Enclosure: Statement from the French Republic, 9 March 1796
Enclosure
Statement from the French Republic
Paris the 19th ventose 4th year of the
french Republic; one and indivisible(=9 march 1796)
Summary statement of the complaints of the French
Republic, against the Government of the United States.
1st Complaint.
The inexecution of the Treaties.
1. The courts of Justice of the United States have taken cognisance and still take cognisance of the prizes which our privateers conduct into their ports, notwithstanding the express clause of the Treaty against it. Our ministers have proposed various arrangements for limiting these usurpations. The federal Government had itself proposed measures on this subject—the first propositions were not accepted, and the latter measures fell into disuse. The disgusts, the delays, the losses resulting to our seamen from such a State of things, are palpable. They almost entirely deprive the Republic of the advantages which it should expect from this article of the Treaty.1
2. The admission of English ships of war, even in cases where they are excluded by the 17th article of the Treaty, that is, when they have made prizes on the Republic or on its citizens. The weakness with which the federal Government conceded this point in the first instance has increased the pretentions of Great Britain, and now the ports of the United States have become a station for the squadron of Admiral Murray, who for two years past has there victualled his Ships, in order to cruize on the american Commerce, and to pillage our property. This division carries its audacity even to the conducting thither its prizes.2
3. The Consular Convention, forming a part of our treaties, is equally unexecuted in its two most important clauses. The first granting to our Consuls the right of judging exclusively in disputes arising between frenchmen, is become illusory, for the want of laws giving to the Consuls the means of having their decisions executed. The consequence of this inability tends to annihilate the prerogative of our Consuls, and materially to injure the interest of our merchants. The second gives to our consuls the right of causing our mariners who desert to be arrested. The inexecution of this part of the Convention affects beyond all expression, our maritime service, during the stay of our vessels in the american ports. The Judges charged by the laws with issuing the mandates of arrest, have lately required the presentation of the original Roll of the Crew, in contempt of the 5th article, admitting in the Tribunals of both powers copies certified by the Consul. Local circumstances in a thousand instances oppose the production of the original Roll—and then the seamen are not liable to be apprehended.3
4th The arrestation in the port of Philadelphia, in the month of August 1795, of the Captain of the Corvette the Cassius, for acts committed by him on the high Seas. This is contrary to the 19. article of the treaty of commerce, which stipulates “That the Commanders of public, and of private vessels shall not be detained in any manner.” Besides it violates the most obvious law of nations, which places the Officers of public vessels under the safeguard of their Flag. The United States have had sufficient proofs of deference on the part of the Republic, to count upon its Justice in this instance. The Captain was imprisoned, notwithstanding the Consul of the Republic produced bail. Scarcely was he set at liberty, when the Corvette, altho’ very regularly armed at the Cape, by General Lavaux, was arrested (and it appears she is still so) under pretext, that, eight months before, she sailed from Philadelphia, suspected of having armed in that port.4
2d Complaint. The impunity of the outrage committed on the Republic in the person of its minister, the Citizen Fauchet by the English ship (Africa) in concert with the vice Consul of that nation.
The arrestation in the waters of the United States of the Packet boat having Citizen Fauchet on board, the search made in the Trunks of that minister, with the avowed object of seizing his person and papers, merited an example. The insult was committed on the first of august 1795 (old style) the Ship all the rest of the month blocked up the medusa frigate belonging to the Republic at newport, and did not receive orders to depart till after the sailing of that vessel. For a new outrage on the United States by a menacing letter, the Exequatur was withdrawn from the Consul merely for having taken a part in the latter insult.5
3rd Complaint—The Treaty concluded in November 1794 between the United States and Great Britain. It will be easy to prove that the United States in this treaty have knowingly and evidently sacrificed their Connections with the Republic and the most essential and least contested prerogatives of neutrality.
1st The United States, besides having departed from the principles established by the armed neutrality during the war for their independence, have given to England, to the detriment of their first allies, the most stirling mark of an unbounded condescension, by abandoning the limit given to contraband by the law of nations, by their treaties with all other nations, and even by those of England with the greater part of the maritime powers.6 Is it not evidently straying from the principles of neutrality to sacrifice exclusively to that power, the objects proper for the equipment and construction of vessels?
2. They have gone still further. They have consented to extend the denomination of contraband even to Provisions. Instead of pointing out particularly, as all treaties do, the cases of the effective blockade of a place, as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article—they have tacitly acknowledged the pretentions raised by England to create blockades in our Colonies and even in france by the force of a bare proclamation.7
This abandonment of the independence of their commerce, is incompatible with their neutrality. Mr Jefferson has himself acknowledged it in his letter of 7th September to the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, on the subject of the order of the 8th of June 1793.8 From this confession—especially from all the tyranical Edicts of the King of Great Britain, from which the commerce of the United States as well as their national honor have suffered so much, a result quite different was hoped from Mr Jay’s negotiation. It is evident by the clause of the treaty limiting the existence of this desertion from neutrality to the duration of the present war, that Mr Jay did not hesitate to sacrifice our Colonies to Great Britain, during the remaining hostilities which should decide their fate.9 Mr Monroe is left to judge how far these concessions accord with the obligation contracted by the United States to defend our Colonial possessions,10 and with the no less sacred duties imposed on them by the immense and invaluable benefits, which they draw from their commerce with them.
The minister for foreign affairs
Ch. De la Croix
Faithfully translated from the original by
Geo: Taylor Jr
Translation, DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; copy, in French, DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to France; copy, in French, FrPMAE.
James Monroe, U.S. minister to France, had responded initially to French foreign minister Charles Delacroix in a letter dated 15 March ( 3:621–26). Specific comments from Monroe’s letter can be found in the notes below.
1. Delacroix is referring to Article XVII of 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France (Article XIX before the suppression of original articles XI and XII; 16–17). Monroe wrote Delacroix that “exceptions to the general principle” outlined in the complaint made it “unfounded, and that we have only done our duty; a duty we were bound to perform as well from a respect to our rights as a sovereign and free people, as to the integrity of our character being a neutral party in the present war” ( 3:622). For a more detailed summary of previous French complaints and U.S. responses, see Pierre-Auguste Adet to Timothy Pickering, 15 Nov. 1796, in : Foreign Relations, 1:579–88; see also Thomas Jefferson to Edmond Charles Genet, 25 June 1793, in 26:358, and Jean Antoine Joseph Fauchet to Edmund Randolph, 17 Oct. 1794, in : Foreign Relations, 1:589.
2. Monroe wrote Delacroix that the French treaty did “not stipulate that the vessels of war belonging to your Enemies shall not enter but simply that they shall not enter with their prizes.” If violations occurred, Monroe continued, “I will venture to affirm that no countenance was given by our government to those vessels whilst they were there, and that all suitable means were taken to compel them to retire, and without delay. You know we have no fleet and how difficult it is without one to execute a stipulation of this kind with that promptitude which your agents in our Country ardent in your cause and faithful to your interest, might expect” ( 3:622).
3. For the consular convention with France signed on 14 Nov. 1788, see 228–44 (Delacroix mentions articles IX and XII on 237–40). Monroe replied to Delacroix that Article IX did require original rolls and that the United States had enacted legislation to enforce the convention ( 3:623–24; see also “An Act concerning Consuls and Vice-Consuls,” approved 14 April 1792, in 254–57).
4. For the case of Le Cassius, see Alexander Hamilton to GW, 31 Jan. 1795 (third letter), and n.2 to that document. For Article XIX (originally XXI) of the 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France, see 17–18. Monroe wrote Delacroix that the article “was intended to establish a general principle in the intercourse between the two nations, to give a priviledge to the ships of war of each to enter and retire from the ports of the other, and not to secure in favor of any particular delinquent an immunity from crimes: nor in my opinion does the law of nations admit of a different construction or give any other protection. …
“With respect to the seizure of the corvette upon the pretext that she was armed in Philadelphia, I have only to say that if she was armed there, it was the duty of our government to seize her, the right to arm not being stipulated by treaty. And if that was alledged upon sufficient testimony as I presume was the case, there was no other way of determininig the question, than by an examination into it, and in the interim preventing her sailing. It would be no satisfaction to the other party to the war, for us to examine into the case after she was gone” ( 3:624).
5. For the earlier French complaint about the actions of the British ship Africa, see Pickering to GW, 26 Aug. 1795, n.1. For the revocation of the exequatur of British vice-consul Thomas William Moore, see Pickering to GW, 4 Sept. 1795, and notes 1 and 2 to that document. As the letter of revocation cited Moore’s transmission of an insulting letter to Rhode Island governor Arthur Fenner, Delacroix contended that the revocation was in consequence of that letter and not the original offence. In his reply, Monroe denied that the two were separable and contended that the revocation of the consul’s exequatur and the denial of supplies to the ship formed an “adequate” response. He continued: “I think proper here to add, as a farther proof that the President was neither inattentive to what was due to your rights upon that occasion nor to the character of the United States, that he gave orders to our Minister at London to complain formally to that government of that outrage and to demand of it such satisfaction upon the parties as the nature of the insult required” ( 3:624–25).
6. The Jay Treaty defined contraband in Article XVIII ( 258–59). Monroe wrote Delacroix that Great Britain had refused to accept a more restrictive definition of contraband even “when the combination against England was most formidable, all the maritime powers being arranged against her. … How compel her then upon the present occasion, when that combination was not only broken, but many of the powers then parties to it, and against England, were now enlisted on her side in support of her principles.” Monroe added: “Is it urged that we have made any article contraband that was not so before by the known and well established law of nations? which England had not a right to seize by that law, and did not daily seize when they fell in her way? This cannot be urged because the fact is otherwise: for although we have not ameliorated the law of nations in that respect, yet certainly we have not changed it for the worse, and which alone could give you just cause of complaint” ( 3:625).
7. In his reply to Delacroix, Monroe denied that any treaty stipulation prohibited bringing provisions from the United States to France and that “in no respect is the law of nations changed, or any right given to the british to seize other than they had before.” For Monroe, “the article in question” probably encouraged trade with France ( 3:626).
8. For the British orders dated 8 June 1793 that authorized the detention of ships carrying grain to France, see Jefferson to GW, 30 Aug. 1793, n.1. For directions to protest those orders, see Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 7 Sept., in 27:55–59.
9. Delacroix is referring to Article XXVIII of the Jay Treaty ( 264).
10. See Article XI of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France ( 39–40).