The New Hampshire Gazette

Important State Papers

Communicated to Congress May 23.

United States, May 21, 1794.

Gentlemen of the Senate,

and of the House of Representatives,

I LAY before you certain information,

whereby it would appear that some encroachment

was about to be made on our territory by

an officer and party of British troops.—Proceeding

upon a supposition of the authenticity of this

information, although of a private nature, I

have caused the representation to be made to the

British Minister, a copy of which accompanies

this message.

It cannot be necessary to comment upon the

very serious nature of such encroachment, nor

to urge that this new state of things suggests the

propriety of placing the United States in a posture

of effectual preparation for an event, which

notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert,

it may by circumstances beyond our control, be

forced upon us.

G. WASHINGTON.

United States, May 23d, 1794:

Gentlemen of the Senate and

of the House of Representatives,

I lay before you the copy of a letter from

the Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic

Majesty, in answer to a letter of the Secretary

of State, communicated to Congress yesterday;

and also the copy of a letter from the Secretary,

which is referred to in the above mentioned letter

of the Minister.

G. WASHINGTON.

PHILADELPHIA, May 20.

SIR,

It cannot be unknown to you, that a speech,

said to be addressed, on the 10th of February,

1794, to several Indian nations, and ascribed to

the Governor-General of his Britannic Majesty at

Quebec, has appeared in most of the public

prints in the United States. With so many circumstances

of authenticity, after remaining so

long without contradiction, it might have justified

us in inquiring from you, whether it was

really delivered under British authority. Our

forbearance thus to inquire is conformable with

the moderation which has directed the conduct

of our government towards Great-Britain; and

indicates, at the same time, our hope, from the

declarations of yours, that its views would prove

ultimately pacific, and that it would discountenance

every measure of its officers having a contrary tendency.

Even now sir, while I entertain a firm persuasion,

presuming this speech to be genuine, I cannot

well err, I shall be ready to retract the comments

which I am about to make, if you shall

think proper to deny its authenticity.

At the very moment when the British Ministry

were forwarding assurances of good will,

does Lord Dorchester foster and encourage,

in the Indians, hostile dispositions towards the

United States? If it was a part of the American

character to indulge suspicion, what might

not be conjectured as to the influence by which

our treaty was defeated in the last year, from

the assembling of deputies from almost all the

nations who were at the late general council on

the Miami, and whose enmity against us cannot

be doubtful. How nearly would that suspicion

approach to proof, were we to recollect, that so

high an officer, as himself, would not rashly

hazard this expression; 'I shall not be surprised,

if we are at war with the United States

in the course of the present year: and if we

are, a line must then be drawn by the warriors.'?

But this speech only forebodes hostility; the

intelligence which has been received this

morning is, if true, hostilities itself. The President

of the United States has understood,

through channels of real confidence, that Governor

Simcoe has gone to the foot of the rapids of

the Miami, followed by three companies of a

British regiment, in order to build a fort there.

Permit me then to ask, whether these things

be so! It has been usual, for each party to a

negotiation, to pay such a deference to the pretensions

of the other, as to keep their affairs in

the same posture, until the negotiation was concluded.

On this principle you complained, in

your letter of the 5th of July, 1793, of the

jurisdiction attempted to be exercised, under the

State of Vermont, within the district occupied

by the troops of your king; and demanded, that

our government should suppress it, from respect

to the discussion which was pending. On this

principle, you were assured that proper measures

would be adopted. On the same principle you

renew on the 10th of March, 1794, a similar

application, and are answered, that the measures

of the government should correspond with its

assurances. Accordingly, although the forts,

garrisons and districts, to which your letters relate,

are confessedly within the limits of the United

States, yet have our citizens been forbidden to

interrupt you in the occupancy of them. What

return then have we a right to expect?

But you will not suppose that I put the impropriety

of the present aggression, upon the

pendency of the negotiation. I quote this only

to show the contrast between the temper observed

on your part towards us, and on our part

towards you. This possession of our acknowledged

territory, has no pretext of status quo on

its side; it has no pretext at all. It is an act,

the hostility of which cannot be palliated by any

connection with that negotiation. It is calculated

to support an enemy whom we are seeking

to bring to peace.

A late mission of the United States to Great

Britain, is an unequivocal proof, after all that

has happened, of the sincere wish of our government

to preserve peace, and a good understanding

with your nation.
PHILADELPHIA, May 22, 1794.

SIR,

In answer to your letter of the 20th current,

which I did not receive until late in the after-

noon of yesterday, it is necessary for me to premise,

that whatever may be my personal opinion

with respect to the style and manner in

which you have thought it proper to address me,

upon the present occasion, it is not my intention

to offer any animadversion upon them, but

to proceed with temper and candour to the examination

of the subjects of your letter.

Though I never can acknowledge the right

of this government to require from me so categorically,

as you have required it, an explanation

of any measure emanating from the Governors

of Canada, over whose actions, I have no

control, and for whose conduct I am not responsible;

I am willing to admit the authenticity

of the speech to certain Indian nations, to

which you have alluded, and which you have

ascribed to the Governor General of his Majesty's

possessions in North America. But in

order to ascertain the precise sense of the only

passage of that speech, to which you have referred,

and of which you have given merely a partial

citation. I shall quote the passage at length;

"Children,

Since my return, I find no appearance of

a line remains, and from the manner in which

the people of the States push on, and act, and

talk on this side, and from what I learn of their

conduct towards the sea, I shall not be surprised,

if we are at war with them in the course of the

present year; and if so, a line must then be

drawn by the warriors." From the context of

the whole passage, it is manifest that Lord Dor-

chester was persuaded, that the aggression which

might eventually lead to a state of hostility, had

proceeded from the United States: And so far

as the State of Vermont, to which I presume his

Lordship principally alluded, was implicated, I

am convinced that that persuasion was not ill

founded. For notwithstanding the positive assurances,

which I received from your predecessor.

on the 9th of July, 1793, in answer to my

letter of the 5th of the same month, of the determination

of the General Government to discourage

and repress the encroachments, which

the State and individuals of Vermont had committed

on the territory occupied by his Majesty's

garrisons, I assert with confidence, that not only

those encroachments have never been in any

manner repressed, but that recent infringements

in that quarter, and on the territory in its vicinity,

have been committed. Indeed, if this assertion

of mine could require any corroboration,

I would remark, that though the space of 50

days elapsed between my letter of the 10th, of

March, 1794, upon this subject, and your answer,

of the 29th of April, 1794, you did not

attempt to deny the facts which I then stated,

and which I now explicitly repeat.

In regard to your declaration that Governor

Simcoe has gone to the foot of the rapids

of the Miami, followed by three companies of

a British regiment, in order to build a fort

there, I have no intelligence that such an event

has actually occurred.—But even admitting

your information to be accurate, much will depend

on the place, in which you assert, that the

fort is intended to be erected, and whether it be

for the purpose of protecting subjects of his Majesty

residing in the districts dependant on the

fort of Detroit, or of preventing that fortress

from being straitened by the approach of the

American army; either of which, cases I imagine

that the principles of the status quo, until

the final arrangement of the points in discussion

between the two countries shall be concluded,

will strictly apply. In order however, to correct

any inaccurate information you may have

received, or to avoid any ambiguity relative to

this circumstance I shall immediately transmit

copies of your letter, and of this answer, as well

to the Governor-General of his Majesty's possessions

in North America, and the Governor of

Upper Canada, as to his Majesty's Ministers in

England, for their respective information.

Before I conclude this letter, I must be permitted

to observe that I have confined to the

unrepressed and continued aggressions of the State

of Vermont, alone, the persuasion of Lord

Dorchester, that they were indicative of an existing

hostile disposition in the United States against

Great-Britain, and might ultimately produce

an actual state of war on their part. If I

had been desirous of recurring to other sources

of disquietude, I might, from the allusion of his

Lordship to the conduct of this government towards
the sea, have deduced other motives of

apprehension, on which from the solicitude you

have evinced to establish contrast between the temper

observed on your part towards us, and on our part

towards you, I am convinced you would have felt yourself

justified in dilating. I might have adverted

to the privateers originally fitted out of Charleston,

at the commencement of the present hostilities,

and which were allowed to depart from

that port, not only with the consent, but under

the express permission of the Governor of

South-Carolina.

I might have adverted to the prizes made by

those privateers, of which the legality was in

some measure admitted, by the refusal of this

government to restore such as were made antecedently

to the 5th of June 1793. I might

have adverted to the permission granted by this

government to the commanders of French ships

of war, and of privateers, to dispose of their

prizes by sale, in ports of the United States. I

might have adverted to the two privateers, le

Petit Democrat (now la Cornelia) and la Citoyenne

Magnol, both which were illegally fitted out in

the river Delaware, and which in consequence

of my remonstrances, and of the assurances I received,

I concluded would have been dismantled:

but which have remained during the

whole winter in the port of New-York armed,

and now are, as I am informed, in condition to

proceed immediately to sea.

I might have adverted to the conduct which

this government has observed towards the powers

combined against France in the enforcement

of the embargo. For while the vessels of the

former are subjected to the restrictions of that

measure, those of the latter, have been permitted

to depart from Hampton-Road, though three

weeks had elapsed subsequently to the imposition

of the embargo, though they were amenable to

its operation, and though they were chiefly laden

with articles calculated to support an enemy

whom we are seeking to bring to peace. I

might have adverted to the uniformly unfriendly

treatment which his Majesty's ships of war,

and officers in his Majesty's service, have, since

the present hostilities commenced, experienced

in the American ports; and lastly, I might have

adverted to the unparalleled insult, which has

been recently offered at Newport, Rhode-Island,

(not by a lawless collection of the people, but)

by the governor and council of that state, to the

British flag, in the violent measures pursued towards

his Majesty's sloop of war Nautilus, and

in the forcible detention of the officers by whom

she was commanded. I have however forborne

to expatiate upon these points, because I am not

disposed to consider them, as I have before stated,

as necessary elucidations, of the immediate object

of your letter, and much less to urge them

in their present form, as general topics of recrimination.

I have the honor to be with great respect,

Sir, Your most obedient,

Humble Servant,

(Signed) GEORGE HAMMOND.

Another letter from the Secretary of State to

Mr. Hammond, dated April 29, relative to the

Vermontese, which is not very important, we have

omitted.