to & from the ports and on the coasts of the belligerent parties, free Vessels making free goods insomuch that all things shall be adjudged free which shall be on board any Vessel belonging to the neutral party, although such things belong to an enemy of the other: and the same freedom shall be extended to persons who shall be on bourd a free Vessel, although they should be enemies to the other party unless they be Soldiers in actual Service of such enemy.

ARTICLE 13. And in the same case of one of the contracting parties being engaged in war with any other power, to prevent all the difficulties & misunderstandings that usually arise respecting the merchandize heretofore called contraband, such as arms ammunition & military stores of every Kind, no such articles carried in the Vessels or by the Subjects or Citizens of one of the parties to the enemies of the other shall be deemed contraband so as to induce confiscation or condemnation & a loss of property to individuals. Nevertheless it shall be lawful to stop such Vessels & articles and to detain them for such length of time as the captors may think necessary to prevent the inconvenience or damage that might ensue from their proceeding, paying however a reasonable compensation for the loss such arrest shall occasion to the proprietors: And it shall further be allowed to use in the Service of the captors the whole or any part of the military stores so detained paying the owners the full value of the same to be ascertained by the current price at the place of its destination. But in the case supposed of a Vessel stopped for articles heretofore deemed contraband, if the master of the Vessel stopped will deliver out the goods supposed to be of contraband nature, he shall be admitted to do it & the Vessel shall not in that case be carried into any port, nor further detained but shall be allowed to proceed on her

voyage.

ARTICLE 23. If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts & settle their affairs, and may depart freely carrying off all their effects, without molestation or hindrance: and all women & children, scholars of every faculty, Cultivators of the earth, artizans, manufacturers, and fishermen unarmed, and inhabitating, unfortified towns, villages or places & in general all others whose occupations are for the common subsistance & benifit of mankind shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, & shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy into whose power by the events of war they may happen to fall: but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price.

42179-34- -12

And all merchant & trading Vessels employed in exchanging the products of different places, & thereby rendering the necessaries. Conveniences & comforts of human life more easy to be obtained & & more general, shall be allowed to pass free & unmolested. And neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any Commission to any private armed Vessels empowering them to take or destroy such trading Vessels or interrupt such commerce.

23

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and Morocco, June 28, 17861

3

If either of the Parties shall be at War with any Nation whatever and take a Prize belonging to that Nation, and there shall be found on board Subjects or Effects belonging to either of the Parties, the Subjects shall be set at Liberty and the Effects returned to the Owners. And if any Goods belonging to any Nation, with whom either of the Parties shall be at War, shall be loaded on Vessels belonging to the other Party, they shall pass free and unmolested without any attempt being made to take or detain them.

24

The Secretary of State (Jefferson) to the Minister in Great Britain (T. Pinckney)2

In one of your Letters of March 13 you express your apprehensions that some of the belligerent powers may stop our vessels going with Grain to the ports of their enemies, and ask instructions which may meet the question in various points of view, intending, however, in the meantime to contend for the amplest freedom of neutral nations. Your intention in this, is perfectly proper, and coincides with the Ideas of our own Government in the particular case you put, as in general cases. Such a stoppage to an unblockaded port would be so unequivocal an infringement of the neutral rights, that we can not conceive it will be attempted. With respect to our conduct, as a neutral nation, it is marked out in our Treaties with France

1 Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts, vol. 1, pp. 185–219. 2MS., Instructions to United States Ministers, vol. 1, pp. 278–281.

and Holland, two of the belligerent powers: and as the duties of neutrality require an equal conduct to both parties, we should, on that ground, act on the same principles towards Great Britain. We presume that this would be satisfactory to her, because of its equality, and because she too, has sanctioned the same principles in her Treaty with France. Even our 17. Article with France, which must be disagreeable, as from its nature it is unequal, is adopted, exactly by Great Britain in her 40th Article with the same power; and would have laid her, in a like case, under the same unequal obligations against us. We wish then that it could be arranged with Great Britain, that our Treaties with France and Holland, and that of France and Great Britain (which agree in what respects neutral nations) should form the line of conduct for us all, in the present war, in the cases for which they provide. Where they are silent, the general principles of the law of nations, must give the rule. I mean the principles of that law, as they have been liberalized in latter times by the refinement of manners and morals, and evidenced by the Declarations, Stipulations and practice of every civilized nation. In our Treaty with Prussia, indeed, we have gone ahead of other nations in doing away restraints on the commerce of peaceful nations, by declaring that nothing shall be contraband-for, in truth, in the present improved state of the arts, when every country has such ample means of procuring arms within and without itself, the regulations of contraband answer no other end than to draw other nations into the war.1 However, as nations have not given sanction to this improvement, we claim it, at present, with Prussia alone.

I have [etc.]

TH: JEFFERSON

25

The Secretary of State (Jefferson) to the French Minister (Genêt)2

PHILADELPHIA, July 24, 1793.

SIR: Your favor of the, 9th instant covering the information of Silvat Ducamp, Pierre Nouvel, Chouquet de Savarence, Gaston de Nogeré, and G. Beustier; that being on their passage from the French West Indies to the United States, on board merchant vessels of the United States with Slaves and merchandize of their property, these vessels were stopped by british armed vessels and their property taken out as lawful prize—

1On Apr. 22, 1793, President Washington had proclaimed that citizens who should carry to any of the belligerent powers articles "deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations," would not receive the protection of the United States against punishment or forfeiture. (MS., Proclamations, 1791-1861, p. 4.) * MS., Domestic Letters, vol. v, pp. 205–209; printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 1, pp. 166–167.

2

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, carried into port and detained, under pretence of having enemy goods aboard, 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, controlling 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. Accordingly you will be pleased to recollect that in the late case of Holland and Mackie, citizens of the United States who had laden a cargo of flour on board a british vessel which was taken by the French frigate the Ambuscade and brought into this port, when I reclaimed the cargo, it was only on the ground that they were ignorant of the declaration of war when it was shipped. You observed, however, that the 14th article of our treaty had provided that ignorance should not be pleaded beyond two months after the declaration of war, which term had elapsed in this case by some few days, and finding that to be the truth, though their real ignorance of the declaration was equally true, I declined the reclamation, as it never was in my view to reclaim the cargo, nor apparently in yours to offer to restore it, by questioning the rule established in our treaty that enemy bottoms make enemy goods. 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 bottom of a friend. Nor do I see that France can suffer on the whole. For though she loses her goods in our Vessels when found therein by England, Spain, Portugal or Austria, yet she gains our goods when found in the Vessels of England, Spain, Portugal, Austria, the United Netherlands or

Prussia and I believe I may safely affirm that we have more goods afloat in the Vessels of these six nations than France has afloat in our Vessels: and consequently that France is the gainer and we the loser by the principle of our treaty. Indeed we are losers in every direction of that principle, for when it works in our favor, it is to save the goods of our friends, when it works against us, it is to lose our own, and we shall continue to lose while the rule is only partially established. When we shall have established it with all nations we shall be in a condition neither to gain nor lose, but shall be less exposed to vexatious searches at sea. To this condition we are endeavouring to advance, but as it depends on the will of other nations as well as our own, we can only obtain it when they shall be ready to

concur.

I cannot therefore but flatter myself that on revising the cases of Ducamp and others, you will perceive that their losses result from the state of war which has permitted their enemies to take their goods tho' found in our Vessels; and consequently from circumstances over which we have no control—

The rudeness to their persons practiced by their enemies is certainly not favorable to the character of the latter. We feel for it as much as for the extension of it to our own citizens their companions, and find in it a motive the more for requiring measures to be taken which may prevent repetitions of it

I have [etc.]

TH: JEFFERSON

26

The Secretary of State (Jefferson) to the Minister in France (G. Morris)1

PHILADELPHIA, August 16, 1793.

SIR:

5th Another source of complaint with Mr Genet has been that the English take French goods out of American Vessels, which he says is against the law of nations, and ought to be prevented by us. On the contrary we suppose it to have been long an established principle of the law of nations that the goods of a friend are free in an enemy's Vessel, and an enemy's goods lawful prize in the vessel of a friend. The inconvenience of this principle which subjects merchant vessels to be stopped at sea, searched, ransacked, led out of their course, has

1MS., Instructions to United States Ministers, vol. 1, pp. 390-424; printed in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 1, pp. 167–172.