lated was to operate at different periods; that is, at one time in favour of one of the contracting partics, and of the other at another time. At the prefent time, the United States being at peace, they poffefs by the treaty the right of carrying the goods of the enemies of France, without fubjecting them to capture. But what do the fpirit of the decree of the executive directory and the current of your obfervations require?-That the United States fhould now gratuitoufly renounce this right. And what reafon is affigned for denying to us the enjoyment of this right? Your Own words furnish the anfwer: " France, bound by treaty to the United States, could find only a real difadvantage in the articles of that treaty, which caufed to be refpected, as American property, English property found on board American veffels." This requifition, and the reafon affigned to fupport it, alike excite furprize.

T

e American government,, onfcious of the purity of its intentions, of its impartial obfervance and of its of the laws or neuuracy, inviolable regard to treaties, cannot for a moment admit, that it has forfeited the right to claim a reciprocal obfervance of ftipula tions on the part of the French republic, whofe friendship moreover it has every reason to cultivate with the moft perfect fincerity. This right, formerly infringed by a decree of the national convention, was recognized anew by the repeal of that decree. Why it fhould be again queftioned we are at a lofs to determine. We are ignorant of any new restraints on our commerce by the British government; on the contrary, we poffefs recent

official information, that no new orders have been iffued.

The captures made by the British of American veffels, having French property on board, are warranted by the law of nations. The force and operation of this law was contemplated by. France and the United States, when they formed their treaty of commerce, and their fpecial ftipulation on this point was meant as an exception to an univerfal rule; neither our weaknefs nor our ftrength have any choice, when the queftion concerns the obfervance of a known rule of the law of nations.

You are pleased to remark, that the conduct of Great Britain, in capturing veffels bound to and from French ports, had been the fubject of a note, which on the 29th of September, 1795, was u dreffed to the fecretary of ftate, but which remained without an anfwer. Very fufficient reafons may be affigned for the omiffion. The fubject, in all its afpects, had been officially and publicly dif cuffed, and the principles and ultimate meafures of the United States, founded on their indisputable rights, were as publicly fixed. * But if the subject had not, by the previous difcuffions, been already exhaufted, can it be a matter of furprife that there fhould be a repugnance to answer a letter containing fuch infinuations as these?

"It must then be clear to every man, who will discard prejudices, love, hatred, and, in a word, all the paflions which lead the judgment aftray, that the French republic have a right to complain, if the American government fuffered the English to interrupt the commercial relations which exift be

tween

tween her and the United States; if by a perfidious condefcenfion it permitted the English to violate a right which it ought, for its own honour and intereft, to defend; if, under the cloak of neutrality, it prefented to England a poniard to cut the throat of its faithful ally: if, in fine, partaking in the tyrannical and homicidal rage of Great Britain, it concurred to plunge the people of France into the horrors of famine !" For the fake of preferving harmony, filence was preferred to a comment upon these infinuations.

You are also pleased to refer to your letters of March and April lalt, relative to impreffes of American feamen by British fhips, and complain that the government of the United States had not made known to you the fteps they had taken to obtain fatisfaction. This, fir, was a matter which concerned only that government. As an independent nation, we are not bound to render an account to any other of the measures we deemed proper for the protection of our own citizens; fo long as there was not the flighteft ground to fufpect that the government ever acquiefced in any aggreffion.

But permit me to recu: to the fubject of the decree of the executive directory.

As before obferved, we are officially informed that the British government have iffued no new orders for capturing the veffels of the United States. We are alfo officially informed, that on the appearance of the notification of that decree, the minifter of the United States at Paris applied for information," Whether orders were iffued for the feizure of neutral veffels, and was informed, that no fuch

order was iffued, and further, that no fuch order would be iffued, in cafe the British did not feize feize our veffels." This commu'nication from the minister of the United States, at Paris, to their minifter at London, was dated the 28th of Auguft; but the decree of the directory bears date the 14th Meflidor, anfwering to, the 2d of July. Thefe circumftances, together with fome obfervations in your note, leave the American government in a ftate of uncertainty of the real intentions of the government in France. Allow me then to afk, whether, in the actual ftate of things, our commerce is confidered as liable to fuffer any new reftrictions on the part of the French republic? Whether the refiraints now exercised by the British government are confidered as of a nature to juftify a denial of thofe rights, which are pledged to us by our treaty with your nation? Whether orders have been actually given to the thips of war of the French republic to capture the veffels of the United States? And what, if they exist, are the precife terms of thofe

orders?

The queftions, fir, you will fee, are highly interefting to the United States. It is with extreme concern that the government finds itself reduced to the neceflity of afking an explanation of this nature; and if it thall be informed that a new line of conduct is to be adopted towards this country, on the ground of the decree referred to, its surprise will equal its regret, that principles fhould now be queftioned, which, after repeated difcuffions, both here and in France, have been demonftrated to be founded, as we X 3 conceive,

conceive, in the obligations of impartial neutrality, of ttipulations by treaty, and of the law of nations. I hope, fir, you will find it convenient by an early anfwer, to reremove the fufpenfe in which the government of the United States is now held on the question above ftated.

I fhall close this letter by one remark on the fingularity of your caufing the publication of your note. As it concerned the United States, it was properly addreffed to its government, to which alone pertained the right of commumunicating it in fuch time and manner as it fhould think fit to the citizens of the United States.

I am, fir, with great refpect, your most obedient fervant, TIMOTHY PICKERING. United States, Philadelphia, Nov. 3. To M. Adet, Minifter Plenipotentiary

of the French Republic.

Subftance of the memorial prefented by Citizen Adet to the American Secretary for Foreign Affairs, previous to his announcing that he was no longer to be confidered as the Minifter of the French republic.

THE minifter of the French republic, through the whole of his note, fpeaks as acting under the exprefs orders from the executive directory. After expreffing the attachment of his government for the American people, he complains, in the name of the directory, of a violation on the part of our executive of the 17th article of the treaty of 1778. The first part of that article ftipulates, that the French fhall be at liberty to bring their prizes into our ports without its being lawful for any of our officers to take cognizance of their validity.

In contempt of this ftipulation, he ftates that feveral French prizes brought into our ports have been feized, tried, and restored to their original owners, with various degrees of delay, vexation, injuftice and injury. He complains, that the English were fuffered to arm in our ports in various inftances, and that the complaints of the agents of the French republic ever proved ineffectual in ftopping them. Perfons fufpected of having affifted in arming French privateers were immediately thrown into prifon, while thofe concerned in arming British veffels were never molested: the executive in thefe inftances exhibiting an evident partiality for the English and no regard for the maintenance of their neutrality. The fecond ftipulation in article 17th, prohibits all English fhips that fhall have made French prizes from entering our ports. Our executive have, in their conftruction of this ftipulation, confined its prohibitory effect to British veffels attempting to come in with their prizes The minifter protests, in the name of the directory, against the propriety of this conftruction. He confiders it as an attempt to add to, not to explain, the article. Even on the fuppofition that the article is doubtful, he infifts on the impropriety of an ex parte confiruction. He cites fundry examples of Englifh fhips of war having entered our ports, contrary to this ftipulation, having made them convenient ftations the better to annoy the French, and having, even contrary to the forced interpretation given to the 17th article by our executive, brought their prizes into our ports, and there refitted them to cruize against the French.

The

The minifter proceeds to proteft, in the name and by the orders of the executive directory, against the violation of the 17th article. He claims replevy of all feizures, and the annulling of all judicial acts with respect to the French prizes, and protetts against all oppofition to the fale of prizes. He protests against the violation of the fame articles by our admitting into our ports British armed veffels, and against the interpretation put by our executive upon that article. He declares, that the directory confiders our treaty with Britain as a violation 'of their treaty with us, and as equivalent to a treaty of alliance with that nation; and, in confequence, orders him to fufpend his minifterial functions here. The directory declare, that they do not wifh this measure to be confidered in the light of a rupture, but as a mark of their fenfe of injury, which is to laft until they can obtain fatisfaction. They reiterate their expreffions of friendship for the people, notwithstanding the wrongs of the executive.

The minifter next adverts to Jay's miffion. He ftates, that France was deceived by the declarations of our executive when that bufinefs was fet on foot; and that the directory confiders the British treaty as depriving France of all the advantageous ftipulations intended to be fecured to her by the treaty of 1778, as tending to render the neutrality of America advantageous to England to the detriment of France. This treaty abandons the modern law of nations, which even England had fan&tioned in eleven treaties, and we in every prior commercial treaty with European nations. It gives the Englith the facility of obtaining the tranfportation of naval ftores and warlike implements whitherfoever they please under the fhelter of the American flag, while this facility is denied to France; and thus it changes, during the war, the refpective footing of the belligerent powers with respect to us. The treaty he further ftates, cuts off the fupplies of provifions, which France looked for from this country, by ftipulating that the British may in every fituation feize our provifion veffels bound to the ports of their enemies. In fhort, he confiders it as a breach of our neutrality, unless the French be allowed to partake in the advantages it holds out to Great Britain. He also claims this participation in purfuance of the fecond article of the treaty of 1778, which grants the French all the advantages of commerce and navigation enjoyed by the most favoured nations. And in this point of view the orders to the French veffels of war to treat the American flag in every respect as we fhall fuffer it to be treated by the English have been iffued.

X4

exemption, they early renewed it.

While France was thus, even during the tempeft of a revolution, treating the Americans with marked attention; what, afks the note, where the executive of the United States employed in? They were queftioning whether they would acknowledge the republic and receive their ambaffador; whether they should confider the treaty, the price of American liberty, as binding; whether the envoys from exiled and rebellious princes fhould be received; an ambiguous proclamation of neutrality was framed ; French privateers were harraffed; England was fuffered to sport with our neutrality, and to cut up our commerce to the detriment of France; English fhips of war were admitted in our ports; the advances of France for a renewal of the treaty of commerce were eluded under the moft frivolous pretexts, while our executive courted the British, and folicited a treaty, by which, proftituting our neutrality, we facrificed France to her enemies; and this whilst a review of late events, whilft every object around ftill reminds us of the tyranny of Britain, and the generous affiftance of France.

The note concludes by calling on Americans to remember, that, if generous minds are alive to injuries, they can forgive; and that the French, when they are treated as friends, will still be found faithful friends and generous allies.

The Minifter Plenipotentiary of the French Republic with the United States of America, to the French Citizens who refide or travel in the United States.

CITIZENS,

FROM the dawn of our revolution, the tri-coloured cockade has been the rallying point of those energetic men, whofe generous efforts gave the firft blow to arbitrary power. At their call, the French nation, bent for centuries under the yoke, thook off that long drowfinefs; twenty-four millions of men adopted that auguft fymbol; they exclaimed, "We shall be free," and all oppofition was defeated, and the throne tumbled down in the duft, and all Europe armed against them, has been vanquished.

The republic decorates all her citizens with thofe national colours, the facred fymbol of liberty which they have won,

Frenchmen who are abfent from their native land ought not, amidft nations allied with theirs, lay afide the distinctive mark which, by making them known, fecures to them the protection and reciprocal refpect guaranteed by our treaties with thofe nations.

Thofe who, from a guilty indifference, thould flight the right, exempt themselves from that duty

thofe could lay no claim to that protection, they would renounce the support of the agents of the republic.

But, citizens, I am perfuaded that at the call of the minister of the French republic, you will haften to put on the fymbol of a liberty, which is the fruit of eight years toils and privations and of five years victories.

Thus you will draw a line of demarcation between you and thofe contemptible beings, whofe unfeeling hearts are callous to the facred name of native land, to the noble pride with which the freeman is animated