jealousy and distrust. In addition to which it was suspected that we were about to abandon them for a connection with England, and for which purpose principally it was believed that Mr. Jay had been sent there." Monroe's and Jay's services commenced nearly simultaneously. Monroe's commission was dated the 28th of May, and Jay's the 19th of April, 1794. Jay's Treaty was proclaimed the 29th of February, 1796. Monroe was not recalled until the 22d of the following August, but the angry correspondence which preceded his recall may be said to have been caused by a radical difference of opinion respecting his colleague's mission to London. Whatever may have been the feeling toward Monroe's predecessor, he himself was well received. The Committee of Public Safety welcomed him "with the most distinguished marks of affection," and offered him a house, which offer he declined. He remained in relations of personal good-will with the different Governments of France, and did not fail to urge in his correspondence with the Secretary of State the policy of settling the differences with Great Britain by an alliance with France: nor did he conceal those opinions from the Government to which he was accredited. While the relations between Great Britain and the United States were balancing themselves in London on the issue of Jay's Treaty, those between the United States and France were held in like suspense in Paris. Monroe endeavored to obtain from Jay a knowledge of the negotiations and a copy of the Treaty. Jay refused to communicate information, except in confidence, and Monroe declined to receive it unless he should be at liberty to communicate it to the French Government." A copy was, however, officially communicated to the French Minister at Washington. When the fate of that Treaty was ensured, the directory at first resolved (and so informed Monroe) to consider the alliance at an end, but they gave no formal notice to that effect. In 11 F. R. F., 694. 2Ib., 741. 3Ib., 658-741. 4Ib., 675. 5See, among others, his letters in 1 F. R. F. of Nov. 20, 1794, 685; Dec 2. 1794, 687; Jan. 13, 1795, 691; Feb. 12, 1795, 694; and March 17, 1795, 700. Ib., 700. 7Ib., 517, 691, 700. 8Ib., 594. 9Ib., 730. lieu of that they lodged with him, on the 11th of March, 1796, a summary exposition of the complaints of the French Government against the Government of the United States, namely, (1.) That the United States Courts took jurisdiction over French Prizes, in violation of the Treaty of 1778. (2.) That British men-of-war were admitted into American ports in violation of the same article. (3.) That the United States had failed to empower any one to enforce consular judgments, which was alleged to be a violation of the Convention of 1788. (4.) That the Captain of the "Cassius" had been arrested in Philadelphia for an offense committed on the high seas. (5.) That an outrage had been committed on the effects of the French Minister within the waters of the United States. (6.) That by Jay's Treaty the number of articles contraband of war, which a neutral might not carry, had been increased above the list specified in the treaties with France, which was a favor to England. (7.) That provisions had been recognized in Jay's Treaty as an article contraband of war.1 On the 2d of July, 1796, the directory decreed that all neutral or allied powers should, without delay, be notified that the flag of the French Republic would treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, or to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them.2 Garden says that a second decree relating to the same object was made on the 16th of the same month, and that neither decree has been printed. The translation of the first one is printed among the American documents cited above, as also the translation of a note transmitting it to Monroe. Garden refers to Rondonneau, Répertoire général de la Législation française, Vol. II, p. 311, for the text of the second.* Pickering, the successor of Randolph, noticed the complaints of the French Government in elaborate instructions to Pinckney, Monroe's successor, on the 16th of January, 1797. His replies were in substance, (1.) That the courts had taken jurisdiction over no prizes, except when they were alleged to have been made in violation of the obligations of the United States as a neutral, and that the cases in which interference had taken place were few in number and insignifi 11 F. R. F., 732-3. 2Ib., 577. 3Ib., 739. 46 Garden, Traités de Paix, 112, note. 51 F. R. F., 559. cant. (2.) That it was no violation of the Treaty with France to admit British ships of war into American ports, provided British privateers and prizes were excluded. (3.) That there was no Treaty obligation upon officers of the United States to enforce French consular judgments, and that the clause referred to was exceptional and ought not to be enlarged by construction. (4.) The facts respecting the "Cassius" were stated in order to show that no offense had been committed. (5.) That the executive had taken as efficacious measures as it could to obtain satisfaction for the outrage upon Fauchet. (6.) That the United States would gladly have put the definition of contraband on the same basis in its Treaties with both countries; but that Great Britain would not consent, and an independent arrangement had been made which did not affect the other Treaty arrangement made with France. (7.) That the stipulation as to provisions, without admitting the principle that provisions were contraband, would tend to promote adventures in that article to France. * * A correspondence respecting the same subject had also taken place at Washington, in which the same complaints of the directory were repeated and other complaints were urged. To the latter Pickering responded thus, in the same note in which he noticed the complaints which had been made in Paris: (1.) Charge.-That the negotiation at London had been "enveloped from its origin in the shadow of mystery, and covered with the veil of dissimulation." Reply.-"To whom was our Government bound to unveil it? To France or to her Minister? * Did we stipulate to submit the exercise of our sovereignty to the direction of the Government of France? Let the Treaty itself furnish an answer." (2.) Charge.-That the Government of the United States had made an insidious proclamation of neutrality. Reply. That "this proclamation received the pointed approbation of Congress," and "of the great body of the citizens of the United States." (3.) Charge.-That the United States "suffered England, by insulting its neutrality, to interrupt its commerce with France." Reply. That a satisfaction had been demanded and obtained in a peaceable manner-by Treaty, and not by war. (4.) Charge.-That they "allowed the French colonies to be declared in a state of blockade." Reply. That the United States, as a neutral, could only ques 11 F. R. F., 579. 2Ib., 581. 3Ib., 561. tion the sufficiency of a blockade, and that they would do so when facts should warrant it. (5.) Charge.-That the United States eluded advances for renewing the Treaties of commerce. Reply. That Genet was the first French Minister who had been empowered to treat on those subjects, and the reasons for not treating with him were well known; that his successor, Fauchet, had not been so empowered, and that the United States had always been ready to negotiate with Adet, and all obstacles had come from him since the ratification of Jay's Treaty. (6.) Charge. That the United States were guilty of ingratitude towards France. Reply.-That the United States, appreciating their obligations to France, had done something themselves towards the achievement of their independence; that, "of all the loans received from France in the American war, amounting nearly to 53,000,000 livres, the United States under their late Government had been enabled to pay but 2,500,000 livres; that the present Government, after paying up the arrearages and installments mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, had been continually anticipating the subsequent installments until, in the year 1795, the whole of our debt to France was discharged by the payment of 11,500,000 livres, no part of which would have become duet until September 2, 1796, and then only 1,500,000, the residue at subsequent periods, the last not until 1802." (7.) Charge.-That English vessels were impressing American seamen. Reply. That this concerned the Government of the United States only; and that as an independent nation they are not obliged to account to any other power respecting the measures which they judge proper to take in order to protect their own citizens. Other less important points were discussed, as will be seen by referring to the correspondence. The course of the French was giving rise to many claims-for spoliations and maltreatment of vessels at sea, for losses by the embargo at Bordeaux, for the non-payment of drafts drawn by the colonial administrations, for the seizure of cargoes of vessels, for non-performance of contracts by government agents, for condemnation of vessels and their cargoes in violation of the provisions of the Treaties. of 1778, and for captures under the decree of May 9, 1793. Skipwith, the Consul-General of the United States in France, was directed to examine into and report upon these claims; his report was made on the 20th November, 1795.' 11 F. R. F., 753-758. On the 9th of September, 1796, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was sent out to replace Monroe, with a letter from the Secretary of State, saying: "The claims of the American merchants on the French Republic are of great extent, and they are waiting the issue of them, through the public agents, with much impatience. Mr. Pinckney is particularly charged to look into this business, in which the serious interests, and, in some cases, nearly the whole fortunes of our citizens are involved." But the directory, early in October, 1793, recalled their Minister from the United States. Before Pinckney could arrive in France, they, "in order to strike a mortal blow, at the same moment, to British industry and the profitable trade of Americans in France, promulgated the famous law of the 10th Brumaire, year 5 (31st October, 1796), whereby the importation of manufactured articles, whether of English make or of English commerce, was prohibited both by land and sea throughout the French Republic"; and, on his arrival, they informed Monroe that the directory would no longer recognize or receive a Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after a reparation of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect." Pinckney was thereupon ordered to quit France under circumstances of great indignity, and Monroe took his formal leave on the 30th December, 1796. In reply to his speech at that time, the president of the directory said: "By presenting, this day, to the Executive Directory your letters of recall, you offer a very strange spectacle to Europe. France, rich in her freedom, surrounded by the train of her victories, and strong in the esteem of her allies, will not stoop to calculate the consequences of the condescension of the American Government to the wishes of its ancient tyrants. The French Republic expects, however, that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous friendship of the French people with the crafty caresses of perfidious men, who meditate to bring them again under their former yoke. Assure the good people of America, Mr. Minister, that, like them, we adore 11 F. R. F., 742. 2Ib., 745. 36 Garden. Traités de Paix, 117. 41 F. R. F., 746. 52 Ib., 710. |