A PLAIN HONEST MAN. For the Gazette of the United States. 1792. In consequence of the intimation contained in the first number of the vindication of Mr. Jefferson, which originated in the American Daily Advertiser, that, "if any doubt should be suggested of the authenticity of the extracts published, they should be immediately made accessible to others," a person called upon Mr. Dunlap to obtain an inspection of those originals. He replied that they had not been left with him, neither was he possessed of the necessary information where to direct or inquire, but if desired he would, by advertisement, notify the application for a perusal of the letters. A statement of this answer, as extraordinary as unexpected, was prepared to be inserted in this Gazette, and was communicated to Mr. Dunlap with a view to verify its accuracy. The evening before that destined for its appearance, Mr. D. called upon the person and informed him that the originals were now to be seen, and would be communicated to any person who might incline to see them, observing, at the same time, that it appeared to him that it could not be necessary to publish the statement which has been mentioned, as intended. This was accordingly foreborne. On the 17th November, Mr. D. was again applied to and again proposed an advertisement, but afterwards hinted, as a preliminary condition of the letters being seen, that the person in whose possession the letters were should be made acquainted with the name of the person who applied for that purpose. Mr. D. afterwards said he would apply again for the letters and have them in his own possession to show them, agreeable to the declaration published-but after this, being again applied to, answered as before, that the applicant must be previously known. On the a note appeared in Mr. Dunlap's paper of that day, which, after commenting on the disingenuousness of some doubts hinted in one of the papers, under the signature of Catullus, gives "notice that any gentleman of known honor and delicacy who shall be named to the editor of the American Daily Advertiser, shall have an opportunity of examining not only the passages extracted, but the entire contents of the original letter." What gentleman of real delicacy would be willing to present himself under the professed character of a "gentleman of known honor and delicacy," at the hazard of being affronted by a rejec tion to obtain the proffered access? Is not an offer so clogged a felo de se? What is the natural inference? If I am not, Mr. Printer, a "gentleman of known honor and delicacy," I hope you will not think the worse of me for being only A PLAIN HONEST MAN. OBSERVER. 1793. Among the observations which have appeared as containing the debates in congress, respecting the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Findley is represented as having made the following assertions: "That the Secretary of the Treasury had acknowledged that he had not applied the money borrowed in Europe agreeably to the legal appropriations of the President. That he had acknowledged his having drawn to this country, and applied in Europe to uses for which other moneys were appropriated, three millions of dollars.-That he had acknowledged his having drawn from Europe more money than the law authorized him to do. That he was influenced to do so by motives not contemplated by the law, and had either applied it, or drawn it from Europe, with the design of applying it to uses not authorized, and that he had broken in upon the fund appropriated for the discharge of the French debt." Before I read this speech I had carefully perused the different communications made by the Secretary of the Treasury to the House of Representatives, and after reading it I was led to revise them. The result has been that I have found all these assertions attributed to Mr. Findley either direct untruths or palpable misrepresentations, and I challenge Mr. Findley or any of his friends to produce the passages which will warrant them. The truth is, that Mr. Findley has palmed upon the Secretary his own reasonings and inferences for points conceded by him. The commen tary has been substituted for the text. PACIFICUS. NO. I. OBSERVER. June 29th, 1793. As attempts are making, very dangerous to the peace, and, it is to be feared, not very friendly to the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of those who wish well to both, to endeavor to prevent their success. The objections which have been raised against the proclamation of neutrality, lately issued by the president, have been urged in a spirit of acrimony and invective, which demonstrates. that more was in view than merely a free discussion of an important public measure. They exhibit evident indications of a design to weaken the confidence of the people in the author of the measure, in order to remove or lessen a powerful obstacle to the success of an opposition to the government, which, however it may change its form according to circumstances, seems still to be persisted in with unremitting industry. This reflection adds to the motives connected with the mea sure itself, to recommend endeavors, by proper explanations, to place it in a just light. Such explanations, at least, cannot but be satisfactory to those who may not themselves have leisure or opportunity for pursuing an investigation of the subject, and who may wish to perceive that the policy of the government is not inconsistent with its obligations or its honor. The objections in question fall under four heads: 1. That the proclamation was without authority. 3. That it was contrary to the gratitude which is due from this to that country, for the succors afforded to us in our own revolution. 4. That it was out of time and unnecessary. In order to judge of the solidity of the first of these objec tions, it is necessary to examine what is the nature and design of a proclamation of neutrality. It is to make known to the powers at war, and to the citizens of the country whose government does the act, that such country is in the condition of a nation at peace with the belligerent parties, and under no obligations of treaty to become an associate in the war with either, and that this being its situation, its intention is to observe a corresponding conduct, by performing towards each the duties of neutrality; to warn all persons within the jurisdiction of that country, to abstain from acts that shall contravene those duties, under the penalties which the laws of the land, of which the jus gentium is part, will inflict. This, and no more, is conceived to be the true import of a proclamation of neutrality. It does not imply that the nation which makes the declaration will forbear to perform to either of the warring powers any stipulations in treaties which can be executed, without becoming a party in the war. It therefore does not imply in our case that the United States will not make those distinctions, between the present belligerent powers, which are stipulated in the 7th and 22d articles of our treaty with France; because they are not incompatible with the state of neutrality; and will in no shape render the United States an associate or party in the war. This must be evident, when it is considered that even to furnish determinate succors of ships or troops to a power at war, in consequence of antecedent treaties having no particular reference to the existing quarrel, is not inconsistent with neutrality: a position equally well established by the doctrines of writers and the practice of nations.* But no special aids, succors, or favors, having relation to war, not positively and precisely stipulated by some treaty of the above description, can be afforded to either party, without a breach of neutrality. In stating that the proclamation of neutrality does not imply the non-performance of any stipulations of treaties, which are not of a nature to make the nation an associate in the war, it is conceded that an execution of the clause of guaranty, contained in the eleventh article of our treaty of alliance with France, would be contrary to the sense and spirit of the proclamation; because it would engage us with our whole force as an auxiliary in the war; it would be much more than the case of a definite succor, previously ascertained. It follows, that the proclamation is virtually a manifestation of the sense of the government, that the United States are, under the circumstances of the case, not bound to execute the clause of guaranty. If this be a just view of the force and import of the proclamation, it will remain to see, whether the president, in issuing it, acted within his proper sphere, or stepped beyond the bounds of his constitutional authority and duty. It will not be disputed, that the management of the affairs of this country with foreign nations is confided to the government of the United States. It can as little be disputed, that a proclamation of neutrality, when a nation is at liberty to decline or avoid a war in which other nations are engaged, and means to do so, is a usual and a proper measure. Its main object is to prevent the nation's being responsible for acts done by its citizens, without the privity or conni * See Vatel, Book III., Chap. 6, Sec. 101. |