Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

form themselves to every thing that your direct.

wisdom may think proper to "Accept, Sir, &c.,

"GENET."

It seems, that, after all, Genet did not keep his word about dismantling the Carmagnole, and Mr. Randolph, who had succeeded Mr. Jefferson as Secretary of State, had to quicken the diplomatic conscience of Mr. Fauchet, Genet's successor as French minister, into a better observance of international duties, by compelling her disarmament or her prompt departure from American waters. Two sharp letters of his to Mr. Fauchet on this subject, which seem to have had the effect to finally rid the American coast of this truculent privateer, or public ship of war (for we are not clear that Genet's pretence of her being a mail-packet was not-like his promise to dismantle her — a diplomatic falsehood), will be found in 1 Am. State Papers, p. 600, under dates of August 14th and August 20th, 1794.. In the first of these letters, that of the 14th, Mr. Randolph credits the French minister with another case of dismantling, actually executed, which we suppose refers to still another of Genet's cruisers.

We have not space for all the correspondence at this particular stage of the enforcement of President Washington's order of expulsion of these cruisers; but as a specimen of it, we commend to the attention of the Attorney-General the following reply of Mr. Fauchet to Mr. Randolph, under date of August 21, 1794 (1 Am. St. Pap. p. 600); both as showing the urgency with which the brder was insisted on by the United States, and the reasons given by the French minister for not better complying with it. We hope that the French minister's complaint of undue partiality on our part toward the English, in this matter, will not detract from the binding efficacy of the precedent otherwise, at this juncture:

[ocr errors]

'Joseph Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic, &c., to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, &c.

“PHILADELPHIA, August 21, 1794. "SIR,- I told you verbally, and repeat it in writing, that the Cornelia and Columbia had sailed for France. Then my intention was,

that they should not return into the ports of the United States. But they were compelled to take shelter, by the pursuit of the English vessels of war, which at this time block up all your ports. It would be as unjust as unreasonable to impute to them as a crime this return, which was rendered necessary by so unhappy a circumstance,

[ocr errors]

- unless it should be wished that these two vessels should become the prey of the English, and I avow it with profound sorrow, that I have been tempted to entertain this opinion, when I learned, that at New York, orders had been given to the Cornelia immediately to quit that port, although it was known that two English frigates were to have seized. her on her departure. But, Sir, it is too painful to me to harbor a doubt injurious to the public officers of a free nation, to give myself up to this impression; and at the same time, it is too grateful to me to prove with what strictness we fulfil our treaties and our engagements, to omit giving you the following details:

"The first of these two vessels, the Cornelia, which is at New York, is about to go to Boston, to be there completely dismantled. The second, the Columbia, which was in the Delaware, departed thence on the 11th of this month. I am surprised, Sir, that you were not informed of her departure, with as much care as you were of her arrival. Perhaps it was not the duty of the same person to give the two advices, which might have prevented your complaint. But, Sir, when the Federal Government fulfils with so much exactness the new obligations which it has imposed upon itself, in relation to England, is it not just to require from it the same scrupulous observance of sacred treaties, which it has long since contracted with France? Why, then, is an asylum refused to an unfortunate barque, which, in her flight, had thrown into the sea some of her cannon and of her water (?), when it is given, though against the tenor of these very treaties, to the vessels of war which have taken prizes from the citizens of the republic? Without doubt, Sir, this violation, which is so fatal to us, takes place through forgetfulness only. It would be horrible to me to attribute it to any other motive; therefore, I content myself with subjoining here an extract of the 17th article, in order to recall it to your remembrance. "Art. 17th. And on the contrary, no asylum or retreat shall be given in their ports or harbors to those who shall have taken prizes from the subjects of his Majesty or the said States; and if they are compelled to enter them by tempest or the danger of the seas, they shall be obliged to depart as soon as possible.'

"Neither tempest nor the danger of the seas have compelled the

the English vessels of war to enter your ports; notwithstanding they have been there supplied; notwithstanding they remain there to interrupt your commerce and our supplies; and notwithstanding we are your nearest allies. "Accept, Sir, &c.,

"JH. FAUCHET."

We commend also to Sir Roundell Palmer's notice, the following letter from Genet to Jefferson, of the date of July 8, 1793, showing how Le Vainqueur de la Bastille, another of Genet's squadron, came to grief, with one of her prizes, at an early day of Mr. Genet's experiment on American forbearance. It will be noticed in this case, that the commander of the French "Georgia" had the grace to send back his Amercan register, before entering upon his career of privateering. But even this pretence toward decency (which it seems did not suit the impertinent Genet), did not exempt him and his vessel from a taste of the law. (1 Am. State Papers, p. 163.)

The Minister of the French Republic to Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State.

"PHILADELPHIA, July 8, 1793. "SIR, The French armed vessel Le Vainqueur de la Bastille, of American construction, and heretofore bearing the name of Hector, has sailed from Charleston, furnished with a French commission and her old American register, which the commander Hervieux, sent to the Custom House, after having cleared the bar of that port. This conduct, condemnable only for its timidity, has led the Custom House of Charleston to require the Government of South Carolina to cause him to be arrested; and in consequence, Le Vainqueur de la Bastille has been seized at Wilmington, together with a prize which she took in there. The laws of the United States inflict no punishment in the present case, only where there has been an intention of avoiding the duties imposed by the United States; and as it (is) proved by the war-commission, and by the instructions in Captain Hervieux's possession, that he went out of the port of Charleston only to resist, as much as possible, the unjust attacks of our enemies a duty which all the treaties authorize him to fulfil, and which no law of the United States, and consequently no order of the Executive of these States, can forbid him to fulfil — I request you, Sir, to desire of the Federal Government the liberation of Captain Hervieux and of his crew of the Le

[ocr errors]

Vainqueur de la Bastille, and of her prize, now detained in the port of Wilmington, North Carolina.

"GENET."

We are unable to trace the history of this case to its termination. We suppose that, as was usual in such cases, the prize was retained by the Federal Government and turned over to its original owners, and the illegally-equipped cruiser, after undergoing a reduction of her armament, allowed to go to sea again on a promise of never repeating her offence; a promise which, perhaps, she in some sense kept, by only arming anew in some French, instead of an American port, and then returning to her old business of privateering.

But taking the case as one of actual seizure by the American Government in the first instance, though followed by a subsequent liberation on some terms or other, can Sir Roundell Palmer doubt, after reading it, that Washington's Government put a black mark against the Georgias of that day, which was noticed and acted upon when the offenders sought a second time the hospitality of our harbors? And if he cannot draw a distinction between a privateer and a public ship (as Judge Story and the United States Supreme Court could not), had he not better look further into American history, before repeating his assertion that he cannot find that the United States "ever adopted the practice of inquiring into the previous history of public ships of war, which labored under the suspicion or allegation of having been fitted out in violation of their neutrality," and, "that we are not therefore warranted, upon the authority of the United States, in excluding this vessel [the Georgia] from our ports?"

II.

THE CASE OF THE CASSIUS.

BUT in the cases of The Cassius and The Santissima Trinidad, the Attorney-General feels confident that the Americans gave proof of an established practice of theirs, to let ships of war go free of molestation, however illegal might be their antecedents in regard to a violation of neutrality. After quoting the dictum of Judge Story's in The Santissima Trinidad, with which we stopped short in our former citation from his speech, and making some comments on it, he goes on to say: "The Santissima Trinidad and the Cassius were both received into the ports of the United States, held not to be amenable to courts of law, and never ordered by the Government to leave any port."

We confess that when we read this statement of the Attorney-General's, we could hardly help suspecting that the London Times had made some mistake in reporting his remarks, particularly so far as concerned the Cassius, and that the reporter had mixed up the two cases referred to, The Cassius and The Santissima Trinidad, in a way which Sir Roundell Palmer had never intended. But on reflection, considering how similar the conduct of the argument was to the turn played upon public ships, which we have before alluded to, and remembering the elaborate completeness of the legal citations and many of the legal deductions, we inclined to the belief that it was a genuine report. Accepting it as such, we would venture now to call Sir Roundell's attention, briefly to the legal and diplomatic history of the Cassius, and to inquire of him respectfully, in conclusion, if he has not too hastily adopted the opinion of some junior as to its bearing.

Here is a brief summary of the early history of this vessel,

« EdellinenJatka »