face of the divided counsels of his Cabinet, took his resolution to issue a proclamation of neutrality, and the preparation of the document was intrusted to the Attorney-General, Mr. Randolph, who framed a paper which has had a greater influence in moulding international law than any single document of the last hundred years.1 The paper itself is a simple announcement of the neutral attitude of the United States, and a warning to American citizens to observe it, but its influence is in the significance of the act under the embarrassing circumstances surrounding the government, the strict impartiality of its enforcement, and the resulting legislation of Congress, which became a model for all other nations. The authorship of the proclamation has been attributed to Mr. Jay, then chief justice, but the claim does not appear to be well founded. Mr. Hamilton wrote to Jay, April 9, 1793, stating that a declaration of neutrality was being considered, and asked him, if he thought it prudent, to prepare a draft of a proclamation. Jay complied with the request April 11, but it was not the one that was issued, being much more voluminous. Jefferson wrote to Madison, June 23, that "the drawing of the instrument was left to E. R." (Randolph), who doubtless had the benefit of Jay's draft.2 The proclamation, as indicated, met with strong disapproval from a large party in the United States. Madison expressed his extreme regret at the President's 1 1 Richardson's Messages, 156. 21 Schouler's History U. S. 263; 3 John Jay's Works (Johnston, 1891), 473, 474; 6 Writings of Jefferson, 316. 1 action, and declared: "The proclamation was, in truth, a most unfortunate error. . . . It will be a millstone, which would sink any other character" (than Washington). Jefferson, in his private correspondence, expressed his disgust at the proclamation, which he characterized as an act of pusillanimity; but it is due to him to say that in his official relations he sustained the principle as a correct policy of government, and his state papers on the subject are a clear and forcible statement of the attitude of the administration. 2 The power of the President to issue such a proclamation based upon the principles of international law, without any domestic legislation respecting offenses against neutrality, was seriously questioned, and the next year, in 1794, an act3 was passed defining what were offenses against neutrality and affixing penalties therefor. During the revolt of the Spanish-American colonies so much trouble was occasioned thereby to the United States authorities that the law was carefully revised in 1818,* and it has since practically remained unaltered. This law forbids any person to enlist within the United States, to serve against a country at peace with the United States; to fit out or aid in fitting out vessels; or to set on foot, or prepare the means to set on foot, any military expedition against a friendly nation. It, however, does not prohibit the sale and shipment of arms or warlike supplies, this being recognized as a legitimate commercial enterprise, but such 1 1 Madison's Works (1865), 584. 81 Statutes at Large, 38. articles become subject to confiscation by the belligerents as contraband of war. Canning, the British statesman, gave the following testimony to the action of Washington, in Parliament in 1823: "If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson." Hall, one of the latest English writers on international law, says: "The policy of the United States in 1793 constitutes an epoch in the development of the usages of neutrality. . . . It represented by far the most advanced existing opinions as to what the obligations [of neutrality] were. . . . In the main it is identical with the standard of conduct which is now adopted by the community of nations."1 The intemperate conduct of the French minister, Genet, had a marked influence in bringing about the decided stand of the government in favor of an impar tial neutrality, and in securing for it the support of the country. A more moderate and discreet course on his part would have made it difficult to ignore the treaty of alliance as interpreted by the French republican government. When our government gave notice of the termination of his mission, he turned even upon his friends in America who had favored his cause, and, among others, he charged Jefferson with duplicity, by encouraging his course in private and finally abandoning him officially. He was recalled by his government, and, as meanwhile a new régime had been installed in France, he was denounced by it as a public enemy, 1 Hall's International Law, 3d ed. 594. and our government was asked to surrender him, but it declined. He never returned to his native land; he had married a daughter of George Clinton, then governor of New York and afterwards vice-president of the United States; after dismissal from his post as minister he became a naturalized citizen of this country, and died here in 1834. It is now plain that the neutrality proclamation of the President was a most wise and necessary act one of the most important in the history of the country, as it was the inauguration of a principle of international law and governmental practice which has won for us the respect of the world and contributed very materially to our national prosperity. But it was adopted against the advice of many of the most prominent and able of our public men, and subjected the President to bitter abuse and calumny. It afforded the State Department clerk, Freneau, a fine opportunity. The President, he said, was fast debauching the country. He was seeking a crown. He was passing himself off as an honest man. Jefferson records that in the Cabinet Secretary Knox spoke of one of those libels. In a moment the face of Washington put on an expression which it was seldom given to his friends to see. got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself; ran on much on the personal abuse which had been bestowed on him; and defied any man on earth to produce one single act of his since he had been in the government which was not done on the purest motives; that he had never repented but once the having slipped the moment of resigning his office, "He and that was every moment since; that by G-! he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made Emperor of the world; and yet they were charging him with wanting to be a king."1 Jefferson's position in the Cabinet finally became so inconsistent, and the constant bickerings with his colleagues so embarrassing, that, wearied with the contest, he tendered his resignation in December, 1793, and he was succeeded by Edmund Randolph, whom, as a colleague in the Cabinet, he had so severely criticised. This action on his part was hastened by the known resolution of the President to bring about a better state of relations with Great Britain. These relations had become so complicated with those of both Great Britain and the United States to France that our negotiations with these courts were made in a great degree dependent upon each other. The two countries, at war with each other, were preying upon American commerce, and seeking to force us into an attitude of hostility to the one or the other. The proclamation of neutrality was an indication to France that we could not become her ally, and it left her rulers in an angry mood. On the other hand, the arbitrary and unfriendly conduct of Great Britain had created in this country the most intense bitterness of feeling. The treaty of peace of 1783 had never been complied with by either side in its exact terms, and new and perplexing questions as to commerce had arisen. The British government had not sent a diplomatic representative to the United 1 1 Writings of Jefferson, 491. |