is to permit the exercise of his functions within their territory; and when either of these wills is refused or withdrawn, his authority to act within that territory becomes incomplete. By what member of the government the right of giving or withdrawing permission is to be exercised here, is a question on which no foreign agent can be permitted to make himself the umpire. It is sufficient for him, under our government, that he is informed of it by the executive.
On an examination of the commissions from your nation, among our records, I find that before the late change in the form of our government, foreign agents were addressed sometimes to the United States, and sometimes to the Congress of the United States, that body being then executive as well as legislative. Thus the commissions of Messrs. L'Etombe, Holker, Daunemanis, Marbois, Creve-coeur, and Chateaufort, have all this clause: "Prions et requerons nos tres chers et grands amis et allies, les Etat Unis de l'Amerique septentrionale, leurs gouverneurs, et autres officiers, &c. de laisser jouir, &c. le dit sieur, &c. de la charge de notre consul," &c. On the change in the form of our government, foreign nations, not undertaking to decide to what member of the new government their agents should be addressed, ceased to do it to Congress, and adopted the general address to the United States, before cited. This was done by the government of your own nation, as appears by the commissions of Messrs. Mangourit and La Forest, which have in them the clause before cited. So your own commission was, not as M. Gerond's and Luzerne's had been, "a nos tres chers, &c. le President et membres du Congres general des Etats Unis," &c., but "a nos tres chers, &c. les Etats Unis de l'Amerique," &c. Under this general address, the proper member of the government was included, and could take it up. When, therefore, it was seen in the commission of Messrs. Dupont and Hauterieve, that your executive had returned to the ancient address to Congress, it was conceived to be an inattention, insomuch that I do not recollect (and I do not think it material enough to inquire) whether I noticed it to you either verbally or by letter. When that of M. Dannery was presented with the like address, being obliged to notice to you an inaccuracy of another kind, I then mentioned that of the address, not calling it an innovation, but expressing my satisfaction, which is still entire, that it was not from any design in your Executive Council. The Exequatur was therefore sent. That they will not consider our notice of it as an innovation, we are perfectly secure. No government can disregard formalities more than ours. But when formalities are attacked with a view to change principles, and to introduce an entire independence of foreign agents on the nation with whom they reside, it becomes material to defend formalities. They would be no longer trifles, if they could, in defiance of the national will, continue a foreign agent among us whatever might be his course of action. Continuing, therefore, the refusal to receive any commission from yourself, addressed to an improper member of the government, you are left free to use either the general one to the United States, as in the commissions of Messrs. Mangourit and La Forest, before cited, or the special one, to the President of the United States.
I have the honor to be, with respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.
TO THE PRESIDENT
The President doubtless recollects the communications of Mr. Ternant expressing the dissatisfaction of the Executive Council of France with Mr. Morris, our Minister there, which, however, Mr. Ternant desired might be considered as informal; that Col. Smith also mentioned that dissatisfaction, and that Mr. Le Brun told him he would charge Mr. Genet expressly with their representations on this subject; and that all further consideration thereon lay over therefore for Mr. Genet's representations.
Mr. Genet, some time after his arrival (I cannot now recollect how long, but I think it was a month or more), coming to my house in the country one evening, joined me in a walk near the river. Our conversation was on various topics, and not at all of an official complexion. As we were returning to the house, being then I suppose on some subject relative to his country (though really I do not recall to mind what it was), he turned about to me, just in the passage of the gate, and said, "but I must tell you, we all depend on you to send us a good minister there, with whom we may do business confidentially, in the place of Mr. Morris." These are perhaps not the identical words, yet I believe they are nearly so; I am sure they are the substance, and he scarcely employed more in the expression. It was unexpected, and, to avoid the necessity of an extempore answer, I instantly said something resuming the preceding thread of conversation, which went on, and no more was said about Mr. Morris. From this, I took it for granted, he meant now to come forth formally with complaints against Mr. Morris, as we had been given to expect, and therefore I mentioned nothing of this little expression to the President. Time slipped along; I expecting his complaints, and he not making them. It was undoubtedly his office to bring forward his own business himself, and not at all mine, to hasten or call for it; and if it was not my duty, I could not be without reasons for not taking it on myself officiously. He at length went to New York, to wit, about the * * * * * of * * * * * without having done anything formally on this subject. I now became uneasy lest he should consider the little sentence he had uttered to me as effectually, though not regularly, a complaint; but the more I reflected on the subject, the more impossible it seemed that he could have viewed it as such; and the rather, because, if he had, he would naturally have asked from time to time, "Well, what are you doing with my complaint with Mr. Morris?" or some question equivalent. But he never did. It is possible I may, at other times, have heard him speak unfavorably of Mr. Morris, though I do not recollect any particular occasion; but I am sure he never made to me any proposition to have him recalled. I believe I mentioned this matter to Mr. Randolph before I left Philadelphia: I know I did after my return; but I did not to the President till the receipt of Mr. Genet's letter of September 30, which, from some unaccountable delay of the post, never came to me in Virginia, though I remained there till October 25 (and received there three subsequent mails), and it never reached me in Philadelphia, till December 2.
The preceding is the state of this matter, as nearly as I can recollect it at this time, and I am sure it is not materially inaccurate in any point.
TO MR. CHURCH
Sir,—The President has received your letter of August 16, with its enclosures. It was with deep concern that he learnt the unhappy fortunes of M. de La Fayette, and that he still learns his continuance under them. His friendship for him could not fail to impress him with the desire of relieving him, and he was sure that in endeavoring to do this, he should gratify the sincere attachments of his fellow citizens. He has accordingly employed such means as appeared the most likely to effect his purpose; though, under the existing circumstances, he could not be sanguine in their obtaining very immediately the desired effect. Conscious, however, that his anxieties for the sufferer flow from no motives unfriendly to those who feel an interest in his confinement, he indulges their continuance, and will not relinquish the hope that the reasons for this security will at length yield to those of a more benign character.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.
TO MR. HAMMOND, MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF GREAT BRITAIN
Sir,—I am to acknowledge the honor of your letter of November 30th, and to express the satisfaction with which we learn, that you are instructed to discuss with us the measures, which reason and practicability may dictate, for giving effect to the stipulations of our treaty, yet remaining to be executed. I can assure you, on the part of the United States, of every disposition to lessen difficulties, by passing over whatever is of smaller concern, and insisting on those matters only, which either justice to individuals or public policy render indispensable; and in order to simplify our discussions, by defining precisely their objects, I have the honor to propose that we shall begin by specifying, on each side, the particular acts which each considers to have been done by the other, in contravention of the treaty. I shall set the example.
The provisional and definitive treaties, in their 7th article, stipulated that his "Britannic Majesty should,
