nothing more would seem necessary than to observe that it is so. Reason
and usage have established that when two nations go to 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, that is to say, 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 exist,
perhaps, a nation in our common hemisphere, which has not made a
particular enumeration of them in some or all of their treaties, under
the name of contraband. It suffices for the present occasion, to say,
that corn, flour, and meal are not of the class of contraband, and
consequently remain articles of free commerce. A culture which, like
that of the soil, gives employment to such a proportion of mankind,
could never be suspended by the whole earth, or interrupted for them,
whenever any two nations should think proper to go to war.
The state of war then existing between Great Britain and France,
furnishes no legitimate right either to interrupt the agriculture of
the United States, or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all
nations; and consequently, the assumption of it will be as lawful
hereafter as now, in peace as in war. No ground, acknowledged by the
common reason of mankind, authorizes this act now, and unacknowledged
ground may be taken at any time, and at all times. We see then a
practice begun, to which no time, no circumstances prescribe any
limits, and which strikes at the root of our agriculture, that branch
of industry which gives food, clothing, and comfort to the great mass of
the inhabitants of these States. If any nation whatever has a right to
shut up to our produce all the ports of the earth except her own and
those of her friends, she may shut up these also, and so confine us
within our own limits. No nation can subscribe to such pretensions; no
nation can agree, at the mere will or interest of another, to have its
peaceable industry suspended, and its citizens reduced to idleness and
Want. The loss of our produce destined for foreign markets, or that loss
which would result from an arbitrary restraint of our markets, is a tax
too serious for us to acquiesce in. It is not enough for a nation
to say, we and our friends will buy your produce. We have a right to
answer, that it suits us better to sell to their enemies as well as
their friends. Our ships do not go to France to return empty. They go to
exchange the surplus of one produce which we can spare, for surplusses
of other kinds which they can spare and we want; which they can furnish
on better terms, and more to our mind, than Great Britain or her
friends. We have a right to judge for ourselves what market best suits
us, and they have none to forbid to us the enjoyment of the necessaries
and comforts which we may obtain from any other independent country.
This act, too, tends directly to draw us from that state of peace
in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of
neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party,
which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit
corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound
to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which
might lead to war with France; and between restraining it ourselves, and
permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully, is no difference.
She would consider this as a mere pretext, of which she would not be the
dupe; and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it?
Thus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthorized act of Great
Britain into a war with which we meddle not, and which we wish to avoid,
if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable us to avoid
it. In the case where we found ourselves obliged by treaty to withhold
from the enemies of France the right of arming in our ports, we thought
ourselves in justice bound to withhold the same right from France also,
and we did it. Were we to withhold from her supplies of provisions, we
should in like manner be bound to withhold them from her enemies also;
and thus shut to ourselves all the ports of Europe where corn is in
demand, or make ourselves parties in the war. This is a dilemma which
Great Britain has no right to force upon us, and for which no pretext
can be found in any part of our conduct. She may indeed feel the desire
of starving an enemy nation: but she can have no right of doing it at
our loss, nor of making us the instruments of it.
The President therefore desires, that you will immediately enter into
explanations on this subject with the British government. Lay before
them in friendly and temperate terms all the demonstrations of the
injury done us by this act, and endeavor to obtain a revocation of it,
and full indemnification, to any citizens of these States who may have
suffered by it in the mean time. Accompany your representations by every
assurance of our earnest desire to live on terms of the best friendship
and harmony with them, and to found our expectations of justice on their
part, on a strict observance of it on ours.
It is with concern, however, I am obliged to observe, that so marked has
been the inattention of the British court to every application which
has been made to them on any subject, by this government (not a single
answer I believe having ever been given to one of them, except in
the act of exchanging a minister), that it may become unavoidable, in
certain cases, where an answer of some sort is necessary, to consider
their silence as an answer. Perhaps this is their intention. Still,
however, desirous of furnishing no color of offence, we do not wish you
to name to them any term for giving an answer. Urge one as much as you
can without commitment, and on the first day of December be so good as
to give us information of the state in which this matter is, that it may
be received during the session of Congress.
The second article of the same instruction allows the armed vessels
of Great Britain to seize for condemnation all vessels, on their first
attempt to enter a blockaded port, except those of Denmark and Sweden,
which are to be prevented only, but not seized, on their first attempt.
Of the nations inhabiting the shores of the Atlantic ocean, and
practising its navigation, Denmark, Sweden, and the United States alone
are neutral. To declare then all neutral vessels (for as to the vessels
of the belligerent powers no order was necessary) to be legal prize,
which shall attempt to enter a blockaded port, except those of Denmark
and Sweden, is exactly to declare that the vessels of the United States
shall be lawful prize, and those of Denmark and Sweden shall not. It
is of little consequence that the article has avoided naming the United
States, since it has used a description applicable to them, and to them
alone, while it exempts the others from its operation by name. You will
be pleased to ask an explanation of this distinction: and you will be
able to say, in discussing its justice, that in every circumstance, we
treat Great Britain on the footing of the most favored nation where our
treaties do not preclude us, and that even these are just as favorable
to her, as hers are to us. Possibly she may be bound by treaty to admit
this exception in favor of Denmark and Sweden. But she cannot be bound
by treaty to withhold it from us. And if it be withheld merely because
not established with us by treaty, what might not we, on the same
ground, have withheld from Great Britain during the short course of the
present war, as well as the peace which preceded it?
Whether these explanations with the British government shall be verbal
or in writing, is left to yourself. Verbal communications are very
insecure; for it is only to deny them or to change their terms, in order
to do away their effect at any time. Those in writing have as many and
obvious advantages, and ought to be preferred, unless there be obstacles
of which we are not apprized. I have the honor to be, with great and
sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXVIII.--TO MR. HAMMOND, September 9, 1793
TO MR. HAMMOND.
Philadelphia, September 9, 1793.
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your two memorials of the
4th and 6th instant, which have been duly laid before the President of
the United States.
You cannot be uninformed of the circumstances which have occasioned
the French squadron now in New York to seek asylum in the ports of
the United States. Driven from those where they were on duty, by the
superiority of the adverse party in the civil war which has so unhappily
afflicted the colonies of France, filled with the wretched fugitives
from the same scenes of distress and desolation, without water or
provisions for the shortest voyage, their vessels scarcely in a
condition to keep the sea at all, they were forced to seek the nearest
ports in which they could be received and supplied with necessaries.
That they have ever been out again to cruise, is a fact we have never
learned, and which we believe to be impossible, from the information
received of their wants and other impediments to active service. This
case has been noted specially, to show that no inconvenience can have
been produced to the trade of the other belligerent powers, by the
presence of this fleet in our harbors. I shall now proceed to more
general ground.
France, England, and all other nations have a right to cruise on our
coasts; a right not derived from our permission, but from the law of
nature. To render this more advantageous, France has secured to herself,
by a treaty with us, (as she has done also by a treaty with Great
Britain, in the event of a war with us or any other nation) two special
rights. 1. Admission for her prizes and privateers into our ports.
This, by the seventeenth and twenty-second articles, is secured to her
exclusively of her enemies, as is done for her in the like case by
Great Britain, were her present war with us instead of Great Britain.
2. Admission for her public vessels of war into our ports, in cases
of stress of weather, pirates, enemies, or other urgent necessity, to
refresh, victual, repair, &c. This is not exclusive. As then we are
bound by treaty to receive the public armed vessels of France, and
are not bound to exclude those of her enemies, the executive has never
denied the same right of asylum in our ports to the public armed vessels
of your nation. They, as well as the French, are free to come into them
in all cases of weather, piracies, enemies, or other urgent necessity,
and to refresh, victual, repair, &c. And so many are these urgent
necessities, to vessels far from their own ports, that we have thought
inquiries into the nature as well as the degree of the necessities,
which drive them hither, as endless as they would be fruitless, and
therefore have not made them. And the rather, because there is a third
right, secured to neither by treaty, but due to both on the principles
of hospitality between friendly nations, that of coming into our ports,
not under the pressure of urgent necessity, but whenever their comfort
or convenience induces them. On this ground, also, the two nations are
on a footing.
As it has never been conceived that either would detain their ships of
war in our ports when they were in a condition for action, we have never
conceived it necessary to prescribe any limits to the time of their
stay. Nor can it be viewed as an injury to either party, to let their
enemies lie still in our ports from year’s end to year’s end, if they
choose it. Thus, then, the public ships of war of both nations enjoy
a perfect equality in our ports; first, in cases of urgent necessity;
secondly, in cases of comfort or convenience; and thirdly, in the time
they choose to continue; and all a friendly power can ask from another
is, to extend to her the same indulgences which she extends to other
friendly powers. And though the admission of the prizes and privateers
of France is exclusive, yet it is the effect of treaty made long
ago, for valuable considerations, not with a view to the present
circumstances, nor against any nation in particular, but all in general,
and may, therefore, be faithfully observed without offence to any; and
we mean faithfully to observe it. The same exclusive article has been
stipulated, as was before observed, by Great Britain in her treaty with
France, and indeed is to be found in the treaties between most nations.
With respect to the usurpation of admiralty jurisdiction by the Consuls
of France, within these States, the honor and rights of the States
themselves were sufficient motives for the executive to take measures to
prevent its continuance, as soon as they were apprized of it. They
have been led by particular considerations to await the effect of these
measures, believing they would be sufficient; but finding at length they
were not, such others have been lately taken as can no longer fail to
suppress this irregularity completely.
The President is duly sensible of the character of the act of opposition
made to the serving of legal process on the brig William Tell, and he
presumes the representations made on that subject to the Minister of
France, will have the effect of opening a free access to the officer
of justice, when he shall again present himself with the precept of his
court.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient and
most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXIX.--TO MR. GENET, September 9, 1793
TO MR. GENET.
Philadelphia, September 9, 1793.
Sir,
In my letter of June the 25th, on the subject of the ship William, and
generally of vessels suggested to be taken within the limits of the
protection of the United States by the armed vessels of your nation,
I undertook to assure you it would be more agreeable to the President,
that such vessels should be detained under the orders of yourself or the
Consul of France, than by a military guard, until the government of the
United States should be able to inquire into and decide on the fact. In
two separate letters of the 29th of the same month, I had the honor to
inform you of the claims lodged with the executive for the same ship
William and the brig Fanny, to enclose you the evidence on which they
were founded, and to desire that if you found it just, you would order
the vessels to be delivered to the owners; or if overweighed in your
judgment by any contradictory evidence which you might have or acquire,
you would do me the favor to communicate that evidence: and that the
Consuls of France might retain the vessels in their custody, in the
mean time, until the executive of the United States should consider and
decide finally on the subject.
When that mode of proceeding was consented to for your satisfaction, it
was by no means imagined it would have occasioned such delays of
justice to the individuals interested. The President is still without
information, either that the vessels are restored, or that you have any
evidence to offer as to the place of capture. I am, therefore, Sir, to
repeat the request of early information on this subject, in order
that if any injury has been done those interested, it maybe no longer
aggravated by delay.
The intention of the letter of June the 25th having been, to permit such
vessels to remain in the custody of the Consuls, instead of that of a
military guard (which in the case of the ship William appeared to have
been disagreeable to you), the indulgence was of course to be understood
as going only to cases which the executive might take, or keep
possession of, with a military guard, and not to interfere with the
authority of the courts of justice in any case wherein they should
undertake to act. My letter of June the 29th, accordingly, in the same
case of the ship William, informed you that no power in this country
could take a vessel out of the custody of the courts, and that it was
only because they decided not to take cognizance of that case, that it
resulted to the executive to interfere in it. Consequently, this alone
put it in their power to leave the vessel in the hands of the Consul.
The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in
judiciary matters; are supreme in these, and liable neither to control
nor opposition from any other branch of the government. We learn,
however, from the enclosed paper, that the Consul of New York, in the
first instance, and yourself in a subsequent one, forbid an officer of
justice to serve the process with which he was charged from his court,
on the British brig William Tell, taken by a French armed vessel within
a mile of our shores, as has been deposed on oath, and brought into New
York, and that you had even given orders to the French squadron there,
to protect the vessel against any person who should attempt to take
her from their custody. If this opposition were founded, as is there
suggested, on the indulgence of the letters before cited, it was
extending that to a case not within their purview; and even had it been
precisely the case to which they were to be applied, is it possible to
imagine you might assert it within the body of the country by force of
arms?
I forbear to make the observations which such a measure must suggest,
and cannot but believe that a moment’s reflection will evince to you
the depth of the error committed in this opposition to an officer of
justice, and in the means proposed to be resorted to in support of it.
I am therefore charged to declare to you, expressly, that the President
expects and requires that the officer of justice be not obstructed in
freely and peaceably serving the process of his court, and that in the
mean time, the vessel and her cargo be not suffered to depart till the
judiciary, if it will undertake it, or himself if not, shall decide
whether the seizure has been made within the limits of our protection.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient and
most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXX.--TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, September 11, 1793
TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS.
Philadelphia, September 11, 1793.
Dear Sir,
I have to acknowledge yours of May the 19th and 29th, and July 20th;
being Nos. 72, 73, and 76. It is long since I wrote to you, because I
know you must be where you could not receive my letters: and perhaps it
may be some time before I write to you again, on account of a contagious
and mortal fever which has arisen here, and is driving us all away. It
is called a yellow fever, but is like nothing known or read of by the
physicians. The week before last the deaths were about forty; the last
week about eighty; and this week, I think they will be two hundred; and
it goes on spreading. All persons who can find asylum elsewhere, are
flying from the city: this will doubtless extend it to other towns, and
spread it through the country, unless an early winter should stop it.
Colonel Hamilton is ill of it, but is on the recovery.
The Indians have refused to meet our commissioners unless they would
agree to the Ohio as our boundary, by way of preliminary article. This
being impossible, because of the army locations and sales to individuals
beyond the Ohio, the war is to go on, and we may soon expect to hear of
General Wayne’s being in motion.
The President set out yesterday for Mount Vernon, according to
an arrangement of some time ago. General Knox is setting out for
Massachusetts, and I am thinking to go to Virginia in some days. When
and where we shall re-assemble, will depend on the course of this
malady.
I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem and respect, Dear
Sir, your affectionate friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXXI.--TO MR. GENET, October 3, 1793
TO MR. GENET.
Monticello, October 3, 1793.
Sir,
In a former letter which I had the honor of writing you, I mentioned
that information had been received that M. Duplaine, Vice-Consul of
France, at Boston, had been charged with an opposition to the laws of
the land, of such a character, as, if true, would render it the duty
of the President immediately to revoke the Exequatur, whereby he is
permitted to exercise the functions of Vice-Consul in these United
States. The fact has been since inquired into, and I now enclose you
copies of the evidence establishing it; whereby you will perceive how
inconsistent with peace and order it would be, to permit, any longer,
the exercise of functions in these United States by a person capable
of mistaking their legitimate extent so far, as to oppose, by force of
arms, the course of the laws within the body of the country. The
wisdom and justice of the government of France, and their sense of the
necessity in every government, of preserving the course of the laws
free and unobstructed, render us confident that they will approve this
necessary arrestation of the proceedings of one of their agents; as we
would certainly do in the like case, were any Consul or Vice-Consul
of ours to oppose with an armed force, the course of their laws within
their own limits. Still, however, indispensable as this act has been,
it is with the most lively concern, the President has seen that the evil
could not be arrested otherwise than by an appeal to the authority of
the country.
I have the honor to be, with great esteem and respect, your most
obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson,
LETTER CLXXII.--TO MR. GENET, November 8,1793
TO MR. GENET.
Germantown, November 8,1793.
Sir,
I have now to acknowledge and answer your letter of September the
13th, wherein you desire that we may define the extent of the line of
territorial protection on the coasts of the United States, observing
that governments and jurisconsults have different views on this subject.
It is certain, that heretofore, they have been much divided in opinion,
as to the distance from their sea-coast to which they might reasonably
claim a right of prohibiting the commitment of hostilities. The greatest
distance to which any respectable assent among nations has been at any
time given, has been the extent of the human sight, estimated at upwards
of twenty miles; and the smallest distance, I believe, claimed by any
nation whatever, is the utmost range of a cannon ball, usually stated at
one sea league. Some intermediate distances have also been insisted
on, and that of three sea leagues has some authority in its favor.
The character of our coast, remarkable in considerable parts of it for
admitting no vessels of size to pass the shores, would entitle us
in reason to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation
whatever. Not proposing, however, at this time, and without a
respectful and friendly communication with the powers interested in this
navigation, to fix on the distance to which we may ultimately insist
on the right of protection, the President gives instructions to the
officers acting under his authority, to consider those heretofore given
them as restrained, for the present, to the distance of one sea league,
or three geographical miles, from the sea-shore. This distance can admit
of no opposition, as it is recognised by treaties between some of the
powers with whom we are connected in commerce and navigation, and is as
little or less than is claimed by any of them on their own coasts.
Future occasions will be taken to enter into explanations with them,
as to the ulterior extent to which we may reasonably carry our
jurisdiction. For that of the rivers and bays of the United States, the
laws of the several States are understood to have made provision, and
they are moreover, as being land-locked, within the body of the United
States.
Examining by this rule the case of the British brig Fanny, taken on the
8th of May last, it appears from the evidence that the capture was made
four or five miles from the land; and consequently, without the line
provisionally adopted by the President, as before mentioned.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect and esteem, Sir, your
most obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXXIII.--TO MR. GENET, November 22, 1793
TO MR. GENET.
Germantown, November 22, 1793.
Sir,