whenever it can be avoided, I proposed to the parties to have the question decided by arbitrators, to be chosen by us jointly.  They have refused it, as you will see by their answers to my letters, copies of both which I have the honor to enclose you.  I presume it to be well settled in practice, that the property of one sovereign is not permitted to be seized within the dominions of another; and that this practice is founded not only in mutual respect, but in mutual utility.  To what the contrary practice would lead, is evident in the present case, wherein military stores have been stopped, in the course of a war, in which our greatest difficulties proceeded from the want of military stores.  In their letter, too, they make a merit of not having seized one of our ships of war, and certainly the principle which admits the seizure of arms, would admit that of a whole fleet, and would often furnish an enemy the easiest means of defeating an expedition.  The parties obliging me, then, to have recourse to your Excellency on this occasion, I am under the necessity of asking an order from you for the immediate delivery of the stores and other property of the United States at Nantes, detained by the house of Schweighaeuser and Dobree, and that of Puchilberg, or by either of them, under a pretence of a judicial seizure.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect respect and esteem, your Excellency’s most obedient and most humble servant,

Th:  Jefferson.

LETTER CLXI.—­TO M. DE REYNEVAL, September 16, 1788

TO M. DE REYNEVAL.

Sir,

Paris, September 16, 1788.

I have the honor now to enclose you my observations on the alteration proposed in the consular convention.  There remain only three articles of those heretofore in question between us, to which I am unable to agree; that is to say, the second, proposing still to retain personal immunities for the consuls, and others attached to their office; the eighth, proposing that the navigation code of each nation shall be established in the territories of the other; and the ninth, insisting that the ship’s roll shall be conclusive evidence that a person belongs to the ship.

There are several new matters introduced into the draught:  some of these are agreed to; others cannot be admitted, as being contrary to the same principles which had obliged me to disagree to some of the former articles.  The greatest part of the eleventh, and the whole of the twelfth new articles, are in this predicament.  They propose, that no person shall be arrested on board a merchant vessel, for any cause, but in presence of the consul; that no such vessel shall be visited, but in his presence; and that when the officers of justice have reason to believe that a criminal has taken refuge on board a vessel of war, the captain’s word shall be conclusive evidence that he is not there.