Memoir, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson Volume III Part 46

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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 un.o.bstructed, 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 a.s.sent 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 pa.s.s the sh.o.r.es, would ent.i.tle 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-sh.o.r.e. 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 f.a.n.n.y, 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,

In my letter of October the 2nd, I took the liberty of noticing to you, that the commission of Consul to M. Dannery, ought to have been addressed to the President of the United States. He being the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations, it is from him alone that foreign nations, or their agents, are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation, and whatever he communicates as such, they have a right and are bound to consider as the expression of the nation, and no foreign agent can be allowed to question it, to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions, nor to make himself the umpire and final judge between them. I am, therefore, Sir, not authorized to enter into any discussions with you on the meaning of our const.i.tution in any part of it, or to prove to you that it has ascribed to him alone the admission or interdiction of foreign agents. I inform you of the fact by authority from the President. I had observed to you, that we were persuaded, in the case of the Consul Dannery, the error in the address had proceeded from no intention in the Executive Council of France to question the functions of the President, and therefore no difficulty was made in issuing the commissions. We are still under the same persuasion. But in your letter of the 14th instant, you personally question the authority of the President, and in consequence of that, have not addressed to him the commission of Messrs. Pennevert and Chervi. Making a point of this formality on your part, it becomes necessary to make a point of it on ours also; and I am therefore charged to return you those commissions, and to inform you, that bound to enforce respect to the order of things established by our const.i.tution, the President will issue no Exequatur to any Consul or Vice-Consul, not directed to him in the usual form, after the party from whom it comes has been apprized that such should be the address.

I have the honor to be, with respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CLXXIV.--TO MR. GENET, December 9, 1793

TO MR. GENET.

Philadelphia, December 9, 1793.

Sir,

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, which has been duly laid before the President.

We are very far from admitting your principle, that the government on either side has no other right, on the presentation of a consular commission, than to certify, that having examined it, they find it according to rule. The governments of both nations have a right, and that of yours has exercised it as to us, of considering the character of the person appointed, the place for which he is appointed, and other material circ.u.mstances; and of taking precautions as to his conduct, if necessary: and this does not defeat the general object of the convention, which, in stipulating that consuls shall be permitted on both sides, could not mean to supersede reasonable objections to particular persons, who might at the moment be obnoxious to the nation to which they were sent, or whose conduct might render them so at any time after. In fact, every foreign agent depends on the double will of the two governments, of that which sends him, and of that which is to permit the exercise of his functions within their territory; and when either of these wills is refused or withdrawn, his authority to act within that territory becomes incomplete. By what member of the government the right of giving or withdrawing permission is to be exercised here, is a question on which no foreign agent can be permitted to make himself the umpire. It is sufficient for him, under our government, that he is informed of it by the executive.

On an examination of the commissions from your nation, among our records, I find that before the late change in the form of our government, foreign agents were addressed, sometimes to the United States, and sometimes to the Congress of the United States, that body being then executive as well as legislative. Thus the commissions of Messrs. L'Etombe, Holker, Dauneraanis, Marbois, Crevecoeur and Chateaufort, have all this clause, '_Prions et requerons nos tres chers et grands amis et allies, les Etat-Unis de l'Amerique Septentrionale, leurs gouverneurs, et autres officiers, &c. de laisser jouir, &c. le dit sieur, &c. de la charge de notre Consul,_' &c. On the change in the form of our government, foreign nations, not undertaking to decide to what member of the new government their agents should be addressed, ceased to do it to Congress, and adopted the general address to the United States, before cited. This was done by the government of your own nation, as appears by the commissions of Messrs. Mangourit and La Forest, which have in them the clause before cited. So your own commission was, not as M. Gerond's and Luzerne's had been, '_a nos tres chers, &c. le President et membres du Congres general des Etats-Unis_,' &c. but '_a nos tres chers, &c. les Etats-Unis de l'Amerique_,' &c. Under this general address, the proper member of the government was included, and could take it up. When, therefore, it was seen in the commissions of Messrs.

Dupont and Hauterive, that your executive had returned to the ancient address to Congress, it was conceived to be an inattention, insomuch, that I do not recollect (and I do not think it material enough to inquire) whether I noticed it to you either verbally or by letter. When that of M. Dannery was presented with the like address, being obliged to notice to you an inaccuracy of another kind, I then mentioned that of the address, not calling it an innovation, but expressing my satisfaction, which is still entire, that it was not from any design in your Executive Council. The Exequatur was therefore sent. That they will not consider our notice of it as an innovation, we are perfectly secure. No government can disregard formalities more than ours. But when formalities are attacked with a view to change principles, and to introduce an entire independence of foreign agents on the nation with whom they reside, it becomes material to defend formalities. They would be no longer trifles, if they could, in defiance of the national will, continue a foreign agent among us, whatever might be his course of action. Continuing, therefore, the refusal to receive any commission from yourself, addressed to an improper member of the government, you are left free to use either the general one to the United States, as in the commissions of Messrs. Mangourit and La Forest before cited, or the special one, to the President of the United States.

I have the honor to be, with respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CLXXV.--TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S., December 18, 1793

TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

Philadelphia, December 18, 1793.

Sir,

The Minister Plenipotentiary of France has enclosed to me a copy of a letter of the 16th instant, which he addressed to you, stating that some libellous publications had been made against him by Mr. Jay, Chief Justice of the United States, and Mr. King, one of the Senators for the State of New York, and desiring that they might be prosecuted. This letter has been laid before the President, according to the request of the Minister; and the President, never doubting your readiness on all occasions to perform the functions of your office, yet thinks it inc.u.mbent on him to recommend it specially on the present occasion, as it concerns a public character peculiarly ent.i.tled to the protection of the laws. On the other hand, as our citizens ought not to be vexed with groundless prosecutions, duty to them requires it to be added, that if you judge the prosecution in question to be of that nature, you consider this recommendation as not extending to it; its only object being to engage you to proceed in this case according to the duties of your office, the laws of the land, and the privileges of the parties concerned.

I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CLXXVI.--TO E. RANDOLPH, February 3, 1794

TO E. RANDOLPH.

Monticello, February 3, 1794.