could not mean to give official assurance that the clause would be enforced, & official assurance at the same time of your personal conviction that it would not be enforced. I had the honor to acknowledge verbally the receipt of your letter of the 3d of August, when you did me that of making the enquiry verbally about six weeks ago and I beg leave to assure you that I am with due respect, Sir, Your most obed't & most humble serv't.' TO THE FRENCH MINISTER. J. MSS. PHILADELPHIA Feb. 17, 1793. SIR, I have duly received your letter of yesterday, and am sensible of your favor in furnishing me with your observations on the Statement of the commerce between our two nations, of which I shall avail myself for the good of both. The omission of our participation with your vessels in the exclusive transportation of our tobacco was merely that of the copy, as it was expressed in the original draught where the same circumstance respecting our whale oil was noted: and I am happy that your notice of it has enabled me to reinstate it before the Report goes out of my hand. 1 There is also another letter of the same date and tenor as the above, endorsed "not sent," which differs only verbally except in its last paragraph, which reads as follows: "I had the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d of August, when you did me that of making the enquiry verbally about six weeks ago, but to the remaining interrogatory, whether I ever laid it before the two houses of legislature'? I will take my answer from an authority to which I am sure you will subscribe, & which is so replete with good sense & it's terms so well chosen, that I need seek nothing out of it. 'I must therefore observe to you, Sir, that in my quality of Secretary of State to the United States, I cannot receive any communication on the part of foreign ministers but for the purpose of laying it before the President, and of taking his orders upon it; & that the deliberations of the two houses of legislature as well as the communications, which it may please the President to make to them, relative to the affairs of this country, are objects entirely foreign from all diplomatic consequence, and upon which it is impossible for me to enter into any discussion whatever with ministers of other countries.'" I must candidly acknolege to you that I do not foresee the same effect in favor of our navigation from the late reduction of duties on our tobaccos in France which you seem to expect. The difference in favor of French vessels is still so great as in my opinion to make it their interest to quit all other branches of the carrying business, to take up this and as your stock of shipping is not adequate to the carriage of all your exports, the branches which you abandon will be taken up by other nations. So that this difference thrusts us out of the tobacco carriage to let other nations in to the carriage of other branches of your commerce. I must therefore avail myself of this occasion to express my hope that your nation will again revise this subject & place it on more equal grounds. I am happy in concurring with you more perfectly in another sentiment, that as the principles of our governments become more congenial, the links of affection are multiplied between us. It is impossible they should multiply beyond our wishes. Of the sincere interest we take in the happiness & prosperity of your nation you have had the most unequivocal proofs. TO THE FRENCH MINISTER. J. MSS. PHILADELPHIA Feb 23, 1793. SIR,-I have laid before the President of the US your notification of the 17th instant, in the name of the Provisory Executive council, charged with the administration of your government, that the French nation has constituted itself into a Republic. The President receives with great satisfaction this attention of the Executive council, & the desire they have manifested of making known to us the resolution entered into by the National convention, even before a definitive regulation of their new establishment could take place. Be assured Sir that the government & the citizens of the U S. view with the most sincere pleasure every advance of your nation towards it's happiness, an object essentially connected with it's liberty, & they consider the union of principles & pursuits between our two countries as a link which binds still closer their interests & affections. The genuine & general effu sions of joy which you saw overspread our country on their seeing the liberties of yours rise superior to foreign invasion & domestic trouble have proved to you that our sympathies are great & sincere, and we earnestly wish on our part that these our mutual dispositions may be improved to mutual good by establishing our commercial intercourse on principles as friendly to natural right & freedom as are those of our government. I am with sincere esteem & respect, Sir, your most obedient & most humble servant. CABINET OPINION ON FRENCH APPLICATION. J. MSS. Feb. 25. 1793. The President desires the opinions of the heads of the three departments, and of the attorney-general, on the following question, to wit. Mr. Ternant having applied for money equivalent to three millions of livres, to be furnished on account of our debt to France at the request of the Executive of that country, which sum is to be laid out in provisions within the U. S. to be sent to France. Shall the money be furnished? The Secretary of the Treasury stated it as his opinion, that making a liberal allowance for the depreciation of assignats, (no rule of liquidation having been yet fixed,) a sum of about 318,000 Dollars may not exceed the arrearages equitably due to France to the end of 1792, and that the whole sum asked for may be furnished, within periods capable of answering the purpose of Mr. Ternant's application, without a derangement of the Treasury. Whereupon the Secretaries of State & War, & the Attorney General, are of opinion that the whole sum asked for by Mr. Ternant ought to be furnished: the Secretary of the Treasury is of opinion that the supply ought not to exceed the above-mentioned sum of 318,000 Dollars. CABINET OPINION ON INDIAN WAR. J. MSS. Feb. 25, 1793 The President having required the attendance of the heads of the three departments, and of the attorney general, at his house, on Monday the 25th of Feb. 1793, the following questions were proposed, and answers given: 1. The Governor of Canada having refused to let us obtain provisions from that province, or to pass them along the water communication to the place of treaty with the Indians; and the Indians having refused to let them pass peaceably along what they call the bloody path, the Governor of Canada at the same time proposing to furnish the whole provisions necessary, ought the treaty to proceed? Answer unanimously, it ought to proceed. 2. Have the Executive, or the Executive & Senate together, authority to relinquish to the Indians the right of soil of any part of the land north of the Ohio, which has been validly obtained by former treaties ? The secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary at War, & attorney general, are of opinion that the Executive & Senate have such authority, provided that no grants to individuals, nor reservations to States, be thereby infringed. The secretary of state is of opinion they have no such authority to relinquish. 3. Will it be expedient to make any such relinquishment to the Indians, if essential to peace? The Secretaries of the Treasury & War, & the Attorney General, are of opinion it will be expedient to make such relinquishment if essential to peace, provided it do not include any lands sold or reserved for special purposes (the reservations for trading places excepted). The Secretary of state is of opinion that the Executive and Senate have authority to stipulate with the Indians, and that if essential to peace, it will be expedient to stipulate that we will not settle any lands between those already sold or reserved for special purposes, and the lines heretofore validly established with the Indians. 4. Whether the Senate shall be previously consulted on this point? The opinion unanimously is that it will be better not to consult them previously. TO JAMES MADISON. J. MSS. March. 1793. The idea seems to gain credit that the naval powers combined against France will prohibit supplies even of provisions to that country. Should this be formally notified I should suppose Congress would be called, because it is a justifiable cause of war, & as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question. But I should hope that war would not be their choice. I think it will furnish us a happy opportunity of setting another example to the world, by shewing that nations may be brought to do justice by appeals to their interests as well as by appeals to arms. I should hope that Congress instead of a denunciation of war, would instantly exclude from our ports all the manufactures, produce, vessels & subjects of the nations committing this aggression, during the continuance of the aggression & till full satisfaction made for it. This would work well in many ways, safely in all, & introduce between nations another umpire than arms. It would relieve us too from the risks & the horrors of cutting throats. The death of the king of France has not produced as open condemnations from the Monocrats as I expected. I dined the other day in a company where the subject was discussed. I will name the company in the order in which they manifested their partialities; beginning with the warmest Jacobinism & proceeding by shades to the most heart felt aristocracy. |