To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 15 July 1796
From Timothy Pickering
Department of State July 15. 1796.
Sir,
Yesterday I received from the Minister of the French Republic an answer to my letter of the 1st instant, and have now the honor to inclose a translation of it.1 His entire ignorance of any new orders from his government relative to neutral vessels trading with the enemies of the French Republic, may authorize a conclusion, that none have been issued: and that the captures & appropriations (not condemnations) of the cargoes of American vessels carried into French ports in the West Indians, are the result of orders given by the Colonial administrations. This may be only a variation of the practice in use a year or two past, during which time they have actually compelled the delivery of cargoes for the use of government, with promises of payments within certain periods, which very often were so procrastinated as to induce the return of American vessels unpaid, after waiting six months or more for the performance of those promises. From the instances referred to in my former letter it seems probable that the administrations give due-bills without fixing definitively the times of payment.2
Mr Adet asks whether the President has caused orders to be given to prevent the sale of prizes conducted into the ports of the United States by vessels of the Republic or privateers armed under its authority. On this I have the honor to inform you, That the 24th article of the British treaty having explicitly forbidden the arming of privateers and the selling of their prizes in the ports of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury prepared, as a matter of course, circular letters to the Collectors to conform to the restrictions contained in that article, as the law of the land. This was the more necessary as formerly the Collectors had been instructed to admit to an entry and sale the prizes brought into our ports.3 On the 30th of June I received from Mr Liston, the British Minister, a Note mentioning the prizes which had been recently carried into Boston by a French privateer, and desiring that the sale of those prizes, which were British property, might be prevented.4 In consequence, I wrote the same day to Judge Lowell, Genl Lincoln, & to Mr Otis who had manifested a disposition to do the business of District Attorney until one should be appointed, desiring them to take such measures as were practicable to prevent an infraction of the above cited article of the British treaty. At the same time I wrote to the Chief Justice, Mr Elsworth, who had the same question discussed before him at his circuit court in So. Carolina, praying him to write to Judge Lowell immediately, to inform him of the determination in that case, presuming it to be the result of a full consideration of the subject. Thus the matter rests. I requested from the Chief Justice the like information; but have not yet received his answer.5 The circular letter from the Secretary of the Treasury was confined, agreeably to the article of the British treaty, to the prizes brought in by privateers. With the highest respect I am, sir, your obt servant
Timothy Pickering
P.S. Since writing the above, the Secretary of the Treasury has given me a copy of his circular letter, which is inclosed.6
ALS, DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, GW’s Correspondence with His Secretaries of State.
GW replied to Pickering from Mount Vernon on 22 July: “Your letter of the 15th Inst., enclosing a copy of Mr Adets answer to your requisition of the first; and the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Collectors, has been received; but did not get to my hands until the 20th.
“There is a studied delay in the answer of the first, and a misteriousness in his conduct, not easy to be accounted for. It did not, surely, if he had received no information from his Government, and was ignorant of its intentions relatively to the points on which explanations were asked, require (be the pressure of his business what it might) fifteen days to make that declaration; nor will candour & good disposition, justify the measure.
“Not having Papers here of a public nature to resort to, I shall hope that the circular letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Collectors; and all the Orders respecting French Prizes, have, in time & manner, been the result of necessity; and not the exercise of discretion; for the restriction now, after a contrary practice has been allowed, will be a source of much discontent; and of course calls for very correct proceedings in the execution of the Treaties, and Laws respecting the case” (ALS, NjP: De Coppet Collection; LS [retained copy], DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, GW’s Correspondence with His Secretaries of State).
1. For Pickering’s letter to French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet written on 1 July, see Cabinet to GW, 2 July, n.2. The enclosed translation of Adet’s reply, dated 14 July, reads: “The business with which I have been burthened has prevented me from answering sooner. …
“I am sorry, Sir, to be obliged to leave you in an uncertainty, in which I myself participate. I do not know the nature of the orders which may have been given by my Government to the Officers of war vessels of the Republic, or what conduct it has prescribed to them to hold with regard to neutral vessels trading with our enemies. I am not informed whether the ancient arrets of the Committee of public safety relative to the Commerce of the United States, are or are not still in force; some considerable time having elapsed since I have received news from France, I cannot have recourse to them to resolve your doubts. I can only refer to the answer which I had the honor of giving to your letter relative to the mount vernon.
“The Consul at Boston has just informed me that the Collector of the Customs of that place has prevented the unlading and sale of the prizes carried into that port by two french privateers. The Consul has ineffectually complained to him. The Collector founds his refusal upon a letter which he says he received from you.
“I request you, sir, to inform me whether the President has caused orders to be given for preventing the sale of prizes conducted into the ports of the United States by vessels of the Republic or privateers armed under its authority and if so, upon what foundation this prohibition rests” (DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; see also Pickering’s third letter to GW on 19 July).
2. Pickering may be referring to discussion of American vessels held at Port au Paix, Saint Domingue, related in the Cabinet’s letter to GW dated 2 July.
3. For Article XXIV of the Jay Treaty, see 262.
The circular from Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., to the collectors, dated 30 June, quoted instructions issued on 30 May 1793 that had extended special entry rights to French warships and privateers. The circular continued: “The entry and sale in our ports, of prizes to privateers commissioned by France, not being stipulated in our treaty as a right, to be enjoyed by that nation” while the new treaty with Great Britain contained “an express stipulation” against allowing any foreign privateers to arm their ships or sell their prizes in the ports of either nation. Wolcott instructed “that hereafter vessels and property captured from the subjects of Great-Britain by privateers commissioned against that nation, are not to be admitted to an entry in the ports of the United States; of course any goods or property landed therefrom will be subject to seizure as being imported contrary to law” (DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters).
4. British minister Robert Liston wrote Pickering on 29 June to ask that customs officials be instructed “to prohibit the entry of British prize goods into the territories of the Union” and that “particular attention” be directed to “two captures” brought into Boston by the French privateer Eagle (DNA: RG 59, Notes from the British Legation).
5. Pickering’s separate letters dated 30 June to Massachusetts District Judge John Lowell, Boston collector Benjamin Lincoln, and Harrison Gray Otis directed their attention to Article XXIV of the Jay Treaty and asked them to consult on measures to prevent treaty infractions. Pickering elaborated to Otis: “All that the French nation are entitled to by our treaty with them, is an asylum for their privateers and their prizes. The privilege hitherto enjoyed by them of selling their prizes in our ports was a mere indulgence and not a right.” He then referred to Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth’s decision to stay the sale of a prize at Charleston, S.C. (all DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters).
The Charleston case involved the Amity, prize to the French privateer Leo (see 3:89–90). William Rawle’s opinion for the secretary of state, dated 30 June, about how to prevent a sale of the prize at Boston brought the Amity case to Pickering’s attention (PHi: William Rawle Papers). Pickering then wrote Ellsworth on the same date seeking details regarding his decision to stay the sales and asking his opinion if judges in Massachusetts could issue a similar injunction. Pickering requested Ellsworth’s immediate communication “to Judge Lowell at Boston, to whom I have written on this occasion, and at your leisure to indulge me with an answer; particularly as circular instructions may be proper to be transmitted to all the District Judges and Attornies, as well as to the collectors of the Customs” (DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters).
6. See n.3 above.