1759. CONSULS, Usurpation of Jurisdiction by.—[continued].
We learn * * * that
the [French] consul of New York, in the
first instance, and yourself in a subsequent
one, forbade an officer of justice to serve the
process with which he was charged from his
court, on the British brig William Tell, taken
by a French armed vessel, within a mile of
our shores, * * * and that you had even
given orders to the French squadron there to
protect the vessel against any person who
should attempt to take her from their custody.
If this opposition were founded, * * * on
the indulgence of the letters before cited
[with respect to the William Tell], it was extending
that to a case not within their purview;
and even had it been precisely the case
to which they were to be applied, is it possible
to imagine you might assert it, within the
body of the country, by force of arms? 1
forbear to make the observations which such a measure must suggest, and cannot but believe
that a moment's reflection will evince to
you the depth of the error committed in this
opposition to an officer of justice, and in the
means proposed to be resorted to in support
of it. I am, therefore, charged to declare to
you expressly, that the President expects and
requires, that the officer of justice be not obstructed,
in freely and peaceably serving the
process of his court; and that, in the meantime,
the vessel and her cargo be not suffered
to depart, till the judiciary, if it will undertake
it, or himself, if not, shall decide whether the
seizure has been within the limits of our protection.—
To E. C. Genet. Washington ed. iv, 68.
Ford ed., vi, 421.
(Pa.,
Sep. 1793)
