Dr. Logan was a private citizen at the time and I have to wonder what kind of authority he possessed in the community and within U.S. as a whole - if he had none, why would the French even talk with him of these matters or try to relay their stance through him? If this had prompted a new legislation, was Logan punished if there was nothing to be punished for at the time?
Amateur history nerd here - not claiming any expertise. Stanford historian Thomas A. Bailey suggests Logan was a "peace-loving Quaker" at a time when "even the peaceful Quakers favored fighting" in 1798. Logan was a conscientious objector to even the Revolutionary War, so it's not hard to believe that when Talleyrand "conveyed conciliatory information" to the French consul-general in Philadelphia Logan seized the opportunity to guide his budding nation in a direction consistent with his morality. I, however, suspect he had more motive than scruple alone, but religious scruple is all Bailey offers.
Edit: There's no mention of Logan being tried in either book, but Bailey mentions the Logan Act was a product of Federalist criticism after Logan's private diplomacy. Our Constitution doesn't permit ex post facto trails, so it's safe to assume he wasn't indicted. Also fixed date; original post off by one year.
Sources: A Diplomatic History of the American People: 10th ed. & The American Pageant 13th ed.
Can somebody give me more context for this situation? Unless he lied about being an ambassador or something, I don't understand why any state would think a private citizen could negotiate on the behalf of a state, even 1797?