be entirely subverted." He therefore demanded that the President should, on the assembling of Congress, lay the whole matter before it for its consideration; and finally declared that if it was desired to have in the United States, "instead of a democratic ambassador, a minister of the ancien régime, complaisant, very mild, well disposed to pay his court to people in place, to conform himself blindly to whatsoever may flatter their views and their projects, and to prefer above all to the modest and sure society of good farmers, plain citizens, honest artisans, that of distinguished personages, who speculate so patriotically in the public funds, in the lands and paper of the state," he knew not whether the French republic could at that day find such a person in its bosom, but that he would at all events press it to sacrifice him without hesitation, if that injustice should seem to be useful.1 Genet's letters of recall did not reach the United Continued Violations of States till February 1794. In the mean time violations Sovereignty. of the sovereignty of the United States continued to occur; and toward the close of the year 1793 the government became cognizant of the fact that Genet had been engaged in promoting enterprises against the dominions of Spain. By a report of a committee of the House of Representatives of South Carolina of December 6, 1793, it appeared that various citizens of that State had received commissions from Genet authorizing them to raise and organize military forces in the United States; that he had instructed them to rendezvous in the State of Georgia, with a view to the invasion of the Spanish dominions, either alone, if opportunity should offer, or in conjunction with a French fleet, in the event of one appearing off the coasts of the Southern States, but that, from all the circumstances, it was probable that they must yield to any change of destination which he might point out to them. Genet, on learning of the publication of this report, hastened to deny that he had authorized the collecting of an armed force "in the territory of the United States," but admitted that, being "authorized by the French nation to deliver commissions" to such citizens of the United States as should "feel themselves animated with a desire of serving the best of causes,” he had "granted them to several brave republicans of South Carolina," whose 1Genet to Jefferson, September 18, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 172. In some remarks made at a meeting of the New York Historical Society, December 13, 1870, William Cullen Bryant, referring to Genet, said: "I knew the man, and remember him very vividly. Some fortyfive years since he came occasionally to New York, where I saw him. He was a tall man, with a reddish wig and a full round voice, speaking English in a sort of oratorical manner, like a man making a speech, but very well for a Frenchman. He was a dreamer in some respects, and, I remember, had a plan for navigating the air in balloons. A pamphlet of his was published a little before the time I knew him entitled 'Aerial Navigation,' illustrated by an engraving of a balloon shaped like a fish, propelled by sails and guided by a rudder, in which he maintained that man could navigate the air as well as he could navigate the ocean in a ship." It seems that at the time of which Mr. Bryant spoke Genet was living in Troy, in the State of New York. (The Struggle for Neutrality in America, an address by Charles Francis Adams, p. 51.) intention appeared to be "to expatriate themselves, and to go among the independent Indian tribes, ancient friends and allies of France," in order to retaliate the injuries which the Spanish and the English had done by means of those savages.1 While the sovereignty of the United States was thus Decree of May 9, 1793. subjected to violation at home, their commerce at sea was falling a prey to belligerent depredations. The course of Great Britain has already been described. On the 9th of May 1793, the National Convention of France passed a decree by which French ships of war and privateers were "authorized to seize and carry into the ports of the republic merchant vessels which are wholly or in part loaded with provisions, being neutral property, bound to an enemy's port, or having on board merchandise belonging to an enemy." Merchandise belonging to the enemy was declared to be "lawful prize, seizable for the profit of the captor;" but it was provided that "provisions, being neutral property," should be "paid for at the price they would have sold for at the port where they were bound." In either case an allowance was to be made for freight, and for the vessel's detention. This decree, which was defended on the ground of a scarcity of provisions in France, was the first of the series of measures, French or British, by which neutral commerce was harassed and preyed upon down to the close of the Napoleonic wars. Morris immediately remonstrated against it. "I think," he said, in a spirit of prophecy, "I can foresee that, as to articles of food, the rules which the convention have now adopted will be followed with eagerness by her maritime enemies, and that henceforward commercial speculations will depenp on the point of subsistence of the naval superiority between the belligerent powers." And, pointing to the fact that by the treaties between the United States and France enemies' goods were free from capture on board of neutral vessels, he asked that a supplementary decree be adopted for the purpose of exempting vessels of the United States from the operation of the decree. Conformably to this request the National Convention, "desiring to preserve the union established between the French republic and the United States of America," on the 23d of May made a decree by which it was declared that, "conformably to the sixteenth article of the treaty concluded on the 16th of February 1778," American vessels were "not comprehended in the provisions of the decree of the 9th of May." But long before the decree of May 9, 1793, complaints were made of "violences committed by French privateers on American vessels." The executive authorities issued orders forbidding such depredations, but were "too feeble to prevent" them. In one case, that of the American ship Laurens, the vessel was seized by a French privateer and taken into Havre, while 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 309, 311, 425; Pitkin's Political and Civil History of the United States, II. 377-385. 2 Supra, Chap. X. 3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 244. Morris to M. Le Brun, May 14, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 364. 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 365. 6 Morris to Le Brun, March 24, 1793, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 358. See other complaints, Id. 359, 361, 367. 7 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 362, 367. 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; 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. 4 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. 8 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 Appointment of 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 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 396. 2 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. Id. 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 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 240. Supra, Chap. X. |