obtaining "satisfaction for insults, and reparation for injury;" instead of adjusting the disputes which had produced a sort of sham war between the parties, their "Ministers Plenipotentiary, not being able, at present, to come to an agreement with regard to the treaty of alliance of February 1778, &c. nor, with regard to the indemnities mutually due and claimed, the parties will negotiate hereafter, at a convenient time." Thus are all the injuries and insults, and the treaty of alliance, laid upon the shelf, till a more convenient time, and the parties enter into a Convention consisting merely of commercial regulations, which, as we shall presently see, are levelled directly against the principles and the power of Great Britain.

The fourteenth article of the Convention stipulates, that free ships shall make free goods. It runs thus:

66

66

"14. It is stipulated by the present treaty, that

free ships shall likewise insure the freedom of "goods, and that all things on board shall be "reckoned free, belonging to the citizens of one "of the contracting parties, although the cargo or part of it, should belong to the enemies of the two; it being understood, nevertheless, that "contraband goods will always be excepted. It "is likewise agreed, that this freedom shall extend "to the persons of those who shall be found on "board the free ships, although they should be "enemies to one of the two contracting parties, " and it shall not be lawful to take them from the "said free ships, at least if they are not soldiers, "and actually in the service of the enemy."

This article is not new: the same stipulation is to be found in the commercial treaty between France and America, of 1778, as well as in the commercial treaties of many other powers. But while we allow that the stipulation contains nothing

a 3

thing unprecedented, we contend in opposition to the insolent pretensions of France, and the more insolent assertions of her hirelings in this country, that the freedom of goods here stipulated for may be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of any contracting party. Whoever examines the best writers on the subject will find, that, long since the nations of Europe assumed nearly their present relative state, it was the general practice to prohibit all trade whatever with an enemy. As the nations grew more polished (as it is called) and as their relations increased by means of maritime commerce, the rigour of this practice was gradually softened, till confiscation was, at last, confined to the vessels and property of enemies, to certain articles termed contraband of war, and to the property of enemies found on board of neutral vessels. Thus far the relaxation became pretty general about the time of Queen Elizabeth. But some powers wished to extend the freedom of commerce still further; even so far as to protect enemies goods found on board of neutral vessels; and to do this the Queen of England, not perceiving the dangerous consequences, was one of the first to assert her right. Fortynately, however, for Great Britain, the right was disputed, and that too by the United Provinces, even before their independence was fully assured. They took some English vessels laden with Spanish property, and condemned the cargoes, without paying freightage. The Queen, at first, resented this conduct in an infant state that was chiefly indebted to her for support; but, notwithstanding the well known tenacity and imperiousness of her disposition, her wisdom and justice prevailed, and she, at last, acquiesced in the legality of the capture.

But the advocates for the freedom of goods, unable to contend against the host of authorities, such as we have above appealed to, tell us that we are not

to

to go back so far, but confine ourselves to what they call the modern law of nations. Within what limits they mean to circumscribe the word modern, we cannot exactly ascertain, unless they insist, that the modern law of nations dates its beginning from what they call the "new style;" in which case, thank God, we are ancients yet. But however cramped may be the signification which the sons of Fructidor and Floréal are pleased to give to the word modern, we Christians know, that the modern law of nations means that public law, or rather practice, which the present nations of Europe have observed towards each other. Lest, however, the example of Queen Elizabeth should be too ancient, we will descend to times still more modern; and that the example may be, if possible, yet more strikingly applicable, we shall appeal to the practice of the French nation itself.

The famous Ordinance of :681, which might be called the Navigation Act of France, expressly declared to be good prize, not only the enemy's goods found on board of a neutral vessel, but the neutral vessel also. This brings us down to the close of the seventeenth century; but, as that may be yet too ancient for the decadery civilians, let us continue to descend, still continuing our appeal to the practice of France. The Ordinance of 1681, was mitigated by successive treaties, in which France, according as her interest prescribed, refused, or granted, the permission which is now contended for as a right; but after these treaties, and even so late as 1757, she declared to the Republic of Holland, that, if any goods belonging to her enemy were found on board of Dutch vessels, such goods should be condemned as good prize, and to this declaration the practice was conformable, during the whole war, which ended in 1763, only thirty-seven years ago. So that unless the men

of the "new style" will absolutely sans-culotte us, and insist upon it that our fathers were antedeluvians, and that we ourselves were born in the ages of antiquity, we must, on our part, insist, that the principles adhered to by Great Britain, is a principle of the modern law of nations, and is, moreover, sanctioned by the practice of France.

How America will attempt to maintain this newly assumed right, after having denied its existence in the most solemn and formal manner, we are at a loss to conceive. In her treaty with Great Britain, she stipulates, that neutral bottoms, as far as the contracting parties are concerned, shall not make neutral goods; and, in an official note from the then Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, to citizen. Genet, she explicitly maintains the general principle for which we contend. The words, which are as strong as words can be, are as follow: "I believe it cannot be doubted, but that, by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the cases above mentioned ; and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true, that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked and carried into port and detained, under pretence of having enemies goods on board, have, in many instances, introduced by their special treaties another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss; but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controling, in special cases, the general principle of

the

the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between. such nations only as have so agreed to control it." Mr. Jefferson has, indeed, said no more here than all the writers on public law had said before him: or quoting the Republican Philosopher in preference to more established authorities is intended as a compliment to the Morning Chronicle *.

* Extract of a Letter from Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State in America, to Mr. GENET, Minister Plenipotentiary of France, dated Philadelphia, July 24, 1793-See State Papers, published by order of Congress, in 1795, page 71.

I believe it cannot be doubted, but that by the general law of pations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy, are free; and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the cause above mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true, that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked, carried into port, and detained under pretence of having enemy goods on board, have, in many instances, introduced, by their special treaties, another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle' much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss; but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controling in special cases, the general principle of the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only, as have so agreed to control it. England has generally determined to adhere to the rigorous principle, having in no instance, as far as I recollect, agreed to the modification of letting the property of the goods follow that of the vessel, except in the single one of her treaty with France. We have adopted this modification in our treaties with France, the United Netherlands, and Prussia, and therefore, as to them, our vessels cover the goods of their enemies, and we lose our goods when in the vessels of their enemies. With England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria, we have no treaties, therefore we have nothing to oppose to their acting according to the general law of nations, that enemy goods are lawful prize, though found in the bottoms of a friend.

Extract