changed! Every people have embraced Frenchmen, and have sworn to them peace and friendship! All Frenchmen have likewise embraced each other, and have sworn to be all friends and brothers. Come ye, also, and embrace Frenchmen, and rejoice to see your friends and your brothers of Europe.

The Government sends you the Captain General, Le Clerc. He carries with him great forces to protect you against your enemies, and against the enemies of the Republic. If it should be told you these forces are intended to tear from you your liberty, answer, the Republic has given us liberty. The Republic will not suffer that it should be taken from us. Rally round the Captain General; he restores you abundance and peace. Rally round him; he who shall dare to separate himself from the Captain General will be a traitor to his country, and the vengeance of the Republic shall devour him as fire devours your dried canes.

Given at Paris, in the palace of Government, the 17th Brumaire, 10th year of the French Republic.

By the First Consul,

H. B. MARET, Secretary.

A true copy,

BONAPARTE.

[FEBRUARY, 1806.

mined to take their stand among the nations of the world, and now refuse allegiance to any foreign power. They have organized a Government for themselves; they are de facto the governors of the country, and in every respect act as an independent people. They have

Let us now, Mr. President, attend to the present state of St. Domingo; but first to the circumstances that have led to it, and see how far this doctrine will apply. After the bands of the political society that had connected France and her colonies together were broken asunder; when the old Government of that country was completely dissolved, and one usurpation succeeded day after day to the places and to the vices of another; when the axe of the guillotine had extinguished the magic lustre of royalty, and even that grace and beauty, [a very superb likeness of the late Queen of France was hanging directly before him,] that had reigned so long unrivalled, the pride and idol of the nation, had to yield herself to the rudeness of a common executioner, and was humbled in death before a scoffing multitude; when the constitution that had been recently established by the voice of the nation, and under which it was hoped they would flourish and be happy, had fallen into the ruthless fangs of the Jacobins, and the patriots who supported it had found refuge in exile, or minLE CLERC, Captain General. gled their blood upon the scaffold; when all This, sir, is proof irresistible; after which it rightful, civil, and legal authority was at an end, can never be said that the liberation of those and the Revolutionary sabre alone gave law, people has been the rash act, or the mere ebul- the people of St. Domingo, as did the people lition, of the heat and convulsion of a revolu- of these States under other circumstances, detion. We have here their liberty solemnly re-clared themselves free and independent, detercognized and proclaimed to the world eight years afterwards by the man who was then and still is at the head of the French Government; or rather, who is now the Government itself. I cite these papers to show that the French have now no claim, either in right, in justice, or in law, to any portion of the people of St. Do-waged, and carried on with France, for many mingo as slaves; that they are individually free, if the highest authorities in France could constitute them so, which will surely not be questioned; and in order to rebut a fallacious idea that has been taken up, and urged by some, that our merchants are conducting this commerce with slaves, the property of freemen, and not with freemen themselves, thus ingeniously endeavoring to draw a distinction between the situation of St. Domingo and that of any other colony that has ever heretofore attempted to separate itself from the mother country; to make theirs, according to the language of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MOORE,) a totally new, unprecedented case, and in this manner to take them out of the humane provisions of the laws of nations. I grant, sir, their case does form a distinction from any other, and in this it consists: the people of St. Domingo are fighting to preserve not only their independence as a community, but their liberty as individuals; to prevent a degradation from the exalted state of freemen to the debased condition of slaves, struggling against the manacles that have been forged for them by the lawless ambition of power. We are told, however, they are at least not free as a people, as a body politic; but in such a state of rebellion that no nation has a right to trade with them.

years, a most serious war, in defence of what they say are their rights; and the French, by force of arms, have been endeavoring to subjugate them. And now let me ask if the United States, or any other power upon earth, is competent to decide this great controversy between them? They each claim to be free and independent, and therefore acknowledge no superior; the struggle is between themselves, and no other nation has a right to interfere by direct acts of hostility, or by any commercial restrictions that can go to effect injuriously either of the parties, and to do so is a departure from neutral ground, and an infraction of the laws of nations, as I think will be within my power to show from the most incontestable authorities. For this purpose I will advert again to Vattel.

Vattel, b. 2, ch. 4, sec. 56, says: "When the bands of the political society are broken, or at least suspended between the sovereign and his people, the contending parties may then be considered as two distinct powers; and since they are both equally independent of all foreign authority, nobody has a right to judge between them. Either may be in the right." B. 3, ch. 15, sec. 295, says: "When a nation becomes divided into two parties absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledging a common superior, the State is dissolved, and the war between

FEBRUARY, 1806.]

Trade with St. Domingo.

[SENATE.

the two parties stands on the same ground in urge it upon our faith with all the confidence every respect as a public war between two dif- of apostolic inspiration-to us who doubted, he ferent nations." Again, sir, section 293 of the refused even an opportunity of acquiring knowl same book and chapter says: "A civil war edge through any other channel; voted against breaks the bands of society and Government, the propositions of my friend and colleague, or at least suspends their force and effect. It which went to ask of the Executive the actual produces in the nation two independent parties, state of this commerce, and to ascertain its real who consider each other as enemies, and ac- value. To do strict justice to the gentleman's knowledge no common judge. Those two par- argument, it is simply this, that whenever any ties, therefore, must necessarily be considered foreign power may please to demand of us the as thenceforward constituting, at least for a surrender of a right, however just and honest it time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. may be; however it may comport with the Though one of the parties may have been to dignity of the Government to preserve it; if, blame in breaking the unity of the State, and in a pecuniary point of view, if upon a cool resisting the lawful authority, they are not the peddling calculation of risk, profit, and loss, it less divided in fact. Besides, who shall judge cannot be deerned of high value, we are at once them? Who shall pronounce on which side to give it up. This argument, I will confess, is the right or the wrong belongs? On earth they worthy of the bill. So striking, and of have no common superior. They stand, there- such a kind is their affinity, that they seem fore, in precisely the same predicament as two na- peculiarly calculated to expose each other, tions who engage in a contest, and, being unable and to excite in every mind valuing the honto come to an agreement, have recourse to arms." or, the dignity, and the character of the naWe have been exultingly told by Mr. Talley- tion, like sentiments of disgust. The case citrand, and it has been echoed from this Cham-ed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ber by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. MAOLAY,) of the Indians, I think in 1755, MITCHILL,) that even the British consider St. under the avowed authority, direction, and supDomingo a colony of France, and upon this port of the French Government, ravaging our principle condemn our vessels for trading there. frontiers, surely can have no relation to the quesI grant that such a pretext, among many others, tion before us. Has this Government ever furhas been resorted to in order to destroy our nished arms and ammunition, or done any other commerce; I grant that such an infringement act in order to assist and encourage the people of our neutral rights has been committed, and of St. Domingo in attacking the countries of the reasons that have induced it must be obvi- their neighbors? I cannot conceive what subous to the most superficial observer. The Brit- ject that might have been before Congress ish, with a monopoly of this commerce them- during our present session, the gentleman must selves, and those same Englishmen who now have had in his mind, to which he supposed condemn our vessels for trading to St. Domin- this case could apply; certainly not the present; go, upon the ground of its being a French colo- it is infinitely more distant in point of analogy ny, heretofore, when it suited their purposes, so than of date. I have been exerting my imagifar acknowledged the independence of those nation to discern any object or bearing it can very people as to enter into a Commercial have, that I might endeavor to meet it, but the Treaty with them, and are now not only in the total impossibility of the one, will save me the constant practice of trading there themselves, trouble of the other. but of granting licenses to others to do so. hope, however, the day has not come when our commerce is to be under the control of the Lords of the Admiralty, or our national rights dependent upon the judicial opinions of Sir William Scott; and the learned gentleman from New York must indeed have been pressed with the barrenness of his case when he had to resort to such an argument, derived from such a source. The gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. KITCHEL,) I must in candor say, has, in support of the present measure, assumed premises totally new and different. His reasons, like most of those we have been accustomed lately to hear, were in the true style of modern legislation, enveloped in all the mysteries of secrecy. He tells us that we had better give up this commerce, because it is not valuable. Where the gentleman obtained this piece of information is utterly beyond the comprehension of my understanding: none such, certainly, has ever been laid before us; nor did he condescend to give us a clue to its source; but as if sufficient to

I

I rejoice that the President has expressed, in his late Message, a disposition to take into the protection of the Government the commerce of the United States, though little has yet been done, or attempted. This project of the gentleman from Pennsylvania I hope forms no part of the new system, and he would have acted wisely before he submitted it to have examined better its consequences, and to have looked for a moment at the present condition of our commerce. What is it? Plundered upon every coast and in every sea, your flag, instead of being a protection against insult, seems to have become an invitation to injury. The British, the French, and the Spaniards, in the ratio of their force, treat us with like indignities; this is the only point in which they can agree. The former have adopted, and openly avow a system of measures that, if not counteraeted, must go to deprive us of the most important of our neutral rights; while the two latter are anxiously rivalling each other in the most lawless and piratical depredations upon our defenceless trade;

SENATE.]

Privileges of Foreign Ministers.

[MARCH, 1806 even the commissioned vessels of our Govern- on this occasion may appear in the striking ment have not been suffered to pass the highlight which may render it the most effectual. seas without insult and violence. The British By the laws of nations, a foreign Minister is and the French, whenever it suits their views, entitled, not barely to the general security and blockade our very ports; the British take their protection which the laws of every civilized position off New York, so as to be convenient people extend to the subjects of other nations to the courts of Halifax; and our friends, the residing among them. He is indulged with French, to whom the gentleman from Pennsyl- many privileges of a high and uncommon navania has told us we should be so particularly ture-with many exemptions from the operacivil, take occasionally into their holy keeping, tion of the laws of the country where he resides, the commerce of Charleston and New Orleans, and among others, with a general exemption so as to be at a convenient distance from the from the jurisdiction of the judicial courts, both British. Our trade with St. Domingo, indeed, civil and criminal. This immunity is, in respect the French have not been able to stop, nor have to the criminal jurisdiction, without limitation; even the British yet assumed to themselves this and an Ambassador, though guilty of the most maritime right; but the gentleman from Penn- aggravated crimes of which the heart of man sylvania, in his great good faith and abundant can conceive or his hand commit, cannot be charity, will now anticipate their wishes, and punished for them by the tribunals of the Soverdo it for them. This, indeed, surpasses even eign with whom he resides. Should he conChristian meekness; it is not only, when smit- spire the destruction of the constitution or govten upon one cheek, turning the other also, but ernment of the State, no jury of his peers can chastening ourselves with more than monkish there convict him of treason. Should he point severity, in the most vulnerable part. the dagger of assassination to the heart of a citizen, he cannot be put to plead for the crime of murder. In these respects he is considered as the subject, not of the State to which he is sent, but of the State which sent him, and the only punishment which can be inflicted on his crimes is left to the justice of his master.

On motion, by one of the majority, to reconsider the fourth section which restricts the operation of the law to one year, it passed in the negative.

On motion, to agree to the final passage of the bill, it was determined in the affirmative yeas 21, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard, Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Turner, Worthington, and Wright. NAYS.-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, and White.

So it was Resolved, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the title thereof be "An act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and certain parts of the island of St. Domingo."

MONDAY, March 3. Privileges of Foreign Ministers. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the amendment reported by the select committee to the bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by foreign Ministers within the United States.

Mr. ADAMS.-There are two points of view, Mr. President, in which it appears to me to be important that the provisions of this bill should be considered-the one as they relate to the laws of nations, and the other as they regard the Constitution of the United States. From both these sources have arisen inducements combining to produce conviction upon my mind of the propriety, and indeed the necessity of some measure similar in principle to that which I have had the honor to propose. I shall take the liberty to state them in their turns, endeavoring to keep them as distinct from each other as the great and obvious difference of their character requires, and that their combination

In a republican government, like that under which we have the happiness to live, this exemption is not enjoyed by any individual of the nation itself, however exalted in rank or station. It is our pride and glory, that all are equal in the eyes of the law; that, however adorned with dignity, or armed with power, no man owing allegiance to the majesty of the nation can screen himself from the vindictive arm of her justice; yet even the nations whose internal constitutions are founded upon this virtuous and honorable principle of equal and universal rights, have, like all the rest, submitted to this great and extraordinary exception. In order to account for so singular a deviation from principles in every other respect deemed of the highest moment and of the most universal application, we must inquire into the reasons which have induced all the nations of the civilized world to this broad departure from the fundamental maxims of their government.

The most eminent writers on the laws of nations have at different times assigned various reasons for this phenomenon in politics and morals. It has sometimes been said to rest upon fictions of law. The reasoning has been thus: every Sovereign Prince is independent of all others, and as such cannot, even when personally within the territories of another, be amenable to his jurisdiction. An ambassador represents the person of his master, and therefore must enjoy the same immunities. But this reasoning cannot be satisfactory; for, in the first place, a foreign Minister does not necessarily represent the person of his master-he represents him only in his affairs; and besides representing him he has a personal existence of his

SENATE.]

Privileges of Foreign Ministers.

[MARCH, 1806.

The second section provides for the case of offences against the Government of the nation. If the insult is direct upon the President of the United States himself, it authorizes him at once to discard the offender; if the injury be against the nation, by any conspiracy or other act of hostility, it offers the means of removing at once so dangerous a disturber of the public tranquillity. This also will be found exactly conformable to the directions in Vattel.

tice which the reason of the case and the usage | by which the insulted State or injured indiviof nations has prescribed and recognized, is, (ac- dual may apply to the Chief Magistrate of the cording to the aggravation of the offence,) to Union for redress, and by what process the Presorder the criminal to depart from the territories ident may obtain reparation from the offender's whose laws he has violated, or to send him Sovereign, or, in case of refusal, dismiss the home, sometimes under custody, to his Sover- offender from the territories of the United eign; demanding of him that justice, repara- States. tion, and punishment, which the nature of the case requires, and which he alone is entitled to dispense. This power is admitted by the concurrent testimony of all the writers on the laws of nations, and has the sanction of practice equally universal. It results, indeed, as a consequence absolutely necessary from the independence of foreign Ministers on the judicial authority, and is perfectly reconcilable with it. As respects the offended nation, it is a measure of self-defence, justified by the acknowledged destitution of every other remedy. As respects the offending Minister, it is the only means of remitting him for trial and punishment to the tribunals whose jurisdiction he cannot recuse; and as respects his Sovereign, it preserves inviolate his rights, and at the same time manifests that confidence in his justice which civilized nations living in amity are bound to place in each other.

The third section brings me to the consideration of the relation which the bill bears to the Constitution of the United States. It contains a regulation, the object of which is at once to prevent all misunderstanding by the offending Minister's Sovereign of the grounds upon which he should be ordered to depart or sent home, and to mark by a strong line of discrimination the cases when a foreign Minister is dismissed for misconduct, from those when he is expelled On these principles, thus equitable and mod-on account of national differences. In this latter erate in themselves, and thus universally estab- case, by the general understanding and usage of lished, is founded every provision of the bill nations, an order to depart given to a foreign before you, so far as it implicates the law of Minister is equivalent to a declaration of war. nations. I have been fully aware that, although In the European Governments, where the powby the Constitution of the United States Con-er of declaring war and that of negotiating with gress are authorized to define and punish of- foreign States are committed to the same hands, fences against the law of nations, yet this did this nice discrimination of the specific reasons not imply a power to innovate upon those laws. for which a Minister may be dismissed is far I could not be ignorant that the Legislature of less important than with us. The power of deone individual in the great community of na- claring war is with us exclusively vested in tions has no right to prescribe rules of conduct Congress; and as the order to depart, when which can be binding upon all; and therefore, founded on national disputes, amounts to such in the provisions of this bill, it was my primary a declaration, it appears to me, by fair inferobject not to deviate one step from the worn ence, that for such cause the President of the and beaten path-not to vary one jot or one United States cannot issue such an order withtittle from the prescriptions of immemorial out the express request or concurrence of Conusage and unquestioned authority. gress to that effect. It was from this view of the subject that, in the present bill, the power vested in the President to send home a culpable Minister is so precisely limited to the cases when the Minister shall have deserved that treatment by his personal misconduct. distinction between the causes for which a foreign Minister may be sent home has been solemnly recognized in a remarkable manner by this Government in the treaty with Great Britain of the 19th November, 1794, in the twenty

In consulting for this purpose the writers, characterized by one of our own statesmen in a pamphlet recently laid on our tables, as "the luminaries and oracles to whom the appeal is generally made by nations who prefer an appeal to law rather than to power," I found that they distinguished the offences which may be committed by foreign Ministers into two kinds-the one against the municipal laws of the country where they reside, and the other against the Government or State to which they are accred-sixth article. ited; and that they recommended a correspondent modification of the manner in which they are to be treated by the offended Sovereign. The first section of the bill therefore directs the mode of treatment towards foreign Ministers guilty of heinous offences against the municipal laws; for, as to those minor transgressions which are usually left unnoticed by other States, I have thought no provision necessary for them. The section points out the mode

This

Here, sir, the sending home a Minister for national causes is recognized to be the very test of a rupture, and exactly tantamount to a declaration of war. But the same act, done for the Minister's personal misconduct, is acknowledged to be a right of both parties, which they agree to retain ; and it is stipulated that it shall not in that case be deemed equivalent to a rupture. The expressions used imply that the parties did not consider themselves as introdu