of the places take cognizance of the validity of the said prizes; which may go out and be conducted freely and in all liberty to the places expressed in their Commissions, which the Commanders of the said vessels shall be obliged to shew &c.”
It is presumed that the facts complained of are more particularly applicable to the case of the Ship William arrested in this Port; though it is understood, that the same proceedings with some small difference of circumstances took place in the case of another Vessel at New York.
To judge of the propriety of the complaint in each case it is necessary to attend to the following particulars. According to the general laws and usages of Nations, the jurisdiction of every country extends a certain distance into the sea along the whole extent of its coast. What this distance is remains a matter of some uncertainty; though it is an agreed principle that it at least extends to the utmost range of cannon shot, that is, not less than four Miles. But most nations claim and exercise jurisdiction to a greater extent: Three leagues, or nine Miles, seem to accord with the most approved rule; and would appear from [Martin] a French author to be that which is adopted by France; though Valin another French author, states it at only two leagues or six miles.
Within this distance of the coast of a neutral Country all captures made by a power at War upon its enemy are illegal and null—on the principle of its being a violation of the jurisdiction and Protection of the neutral Country. This is principle founded upon the most evident ⟨reas⟩on, asserted ⟨by⟩ all Writers, ⟨and⟩ practiced upon by all Nations.
Every Nation has a right to prevent a violation of its jurisdiction, and consequently to prevent the making of captures within that jurisdiction. A right to redress if such captures be made, is a necessary consequence.
A neutral nation is bound to prevent injuries within its jurisdiction to a Power with which it is at peace, by any other power. In other words it owes safeguard & protection to the citizens & subjects of every power with which it is at Peace. It is therefore bound to exert itself to prevent captures, within the limits of its protection, of the subjects or Property of one power by another power and if any such capture happens to avail itself of its own right of redress against the power making it for the purpose of effecting a restoration of the person or thing captured.
This is too plain to be denied—but it is pretended that the redress of the injury is to be sought through the channel of negotiation only, and not by the immediate exertion of the authority of the neutral Nation to cause restitution to be made in the first instance either by means of its Courts of Justice or by the use of the public force.
It may boldly be affirmed, that this position is founded neither on principle, on the opinions of writers, nor on the practice of Nations; not on principle, because it is unreasonable to suppose that a Nation ought to pospone the opportunity of redressing itself and of doing justice to another, upon the uncertain issue of a negotiation of which it cannot foresee the success. When the object is out of its reach, the way of negotiation ought to be pursued for the alternative then is to negotiate or go to war; and a due moderation requires that a preference should be given to the milder course; but if the object to which the injury relates is within its power, the most prudent as well as the most dignified and efficacious course, is to embrace the opportunity of rectifying what has been done amiss; for this serves to terminate the affair and avoid the controversies and heats too often incident to negotiation.
The position in question is not founded on the opinions of Writers; for these establish a contrary doctrine; as may be seen in Bynkershock’s quaestiones Publici Juris Book [I] Chap. [8. Vatel book 2. Sect. 84, 101, 102 and 289. 2. R. inst. 587–589. Leoline Jenkins life and papers 1 vol. xcv. 2 vol. page 727: 733: 751: 2. 754. 755. 780. Woodesons lectures page 443 —Douglass Rep. 595.—Lee on captures ch: ix.] nor in the practice of Nations, for this is in favour of summary prevention & redress, as may be seen by the examples which those writers quote and as is within the experience of individuals among ourselves. A neutral fortress never scruples to fire upon the Vessel of any Power which attempts to commit a hostility against another Power within the reach of its Cannon; nor a neutral sovereign or magistrate to prevent or restore captures made within his jurisdiction.

   Indeed our treaties with several Powers oblige us to this conduct. In the 5 Article of that with Holland the 2 of that with Sweden the 7th of that with Prussia the UStates, in affirmance of the general doctrine of the law of Nations, bind themselves “to endeavour, by all the means in their power to defend and protect all vessels and other effects belonging to the subjects and inhabitants of those Powers respectively in their ports, roads, havens, internal seas passes Rivers and as far as their jurisdiction extends at sea, and to recover and cause to be restored to the true proprietor all such vessels and effects, which shall be taken under their jurisdiction”; a plain indication, there being no saving clause in favour of our treaty with France, that our then Negotiation & Government never dreamt of the newly invented construction of that Treaty.

These observations will lead to a right judgment of the merits of the complaint which is made.
Each of the vessels in question is understood to have been taken, within a distance short of the least of the two distances which have been mentioned as forming the rule observed by France; one of them within less than three Miles; the other within less than five Miles.
It may therefore be affirmed that both these captures were made within the limits of the protection of the UStates and in violation of their jurisdiction; and it will follow from the principles which have been maintained that the UStates have a right and are bound to cause restitution of those prizes.
To this conclusion is opposed that provision of the article of the Treaty which declares that the local officers cannot take cognizance of the validity of the prizes which are carried by one party into the harbours or Ports of the other.
But there is no better established rule of interpretation with regard either to laws or Treaties than that general expressions shall never be so understood as to involve unreasonableness or absurdity. According to this rule The General Expression—“the local Officers (les officiers des lieux) cannot take cognizance of the validity of the prizes” must naturaly be understood with reference to prizes made on the high seas, without the jurisdiction of the party into whose harbours or ports they are brought; not in reference to prizes taken within the protection and jurisdiction of such party. The following qualification is from the nature of things implied in the general terms (to wit); provided the prizes have not been taken within the jurisdiction of the party in whose ports they shall be.” An interpretation so extensive as to embrace Prizes made within the jurisdiction of such party would lead to a consequence no less absurd than this—a vessel of the UStates might be taken by a French Privateer in the Port of Philadelphia, and there would be no power to question the validity of the prize or enforce restitution. Such a consequence is too violent to be admissible and a position which includes it refutes itself. It can never be imagined that any Nation could mean to tie up his hands to such an extent.
If then prizes of vessels belonging to the US or their Citizens must be excepted it will follow that the clause cannot in this respect be taken in a literal sense; and if it is to be taken in a rational not a literal sense, it will admit the exception of all prizes taken within the jurisdiction or protection of the party within whose territories they are found, being at peace with the Nation of whom or of whose citizens they are made: For a state owes protection not only to its own citizens but to the citizens of every other Nation, with which it is at peace, coming within its jurisdiction for commerce or any other lawful cause. Nor can it even be supposed, upon the strength of mere general expressions that it has meant to exchange the right of affording protection & security by its own power and authority, for that of negotiating with another Nation the reparation which may be due to a violation of its jurisdiction. So essential an alienation of Jurisdiction could only be deduced from precise and specific as well as express terms.
Besides, such an inference is broader even than the letter of the clause. Tis only to the officiers des lieux, the local Officers or officers of the harbours, ports, or places, to which the prizes are brought, that the cognizance of their validity is forbidden—tis not to the general Judiciary Tribunals or to the general executive authority of the country that such cognizance is denied. The expressions officers des lieux are not of a nature to comprehend them. They therefore are under no prohibition by the Treaty, and consequently, as far as consists with the jus gentium, or law of nations, are at liberty to interpose.
And the rule of the law of Nations is this—That a Neutral Nation shall not interpose to examine the validity of prizes made by a Power at War at any place, except one which is within the jurisdiction of such Neutral Nation. It is of the essence of Jurisdiction to redress all wrongs, which happen within its sphere. Powers at war have no rights, in derogation from the peculiar purisdiction of a neutral Nation. That jurisdiction therefore is in the same force against them, as against Powers at Peace. What would be a marine Trespass in the one case is so in the other. A capture within the protection or jurisdiction of a neutral State is not a lawful act of war but a mere trespass; of course within the competency of the neutral state to redress it.

It is clearly demonstrated by what has been said that the Government of the UStates had an undoubted right to interpose coercively, not by mere negotiation, to effect the restoration of the Ships in Question to their original owners; and that the doing so either by a direct exertion of the public force or by means of Judicial process is consistent both with the laws of Nations and with the true meaning of our treaty with France. It therefore gives no handle to the the complaint of breach of Treaty.
To what department of the Government it most regularly belongs to effect the requisite redress—whether to the Executive or to the Judiciary or to both indiscriminately is not yet settled in this Country; nor is it material to any foreign Nation. It is a mere question between the Departments of our own Government. So long as nothing is done which is contrary to the laws of Nations or to Treaty, a foreign Power can have no ground of complaint.
As to the point of previous application to the Agents of the Foreign Nation concerned, this belongs to a mere question of civility not of right. There being in every such case a direct responsibility on the part of the Neutral Nation to the Power whose citizens or property may have been captured, the Power making the capture cannot justly be dissatisfied if the surest method of performing its duty is adopted by the Neutral Nation. This is to take the prize in the first instance into custody, till a fair and full examination can be had into the fact, with regard to the place of Capture; as was done in the instances in question.

This course too would naturally obtain till some arrangement should have been concerted between the Government and the Agents of the powers at War, and is the only one which can be observed at places where there are no such Agents. And it would seem from what took place in the case of the William immediately after her seizure that such an arrangement has been subsequently agreed upon; which is a proof that the course pursued was not the effect of unkind disposition.
But if there had been a disposition to proceed with strictness and rigour, it will be shewn as the sequel, that it was fully warranted by the very disrespectful treatment we have experienced from the Agents of France—who have acted towards us from the beginning more like a dependent Colony than like an Independent Nation! a state of degradation to which I trust the freedom of the American Mind will never deign to submit.

No Jacobin


Title: Philo Pacificus, [5 August 1793]
From: “Philo Pacificus”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 5, 1793]

Mr. Dunlap
Your correspondent the old Soldier has given us a long string of quotations from Vatel & Burlamqui—to prove what?
Why, that the keeping of promises is of great importance to Nations and to Individuals.
That real Treaties are binding upon Nations notwithstanding changes in the form of Government.
And this parade of authorities is offered against something that Pacificus is pretended to have advanced; who indirectly is honored by this learned and good natured Writer with the Epithets Highwayman Villain &c.
What are we to think of the understanding or Candor of this Old Soldier, when the fact is that Pacificus has not uttered a syllable tending to draw into question either of the propositions which the authorities quoted tend to establish.
The reasoning of Pacificus throughout not only admits the sacredness of Treaties but proceeds upon the ground, that the Treaties both of Alliance and of Amity and Commerce, between the UStates and France, are still in full force between the two Nations, notwithstanding the change which has happened in the Government of France.
All that he says turns upon an examination of the true meaning of the engagements contained in those Treaties, not upon the obligatory force of the Treaties themselves.
It follows, that all the extracts quoted by your correspondent are intirely foreign from the purpose.
To contest the meaning of a promise is certainly a very different thing from disputing its validity or obligation.
But the Old Soldier, besides quoting authorities to prove what has not been denied, has been guilty of shamefully mutilating the strongest of those he has quoted, in a manner very material to its sense.
The intire passage is found in Vatel Book II Chapter XII Section 197 in these words—
“If the Nation has deposed its King in form, if the people of a Republic have driven out their Magistrates and set themselves at liberty, or acknowleged the authority of an usurper either expressly or tacitly; to oppose these domestic regulations, by disputing their Justice or Validity, would be to interfere in the Government of a Nation and to do it an injury. The ally remains the ally of the state notwithstanding the change that has happened. However when this change renders the alliance useless dangerous or disagreeable it may renounce it: for it may say upon a good foundation that it would not have entered into an alliance with that nation had it been under the present form of Government.”
This last clause, which contains a very important qualification of the general principle, not being to the purpose of the old soldier was bravely discarded.
It shews that the UStates, before they gave effect to their treaties with France under the new ⟨regimen,⟩ might have waited to see what government she would establish in place of the old (for as yet she has no constitution) in order that they might first judge whether a continuance of the alliance under the new form would or would not be useless dangerous or disagreeable to them.
But this course it is generally understood & it appears from official communications was not pursued. On the contrary, the Executive has evidently proceeded upon the principle of giving immediate operation to the Treaties with France; and its measures give rise to no question but about the true meaning of those Treaties under the circumstances of the case.
The vindication of those measures on a different ground would therefore have been absurd, and has not been attempted by Pacificus.
Does the Old Soldier probably a mercenary as well as a Veteran, think to deter by his vociferations Pacificus or any other Independent Man from defending against him and his accomplices the rights the peace the dignity and the Independence of the Nation? If he does, he is grievously mistaken. ⟨The real patriots of the country will not be less ready to withstand the encroachments of the agents and myrmidons of France, than they were to resist those of GreatBritain. Their country is to them every thing, and they disdain to bend their necks to the yoke of any foreign nation.   Philo Pacificus.⟩


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John M. Taylor, 6 August 1793
From: Taylor, John M.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 6, 1793. On this day Hamilton wrote to Taylor: “I have received your letter of this date.” Letter not found.]


Title: No Jacobin No. III, [8 August 1793]
From: “No Jacobin”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 8, 1793]

Another accusation against the Executive of the UStates preferred by the Jacobin is derived from this circumstance—That while by the Treaty between the UStates & France the goods of her enemies on board our Ships are exempt from capture; the goods of France on board our Ships are subject to the depredations of her enemies; without any “Steps being taken by the Executive to cause French property to be returned and to prevent similar hardships being in future imposed.”
This has, if possible, still less color than either of the others.
By the general law of Nations, as laid down by all writers and practiced upon by all Nations previous to the late War between the UStates & Great Britain, this principle was clearly and fully established—That the goods of an enemy in the Ships of a friend (that is of a neutral power) are lawful prize and that the goods of a friend in the Ships of an enemy (those called contraband excepted) not lawful prize; subject only to such exceptions as are introduced by particular treaties.
During the war between the UStates and Great Britain certain Powers who associated under the denomination of the armed neutrality set up a rule the reverse of that which had before prevailed, and which has been stated. But this association made with a view to the then existing War, terminated with it. The UStates, though they approved the new principle; never acceded to that association.
They contented themselves with introducing it into their Treaties with such Powers, with whom they formed treaties. Accordingly it is to be found in our Treaties with France Holland Sweden & Prussia.
Great Britain on her part, [it is understood, has not acceded to that principle, which she regarded as originating in hostility to ⟨her⟩ except in the single instance of her late Treaty with France.] And there are several other powers of Europe who did not originally unite in the attempt to introduce it and who are not known to have since done any act amounting to an adoption of it.
An established rule of the law of Nations can only be deemed to be altered by agreements between all the civilized powers or a new usage generally adopted and sanctioned by time.
Neither having happened in the present case, the old principle must be considered as still forming the basis of the general Law of Nations; liable only to the exceptions resulting from particular Treaties.
With France Holland & Prussia, three of the belligerent parties, we have treaties containing the new principle, but with Russia Spain Portugal Austria Savoy we have no treaties whatever. Against the former powers therefore we have a right to claim the new principle. Between us and the latter powers the old rule must govern, unless a departure from it can be regulated by mutual consent.
As we cannot of right assert the new principle against those Powers with whom we have not established it by Treaty so neither can we in prudence or good policy insist upon it under the circumstances of the case. There is not a doubt that all the powers who are at liberty to pursue the old rule will do it. In a war of opinion and passion like the present, concessions to ill founded or doubtful pretensions are not to be expected. Nor are the UStates in a condition to attempt to enforce such claims.
But it seems the not having hitherto manifested a disposition towards this species of Knight errantry is an injury and offence to France. The Jacobin deems it a breach of our Treaty with her that we do not quarrel with other nations for an object which we can claim of them neither by the law of Nations nor by Treaty.
It appears that the Jacobin is ready enough to insist upon, and even to enlarge constructively, all the peculiar advantages which our Treaty with France gives to her; but any circumstance of supposed inconvenience to her is in his eyes a sore grievance.
This very reasonable Gentleman ought to remember that if the property of the enemies of France in our Ships is protected by our Treaty with her, the property of our Citizens in the Ships of those enemies lose by that treaty the munity or security to which they would otherwise be intitled, and he ought to remember that the Citizens of France have already enjoyed the sweets of this at the expence of our Citizens.

   Note *This happened in the case of the Brig Little Sarah on board of which was a quantity of flour belonging to Citizens of Philadelphia. This flour was considered and treated as lawful prize.

 He ought also to remember that it is at best problematical whether the citizens of the UStates have not more property afloat in the bottoms of the Powers at War with France than the Citizens of France have afloat in bottoms of the UStates—and consequently whether the ballance is not in favour of France.
What is there in our history that can authorise our being degraded with the supposition that we are ignorant both of our duties and our rights?

No Jacobin


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Joseph Nourse, 8 August 1793
From: Nourse, Joseph
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Register’s Office, August 8, 1793. Sends “an Estimate of the Pro[ba]ble Amount of Rations which have been and which may be issued from the 1st. January 1793 to the 30th. September following by Messrs. Elliot & Williams Contractors for supplying the Western posts with Provisions.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Troup, 8 August 1793
From: Troup, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York 8 Augt 1793
My dear Sir

We are all alive here. Perhaps this day will be distinguished by the most respectable meeting for numbers—character—& property—ever assembled in this City. The object is to express our warm approbation of the proclamation of neutrality & our determination to support peace. We have by pursuing a bold & manly line of conduct effected a complete consolidation of parties in favor of the great object of neutrality.
You cannot concive how different the feelings of the Federalists are from those they had a few days since. We shall inform you after the meeting of particulars.
Genets reception was noisy—but contemptible to an extreme. His conduct has excited general indignation. If the president pursues the manly & dignified conduct he has marked out for himself he will secure the continuance of that respect & veneration for him which reign in the hearts of all reflecting & good men.
We can & will support him with success. We never will suffer a competition to exist between him & the Minister of any country. Be prudent—steady—manly—and firm—and we shall triump over all enemies both domestic & foreign. I am in great haste. Never were men more industrious & determined than we are. The meeting will take place at 12 o’Clock.
God bless you

Rob Troup

A Hamilton Esq

I send you this as the harbinger of good news

RT


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [8 August 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 8, 1793]

You having stated to me that there will be due & payable on the first of June next on account of the Loans heretofore made by the United States in Holland, the sum of one million of Florins.
I do therefore hereby direct & require that you will take measures for procuring in due time by way of Loan the said sum of one million of florins, to be applied to the payment of the aforesaid installments.
Provided always that the terms & conditions of the said Loan or Loans be according to Law.
Given under my hand at Philada. the Eighth day of August 1793.
Go. Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [8 August 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 8, 1793]

The present being, & being likely to continue for some time a favorable season for purchases of the Public Debt, and as it appears that the whole, or the greatest part of the unexpended monies of the foreign loans heretofore made, will be requisite for satisfying the approaching installments of our Debt to France, which it has been judged expedient to pay without deduction for any prior advance. It appearing moreover from the statements submitted by you to my consideration, that the sum authorised to be borrowed by the Act intitled “an Act making provision for the reduction of the public debt,” there may still be procured for the purpose of that act the sum of one million five hundred & fifteen thousand & ninety eight Dollars & Eleven cents:
I do therefore direct & require that you take immediate measures for obtaining a Loan or Loans to the extent of the sum aforesaid, to be applied to purchases of the public debt pursuant to the provisions of the act above mentioned.
Provided always that the terms & conditions of the said loan or loans shall be according to Law.
Given under my hand at Philada. the Eighth day of Augt. 1793.

Go. Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Charles François Bournonville, 9 August 1793
From: Bournonville, Charles François
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 9, 1793. On August 10, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Bournonville: “Pursuant to your letter of yesterday.” Letter not found.]