MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. have no means, he was still against surrendering the honor of our country; fortunately, no such sacrifice is demanded, no such measure is necessary; and were we ten times more destitute even than we are, he should never submit to our national degradation, were there a Power so insolent as to expect it. But let us examine whether we have not been subject to the common lot of human fallibility in our measures; let us, to whom peace is so desirable, from experience, from principle, and from our natural love of happiness, and to whom the risks of war would be attended with such incalculable disasters, inquire before we rush wantonly upon them, whether it is really clear that we have been uniformiy right-whether we have not been sometimes wrong? Suppose it should be found that France has had some cause of complaint; that some of her claims are founded in reason; or even suppose that she only earnestly thought so, and that she would prove her sincerity, are we to shut our eyes and ears against an examination of these complaints; are we to leave no room for a fair and candid discussion, such as may convince whichever may be the mistaken party? [H. of R. no color of complaint on this subject? He did not mean to enter into any particulars of the cases that came before, or the decisions in, our courts; he only alluded to the 17th article of our treaty with France, upon which she grounded this subject of complaint: That it shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and privateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please, the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the Admiralty, or any of the Judges; nor shall prizes be arrested or seized when they come and enter the port of each party; nor shall the searchers or their officers of those places, search the same, or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes; but they may hoist sail, at any time and depart, and carry their prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, show; on the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be which the commanders of such ships shall be obliged to given in their ports to such as shall have made prizes of the subjects, people, or property of either of the parties; but if such shall come in, being forced by stress of weather, or the dangers of the sea, all proper means shall be vigorously used, that they go out and return from thence as soon as possible." Every gentleman must see that the latitude of this article was indeed very wide, so wide that not even a searcher was permitted to go on board, nor an officer of our Admiralty entitled to a fee or duty, or any other of our judges. Ought we to be surprised that a nation imperfectly acquainted with the detail of our municipal regulations and official duties, should differ with us in the con It was, he knew, a very ungracious, and often an unpopular task, to display the errors of our own Government; there was a national vanity, a vain and unmeaning pride, which sought to be bolstered up by frippery of words and acts of dissimulation. He knew that this empty and pernicious vanity often assumed the post and place of the true dignity of a country, and blinked contume-struction of this article, after our detention of their ly on him that was disposed to prefer the plain, prizes? In the discussions that have taken place frank, open path of integrity and truth. He would already on this article, the difference of interprechoose between these opposite passions of a na- tation is not at all suprising. They have said to tion, and preferring his duty to unmerited re- your courts, "We allow their due jurisdiction, but proach, he would neither repress the sentiments as treaties are supreme laws, our prizes should not of his mind, nor foster those which he conceived have been suffered to enter your courts. According to be pregnant with ruin; he would glory more to this article, you subject us to tedious delays, and in promoting the justice of his country than in involve us in litigious suits; but your Executive conducting her to the most brilliant triumphs in should have decided in a summary way, and not an unjust cause; he would, therefore, calmly ex-kept our armed ships idle and expensive to us." amine whether France had just cause of complaint; and whether she had or not a just cause, he would assert that France might, without exciting indignation, think herself injured; that she might, was a sufficient reason with him for preferring the amendment, as it left an opening for rather amicable discussion and accommodation, rather than the report which had the opposite character. In enumerating the complaints, it was very true that France had many which were not in themselves reasonable or well founded; but there were circumstances in which France was liable to mistake as well as ourselves. The objects presented themselves in a delusive or adverse form; and it was a subject rather of regret, which we should use as a warning to our own judgments, than a crime in her, if she acted in the same way that she should do when under the conviction and certainty of her rectitude, when she was unconscious of her error. He would not say that in this construction France was right, or that our courts were wrong, far from it; all he wished the committee to consider was, whether France might not, without great violation of reasoning, conceive herself right, and accordingly claim of us such an explanation as might place us clear of any suspicion of designed wrong towards her in violation of that treaty. The second complaint was our admission of vessels hostile to France, and that made prizes, into our ports, contrary to the last part of the same article; and France had also construed this one way, and our Executive another; but was a mistake a cause of hostility? Should the mistake be ours, would France be justifiable in hostility merely on account of the mistake? and should we be any more justifiable to risk hostility, rather than enter upon discussion? Another cause of complaint was the conversion of our neutrality into an injurious hostility, by our indifferent sufference of the impressment of our The first object of her complaint was the in-seamen by Great Britain, by which her enemy terference of our courts in prize causes. Was there became possessed of our force and employed them H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. against her, while we were on terms of the most intimate and friendly alliance, and they were embarked in a cause common with our own. They complain of this indifference very strongly, and it must be acknowledged that no open interference took place on our part upon that serious subject to ourselves, and important to us as a neutral nation, until the latter end of 1796; except a few lines from our Minister, Thomas Pinckney, in a letter to Lord Grenville, in the Summer of that year. From so long a silence on such a subject, was it surprising that France should entertain doubts of our disposition to preserve our neutrality? Was it surprising that she should consider that some, hidden but unaccountable change had taken place in the attachments of the United States? Was it surprising, or a matter calling for hostility on our part, that she should consider this conduct, connected with the corresponding arrangements made with Great Britain, in a time of war, as pernicious to her? [MAY, 1797. thorized by any law or usage of civilized nations; a concession which neither went to profit ourselves, nor to ameliorate our condition as a neutral nation. If the principle even were fixed before, was it an evidence of our amity, of our tenacious regard for our own dignity, or of a seriously neutral disposition, to conclude these novel modifications, which went to fetter our commerce with the most perplexing shackles? But let us inquire whether it is seriously the law of nations? And in making this inquiry, it is not from patched ideas, half quotations, or scraps of learned opinions, parcelled out and botched for convenience or subterfuge, that we must decide. If upon this examination we should find reason even to suspect our error, and that we have conceded any thing to Great Britain contrary to that law, it will be surely a substantial reason for our resorting to temperate and liberal negotiation. But on this he would not now dwell. The law of nations is founded on certain Under the mean object of the British Treaty, usages of nations, at various periods, and upon which is one of the complaints of France, there the stipulations of treaties of nations with each are several subordinate parts. The first is that other. These laws were either partial or general, of the abandonment of that principle of the law and the latter have been the subject of common of nations which secures the freedom of trade, by claim among civilized nations. Now, in all that establishing the neutrality of goods carried in has been written on those laws, he knew of none free ships. He would not dwell largely on the which had received the common assent of all naimmense advantages which neutral nations-but tions, or of nearly all, authorizing the seizure of above all others, our own-would derive from the enemy's property on free ships. The principle complete and universal recognition of that just had been repeatedly urged, and, although it had principle. But he would recommend it to the been often evaded, it had never been disproved that consideration of every candid and unbiassed man, a ship of a neutral nation should be as sacred as its whether France had not some ground to consider territory. Wherever the flag of a neutral nation our proceedings on that subject as alarming to waves, that should be sacred, and goods seized on herself, when she had negotiated upon that valua- board a neutral ship is as much a violation of the ble principle with us, when we had solemnly re- universal law, as the seizure on the neutral land cognised it, and had carried the same principle could be. Why is it that belligerent nations are repeatedly into negotiation with other Powers? precluded from seizure of the goods of an enemy. Could France see us sacrifice the supreme advan-in a neutral port? Because it would be a violatages which our commerce would derive from its maintenance, and that too in the moment of her apparent adversity? Could she see this, and still be criminal for suspecting a cessation of that affection in our Government towards her which she was so indisputably entitled to expect-so contrary to our interests and the ties of treaties-and still be deemed hostile when she demands justice, equal justice at our hands? But he should be told that the principle was not an universal one; that its recognition in the treaty of 1778 did not bind the United States from relinquishing it in any treaty with another nation. He would, by and by, examine the principle. Now, he would suffer it to be argued the contrary principle, that the right of seizure of enemy's property on neutral ships was the universal and received law. Was it the actually received law? Then, if it was, how came it to be made a part of that formal negotiation, and to constitute an article of the British Treaty? Why introduce it so unguardedly there, if it was already the universal and indisputable law? But we had even exceeded that law, for we had admitted the right to carry our ships into their ports merely on suspicion-a concession which was not even presumed to be au tion of the neutral rights. Do these rights depart from the citizens of free States upon their departure from their own ports? It is too absurd to expect any other but the plain reply. But if we cannot find the decision in the tomes of the civilian, let us look elsewhere: let us look into the treaties, and here we may obtain some satisfactory test upon which we may rest the question. Prior to the war of our Revolution, the treaties of European nations were a series of contradictory assertions and denials of known principles. The same principles were asserted in one treaty of the same nation, which were sacrificed to partial interests in another; the spirit of monopoly of trade corrupted the current of universal law; and local situation, a temporary stratagem, or an ambitious project, sealed what the other had negotiated. But in the midst of war, Europe saw arise a combination of neutral Powers, who were resolved to restore the law of nations to its primitive principles, from the intolerable abuse into which it had fallen; and they declared that principle, which no nation ought to deny. Russia, finding that the depredations which the belligerent Powers were committing on her commerce, surpassed all bounds of justice, notified to MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. the other neutral Powers, in her first declaration, her purpose to ascertain and fix the principles which neutral nations ought to observe towards those at war, and reciprocally, and expresses herself thus: "She does this with the greater confidence, as she finds those principles founded on the primitive law of nations, which every one may have recourse to, and which the belligerent Powers cannot invalidate without violating the laws of neutrality, and disavowing maxims which they themselves have expressly adopted in different treaties and public engagements." He did not quote this as in itself conclusive authority, although the facts are irrefragable; but because every Power in Europe, great and small, weak and powerful-excepting only one-recognised and acknowledged it. But he should be told this is a private compact, and that the agreeing nations did not declare this ought to be the universal law of nations. Let those gentlemen answer me, is the principle inconsistent with reason and justice, is it unnatural, is it not the law of nations, is it not binding upon every nation who subscribed to or adopted it? Until gentlemen deny this, I shall fairly conclude that it is the true and genuine law of nations. But it will be said, there is one Power which did not agree to that convention, and therefore the agreement of all the rest is invalidated. Will this, indeed, be insisted upon? Is it because one haughty, overbearing, and oppressive nation, wishing to monopolize the trade and the power of the whole world, denies that law which alone could restrain her enormous avarice and tyranny? that this one nation, placed in the scale against all the other Powers of the world, peaceful and belligerent, and with justice and law, too, on their side, shall determine that the very law itself must become invalid? [H. of R. necessary, or on account of new naval wars which Europe may have the misfortune to be troubled with." And here the quotation is broken off short in the middle of the article. Was it to be supposed that our Minister of State could obtain only a mutilated copy of this important historical record! The article concludes with this weighty and important declaration, which our Secretary has entirely omitted: "These stipulations shall further be considered as permanent, and shall decide in all matters of commerce and navigation; and in short in every case where the rights of neutral nations are to be determined." But a gentleman has told us this principle of the armed neutrality cannot be a true one; and why? truly because the same Empress of Russia, who was at the head of the Confederation, has, during the present war, entered into a treaty with that Power which formerly denied the principle, and had herself agreed to contravene it; and further, that Spain had acceded to that contravention. That this conduct of that Empress and of Spain is a melancholy proof of the capriciousness and instability of arbitrary councils and of nations, he was ready to confess; but he did not see upon what ground this partial dereliction of right principles should go to the universal establishment of wrong. France, in the convulsions of her Revolution, had alarmed all Europe; and Britain, always jealous of her power, but much more of that power under the influence of liberty, had entered into an engagement with Russia to starve France, and Spain accedes to this purpose; but under what circumstances? under the proclaimed avowal of the measure being adopted, because the Revolution of France was a new case; a flame had been lighted up, as they called it, which threatened to destroy all Europe; and to quench this flame they agree to overturn the law of nations, which, if obeyed or regarded, would counteract the designs of England and the wishes of Russia and Spain. But it is said, this declaration of the armed neutrality is only a temporary, and not a permanent compact, and we shall be told that this assertion is supported by an article of the Treaty of Neu- But we are told that our Government had retrality itself. In arguing this objection, he felt a ceded from this principle on a former occasion, degree of uneasiness that he could not suppress; and had declared it in our correspondence with it had given much disquiet, because it very largely Genet; but he would ask any gentleman, does a implicated the honor and character of our coun- date alter a principle? Do principles of right and try. In a document published by the express au- wrong alter with the seasons or the years? If we thority of Government, professedly addressed to abandoned it then or at this day, what is that to a public Minister then about to proceed on his France? She tells us we have done it, and we acmission, our Secretary of State published in the knowledge it is done; thus the question is then face of the United States and the whole world a reduced to this point-have we done right? This letter which is to be the instruction of that Min- question unfortunately does not rest with our parister when in France, a mutilated half of an ar- tialities to decide; it not only rests upon the Powticle of this treaty, in order to justify the measure ers of Europe, whom it may implicate or concern, of our concession to Great Britain. He had seen but upon our own formal recognition and accession such bungling things attempted in courts of law to the principles of the armed neutrality; nay, with in order to deceive an ignorant jury, or a more the compliments expressed by our Government ignorant judge, but as an act of a national agent, to the Empress of Russia for promoting it; upon of one of the principal officers of a Government, our accepting of this principle, too, at a period in he believed the like was not to be found in the which we manifested that our love of justice was annals of the most vicious policy in any nation. in perfect consonance with that love of liberty In that letter the 9th article of the Armed Neutral which then engaged us in our Revolution; upon Convention is thus quoted: "The Convention be- our acceptance of it when it was calculated to ing concluded and agreed on for the time the pre-operate most seriously to our disadvantage by desent war shall last, shall serve as a basis to future priving us of the supplies which could be thereby engagements, which circumstances may render kept from us. It matters not then at what date, or H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. in what manner we relinquished it, if having formally received it we abandoned it to the disadvantage and injury of our allies and of other previously subsisting treaties. We have unquestionably done this evil, perhaps, from no malign disposition; but it was our duty, having committed the error, to rectify it. It had been argued, that we had been compelled to abandon the principle or go to war with Britain; and we had chosen it as the alternative. What! compelled? He would not discuss this unhappy argument; we have inflicted a wound on our commercial neutrality, but what is much worse on our national character, which he feared we should never re cover. Another stipulation is contained in the British Treaty relative to provisions, which admits the British, contrary to the law of nations, to seize upon our vessels going to France. It is said that this article does not admit any new principle, and that instead of being disadvantageous to France, she is put on a better footing than before! He would read the article. The first paragraph of the 13th article, after defining the new extension of what shall thereafter be deemed contraband, proceeds in the second thus: pre "And whereas the difficulty of judging of the cise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise: it is further agreed that whenever any such articles so becoming contraband, according to the existing law of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or in their default the Government, under whose authority they act, shall pay to the master, or owners, of such vessel, the full value of all articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to the detention." Our treaty, in the subsequent paragraph, recapitulates the ordinary provision for the circumstances attending ships proceeding, through error or inattention, to blockaded ports; but in the above stipulations a new principle is foisted into the law of nations by which we are to receive the full price of our articles and a reasonable mercantile profit; and after doing this we are told, that we place our ally in a better condition than she was before that the power of her enemy to seize our ships, which are protected by the law of nations from seizure, having nothing contraband on board, when going to the ports of a belligerent Power not blockaded, is an advantage to that Power so deprived. We might admit what is not a fact, in the first instance, that provisions are contraband, and we accept compensation for our sacrifice of the universal law; we admit the inhuman and horrible principle, that one nation has a right to starve another at its discretion, and while thus conniving at, and profiting by the collusion, affect to be indignant when remonstrance or resentment flow from the injured nation; this is the sad and afflicting picture of error into which we have been blindly seduced! Of all the authors that [MAY, 1797. have written on the law of nations, there is not one-no, not one-that supports the idea of provisions being liable to the description of contraband, in any case but in approaching a blockaded port; the only author indeed that mentions such a thing, even in the way of suggestion, is Vattel, who says, that possibly there may be a case where there is a reasonable hope of reducing a nation by want of provisions, they may be deemed contraband; but this is delivered as a mere suggestion, and, contrary to his usual diffuseness, he leaves it naked and unsupported by any one historical example or reference. But gentlemen say, we do not allow provisions to be contraband, although Vattel has used this suggestion, we think the doctrine unsound. He would not dispute about opinions while he had facts, and he would say, while you have denied the doctrine you have allowed the practice; you not only do wrong there to France, but we have done it in the most offensive form; and irritated as she must be by the intrigues that have already torn her for so many years, the foreign machinations and the efforts to subjugate her by all the arts which perfidy could suggest, we should not be surprised if she should be reluctantly led to believe, that we had thus bartered our supplies to Britain, reckless of her ruin, and regardless of our treaties; I say she may be reluctantly led to believe this, since the error of our blindness or our weakness is visible as noon day. But we are told that this stipulation is advantageous to France, as it holds out a temptation to mercantile adventurers from the certainty of payment in either event of a voyage; for his part he could not.discover in the conduct of the negotiation nor in the treaty itself, any such intention on our part; but he could see in the sacrifice an effort, and he would ask any gentleman how far successful it had proved, to guard against British depredations; but he could see in the argument a weak effort to support a worse measure! But let us see what is the construction of our own Government upon this principle; it must be tested by other facts than its adoption or rejection in a treaty. Since the execution of the treaty our Executive has put a strong construction on this principle; but our Executive had also in a letter of instruction to Mr. Thomas Pinckney, expressed his sentiments equally pertinent but perspicuous; speaking of the order of the British Government for seizing provisions on neutral ships, the first article of which was in these words: "That it shall be lawful to stop and retain all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or to any port occupied by the armies of France, and to send them to such port as shall be most convenient, in order that such corn, meal, or flour, may be purchased on behalf of his Majesty's Government, and the ships be released after such purchase, and after due allowance for freight, &c." The Executive thus notices the order: "This act, too, tends directly to draw us from that state of peace in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of neutrality, to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party, which we MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. are not equally bound to furnish to another. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which would lead to a war with France; and between restraining it ourselves and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully, [H. of R. declared in the instrument of the armed neutrality. Having offered his free opinion on these several articles, he was willing now to declare as freely that there were many of the circumstances of complaint urged by the French Republic which they were not justified in carrying to the extent is no difference. She would consider this as a mere which they do; and it was on this account, in an pretext, of which she would not be the dupe, and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it ? especial manner, that he considered the amendThus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthor- ment proposed to deserve the most decided supized act of Great Britain, into a war with which we port of the committee. He had little doubt of meddle not, and which we wish to avoid, if justice to all their being wrong-he had little doubt of their parties, and from all parties, will enable us to avoid it." being open to conviction; and as they no doubt thought themselves as much in the right in these Now, sir, if Government thought France cases as they thought this Government in the would not be the dupe of an artifice then, what wrong, it became us to use towards them a lanreason have we to believe that she will now? guage suitable to that liberality which befits a Let gentlemen who are eager for the report, reply wise and prudent nation. It becomes us to exaand show wherein the distinction lies. In 1793, mine our own conduct, and not rely on our infalour Executive considered it as a cause of war libility-to inquire dispassionately, and not rush only to permit the infraction of that law of na- into war before we have considered either the tions, or the partial supply of one or other party cause or the consequences. He appealed to every with provisions; and are we to expect France, to gentleman, which would be the conduct most conwhom we were at least under some ties of regard, sistent with true dignity, to obstinately persist in not to say obligation, should tamely condescend error at every risk of character and disaster, or to not to notice our sacrifices thus made? Gentlemen examine our conduct; and if we have erred, to could not be serious and expect it. acknowledge it manfully? She does not require our humiliation, as gentlemen declaim; and if she did, we should never submit to it. From a single stipulation into which we have entered with any nation we ought not and will not depart; she does not demand it; and therefore we ought to say to her, we will place you on a footing with every other nation; you have been mistaken in some matters, we have been mistaken in others; we will discuss them, and this unpleasant difference. Would this be abject-would this be humbling us in the dust-or would it be the most consistent with true dignity? Which is it more noble, to repair a fault, or to persist in error, even with success? But where are the means to secure success, even if we should persist? But this is a delicate subject; he would not dwell upon it. Let us inquire whether we have maintained that impartial conduct towards all nations which we ought to have done. It had been asserted, with singular confidence. that France was the first aggressor in spoliation, and that the British Order of Council of June 1793, had been preceded by one from the French Government to the same purpose; he need not enter into a refutation of that assertion, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FREEMAN) had yesterday completely exposed the fallacy of that artifice. The French have, throughout the present war, been compelled in their own defence to follow the unusual measures adopted by Britain, and in this instance the order issued by the French Government expressly states the British order, in its preamble, as the sole and necessary cause of her adoption of similar measures in her own defence. But we have testimony still stronger, if any stronger were necessary; it is the declaration of Lord Grenville to Mr. T. Pinckney: "Lord Grenville on being asked, said Spain would pursue the same line of conduct; and upon its being objected, that even their late convention with Russia did not extend to this object, he answered, that though it was not expressly mentioned, it was fully understood by both parties to be within the intention of it." And thus it is that gentlemen endeavor to elude the truth, and to descant upon subterfuge, where the peace and happiness of our country is at stake. That such a privilege or concession should be granted to Britain in a time of war, was remarkable enough to excite the jealousy of the French Government; but that it should be objected to extend the same privileges to France by negotiation, is more extraordinary still. We are told that Vattel is mistaken in his doctrine: he is, in one case, no authority to be relied on-he must be utterly abandoned; but in another his authority is sacred. All that has been said on the subject of this article will equally apply to the disregard of the neutrality of goods on neutral bottoms, as There are some of those things which, if not founded in right, might, without any violation of virtue, have operated more in favor of France than any other nation. Gentlemen would perceive that he alluded to our connexions with that people in trying times of our Revolution. He was one of those whose number appeared to be decreasing every day, that retained his reverence for old-fashioned notions. He considered gratitude as among the most amiable of the virtues; and he was so very dull of discrimination, compared with others, that he could not consider that as worthy of admiration in the individual, and of no existence in a nation. A sense of obligation he conceived to be a more rational principle of connexion between nations, as well as individuals, than any that could arise from the sense of sordid interests: the one was capable of permanently attaching the affections, the other was always contingent and precarious. We have seen nations actuated by the most inveterate and un |