tentiary of the French Republic of yesterday; and frankly assures them that he is uninformed by his Government, of the motives which led to the suppression of the second article, and is absolutely uninstructed upon the object of their inquiry. Their question, however, is too interesting not to have engaged his serious attention, and he trusts that reflection will furnish reasons to show that its absence from the Convention will tend to consolidate the amity and mutual prosperity of the two countries. He begs leave then to submit to them the following ideas which occur, as arising out of the nature and objects of the article in question. Taking for a basis of the views of his Government, a desire to fix harmony between the countries, he thinks that the motives of its rejection may be found in the object of the article itself, considering it as possessed of qualities that must produce future inquietude, by promising nothing but an ulterior discordant negotiation; and in a wish to place friendship reciprocally, rather upon a natural course of things, than to hazard it upon an article, which, if ever acted on, had an evident tendency to disturb it. That article promised a negotiation upon treaties and mutual indemnities and the two Powers had under it, not only a right, but were bound to negotiate in future upon them. These are precisely the things which, had the casus fœderis been claimed, must have tended to disturb the peace, and to throw the friendship of the two nations out of its natural course. Is there a probability of convincing each other on the disputes connected with these objects, which had been thus laid up for future discussion? The patience and labors of the late negotiation, leave little doubt upon the question. This article being thus rejected and out of the Convention, the act contains but defined objects of mutual good will and of easy accomplishment, bottomed on returning amity, commerce, and navigation. But it would have been to put all these three last great interests eventually on the issue of a future negotiation if the second article had remained in the instrument. These reflections strike the undersigned as sufficiently strong to account for the rejection of that article, at the time when the American Government, however pure were found to be the motives of its Ministers, negatived it. He sees, in that negative, the outline of a policy at that time, therefore, better adapted to the ends of a steady and lasting amity, than could have been counted on, if the article had been ratified. To have retained it would have been, in the result, less to authenticate a claim to disputed rights, than to lay up a future quarrel, on points in which each party supposed itself just. He takes this opportunity to remark, also. that the confidence of the American Government is proved, by the execution of the convention, in all its parts, independently of events; and he has great pleasure in giving this information to the French Ministers. All hostilities on the sea have been forbidden ;, and the public ships must, be fore this day, have returned into port. The prisoners were in March last in a course of delivery to the citizen L'Etombe, commercial agent of the French Republic; and he had been informed that all such officers might resume their functions. Commercial intercourse is restored, and the American vessels often arrive in the ports of France; and orders have been given for the restoration of ships under the third article. It is in this state of things, and with these prospects of amity before the two nations, that the undersigned tenders to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the French Republic. the ratification of the Convention, and requests them to accelerate the exchange He offers to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the French Republic the assurance of his high consideration. W. V. MURRAY. No. 415. No. S.-Mr. Murray, commissioned to exchange the ratifications of the Convention of 1800 with France, to Mr. Madison, Secretary of State of the United States, dated PARIS, 23d June, 1801. SIR: On the 13th the French Ministers gave me their full powers, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose, under No. 9. It appears, from the text of these, that some difficulties will arise from the change made by our ratification. They requested my full powers in exchange. I informed them that I had none but a copy of the letter of credence, which I delivered to the First Consul on the 6th, which was a full power. I read them the copy: they appeared to doubt if it were sufficiently special, and if it went farther than to an authority merely to exchange the ratification. I attempted to convince them that it was adequate to all the purposes connected with the discussion of the business, as well as to a simple exchange. I then showed them the ratified copy of the convention, and as they assured me that they had not seen a copy before, I sent them verified copies of the ratification, and of my letter of credence. in No. 10. I found that the objection to the suppression of the second article, would be in this idea; that they thereby would resign their claim to the treaties, and yet not exonerate themselves from the claim of indemnities. I stated the substance of what I afterwards wrote in No. 12, in which an attempt is made to reconcile the suppression to a more generous policy, and to the interests of both nations, without pledging a formal abandonment of claims: fearing, as I did, that a word hazarded in pressing the suppression might have this effect at some future time. They had no right to demand the motives for the suppression of the second article, of which, also, I am not informed, nor could be, from the nature of our Government; but from the attention which Joseph Bonaparte particularly paid, to what was advanced for its suppression, on the ground of mutual amity, at the interview the 13th, I did suppose that the object of their inquiry in No. 11, was either to have a concession, on my part. of the point which I believe they wish. viz. that the suppression should be considered as an abandonment of indemnities or to have a more fixed view of the general motives, as stated at the conference. I believe they would not hesitate, if the indemnities were abandoned. On the 18th and 19th I saw the French Ministers. I could learn only that my note of the 15th was under consideration, but found that the abandonment, as they call it, of their treaties, was still an 'obstacle. Mr. Roederer promised an answer very soon. On the 21st, at the audience, the First Consul expressed his doubts of the adequacy of my full powers to discuss and sign. I assured him that though I had no power but those which I had the honor to give him, my instructions enabled me to discuss and sign, and that the powers which I delivered were also in substance to that effect. Mr. Talleyrand remarked that it was but a letter from the President to the First Consul. I answered, it was a letter, but of credence, authorizing me to treat, as it was to take necessary measures for the exchange of the ratifications, and to take upon me the execution of that business, which ́ was full power. I called upon Mr. Joseph Bonaparte and Mr. Roederer that evening. The first was at his country seat, and the last was out. Count Cobenzi, at seven, had informed me, when I called on him to see a copy of the ratifications of the treaty of Luneville, that he and Joseph Bonaparte were to be at Mortefontaine the 22d and to-day. I had another object, also, in calling on the Austrian Minister, which was, to know of him how his court considered the question, which I find has been decided here, whether a consent of the Legislature were considered as a necessary sanction to the ratification? He informed me that they accepted the ratification by the First Consul as sufficient. To day, having yet no answer, I called on Mr. Fleurieu at the Council of State, and had a short conversation with him. I spoke of the extreme delay and the bad effects of it. He assured me that my note of the 15th was before the Minister of Exterior Relations, and that as yet they had not received their instructions. I then mentioned what had passed at the audience, on my power; and expressed my astonishment that, if there was an objection, it had not been made by the French commission. He spoke of not having yet instructions ; but recommended, for the purpose of enabling them to move, that I should address a note to them on the subject. I said the objection ought to be first made, before an explanation could be expected, and that it was not agreeable to cite the words of a chief magistrate, as a motive of proceeding, as I spoke French badly; but that I would call on Mr. Talleyrand, which I did, and as he was not at home, I sent No. 15. Until they present an obstacle officially to the acceptance of our ratification, I do not consider myself as authorized to use the power given, as a last resort, on a second article. From the different conversations with the French Ministers, I believe the new article will meet with little difficulty. Dispositions are always warmly declared to cultivate amity and good intelligence, and that la chose s'arrangera. There is no appearance, also, of any acrimonious traces of the late disputes and bustile proceedings. As yet, Sir, I cannot attribute the delay to any fixed intention. It seems to be the disease in all the negotiations carried on here. A peace has been signed between Spain and Portugal. The terms are not known. Commodore Truxtun's squadron is greatly wanted in the Mediterranean to oblige Tripoli to respect our flag. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Cathalan, Consul at Marseilles, to you, Sir, and one to me, which I beg leave to recommend to your perusal. I had the honor to receive your letter of the 23d April on the 19th instant. and fear there has been a mistake in numbering, to account for No. 123. I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, The Hon. Mr. MADISON, Secretary of State. W. V. MURRAY. P. S.-I have not had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Meredith, to whom I shall pay due attention. W. V. M. No. 416. Mr. Murray, commissioned to exchange the ratifications of the Conven tion of 1800 with France, to Mr. Madison, Secretary of State of the U. S. dated Paris, 24th June, 1801. (No. 4.) SIR: From a conversation which I had to-day with one of the French Plenipotentiaries, I believe that neither they nor their Government will consent to the unconditional suppression of the second article. To-morrow I shall see two of the three together, and if possible Mr. Talleyrand also. I send this by post to Havre in the hope it may reach Capt. Rodgers before he sails. I have the honor to be, Sir, With great respect, Your most ob't serv't, &c. W. V. MURRAY. The Hon. MR. MADISON, Secretary of State. No. 417. No. 5.—Mr. Murray, commissioned to exchange the ratifications of the Convention of 1800. with France, to Mr. Madison, Secretary of State of the U. S. dated PARIS, 26th June, 1801. SIR: Yesterday I had a conference with Messrs. Fleurieu and Roederer; Mr. Joseph Bonaparte having, as Mr. Fleurieu informed, authorized them to go on with the negotiation without him should he be absent; and he was in the country. Mr. Talleyrand was out when I called. I find by their express declaration, that they are unanimous in refusing to accede to the suppression of the second article; and as they act by momentary contact with their Government, I must presume that the Government itself is of their opinion. Indeed they so informed me. They are to state their objection immediately, in answer to my note of the 15th. I should not be surprised, if they bring forward the idea, however, of a conditional suppression of the second article, with a proviso, that both parties in so many months declare their agreement to the total abandonment of the subject of that article, treaties and indemnities. To-day I had an interview with Mr. Talleyrand By full powers I understand they meant what is rather a matter of instructions than of full powers; to wit, whether I could exchange ratifications, should their ratification be conditional. This solution confirmed me in what I concluded from the more general ideas which arose yesterday from the two Ministers during the conference. They are anxious to do something at once amicable, in their opinion and compatible with the dignity of their Government, as Mr. Talleyrand expressed it to day. I send this to Havre, hoping that Captain Rodgers may not yet have sailed; and with a wish that it may go in time to counteract the reports which are idly spread here among the Americans from half-informed people. I am, with great respect, and with wishes, sir, for an agreeable career in the office which you fill. The Hon. Mr. MADISON, Your most obedient humble servant, W. V. MURRAY. Secretary of State of the United States of America. P. S.-As to the armed neutrality, not a word has been said. W. V. M. 85 |