this or any other subject interesting to the community at large, it always has been and will continue to be my earnest desire to learn, and, as far as is consistent, to comply with, the public sentiment; but it is on great occasions only, and after time has been given for cool and deliberate reflection, that the real voice of the people can be known.

The present, however, is one of those great occasions, than which none more important has occurred, or probably may occur again to call forth their decision; and to them the appeal is now made. For no candid man in the least degree acquainted with the progress of this business will believe for a moment, that the ostensible dispute was about papers, or whether the British treaty was a good one or a bad one, but whether there should be a treaty at all without the concurrence of the House of Representatives, which was striking at once, and that boldly, too, at the fundamental principles of the constitution; and, if it were established, would render the treaty-making power, not only a nullity, but such an absolute absurdity as to reflect disgrace on the framers of it. For will any one suppose, that they who framed, or those who adopted, that instrument ever intended to give the power to the President and Senate to make treaties, and, declaring that when made and ratified they should be the supreme law of the land, would in the same breath place it in the powers of the House of Representatives to fix their vote on them; unless apparent marks of fraud or corruption (which in equity would set aside any contract) ac

companied the measure, or such striking evidence of national injury attended their adoption, as to make a war or any other evil preferable? Every unbiassed mind will answer in the negative.

3. NEUTRALITY

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE. MOUNT VERNON, 12 April, 1793.

DEAR SIR,

Your letter of the 7th was brought to me by the last post. War having actually commenced between France and Great Britain, it behooves the government of this country to use every means in its power to prevent the citizens thereof from embroiling us with either of those powers, by endeavoring to maintain a strict neutrality. I therefore require, that you will give the subject mature consideration, that such measures as shall be deemed most likely to effect this desirable purpose may be adopted without delay; for I have understood, that vessels are already designated privateers, and are preparing accordingly.

Such other measures as may be necessary for us to pursue against events, which it may not be in our power to avoid or control, you will also think of, and lay them before me at my arrival in Philadelphia; for which place I shall set out to-morrow, but will leave it to the advices, which I may receive to-night by the post, to determine whether it is to be by the most direct route, or by the one I pro

posed to have come, that is, by Reading, the canals between the rivers of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Carlisle, &c., &c. With very great esteem and regard, I am, &c.1

TO THE SECRETARIES AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

[CIRCULAR]

PHILADELPHIA, 18 April, 1793.

The posture of affairs in Europe, particularly between France and Great Britain, places the United States in a delicate situation, and requires much consideration, of the measures which will be proper for them to observe in the war between those powers. With a view to forming a general plan of conduct for the executive, I have stated and enclosed sundry questions, to be considered preparatory to a meeting at my house to-morrow, where I shall expect to see you at 9 o'clock, and to receive the result of your reflections thereon. I am, &c.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

PHILADELPHIA, 18 April, 1793.

I. Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of the citizens of the United States in the war between France and

1 The outbreak of war between Great Britain and France on February 3, 1793, raised at once the question as to what the relations of the United States should be to the belligerent powers. France claimed that by the treaty of alliance made with her in 1778 the United States was bound to assist her. Many Americans admitted this claim, and many others, entirely apart from treaty stipulations, were ready to aid the French out of gratitude for the aid received from them in the Revolution. At

Great Britain, &c.?

Shall it contain a declaration

of neutrality or not? What shall it contain? II. Shall a minister from the Republic of France be received?

III. If received, shall it be absolutely or with qualifications; and, if with qualifications, of what kind?

IV. Are the United States obliged by good faith to consider the treaties heretofore made with France as applying to the present situation of the parties? May they either renounce them, or hold them suspended till the government of France shall be established?

V. If they have the right, is it expedient to do either, and which?

VI. If they have an option, would it be a breach of neutrality to consider the treaties still in operation?

VII. If the treaties are to be considered as now in operation, is the guarantee in the treaty of alliance applicable to a defensive war only, or to war either offensive or defensive?

VIII. Does the war in which France is engaged appear to be offensive or defensive on her part? Or of a mixed and equivocal character?

IX. If of a mixed and equivocal character, does the guarantee in any event apply to such a war?

X. What is the effect of a guarantee such as

that time the motives of French policy in 1778 were not generally understood, and how little claim France had upon the gratitude of America was not realized.

Questions Submitted to the Cabinet 407

that to be found in the treaty of alliance between the United States and France?

XI. Does any article in either of the treaties prevent ships of war, other than privateers, of the powers opposed to France from coming into the ports of the United States to act as convoys to their own merchantmen? Or does it lay any other restraint upon them more than would apply to the ships of war of France?

XII. Should the future regent of France send a minister to the United States, ought he to be received?

XIII. Is it necessary or advisable to call together the two Houses of Congress, with a view to the present posture of European affairs? If it is, what should be the particular object of such a call? 1

1 The opinion of the cabinet was thus expressed in a memorandum drawn up by Jefferson:

"At a meeting of the heads of departments and the attorneygeneral at the President's, April 19th, 1793, to consider the foregoing questions proposed by the President, it was determined by all, on the first question, that a proclamation shall issue forbidding our citizens to take part in any hostilities on the seas, with or against any of the belligerent powers; and warning them against carrying to any such powers any of those articles deemed contraband, according to the modern usage of nations; and enjoining them from all acts and proceedings inconsistent with the duties of a friendly nation towards those at war.

"On the second question, 'Shall a minister from the Republic of France be received?' it was unanimously agreed, that he shall be received.

"The remaining questions were postponed for further consideration."-Ford.

On the third question, Jefferson and Randolph were of opinion, that the minister should be received absolutely and without