Papers of John Adams, volume 7
1779-02-09
It is now near six Months that Capt. McNeil, of the Mifflin Privateer from America, has been embarras'd with a Process on Account of 396a French Ship, which he retook from the English after she had been three Days in their Possession. The Laws of France are clear with regard to the Validity of this Prize, and our Captains have Orders, contained in their Commissions, to submit their Prizes to the Laws of the Country into which they carry them, and they ought undoubtedly to regulate their own Conduct by those Laws, without any regard to the Laws of America, relating to this Matter, which may be different in every one of the United States, and therefore too Uncertain to be made the Rule for Judgement in the Courts here.1 But if the Persons reclaiming this Prize, insist, among other Reasons, which seem no better founded, that their Cause should be judged by the Laws of Capt. McNeils Country, because more favourable for them. We believe that no Americans in France will ever think of claiming here any Advantage by virtue of the Laws of their own Country, and it seems not just to put those Laws in force against them in France, when it may be done to their Detriment. The Vexation of these kind of Processes, and the Slowness and length of these expensive Proceedings before a Decision can be obtained, discourage our armed Vessels, and have tended to impress them with an Opinion, that their Operations against the English cannot be carried on to Advantage in the European Seas.
We therefore request your Excellency to join your Sollicitations with those we have had the Honor to make to M. De Sartine, that these Processes may be more speedily determined, and that the Americans in France may be treated in these Respects, on the same Footing with the Subjects of his Majesty. Of which we shall be glad to give Information to the Congress, that so, some Popular Prejudices occasioned by these Affairs, may be effectually removed, and the American armed Ships be encouraged to return and cruize again upon the Coasts of England.
We have the honor to be, with the greatest Consideration & Respect, Your Excellency's, most obedient & most humble Servants.2
For the respective laws regarding recaptures, see Sartine to the Commissioners, 16 Sept. 1778, and notes (above).
In his reply of 16 Feb. (Dft, Arch. Aff. Etr., Paris, Corr. Pol., E.-U., vol. 7), Vergennes stated that the Commissioners' letter had been sent to Sartine for his consideration. The case, however, dragged 397on for at least another year. In a letter dated 17 Jan. but without a year given, Daniel Marc Antoine Chardon, Procurer Général près du Conseil des Prises, informed Franklin that the McNeill case had been tried and settled in his favor. An editorially supplied date of 1779 is in error (
Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S.
, 2:9).
1779-02-09
We have received your Letters of the 12 Decr.1 and 23 of January. In the first You propose that We should write to Messrs. Horneca and Fitzeaux to pass the Amount of the Goods you mention to our Debit. In that of 23 of January, you propose that one of the Cases Still remaining in Mr. Schweighausers Hands should be delivered to you, and that We should give orders to Mess. Horneca &c. to replace the others, at Nantes.
As this Business was brought upon Us, by Accident or Mistake, without our Knowledge or Consent, it appears to Us that the Public ought not to be put to any extraordinary Expence or Risque about it. But still it is our Desire that Justice may be done, and therefore We think that the most equitable Way will be, for Us to give orders that these Goods be delivered to Mr. Deane in America, if they arrive there, and then they will be his Loss if they do not.
If this is agreable to you, We will readily give orders that the Case which remains in Mr. Schweighausers Hands be delivered to you and the others delive
We are &c.
Not printed, but see Williams' letter of 23 Jan. (above).
The Commissioners here are seeking the middle ground between Arthur Lee's position in his letter of 8 Feb. (above) and Benjamin Franklin's in the unsent letter to Horneca, Fizeaux & Co. of 9 Feb. Franklin, acceding to Williams' wishes, requested that Horneca, Fizeaux & Co. charge the Commissioners' account for the goods mistakenly sent to the congress (
Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S.
, 3:517). Because JA's Letterbook copy is a draft, he may well have devised this compromise to obtain the signatures of both his colleagues. He may or may not have been successful, but see Lee to Franklin and JA of 10 Feb., and note 1 (below).
Apparently the issue remained unsettled. In his reply of 20 Feb., Williams noted that the solution proposed was impracticable because the goods had either been used up at Nantes or had long since arrived in America, and again he proposed that the goods be paid for by the Commissioners (PPAmP: Franklin Papers). In his answer of 16 March, Franklin informed Williams that he had shown his letter to JA, “who found the proposition reasonable” (Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev.
, 3:83–84). Thus on 20 April, Franklin wrote to Horneca, Fizeaux & Co. and, except for “case No. 3,” ordered them to replace the goods “at the risque and expence of the United States” (PU: Franklin Papers).