The first of these assertions; to wit, That our treaty with Britain justifies the seizure of our vessels by the French, you attempt to support by a most barefaced misconstruction of the second article of our treaty with France. This article says, that the contracting parties engage mutually, not to grant any particular favour to other nations, in respect to commerce and navigation, that shall not immediately become common to the other party. Therefore," say you, "all the concessions made to England by Jay's treaty, are, through the medium of this "second article, made to France, and can be "exercised by her as a matter of right." This is a truth; but, like all the truths you have ever committed to paper, it is advanced with the malicious intention of leading your readers into a falsehocd.

66

Having said, that all the commercial favours, or concessions, granted by America to England, are, by the pre-existing treaty, granted to France also (all which we knew while you were safe in your den), you proceed to number among those concessions, the acknowledgement of Great Britain's right to seize contraband articles, and enemies' goods, found on board neutral vessels, which is just no concession at all. Great Britain had, prior to the treaty, as she still has, a right to seize all such articles and enemies' goods, so found. No stipulation in a treaty was necessary to the recognition of this right. It is established by the universal law of nations, and is, and ever has been, rigorously maintained, when not surrendered by particular convention. It could be no concession on the part of America, to acknowledge that Great Britain possessed a right, which she did possess, and which she exercised too, before the treaty was formed; and if this was no concession, how can the second. article

article of the treaty with France be in anywise applicable to the case?

I shall not here prove that the regulations, respecting seizures, adopted in the treaty between Britain and America, are consonant to the principles of the modern law of nations, and are moreover sanctioned by the practice of France. Neither shall I enter into an explanation of the true meaning of the stipulation for equal favour, nor attempt to expose the absurdity of applying it to what every independent nation enjoys as a right. All this I have done, and I hope to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind, in my answer to the insolent and seditious Notes of Citizen Adet, to which I would refer you, Tom, were I not well assured, that you are guided by villainy, and not misguided by ignorance, or error. I shall not avail myself of the advantage to be derived from a repetition of these proofs. I shall admit your assertion in its fullest extent, and convict you on your own words.

You say, that the treaty with Britain, as far as it relates to seizures, "is now become engrafted “into that with France, and can be exercised by "her, as matter of right."-Now, then, let us turn to what the British treaty says on this head. "Where vessels shall be captured, or detained on 'just suspicion of having on board enemies' pro

66

perty, or of carrying to the enemy, any of the ar"ticles which are contraband of war; the said ves"sel shall be brought to the nearest and most convenient port; and if any property of an enemy "shall be found on board of such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy, shall be made

prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to pro"ceed with the remainder, without any impedi"ment."-Compare this with your justification of the present conduct of the French. Are they con

tent

tent with seizing only articles contraband of war, or the property of enemies? And do they suffer the ves sel to proceed with the rest of her cargo? No; they seize all vessels bound to the ports of the enemy, whether they have on board contraband articles, or enemies' property, or not! They seize and confiscate both vessel and cargo, and put the captains and seamen in chains.

You will say, that Great Britain stopped all our vessels bound to her enemies' ports, some of which she also condemned; but this was before the treaty with her was made, and therefore cannot be attributed to that instrument, by which, on the contrary, she acknowledges the illegality of all such seizures, and engages to make full compensation for the losses thereby sustained.-Take, then, the treaty with England, let it be the law to judge your Harlequin masters by, and we shall soon have the pleasure to hear that they have shared the fate they long ago merited, and which their servant has often so miraculously escaped.

You were informed of the piratical orders they had issued, and were commanded to prepare a justification. In compliance with this command, you rummaged about the treaty, as Milton rummaged the Bible, to find a justification for the murder of his king. Your baleful eyes at last fixed on the eighth article. Here, you say, the treaty "makes a concession to England, of other articles, "in American ships. These articles are all other "articles, and none but an ignoramus, or some

thing worse, would have put such a phrase into a treaty." Do you think that we have never read this treaty? And, if we had not, do you think there is a man among us fool enough to believe that it contains such a concession? If you do, your opinion of the people of your "beloved America," must be much changed.

This

66

This article, out of which you have called two, and only two words, runs thus: "And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which "alone, provisions and other articles, not generally "contraband, may be regarded as such, renders it "expedient to provide against the misunderstand

ings which might thence arise: It is agreed, that, "whenever any such articles, so becoming contra"band, according to the existing law of nations, "shall, for that reason, be seized; the same shall "not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall "be speedily and completely indemnified."-So that, you see, your all other articles are reduced to such articles only as are contraband of war, according to the modern, the existing law of nations.

Playfair calls you, "the clumsy advocate of in"surrection," and you are certainly as clumsy an advocate of piracy. Poor Citizen Adet is a lame hand enough, but you are still worse; he did flounce about, and made a noise before he sunk; but you just make a bubble, and go to the bottom at once, like a stone, or a lump of lead.

I now come to your charge against the President, respecting your detention in prison. You insist that you were still a citizen of America, and that therefore it was his duty to demand your enlargement. You perceived that you had lost all claim to citizenship here, in virtue of the article which extends that deprivation to all those "who shall accept of any title or office under any foreign "king, prince, or state." To get rid of this, you have recourse to a curious quibble: you pretend, that this provision did not embrace your case, be cause France, at the time you joined the legislative mob, was neither a kingdom, principality, nor state, but a people in a state of revolution.

66

That France was not worthy of the name of state, I am very ready to allow. The French were then,

what

what they are now, a horde of savages, engaged in the work of destruction. But, be this as it might, France was acknowledged as a state by America, and even you, I presume, will not have the impudence to deny, that she was declared to be a republic too, the very first day that you took your seat in the convention; and, if a republic, she was certainly a state. Admitting your own doctrine, then, to have preserved your claim to American citizenship, you should have abdicated your seat, the instant this declaration took place.

You contend that a man may lend a hand to form a constitution for a nation who has none, without forfeiting his citizenship in his own country. This may be so it is nonsense, and therefore not worth disputing about. But why did you not retire as soon as your job was done. You continued your seat, after you had made and sworn to, and made every one else swear to your silly work. You had tasted the sweets of plunder, and you hung to it like a leech, till Robespierre changed you from a legislator to a jailbird,

You wish to persuade us, that the being a delegate, to aid in forming a constitution, was not filling any office at all.-Now, suppose that I should allow this, did you exercise no other functions than those of a constitution maker? Was not the convention every thing, legislative, executive, and diplomatic; judicial, military, and ecclesiastic? Were not some of you watching the armies, others superintending the guillotine, and others preaching sermons of atheism? Was this filling no office? And were you not at all times as liable, and as ready and fit to be thus employed as any of the gang? Nay, you not preside as judge ("ah! righteous rascally judge!") on the trial of Louis the XVIth? And did not your swinish voice pronounce on him

did

Y 2

the