small expense to the parties, and without any other interposition of His Majesty's Government than is above stated. Until the result and effect of these proceedings shall be known, no definitive judgment can," continued Lord Grenville, " be formed respecting the nature and extent of those cases (if any such shall ultimately be found to exist), where it shall not have been practicable to obtain substantial redress in this mode. But he does not hesitate to say, beforehand, that, if cases shall then be found to exist to such an extent as properly to call for the interposition of Government, where, without the fault of the parties complaining, they shall be unable, from whatever circumstances, to procure such redress, in the ordinary course of law, as the justice of their cases may entitle them to expect, His Majesty will be anxious that justice should, at all events, be done, and will readily enter into the discussion of the measures to be adopted, and the principles to be established for that purpose."1

On the basis of this declaration the plenipotentiaries succeeded in agreeing on a measure of redress without entering into a discussion of the particular principles on which relief should be granted. On the 6th of August Mr. Jay proposed that commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of affording satisfaction for vessels and property illegally captured and condemned. On the 30th Lord Grenville responded, accepting the proposal to appoint commissioners, and offering, for the definition of their functions and jurisdiction, an article based on his previous note and couched in substantially the same language as the article finally adopted.

Article VII.

This article forms the seventh of the treaty concluded by Mr. Jay and Lord Grenville on the 19th of November 1794. Reciting that "complaints have been made by divers merchants and others, citizens of the United States, that during the course of the war in which His Majesty is now engaged, they have sustained considerable losses and damage, by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property, under color of authority or commissions from His Majesty, and that from various circumstances belonging to the said cases, adequate compensation for the losses and

Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay, August 1, 1794. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 481.)

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 481.

damages so sustained cannot now be actually obtained, had, and received by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings; it is agreed, that in all such cases, where adequate compensation cannot, for whatever reason, be now actually obtained, had, and received by the said merchants and others, in the ordinary course of justice, full and complete compensation for the same will be made by the British Government to the said complainants. But it is distinctly understood that this provision is not to extend to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant."

Prospective Operation.

It was also agreed that not only all existing cases, but also all such as should exist at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty should be considered as being within the provisions, intent, and meaning of the article.

Order in Council,
April 1795.

This stipulation enabled the commission under Article VII. to take cognizance of cases that arose under an order in council, issued in April 1795, about five months after the treaty was signed and six months before the exchange of ratifications, which was effected in London on October 28, 1795. The text of this order was not published, but it was gathered from the cases that arose under it that it directed His Majesty's ships of war and privateers to stop and detain all vessels laden wholly or in part with corn, flour, meal, or other articles of provisions and bound to any port in France and to send them to such ports as might be most convenient, in order that such corn or other articles might be purchased in behalf of the government. Not long afterward the order was revoked, and compensation for the seizures which it occasioned was obtained under Article VII. When Lord Grenville on the 30th of August 1794 submitted to Mr. Jay a draft of an article to provide for compensation for captures under the orders in council, he included in it a stipulation to this effect: "And it is further agreed that, if it shall appear that, in the course of the war, loss and damage has been sustained by His Majesty's subjects, by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, such capture having been made, either within the limits of the jurisdiction of the said States, or by vessels armed in the ports of the said States, or by vessels commanded or owned by the citizens of the said States, the United States

Neutrality of United
States.

will make full satisfaction for such loss or damage, the same to be ascertained by commissioners, in the manner already mentioned in this article."

This proposal involved the interesting quesCourse of Genet. tion of the enforcement by the United States of its neutral policy in the pending war, as announced in President Washington's proclamation of April 22, 1793. By this proclamation it was declared that in the "state of war" that existed "between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other," "the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should, with sincerity and good faith, adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers." On the other hand, the Government of France expected from the United States friendly aid, if not an open alliance. This expectation filled the thoughts and governed the course of the Citizen Genet, who was sent out in 1793 to succeed M. Ternant as French minister to the United States. Genet, having arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, in April, the Government of the United States soon learned "that he was undertaking to authorize the fitting and arming of vessels in that port, enlisting men, foreigners and citizens, and giving them commissions to cruise and commit hostilities on nations at peace with us; that these vessels were taking and bringing prizes into our ports; that the consuls of France were assuming to hold courts of admiralty on them; to try, condemn, and authorize their sale as legal prize; and all this before Mr. Genet had presented himself or his credentials to the Presi dent, before he was received by him, without his consent or consultation, and directly in contravention of the state of peace existing, and declared to exist in the President's proclamation, and incumbent on him to preserve, till the constitutional authority should otherwise declare."3

The British minister, Mr. Hammond, complained of these proceedings, and on the 15th of May Mr. Jefferson addressed a remonstrance on the subject to the French minister.

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 488.

On

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140. At this place will also be found Hamilton's instructions to collectors of customs of August 4, 1793, in which the acts understood to be forbidden by a state of neutrality were defined. 3 Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, minister to France, August 16, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167.)

the next day the Citizen Genet arrived in Philadelphia, and on the 27th of May, after he had been received by the President, he presented an answer in which he defended his proceedings and expressed the hope that, on reading it, the government would "return from the first impressions which the reports of the minister of England appear to have made on it."1

Decision of June 5, 1793.

On the 5th of June Mr. Jefferson communicated to the Citizen Genet the President's formal opinion. Referring to the fact that the Citoyen Genet, one of the cruisers fitted out at Charleston, had brought a prize into the port of Philadelphia, Mr. Jefferson said that the President had carefully reexamined the subject, and the result appeared to be that it was "the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits, and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring Powers;" that "the granting military commissions, within the United States, by any other authority than their own," was "an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to their own citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country;" that "the departure of vessels, thus illegally equipped, from the ports of the United States," would be but an act of respect, and was required as an evidence of neutrality; and that it was not doubted that they would be "permitted to give no further umbrage by their presence in the ports of the United States."2

Genet's Disregard of Decision.

Far from acquiescing in these conclusions, the Citizen Genet complained that the authorities at Philadelphia had stopped the sale of the ship William, an English vessel which was captured by the Citoyen Genet near Cape Henry on the 3d of May and brought into Philadelphia on the 14th of the same month, and that the authorities at New York had prevented the sailing of an armed French vessel, fitted out in that port.3 He also declined to restore the brigantine Fanny, of London, which was captured by the Sans Culottes, one of the Charles

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 149, 150.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 150.

3 Citizen Genet to Mr. Jefferson, June 14, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 152.)

ton cruisers, near Cape Henry on the 8th of May and brought to Philadelphia. Moreover, the arming of vessels went on, and captures continued to be made even after the 5th of June. The Citoyen Genet seized on the 28th of June the brig Prince William Henry; on the 4th of July the Lovely Lass, and on the 24th of July the Jane, of Dublin, all of which were brought into port for condemnation and sale by the French consuls.' Mr. Jefferson asked that they be not permitted to depart till the President's ultimate determination in regard to them should be made known.2

States.

On the 7th of August Mr. Jefferson informed Action of United the Citizen Genet that the President considered the United States "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 5th day of June last by privateers fitted out of our ports;" that it was consequently expected that he would "cause restitution to be made" of all prizes so taken and brought in subsequent to that day, in defect of which the President would consider it incumbent upon the United States "to indemnify the owners of those prizes, the indemnification to be reimbursed by the French nation;" and that, "besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting out privateers in the ports of the United States, 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 the said privateers." 3

Briefly to sum up what has been stated, it appears that Washington on the 22d of April 1793 issued his proclamation of neutrality; that on the 5th of June he formally made known to the Citizen Genet his opinion concerning the neutrality of the United States and the latter's infractions of it; that, in spite of this communication, further offenses were com mitted by the capture and bringing in of the Prince William Henry, the Lovely Lass, and the Jane; that on the 7th of August the government, while forbearing, from motives of policy,

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 185.

Note to the Citizen Genet, July 12, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 1.163.)

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167.