will make full satisfaction for such loss or damage, the same to be ascertained by commissioners, in the manner already mentioned in this article."1

Course of Genet.

2

This proposal involved the interesting question of the enforcement by the United States of its neutral policy in the pending war, as announced in President Washington's proclamation of April 22, 1793. By this proclamation it was declared that in the "state of war" that existed "between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other," "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." On the other hand, the Government of France expected from the United States friendly aid, if not an open alliance. This expectation filled the thoughts and governed the course of the Citizen Genet, who was sent out in 1793 to succeed M. Ternant as French minister to the United States. Genet, having arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, in April, the Government of the United States soon learned "that he was undertaking to authorize the fitting and arming of vessels in that port, enlisting men, foreigners and citizens, and giving them commissions to cruise and commit hostilities on nations at peace with us; that these vessels were taking and bringing prizes into our ports; that the consuls of France were assuming to hold courts of admiralty on them; to try, condemn, and authorize their sale as legal prize; and all this before Mr. Genet had presented himself or his credentials to the President, before he was received by him, without his consent or consultation, and directly in contravention of the state of peace existing, and declared to exist in the President's proclamation, and incumbent on him to preserve, till the constitutional authority should otherwise declare."3

The British minister, Mr. Hammond, complained of these proceedings, and on the 15th of May Mr. Jefferson addressed a remonstrance on the subject to the French minister. On

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 488.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140. At this place will also be found Hamilton's instructions to collectors of customs of August 4, 1793, in which the acts understood to be forbidden by a state of neutrality were defined. 3 Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, minister to France, August 16, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167.)

the next day the Citizen Genet arrived in Philadelphia, and on the 27th of May, after he had been received by the President, he presented an answer in which he defended his proceedings and expressed the hope that, on reading it, the government would "return from the first impressions which the reports of the minister of England appear to have made on it."1

Decision of June 5, 1793.

On the 5th of June Mr. Jefferson communicated to the Citizen Genet the President's formal opinion. Referring to the fact that the Citoyen Genet, one of the cruisers fitted out at Charleston, had brought a prize into the port of Philadelphia, Mr. Jefferson said that the President had carefully reexamined the subject, and the result appeared to be that it was "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," was "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," would be but an act of respect, and was required as an evidence of neutrality; and that it was not doubted that they would be "permitted to give no further umbrage by their presence in the ports of the United States."2

of Decision,

Far from acquiescing in these conclusions, Genet's Disregard the Citizen Genet complained that the authorities at Philadelphia had stopped the sale of the ship William, an English vessel which was captured by the Citoyen Genet near Cape Henry on the 3d of May and brought into Philadelphia on the 14th of the same month, and that the authorities at New York had prevented the sailing of an armed French vessel, fitted out in that port.3 He also declined to restore the brigantine Fanny, of London, which was captured by the Sans Culottes, one of the Charles

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 149, 150.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 150.

3 Citizen Genet to Mr. Jefferson, June 14, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 152.)

ton cruisers, near Cape Henry on the 8th of May and brought to Philadelphia. Moreover, the arming of vessels went on, and captures continued to be made even after the 5th of June. The Citoyen Genet seized on the 28th of June the brig Prince William Henry; on the 4th of July the Lovely Lass, and on the 24th of July the Jane, of Dublin, all of which were brought into port for condemnation and sale by the French consuls.' Mr. Jefferson asked that they be not permitted to depart till the President's ultimate determination in regard to them should be made known.2

Action of United
States.

On the 7th of August Mr. Jefferson informed the Citizen Genet that the President considered the United States "as bound, pursuant to positive assurances, given in conformity to the laws of neutrality, to effectuate the restoration of, or to make compensation for, prizes which shall have been made of any of the parties at war with France subsequent to the 5th day of June last by privateers fitted out of our ports;" that it was consequently expected that he would "cause restitution to be made” of all prizes so taken and brought in subsequent to that day, in defect of which the President would consider it incumbent upon the United States "to indemnify the owners of those prizes, the indemnification to be reimbursed by the French nation;" and that, "besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting out privateers in the ports of the United States, they will not give asylum therein to any which shall have been at any time so fitted out, and will cause restitution of all such prizes as shall be hereafter brought within their ports by any of the said privateers." 3

Briefly to sum up what has been stated, it appears that Washington on the 22d of April 1793 issued his proclamation of neutrality; that on the 5th of June he formally made known to the Citizen Genet his opinion concerning the neutrality of the United States and the latter's infractions of it; that, in spite of this communication, further offenses were com mitted by the capture and bringing in of the Prince William Henry, the Lovely Lass, and the Jane; that on the 7th of August the government, while forbearing, from motives of policy,

1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 185.

2 Note to the Citizen Genet, July 12, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 163.)

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 167.

to take effectual measures to restore these vessels, asked the French minister to restore them, but announced that it would itself cause restitution to be made of all such prizes as should thereafter be brought within the ports of the United States by any of the privateers in question.

Notes of August 7 and
September 5, 1793.

On the 7th of August Jefferson also addressed a note to the British minister, Hammond, in which he stated that measures were being taken for excluding from all further asylum in the ports of the United States vessels armed in them to cruise against friendly nations, and for the restoration of the prizes Lovely Lass, Prince William Henry, and the Jane, of Dublin, and that if the measures taken for their restitution should fail the President considered it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them. This note he followed up on the 5th of September 1793 with another, in which he comprehensively defined the position of the United States. Referring to the treaties of the United States with three of the belligerent nations,' by which the contracting parties were bound to endeavor, "by all the means in their power,” each to protect and defend in its ports or waters, or the seas near its coasts, vessels and effects belonging to citizens of the other, and to recover and cause to be restored to the right owners any such vessels or effects as should there be taken from them. Jefferson said:

"Though we have no similar treaty with Great Britain, it was the opinion of the President that we should use towards that nation the same rule, which, under this article, was to govern us with the other nations, and even to extend it to the captures made on the high seas and brought into our ports, if done by vessels which had been armed within them. Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7th, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances, and brought in after the 5th June, and before the date of that letter, yet where the same forbearance had taken place it was, and is his opinion, that compensation would be equally due. As to prizes made under the same circumstances, and brought in after the date of that letter, the President determined that all the means in our

1 France, February 6, 1778, Art. VI; Netherlands, October 8, 1782, Art. V; Prussia, September 10, 1785, Art. VII.

*

power should be used for their restitution. If these fail, as we should not be bound by our treaties to make compensation to the other Powers, in the analogous case, he did not mean to give an opinion that it ought to be done to Great Britain. But still, if any cases shall arise subsequent to that date, the circumstances of which shall place them on similar ground with those before it, the President would think compensation equally incumbent on the United States. Hence you will perceive, sir, that the President contemplates restitution or compensation, in the cases before the 7th of August, and after that date, restitution, if it can be effected by any means in our power; and that it will be important that you should substantiate the fact, that such prizes are in our ports or waters. With respect to losses by detention, waste, spoliation, sustained by vessels taken as before mentioned, between the dates of June 5th and August 7th, it is proposed, as a provisional measure, that the collector of the customs of the district, and the British consul, or any other person you please, shall appoint persons to establish the value of the vessel and cargo, at the times of her capture, and of her arrival in the port into which she is brought, according to their value in that port."

ticle VII.

1

Such was the origin and situation of the Stipulations of Ar- claims of British subjects to which Lord Grenville's proposal referred. It was decided to include them in the treaty, and to adopt the letter of Mr. Jefferson of the 5th of September as the rule by which they should be determined. A stipulation was accordingly inserted in Article VII. to this effect:

"And whereas certain merchants and others, His Majesty's subjects, complain that, in the course of the war, they have sustained loss and damage by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the States and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by vessels originally armed in ports of the said States:

It is agreed that in all such cases where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, September

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 174. Hall, International Law, 550, 2d edition, referring to this letter, says: "The policy of the United States in 1793 constitutes an epoch in the development of the usages of neutrality. There can be no doubt that it was intended and believed to give effect to the obligations then incumbent upon neutrals. But it represented by far the most advanced existing opinion as to what those obligations were; and in some points it even went further than authoritative international custom has up to the present time advanced. In the main, however, it is identical with the standard which is now adopted by the community of nations."