the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterive, Consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the Governor, reclaims her as ’Un vaisseau arme, en guerre, et pret a mettre a la voile;’ and describes her object in these expressions; ’Cet usage etrange de la force publique contre les citoyens d’une nation amie qui se reunissent ici pour aller defendre leur freres,’ &c. and again; ’Je requiers, monsieur, l’autorite dont vous etes revetu, pour faire rendre a des Francois, a des allies, &c. la liberte de voler au secours de leur patrie.’  This transaction being reported to the President, orders were immediately sent to deliver over the vessel, and the persons concerned in the enterprise, to the tribunals of the country; that if the act was of those forbidden by the law, it might be punished; if it was not forbidden, it might be so declared, and all persons apprized of what they might or might not do.

This we have reason to believe is the true state of the case, and it is a repetition of that which was the subject of my letter of the 5th instant, which animadverted, not merely on the single fact of the granting commissions of war by one nation within the territory of another, but on the aggregate of the facts:  for it states the opinion of the President to be, ’that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States; that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to commit their peace.’  And this opinion is still conceived to be not contrary to the principles of natural law, the usage of nations, the engagements which unite the two people, nor the proclamation of the President, as you seem to think.

Surely, not a syllable can be found in the last mentioned instrument permitting the preparation of hostilities in the ports of the United States.  Its object was to enjoin on our citizens ’a friendly conduct towards all the belligerent powers;’ but a preparation of hostilities is the reverse of this.

None of the engagements in our treaties stipulate this permission.  The XVIIth article of that of commerce, permits the armed vessels of either party to enter the ports of the other, and to depart with their prizes freely:  but the entry of an armed vessel into a port, is one act; the equipping a vessel in that port, arming her, and manning her, is a different one, and not engaged by any article of the treaty.

You think, Sir, that this opinion is also contrary to the law of nature and usage of nations.  We are of opinion it is dictated by that law and usage; and this had been very maturely inquired into before it was adopted as a principle of conduct.  But we will not assume the exclusive right of saying what that law and usage is.  Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges.  None is more so than Vattel.  He says, L. 3, 8, 104. ’Tant