John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793
John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
Richmond, 22 May 1793
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—
That citizens ^and nations^ should so1 use their own, as not to injure others, is an ancient and excellent maxim: it is one of those plain Precepts of common Justice which it is the Interest of all and the Duty of each to obey, and that not only in the use they may make of their Property, but also of their Liberty, ^their power,^ and other Blessings of every kind.
To restrain men from violating the Rights of Society & of one another, and ^impartially^ to give Security & Protection to all, are among the most important objects of a free Government. I say a free Governmt because in those that are not free, these objects being in certain Respects secondary to others, are less regarded, and less perfectly provided for.
Where the Conduct of the citizens is regulated by Laws, made by themselves, and for their common Benefit; and are executed by men deriving authority from, and responsible to them, the most regular and exact obedience to those Laws, is to be expected, required, and rendered. By their Constitution and Laws, the People ^of the united States have^ expressed their will, and their will so expressed, must sway and rule supreme in every ^our^ Republic. It is in obedience to their will, and in pursuance of their authority that this Court is now to dispense their Justice in this District; and they have made it your Duty Gentlemen! to enquire whether any and what Infractions of their Laws have been committed in this District, or on the Seas by Persons in or belonging to it— proceed therefore to enquire accordingly, and to present such as either have, or shall come to your Knowledge—2
That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or3 Descriptions—
1st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2dly. The Laws of nations—
3dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—
Treaties between independent nations are contracts or Bargains which derive all obl their Force and Obligation from mutual Consent and agreement; and consequently, when a once fairly made & properly concluded, cannot be altered or annulled by one of the Parties, without the consent & concurrence of the other. wide is the Difference between Treaties and Statutes. we may negociate & make contracts with other nations, but we can neither legislate for them, nor they for us. We may repeal or alter our Statutes, but no nation can have authority to vacate or modify Treaties at Discretion. Treaties therefore necessarily become the supreme Law of the Land, and so they are very properly declared to be, by the 6th. article of the constitution.—4
whenever Doubts and Questions arise relative to the validity operation or construction of Treaties, or of any articles in them, those Doubts & Questions must be settled according to the maxims and Principles of the Laws of nations applicable to the case.
The Peace Prosperity and Reputation of the U. S. will always greatly depend on their Fidelity to their Engagements, & every virtuous Citizen (for every citizen is a Party to them) will concur in observing & executing them with Honor and good Faith, and that whether they be made with nations respectable and important, or with nations weake & inconsiderable. our obligation to keep our faith results from our having pledged it, & not from the Character or Description of the State or People to whom neither Impunity nor the Rules ^Right^ of Retaliation can sanctify Perfidy, for altho Perfidy may deserve chastisement, yet it can never merit Imitation.
2. As to the Laws of nations— they are those Laws by which civilized5 ^nations^ are bound to regulate their Conduct towards each other, both in peace and in war. Providence has been pleased to place the united States among the nations of the Earth, and therefore all those Duties are as well as Rights, which spring from the Relation of Nation to Nation, have devolved upon us. we are with other nations Tenants in common of the Sea— and it is
a Highway for all, and all are bound to exercise that common Right, and use that common Highway, in the manner which the Laws of Nations and Treaties ma require.
on this occasion it is proper to observe to You Gentlemen, that various circumstances and considerations now unite in urging the People of the U. S. to be particularly exact & circumspect in observing the obligation of Treaties and the Laws of nations, which ^which^ as has been already remarked, form a very important part of the Laws of the united St our nation. I allude to the Facts and Injunctions specified in the Presidents late Proclamation. It is in these words:
Whereas it appears that a State of war exists between Austria Prussia Sardinia, Great Britain and the united Netherlands of the one part, and France on the other, and the Duty and Interest of the united States require, that they should with Sincerity and good faith adopt & pursue a Conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers:
I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the Disposition of the united States to observe the Conduct aforesaid towards the^se^ powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the Citizens of the united states carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such Disposition.
I do hereby make known that whoever of the Citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to Punishment or forfeiture under the Law of Nations, by committing aiding or abetting Hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to them any of those articles which are deemed contraband, by the modern usage of nations, will not recieve the protection of the United States against such punishment or forfeiture and further that I have given Instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause Prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall within the cognizance of the Courts of the united States, violate the Law of nations with Respect to the powers at war or any of them.6
By this Proclamation authentic and official Information is given to the citizens of the United States
That war actually exists between the nations mentioned in it—
That they are to observe a conduct friendly & impartial towards the belligerent powers
That offenders will not be protected, but on the contrary prosecuted and punished
The Law of nations considers those as neutral nations “who take no part in it ^the war^, remaining Friends to both parties, and not favoring the arms
of one to the Detriment of the other”—7 and it declares, that a nation, desirous safely to enjoy the Conveniences of Neutrality, is in all Things to shew an exact Impartiality between the parties at war; for should he8 ^when under no obligation^ favor one to the Detriment of the other, he cannot complain of being treated as an adherent and confederate of his Enemy. his neutrality would be a fraudulent neutrality,9 of which no nation would be the Dupe, if able to resent it—
The Proclamation is exactly consistant with and declaratory of the Du Du Conduct enjoined by the Laws of nations—
It is worthy of Remark that we are at peace with all these belligerent powers, not only negatively in having war with none of them, but also in a more positive & particular Sense by Treaties with four of them—10
By the 1st. Article of our Treaty with France it stipulated that “there shall be a firm inviolable and universal peace, and true and sincere Friendship between his most christian Majesty his Heirs & Successors and the United States, and between the countries Islands Cities & Towns situate under the Jurisdiction of his most christian Majesty, and of the united States, and the people and Inhabitants of every Degree without Exception of Persons or places.”11
By the 1st. article of our Treaty with the united Netherlands, it is stipulated that “There shall be a firm inviolable and universal peace & sincere Friendship between their High mightinesses the Lords & States General of the united Netherlands and the United States of america, and between the Subjects & Inhabitants of the said Parties, and between the countries Islands and places situate under the Jurisdiction of the said united Netherlands, and the united States of america their Subjects and Inhabitants of every Degree, without Exception of Persons or Places.”12
The definitive Treaty of Peace with great Britain begins with great Solemnity in the words following “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” By the 7th. article of this Treaty it is stipulated that “There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his britannic Majesty and the united States; and between the Subjects of the one and the citizens of the other.”13
By the 1st. article of our Treaty with Prussia it is stipulated that “There shall be a firm inviolable and universal peace and sincere Friendship between his Majesty the King of Prussia, his Heirs, successors and Subjects, on the one part; and the united States of america and their citizens on the other, without Exception of Persons or places.[”]14
By the Laws of nations the U. S. as a neutral Power are bound to observe the Line of Conduct indicated by the Proclamation towards all ^the^
belligerent powers and that altho we may have no Treaties with them. But with Respect to France, the United Netherlands, Great Britain, and Prussia, the before mentioned Articles in our Treaties with them, create additional Obligations, to wit all those obligations which result from express compact; and ^from^ national Faith mutually, explicitly and solemnly pledged. Surely no Engagements can be more wise and virtuous than those whose direct object is to maintain peace, and to preserve large portions of the human Race from the [violence?] [illegible] complicated Evils incident to war— while the people of other nations do no violence or Injustice to our citizens, it would certainly be criminal & wicked in our Citizens ^for the Sake of pay plunder^ to do violence and Injustice to any of them.
The President therefore has with great Propriety declared “that the Duty & Interest of the united States require that they should with Sincerity & good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers—”
a celebrated writer on the Law of nations very justly observes that “as nature has given to men the Right of using Force, only when it becomes necessary for their Defence, and the preservation of their Rights, the Inference is manifest that since the Establishment of political Societies, a Right so dangerous in its Exercise, no longer remains with private persons, except in those kind of Rencounters, where Society cannot protect or defend them.[”]15
“In the Bosom of Society, public authority decides all Differences of the citizens, represses violence, and checks the Insults of Revenge. If a private It would be too dangerous to give every Citizen the Liberty of doing himself Justice against Foreigners, as every Individual of a nation might involve it in war, and how could peace be preserved between nations if it was in the power of every man to disturb it? A Right of so great moment, the Right of judging whether a nation has a real cause of Complaint, whether its Case allows of using force, and having Recourse to arms, whether Prudence admits, and whether the welfare of the State demands it; this Right, I say ^he says^ can belong only to the Body of the nation, or to the Sovereign its Representative. It is doubtless one of those, without which there can be no salutary Government[”].16
It is on these and similar Principles that the Proclamation makes known that whoever of the Citizens of the united States shall ^shall^ render himself liable to Punishment ^or forfeiture^ under the Law of nations, by committing, aiding or abetting Hostilities forbidden by his Country, should ^ought to^ lose the Protection of his Country against such punishment or forfeiture. But this is not all— It is not sufficient that a Nation should ^only^ withdraw
its Protection from such offenders— it ought ^also^ to prosecute and punish them—
The same writer17 very justly remarks that “the nation or Sovereign ought not to suffer the citizens to do an Injury to the Subjects of another State, much less to offend the State itself. and that not only because no Sovereign ought to permit those who are under his Command to violate the precepts of the Law of Nature, which forbids all Injuries; but also because nations ought to respect each other, to abstain from18 all abuse, from all Injury, and in a word from every Thing that may be of Prejudice to others. If a Sovereign, who might keep his Subjects within the Rules of Justice and Peace, suffers them to injure a foreign nation, either in its Body or its members,19 he does no less Injury to that nation, than if he injured them himself. In short, the Safety of the State, and that of human Society, requires this attention from every sovereign. If you let loose the Reins of your Subjects against foreign nations, these will behave in the same manner to You; and instead of that friendly Intercourse which nature has established between all men, we should see nothing but one nation robbing another.”—
The Respect which every nation owes to itself imposes a Duty on its Government to cause all its Laws to be respected & obeyed; and that not only by its proper Citizens, but also by those Strangers who ^may^ visit and occasionally reside with[in] its Territories. There is no Principle better established than that every ^all^ Strangers admitted into a country is ^are^ during his ^their^ Residence Subject to the Laws of it, and that if they violate the Laws, they are to be punished according to the Laws. The Design of pains and Penalties being to render the Laws respected, and to maintain order and Safety.20 Hence it follows that the subjects of belligerent powers, are bound while in this Country to respect the Neutrality of it, and are punishable in common with our own Citizens for Violations of it within the Limits & Jurisdiction of the united States.
It is to be remembered that every nation is and ought to be perfectly and absolutely sovereign within its own Dominions, to the entire Exclusion of all foreign power Interference & Jurisdiction, whether attempted by a foreign prince, or by his Subjects with or without his order. “It is a manifest consequence of the Liberty & Independence of nations, that all of them have a Right to be governed as they think proper, and that none have the least authority to interfere in the Government of another State. Of all the Rights that can belong to a nation, Sovereignty is doubtless the most precious, & that which others ^ought^ the most scrupulously to respect, if they would not do it an Injury—[”]21
These are general Principles. The Cases22 to which they apply are numerous, and need not be particularized in Detail— on the present occasion it will be sufficient to lead you[r] attention to one or Two, which will serve to explain the Reason and Extent of these Principles.
The Right of levying Soldiers is a sovereign Right belonging only to the nation— no foreign power can lawfully exercise it without Permission, nor without previous Permission can such attempts be otherwise be regarded than as improper Interferences with the Sovereignty of the Country. on this Head the Law of nations is explicit. It declares that the Right of levying Soldiers belongs solely to the nation— This important “Power is the appendage of the Sovereign. It makes a part of the supreme Prerogative.”23 “No Person is to enlist Soldiers in a foreign Country, without the Permission of the Sovereign. They who undertake to enlist Soldiers in an a foreign Country, without the Sovereign’s Permission, or alienate the Subjects of another, violate one of the most sacred Rights both of the Prince and the State. it is a crime punished with great Severity in every policied24 State. foreign Recruiters are hanged immediately, and very justly, as it is not to be presumed that their sovereign ordered them to commit the crime; & if he did, they ought not to have obeyed his order, their Sovereign having no Right to command what is contrary to the Law of nature. usually they who have practiced Seduction only, are severely punished. But if it appears that they acted by order of their Sovereign, such a Proceeding in a foreign Sovereign, is justly considered as an Injury, and as a sufficient Cause for declaring war against him, unless he condescends to make suitable Reparation.—[”]25
From the observations which have been made this conclusion appears to result vizt. That the united States are in a State of neutrality relative to all the powers at war, and that it is their Duty, their Interest, and their Disposition to to observe and maintain it. That therefore they, who commit, aid or abet Hostilities against these powers or either of them, offend against the Laws of the united States, and ought to be punished; and consequently that it is your Duty Gentlemen to enquire into and present all such of these offences as you shall find to have been committed within this District.
What acts amount to committing, or aiding, or abetting Hostilities must be determined by the Laws and approved practice of nations, and by the Treaties and other Laws of the united States, relative to such Cases. I doubt the Expediency of anticipating such Cases, and endeavouring ^now^ to distinguish acts which do, from others which do not involve the criminality in Question. singular Cases may arise— If in the course of your Inquiries you should experience Difficulties, the attorney General, and if necessary, the Court will assist You.
Before I dismiss this Subject, it cannot be improper to remark that a State of neutrality leaves us perfectly at Liberty to exercise every humane, benevolent and friendly office towards the powers at war and their Subjects, and to continue our usual Commerce with them, excepting only those offices and that kind of Trade, which may be designed and calculated to give to one party a military Preponderancy to the Detriment of the others—
While we contemplate with anxiety and Regret the Desolation & Distress which a war so general and so enflamed will probably spread over more than one country, let us with becoming Gratitude wisely estimate and cherish the Peace Liberty and Safety with which the divine Providence has been pleased so liberally to bless us. By the favor of Heaven, we this Day enjoy a Degree of Prosperity unknown to any other nation in the world. Let it be among our Enjoyments to render our Happiness instrumental to in alleviating the misfortunes to which many have already been, and more will yet be mislead ^reduced^ by these national Contentions. Let in a word— Let us be faithful to all—kind to all—26 but let us also be just to ourselves.
The People of the united States have exhibited too many Proofs of virtue and Intelligence to apprehend to leave Room to doubt their continuing to be guided by their usual Integrity and Good Sense. But in every nation Individuals will always be found who, impelled by avarice or ambition or both, will not hesitate to gratify those Passions at the Expence of the Blood and Tears even of those who are free from Blame. Such men are to be restrained only by the fear of Punishment.
There is however another consideration connected with the Subject which merits much attention. It is natural ^in all Contests,^ even for the best men to take Sides, and wish Success to one Party in Preference to the other. our wishes and Partialities becoming enflamed by opposition, often cause Indiscretions and lead us to say and to do Things that had better have been omitted. It is not certain that the Irritability of the belligerent powers, combined with some Indiscretions on our part, will not involve ^us^ in war with some of them. Prudence directs us to look forward to such an Event, and to endeavour not only to avert, but also to be prepared for it— among our Preparations there can be none more important than Union and Harmony among ourselves. It is very desireable that such an Event do not find us divided into Parties, and particularly into Parties in favor of this or that foreign nation. Should that be the Case, our Situation would be dangerous as well as disgraceful. While
blessed with union in Sentiments and measures relative to national objects, we shall have little to fear; and therefore it is sincerely to be wished that our Citizens will chearfully and punctually do their Duty to every other nation, but at the same Time carefully avoid becoming the Partizans of any of them. There is not a History of any nation which does not record the mischiefs they experienced from such Parties, and they scarcely ^rarely^ present us with an Instance of a Nation being conquered and subjugated without the detestible Aid of its own degenerate or deluded Citizens. nothing is more certain than that if such parties should arise among the people, they will find their way into every Department of Government, and carry Distrust and Discord with them. very different would then be27 ^Dark and dreary would then be the Prospect before us, and we should in vain look for the speedy Return of more happy Days when the Government was peacefully wisely and prosperously administered under the Care and auspices of a Patriot^ in whom the united States had by repeated unanimity in their Suffrages manifested a Degree of Confidence, no less reputable to their own wisdom and Virtue than to his.
But if neither Integrity nor Prudence on our part, should prove sufficient to shield us from war, we may then meet it with Fortitude and a firm Dependence on the divine Protection— whenever it shall become impossible to preserve peace by avoiding offences it will be our Duty to refuse to purchase it by Sacrifices and Humiliations unworthy of a free and magnanimous People either to demand or submit to—
The Subject presented by the Proclamation appeared to me to be highly interesting, and I thought it useful to treat it with much Plainness as well as Latitude— I was aware that I was treading on delicate Ground; but I was also aware that it is ^as the path of^ my Duty to tread on any Ground over which it’s Path may lead me ^lead over it, and it was incumbent on^ me to proceed—
On the third Branch of the Laws of the united States, vizt. their Constitution and Statutes, I shall be concise.
Here also one great unerring Principle, vizt. the will of the people will take the Lead.
The People of the united States being by the Grace & favor of Heaven free sovereign and independent, had a Right to chuse the form of national Government which they should judge most conducive to their Happiness and Safety. They have done so, and have ordained and established by ^the one which is specified in^ their great and General Compact or Constitution— a compact deliberately formed, maturely considered; and solemnly adopted and ratified by them. There is not a word in it, but what is employed to express
the Will of the People; and what Friend of his country and the Liberties of it, will say, that the will of the People is not to be observed respected and obeyed? To this great Compact28 every Citizen is a Party, and consequently every Citizen is bound by it— To oppose the operation of this Constitution and of the Government established by it, would be to violate the sovereignty of the People, and would justly merit Reprehension & Punishment
The Statutes of the united States constitutionally made derive their obligation from the same Source, and must bind accordingly— I say
Happy would it be for mankind, and greatly would it promote the Cause of Liberty and the equal Rights of men, if the free and popular Governments which from Time to Time may take place should be so constructed, so ballanced, so organized and administered, as to be evidently and eminently productive of a higher and more Degree durable Degree of Happiness than any of the other Forms. It is not sufficient to tell Men by a Bill of Rights, that they have are free, that they have equal Rights, and that they are entitled to be protected in them— Men will not believe they are really free, while they experience oppression. They will not think their Title to equal Rights, realized,29 untill they enjoy them; nor will they esteem that a good Government, whatever may be its Name, which does not uniformly impartially and effectually protect them.
The more free the people are, the more strong and efficient ought their Governmt. to be; and for this plain Reason, that it is a more arduous Task to make and keep up the Fences of Law and Justice about twenty Rights than about five or six; & because it is more difficult to fence against & restrain men who are unfettered, than men who are in Yolks Yokes & chains.
Being a free People we are governed only by Laws, and those of our own making. These Laws are Rules for regulating the conduct of Individuals, and are established according to, & in pursuance of that Contract, which each Citizen has made with the Rest, and all with each. He is not a good Citizen who violates his Contract with Society; and ^when^ Society execute their Laws, they do no more than what is necessary to constrain Individuals to perform that Contract, on the due operation and observance of which the common Good & welfare of the Community depends; for the object of it is to secure to every man what belongs to him as a member of the nation, and by encreasing the ^common Stock of^ Prosperity,30 to augment the Value of his Share in it. Most essentially therefore is it the Duty and Interest of us all, that the Laws be observed and irresistably executed.
I might now proceed to call your attention to certain Statutes which merit particular attention, and it would not be difficult to place them in points
of view, in which their Importance to the public would appear in strong Lights— But I have already detained you so long, that I and these Subjects are so far from being new31 to You that I will forbear enlarging on them on this ^the present^ occasion.
The manner in which you are to fulfill the Duties now incumbent on you, is specified in the oath you have taken.
The experience of ages justifies the commends the Institution of Grand Juries. it has merited and rec^i^eved constant Encomiums, and there can be no doubt Gentlemen I trust Gentlemen! that your Conduct on this and similar occasions, will afford new proofs of its utility & Excellence—32
Dft (final), NHi: U.S., International Law (EJ: 13347). Endorsed: “Charge to the Grand Jury at Richmond, 22 may 1793.” Dft (preliminary), NNC (EJ: 08126), above. Printed: Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 26 July; Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), 29 and 30 July 1793; Albany Gazette, 5 Aug. 1793; and City Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Charleston, S.C.), 14 Aug. 1793. See also , 49–59; and , 2: 380–91. Significant substantive and stylistic variations between the manuscript and the printed texts are recorded below. Typographical errors and minor variations in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and formatting have not been noted. Passages underlined in manuscript were not italicized in the printed texts.
1. The word “so” is eliminated from the printed texts, except for the City Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Charleston) where it is placed before “as”.
2. The passage “and to present such as either have, or shall come to your Knowledge” is omitted from the text in the City Gazette and Daily Advertiser.
3. The word “or” is changed to “of” in the Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser and Albany Gazette texts.
4. For JJ’s previous discussions of the treaty power, see the extracts of his report of 13 Oct. 1786, and The Federalist 64, 12 Mar. 1788, , 4: 417–18, 654–67; and for his discussion of the topic at the New York Ratifying Convention, see Extracts from John McKesson’s Notes of Debates in the New York Ratifying Convention, and Extracts from Melancton Smith’s Notes of Debates, both 2 July 1788, above.
5. Although “civilized” does not appear to be excised in manuscript, it is omitted from the printed texts.
6. On Genet’s neutrality violations, begun before and continued after GW’s proclamation of 22 Apr., see the editorial note “John Jay and the Issue of Neutrality,” above; and, for JJ’s previously expressed support for a policy of impartial neutrality, see JJ to AH, 11 Apr., above. On the question of the applicability of the law of nations in American law, see also the editorial note “The Longchamps Affair,” , 4: 43–50, esp. 43, 47. In the margin opposite the quotation of the president’s proclamation, JJ placed the notation: “22 Ap. 1793.”
7. Notation in margin: “Vat. 3 B. 7. Ch.” Emer de Vattel, The law of nations; or, Principles of the law of nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. By M. de Vattel. A work tending to display the true interest of powers. Translated from the French (London: printed for J. Newbery, J. Richardson, S. Crowder, T. Caslon, T. Longman, B. Law, J. Fuller, J. Coote, and G. Kearsly, 1759), bk. 3, chap. 7, sec. 103, p. 36. Here and below JJ paraphrases or quotes with minor changes in punctuation or capitalization from this edition, his personal copy of which is now in the Columbia University Law Library.
8. Here and in the following lines “he” is replaced with “it” in the City Gazette text.
9. The phrase “his neutrality would be a fraudulent neutrality” is omitted from the printed texts.
10. JJ’s assertion that the United States had valid treaties in force with all four principal belligerents counters AH’s argument that the United States’ treaties with France were suspended until the nation had a “competent” government and places its treaty of alliance with France on a par with the other three. See AH to JJ, 9 Apr. (first letter), above; and the editorial note “John Jay and the Issue of Neutrality,” above.
11. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France. See , 2: 5.
12. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the United Provinces, ibid., 2: 61.
13. See ibid., 2: 151, 155.
14. See ibid., 2: 163.
15. Notation in margin “Vat. 3B. 1 ch. 2”.
16. Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 4, p. 2.
17. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 3, sec. 72, p. 144. Citation erroneously given in margin as “Vat B2. ch. 6. 144”.
18. Here JJ omitted from the quotation the phrase “all offense.”
19. This phrase reads merely “either in its bodies” in the Diary text.
20. Here JJ summarizes Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 8, secs. 101, 102, p. 154. Cited in margin as “Vat. 2 B. 8 Ch. 154”.
21. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 4, sec. 54, p. 138. Citation given is margin as “2 B. 138”.
22. “Cases” is replaced by “laws” in the printed texts.
23. Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, chap. 2, sec. 7, p. 4. Citation given in margin as “Vat. 3 b. 7 page”.
24. The word “policied” is replaced with “political” in the Diary text.
25. Here JJ quotes in part and paraphrases, with omissions, Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, chap. 2, sec. 15, pp. 7–8. AH cited this same passage in his Memorandum to GW of 15 May 1793. See , 12: 578.
26. The phrase “kind to all” is omitted from the text in the City Gazette.
27. Here JJ excises approximately four lines of text that cannot be deciphered.
28. The phrase “great Compact” is changed to “general compact” in the printed texts.
29. This phrase is changed from “They will not think their Title to equal rights realized” to “they think their title to equal rights not realized” in all the printed texts except the City Gazette, but the “not” is inadvertently omitted from the phrase in the Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser text.
30. “Prosperity” is replaced with “property” in the printed texts.
31. The phrase “so far from being new to You that I” is shortened to “not being new to you, I” in the printed texts.
32. The grand jury asked JJ for a copy of this charge and ordered it to be printed. JJ asked to have copies of the charge sent to AH. See JJ to AH, 24 June, below. A notice of the publication of the charge appeared in the Virginia Gazette, and Richmond and Manchester Advertiser (Richmond) of 1 July 1793, but no copy of the broadside or pamphlet has been found ( , 2: 392, illus.).
The first known newspaper printing of JJ’s charge followed the printing of James Wilson’s charge to a special circuit court session of the middle circuit, Pennsylvania district, given on 22 July, at which Gideon Henfield was tried for neutrality violations but not convicted. Wilson’s charge was first published on 25 July, and JJ’s charge on 26 July. Wilson’s charge (“John Jay and the Issue of Neutrality,” above.
, 2: 414–24) was widely reprinted from New England to South Carolina, both in full and extracted form, but JJ’s charge has been found only in the places cited in the source note. Whether JJ personally provided the text of his charge or arranged for its publication at that time is unknown; it is also possible AH received the promised copy of the text from Virginia and arranged for its publication. On the Henfield case, see the editorial note