things, upon the United States the obligation of protecting the Islands belonging to the French in the West Indies, several of which fell, about this time, into the hands of the British. But a step of the kind would have led to an immediate declaration of war on the part of Great Britain. The article was considered to be applicable to a defensive war only, and that good faith did not require America should take any part in hostilities, till the present French government was obviously and firmly established. The last ground was, perhaps, a just and sound one, but in receiving M. Genet, the administration had furnished the only proof in its power, that it considered the French Republic endowed with that character and condition. Whatever government, America recognised as existing in France, had a right to require the fulfilment of the guaranty. Some doubt might reasonably prevail as to the other ground assumed by the Cabinet, not only from the phraseology of the article, but from the extreme difficulty of ascertaining, in all cases, the true character of a defensive or offensive war. The act of the war itself, the mode of conducting it, may be altogether offensive, and yet the immediate cause, defensive; nations may be driven to hostilities by the oppressive conduct of others; few manifests of war are published, that do not present to the world abundant reasons for a resort to arms. The article is, therefore, incomplete, because it does not admit of an immediate and general application;the party called upon to execute it, is at liberty to construe it, and is at all times the judge, whether assistance is justly required. But, at best, the construction of the government is an implied one, for the language of the stipulation is plain and on the surface free from ambiguity. We confess we are pleased with a remark of Gouverneur Morris on this subject in a letter of December 21, 1792. "The circumstance of a war with Great Britain becomes important to us in more ways than one. The question respecting the guaranty of American possessions, may, probably, be agitated, especially if France should attempt to defend her islands. There will, doubtless, be many in the United States, who will contend that the treaty made with the King is, at the least, suspended, if not abrogated, by the abrogation of his office and authority. Without entering into the numerous arguments on this subject, some of them forcible, all of them plausible, I will only pray your indulgence, while I express my wish, that all our treaties, however onerous, may be strictly fulfilled, according to their true intent and meaning. The honest nation is that, which like the honest man, 'Hath to his plighted faith and vow, forever firmly stood, And tho' it promise to its loss, yet makes that promise good."" We shall now give a sketch of the proceedings of M. Genet with this government. He came to the United States au thorized to conclude an alliance both defensive and offensive. We cannot do better than give his own words; it is not only a specimen of the language, but of the sentiments and feelings of the times. "Single against innumerable hordes of tyrants and slaves, who menace her rising liberty, the French nation would have a right to reclaim the obligations, imposed on the United States by the treaties, she has contracted with them, and which she has cemented with her blood; but strong in the greatness of her means and of the power of her principles, not less redoubtable to her enemies than the victorious arm, which she opposes to their rage, she comes in the very time, when the emissaries of our common enemies are making useless efforts to neutralize the gratitude-to damp the zeal to weaken or cloud the view of your fellow citizens—she comes, I say, that generous nation-that faithful friend, to labour still to increase the prosperity, and add to the happiness, which she is pleased to see them enjoy.-The obstacles raised with intentions, hostile to liberty, by the perfidious ministers of despotism-the obstacles, whose object was to stop the rapid progress of the commerce of the Americans, and the extension of their principles, exist no more. The French republic, seeing in them but brothers, has charged me to propose to your government, to establish in a true family compact, that is, in a national compact, the liberal and fraternal basis, on which she wishes to see raised the commercial and political system of two people, all whose interests are confounded." It was with the feeling and sentiments disclosed in this letter, spread wide through the community and deep seated, that the government was compelled, in the unlucky turn of affairs, to contend. The struggle was a difficult one; for, with the American people, these opinions were not only pure. and sincere, but they were permanent; the same with which the country was inspired at the time of its own revolution;: and they entered, as a principal element, into the form of the government and the organization of society. At this moment, they appeared, it is true, inflamed and aggravated by sympathy for the French, by indignation at the efforts of the European governments, directed against the republic; but it was not a frenzy of the hour, like the scene exhibited in France. America manifested its true legitimate disposition, partaking of the influence of the times. We shall examine those parts of M. Genet's claims, only, that involve principles of the public laws of nations, or that illustrate the system adopted by this country.* This enquiry is not entirely without its advantages. It has been the aim of the government, since that period, to follow the policy then promulgated; and the principal duties, incumbent on neutral nations, may be ascertained, by an examination of the demands of the French minister. Not intending to mention the instances of violation of public law that occurred, we shall confine ourselves to the general principles, for which M. Genet contended. He asserted "a right of arming in our ports, of enlisting our citizens, and of exercising consular jurisdiction ;" and denied to the government the right, either of "restraining him, or punishing them." This is the language, and substance, of the demand. The question was, not of a vessel arming in her own defence, as no cases of that description had been reported; on the contrary, the orders of the government were directed against vessels that were manned, armed and equipped in our ports, for the purpose of committing hostilities on the subjects of a state, with which this country was at peace. 22d, did not allow this practice. The proclamation of April * Letter of Mr. Jefferson, of August 1793. † See his note of May 25, 1793, to the Secretary of State. upon the citizen to observe a friendly conduct towards all belligerent powers, "according to public law, and the special treaties existing between them and this country." A preparation of hostilities is the reverse of this deportment. The treaty with France, of '78 did not allow it; for it permitted only (17th art.) the armed vessels of either party to enter with their prizes, and to depart freely from the parts of the other. No possible construction of that article can, in any way, justify the manning and equipping of vessels, to commit hostilities; neither do the laws of nations,* or treaties with * Vattel, vol. ii. p. 332. Here we are to consider the obligations and rights flowing from neutrality. In order rightly to understand this question, we must avoid confounding, what may lawfully be done, by a nation that is free from all engagements, with what she may do, if she expects to be treated as perfectly neutral in a war. As long as a neutral nation wishes securely to enjoy the advantages of her neutrality, she must, in all things, show a strict impartiality towards the belligerent powers; for, should she favour one of the parties, to the prejudice of the other, she cannot complain of being treated by him as an adherent and confederate of his enemy. Her neutrality would be a fraudulent neutrality, of which no nation will consent to be the dupe. But the present question is, to determine what may lawfully be done; not what prudence may dictate, according to circumstances. Let us, therefore, examine, in what consists that impartiality, which a neutral nation ought to observe. It solely relates to war, and includes two articles. 1. To give no assistance where there is no obligation to give it; nor voluntarily to furnish troops, arms, ammunition, or any thing of direct use in war. I do not say, "to give assistance equally," but, "to give no assistance;" for it would be absurd, that a state, at one and the same time, should assist two nations, at war with each other; and besides, it would be impossible to do it with equality. 2. In whatever does not relate to war, a neutral and impartial nation must not refuse, to one of the parties, on account of his present quarrel, what she grants to the other. This does not deprive her of the liberty to make the advantage of the state still serve as her rule of conduct, in her negotiations, her friendly connexions, and her commerce. When this reason induces her to give preferences, in things which are ever at the free disposal of the possessor, she only makes use of her right, and is not chargeable with partiality. I have said, that a neutral state ought to give no assistance to either * other states, at all, authorize the proceeding. These treaties are a part of the law of the land, and it is incumbent on the proper law tribunal to enforce their provisions. The citizens can, therefore, have no right to violate the provisions of those treaties. If the citizens, themselves, were not possessed of the privilege of committing acts of hostility, or offence, against those states, with whom the nation was at peace, we are not aware of any provision of national law, or, in the particular case now under consideration, of any provision of the treaty of '78, that can confer this right or power upon an alien. Again, the arming and equipping of vessels, is, obviously, an act of sovereignty; an act that cannot justly be exercised in the United States, without the permission of the government. As to the treaty, these are the words of the 22d article, the only one, with the exception already mentioned, that relates to this matter:-" It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers, not belonging to subjects of his Most Christian Majesty, nor citizens of the said United States, who have commissions from any prince or state in enmity with either nation, to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid parties." This article denies the privilege of arming, to privateers of any nation, at war either with France or America, in the ports of the other party. The only ground upon which France claimed the privilege, under this article, was, therefore, that of implication. The article not expressly excluding French vessels, at a time when France was at war with England, of the parties, when "under no obligation to give it." This restriction is necessary. We have already seen, that when a sovereign furnishes the moderate succour due in virtue of a former defensive alliance, he does not become an associate in the war (§ 101); he may, therefore, fulfil his engagement, and yet observe a strict neutrality. When a war breaks out between two nations, all other states, that are not bound by treaties, are free to remain neuter; and if either of the belligerent powers attempted to force them to a junction with him, he would do them an injury, inasmuch as he would be guilty of an infringement on their independency, in a very essential point. * Vattel, 1. 3. 15. |