Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 contravene such disposition.

And I do hereby also make known, that whatsoever 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, with 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

In spite of the efforts of the United States to maintain a strict neutrality, the relation of this country to the wars growing out of the French Revolution continued to be perilous. With the renewal of the war between England and France in 1803, the Republican party, under the leadership of President Jefferson, was forced to grapple with the problem anew. Whatever sympathy Jefferson may have had for France did not in any way alter the consistent policy of a "fair neutrality fair neutrality" which he advocated while Secretary of State and rigidly adhered to as President. Whatever clamor had existed for the formation of a French alliance in 1793 had absolutely disappeared by 1803. There was no time, however, when the great majority of citizens did not uphold the government in its policies of non-intervention and neutrality.

While engaged in preventing violations of American neutrality, the United States government was equally con

1Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. i, p. 140.

cerned with the protection of commercial and neutral rights. The French decrees and the British orders in council threatened the very existence of neutral commerce as well as the sanctity of neutral rights. The question as to how far belligerents could prey upon neutral commerce was fully as important as the question of neutrality. John Jay concluded a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation with Great Britain on November 19, 1794. The object of this treaty was to settle the question of neutral rights as far as the United States and Great Britain were concerned. By article XVII, enemy goods could be taken from neutral vessels.1 By article XXIII, asylum was granted to ships of war. By article XXIV, privateering was forbidden to any holding commissions from any state at war with either country. The negotiation of the Jay treaty with the most effective enemy of France made clear the position of the United States as a neutral power, and rendered the hope of American intervention in the war on the side of France an impossibility.

2

The displeasure of France was expressed by additional decress against neutral commerce, and by complaints offically made against the United States. On March 9, 1796, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs communicated to Mr. Monroe the complaints of the French Republic against the United States. The first general complaint was as reregards the inexecution of treaties. The first example was the submission to our tribunals of the cognizance of prizes brought into our ports" by French privateers, in spite of the treaty clause covering the subject. Mr. Monroe answered that "those rights which are secured by treaties form

66

'Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. i, p. 601.

Ibid., vol. i, p. 603.

Ibid., vol. i, p. 604.

1

the only preference in a neutral port which a neutral nation can give to either of the parties at war; and if these are transcended, the nation so acting makes itself a party to the war, and, in consequence, merits to be considered and treated as such." To the complaint that English ships of war had been admitted to American ports in contravention of Article XVII of the commercial treaty of 1778, it was maintained that the enemies' warships were not barred by the treaty except when accompanied by prizes. As regards the judicial proceedings against the captain of the Cassius, it was stated that while the treaty (article nineteen) stipulated that "the commandants of vessels, public and private, shall not be detained in any manner whatever," yet the treaty contained no stipulation as to the right to arm, and not to have proceeded judicially would have amounted to a collusive breach of neutrality. M. de la Croix complained of the outrage committed by a British frigate and aided by a British consul against the French minister, on the ground that the punishment inflicted by the United States was not commensurate with the indignity imposed. The revocation of the consul's exequatur and the expulsion of the British vessel from American waters, combined with a formal protest to England, was all the United States could do, since there was no effective fleet. In support of the last general complaint that by the Jay treaty the United States had "knowingly, and evidently sacrificed their connections with the republic and the most essential and least contested prerogative of neutrality," M. de la Croix alleged that the United States had departed from the principles of the armed neutrality and to the prejudice of France had

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. i, p. 660.

'Ibid., vol. i, p. 660.

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 660-661.

4 Ibid., vol. i, p. 659.

Ibid., vol. i, p. 661.

5

abandoned the limits of contraband; and had even extended contraband to include provisions.1 Monroe answered that Great Britain had never acceded to the principles of the armed neutrality, and that the United States had agreed upon the most liberal list of contraband which Great Britain would recognize.2

3

Other complaints were presented by M. Adet, the French minister, to Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State. He protested that the United States had questioned whether or not it should execute the treaties," or receive the agents of the rebel and proscribed princes." It was replied that the conduct of the United States as proved by the facts, was exemplary; and on account of the rapid succession of revolutionary events, the American government had the right to deliberate. To the charge that the President had issued "an insidious proclamation of neutrality," the Secretary of State answered that the object of the proclamation was to preserve the United States in a state of peace, to be observed by an impartial neutrality. M. Adet was also reminded that the French ministers had declared that the French government did not desire the United States to enter the war. Protests were made against Hamilton's instructions to the collectors of the customs, the neutrality laws, the treatment of French privateers, the Jay treaty, and favoritism on the part of the United States to England. The blockade of the French colonies, Mr. Pickering stated, was an active one and binding on all neutrals alike. He also contended that the United States had aided France in various ways, citing as examples the aid given M. Genêt,

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. i, p. 659.

2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 661.

5

'Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law. vol. v, p. 595. Ibid., p. 595.

the meeting of the debt to France and the aid given relative to the insurrection in Santo Domingo.1

In spite of the efforts to reply satisfactorily to the complaints of the French government, new decrees were issued, directed against neutral commerce. On August 22, 1796, Mr. Pickering informed Mr. Monroe of his recall. Mr. C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina was named as his successor.2 M. de la Croix informed Mr. Monroe that the Directory would "no longer recognize nor receive a minister plenipotentiary from the United States until after a reparation of the grievances demanded of the American government, and which the French republic has a right to expect." Pinckney was directed to leave France. He was even denied the privileges of a resident alien. A new decree was issued by the French Directory, the substantial effect of which was to declare a "general and summary confiscation of American vessels.' In February of the next year, Mr. Pickering filed formal complaints against the French government for alleged interference with American

3

commerce.

994

The suspended diplomatic relations made the situation more serious. The President of the Directory, Barras, said in an unfortunate speech:

France . . strong in the esteem of her allies, will not abase herself by calculating the consequences of the condescension of the American government to suggestions of her former tyrants. . . . They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous benevolence of the French people with the crafty caresses of certain perfidious persons who meditate bringing them back to their former slavery."

1 Moore, op. cit., vol. v, p. 597.

Am. State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i, p. 741. 'Ibid., vol. i, p. 746.

5

Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. v, p. 599.

Am. State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii, p. 12.

« PreviousContinue »