Notwithstanding the boast, in this letter, of his country being “strong in the greatness of her means,” Genet had opened his diplomatic correspondence by a request for immediate payment, by anticipation, of the remaining installments of the debt due France by the United States, amounting to two millions, three hundred thousand dollars, and offered, as an inducement, to invest the amount in provisions and other American products, to be shipped partly to the St. Domingo, and partly to France. But neither his propositions for an alliance nor his application for money were received with favor. The United States government well knew that his assurance that the offered relaxation of commercial restrictions, as a boon of pure good will toward the Americans, was only a convenient plan for obtaining needed supplies. The request for money was met by a candid statement by the secretary of the treasury, that his government had no means of anticipating the payment of the French debt, except by borrowing money in Europe, which could not be done then on reasonable terms. Hamilton also told Genet that, even were there no other obstacle, the anticipation of payment at that time might be regarded by Great Britain as a breach of neutrality.
This reply greatly offended the French minister, and he threatened to make the debt to France available for his purpose, by giving assignments of it in payment for provisions and other supplies. Hamilton calmly replied that his government would decidedly object to that procedure, and expressed a hope that, in a matter of mutual concern, nothing would be done but by mutual consent.
While the British minister, in view of the dereliction of duty on the part of his government, manifested in its omission to comply with some of the stipulations of the treaty of 1783, should have been comparatively silent, the grounds of some of his complaints were too obviously just, not to be seriously considered. Cabinet meetings were accordingly held, and the subject was fully discussed. The capture of The Grange within American waters (in Delaware bay), and the demand, not only for its restitution, but of all others captured on the high seas by the privateers authorized by Genet, made by the British minister, was the chief topic. It was unanimously agreed that The Grange should be restored, but there was a difference of opinion respecting the others. Hamilton and Knox, assuming, as a basis for argument, that it is the duty of a neutral nation to remedy every injury sustained by armaments fitted out in its ports, were of opinion that the government should interpose to restore the prizes. Jefferson and Randolph contended that the case should be left to the decision of courts of justice; arguing, that if the courts should decide the commissions given by Genet to be invalid, they would, as a matter of course, order restitution to be made.[54]
Washington reserved his decision upon this point, and took time to deliberate. The cabinet had agreed unanimously that the jurisdiction of every independent nation, within the limits of its own territory, being of a nature to exclude the exercise of any authority therein by any foreign power, the proceedings complained of, not being warranted by any treaty, were usurpations of national sovereignty and violations of neutral rights, a repetition of which it was the duty of the government to prevent. Also, that the efficacy of the laws should be tried against those citizens of the United States who had joined in perpetrating the offence. These principles being considered as settled, the president directed the secretary of state to communicate the fact to the ministers of France and Great Britain. Circular letters, also, were addressed to the governors of several states requiring their co-operation, with military force if necessary, to carry out the principles and rules agreed upon.
FOOTNOTES:
[47] The number of people who met and welcomed Genet at Gray's ferry was greatly exaggerated, as usual on such occasions, by the friends of the movement. It was called “a great concourse of citizens,” but Hamilton, who was then in Philadelphia, and whose truthfulness has never been questioned, placed the number at an insignificant figure. In a letter to a friend, he said, “It is seldom easy to speak with absolute certainty in such cases, but from all I could observe, or have been able to learn, I believe the number would be stated high at a hundred persons.” Of a meeting convened at evening to receive Mr. Genet, Hamilton said, “From forty to one hundred persons give you the extremes of the number present.” On the ensuing evening a much greater number attended. Altogether the demonstration, in numbers, was a failure.
[48] Griswold's Republican Court, page 350.
[49] Old New York, or Reminiscences of the past Sixty Years, pages 115-119, inclusive.
[50] Hamilton's Works, v. 566.
[51] Life of Washington, v. 164.