changes." He also contended that the reception of a minister had nothing to do with this question.' Proclamation of On the 22d of April 1793, Washington published the following proclamation of neutrality.2 "Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other, and 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 towards the belligerent Powers: "I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid towards those powers respectively; and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition. "And I do hereby also make known, that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the powers at war, or any of them. [L. S.] "In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia, the twentysecond day of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventeenth. "By the President: "TH. JEFFERSON." Course of Genet on His "GEORGE WASHINGTON. On the 8th of April 1793, just two weeks before the issuance of this proclamation, Genet arrived at Charleston, South Carolina; but the news of his arrival there was received at Philadelphia, through the medium of the public press, only on the day on which the proclamation was published. At Charleston he lost no time in fitting out and commissioning privateers, and, after having got a number ready for sea, he proceeded to make the journey to the seat of the national government by land. On the way he incited the people to hostility against Great Britain, and received such demonstrations of sympathy as to strengthen his confidence in the success of the course on which he had entered. Before he was received by the President it was learned by public report that the cruisers which he had fitted out had made captures and brought them into the ports of the United States, and that the French consuls had assumed judicial authority to condemn them and order their sale as lawful prize. The posture of affairs between the United States and France's Position as to France at this time was peculiar. In spite of the acts Treaties of 1778. of the National Assembly, of which Jefferson in his early instructions to Morris complained, and of the depredations on American commerce against which Morris was so constantly required to 1 Jefferson's Works, ed. by Ford, VI. 219, 220. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140. remonstrate, there is ample evidence that the French Government, at the ontbreak of the war with England, desired to consider the treaties with the United States of 1778 as still subsisting in full force. In a letter to Jefferson of February 13, 1793, Morris narrates an interview with Le Brun, the French minister of foreign affairs, just before the declaration of war with England. In the course of this interview Morris observed that Mr. Hammond, the British minister to the United States, doubtless would exert himself to inculcate the opinion that the treaty of alliance with France, having been made by the King, was rendered void by the revolution. Le Brun replied that “such an opinion was absurd.” Morris then observed, unofficially, that he entertained similar sentiments, but that he thought it would be well to evince "a degree of good will to America, which might prevent disagreeable impressions." In a note of March 24, 1793, Morris, in complaining of the violences committed on American vessels by French privateers, invoked the provisions of the fifteenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce; and Le Brun, in his reply, expressed France's desire "of cementing more and more the connections of friendship and fraternity with her friends and allies, the United States." In the subsequent correspondence, as well as in the acts of the National Convention, the treaties of 1778 were continually referred to as binding engagements.3 The Territorial 2 Nevertheless, the French republic did not ask of the United States the execution of the territorial guaranty of the treaty of alliance. This fact may be accounted for by either of two reasons. The general arming of the whole population, and the exhaustive devotion of the resources of the country to military purposes, caused a scarcity in France both of money and of provisions. The United States, as a neutral, could form a source of supply of both. In a letter to Morris of March 29, 1793, Le Brun, referring to the alleged connivance of Americans and Englishmen in covering with the flag of the United States the nationality of English vessels, said: "In order to preserve to the citizens of the United States all the advantages which result from their neutrality, it is the interest of the American government to hinder this fraud."4 This was nearly a month before the issuance of Washington's proclamation of neutrality, and before the Government of the United States had actually determined upon the course which it would pursue. In a report to the Committee of Public Safety in June 1793 Le Brun, in discussing and insisting upon the importance of protecting American neutrality, said: "The United States become more and more the granary of France and her colonies; they manifest the most favorable dispositions of succoring us; and the courage which they have discovered in formally acknowledging the French republic, in spite of the menaces and intrigues of England, proves that their friendship for us is above all political or interested considerations." 5 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I, 350. Id. 358, 359, 361. 3 Id. 362-363. 4 Id. 360. 5 Id. 368. On February 18 and March 26, 1793, decrees were adopted by the National Convention putting American vessels on the same footing as French vessels in French ports.' But there may be yet another reason why the United States were not called upon to execute the territorial guaranty of the treaty of alliance. It is not improbable that the National Assembly, while balancing the advantages of American neutrality against those of the treaty of alliance, doubted whether the guaranty was precisely applicable to the conditions then existing. It is true that war with England had broken out, but it is also true that it was an incident of the general conflict in which France was then engaged with other powers of Europe. This idea is suggested in the original instructions to Genet, which, though they were given before the conflict with England began, were written in contemplation of hostilities with that country as well as with Spain; and these instructions were directed to the formation of a new commercial and political connection with the United States, adapted to the conditions which the French revolution had produced. Genet was instructed that the treaty which he was authorized to negotiate, might assume the form of "a national agreement, in which two great peoples shall suspend their commercial and political interests, and establish a mutual understanding to defend the empire of liberty, wherever it can be embraced; to guarantee the sovereignty of the people, and punish those powers who still keep up an exclusive colonial and commercial system, by declaring that their vessels shall not be received in the ports of the contracting parties. However vast this project may be," continued the instructions, "it will not be difficult to execute, if the Americans determine on it; and it is to convince them of its practicability that the Citizen Genet must direct all his attention; for, besides the advantages which humanity in general will draw from the success of such a negotiation, we have at this moment a particular interest in taking steps to act efficaciously against England and Spain, if, as everything announces, these powers attack us from hatred of our principles The military preparations making in Great Britain become every day more and more serious, and have an intimate connection with those of Spain. The friendship which reigns between the ministers of the last power and those of St. James' proves it; and in this situation of affairs we ought to excite by all possible means the zeal of the Americans, who are as much interested as ourselves in disconcerting the destructive projects of George III. in which they are probably an object. As it is possible, however, that the false representations which have been made to Congress of the situation of our internal affairs, of the state of our maritime force, of our finances, and especially of the storms with which we are threatened, may make her ministers, in the negotiations which the Citizen Genet is entrusted to open, adopt a timid and wavering conduct, the executive council charges him, in expectation that the American government will finally determine to make common cause with us, to take such steps as will appear to him exigencies may require, to serve the cause of liberty and the freedom of the people." Nor were these the only objects of Genet's mission, the full purposes of which * * * 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 362–363. "By a treaty in were unknown to the Government of the United States. 1762 (first made public in 1836) France ceded Louisiana to Spain. Genet was instructed to sound the disposition of the inhabitants of Louisiana toward the French republic, and to omit no opportunity to profit by it, should circumstances seem favorable. He was also to direct particular attention to the designs of the Americans upon the Mississippi."1 Genet's Official When Genet arrived in Philadelphia, an unqualified reception was promptly accorded him. In presenting his letters of credence on the 18th of May, he stated that his government knew that "under present circumstances" they had a right to call upon the United States for the guarantee of their islands, but declared that they did not desire it. And in a note of the 23d of May he proposed that the two peoples should "by a true family compact, establish a commercial and political system," on a "liberal and fraternal basis." 3 The Senate not being then in session, Jefferson apprised him "that the participation, in matters of treaty, given by the Constitution to that branch of our government, would, of course, delay any definitive answer to his friendly proposition.” 4 Controversy with 66 Meanwhile the administration took measures to vindicate its proclamation of neutrality, which was constantly violated by the fitting out of privateers, the condemnation of prizes by French consuls sitting as courts of admiralty, and even by the capture of vessels within the jurisdiction of the United States. These proceedings, in which he was himself directly implicated, Genet defended as being in conformity not only with the treaties between the two countries, but also with the principles of neutrality. When Jefferson cited the utterances of writers on the law of nations, Genet repelled them as diplomatic subtleties," and as "aphorisms of Vattel and others." He claimed the right to fit out and arm vessels in the ports of the United States under the twenty-second article of the treaty of amity and commerce, maintaining that the contracting parties, in declaring that it should not be lawful for persons, having commissions from any other prince or state in enmity with either nation, "to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid parties," by implication conceded the right to do so to the citizens and subjects of each other. On the other hand, the United States denied that the contracting parties, in agreeing to observe the duties of neutrality toward each other, incurred an obligation to violate them with respect to other powers. Genet maintained that, by the seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commmerce the executive and judicial authorities were precluded from interfering in any manner with the prizes brought into the ports of the United States by the French privateers. The United States, on the other hand, while disclaiming any pretension "to try the validity of captures made on the high seas by France, or any other nation, over its enemies," denied that the contracting parties, in agreeing that each other's prizes 'Davis' Notes, Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other Powers, 1776-1887, p. 1296. 2 Jefferson's Works, ed. by Washington, III. 563. should not be subject to arrest or search, or to examination as to their lawfulness, deprived themselves of the right to interfere to prevent the capture and condemnation of prizes in violation of their own neutrality and sovereignty. Genet maintained that the cognizance of all questions relating to the lawfulness of the French captures pertained to the French consuls, who had been invested by the National Assembly with the powers of courts of admiralty. The United States replied that every nation possessed exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory, except so far as it might have yielded it by treaty; that the United States and France had, by their consular convention, conceded to each other's consuls jurisdiction in certain enumerated cases, but that they had not conceded to them the right to determine questions of prize. The United States, therefore, insisted that the fitting out and arming of vessels and the enlistment of citizens of the United States should cease; that privateers that had been unlawfully fitted out and armed in the United States should depart from and not reenter their jurisdiction; that captures made in the waters of the United States or by vessels unlawfully armed and equipped therein, should, when brought within the United States, be restored; and that the exercise of prize jurisdiction by the French consuls should be discontinued. Genet refused to heed these demands. "I wish, sir," he said, "that the Federal Government should observe, as far as in their power, the public engagements contracted by both nations, and that by this generous and prudent conduct, they will give at least to the world the example of a true neutrality, which does not consist in the cowardly abandonment of their friends in the moment when danger menaces them, but in adhering strictly, if they can do no better, to the obligations they have contracted with them." He also expressed contempt for the opinions of the President, and questioned his authority. Genet's Recall. On the 16th of August 1793 Morris was instructed to ask for Genet's recall. A request to this effect was made in an interview with M. Deforgues, then minister of foreign affairs, on the 8th of October. It was immediately granted; and on the 10th of October, M. Deforgues in a formal note, confirming what he had previously promised, declared that measures would be taken to show that "the proceedings and criminal maneuvers (les demarches et les manouevres criminelles) of the Citizen Genet" were not authorized by his instructions.3 His successor, M. Fauchet, demanded his arrest for punishment. This the United States refused "upon reasons of law and magnanimity." Genet's Defense. Genet maintained that he had acted in conformity with his instructions; and when a copy of the instructions to Morris, directing the latter to ask for his recall, was, at the time of their dispatch, communicated to him, he declared that while "a despot may singly permit himself to demand from another despot the recall of his representative, and to order his expulsion in case of refusal, in a free state it can not be so, unless order * * 1 Genet to Jefferson, June 8, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 151. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167. 3 Id. 372, 373, 375. 4 Id. 709. |