ral government tolerate that the rebels of this colony fhould continue to receive from America fuccours against the parent country? It is impoffible that that government fhould be ignorant of the armaments making in its ports. Too much publicity is given to them, not to render it reasonable, and it ought to perceive that it is contrary to every fyftem of peace and good friendship to fuffer longer, in its ports, armaments evidently directed against France.

Without doubt the federal government would not wifh, in order to favour certain private fpeculations, to give new facilities to rebellion and robbery (brigandage); and tolerance of a commerce fo fcandalous would be unworthy of it. Neither your government nor his majefty can be any longer indifferent to it; and as the ferioufnefs of the facts, which occafion this complaint, obliges his majesty to confider as good prize every thing which fhall enter the port of St. Domingo, occupied by the rebels, and every thing coming out, he perfuades himself, that the government of the United States will take, on its part, againft this commerce, at once illicit and contrary to all the principles of the law of nations, all the repreffive and authoritative measures proper to put an end to it. This fyftem of impunity and tolerance* can no longer continue; and his majefty is convinced, that your government will think it due from its frankness promptly to put an end to it.

Receive, fir, the affurances of my high confiderations.

(Signed)

To his Excellency General Armstrong.

Faithfully tranflated.

CH. M. TALLEYRAND.

J. WAGNER, Chief Clerk Department State.

THE

VIOLATION OF NEUTRAL RIGHTS, THE DEPREDATIONS ON THE COLONIAL TRADE, AND IMPRESSMENTS OF AMERICAN SEAMEN.

founded on the principle which is denied. Under thefe circumftances, the fubject prefents itself for the confideration of congress.

On the impreffment of our feamen, our remonftrances have never been intermitted. A hope exifted at one moment, of an arrangement which might have been fubmitted to; but it soon paffed away; and the practice, though relaxed at times in the diftant feas, has been couftantly purfned in thote in our neighbourhood. The grounds on which the reclamations on this fubject have been urged, will appear in an extract from instructions to our minister at London, now communicated. TH: JEFFERSON.

January 17, 1806.

Extract of a letter from the Secretary of State to JAMES MONROE, Efq. dated Department of State, April 12, 1806.

"THE papers herewith inclosed, explain particularly the cafe of the brig Aurora.

"The fum of the cafe is, that whilft Spain was at war with Great Britain, this veffel, owned by a citizen of the United States, brought a cargo of Spanish produce, purchased at the Havana, from that place to Charlefton, where the cargo was landed, except an infignificant portion of it, and the duties paid, or fecured, according to law, in like manner as they are required to be paid, or fecured, on a like cargo, from whatever port, meant for home confumption; that the cargo remained on land about three weeks, when it was refhipped for Barcelona, in old Spain, and the duties drawn back, with a deduction of three and a half per cent, as is permitted to imported articles in all cafes, at any time within one year, under certain regulations, which were purfued in this cafe; that the veffel was taken on her voyage by a British cruifer, and fent for trial to Newfoundland, where the cargo was condemned by the court of vice admiralty; and that the cause was carried thence, by appeal, to Great Britain, where it was apprehended that the fentence below would not be reversed.

The ground of this fentence was, and that of its confirmation, if such be the refult, muft be, that the trade in which the veffel was engaged was unlawful, and this unlawfulnefs must rest, firft, on the general principle affumed by Great Britain, that a trade from a colony to its parent country, being a trade not permitted to other nations in time of peace,cannot be made lawful to them in time of war; fecondly, on the allegation that the continuity of the voyage from the Havana to Barcelona was not broken by landing the cargo in the United States, paying the duties thereon, and thus fulfilling the legal pre-requifites to a home confumption; and, therefore, that the cargo was fubject to condemnation, even under the British regulation of January, 1798, which so far relaxes the general principle as to allow a direct trade between a belligerent colony, and a neutral country carrying on such a trade. With respect to the general principle which difallows to neutral nations, in time of war, a trade not allowed to them in time of peace, it may be obferved,

First, That the principle is of modern date; that it is maintained, as is believed, by no other nation but Great Britain; and that it was affumed by her under the auspices of a maritime afcendency, which rendered fuch a principle fubfervient to her particular intereft. The hiftory of her regulations on this fubject fhews, that they have been conftantly modified under the influence of that confideration. The course of thefe modifications will be feen in an appendix to the fourth volume of Robinson's Admiralty Reports.

Secondly, That the principle is manifeftly contrary to the general interest of commercial nations, as well as to the law of nations fettled by the most approved authorities, which recognizes no restraints on the trade of nations not at war, with nations at war, other than that it fhall be impartial between the

latter, that it shall not extend to certain military articles, nor to the tranfpot tation of perfons in military fervice, nor to places actually blockaded or be Reged.

Thirdly, That the principle is the more contrary to reafon and to right, inafmuch as the admission of neutrals into a colonial trade, shut against them in time of peace, may, and often does, refult from confiderations which open to neutrals direct channels of trade with the parent ftate, fhut to them in times of peace, the legality of which latter relaxation is not known to have been contefted; and inasmuch as a commerce may be, and frequently is, opened in time of war, between a colony and other countries, from confiderations which are not incident to the war, and which would produce the fame effect in a time of peace; fuch, for example, as a failure, or diminution of the ordinary fources of neceffary supplies, or new turns in the courfe of profitable interchanges.

Fourthly, That it is not only contrary to the principles and practice of other nations, but to the practice of Great-Britain herself. It is well known to be her invariable practice in time of war, by relaxations in her navigation laws, to admit neutrals to trade in channels forbidden to them in times of peace; and particularly to open her colonial trade both to neutral veffels and fupplies, to which it is fhut in times of peace; and that one at least of her objects in these relaxations, is to give to her trade an immunity from capture, to which in her own hands it would be fubjected by the war.

Fifthly, The practice which has prevailed in the British dominions, fanc tioned by orders of council and an act of parliament, [39 G. 3. c. 98.] authorizing for British subjects a direct trade with the enemy, still further diminishes the force of her pretenfions for depriving us of the colonial trade. Thus we fee in Robinson's Admiralty Reports paffim, that during the laft war a licenfed commercial intercourfe prevailed between Great-Britain and her enemies, France, Spain and Holland, because it comprehended articles neceffary for her manufactures and agriculture; notwithstanding the effect it had in opening a vent to the furplus productions of the others. In this manner the affumes to fufpend the war itself, as to particular objects of trade beneficial to herself; whilft the denies the right of the other belligerents to fufpend their accustomed commercial restrictions, in favour of neutrals. But the injuftice and inconfiftency of her attempt to press a strict rule on neutrals, is more forcibly dif played by the nature of the trade which is openly carried on between the colonies of Great-Britain and Spain in the Weft-Indies. The mode of it is detailed in the inclofed copy of a letter from , wherein it will be

seen that the American veffels and cargoes, after being condemned in British courts, under pretence of illicit commerce, are fent, on British account, to the enemies of Great-Britain, if not to the very port of the destination interrupted when they were American property. What refpect can be claimed from others to a doctrine not only of so recent an origin, and enforced with so little uniformity,but which is fo confpicuoufly difregarded in practice by the nation itself, which stands alone in contending for it?

Sixthly, It is particularly worthy of attention, that the board of commiffioners jointly conftituted by the British and American governments, under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, by reverfing condemnations of the British courts founded on the British inftructions of November, 1798, condemned the principle, that a trade forbidden to neutrals in time of peace, could not be opened to them in time of war; on which precife principle these instructions were founded. And as the reverfal could be justified by no other authority than the law of nations, by which they were guided, the law of nations, according to that joint tribunal,condemns the principle here combatted. Whether the British commiffioners concurred in these reverfals, does not appear: but whether they did or did not, the decifion was equally binding; and affords a precedent which could not be difrefpected by a like fucceeding tribunal, and ought not to be without great weight with both nations, in like questions recurring between them.

On thefe grounds, the United States may juftly regard the British captures and condemnations of neutral trade with colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, as violations of right; and if reafon, confiftency, or that found policy which cannot be at variance with either, be allowed the weight which they ought to have, the British government will feel fufficient motives to repair the wrongs done in such cases by its cruizers and courts.

But, apart from this general view of the fubject, a refufal to indemnify the fufferers, in the particular cafe of the Aurora, is deftitute of every pretext; becaufe, in the fecond place, the continuity of her voyage was clearly and palpably broken, and the trade converted into a new character.

It has been already noted that the British regulation of 1798, admits a direct trade in time of war, between a belligerent colony and a neutral country carrying on the trade; and admits confequently the legality of the importation by the Aurora, from the Havana to Charleston. Nor has it ever been pretended that a neutral nation has not a right to re-export to any belligerent country whatever foreign productions, not contraband of war, which may have been duly incorporated and naturalized,as a part of the commercial stock of the country re-exporting it.

The queftion then to be decided under the British regulation itself, is, whether in landing the cargo, paying the duties, and thus as effectually qual ifying the articles for the legal confumption of the country, as if they had been its native productions, they were not at the fame time equally qualified with native productions,for exportation to a foreign market. That fuch ought to be the decifion, results irrefiftibly from the following confiderations :

1. From the respect which is due to the internal regulations of every country, where they cannot be charged with a temporizing partiality towards particular belligerent parties, or with fraudulent views towards all of them. The regulations of the United States, on this fubject,must be free from every poffible imputation; being not only fair in their appearance, but just in their principles,and having continued the fame during the periods of war, as they were in thofe of peace. It may be added, that they probably correfpond, in every effential feature relating to re-exportations, with the laws of other commer cial countries, and particularly with thofe of Great-Britain. The annexed outline of them, by the secretary of the treasury, will at once explain their character, and show that, in the cafe of the Aurora, every legal requifite was duly complied with.

2. From the impoffibility of fubftituting any other admiffible criterion, than that of landing the articles, and otherwife qualifying them for the use of the country. If this regular and cuftomary proceeding, be not a barrier againft further inquiries, where, it may be asked, are the inquiries to stop? By what evidence are particular articles to be identified on the high feas, or before a foreign tribunal? If identified, how is it to be afcertained whether they were imported with a view to the market at home, or to a foreign market, or, as ought always to be prefumed, to the one or the other, as it fhould happen to invite? or if to a foreign market, whether to one forbidden or permitted by the British regulations? for it is to be recollected that among the modifications which her policy has given to the general principle afferted by her, a direct trade is permitted to a neutral carrier from a belligerent colony, to her ports, as well as to thofe of his own country. If, again, the landing of the goods and the payment of the duties be not fufficient to break the continuity of the voyage, what, it may be asked, is the degree of internal change or alienation which will have that effect? May not a claim be fet up to trace the articles from hand to hand, from fhip to fhip, in the fame port, and even from one port to another port, as long as they remain in the country? In a word, in departing from the fimple criterion provided by the country itfelf, for its own legitimate and permanent objects, it is obvious, that befides the defalcations which might be committed on our carrying trade, pretexts will be given to cruifers for endless vexations on our commerce at large, and Vol. III. Appendix. C

that a latitude and delays will accrue in the diftant proceedings of admiralty courts, ftill more ruinous aud intolerable.

3. From the decifion in the British high court of admiralty itself, given in the cafe of the Polly, Lafky, mafter, by a judge defervedly celebrated for a profound judgment, which cannot be fufpected of leaning towards doctrines anjuft or injurious to the rights of his own country. On that occafion he exprefsly declares; "It is not my business to say what is univerfally the test of a bona fide importation; it is argued that it would be fufficient that the du ties thould be paid, and that the cargo fhould be landed. If thefe criteria are not to be reforted to, I should be at a lofs to know what fhould be the teft and I am ftrongly difpofed to hold, that it would be fufficient that the goods fhould be landed and the duties paid." 2 Rob. Reports, p. 368-9.

The prefident has thought it proper that you should be furnished with fuch a view of the fubject as is here fketched; that you may make the ufe of it bett fuited to the occafion. If the trial of the Aurora fhould not be over,it is quef tionable whether the government will interfere with its courts. Should the trial be over, and the fentence of the vice admiralty court at St. John's have been confirmed, you are to lofe no time in prefenting to the British government a reprefentation correfponding with the fcope of thefe obfervations; and in urging that redress in the cafe, which is equally due to private justice, to the reasonable expectations of the United States, and to that confidence and harmony, which ought to be cherished between the two nations.”

LETTER FROM MR. GORE TO MR. MADISON.

Bofton, November 18, 1805.

SIR-THE fhip Indus, David Myrick, mafter, was taken by his Britannick majefty's fhip the Cambrian, captain John P. Beresford, in latitude 31. 30. north, and longitude 61. 56. weft, and fent to Halifax, where the, and all the property on board, belonging to the owners, mafter, and fupercargo, were condemned, on the ground, as is faid, of the illegality of the trade which the was profecuting at the time of the capture. An appeal has been claimed, and will be duly prosecuted, before the lords commifoners of appeal, in Great Britain, by the infurers, to whom the faid fhip and cargo have been abandoned. Thefe infurers confift of four companies, in the town of Boston, incorporated under the names of the Maffachufetts Fire and Marine Infur ance, the Suffolk Insurance, the Bofton Marine Infurance, and the New England Infurance, who are not only interested in the above decifion, as it relates to the particular cafe in which it was rendered, but are deeply concerned on account of infurances made by them on veffels and cargoes that may be em braced, as they fear, by rules and principles faid to have been adopted in the cafe of the Indus. Thefe fears derive but too much weight from decifions that have taken place in London, condemning property for being in a commerce always by them understood to be lawful, not only from their own fenfe of the law of nations, but also from the affent of Great Britain, difcovered by her former practice, and by principles advanced by her judges in ⚫ fupport of fuch decrees.

The amount of property withheld, and ultimately depending on the deci frons of the high court of appeals, in the cafe of the Indus, is fufficient, of itfelf, to demand their ferious attention; but when combined with the effect of principles, fuppofed to have been applied in this inftance, they are apprehenfive of further and ftill greater injuries to their own property, and that of their fellow citizens, in this quarter of the country; and thefe loffes, fhould they be realized, would be encountered in the profecution of a trade, in which they felt themselves as unoffending against the rights of others...an