but that it had been tolerated from the soundest motives of political expedience. This Republic had declined calling on us to execute the guarantee, from a spirit of magnanimity, and strong attachment to our welfare.

This consideration entitled it to some attention in return. An attempt to press it within the pale of the stipulations, contained in the 23d and 24th articles of the treaty of amity and commerce, might give birth to sentiments of a different kind, and create a disposition to call on us to execute that of the treaty of alliance. The subject was, therefore, of the utmost delicacy, and I saw that I could not enter on it without the greatest care. But, yet, I was persuaded, that France gained nothing by the departure, and had reason to believe, if it were otherwise, she would, at the present time, concede it for our accommodation; and I knew its importance to our commerce, and, especially, as it would deprive the Cabinet of St. James of the smallest pretext for continuing the violation on its part. Upon full consideration of all these circumstances, the paper presented was drawn; and, I trust, whatever may be its effect, it will have the approbation of the President, since it may prove a beneficial one, and has, in no respect, compromitted him. My note was presented a few days past, and I shall expect an answer as soon as circumstances will permit paying due regard to the immense weight of business before the Department."

No. 48.

The Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, dated Philadelphia, September 25th, 1794. [EXTRACT.]

"The spoliations and vexations which are imputable to the French eruizers, and among them the injuries to our rights by treaty, in the case of the ship Laurens, together with the severe effects of the embargo at Bordeaux, have excited, in the individuals interested, a flame, which now and then bursts forth in violent expressions, and which you therefore cannot quiet too soon, by a proper adjustment. You will find in the inclosed copy of Mr. Fauchet's letter to me, of the first of August, the strong assurances which he has given on this head.

Another collection of depredation papers, conformable with the list which accompanies them, is placed under the care of Mr. Boland, who goes to seek compensation on account of the ship Fame. It is a strong case, and will back your remonstrances. howsoever pointed they may be. I do not state the minutiæ, as his documents speak explicitly. and he himself will be on the spot, ready for further explanation. There is nothing in which you can render yourself so acceptable to an important part of our community, as on these occasions. Indeed I flatter myself with the expectation of hearing shortly of considerable advances towards final success on your part."

No. 51.

Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, 7th Nov. 1794.

[EXTRACT.]

"By this time I had obtained from Mr. Skipwith a comprehensive statement of the embarrassments attending our trade here, as well as those which proceeded from the cruizers of the Republic, and applied to what was destined or cleared out for foreign countries, as those which proceeded from the commercial system of France, and applied to the direct commerce between the two Republics. As his report to me specified not only each particular cause of complaint, but likewise furnished facts to support them, I thought it best to make that report the basis of this my second communication on that head. I accordingly laid it before the Committee, with such comment as appeared to me suitable; and I now transmit to you a copy of it, that you may be apprized how fully the subject is before them. I was assured that it exhibited a picture which shocked them; for these evils progressing with the course of their own affairs, were long accumulating, and had now probably attained a height, of which they had no conception.

As I had reason to suspect that the chief opposition proceeded from those who conducted the public trade, and were attached to that mode from motives not the most patriotic, I thought it proper to examine the question, whether it were best for the Republic to encourage the competition of individuals in neutral countries, for the supply of its markets, or depend on agencies employed in or sent to those countries, for that purpose. This subject had been incidentally touched in my first note, but I thought some benefit might be derived from a more thorough development of it. With this view, I sent in at the same time, the paper entitled, "Supplemental Observations upon the American Commerce," &c.

I felt extremely embarrassed how to touch again their infringement of the Treaty of Commerce, whether to call on them to execute it, or leave that question on the ground on which I had first placed it. You desired me in your last, to contest with them the principle, but yet this did not amount to an instruction, nor even convey your idea that it would be advisable to demand of them the execution of those articles. Upon full consideration, therefore, I concluded that it was the most safe and sound policy, to leave this point where it was before, and in which I was the more confirmed, by some circumstances that were af terwards disclosed.

The day after this last communication was presented, I received a letter from the Committee, assuring me that the subject engrossed their entire attention, and that an answer should be given me as soon as possible and a few days after this, I was favored with another, inviting me to a conference at 12, the next day. I attended, and found only three members of the diplomatic branch of the Committee present, Merlin de Douay, Thuriot, and Threilliard. Merlin commenced by observing, that I had advised and pressed them to execate

the 23d and 24th articles of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce; that they were persuaded their compliance would be useful to us, but very detrimental to them: it would likewise be distressing for Frenchmen to see British goods protected by our flag, whilst it gave no protection to theirs; and, after making some other comments, he finally came to this point: "Do you insist upon our executing the treaty?" I replied, I had nothing new to add to what I had already said on that head. Threilliard seemed surprised at the reply, and expressed a wish that I would declare myself frankly on the subject. I told him I was surprised at his remark, since I had not only declared myself frankly but liberally. We then passed from a demand to a more general discussion of the policy in France to execute the treaty; and in which I urged, that if she considered her own interest only, she ought not to hesitate, since it gave her the command of neutral bottoms, and under the protection of her own flags, to supply her wants, with other considerations which had been before pressed in my notes that were before them. I was, however, brought back twice again to the question, "Do you insist upon or demand it?" I found that a positive and formal declaration on this point, was the sole object of the interview, and as I perceived that something was intended to be founded on it, either now or hereafter, if given in the affirmative, I was the more resolved to avoid it, and to adhere to the ground I had already taken. I therefore repeated my declaration, and in the most explicit terms, that I was not instructed by the President to insist on it, nor did I insist on it. That their compliance would certainly be highly beneficial to my country, but that in my observations, I had considered the proposition merely in relation to France, and wished them to do the same, since I was satisfied that the true interest of France dictated the measures. They all expressed an attachment to us, spoke much of the difficulty of their situation, and of the peculiar delicacy in adopting, in the present state of the public mind, any measure which might be construed as eventually favoring England, and thus the conference ended.

In revolving the subject over since, I have been doubtful whether the solicitude shewn to draw from me a decisive answer to the question, Whether I insisted or demanded of them to execute the articles of the treaty?" was merely intended as the basis of their own act complying with it, and a justification for themselves in so doing, or as a ground to call on us hereafter, in the prosecution of the war against England, to fulfil the guarantee. I was, at the moment of the discussion in the Committee, of the latter opinion, but I must confess, upon a more general view of all circumstances that have passed under my observations, since my arrival, that I am at present inclined to be of the former. I rather think, as there is an opposition to the measure, and it would commence an important change in their system, and might also be construed into a partiality for England, a nation by no means in favor here, that the dread of denunciation in the course of events suggested it. Be this as it may. I am perfectly satisfied it would be impolitic to demand it, since the refusal would weaken the

connexion between the two countries, and the compliance upon that motive, might perhaps not only produce the same effect, but likewise excite a disposition to press us on other points, upon which it were better to avoid any discussion. I hope, however, soon to obtain an answer, and a favorable one; if the subject was before the Convention in the light it stands before the Committee, I am convinced it would long since have been the case. But it is difficult to get it there, for if I carried it there myself, it would be deemed a kind of denunciation of the Committee. Yesterday there was a change of several of the members of that body, and which I deem, from my knowledge of those elected, favorable to our views. Be assured that I shall continue to press this business, with all suitable energy, and in the mode that shall appear to me most eligible, and in the interim, that I will do every thing in my power to prevent abuses under the existing system."

No. 52.

Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, dated Philadelphia, Dec. 2, 1794.

[EXTRACT.]

"In your letter you say, that you have not been instructed to desire a special repeal of the decree which violated the 23d and 24th articles of the treaty of commerce: that you did not know but it had been tolerated from the soundest motives of political expedience, lest the demand for rescinding it might produce a call for the guarantee. Indeed you have gone farther; having declared in your memorial, that you were under no instructions to complain of, or request the repeal of the decree authorizing a departure from those articles; and that if upon consideration, after the experiment made, the Committee of Public Safety should be of opinion that it produces any solid benefit to the French Republic, the American Government, and your countrymen in general, would not only bear the departure with patience, but with pleasure.

The fourth head of injury, stated in your letter, shows that you were possessed of cases, which turned entirely upon the impropriety of the decree; and such too, was certainly the fact Now, without the abrogation of the decree, so far as it respected those cases, the redress which you were instructed to demand, could not be obtained. In truth there was no cause or pretence for asking relief, but upon the ground of that decree having violated the treaty. Does not this view lead to the inevitable conclusion, that the decree, if operative in future instances, would be no less disagreeable? and consequently, that its operation in future instances ought to be prevented; a circumstance which could be accomplished only by a total repeal.

The papers of the ship Laurens contained a reference to one or more representations of Mr. Morris against the decree; so that the business had been actually broken to the French Government.

Neither these representations, nor yet your application, appears to have suggested a requisition of the guarantee. The omission to demand its fulfilment up to this day is a proof, that their policy did not approve of such measure: and in this they were wise; since we should have been less advantageous to them by associating in the war, than we have been in our neutral character. If I am not mistaken, this sentiment has been delivered often by Mr. Fauchet, besides, you might have very readily repelled any serious allusion to the guarantee, by saying, as your instructions indicate, that you were directed to send that subject on this side of the water. I must add another observation; that I do not see how, if you are to be deterred by the guarantee, you can ever claim compensation for an infraction of the treaty; since you will always be in danger of having it brought up to you.

But, my good sir, let these things be as they will, was it necessary to intimate, that an indifference prevailed in our Government as to those articles, by a declaration, that you were not instructed to complain of the decrce; I confess that I am unapprised of the data upon which such an opinion could be founded and undoubtedly the President himself would not undertake, that the people of the United States would bear with patience a departure from stipulations which are generally believed to be important to us. But if, from our friendship to the French Republic, we might sustain a mischief with pleasure; still we should not choose that the assumption of one of our rights, without consulting us, should become a precedent for the assumption of any other."

No. 53.

Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, Jan. 13th, 1795.

[EXTRACT.]

"I have the pleasure to inform you that upon the report of the united committees of public safety, general surety, legislation, commerce and finances, a decree has passed the Convention since my last, whereby it is resolved to carry into strict execution the treaty of amity and commerce subsisting between the United States and this republic. I beg leave to congratulate you upon this event; and particularly the unanimity with which it passed the Convention, since it demonstrates the good disposition of that body and of the nation generally towards us. I was always satisfied, as heretofore intimated, that if I could have brought the subject, in the first instance, before the Convention, I should have succeeded immediately in the object in view but as the committee was the department organized for such business, this was impossible, without commencing a species of warfare upon it, and which was equally improper, as it might tend to increase their own dissentions and embark me afloat upon the fortune of those dissentions.— Happily, by pursuing the object patiently with the committee, remo