ation, and
found nothing in that letter which could shake the grounds of his former
decision. My letter of June the 5th notifying this to him, his of June
the 8th and 14th, mine of the 17th, and his again of the 22nd, will show
what further passed on this subject, and that he was far from retaining
his disposition to acquiesce in the ultimate will of the President.

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
t