articles become subject to confiscation by the belligerents as contraband of war. Canning, the British statesman, gave the following testimony to the action of Washington, in Parliament in 1823: "If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson." Hall, one of the latest English writers on international law, says: "The policy of the United States in 1793 constitutes an epoch in the development of the usages of neutrality. . . . It represented by far the most advanced existing opinions as to what the obligations [of neutrality] were. . . . In the main it is identical with the standard of conduct which is now adopted by the community of nations."1 The intemperate conduct of the French minister, Genet, had a marked influence in bringing about the decided stand of the government in favor of an impartial neutrality, and in securing for it the support of the country. A more moderate and discreet course on his part would have made it difficult to ignore the treaty of alliance as interpreted by the French republican government. When our government gave notice of the termination of his mission, he turned even upon his friends in America who had favored his cause, and, among others, he charged Jefferson with duplicity, by encouraging his course in private and finally abandoning him officially. He was recalled by his government, and, as meanwhile a new régime had been installed in France, he was denounced by it as a public enemy, and 1 Hall's International Law, 3d ed. 594. our government was asked to surrender him, but it declined. He never returned to his native land; he had married a daughter of George Clinton, then governor of New York and afterwards vice-president of the United States; after dismissal from his post as minister he became a naturalized citizen of this country, and died here in 1834. It is now plain that the neutrality proclamation of the President was a most wise and necessary act one of the most important in the history of the country, as it was the inauguration of a principle of international law and governmental practice which has won for us the respect of the world and contributed very materially to our national prosperity. But it was adopted against the advice of many of the most prominent and able of our public men, and subjected the President to bitter abuse and calumny. It afforded the State Department clerk, Freneau, a fine opportunity. The President, he said, was fast debauching the country. He was seeking a crown. He was passing himself off as an honest man. Jefferson records that in the Cabinet Secretary Knox spoke of one of those libels. In a moment the face of Washington put on an expression which it was seldom given to his friends to see. got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself; ran on much on the personal abuse which had beer besteed on him; and defied any man on earth stoúce one single act of his since he had been in government which was not done on the purest motives; that he had never repented but once the having slipped the moment of resigning his office, "He and that was every moment since; that by G-! he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made Emperor of the world; and yet they were charging him with wanting to be a king." Jefferson's position in the Cabinet finally became so inconsistent, and the constant bickerings with his colleagues so embarrassing, that, wearied with the contest, he tendered his resignation in December, 1793, and he was succeeded by Edmund Randolph, whom, as a colleague in the Cabinet, he had so severely criticised. This action on his part was hastened by the known resolution of the President to bring about a better state of relations with Great Britain. These relations had become so complicated with those of both Great Britain and the United States to France that our negotiations with these courts were made in a great degree dependent upon each other. The two countries, at war with each other, were preying upon American commerce, and seeking to force us into an attitude of hostility to the one or the other. The proclamation of neutrality was an indication to France that we could not become her ally, and it left her rulers in an angry mood. On the other hand, the arbitrary and unfriendly conduct of Great Britain had created in this country the most intense bitterness of feeling. The treaty of peace of 1783 had never been complied with either side in its exact terms, and new and perplexing quvons as to commerce had arisen. The British goverment had not sent a diplomatic representative to the United 11 Writings of Jefferson, 491. States after the treaty of peace. In 1788, when Mr. Adams was about leaving London, he was given to understand that until a national government was established capable of enforcing its obligations, it was useless to send a minister. But no minister was sent to the United States till three years after the Constitution had been adopted, and after he arrived it was found that he had no authority to conclude a treaty.1 President Washington, thereupon, and contrary to the advice of Jefferson, decided to send a special envoy to London, and in communicating his reasons to the Senate he called attention to the very serious aspect of affairs. "But," he said, "as peace ought to be pursued with unremitting zeal, before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the advanced prosperity of the United States, I have thought proper to nominate, and do hereby nominate, John Jay as Envoy Extraordinary of the United States to His Britannic Majesty. My confidence in our minister plenipotentiary in London continues undiminished. But a mission like this, while it corresponds with the solemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for the friendly adjustment of our complaints, and a reluctance to hostility. Going immediately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country; 1 The first British minister to the United States was George Hammond, received in October, 1791. He had been secretary to the British commissioner in Paris who negotiated the treaty of peace of 1783, and at the time of his appointment he was secretary of the British legation at Madrid. and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with sincerity."1 The appointment of a special envoy, while not infrequent, is always exceptional in its character, and only resorted to under the pressure of urgent necessity. Thomas Pinckney, the accredited minister, a man of high character and ability, in announcing Mr. Jay's arrival in London, wrote the Secretary of State with frankness: "With respect to this gentleman's mission, as it personally concerns me, if I were to say I had no unpleasant feeling on the occasion, I should not be sincere; but the sincerity with which I make this declaration will, I trust, entitle me to credit, when I add that I am convinced of the expediency of adopting any honorable measures which may tend to avert the calamities of war, or, by its failure, cement our union at home." 2 And he concluded with the assurance of all possible assistance to Mr. Jay in his negotiations, and he faithfully kept his word. Jay's nomination met with much opposition in the Senate, and was publicly denounced as unwise. The fact that as chief justice he might be called to pass upon his own treaty was urged against him; and it was stated that as secretary of state he had conceded the position of Great Britain to be correct as to the unfulfilled articles of the treaty of peace. A storm of disapproval followed the appointment, and it was predicted his mission would end in failure and new humiliation. He had received elaborate instructions from the Secre 1 1 Richardson's Messages, 153. |