that confequently the fame favours have become common to France. This conftruation is fo foreign from our ideas of the meaning and defign of this article, it fhows the neceflity of reviewing all the articles, and, however clear they may appear, of attempting to obviate future misconstructions by declaratory explanations, or a change of terms. Article 5 France has repeatedly contended, that the impofition of 50 per cent. per ton on French veffels arriving in the United States, is contrary to the 5th article of the treaty. The argument in fupport of this pretenfion is unknown; but it is prefumed to be unfounded. The reciprocal right of laying "duties or imposts of what nature foever," equal to thofe imposed on the most favoured nations, and without any other restrictions, feems to be clearly fettled by the 3d and 4th articles. The 5th article appears to have been intended merely to define and qualify the rights of American veffels in France. It is however defirable that the question be understood, and all doubts concerning it removed. But the introduction of a principle of difcrimination between the veffels of different foreign nations, and in derogation of the powers of Congrefs to raife revenue by uniform duties on any objects whatever, cannot be hazarded. The naturalization of French veffels will of courfe be confidered as inadmiffible. Article 8. The ftipulation of doing us good offices, to fecure peace to the United States with the Barbary powers, has never yet procured us any advantage. If, therefore, the French government lays any ftrefs on this ftipulation, as authorizing a claim for fome other engagements from us in favour of France, it may be abandoned; and efpecially if its abrogation can be applied as a fet-off against fome exifting French claim. Article 14. If the alterations already propofed are made in the 23 and 24th articles, then the 14th article, as before observed, must be abolished. Article 17. The conftruction put on this article by the government of the United States is conceived to be reasonable and juft, and is therefore to be infifted on. The tribunals of the respective countries will confequently be juftified in taking cognifance of all captures made within their refpective jurifdictions, or by illegal privateers; and thofe of one country will be deemed illegal which are fitted out in the country of the other remaining neutral: feeing, to permit fuch arming would violate the neutral duties of the latter. It will be expedient to fix explicitly the reception to be given to public fhips of war of all nations. The French ministers have demanded, that the public fhips of the enemies of France, which at any time, and in any part of the world, had made prize of a French veifel, fhould be excluded from the ports of the United States, and although they brought in no prize with them. In oppofition oppofition to this demand, we have contended that they were to be excluded only when they came in with French prizes. And the kind of afylum to be afforded, in all other circumftances, is defcribed in Mr. Jefferfon's letter to Mr. Hammond, dated the 9th of September 1793, in the following words: "Thus, then, the public fhips of war of both nations (English and French) enjoy a perfect equality in our ports; 1ft, in cafes of urgent neceffity; 2d, in cafes of comfort and convenience; and 3d, in the time they choose to continue." And fuch thelter and accommodation are due to the public fhips of all nations, on the principle of hofpitality among friendly nations. It will alfo be expedient explicitly to declare, that the right of afylum ftipulated for the armed veffels of France and their prizes gives no right to make fale of those prizes. But when prize fhips are fo difabled as to be incapable of putting to fea again until refitted, and when they are utterly difabled, fome provifion is neceffary relative to their cargoes. Both cafes occurred last year. The government permitted, though with hefitation and caution, the cargoes to be unloaded, one of the veffels to be repaired, and part of the prize goods fold, to pay for the repairs; and the cargo of the veffel that was found unfit ever to go to fea again was allowed to be exported as prize goods even in neutral bottoms. The doubts on thefe, occalions arofe from the 24th article of the British treaty, forbidding the fale of the prizes of privateers, or the exchanging of the fame in any manner whatever. But as French prizes were entitled to an afylum in our ports, it was conceived to be a reafonable conftruction of it to allow of fuch proceedings as thofe above mentioned, to prevent the total lofs of veffels and cargoes. The 25th article of the British treaty demands attention; and it is therein ftipulated, that no future treaty fhall be made that shall be inconfiftent with that or the 24th article. Another doubt arofe, whether the British treaty did not, in good faith, require the prohibition of the fale of prizes made by the national thips of France, as well as of thofe made by her privateers; efpecially fecing our treaty with France gave her no right to fell any prizes whatever; but upon the whole it was conceived, that the United States, having before allowed the fale of fuch prizes, and the prohibitions in the 24th article of the treaty being diftinctly pointed against the fale of the prizes of privateers, it was thought proper to permit the former practice to continue, until the Executive fhould make and publish a prohibition of the fale of all prizes, or that Congrefs thould pafs a prohibitory law. Article 22. If, in new-modelling the treaty with France, the total prohibition of the fale of prizes in the ports of the party remaining neutral fhould not be agreed on, at leaft the right of each power to make at its pleasure fuch prohibition, whether they are prizes of national fhips or privateers, fhould be acknowledged for the reafon more than once fuggefted-to prevent a repetition of claims upon unfounded conftructions; fuch as under the prefent article, that a prohibition to an enemy of either party, is a grant to the other of the thing forbidden. Articles 23 and 24. Thefe have been already confidered, and the alterations propofed have been mentioned. There have been fo many unjuft caufes and pretences affigned for capturing and confifcating American veffels, it may perhaps be impoffible to guard against a repetition of them in any treaty which can be devifed. To ftate the caufes and pretences that have been already advanced by the government of France, its. agents and tribunals, as the grounds of the capture and condemnation of American veffels and cargoes, would doubtlefs give pain to any ingenuous mind who fhould be employed on the part of France to negotiate another treaty, or a modification of the treaties which exift. It is not defired, therefore, to go farther into detail on thefe matters, than fhall be neceifary to guard by explicit, flipulations against future misconstructions, and the mischiefs they will naturally produce. Under pretence that certain ports were furrendered to the Engfish by the treachery of the French and Dutch inhabitants, Victor Hugues and Lebas, the special agents of the Executive Directory at Guadaloupe, have declared, that all neutral veffels bound to or from fuch ports fhall be good prize. Under the pretence that the British were taking all neutral vef fels bound to or from French ports, the French agents at St. Domingo (Santhonax and others) decreed, that all American veffels bound to or from English ports fhould be captured; and they have fince declared fuch captured vcffels to be good prize. The French confuls in Spain have, on the fame ground, condemned a number of American veffels, merely because they were deftined to or coming from an English port. Under the pretence that the fea-letters, or paffports, prescribed by the commercial treaty for the mutual advantage of the merchants and navigators of the two nations, to fave their veffels from detention and other vexations, when met with at fea, by prefenting fo clear a proof of the property, are an indifpenfable, document to be found on board, the French confifcate veffels deftitute of them, even when they acknowledge the property to be American. Because horfes and their military furniture, when destined to any enemy's ports, are by the 24th article of the commercial treaty declared contraband, and as fuch by themfelves only liable. to confifcation, Hugues and Lebas decreed all neutral veifels hav ing horfes or any other contraband goods on board fhould be good prize; and they accordingly condemned veffels and cargoes. The The ancient ordinances of the French monarchs required a variety of papers to be on board neutral veffels, the want of any one of which is made a cause of condemnation; although the 25th article of the commercial treaty mentions what certificates fhall accompany the merchant veffels and cargoes of each party, and which, by every reasonable conftruction, ought to give them pro tection. It will therefore be advisable to guard against abuses by defcending to particulars, to defcribe the fhip's papers which shall be required, and to declare, that the want of any other fhall not be a caufe for confifcation: to fix the mode of manning veffels as to the officers, and the proportion of the crews who thall be citizens; endeavouring to provide, in refpect to American veffels, that more than one third may be foreigners. This provifion will be important to the fouthern ftates, which have but few native feamen. The marine ordinances of France will fhow what regulations have been required to be obferved by allies, as well as neutral powers in general, to afcertain and fecure the property of neutrals. Some of thefe regulations may be highly proper to be adopted, while others may be inconvenient and burdenfome. Your aim will be to render the documents and formalities as few and as fimple as will confift with a fair and regular commerce. Articles 25 and 27. Thefe two articles thould be rendered conformable to each other. The 27th fays, that, after the exhibition of the paffport, the veffel fhall be allowed to pass without moleftation or search, without giving her chafe, or forcing her to quit her intended courfe. The 25th requires, that, befides the patfport, veffels fhall be furnished with certain certificates, which of courfe muft alfo be exhibited. It will be expedient to add, that if, in the face of fuch evidence, the armed veffel will carry the other into port, and the papers are found conformable to treaty, the captors fhall be condemned in all the charges, damages, and interefts thereof, which they fhall have caufed. A provifion of this nature is made in the 11th article of our treaty with the United Netherlands. Article 28. The prohibited goods here mentioned have no relation to contraband, but merely to fuch as by the laws of the country are forbidden to be exported. Yet, in the cafe of exporting horfes from Virginia, which no law prohibited, in the winter of 1796, this article was applied by the French minifter to horfes, which by the French treaty are contraband of war. And a letter from the minifter to Victor Hugues and Lebas, informing them that the American government refuted to prevent fuch export of horfes by the British, is made one ground for their decree above mentioned. VOL. VII. A a Article Article 30. The Veffels of the United States ought to be admitted into France in the fame manner as the veffels of France are admitted into the ports of the United States. But fuch a tipulation ought not to airthorize the admiffion of veffels of either party into the ports of the other, into which the admission of all foreign veffels fhall be forbidden by the laws of France and of the United States refpectively. With this reftriction, the principles of the 14th article of the treaty with Great Britain afford a liberal and unexceptionable precedent. A restriction like that here referred to will be found in the first paragraph of the third article of the British treaty. The commerce to the French colonies in the East and West Indies will doubtlefs be more or lefs reftricted, according to the ufage of other European nations. Yet, on account of the difarranged condition of the French navigation, probably a larger lati tude of trade with their colonies will be readily permitted for a term of years: and perhaps the mutual advantages thence refulting will be found fo great as to induce afterwards a prolongation of that term, to which the courfe or habit of bufinefs may contribute. While between the United States and France there fhall fubfift a perfect reciprocity in refpect to commerce, we must endeavour to extend our trade to her colonies to as many articles as poffible. Of these the most important are, provifions of all kinds, ás beef, pork, flour, butter, cheese, fish, grain, pulfe, live stock, and every other article ferving for food, which is the produce of the country, horfes, mules, timber, plants, and wood of all kinds, cabinet ware, and other manufactures of the United States; and to obtain in return all the articles of the produce of thofe colonies, without exception; at leaft to the value of the cargoes carried to thofe colonies. There have been different conftructions of the confular convention. The French have contended for the execution of their confular decifions by the marthal or other officer of the United States; and their minifter of juftice has formally flated, in a report to the minifter of foreign affairs, that the judicial fentences of the American confuls in France will be executed by certain officers of juffice in that country. The legal opinion of the law officers of the United States, which the government had adopted, oppofes fuch a conftruction. The French have alfo contended, that deferters from French veffels ought to be apprehended by the judicial officers of the United States, upon other evidence than the original fhipping paper, or role d'equipage; whereas the diftrict judges. have infifted, that the confular convention requires the original roll to be produced. This claim was lately revived by the confulgeneral of the French Republic. The correfpondence on this occafion |