By the first Article of the Treaty of Commerce between the United States and France it is Stipulated that

There Shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal Peace, and a true and Sincere Friendship between the most Christian King, his Heirs and Successors, and the United States of America; and the Subjects of the most Christian King and of the Said States; and between the Countries, Islands, Cities and Towns, Situate under the Jurisdiction of the most Christian King, and of the Said United States, and the People and Inhabitants of every degree, without Exception of Persons or Places;—1

By the first Article of the Treaty between the United States and the States General of the United Netherlands it is stipulated

That there Shall be a firm, inviolable and universal Peace, and Sincere Friendship, between their High Mightinesses, and the United States of America, and between the Subjects and Inhabitants of the Said Parties and between the Countries, Islands, Cities and Places, Situated under the Jurisdiction of the Said United Netherlands, and the Said United States of America, their Subjects and Inhabitants, of every degree, without Exception of Persons or Places.2

By the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain it is stipulated

That there Shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between his Britannic Majesty, and the United States, and between the Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other.3

By the first Article of the Treaty between the United States and the King of Prussia, it is stipulated that

There Shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal Peace, and Sincere Friendship between his Majesty the King of Prussia, his Heirs, Successors and Subjects, on the one Part, and the United States of America, and their Citizens on the other, without Exception of Persons or Places.4

By the first Article of the Treaty between the United States and the King of Sweeden it is Stipulated that

There shall be a firm, inviolable and Universal Peace, and a true and Sincere Friendship, between the King of Sweeden, his Heirs and succcessors and the United States of America, and the Subjects 23 of his Majesty and those of the Said States, and between the Countries, Islands, Cities and Towns Situated under the Jurisdiction of the King and of the Said United States, without any Exception of Persons or Places.5

I have laid these Articles all together, although three of them only I mean those in the Treaties of Holland, England and Prussia, are necessary to determine the Questions which have lately been made in this Country. It has been pretended by Some that the Citizens of the United States, have a Right to expatriate themselves, to inlist in the service of France, to accept Commissions under the Government of France, to fit out Privateers, to cruise against the Enemies of France, to burn kill and destroy those Enemies, to make Prize of their ships and Cargoes, and even to go upon Expeditions against the Countries of the Ennemies of France, to plunder their Property, destroy their Lives and make Conquests of their Territories.

Let me premise here that the Articles before cited appear to me to be all of equal Import, and to express no more than the Law of Nations implies without any Treaty at all. The Law of Nations is only the Law of Nature applied to the Conduct of Nations. The Law of Nature Says to Individuals Thou shalt do no Injury to thy Fellow: Thou Shall do to him as thou wouldst be done by. Nations being moral Persons, The Law of Nations Says to each of them, thou Shall do no Injury to thy Neighbour— Thou Shalt do to him as thou wouldst be done by. The United States therefore, by the Law of Nations, are bound to do no Injury to Spain or Sardinia or Russia with whom they have no Treaties, and to do to each of those Powers as they would be done by, as much as they are bound to such peaceable, inoffensive and friendly Conduct by their Treaties with Holland or Prussia or England.

But by these Treaties, the Publick Faith of the U.S. is pledged, that their Citizens shall all and every one, be peaceable and friendly to all and every the Subjects of Britain Prussia and Holland.— When an American accepts a Commission from Genet or his Republick, to go and cruise against all their Ennemies, that is Prussians Dutch & English as well as all others to burn sink destroy or take their ships, to kill their Bodies, is not this Acceptance a Contract on his Part, a pledging his Honour and his Faith to commit such Hostilities to the Utmost of his Power? Is not this a Violation of the Treaties? and as The Treaties by the Constitution are made the Law of the Land, is not such Conduct a Transgression of the Law.? Is War Peace? or is Hostility Friendship? That is the Question.

The Jury who acquitted Hendfield and a later Jury in Georgia who acquitted a Dr Putnam and others, could not have given such Verdicts if these Things had been laid before them as they ought.6 But I am astonished to see as I do every day so much Ignorance prevail of the Law of Nature and Nations. A Pupil never went out of the office of Mr Gridley or your Father, without more accurate Ideas of these subjects, than I see now a Days, in Judges, Attorneys General and Senators.7 Charles, if you do not make yourself more familiar with these Laws, I will never forgive you.—

That our States have adopted several thoughtless Articles in their Declarations of Rights, about quitting the Country may be true. but none of them can have asserted such a Right of Expatriates as shall be construed to render all our Treaties nugatory, and authorize our People individually to go to War when they please and with whom they please. I wish you would examine all the State Constitutions and send me the Articles relative to Expatriation.

How is your Finger?

yours

I have duly received your letters up to the first of this month and am grateful for your kindness towards me your extracts from Heineccius and your remarks1 About three years ago I read this author. I cannot find him in this City our public library is very badly selected in my opinion although it has the effect of all public libraries 25 that is to make individuals careless of collecting books.2 The great Doctrine is that “All men are born free and equal” that is to say in a State of Nature they may be. and this is the distinction you have made but how any man of reflection can hold up the idea as it relates to a state of Society is wonderful It is certainly not true that they are born free and equal If it is said they are equally born or that they ought to be born free there may be some plausibility in the pretence

The purity of Mr Madison’s intentions is a theme much discanted upon. I should however hardly advise to place so much reliance. He cannot wish to injure the Goverment are words which fall from many lips But I think we should do very wrong to fall asleep and trust the Child to such a nurse. What will these Democratic Societies which are establishing in the different States come to Are they not too faithful imitations of the Jacobins? Or are they not in fact branches of that Club Is there no power in our Government to check such associations And if not will not their influence be dangerous and perhaps fatal to the Federal Government? I am fearful that the antifederal party in Congress are gaining too much ground.

It is a question upon which I have never yet been able to satisfy my mind fully Whether Receiving a minister from France at the time Mr Genet was received was a measure of policy or a measure we were obliged to adopt to support our good faith The Government of France if I recollect right had been decreed to be Revolutionary which in my acceptation of the word means that the six seven or dozen men who could from time to time get uppermost were to govern. We are then to day to receive the Ambassador of Pethion tomorrow of Brissot the next day of Robertspier &c &ca It is said by many who question the policy of the measure that this Country would never have suffered the minister to be rejected that it would have created a fatal fermentation There may be truth in this but I fear we shall be led into more difficulties by the reception than we could have been by refusal. Suppose that monarchy were again to be established in France would not the Court call for the repayment of that part of the debt we have paid to the Soi disant republic? And if we refused would it not be a very plausible pretence to go to war with us? I am aware of the distinction which is made between personal treaties and real treaties but surely we had a good pretext to refuse what by France was demanded Vattel B 2d Chap 12 Sec 197 “The ally remains the Ally of the State notwithstanding the Change which has happened in it. However when this change renders the 26 alliance useless dangerous or dissagreeable it may renounce it: For it may say upon a good foundation that it would not have entered into an alliance with that nation had it been under the present form of Government.[”]3 In our present situation we should explain our treaties with different nations so as to make them appear consistent if possible We should not conceive that we owe all to one Nation without examining if we have no duties to discharge toward others we certainly have and we could not perform what is required by the French without breaking our treaties with other nations are we than to suffer an explanation which would involve us in war with most of the great Nations of Europe?

I have looked over the Constitutions of the different States I find nothing relative to the right of emigration except in the fifteenth article of the Pensylvania Bill of rights towit That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one State to another that will receive them, or to form a new State in vacant Countries or in such Countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.4 This article appears to me to have been made in contradistinction to the doctrine advanced by some writers of Respectability That a man can never relinquish his allegiance to the Country where he was born Sir William Blackstone and Lord Hale appear to me to carry this idea rather too far Yet we are not to suppose that expatriation is a thing of so little moment or that upon the most trifling occasions or upon every momentary impulse we can justifiably divest ourselves of all duty to our Country much less to infringe the Supreme Laws of the Land with impunity. The line should be drawn some where so as neither wholly to preclude our Citizens from emigrating nor permit chichaning pretences to screen them from the arm of the Laws when they commit such acts as endanger the peace and wellfare of the Community. The President by his proclamation declared to the People of the United States the situation of their Country the duties they owed to the respective Powers engaged in the War enjoined a strict neutrality and forbid them to be aiding and abetting &ca This was not a law made for the occasion but a statement that such engagement did exist between the United States and several of the European nations engaged in the war Treaties are Laws of the highest authority Everry Citizen who acts contrary to them becomes liable to punishment and should receive it. I can hardly suppose that 27 observations of this nature have not been made to the juries who have acquitted several offenders I should rather impute it to the obstinacy of prejudice, but many things go wrong.

You will perceive by the latter part of my letter that I have received your favor of the 13th inst For which accept the sincere thanks of your Affectionate son