Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

plained of do not in the moft remote degree wound the interefts of France, affect the pre-existing engagements of the United States, or change their fituation in relation to the belligerent powers. Such, incontestably, was and is the opinion of the American government, and in this opinion only would the treaty have been. agreed to. As no one of the arguments which have at various times been urged on this fubject, on the part of the United States, has ever yet been noticed, the undersigned deem unnecessary any attempt to re-urge or to ftrengthen them. You fay that you will content yourfelf" with obferving fummarily, that in this treaty every thing having been provided to turn the neutrality of the United States to the difadvantage of the French republic, and to the advantage of England; that the federal government having. in this act made to Great Britain conceffions the most unheard-of, the most incompatible with the interefts of the United States, and the most derogatory from the alliance which exifted between the faid ftates and the French republic, the latter was perfectly free to avail itself of the prefervatory means with which it was furnished by the laws of nature and of nations, and by its anterior treaty, for the purpose of parrying the inconveniences of the treaty of London. Such are the reasons which have determined the arrêtés of the Directory of which the United States complain, as well as the conduct of its agents in the Antilles." But you have not fhown a fingle provifion," which turns the neutrality of the United States to the difadvantage of the French republic and to the advantage of England." You have not fhown a fingle conceffion" incompatible with the interefts of the United States," or "derogatory from their alliance with France."

It is confidered as having been demonftrated, that this treaty leaves the neutrality of the United States, with refpect both to France and England, precifely in its former fituation, and that it contains no conceffions which are either unufual, or derogatory from their alliance with this republic. But if in forming this judgment the American government has deceived itfelf, ftill it ought to be remembered that it has ever manifefted a readiness to place France on the footing of England with refpect to the articles complained of.

You fuppofe that the 2d article of the treaty between France and the United States justifies the arrêtés of which the latter power complains: but that article only entitles either of the contracting parties to a participation of any particular favour in refpect of commerce or navigation, which might thereafter be granted by the other to other nations, on allowing the fame compenfation, if the conceffion was conditional. It has never been pretended to extend to pre-exifting rights held and exercifed under the law of nations, and barely recognifed by any fubfequent treaty. If this could be infifted on, ftill it was fhown inconteftably by the

under

underfigned, that the arrêté particularly complained of, fo far as it profeffes to found itfelf on the treaty with England, greatly tranfcends that treaty, and in its moft noxious article, that requiring a rôle d'équipage, has no relation to it. This all-effential circumftance you have not been pleafed to notice; and it is with infinite regret the underfigned obferve, that the difcuffions at which you hint are to be limited to the abuses of the principle eftablifhed by the arrêté, and not extended to the compatibility of the principle itfelf with juftice, the laws of nations, or existing treaties.

It is well known that fuch a difcuffion, if indeed the underfigned could be permitted to enter upon it, would avail but little, fince the vast mafs of American property captured by the cruifers, and condemned by the courts of France, has been found in veffels not furnished with a rôle d'équipage.

The underfigned have been minute in their attention to every fyllable you have uttered on this interefting fubject, because it has been often confidered as having given cause of just irritation to France, and they are fincerely defirous of probing to the bottom every subject which may have affumed that complexion. Their with is unaffected, to give to every complaint its real value, in order thus to prepare the way for accommodation, by the relinquifhment of fuch as are not well founded, and the admiffion of thofe which have a real existence.

The third head of your complaints relates to the conduct of the government of the United States fince their treaty with England.

You obferve, that as foon as the treaty in queftion had been put in execution, the government of the United States feemed to think itfelf difpenfed from the obfervance of any meafures towards this republic, and you adduce in fupport of this general obfervation, ift. The refufal to permit in the ports of the United States the fale of prizes made by French cruifers.

2dly. The invectives and calumnies against the French government, its principles and its officers, contained in certain journals and pamphlets publifhed in the United States, &c.

3dly. The fpeech of the Prefident to Congress in May last.

ift. The government of the United States does not permit the fale in their ports of prizes made upon England by the cruifers of France.

The fact is admitted. To erect it into an offence, it becomes neceffary to prove that this measure violates either the engagements or the neutrality of the United States. Neither is attempted. To fhow that it violates neither, had this been rendered neceffary, would by no means have been deemed an arduous task. It will now only briefly be obferved, that the 17th article of the treaty of commerce of the 6th of February 1778, which alone relates

[ocr errors]

to this fubject, so far from ftipulating for the fale of prizes in the ports of either nation, limits itfelf to a declaration, that the captors fhall have liberty to bring them into port, free from duties, arrefts, and searches, and to depart with them to the places expreffed in their commiflions; thereby evidently contemplating the then exifting regulations of this nation. France has manifefted her own opinion on this fubject, in her treaty with Great Britain of the 26th of September 1786. The 16th article of that treaty declares, "That it hall not be lawful for foreign cruifers who thall not be the fubjects of one or the other crown, and who shall have a commillion from any prince or ftate, enemies of the one or the other, to arm their veffels in the ports of one or the other of the faid two kingdoms, to fell there what they fhall have taken, or to change the fame in any manner whatever." In a war with England then, France being neutral, the cruifers of the United States are forbidden to fell their prizes in the ports of this republic. The 17th article of the treaty of February 1778, being reciprocal, France has pronounced her decifion, that it does not give her cruifers a right to fell their prizes in the ports of America. If this right had been given by the treaty of February 1778, that between the United States and England could not be conftrued to impair it. Nor is the prohibition a departure from the neutrality of the United States. A nation, to violate its neutrality, muft manifeft a partiality for one of the belligerent powers, must accord favours not ftipulated by pre-exifting treaties to one which it refuses to the other. This is not even alleged in the prefent inftance. Far from permitting British cruifers to fell in the United States prizes they have made on the French, they are not even allowed to bring them into port. A candid confideration of this fubject will prove that the withdrawal of a favour, the grant of which manifefted fo ftrongly the attachments of the United States, far from juftifying the refentments which have been expreffed in confequence of it, can only be attributed to the folicitude of the American government to render perfectly unexceptionable its obfervance of that neutrality which it profeffes to maintain. It has been fhown unequivocally to have been the opinion of the contracting parties, that the treaty of commerce of the 6th of February 1778, did not give to either being at war, a right to fell its prizes in the ports of the other being at peace. It is not pretended that this is one of the rights accruing, without special ftipulation, under the laws and ufages of nations.

It is not then a right at all. If granted, it is a voluntary favour. But a voluntary favour effential in the profecution of the war, if granted by a neutral to one belligerent power, and of neceffity refused to the other, affords to that other at least a more plaufible pretext for complaint than has been given by any other act of the government of the United States. What, in fuch a fituation,

2

fituation, would have been the language of France? Would this republic permit a neutral nation, not bound thereto by any obligation whatever, to allow in its ports as a voluntary favour the fale of prizes made on French citizens, while the fame favour was of neceffity denied to the cruifers of France ?

It is believed that fuch an ufe of neutrality would not be permitted; and the undersigned felicitate themfelves and their country that the government they represent has never intentionally given to this republic any caufe of diffatisfaction, as ferious as this would have been. You will not fail to obferve, Citizen Minifter, that this heavy accufation, when analyfed, is nothing more than the refufal of a mere favour on the part of the American government, the grant of which might have been dangerous to itself, might have drawn it from that neutral ftation which it is its duty to obferve, and which favour France had previously, in the most explicit terms, declared its determination not to grant under fimilar circumstances to the United States.

2dly. Your fecond allegation is, "that the journals known to be indirectly under the control of the cabinet have redoubled their invectives and calumnies against the republic, its magistrates and its envoys; and that pamphlets openly paid for by the minister of Great Britain have reproduced under every form, thofe infults and calumnies, without having ever drawn the attention of the government to a state of things fo fcandalous, and which it might have repreffed."

The genius of the conftitution, and the opinions of the people of the United States, cannot be over-ruled by thofe who adminifter the government. Among thofe principles deemed facred in America; among thofe facred rights confidered as forming the bul wark of their liberty, which the government contemplates with awful reverence, and would approach only with the moft cautious circumfpection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impreffed on the public mind than the liberty of the prefs. That this liberty is often carried to excefs, that it has fometimes degenerated into licentioufnefs, is feen and lamented; but the remedy has not yet been difcovered. Perhaps it is an evil infeparable from the good with which it is allied: perhaps it is a fhoot which cannot be tripped from the ftalk without wounding vitally the plant from which it is torn. However defirable thofe meafures might be which might correct without enflaving the press, they have never yet been devifed in America. No regulations exift which enable the government to fupprefs whatever calumnies or invectives any individual may choofe to offer to the public eye; or to punish fuch calumnies and invectives, otherwife than by a legal profecution in courts which are alike open to all who confider themselves as injured. Without doubt this abuse of a valuable privilege is matter of peculiar regret when it is extended to

the

the government of a foreign nation. The undersigned are perfuaded, it never has been fo extended with the approbation of the government of the United States. Difcuffions refpecting the conduct of foreign powers, especially on points refpecting the rights and interefts of America, are unavoidably made in a nation where public measures are the refults of public opinion, and certainly do not furnish cause of reproach; but it is believed that calumny and invective have never been substituted for the manly reafoning of an enlightened and injured people, without giving pain to thofe who adminifter the affairs of the Union. Certainly this offence, if it be deemed by France of fufficient magnitude to be worthy of notice, has not been confined to this republic. It has been ftill more profufely lavished on its enemies, and has even been bestowed with an unfparing hand on the federal government itfelf. Nothing can be more notorious than the calumnies and invectives with which the wifeft measures and the most virtuous characters of the United States have been purfued and traduced. It is a calamity incident to the nature of liberty, and which can produce no ferious evil to France. It is a calamity occafioned neither by the direct nor indirect influence of the American government. In fact, that government is believed to exercife no influence over any prefs. You must be fenfible, Citizen Minister, with how much truth the fame complaint might be urged on the part of the United States. You must know well, what degrading and unworthy calumnies againft their government, its principles, and its officers, have been publifhed to the world by French journalifts, and in French pamphlets: that government has even been charged with betraying the beft interefts of the nation, with having put itself under the guidance of-nay more, with having fold itfelf to a foreign court. But thefe calumnies, atrocious as they are, have never conftituted a fubject of complaint against France. Had not other caufes, infinitely more ferious and weighty, interrupted the harmony of the two republics, it would ftill have remained unimpaired, and the miffion of the undersigned would never have been rendered neceffary.

3dly. You complain of the fpeech of the Prefident made to Congrefs in May laft. It denounces, you fay, the Executive Directory, as fearching to propagate anarchy and divifion in the United States. The conftitution of the United States impofes on the Prefident this important duty: "He fhall from time to time give to the Congrefs information of the ftate of the Union," It having been deemed proper to recall the minifter from the United States to this republic, and to replace him by a citizen, the objects of whofe miflion, as expreffed in his letters of credence, were, "to maintain that good understanding, which, from the commencement of the alliance, had fubfifted between the two Dations; and to efface unfavourable impreffions, banifh fufpi. VOL. VII.

3 H

cions,

« AnteriorContinuar »