I am unacquainted with the fact, but I am assured that it is the intention of the National Convention not to permit any injustice, and to repair such as shall have been committed.

I conclude my reflections, not doubting, sir, but that they will be received with the same interest as would be excited in France by the observations of our allies, to whom I always with new pleasure renew the assurance of the most perfect fraternity and eternal friendship on the part of the people of France.

by

JH. FAUCHET. Faithfully translated from the original, 29th March, 1794, GEO. TAYLOR, JR.

Philadelphia, April 3, 1794. SIR,-You do me no more than justice, in believing, that I receive with pleasure the explanations, which your letter of the 29th ultimo contains. They inspire me with full confidence, that my representations on each complaint will be treated with candour; and assure me of redress, as far as truth will support my demands.

On my part, permit me here to repeat, what I have expressed in my letter on the vexations of our commerce, that my inquiry into the facts did not go beyond the allegations of the parties interested. My view was to present a summary only of the subjects of the remonstrances, lodged in my office; reserving the proofs for our interviews on the adjustment of the claims of retribution; delivering no opinion how far the charges were supported by evidence; and above all, not imputing to the French Republick the unauthorized misconduct of its ships of war. I have the honour, sir, to be, &c.

EDM: RANDOLPH. The Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick. GEO. TAYLOR, JR.

True copy,

MESSAGE

OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONGRESS. APRIL 15, 1794.

I LAY before you a letter from the minister plenipotentiary of his Britannick majesty to the Secretary of State; a letter from the Secretary of the territory South of the river Ohio, enclosing an ordinance and proclamation of the governour there. of; the translation of so much of a petition of the inhabitants of Post Vincennes, addressed to the President, as relates to Congress; and certain despatches lately received from our commissioners at Madrid.-These despatches from Madrid

being a part of a business which has been hitherto deemed confidential, they are forwarded under that view.

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

[The documents regarding our foreign relations, it is believed, were not published.]

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONGRESS, MAY 12, 1794.

As the letter, which I forwarded to Congress on the 15th day of April last, from the minister plenipotentiary of his Britannick majesty to the Secretary of State, in answer to a memorial of our minister in London, related to a very interesting subject, I thought it proper not to delay its communication. But since that time, the memorial itself has been received, in a letter from our minister, and a reply has been made to that answer by the Secretary of State.-Copies of them are therefore transmitted. GEORGE WASHINGTON.

London, January 28, 1794. DEAR SIR, Lord Grenville having told me that he would send the answer to my memorial on the grain trade to Mr. Hammond to be by him stated to you, I enclose a copy of that representation that you may have them both before you at the same time. I remain, &c. THOMAS PINCKNEY.

The Secretary of State.

THE undersigned minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America has the honour of representing to lord Grenville, that the President of the United States has received information of the additional instructions to his majesty's ships of war and privateers dated the 8th of June, 1793, and that it is with great concern he finds they authorize measures which must materially injure the United States and abridge the rights to which as a neutral nation they are entitled: He has therefore directed the undersigned to expose to his majesty's government the demonstrations of the injury done to the United States by this act, firmly relying on the justice and friendship of his majesty for its discontinuance. The article of the additional instructions, which is deemed peculiarly injurious to the United States, is that which permits all vessels laden wholly or in part with corn, flour or meal, bound to any port in France, to be stopped and sent into such port as may be most convenient, to be purchased by government, or to be released only on condition of security being given by the master that he will proceed

to dispose of his cargo in the port of some country in amity with his majesty. It is conceived that this article is in opposition to the law of nations, which has for its basis reason and the usage of civilized countries; for reason and usage have established that, when two nations are at war, those who choose to live in peace retain their natural right to pursue their agriculture, manufactures and other ordinary vocations; to carry the produce of their industry for exchange to all nations belligerent or neutral, as usual; to go and come freely without injury or molestation, and in short that the war among others shall be for them as if it did not exist. One restriction on their natural rights has been submitted to by nations at peace, which is that of not furnishing to either party implements merely of war, for the annoyance of the other, nor any thing whatever to a place blockaded by its enemy: What these implements of war are has been so often agreed, and is so well understood as to leave little question about them at this day: there does not perhaps exist a civilized nation in our common hemisphere, which has not made a particular enumeration of them in some of their treaties under the name of contraband; from whence it clearly appears, that corn, flour and meal are not of the class of contraband, and conse. quently remain articles of free commerce. It is the common interest of mankind, that a culture, which like that of the soil furnishes sustenance and employment to so great a proportion of them, should not be interrupted or suspended because two nations are involved in war. It is also the interest of humanity, that those articles, which are destined for the destruction of mankind, should not be classed with those intended for their subsistence. If any nation has a right to shut up to the produce of another all the ports of the earth, except her own and those of her friends, she may shut them up also, whereby the neutral nation would be confined to her own ports: or if from motives of policy she were to abstain from this last exclusion, yet the opposite party would certainly have an equal right to pursue the same measure, whereby the same consequence would ensue. But for a nation to have its peaceable industry suspended and its citizens reduced to idleness and want by the act of another, is a restriction which reason and justice do not authorize. Neither can it be deemed sufficient for the belligerent powers to say, "we and our friends will purchase your produce;" because it is obvious that this effectually destroys the right all people have of judging for themselves what market best suits them, and precludes them from the enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts which might be obtained in return from any other independent country.

It being evident therefore that the state of war existing between Great Britain and France furnishes no legitimate right to either to interrupt the agriculture of the United States, or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all nations, the exercise

of it will be as lawful hereafter as now, in peace as in war; for no ground acknowledged by the common reason of mankind authorizing the act now, unacknowledged ground may be taken at any time; and a practice is hereby begun, to which no time, no circumstances prescribe any limits, and which strikes at the root of the agriculture of the United States, that branch-of industry which gives food, clothing and comfort to the bulk of their inhabitants.

This act too tends directly to draw the United States from that state of peace in which they wish to remain, for it is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by previous treaty) to one party which are not furnished with equal readiness to the other. If the United States permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, they are equally bound to permit it to France: to restrain it would lead to war with France; and between restraining it themselves and acquiescing in the restraint by her enemies is no difference-She might consider this acquiescence as a pretext, and the United States would see themselves plunged by this measure into a war with which they meddle not, and which they wish to avoid, if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable them to avoid it. In the case where they found themselves obliged by treaty to withhold from the enemies of France the right of arming in their ports, they thought themselves in justice bound to withhold the same right from France also, and they did it: were they to withhold supplies of provisions, they would by the same principle of impartial neutrality be bound to withhold them from her enemies also, and thus either shut to themselves all the ports of Europe where corn is in demand, or make themselves parties in the war. This is a dilemma to which the President trusts the justice and friendly disposition of his majesty will not permit him to reduce the United States, especially as he is conscious that they have given no cause for it by any part of their conduct: he therefore doubts not that on this exposition of the injury resulting to the United States, a measure so detrimental to them will be discontinued, and compensation made to such of their citizens as may have suffered thereby.

In thus unfolding to his majesty's government the objections to this measure, the undersigned is particularly instructed to declare that the United States found their expectation of justice from his majesty's government on a strict observance of it on their parts, and to offer the most explicit assurance of their earnest desire to live on terms of the best friendship with this Country. THOMAS PINCKNEY. GEO: TAYLOR, Jun.

True copy,

Philadelphia, April 11, 1794.

SIR, In a letter which I had the honour of addressing to your predecessor on the 12th of September last, I communi

cated to him an additional instruction, given by his majesty's order in council of the 8th of June, 1793, to the commanders of all British armed vessels, and accompanied it by some few observations, explanatory of the principles in which it had originated. But as Mr. Pinckney has recently presented to his majesty's ministers a memorial relative to the instruction in question, I am directed to submit to you, sir, some farther remarks on this subject, in reply to that gentleman's representations.

I have formerly stated, that, at the period of issuing this in. struction, the situation of France was notoriously such as to point out the prevention of its receiving supplies as one of the means of reducing it to reasonable terms of peace, and that this species of commerce being almost entirely prosecuted by the then ruling party of France, it could no longer be regarded as a mercantile speculation of individuals, but as an immediate operation of the very persons who had declared and were carrying on war against Great Britain. Notwithstanding this situ ation and these circumstances, his majesty's government, so far from proceeding to the extent which the law of nations would have warranted, adopted regulations, by which its limits were contracted, and its rigour was qualified: for the instruction only prevented the French from being supplied with corn, omitting all mention of other provisions, and especially of rice, one of the staple agricultural productions of the United States-and even with regard to corn, the regulation, instead of a confiscation of the cargoes, assured to the neutral proprietors a full indemnification for any loss they could possibly sustain.

It is not essential to the present question to enter into an examination of the different definitions, which, as you, sir, well know, have been given of the law of nations, and of the consequent diversity of sentiment that has prevailed, as well with respect to the principles on which it is established, as to the obligations which it prescribes. I shall therefore not hesitate to admit the broad basis which Mr. Pinckney has assigned to it -reason and the usage of civilized countries: but I must premise, that, though the principle of reason be immutable, its dictates are sometimes governed by circumstances, or liable to different interpretations; and that the usage of nations is fluctuating. Hence then, in order to ascertain the real nature of the system which is established on this basis, it is necessary to recur to the result of the experience and wisdom of ages and of na. tions, as it is collected and exposed by those authors who have treated this subject. If it be examined by this criterion, it is manifest, that the right of a belligerent power to stop and even to seize supplies of provisions going to its enemies is strongly inculcated in all the ancient authors, and is recognised by Vattel, whose writings contain a much more modified and limited system in these respects than that which is to be found in the