on a voyage from Charleston, South Carolina, to London, with a cargo of rice and indigo. In order that this prize might be condemned, the National Convention on the 28th of May, at the instigation of the parties interested in the capture, repealed the decree of the 23d. Morris again remonstrated.

On the 1st of July the convention passed a new deDecree of July 27, 1793. cree in the same terms as that of the 23d of May, exempting vessels of the United States from the provisions of the decree of the 9th of that month. But on the 27th of July the decree of the 1st of the month was repealed, and numerous condemnations followed. This act, by which the decree of the 9th of May was again put in force against American commerce, was defended by the minister of foreign affairs as a measure of retaliation against Great Britain.', Morris replied that the treaty of 1778, in derogating from the law of nations in favor of the merchandise of enemies of France in American bottoms, had also derogated from it to the prejudice of American merchandise found in the vessels of the enemy; 5 that at Philadelphia there had been witnessed the sale of a cargo, the property of an American citizen, which was taken by a French privateer on board of an English vessel; and that, under the decrees of the convention, the citizens of the United States did not have the advantages either of the treaty or the law of nations. To his own government, Morris wrote: "The conduct of the convention respecting our treaty will have formed a useful reenforcement to those who would preserve our constitution. My efforts to support the treaty have been constant and persevering, although, in my private judgment, the breach of it on the part of our allies, by releasing us from the obligations it has imposed, could not but be useful under the present circumstances." On the 5th of December 1793, Washington, in a message to Congress, said: "The representative and executive bodies of France have manifested generally a friendly attachment to this country, have given advantages to our commerce and navigation, and have made overtures for placing these advantages on permanent ground; a decree, however, of the National Assembly, subjecting vessels laden with provisions to be carried into their ports, and making enemy goods lawful prize in the vessel of a friend, contrary to our treaty, though revoked at one time as to the United States, has been since extended to their vessels also, as has been recently stated to us."8

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 361.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 366, 367, 371.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 312, 748.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 376.

5 Morris here refers to the "common law" rule that the fate of the goods depends on the character of the owner-that they are subject to confiscation if the owner is an enemy, but exempt if he is a neutral. We have seen that by Article XXIII. of the treaty of 1778 the goods of an enemy on board a neutral ship were free from confiscation. On the other hand, by Article XIV., neutral goods on board an enemy ship were declared to be confiscable.

"Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 313.

7 Id. 373.

Id. 141.

5627-VOL. 5- -2

Morris's Recall.

In a letter to Washington, of February 14, 1793, Morris said: "I will not speak of my own situation; you will judge that it is far from pleasant. I could be popular, but that would be wrong. The different parties pass away like the shadow in a magic lantern, and to be well with any one of them would, in a very short period, become the cause of unquenchable hatred with the others." With the progress of events Morris's situation did not become more agreeable, and at length he purchased a residence at Saintport, about thirty miles from Paris, where he remained till his recall, paying such visits to Paris as the duties of his office rendered necessary. The authorities of the republic, to whom he had never been personally grateful, took advantage of the request for Genet's recall to ask for his withdrawal. Under the circumstances this act of reciprocity was ungrudgingly conceded, but Washington did not fail to assure Morris that his confidence in and friendship and regard for him remained undiminished.3

2

Appointment of
Monroe.

As successor to Morris, Washington chose James Monroe, who was then a member of the Senate from Virginia. Among the subjects with which Monroe

was charged was that of compensation for the captures and spoliations of the property and injuries to the persons of American citizens by French cruisers and the demands of various American citizens for the payment of bills of exchange drawn in the West Indies.5

On his arrival in France Monroe committed to his secSkipwith's Report. retary, Mr. Fulwar Skipwith, who had a provisional appointment as consul-general at Paris, the task of examining and endeavoring to settle the spoliation claims. On the 20th of November 1794 Mr. Skipwith made a report in which it appears that while he had settled 38 such claims, 132 were still pending, to say nothing of 103 claims growing out of an embargo in 1793 and 1794 at Bordeaux. This report Mr. Monroe laid before the French Government, and as the result of his representations the committees of public safety, finance, and commerce and supplies on the 15th of November 1794 passed a new decree, by the fifth article of which the prohibition of neutral trade was confined to enemy merchandise, contraband, and articles destined for a place besieged, blockaded, or invested."

Decree of January 4, 1795.

On the 4th of January 1795 (14th Nivose, 3d year) the committee of public safety passed a new decree by which the decrees of May 9, 1793, and November 15, 1794, were modified so as to permit American vessels to transport enemies' merchandise, thus reestablishing as to American vessels, in accordance with the twenty-third article of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, the rule of free ships free goods. The respite thus accorded to the neu

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 396.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 173.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 409, 410, 412.

Trescot's American Diplomatic History, 147-155.

5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 668.

6Id. 749-760.

7Id. 752.

Id. 642.

tral trade of the United States was not destined long to endure. It was prompted by the measures which the United States took to check the seizure of American vessels under the British orders in council of June 8, 1793, and subsequent dates. But, after the proclamation of the Jay treaty in February 1796, the French authorities proceeded to take measures more extreme than any which they had previously adopted.

On the 9th of March, M. de la Croix laid before France's Complaints. Monroe a formal statement of France's complaints against the United States. They were classified under three heads: First, the inexecution of the treaties; second, the failure to punish an outrage committed on M. Fauchet, the French minister to the United States, and third, the treaty with Great Britain.

The complaint of failure to execute the treaties was substantiated by four distinct allegations:

1. That the courts of justice of the United States asserted cognizance of prizes made by the French privateers, notwithstanding the express clause in the treaty against it.

To this charge Monroe made the same answer as was given by Jefferson to Genet. (Supra, p. 2145.)

2. That English ships of war had, in violation of the seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce, been admitted into the ports of the United States when they had made prizes of the French.

Monroe replied that the article in question forbade, not the entrance of enemies' ships of war, but only their entrance with their prizes, and that even in the latter case it merely required that they should be compelled to depart as soon as possible.

3. That the consular convention was ineffective because proper laws were not adopted to enable consuls to execute their decisions in disputes between Frenchmen or to reclaim deserting seamen.

As to the execution of the judgments of the consuls, Monroe said that as no definite objection was stated, he could not give a specific answer. As to the reclaiming of seamen, he referred to the act of Congress of April 14, 1792, as having provided suitable legal provisions for the execution of the convention.

4. That in August 1795 the captain of the corvette Cassius was, in violation of the nineteenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce, arrested and detained at Philadelphia, and that after his liberation the corvette itself was arrested on the pretext that it was eight months previously armed in that port.

Monroe answered that the article in question was not intended to secure personal immunity from punishment for crime, and that it appeared that the proceeding against the captain was a judicial one; and that, if the corvette was armed at Philadelphia, it was the duty of the government to seize it.

As to the outrage on M. Fauchet, which was committed by a British frigate in concert with a British consul, in boarding the packet on which the minister was embarked, opening his trunks and seizing his papers in the waters of the United States, Monroe answered that the exequatur of the consul was revoked, that supplies were ordered to be withheld

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 240. Supra, Chap. X.

from the frigate, that the frigate itself was ordered to depart from the waters of the United States, and that the minister of the United States in London had been directed to demand redress.

The third general complaint, that the United States had "knowingly and evidently sacrificed their connections with the republic and the most essential and least contested prerogatives of neutrality" by the treaty with England, was substantiated by two specific allegations:

1. That the United States had departed from the principles of the armed neutrality, and, to the detriment of their first allies, abandoned the limits of contraband by including in it articles for the construction and equipment of vessels.

Monroe answered that even in the former war, when the combination against England was most formidable, she refused to admit the principles of the armed neutrality; that it was impossible to obtain from her such a recognition now when many of the powers then opposing her were enlisted on her side and supporting her principles, and that the limits of contraband were not settled.

2. That the United States had by the eighteenth article of the treaty with England "consented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provisions."

By this article it was provided that, in view of the "difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such," such articles, whenever "so becoming contraband, according to the existing laws of nations," should not, if for that reason seized, be confiscated, but that they should be paid for at their full value, with a reasonable mercantile profit, together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to the detention.

Monroe answered that this article left the law of nations on the subject precisely as it was before, and, according to the construction of the United States, required compensation to be paid even in cases in which provisions might be considered contraband by the law of nations.1

The discussion of the complaints of France was continued in the United States by M. Adet, the French minister, and Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State. In addition to the complaints that have been noticed, M. Adet charged:

1. That the Government of the United States made it a question "whether it should execute the treaties, or receive the agents of the rebel and proscribed princes."

Mr. Pickering, as Secretary of State, answered: "In 1791 the constitution formed by the constituent assembly was accepted by Louis XVI.; it was notified to the United States in March 1792. Congress desired the President to communicate to the King of the French their congratulations on the occasion. In August 1792 the King was suspended. In September royalty was abolished, and in January 1793 Louis XVI., tried and condemned by the convention, suffered death. Was it easy to keep pace with the rapid succession of revolutionary events? And was it unlawful for our government, under such circumstances, even to deliberate?"

2. That the President had issued "an insidious proclamation of neutrality."

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 658, 659.

Pickering replied that the proclamation was designed to prevent citizens of the United States from violating the law of nations, was approved by Congress, and by "the great body of the citizens of the United States. And what was the general object of this proclamation? To preserve us in a state of peace. And have not the ministers of France declared that their government did not desire us to enter into the war? And how was peace to be observed? By an impartial neutrality. And was it not then the duty of the Chief Executive to proclaim this to our citizens, and to inform them what acts would be deemed departures from their neutral duties? This was done by the proclamation. To what in all this can the epithet insidious be applied? On the contrary is not the whole transaction stamped with candor and good faith?"

3. That the Secretary of the Treasury on the 4th of August 1793, by direction of the President, sent to the collectors of customs certain regulations which had been adopted for the purpose of preventing the arming of vessels by either belligerent in the United States.'

Answer was made that these regulations were framed for the purpose of insuring an impartial neutrality, and that the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, which accompanied them, called particular attention to the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of amity and commerce with France, lest any injury might result to her from inattention to them.

4. That the President submitted certain measures to Congress, with a view to have the courts invested with jurisdiction to punish offenses against the law of nations, and that Congress, on the 5th of June 1794, passed an act "for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," under which French privateers and their prizes had been arrested. In answer to this complaint, Mr. Pickering reviewed the cases in question, in order to show that they had been properly dealt with by the judicial tribunals.

5. That the Government of the United States had, by its "chicaneries, abandoned French privateers to its courts of justice."

Reply was made that the judges needed no defense against such an insinuation; that they might challenge the world for proof of the charge that they had not administered justice impartially.

6. That the United States had eluded the advances of France for renewing the treaty of commerce on a footing more favorable to both countries. To this charge answer was made that it was impossible to negotiate with Genet; that the powers of his successor, Fauchet, if he possessed any to negotiate such a treaty, were not communicated to the United States; and that while the United States had exhibited every disposition to expedite the negotiation, Adet had held back.

7. That Jay's mission was "enveloped from its origin in the shadow of mystery, and covered with the veil of dissimulation."

Pickering answered that the United States had, ever since the peace, been endeavoring to negotiate a commercial treaty with Great Britain; that there were various questions at issue between the two countries on which it was proper to negotiate; and that there was no obligations to "unveil" the mission to anyone.

1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140.