It would be tedious to pursue this and our subsequent correspondence through all their details.  Referring therefore for these to the letters themselves, which shall accompany this, I will present a summary view only of the points of difference which have arisen, and the grounds on which they rest.

1.  Mr. Genet asserts his right of arming in our ports and of enlisting our citizens, and that we have no right to restrain him or punish them.  Examining this question under the law of nations, founded on the general sense and usage of mankind, we have produced proofs, from the most enlightened and approved writers on the subject, that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to the war, observe an exact impartiality towards the parties; that favors to one to the prejudice of the other would import a fraudulent neutrality, of which no nation would be the dupe; that no succor should be given to either, unless stipulated by treaty, in men, arms, or any thing else directly serving for war; that the right of raising troops being one of the rights of sovereignty, and consequently appertaining exclusively to the nation itself, no foreign power or person can levy men within its territory without its consent; and he who does, may be rightfully and severely punished; that if the United States have a right to refuse the permission to arm vessels and raise men within their ports and territories, they are bound by the laws of neutrality to exercise that right, and to prohibit such armaments and enlistments.  To these principles of the law of nations Mr. Genet answers, by calling them ‘diplomatic subtleties,’ and ’aphorisms of Vattel and others.’  But something more than this is necessary to disprove them; and till they are disproved, we hold it certain that the law of nations and the rules of neutrality forbid our permitting either party to arm in our ports.

But Mr. Genet says, that the twenty-second article of our treaty allows him expressly to arm in our ports.  Why has he not quoted the very words of that article expressly allowing it?  For that would have put an end to all further question.  The words of the article are, ’It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers not belonging to subjects of the M. C. King, nor citizens of the said United States, who have commissions from any foreign Prince or State in enmity with either nation, to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid parties.’  Translate this from the general terms in which it here stands, into the special case produced by the present war.  ’Privateers not belonging to France or the United States, and having commissions from the enemies of one of them,’ are, in the present state of things,’ British, Dutch, and Spanish privateers.’  Substituting these then for the equivalent terms, it will stand thus, ’It shall not be lawful for British, Dutch, or Spanish privateers, to fit their ships in the ports of the United States.’  Is this an express