Fifth Congress of the United States, AT THE SECOND SESSION. ESOLVED by the Senate and House of Reprefentatives of the United States of America, in Congrefs affembled, That the Secretary of State be, and he hereby is authorized and directed to caufe to be printed a number of copies, not exceeding ten thousand, of the inftructions to the envoys extraordinary and minifters plenipotentiary of the United States to the French Republic, and of all the dispatches hitherto received from them, and which have been communicated by the Prefident of the United States to both Houses of Congrefs; and to cause the fame to be diftributed, gratis, throughout the United States, and particularly in fuck parts thereof wherein the diffemination of information, through the medium of news-papers, is moft obftructed. JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker of the House of Reprefentatives. Vice-Prefident of the United States, and Approved-June 22, 1798. Prefident of the United States. In the House of Representatives of the United States, Monday, the 2d of April, 1798. RESOLVED, That the Prefident of the United States be requested to communicate to this Houfe, the inftructions to, and dispatches from the envoys extraordinary from the United States, to the French Republic, mentioned in his message of the nineteenth ultimo. Extract from the Journal. JONATHAN W. CONDY, Clerk. MESSAGE of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, to both Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Reprefentatives, IN compliance with the request of the House of Representatives, expreffed in their refolution of the fecond of this month, I tranfmit to both Houses, thofe inftructions to and dispatches from, the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my meffage of the nineteenth of March laft, omitting only fome names, and a few expreffions defcriptive of the perfons. I request that they may be confidered in confidence, until the members of Congrefs are fully poffeffed of their contents, and shall have had opportunity to deliberate on the confequences of their publication; after which time I fubmit them to your wisdom. United States, April 3d, 1798. } JOHN ADAMS. INSTRUCTIONS To Charles Cotefworth Pinckney, John Marfball, and Elbridge Gerry, Efquires, GENTLEMEN, IT is known to you, that the people of the United States of America entertained a warm and fincere affection for the people of France, ever fince their arms were united in the war with Great Britain, which ended in the full and formal acknowledgement of the Independence of these States. It is known to you, that this affection was ardent, when the French determined to reform their government and eftablish it on the bafis of liberty; that liberty in which the people of the United States were born, and which in the conclufion of the war above mentioned was finally and firmly secured. It is known to you, that this affection rose to enthusiasm, when the war was kindled between France and the powers of Europe, which were combined against her for the 285571 1 avowed purpose of restoring the monarchy; and every where Vows were heard for the fuccefs of the French arms. Yet during this period France expreffed no wish that the United States fhould depart from their neutrality. And while no duty required us to enter into the war, and our beft interefts urged us to remain at peace, the government determined to take a neutral ftation: which being taken, the duties of an impartial neutrality became indifpenfably binding. Hence the government early proclaimed to our citizens the nature of those duties and the confequences of their violation. The minister of France, Mr. Genet, who arrived about this time, by his public declarations, confirmed the idea, that France did not defire us to quit the ground we had taken. His meafures, however, were calculated to deftroy our neutrality and to draw us into the war. The principles of the proclamation of neutrality, founded on the law of nations, which is the law of the land, were afterwards recognized by the National Legislature, and the obfervance of them enforced by fpecific penalties, in the act of Congrefs paffed the fifth of June 1794. By thefe principles and laws the acts of the executive and the decifions of the courts of the United States were regulated. A government thus fair and upright in its principles and juft and impartial in its conduct, might have confidently hoped to be fecure against formal official cenfure: but the United States have not been so fortunate. The acts of their government, in its various branches, though pure in principle and impartial in operation, and conformable to their indifpenfible rights of fovereignty, have been affigned as the cause of the offenfive and injurious measures of the French Republic. For proofs of the former, all the acts of the government may be vouched; while the afperfions fo freely uttered by the French minifters, the refusal to hear the minister of the United States fpecially charged to enter on amicable difcuffions on all the topics of complaint, the decrees of the Executive Directory and of their agents, the depredations on our commerce and the violences against the perfons of our citizens, are evidences of the latter. These injuries and depredations will conftitute an important fubject of your difcuffions with the government of the French Republic; and for all these wrongs you will feek redrefs. In refpect to the depredations on our commerce, the principal objects will be, to agree on an equitable mode of examining and deciding the 'claims of our citizens, and the manner and periods of making them compenfation. As to the firft, the feventh article of the British and the twenty-firft of the Spanish treaty prefent approved precedents to be adopted with France. The propofed mode of adjusting thofe claims, by commiffioners appointed on each fide, is fo perfectly fair, we cannot imagine that it will be refufed. But when the claims are adjufted, if payment in fpecie cannot be obtained, it may be found neceffary to agree, in behalf of our citizens, that they fhall accept public fecurities, payable with intereft at fuch periods as the ftate of the French finances fhall render practicable. Thefe periods you will endeavour as far as poffible to fhorten. Not only the recent depredations, under colour of the decrees of the Directory of the fecond of July 1796 and the fecond of March 1797, or under the decrees of their agents, or the illegal fentences of their tribunals, but all prior ones, not already fatisfactorily adjusted, fhould be put in this equitable train of fettlement. To cancel many or all of the last mentioned claims, might be the effect of the decree of the Executive Directory of the second of March laft, reviving the decree of the 9th of May 1793 but this being an ex poft facto regulation, as well as a violation of the treaty between the United States and France, cannot be obligatory on the former. Indeed the greater part, probably nearly all the captures and confifcations in queftion, have been committed in direct violation of that treaty or of the law of nations. But the injuries arifing from the capture of enemies property in veffels of the United States, may not be very extenfive; and if for fuch captured property the French government will, agreeably to the law of nations, pay the freight and reafonable demurrage, we fhall not, on this account any farther contend. But of fhip timber and naval ftores taken and confifcated by the French, they ought to pay the full value; becaufe our citizens continued their traffic in thofe articles under the faith of the treaty with France. On these two points we ought to expect that the French government will not refufe to do us juftice: and the more, because it has not, at any period of the war, expreffed its defire that the commercial treaty should in these refpects be altered. Befides the claims of our citizens for depredations on their property, there are many arifing from exprefs contracts made with the French government or its agents, or founded on the feizure of their property in French ports. Other claims have arisen from the long detention of a multitude of our veffels in the ports of France. The wrong hereby done to our citizens was acknowledged by the French government, and in fome, perhaps in moft of the cafes, fmall payments towards indemnifica tions have been made: the refidue ftill remains to be claimed. All these just demands of our citizens will merit your attention. The best poffible means of compensation must be attempted. Thefe will depend on what you shall discover to be practicable in relation to the French finances. But an exception must be made in respect to debts due to our citizens by the contracts of the French government and its agents, if they are comprehended in any ftipulation; and an option reserved to them, jointly or individually, either to accept the means of payment which you fhall ftipulate, or to refort to the French government, directly, for the fulfilment of its contracts. Although the reparation for loffes fuftained by the citizens of the United States, in confequence of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations, or forcible feizures of detentions, is of very high importance, and is to be preffed with the greatest earnestnefs, yet it is not to be infifted on as an indispensible condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce thefe claims of our citizens, nor to ftipulate that they be affumed by the United States as a loan to the French govern ment. In respect to the alterations of the commercial treaty with France, in the two cafes which have been principal fubjects of complaint on her part, viz. enemies property in neutral fhips, and the articles contraband of war; although France can have no right to claim the annulling of ftipulations at the moment when by both parties they were originally intended to operate; yet if the French government prefs for alterations, the Prefident has no difficulty in fubftituting the principles of the law of nations, as ftated in the 17th and 18th articles of our commercial treaty with Great Britain, to thofe of the 23d and 24th articles of our commercial treaty with France and in respect to provifions, and other articles not ufually deemed contraband, you are to agree only on a temporary compromife, like that in the 18th article of the British treaty, and of the fame duration. If however, in order to fatisfy France now She is at war, we change the two important articles before mentioned, then the 14th article of the French treaty, which fubjects the property of the neutral nation found on board enemies fhips to capture and condemnation, muft of course be abolished. We have witneffed fo many erroneous conftructions of the treaty with France, even in its plainest parts, it will be neceffary to examine every article critically, for the purpofe of preventing, as far as human wisdom can prevent, all future mifinterpretations. The kind of documents neceffary for the protection of the neutral veffels fhould be enumerated and minutely described; the cafes in which a fea-letter fhould be required may be specified; the want of a fea-letter should not of itself be a cause of confifcation, where other reasonable proof of property is produced; and where fuch proof is furnished, the want of a fea-letter fhould go no further than to fave the captor from damages for detaining and bringing in the neutral veffel. The proportion of the veffel's crew which may be foreigners fhould be agreed on. Perhaps it will be expedient to introduce divers other regulations conformably to the marine laws of France. Whenever these are to operate on the commerce of the United States, our fafety requires that, as far as poffible, they be fixed by treaty. And it will be defirable to ftipulate against any ex poft facto law or regulation, under any pretence whatever. Great Britain has often claimed a right, and practifed upon it, to prohibit neutral nations carrying on a commerce with her enemies which had not been allowed in time of peace. On this head, it will be defirable to come to an explicit understanding with France; and, if poffible, to obviate the claim by an exprefs ftipulation. Such extenfive depredations have been committed on the commerce of neutrals, and especially of the United States, by the citizens of France, under pretence that her enemies (particularly Great Britain) have done the fame things, it will be desirable to have it explicitly ftipulated, that the conduct of an enemy towards the neutral power fhall not authorize or excuse the other belligerent power in any departure from the law of nations or the ftipulations of the treaty: efpecially that the veffels of the neutral nation fhall never be captured or detained, or their property confifcated or injured, because bound to or from an enemy's port, except the cafe of a blockaded port, the entering into which may be prevented according to the known rule of the law of nations. And it may be expedient to define a blockaded place or port to be one actually invefted by land or naval forces, or both, and that no declaration of a blockade fhall have any effect without fuch actual investment. And no commercial right whatever should be abandoned which is fecured to neutral powers by the European law of nations. The foregoing articles being thofe which the French government has made the oftenfible grounds of its principal complaints, they have naturally been firft brought into view. But the proposed alterations and arrangements fuggeft the propriety of revifing all our treaties with France. In fuch revifion, the first object that will attract your atten. |