CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEUTRALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. States. The Neutrality Act passed by the Congress of the United States Neutral policy on June 5, 1794, marks an epoch in the history of the relations between of the United belligerent and neutral nations. It was the result of a distinct policy adopted by the United States in its relations to the states of Europe. When the thirteen colonies succeeded in establishing their independence they found themselves in an unique position. They stood forth as the single independent state in the new world; and although they were surrounded on all sides by the colonies of European states, they were separated from the actual centers of European domination by the formidable barrier of an ocean. It was but natural, therefore, that they should adopt a policy of detachment from the political alliances by which the balance of power was being maintained in Europe. Their geographical position enabled them to do so, and their political principles put them out of sympathy with the system of aggression on the one hand, and of self-defense on the other, which kept Europe in the state of an armed camp. This policy of detachment from the political system of Europe found a strong advocate in President Washington. In his farewell address, delivered September 17, 1796, he sums up the principles which guided him throughout his administration: The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.1 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., I, 37. Treaty obligations towards France. Sympathy with French Revolution. It was the war of 1793 between France and the Allied Powers which gave definite form to the policy of the United States, and led to the passage of the Neutrality Act in the following year. During the dark hours of the American Revolution the colonies had accepted aid from France at the price of an alliance by which the United States guaranteed to France for all time "the present possessions of the Crown of France in America." A Treaty of Amity and Commerce, concluded at the same time [February 6, 1778], bound the United States to admit. into its ports French ships with their prizes of war, and at the same time to exclude from its ports the ships of war of other nations when carrying prizes captured from France. A discrimination was also made in the more favorable treatment to be accorded to French vessels of war in the matter of asylum in the ports of the United States. How could the United States be faithful to its treaty obligations to France and yet save itself from being drawn into the war? The position would have been a very delicate one had the United States been obliged to carry out the guarantee of the French possessions in America. Fortunately the operations of the war centered in Europe] rather than on the American continent, and France did not demand the fulfilment of the territorial guarantee. In other respects, however, it was soon evident that France expected not only the sympathy of the United States but a certain amount of actual assistance and support of a not directly hostile character, which was quite in conformity with the loose ideas of neutrality at that time entertained. in Europe. Judging from the enthusiasm with which the news of the French Revolution had been received in America, France might well have had reason to expect substantial help from the United States. The celebration in New York on December 27, 1792, the "Civic Feast" in Boston on January 27, 1793, the liberty-caps displayed on private houses, the cockades worn on hats, the widespread adoption of the title of "Citizen" instead of Mr. or Sir, made it seem as if the cause of the French republic had been adopted without reserve by its sister republic across the ocean.1 When the news reached New York, in the spring of 1793, that the King of France had been beheaded and that the new republic was at war not only with Austria and Prussia, but with England and Spain as well, the question of helping France began to assume a more serious aspect. A war with England and Spain would mean for the United States the destruction of trade, a heavy public debt, and danger to the country both on the west and south. 1See J. B. McMaster, A History of the People of the United States, II, 89-94. Men who had accused the government of lukewarmness in its sym- On April 22, 1793, Washington, acting on the advice of his cabinet, Washington's proclamation issued a proclamation of neutrality, the text of which reads as follows: of neutrality. Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent Powers: I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid towards those Powers respectively; and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition. And I do hereby also make known, that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said Powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers, to whom it belongs, to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons, who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations, with respect to the Powers at war, or any of them.1 Neutrality edicts of this character had been frequently issued since the beginning of the century, many of them setting forth more specifically certain acts, such as the arming of privateers, prohibited to the subjects of the states issuing the edict. 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., I, 140. Violations of American neutrality. Genet's justification of them. On May 15th, Jefferson, as Secretary of State, wrote to the French minister, M. Ternant, to the effect that he had received a memorial from the British minister, in which the latter "complains that the consul of France, at Charleston, has condemned, as legal prize, a British vessel, captured by a French frigate, observing that this judicial act is not warranted by the usage of nations, nor by the stipulations existing between the United States and France." Assuming the truth of the fact, Jefferson called upon the French minister to "interpose efficaciously to prevent a repetition of the error" by the same or any other French consul. Jefferson next called the attention of the minister to the report that a French privateer fitted out at Charleston had captured a British vessel and brought it into the port of Philadelphia, | with the observation that without further evidence he would not impute to the public authority of France so serious an act as the arming of men and vessels within United States territory. Jefferson then informed the minister that the capture of the British ship Grange by a French frigate within the Delaware was an unlawful act, having been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, and that, consequently, the United States called upon the French government to release the crew and to restore the vessel and its cargo to their former owners.1 Shortly after this letter M. Genet succeeded M. Ternant as Minister of France. Previously to his arrival in Philadelphia M. Genet, on landing at Charleston, S. C., had distributed commissions for the fitting out of French privateers in that port. On May 27th he wrote to Jefferson, answering the latter's letter of May 15th to M. Ternant. In this letter M. Genet defended the act of the French consul in setting up a prize court, on the ground that the power was conferred by the Treaty of Commerce of 1778, which provided that the officers of the port should not make examination of the lawfulness of prizes brought by French ships of war into American ports. The conclusiveness of M. Genet's argument is not very evident. The United States, might, without derogation of its sovereignty, allow the validity_of French prizes to pass unquestioned, but it could not permit a French consul to exercise judicial authority in one of its ports. M. Genet likewise admitted that several vessels had been armed and commissioned at Charleston, but defended the acceptance of the commissions on the ground that the commanders of the vessels, whether French or American, "knew only the treaties and the laws of the United States, 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., I, 147. The illegality of the capture of the Grange was subsequently admitted by M. Genet and the restoration of the vessel effected. no article of which imposes on them the painful injunction of abandoning us in the midst of the dangers which surround us." Similarly he defended the arming of vessels on the ground that "liberty consisted in doing what the laws did not prohibit," and that there was no law forbidding such measures.1 Jefferson replied to his letter on June 5th. He informed Genet that Jefferson's reply. the President had decided, after mature consideration, "that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom we are at peace, was incompatible with the territorial sovereignty of the United States that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to compromit their peace; and that he thought it necessary, as an evidence of good faith to them, as well as a proper reparation to the sovereignty of the country, that the armed vessels of this description should depart from the ports of the United States." Continuing the same line of argument, Jefferson set forth in clear and simple terms the principles of neutrality as understood by the President: "After fully weighing again, however, all the principles and circumstances of the case, the result appears still to be, that it is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits, and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring Powers, that the granting military commissions, within the United States, by any other authority than their own, is an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to their own citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country; that the departure of vessels, thus illegally equipped, from the ports of the United States, will be but an acknowledgment of respect, analogous to the breach of it, while it is necessary on their part, as an evidence of their faithful neutrality. On these considerations, sir, the President thinks that the United States owe it to themselves and to the nations in their friendship, to expect this act of reparation on the part of vessels, marked in their very equipment with offence to the laws of the land, of which the law of nations makes an integral part."2 Genet's reply, dated June 8, 1793, written in a decidedly caustic French rights under treaty. tone, took up the question of sovereignty and disposed of it by asserting the principle that a nation at war has the right of arming in the_neutral state "unless by treaty, or particular laws of this State, that right be confined to a single nation, friend, or ally, and express1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., I, 149. 2Ibid. 150. |