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.

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

8. That the English had been permitted to arm privateers in the ports of the United States, and to bring in and repair their prizes.

To this charge the reply was made that the United States had used every effort to prevent violations of neutrality by the English, while French privateers illegally armed in the United States continued on the coast, using the harbors to cruise from.

9. That the United States had permitted England to violate their neutrality by taking enemies' goods out of their ships.

Answer was made that it was not a violation of neutral rights to seize enemies' goods, the rule of free ship free goods resting on treaty.

10. That the United States allowed the French colonies to be declared in a state of blockade, and its citizens to be interdicted the right of trading with them.

Reply was made that the blockade was proclaimed as an actual one, and that it applied equally to all neutrals.

11. That the United States had permitted England to impress their

seamen.

Answer was made that the United States had not assented to such impressment, but had resisted it, and that this resistance had been continued. 12. That the United States had ceased to permit the sale of French prizes in their ports.

Answer was made that such permission was originally granted as a favor, and that the indulgence was withdrawn when it came in conflict with a new and positive stipulation in the treaty with Great Britain, similar to that which France herself contracted with the British Government eight years after her treaty with the United States.

13. That the Government of the United States "suffered England, by insulting its neutrality, to interrupt its commerce with France."

Answer: "That our commerce has been interrupted by the armed vessels of England, and sometimes with circumstances of insult, we certainly shall not attempt to deny It was because of those aggressions that preparations for war were commenced; and to demand satisfaction for them was the leading object of Mr. Jay's mission to London. Satisfaction was demanded; and the arrangements agreed on for rendering it are now in execution at London."

14. That the United States had exhibited "ingratitude" to France, and had failed to render the "succors" that might have been given without compromising the government.

Answer was made that while the United States were not disposed to question the importance of the aid actually derived from France, the exertions of France were made for the purpose of advancing her own interests and securing her own safety. But was it true that the United States had rendered no succors to France? In a letter to Mr. Morris of August 16, 1793, the Secretary of State had said: "We recollect with satisfaction, that, in the course of two years, by unceasing exertions, we paid up seven years' arrearages and installments of our debt to France, which the inefficacy of our first form of government had suffered to be accumulating; that, pressing on still to the entire fulfillment of our engagements, we have facilitated to Mr. Genet the effect of the installments of the present year, to enable him to send relief to his fellow

citizens in France, threatened with famine; that, in the first moment of the insurrection which threatened the colony of St. Domingo, we stepped forward to their relief with arms and money, taking freely on ourselves the risk of unauthorized aid, and when delay would have been denial; that we have given the exclusive admission to sell here the prizes made by France on her enemies in the present war, though unstipulated in our treaties, and unfounded in her own practice, or in that of other nations, as we believe." "To this detail," said Pickering, "I have to add, that, of all the loans and supplies received from France in the American war, amounting to nearly fifty-three millions of livres, the United States under their late government had been enabled to pay not two millions and a half of livres; that the present government, after paying up the arrearages and installments mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, has been continually anticipating the subsequent installments, until, in the year 1795, the whole of our debt to France was discharged, by anticipating the payment of eleven millions and a half of livres; no part of which would have become due until the second of September 1796, and then only one million and a half; the residue at subsequent periods; the last not until the year 1802."

While these discussions were progressing, the French Decree of July 2, 1796. Government adopted certain measures which prefigured the Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon. On the 1st of June 1796, the President of the United States approved an act of Congress, making it the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a form which, when approved by the President, should be used as the form of a passport for American vessels. This measure bore evidence of a desire to secure protection for such vessels by an amicable arrangement. On the other hand the French Directory on the 2d of July 1796, made the following decree:

"The Executive Directory, considering that, if it becomes the faith of the French nation to respect treaties or conventions which secure to the flags of some neutral or friendly powers commercial advantages, the result of which is to be common to the contracting powers, those same advantages, if they should turn to the benefit of our enemies, either through the weakness of our allies, or of neutrals, or through fear, through interested views, or through whatever motives, would, in fact, warrant the inexecution of the articles in which they were stipulated, decrees as follows:

“All neutral or allied powers shall, without delay, be notified that the flag of the French republic will treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them."2

Agents.

Under this decree widespread and indiscriminate Decrees of Special depredations were committed on the commerce of the United States. But it was supplemented by other decrees issued by special agents of the Directory in various places. On the 1st of August 1796 the special agents to the Windward Islands promulgated a decree declaring all vessels laden with articles "designated by

1 Stats at L. 489.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 577. See Davis's Notes, Treaty Volume, 1778-1887, p. 1300.

the name of contraband, as arms, instruments, munitions of war of what kind soever, horses and their furniture," should be seized and confiscated. This decree, besides taking no account of the destination of such articles, was enforced without regard to the forms of legal procedure.' By the special agents of the Directory to the Leeward Islands a decree was issued on the 27th of November 1796, directing the capture of "American vessels bound to English ports, or coming from the said ports," and their detention in the ports of the colony till otherwise ordered. This decree was understood to come within the intention of the decree of the Directory itself, and was, at least in some places, so construed. On the 1st of February 1797, the special agents of the Directory to the Windward Islands issued another decree authorizing the capture and condemnation as prize of all neutral vessels destined to any of the Windward or Leeward islands held by the English and occupied and defended by the French emigrants.'

Refusal to receive
Pinckney.

Against these decrees the United States protested in vain. For three years the relations between the two countries had remained in a state of uncertainty which it was impossible to preserve. The ratification of the Jay Treaty brought on a crisis which was sure sooner or later to come. By fixing the position of the United States as a neutral, it ended the irreconcilable conflict between the policy of actual, substantial neutrality, which the United States had from the beginning sought to maintain, and the policy-based partly on the treaties of 1778 as France interpreted them, and partly on considerations of sympathy-which Genet and his successors commended, but which could not long have retained even the name of neutrality. The French Government, besides issuing the decrees which have just been described, recalled its minister from the United States, and reduced the grade of the mission. Monroe was recalled, and in his place was sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, a brother of Thomas Pinckney, who was then minister to England.3 Pinckney was particularly charged to press the claims for spoliations. He arrived in Paris early in December, and just as the arrangements for his reception seemed to be complete the minister of foreign affairs informed Monroe that the Executive Directory had decided "that it will no longer recognize nor receive a minister plenipotentiary from the United States until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French republic has a right to expect." The Directory refused to give Pinckney a permit to sojourn in Paris as a private stranger, and afterward sent him a notice to quit the territories of the republic. He then retired to Amsterdam to await developments."

4

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 749, 759.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 748-752.

3 Trescot's American Diplomatic History, 162-171; Monroe's View of the Conduct of the Executive in Foreign Affairs.

4 Am. State Papers For. Rel. I. 742. 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 746. 6 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 10.