The Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 | Page 9

On the other hand, there was a claim on the American government to
arrest the effects of the injury or annoyance to which it had been made
accessory. To insist therefore on the restitution of the property taken,
would be to enforce a right, in order to the performance of a duty.
These commissions, though void as to the United States, being valid as
between the parties, the case was not proper for the decision of the
courts of justice. The whole was an affair between the governments of
the parties concerned, to be settled by reasons of state, not rules of law.
It was the case of an infringement of national sovereignty to the
prejudice of a third party, in which the government was to demand a
reparation, with the double view of vindicating its own rights, and of
doing justice to the suffering party.
They, therefore, were of opinion that, in the case stated for their
consideration, restitution ought to be made.
On the point respecting which his cabinet was divided, the President
took time to deliberate. Those principles on which a concurrence of

sentiment had been manifested being considered as settled, the
secretary of state was desired to communicate them to the ministers of
France and Britain; and circular letters were addressed to the executives
of the several states, requiring their co-operation, with force if
necessary, in the execution of the rules which were established.
The citizen Genet was much dissatisfied with these decisions of the
American government. He thought them contrary to natural right, and
subversive of the treaties by which the two nations were connected. In
his exposition of these treaties, he claimed, for his own country, all that
the two nations were restricted from conceding to others, thereby
converting negative limitations into an affirmative grant of privileges to
France.
Without noticing a want of decorum in some of the expressions which
Mr. Genet had employed, he was informed that the subjects on which
his letter treated had, from respect to him, been reconsidered by the
executive; but that no cause was perceived for changing the system
which had been adopted. He was further informed that, in the opinion
of the President, the United States owed it to themselves, and to the
nations in their friendship, to expect, as a reparation for the offence of
infringing their sovereignty, that the vessels, thus illegally equipped,
would depart from their ports.
Mr. Genet was not disposed to acquiesce in these decisions. Adhering
to his own construction of the existing treaty, he affected to consider
the measures of the American government as infractions of it, which no
power in the nation had a right to make, unless the United States in
congress assembled should determine that their solemn engagements
should no longer be performed. Intoxicated with the sentiments
expressed by a great portion of the people, and unacquainted with the
firm character of the executive, he seems to have expected that the
popularity of his nation would enable him to overthrow that department,
or to render it subservient to his views. It is difficult otherwise to
account for his persisting to disregard its decisions, and for passages
with which his letters abound, such as the following:
"Every obstruction by the government of the United States to the

arming of French vessels must be an attempt on the rights of man, upon
which repose the independence and laws of the United States; a
violation of the ties which unite the people of France and America; and
even a manifest contradiction of the system of neutrality of the
President; for, in fact, if our merchant vessels,[5] or others, are not
allowed to arm themselves, when the French alone are resisting the
league of all the tyrants against the liberty of the people, they will be
exposed to inevitable ruin in going out of the ports of the United States,
which is certainly not the intention of the people of America. Their
fraternal voice has resounded from every quarter around me, and their
accents are not equivocal. They are pure as the hearts of those by whom
they are expressed, and the more they have touched my sensibility, the
more they must interest in the happiness of America the nation I
represent;--the more I wish, sir, that the federal government should
observe, as far as in their power, the public engagements contracted by
both nations; and that, by this generous and prudent conduct, they will
give at least to the world, the example of a true neutrality, which does
not consist in the cowardly abandonment of their friends in the moment
when danger menaces them, but in adhering strictly, if they can do no
better, to the obligations they have contracted with them. It is by such
proceedings that they will render themselves