attempt to bring into any of the ports of the United States." Two days before the receipt of that representation, Mr. Jefferson had already complained to the French Minister of these proceedings, and M. Genet, on his arrival, claimed to justify himself by the existing treaties between France and the United States. Other cases subsequently occurred, in which Mr. Hammond intervened; for an account of which the Tribunal of Arbitration is respectfully referred to Lord Tenterden's memorandum. The subject of Mr. Hammond's complaints and his demand for the restoration of the captured vessels were under consideration until the 5th of June, 1793, when answers were given simultaneously to M. Genet and to Mr. Hammond. The former was told that the United States could not tolerate these acts of war within their territories. The latter was told that effectual measures would be taken to prevent a repetition of the acts complained of; but as to restoring the prizes, it could not be done for two reasons: first, because if commissions to the privateers were valid and the captures were legal, the Executive of the United States had no control over them; and if they were illegal, the owners had a sufficient 1 Vol. IV, page 95. Correspondence between the two Governments in 1793-'94. Correspondence remedy in the national courts; secondly, because the between the two 1793-'94. Governments in acts complained of had been done at a remote port, without any privity of the United States, "impossible to have been known, and therefore impossible to have been prevented by the Government." It is worthy of note that the owners did resort to the courts, and that prizes taken by these privateers were restored by judicial process.2 The Government of General Washington determined, however, as it had been informed of these attempts at violating the sovereignty of the nation, that it was the duty of the United States not only to repress them in future, but to restore prizes that might be captured by vessels thus illegally fitted out, manned, equipped, or commissioned within the waters of the United States; or, if unable to restore them, then to make compensation for them. The reasons for this course are stated in a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated the 5th of September, 1793.3 The United States Government also, on the 4th of August, 1793, issued instructions to collectors of the customs, which were intended to enforce Vol. IV, page 97. 2 Dana's Wheaton, section 439, note 215, page 536. This note, which contains an exhaustive review of the American policy, may be found in Vol. VII, page 11. 3 Vol. IV, page 100. The United States also refer to Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Hammond, of November 14, 1793. 4 Vol. IV, page 97. between the two in 1793-'94. the President's Proclamation of April 22. We Correspondence have the authority of Lord Tenterden for saying Governments that the result of the publication of those instructions was, that the system of privateering was, generally speaking, suppressed.' From this examination, it appears that a well conceived and extended system of violating the neutrality of the United States, when they were weak and the powers confided to their Executive were untried, was put in operation in April by the representative of one of the powerful nations of Europe, and was suppressed before August without legislation; and also that the United States undertook to make compensation for the injuries resulting from violations that had taken place where they had failed to exert all the means in their power to prevent them. It was subsequently agreed between the two Governments that in cases where restitution of the prizes should be impossible, the amount of the losses should be ascertained by a method similar to that provided by the Treaty of Washington, and that a money payment should be made by the United States to Great Britain in lieu of restitution. The examination of these claims extended 1 Vol. IV, page 101. 2 Treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain, at London, November 19, 1794, commonly known as "Jay's Treaty." See United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII, page 116. The Treaty of Nov. 19, 1794. Nov. 19, 1794. The Treaty of over a period of some years, and the amounts of the ascertained losses were eventually paid by the United States to Great Britain. Construction of that Treaty by the pointed under it. In the case of the "Jamaica," before the comcommissioners ap- mission, under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, the capturing vessel was alleged to have been armed in the United States, but the prize, (the Jamaica,) with her cargo, was burned by the captors, and never brought within the jurisdiction of the United States. Upon this bare case, without any allegation of permission or neglect by the Government of the United States as to the arming of the French cruiser, the advocate for the claimants contended that the law of nations obliged the United States to make compensation. The claim was rejected; "the board [one gentleman only dissenting] were of opinion that the case was not within the stipulation of the article under which the commissioners act." A rehearing being granted and counsel heard, Mr. Gore delivered the opinion sustaining the original determination. After reviewing British precedents cited by the counsel for the claimants, as supporting his view of international law, Mr. Gore says: "The counsel for the claimant seemed to suppose that the obligation to compensate arose from the circumstance of the privateer's having been originally armed in the United States; but as there Construction of that Treaty by the pointed under it. is not the smallest evidence to induce a belief that in commissioner apthis or in any other case the Government permitted, or in any degree connived at, such arming, or failed to use all the means in their power to prevent such equipment, there is no ground to support a charge on the fact that the armament originated in their ports." All these steps prior to 1794 were taken by the United States under the general rules of International Law, without the aid of a local statute, in order to perform what Mr. Jefferson called "their duty as a neutral nation to prohibit such acts as would injure one of the warring Powers." In 1794, however, the Congress of the United States, on the application of Great Britain, passed a statute prohibiting such acts, under heavy penalties.3 The general provisions of the United States Act of 1818 (which is still in force) are set forth in note 1, on page 114. This act was passed at the request of the Portuguese Government. The act of 1838 was enacted on the suggestion of Great Britain: In the year 1837 a formidable rebellion against Great Britain broke out in Canada. Symphathizers with the insurgents beginning to 12d Vol. Mms. Opinions, Department of State. * Mr. Jefferson to M. Genet, June 5, 1793. Jefferson's Works, Vol. III, page 572. Mr. Canning's speech, cited ante, page 107. The neutrality laws of the United States enacted at the request of Great Britain. |