Decree of March 2, 1797.

On the 2d of March 1797, the Directory promulgated a new decree by which it was ordered that neutral ships laden in whole or in part with enemy's property should be captured, and that all such property found on board should be deemed good prize. By a singular process of reasoning it further declared that by the operation of the most-favored-nation clause the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778 was to be considered as modified by the provisions of the Jay Treaty, in the following particulars:

1. That all enemy's property and all property "not sufficiently ascertained to be neutral, conveyed under American flags, shall be confiscated." 2. That to the list of contraband in the treaty of 1778 should be added articles used in arming and equipping vessels.

3. That Americans accepting commissions from the enemies of France, or serving as seamen in enemies' vessels, should be treated as pirates.

4. That every American ship should be deemed good prize, which should not have on board a crew list (rôle d'équipage) in the form prescribed by the model annexed to the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, the observance of which was required by the twenty-fifth and twentyseventh articles.'

The part of the foregoing decree that bore most hardly on American ships was that in regard to the documentation of vessels. By the twentyfifth article of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, in order to avoid disputes, it was agreed that in case either of the contracting parties should be engaged in war, the vessels of the other should be furnished with sea letters or passports expressing the name, property, and bulk of the ship, and the name and residence of the master, according to the form annexed to the treaty, and also with certificates showing the character of the cargo and the places of its origin and destination. By the twenty-seventh article it was provided that, in case a ship should be visited, she should, on exhibition by the master of his passport concerning the property of the ship, made out according to the form annexed to the treaty, be at liberty to pursue her voyage free from molestation or search. By that form, the oath concerning the property of the ship was required to be annexed to the passport, but no other paper was required to be so annexed. By various acts of Congress provision was made for the documentation of vessels, including the matters referred to in the treaty of 1778. Particular rules were established as to registry, ownership, tonnage, and crew list. When the decree of March 2, 1797, was issued, American vessels had for years been carrying the documents prescribed by the acts of Congress, and though the war had been in progress for four years no others had been required. The decree, therefore, amounted to a declaration of general and summary confiscation of American vessels. Moreover, the old marine ordinances of France were revived and enforced with severity, both in Europe and the West Indies. Informalities in bills of lading, crew lists, or other papers were made a ground of condemnation, though the proofs of property were indubitable; and in many cases in the West Indies, when vessels were brought to

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 12, 30, 180.

21 Stats. at L. 31, 53, 288, 289, 290.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 180, 302.

trial, they and their cargoes were condemned without admitting the owners or their agents to make defense. In a report of February 28, 1798, Pickering summarized the depredations on American commerce as follows: (1) Spoliation and maltreatment of their vessels at sea by French ships of war and privateers. (2) A distressing and long-continued embargo on their vessels at Bordeaux in the years 1793-1794. (3) The nonpayment of bills and other evidences of debts due drawn by the colonial administrations in the West Indies. (4) The seizure or forced sales of the cargoes of vessels, and the appropriation of them to public use, without paying for them, or paying inadequately, or delaying payment for a great length of time. (5) The nonperformance of contracts made by the agents of the government for supplies. (6) The condemnation of vessels and cargoes under such of the marine ordinances of France as were incompatible with the treaties subsisting between the two countries. (7) Captures, detentions, and condemnations under various decrees which have been described.

At the opening of the first session of the Fifth ConMission of Pinckney, gress, on May 16, 1797, President Adams referred to the Marshall, and Gerry. state of the relations with France, and recommended the consideration of effectual measures of defense. In particular he adverted to the depredations on American commerce, in violation of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, and to the speech made by Barras, the president of the Directory, when Monroe, on the 30th of December 1796 took his formal leave. Desirous, however, of trying all possible means of conciliation, President Adams, on the 31st of May 1797, nomi

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 28-29.

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

3 Barras said: "By presenting to-day your letters of recall to the Executive Directory, you offer to Europe a very strange spectacle. France, rich in her liberty, surrounded by a train of victories, and strong in the esteem of her allies, will not stoop to calculate the consequences of the condescention of the American Government to the wishes of its former tyrants. The French republic expects, however, that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous friendship of the French people with the crafty caresses of certain perfidious persons who meditate to bring them again under their former yoke. Assure the good American people, sir, that like them we adore liberty; that they will always possess our esteem; and that they will find in the French people that republican generosity which knows how to grant peace, as well as to cause its sovereignty to be respected. As to you, Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary, you have combatted for principles; you have known the true interests of your country: depart with our regret. In you we give up a representative to America, and retain the remembrance of the citizen whose personal qualities did honor to that title." (Am. State Paper For. Rel. II. 12.) "The moment this speech was concluded, the Directory, accompanied by the diplomatic corps, passed into the audience hall to receive from an aid-de-camp of Bonaparte the four Austrian colors taken at the battle of Arcola. The diplomatic corps may therefore be presumed to have witnessed this indignity." (Davis's Notes, Treaty Vol., 1776-1887, p. 1302.)

nated to the Senate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Francis Dana, and Jonn Marshall as envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French republic. Dana having declined the appointment, Elbridge Gerry was nominated in his place, and on the 13th of July the three commissioners were invested with full power to treat on all the differences between the two countries. They arrived in Paris on the evening of the 4th of October. On the 8th they were unofficially received by Talleyrand, the minister of foreign affairs, to whom they gave a copy of their letter of credence. Talleyrand directed cards to be sent them in order that they might remain in Paris, but informed them that it would be necessary for him to consult further with the Directory before formally receiving them. It was subsequently intimated, through his private secretary, that they could not have a public audience of the Directory until their negotiations were concluded.

Meanwhile, they were waited upon by three men who The X, Y, Z, Episode. came sometimes singly and sometimes together, and who professed to represent Talleyrand and the Directory. These persons are known in the correspondence as X, Y, and Z. The first approach was made by W, who called on Pinckney and informed him that X was a gentleman of credit and reputation, in whom great reliance might be placed. On the evening of the same day X called, and professing to speak for Talleyrand, whom he represented as desirious of effecting a conciliation with America, suggested confidentially a plan for that purpose. It was represented that two members of the Directory were exceedingly irritated at some passages in the President's speech of May 16, 1797, and that these passages would need to be softened; that a sum of money, to be at the disposal of Talleyrand, would be required as a douceur for the ministry, except Merlin, the minister of justice, who was already making enough from the condemnation of vessels; and that a loan to the government would also be insisted on. As the amount of the douceur, X mentioned the sum of 1,200,000 livres, or about 50,000 pounds sterling. Pinckney answered that he and his colleagues had been treated with great slight and disrespect; that they earnestly wished for peace and reconciliation with France, and had been intrusted with very great powers to obtain those ends on honorable terms; but that, with regard to the propositions which had been made to him, he could not even consider them before communicating with his colleagues. It was subsequently arranged that X should be presented to all the American plenipotentiaries, and that he should reduce his propositions to writing. This X agreed to do, saying that his communication was not immediately with Talleyrand, but through another gentleman, in whom Talleyrand had great confidence. This gentleman proved to be Y. On the evening of the 19th of October, X called upon the plenipotentiaries and presented in writing the propositions which he had already made orally. On the evening of the 20th X and Y called together, the latter being introduced as a confidential friend of Talleyrand. Y dilated on the resentment produced by the President's speech, and said he would not disguise the fact that after they had afforded satisfaction on that point, they must pay money, "a great deal of money." In

so saying he referred to the subject of a loan. Concerning the 1,200,000 livres little was said, it being understood that this sum was required for the officers of the government, and therefore needed no further explanation. In an interview on the following day, Y, who represented that he had spent the morning with Talleyrand, intimated as a "private individual” the opinion that the determination of the Directory in regard to the President's speech might be changed by a loan. He said there were 32,000,000 florins of Dutch inscription, worth 10 shillings in the pound, which might be assigned to the United States at 20 shillings in the pound; that, after peace was concluded, the Dutch Government would repay the money; and that the practical effect of the measure would be an advance of 32,000,000 to France, on the credit of Holland. The plenipotentiaries inquired whether the douceur to the Directory must be in addition to this sum. Y answered in the affirmative. After consultation the plenipotentiaries replied that the proposition of a loan was not within the limits of their instructions, but that one of their number would forthwith embark for America to consult the Government on the subject, provided the Directory would suspend proceedings in respect of captured American vessels. At this reply Y exhibited disappointment. He said the plenipotentiaries had treated the money part of the proposition as if it had proceeded from the Directory, whereas in fact it was only a suggestion from himself, as a means of avoiding "the painful acknowledgment" which the Directory had determined to demand of them. The plenipotentiaries answered that they understood the matter perfectly; that they knew the proposition was in form to be theirs, but that it came substantially from the minister; that it was for the Directory to determine what course its own honor and the interest of France required it to pursue, and for them to guard the nterest and honor of their own country. Y declared that they certainly would not be received, and "seemed to shudder at the consequences."1

After further conference with the French intermediaries, the American plenipotentiaries informed them that they considered it degrading to their country to carry on further indirect intercourse, and that they had determined to receive no further propositions unless the persons who bore them had authority to treat. On the 11th of November they addressed to Talleyraud a formal letter, in which they reminded him of their unofficial interview of the 6th of October, and asked to be informed of the decision of the Directory with regard to their reception. To this letter they received no answer, and about the middle of December X and Y sought to renew their intercourse. "On the 20th of December," says Pinckney, "a lady, who is well acquainted with M. Talleyrand, expressed to me her concern that we were still in so unsettled a situation; 'but,' adds she, 'why will you not lend us money?" She assured Pinckney that if they remained six months longer they would not advance a single step in their negotiation without a loan. Pinckney replied that if such was the case they might as well go away at once.3

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 158-160.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 164.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 166, 167. After the envoys' reports of these transactions were made public in the United States, they were republished in the London Gazette. Talleyrand, having seen a copy, on the

1798.

On the 18th of January 1798 the Directory issued a Decree of January 17, new decree, by which it was declared that every vessel found at sea loaded in whole or in part with merchandise the production of England or her possessions, should be good prize, whoever the owner of the goods or merchandise might be; and that every foreign vessel which in the course of her voyage should have entered an English port, should not be admitted into the ports of France except in cases of necessity. On the 28th of January the American plenipotentiaries, though still unrecognized, addressed an elaborate communication to Talleyrand, in which they reviewed the questions in controversy between the two governments, and drew particular attention to the spoilations of American commerce.2

1

On the 2d of March, having intimated that it would Diplomatic Rupture. be improper for them to remain longer in France under existing conditions, they were admitted by Talleyrand to an interview. Talleyrand soon introduced the kindred subjects of the speech of the President and the negotiation of a loan. His observations led Pinckney to remark that the propositions which he suggested appeared to be substantially the same as those made by X and Y. The plenipotentiaries declared that they had no power to agree to a loan; and on the 18th of March Talleyrand made a formal reply to their note. In this reply he repeated the complaints concerning the interference with French prizes in the United States, and the admission of enemies' vessels to American ports, after they had captured property or ships belonging to French citizens; but he laid most stress on the questions raised by the Jay Treaty. After reviewing these matters at length he declared that the Executive Directory was "disposed to treat with that one of the three [plenipotentiaries] whose opinions, presumed to be more impartial, promise, in the course of the explanations, more of that reciprocal confidence which is indispensable. The plenipotentiary thus referred to was Gerry. On the 3d of April the three envoys, replying to Talleyrand's communications stated that none of them was authorized to take upon himself alone a negotiation. But, although Pinckney and Marshall left Paris without further delay, Gerry remained behind, alleging in justification of his course that the Directory wished him to stay, and that his departure against its 30th of May 1798 wrote to Gerry, declaring that intriguers had profited by the "insulated position" in which the envoys had kept themselves to make propositions the object of which evidently was to deceive them. He demanded to know the names of X, Y, and Z, and of the woman who was described as holding conversations with Pinckney. Gerry gave him the names of X, Y, and Z. The name of the lady he said he could not give, as she had not made any political communications to him. Y was a Mr. Bellamy; Z, a Mr. Hauteval. The name of X was given, but was not published. It is preserved in the Department of State. Z avowed himself. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 210, 211, 229.)

'Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 182.

2 Id. 169-182.

3 Id. 188, 191.

4 * Id. 191-199.