Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Meffage of the Prefident of the United States to both Houses of
Congrefs, April 3, 1798.

Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the
House of Representatives,

IN
N compliance with the request of the Houfe of Reprefenta-
tives, expreffed in their refolution of the fecond of this
month, I tranfmit to both Houfes thofe inftructions to and dif-
patches from the envoys extraordinary of the United States to the
French republic, which were mentioned in my meffage of the
19th of March laft, omitting only fome names, and a few ex-
preffions defcriptive of the perfons.

I request that they may be confidered in confidence, until the members of Congrefs are fully poffeffed of their contents, and thall have had opportunity to deliberate on the confequences of their publication; after which time I fubmit them to your wifdom.

United States, April 3d, 1798.

JOHN ADAMS.

Inftructions to Charles Cotefworth Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, Envoys Extraordinary and Minifters Plenipotentiary to the French Republic, referred to in the Meffage of the Prefident of the United States, of the 3d April.

Gentlemen,

Department of State, July 15, 1797

IT is known to you, that the people of the United States of America entertained a warm and fincere affection for the people of France, ever fince their arms were united in the war with Great Britain, which ended in the full and format acknowledgment of the independence of thefe ftates. It is known to you that this affection was ardent, when the French determined to reform their government and establish it on the bafis of liberty; that liberty in which the people of the United States were born, and which, in the conclufion of the war above mentioned, was finally and firmly fecured. It is known to you, that this affection rofe to enthufiafm, when the war was kindled between France and the powers of Europe, which were combined against her for the avowed purpose of restoring the monarchy; and every where vows were heard for the fuccefs of the French arms. Yet, during this period, France expreffed no wish that the United States fhould depart from their neutrality. And while no duty required us to enter into the war, and our best interests urged us to remain at peace, the government determined to take a neutral ftation; which being taken, the duties of an impartial ueutrality became indifpenfably

binding.

binding. Hence the government early proclaimed to our citizens the nature of thofe duties, and the confequences of their violation. The minister of France, Mr. Genet, who arrived about this time, by his public declaration, confirmed the idea, that France did not defire us to quit the ground we had taken. His measures, however, were calculated to destroy our neutrality, and to draw us into the war.

The principles of the proclamation of neutrality, founded on the law of nations, which is the law of the land, were afterwards recognised by the national legislature, and the observance of them enforced by specific penalties, in the act of Congrefs, paffed the 5th of June 1794. By thefe principles and laws, the acts of the Executive, and the decifions of the courts of the United States, were regulated.

A government thus fair and upright in its principles, and juft and impartial in its conduct, might have confidently hoped to be fecure againft formal official cenfure: but the United States have not been fo fortunate. The acts of their government, in its various branches, though pure in principle and impartial in operation, and conformable to their indifpenfable rights of fovereignty, have been affigned as the caufe of the offenfive and injurious measures of the French republic. For proofs of the former all the acts of the government may be vouched; while the afperfions fo freely uttered by the French minifters, the refufal to hear the minifter of the United States, fpecially charged to enter on amicable difcuffions on all the topics of complaint, the decrees of the Executive Directory and of their agents, the depredations on our commerce, and the violence against the perfons of our citizens, are evidences of the latter. Thefe injuries and depre dations will conftitute an important fubject of your difcuffions with the government of the French republic; and for all these wrongs you will feek redress.

In refpect to the depredations on our commerce, the principal objects will be, to agree to an equitable mode of examining and deciding the claims of our citizens, and the manner and periods of making them compenfation. As to the firft, the feventh article of the British, and the twenty-first of the Spanish treaty, prefent approved precedents to be adopted with France. The propofal made of adjusting thofe claims by commiffioners appointed on each fide, is fo perfectly fair, we cannot imagine it will be refused. But when the claims are adjusted, if payment in specie cannot be obtained, it may be found neceffary to agree, in behalf of our citizens, that they fhall accept public fecurities payable with intereft at fuch periods as the ftate of the French finances fhall render practicable. Thefe periods you will endeavour, as far as poffible, to shorten.

Not only the recent depredations under colour of the decrees of VOL. VII.

the

the Directory, of the 2d of July 1796, and the 2d of March 1797, or under the decrees of their agents, or the illegal fen. tences of their tribunals, but all prior ones, not already fatisfactorily adjusted, fhould be put in this equitable train of fettlement. To cancel many, or all of the last-mentioned claims, might be the effect of the decree of the Executive Directory of the 2d of March laft, concerning the decree of the 9th of May 1793: but this being an ex poft facto regulation, as well as a,violation of the treaty between the United States and France, cannot be obligatory on the former. Indeed, the greater part, probably nearly all the captures and confifcations in queftion, have been committed in direct violation of that treaty, or of the law of nations. But the injuries arifing from the capture of enemies property in veffels of the United States may not be very extenfive; and if for fuch captured property the French government will, agreeably to the law of nations, pay the freight and reafonable demurrage, we fhall not on this account any farther contend. But of fhip timber and naval ftores taken and confifcated by the French, they ought to pay the full value; because our citizens continued their traffic in thofe articles under the faith of the treaty with France. On these two points we ought to expect that the French government will not refufe to do juftice: and the more because it has not, at any period of the war, expreffed its defire that the commercial treaty fhould in this refpect be altered.

Befides the claims of our citizens for depredations on their property, there are many arifing from exprefs contracts made with the French government, or its agents, or founded on the feizure of their property in French ports. Other claims have arisen from the long detention of a multitude of our veffels in the ports of France. The wrong hereby done to our citizens was acknowledged by the French government, and in fome, perhaps in most of the cafes, fmall payments towards indemnifications have been made the refidue ftill remains to be claimed.

All thefe juft demands of our citizens will merit your attention. The best poffible means of compenfation must be attempted. Thefe will depend on what you fhall difcover to be practicable in relation to the French finances. But an exception must be made in respect to debts due to our citizens by the contracts of the French government and its agents, if they are comprehended in any ftipulation; and an option referved to them, jointly or individually, either to accept the means of payment which you fhall ftipulate, or refort to the French government directly for the fulfilment of its contracts.

Although the reparation for loffes fuftained by the citizens of the United States, in confequence of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations, or forcible feizures or detentions, is of very high importance, and is to be impreffed with the greatest earneft

nefs,

nefs, yet it is not to be infifted on as an indifpenfable condition of the propofed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce the fe claims of our citizens, nor to ftipulate that they be affumed by the United States as a loan to the French government.

In refpect to the alterations of the commercial treaty with France, in the two cafes which have been principal fubjects of complaint on her part, viz. enemies property in neutral fhips, and the articles contraband of war; although France can have no right to claim the annulling of ftipulations at the moment when by both parties they were originally intended to operate; yet if the French government prefs for alterations, the Prefident has no difficulty in fubftituting the principles of the law of nations, as ftated in the 17th and 18th articles of our commercial treaty with Great Britain, to thofe of the 23d and 24th articles of our commercial treaty and in respect to provisions, and other articles not ufually deemed contraband, you are to agree only on a temporary compromife, like that in the 18th article of the British treaty, and of the fame duration. If, however, in order to fatisfy France, now the is at war, we change the two important articles before mentioned, then the 14th article of the French treaty, which fubjects the property of the neutral nation found on board enemies fhips to capture and condemnation, muft of courfe be abolished.

We have witnessed so many erroneous constructions of the treaty with France, even in its plaineft parts, it will be neceffary to examine every article critically, for the purpofe of preventing, as far as human wisdom can prevent, all future mifinterpretations. The kind of documents neceffary for the protection of the neutral veffels fhould be enumerated, and minutely deferibed; the cafes in which a fea-letter fhould be required may be fpecified; the want of a fea-letter fhould not of itfelf be a caufe of confifcation, where other reasonable proof of property is produced; and where fuch proof is furnished, the want of a fea-letter fhould go no further than to fave the captor from damages for detaining and bringing in the neutral veffel. The proportions of the veffel's crew which may be foreigners, fhould be agreed on. Perhaps it will be' expedient to introduce divers other regulations conformably to the marine laws of France. Whenever these are to operate on the commerce of the United States, our fafety requires, that, as far as poffible, they be fixed by treaty. And it will be defirable to ftipulate against any ex poft facto laws or regulation, under any pretence whatever.

Great Britain has often claimed a right, and practifed upon it, to prohibit neutral nations carrying on a commerce with her enemies which had not been allowed in time of peace. On this head it will be defirable to come to an explicit underftan ing with France; and, if poflible, to obviate the claim by an exprefs ftipulation.

Z 2

.. Such

Such extreme depredations have been committed on the commerce of neutrals, and especially on the United States, by the citizens of France, under pretence that her enemies particularly Great Britain) have done the fame things, it will be defirable to have it explicitly ftipulated, that the conduct of an enemy towards a neutral power fhall not authorize or excufe the other belligerent power in any departure from the law of nations, or the ftipulations of the treaty especially that the veffels of the neutral nation fhall never be captured or detained, or their property confifcated or injured, because bound to or from an enemy's port, except the cafe of a blockaded port, the entering into which may be prevented according to the known rule of the law of nations. And it may be expedient to define a blockaded place or port to be one actually invefted by land or naval forces, or both; and that no declaration of a blockade fhall have any effect without fuch actual investment. And no commercial right whatever fhall be abandoned which is fecuted to neutral powers by the European law of nations.

The foregoing articles being those which the French government has made the oftenfible grounds of its principal complaints, they have naturally been firft brought to view. But the proposed alterations and arrangements fuggeft the propriety of revifing all our treaties with France. In fuch revifion, the first object that will attract your attention is, the reciprocal guarantee in the 11th article of the treaty of alliance. The guarantee we are perfectly willing to renounce. The guarantee by Françe of the liberty, fovereignty, and independence of the United States, will add nothing to our fecurity, while, on the contrary, our guarantee of the poffeflions of France in America will perpetually expose us to the risk and expenfe of war, or to difputes and queftions concerning our national faith.

When Mr. Genet was fent as the minister of the French republic to the United States, its fituation was embarrassed, and the fuccefs of its meafures problematical. In fuch circumstances it was natural that France fhould turn her eye to the mutual guarantee; and accordingly it was required, in Mr. Genet's inftructions, to be "an effential claufe in the new treaty," which he was to propofe; and on the ground, that "it nearly concerned the peace and profperity of the French nation, that a people, whofe refources increafe beyond all calculation, and whom nature had placed fo near their rich colonies, fhould become interested by their own engagements in the prefervation of thofe iflands." But at this time, France, powerful by her victories, and fecure in her triumphs, may lefs regard the reciprocal guarantee with the United States, and be willing to relinquish it. As a fubftitute for the reciprocal guarantee, may be propofed a mutual renunciation of the fame territorics and poffeffions that were fubjects of the guarantee and renunciation in the 6th and 11th articles of the treaty of alli

ance.

« AnteriorContinuar »