Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

For the GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES.

To Mess. Freneau & PAINE, printers of the Daily Advertiser in Charleston.

I have seen, gentlemen, in the public prints of this city a piece signed "A Suffering Merchant," and taken from your paper of Nov. 6th. I know nothing about the object of this publication; but its obvious tendency being to induce a belief in the people of this country, that the captures of their property by the French, proceed not from the injustice of that nation, but from the negligence of our own government, I have thought it proper to address a few remarks to you on the subject; and I request the favour of you to republish them in your Gazette.

This writer states that the English part of the sea-letter, given to our vessels pursuant to the 25th and 27th articles of our commercial treaty with France, is not a just translation of the French part; and this is the negligence on the part of our government, which he supposes may have given rise to the depredations of the French.

But it is to be remembered that the French part is also inserted in the sea-letter, which is made out in four languages, French, Spanish, English and Dutch. This French part is precisely conformable to the model annexed to the treaty; and as that is the part particularly addressed to the French cruisers and ships of war, whose commanders are not supposed to understand English, surely the variations in the other part cannot be material as it respects France.

To put this matter in a clearer light, I would ask whether a sea-letter, in which the French part should agree with the form annexed to the treaty, and the English, Spanish and Dutch parts, or either of them be wholly omitted, could be objected to by France? certainly not; for the treaty only requires that there should be a sea-letter conformable to the model annexed, without declaring that it shall be in this or that language. But surely if the English part might be altogether omitted without invalidating the sea-letter, it cannot be affected by any irregularity in that part, while the others are in due form.

This idea is further confirmed by observing, that the treaty, though executed in French and English, is expressly declared to have been "originally composed and concluded in French." Hence when any dispute arises about its construction, the French is always recurred to, and the meaning of the terms is fixed according to their sense in that language and not in English.

The main object of the treaty, moreover, in this part of it, is to provide a mode of proof by which, to use its own words, it may appear "that the vessel belongs really and truly, to the subjects of one of the contracting parties." In order to accomplish this object, the article stipulates, "that in case either of the parties should be engaged in war, the vessels belonging to the subjects or people of the other ally, shall be furnished with sea-letters or passports, which shall express the name, the property, and the burthen of the vessel, as well as the name and residence of the master." And this passport it adds, shall be made out according to the form annexed. Here it is obvious that the use of the passport is to ascertain the property, and that the material parts of it are the name, property and burthen of the ship, and the name and residence of the master. Not a word is said about a list of the crew, or a role d'equipage, which was in no degree necessary to this object; and the annexed form was referred to not as a precedent, which must be exactly copied, but as a model, a direction to point out the manner in which this passport should be drawn up.

This was evidently the light in which Mr. Jefferson viewed the matter; for in the original copy, annexed to the treaty, there are several alterations in his own hand-writing made by him while Secretary of State, in order to accommodate the model to the style of our government.

Now it will be found, by referring to the English part of the passport as stated by your correspondent, that, although not an exact copy of the French part, it nevertheless contains all the above mentioned material points, the name, property and burthen of the vessel, and the name and residence of the master. Consequently it complies substantially with the treaty to the benefit of which, even standing alone, without the French part, it would be sufficient to entitle our vessels.

The part omitted relates to the list of the crew, and security to observe the marine ordinances, without which formalities no French vessel, according to the laws of France, could obtain a clearance in the ports of that country. These circumstances, therefore, were naturally mentioned in the French part of the sea-letter, because without them the sole object of the paper, viz. the proof of the vessel being French property, could not be accomplished, nor any passport given. But it would have been idle to insert them into our part of the sea-letter; because our laws required no such formalities. In order to obtain a clearance or passport among us, no list of the crew, nor any security to observe the marine laws, were necessary; and therefore it would have been foolish to talk of them in the sea-letter.

In short the sea-letters and passports of each nation state the circumstances respectively necessary, by its laws, for proving the property of vessels; but through great caution, and the more completely to avoid disputes, our sea-letters contain both forms, our own and the French: if the first be deficient, surely it may be supplied by the second.

As to the role d'equipage, which your correspondent speaks of, I would observe, that no such thing is required, or even mentioned, by the treaty. The form of the sea-letter states that the captain "shall enter in the proper office" a list of his crew; but this entry is to be made in the office where he obtains his passport, and not carried with him to sea; and if this regulation referred to our vessels, which evidently is not the case, till the passport itself would be proof that all the requisite formalities had been complied with before it was granted.

The marine ordinance, of France, particularly those of 1681 and 1744, require that neutral vessels in time of war shall be furnished with a list of the crew and passengers, containing their names, place of residence, &c. This list they call a role d'equipage. But their commercial treaty with us, made in February 1778, dispenses with this formality by expressly declaring that the sea-letter and passport shall be sufficient, and omitting to make any mention of the role d'equipage. In July 1778, the French government published a regulation respecting "neutral vessels in time of war;" and this regulation repeats and enforces the provisions made by former ordinances concerning the role d'equipage.

But this regulation, which was the act of one party alone, could not alter the treaty, without the consent of the other: nor was it intended by the French to produce any such effect; for it is expressly confined, in its operation, to "neutral vessels navigating in time of war." The United States, at that time, were not neutral: they were engaged in the war, on the side of France; and therefore this regulation could not have contemplated them.

This subject, of the role d'equipage, is extremely well explained in a decision of one of the French admiralty courts on the case of the brig John, which was captured by a French privateer for want of a role d'equipage. This ground of capture was declared insufficient, and the brig was acquitted. The decision may be found at length in the Philadelphia daily advertiser of Nov. 17th, or about that time, to which I refer such of your readers as have not seen it.

CAROLINIENSIS.