To John Jay from Pieter J. van Berckel, 18 December 1787
From Pieter J. van Berckel
New York ce 18 Decembre 1787
Monsieur
Je me trouve indispensablement obligé de Vous informer, que ce matin un certain John Wessel Se qualifiant huissier de Justice (Constable) a taché de Saisir, enlever, et emprisonner un de mes domestiques; ce qu’il disoit faire en vertu de une prise de Corps donnée et Signée contre lui par John Wiley Alderman de New York.
Cet Attentat sur les droits et prerogatives des Ministres Etrangeres a eté agravé de beaucoup par la Conduite insolente du Huissier Susdit puis qu’il ne se contenta pas d’executer les ordres qu’il avoit reçus, mais Se plaisoit d’ajouter des termes injurieux et insultans aux efforts redoubles pour entrainer par force mon domestique de ma maison, non obstant le conseil amical qu’on lui donnoit de lacher Sa prise et de Se retirer, jusqu’a ce qu’il auroit reçu de nouvelles instructions; Conseil auquel il a éte obligé de Se Soumettre à la fin.
Comme cet arrêt Seul donné contre quelqu’un qui m’apartient Sans parler de la maniere dont on a taché de l’executer, qui est l’injure la plus atroce, est une Violation la plus notoire et la plus directe du droit des Gens, J’ai cru devoir vous en faire part, Monsieur, Vous priant de m’accorder Vos Secours officiels pour me faire obtenir la Satisfaction qui est due a mon Charactére en Vertu des Loix des Nations, qui m’assurent la protection du Gouvernement, aussi bien que le Securité et L’inviolabité tant de ma Personne que de toute ma famille J’ai l’honneur de me dire avec Estime et Consideration Monsieur votre tres humble et tres obeissant Serviteur
P: J: Van Berckel
Monsieur Jay Secretaire du departement des Affaires Etrangeres
[Translation]
New York, 18 December 1787
Sir,
I find myself indispensably obliged to inform you, that this morning a certain John Wessel, calling himself a Constable, endeavoured to seize, carry off, & imprison one of my domestics, which he pretended to do by virtue of a warrant signed & issued against him by John Wiley, Alderman of New York.
This attempt against the rights & prerogatives of a Foreign Minister has been greatly aggravated by the insolent conduct of the aforesaid Constable, who was not satisfied with executing the orders he received, but moreover added abusive & insulting expressions to the repeated efforts to carry off my domestic out of my house by force, notwithstanding the friendly counsel that was given him to release his prisoner, & retire until he should receive fresh instructions, which advice he was at last obliged to follow.1
As this Process alone against any one belonging to me, without mentioning the manner in which they endeavored to execute it, which is a most atrocious injury, is a most notorious & direct violation of the rights of nations, I conceived that I ought to communicate it to you, Sir, requesting that you will grant me your official aid and to obtain the satisfaction due to my Character by virtue of the Laws of Nations which assure to me the protection of Government as well as the security & inviolability both for my own person & my whole family.2 I have the honor of subscribing myself with esteem & respect Sir Your mo. hum. & obt Servt.
P. J: Van Berckel
from the Original by John Pintard
ALS, in French, with translation by John Pintard, DNA: PCC, item 99, 285–85a, 289–90 (EJ: 772). LbkC, in French, with translation, , 3: 309–11 (EJ: 2213).
1. James Duane, mayor of New York, expressed doubts as to whether the debtor, James van Antwerp, was still in Van Berckel’s service when the incident occurred and to Alderman John Wylley’s (Wiley’s) claim that he had been unaware that Van Antwerp was Van Berckel’s servant when he issued a warrant against him for debt. Duane declared Constable John Wessel’s conduct highly reprehensible, and had him arrested for it. See Duane to JJ, 25 Mar. 1788, C, DNA: PCC, item 80, 3: 391–93 (EJ: 322), and LbkC, , 3: 339–43 (EJ: 2250), enclosing Wylley to Duane, 19 Jan. 1788, in which Wylley described Van Berckel’s arrogant behavior toward him.
Van Berckel had previously complained about an earlier incident in which a sheriff entered his house to arrest a domestic. No evidence has been found that that episode had been called to JJ’s attention. Vergennes then had commented that Van Berckel’s complaint was appropriate, but criticized him for basing it on diplomatic immunities, which he described as “for the most part arbitrary.” See Vergennes to Otto, 31 Mar. 1786, Giunta, Emergin Nation, 3: 138–39. In 1788 Van Berckel began posting newspaper notices warning shopkeepers not to advance credit to his servants since they were provided with cash to make purchases for his household. See, for example, the New-York Journal, 29 Jan., and 17, 21, and 24 May 1788.
2. JJ informed Congress that he had tried to resolve the affair informally because he did not want to magnify the significance of the episode and because he did not believe the Articles of Confederation endowed Congress with judicial powers competent to handle such cases. See his report to Congress, 24 Mar. 1788, below. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, the U.S. Congress gave the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over all suits brought by ambassadors or public ministers and all proceedings against ambassadors, ministers, and their domestic servants, consistent with the law of nations. See 861–62. JJ informed Van Berckel in a letter of 8 Aug. 1788, FC, NNC (EJ: 5840); LbkC, , 3: 412 (EJ: 2298), that the constable had been severely punished.