Kitabı oku: «The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 4 (of 9)», sayfa 8
TO MR. GENET
Germantown, November 22, 1793.
Sir,—In my letter of October the 2d, I took the liberty of noticing to you, that the commission of consul to M. Dannery, ought to have been addressed to the President of the United States. He being the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations, it is from him alone that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation, and whatever he communicates as such, they have a right and are bound to consider as the expression of the nation, and no foreign agent can be allowed to question it, to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions, nor to make himself the umpire and final judge between them. I am, therefore, Sir, not authorized to enter into any discussions with you on the meaning of our Constitution in any part of it, or to prove to you that it has ascribed to him alone the admission or interdiction of foreign agents. I inform you of the fact by authority from the President. I had observed to you, that we were persuaded in the case of the consul Dannery, the error in the address had proceeded from no intention in the Executive Council of France to question the functions of the President, and therefore no difficulty was made in issuing the commissions. We are still under the same persuasion. But in your letter of the 14th instant, you personally question the authority of the President, and in consequence of that, have not addressed to him the commission of Messrs. Pennevert and Chervi. Making a point of this formality on your part, it becomes necessary to make a point of it on ours also; and I am therefore charged to return you those commissions, and to inform you, that bound to enforce respect to the order of things established by our Constitution, the President will issue no Exequatur to any consul or vice-consul, not directed to him in the usual form, after the party from whom it comes has been apprized that such should be the address.
I have the honor to be, with respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.
TO MR. PINCKNEY
Germantown, November 27, 1793.
Dear Sir,—My last letters to you were of the 11th and 14th of September, since which I have received yours of July 5, 8, August 1, 15, 27, 28. The fever, which at that time had given alarm in Philadelphia, became afterwards far more destructive than had been apprehended, and continued much longer, from the uncommon drought and warmth of the autumn. On the first day of this month the President and heads of the department assembled here. On that day, also, began the first rains which had fallen for some months. They were copious, and from that moment the infection ceased, no new subject took it, and those before infected either died or got well, so that the disease terminated most suddenly. The inhabitants who had left the city, are now all returned, and business going on again as briskly as ever. The President will be established there in about a week, at which time Congress is to meet.
Our negotiations with the North-Western Indians have completely failed, so that war must settle our difference. We expected nothing else, and had gone into negotiations only to prove to all our citizens that peace was unattainable on terms which any one of them would admit.
You have probably heard of a great misunderstanding between Mr. Genet and us. On the meeting of Congress it will be made public. But as the details of it are lengthy, I must refer for them to my next letter, when possibly I may be able to send you the whole correspondence in print. We have kept it merely personal, convinced his nation will disapprove him. To them we have with the utmost assiduity given every proof of inviolate attachment. We wish to hear from you on the subject of Marquis de La Fayette, though we know that circumstances do not admit sanguine hopes.
The copper by the Sigon and the Mohawk is received. Our coinage of silver has been delayed by Mr. Cox's inability to give the security required by law.
I shall write to you again immediately after the meeting of Congress. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great esteem and respect, dear Sir, your friend and servant.
TO MR. GENET
Philadelphia, November 30, 1793.
Sir,—I have laid before the President of the United States your letter of November 25th, and have now the honor to inform you, that most of its objects being beyond the powers of the Executive, they can only manifest their dispositions by acting on those which are within their powers. Instructions are accordingly sent to the district attorneys of the United States, residing within States wherein French consuls are established, requiring them to inform the consuls of the nature of the provisions made by the laws for preventing, as well as punishing, injuries to their persons, and to advise and assist them in calling these provisions into activity, whenever the occasions for them shall arise.
It is not permitted by the law to prohibit the departure of the emigrants to St. Domingo, according to the wish you now express, any more than it was to force them away, according to that expressed by you in a former letter. Our country is open to all men, to come and go peaceably, when they choose; and your letter does not mention that these emigrants meant to depart armed, and equipped for war. Lest, however, this should be attempted, the Governors of the States of Pennsylvania and Maryland are requested to have particular attention paid to the vessels named in your letter, and to see that no military expedition be covered or permitted under color of the right which the passengers have to depart from these States.
Provisions not being classed among the articles of contraband, in time of war, it is possible that American vessels may have carried them to the ports of Jeremie and La Mole, as they do to other dominions of the belligerent Powers; but, if they have carried arms also, these, as being contraband, might certainly have been stopped and confiscated.
In the letter of May 15th, to Mr. Ternant, I mentioned, that, in answer to the complaints of the British minister, against the exportation of arms from the United States, it had been observed that the manufacture of arms was the occupation and livelihood of some of our citizens; that it ought not to be expected that a war among other nations should produce such an internal derangement of the occupations of a nation at peace, as the suppression of a manufacture which is the support of some of its citizens; but that, if they should export these arms to nations at war, they would be abandoned to the seizure and confiscation which the law of nations authorized to be made of them on the high seas. This letter was handed to you, and you were pleased, in yours of May 27th, expressly to approve of the answer which had been given. On this occasion, therefore, we have only to declare, that the same conduct will be observed which was announced on that.
The proposition to permit all our vessels destined for any port in the French West India islands to be stopped, unless furnished with passports from yourself, is so far beyond the powers of the Executive, that it will be unnecessary to enumerate the objections to which it would be liable. I have the honor to be, &c.
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
December 2, 1793.
Thomas Jefferson, with his respects to the President, has the honor to send him the letters and orders referred to in Mr. Morris' letter, except that of the 8th of April, which must be a mistake for some other date, as the records of the office perfectly establish that no letters were written to him in the months of March and April but those of March 12 and 15, and April 20 and 26, now enclosed. The enigma of Mr. Merlino is inexplicable by anything in his possession.
He encloses the message respecting France and Great Britain. He first wrote it fair as it was agreed the other evening at the President's. He then drew a line with a pen through the passages he proposes to alter, in consequence of subsequent information, (but so lightly as to leave the passages still legible for the President,) and interlined the alterations he proposes. The overtures mentioned in the first alteration, are in consequence of its having been agreed that they should be mentioned in general terms only to the two houses. The numerous alterations made the other evening in the clause respecting our corn trade, with the hasty amendments proposed in the moment, had so much broken the tissue of the paragraph, as to render it necessary to new mould it. In doing this, care has been taken to use the same words as nearly as possible, and also to insert a slight reference to Mr. Pinckney's proceedings.
On a severe review of the question, whether the British communication should carry any such mark of being confidential, as to prevent the Legislature from publishing them, he is clearly of opinion they ought not. Will they be kept secret if secrecy is enjoined? certainly not, and all the offence will be given (if it be possible any should be given) which would follow their complete publication. If they would be kept secret, from whom would it be? from our own constituents only, for Great Britain is possessed of every tittle. Why, then, keep it secret from them? no ground of support for the Executive will ever be so sure as a complete knowledge of their proceedings by the people; and it is only in cases where the public good would be injured, and because it would be injured, that proceedings should be secret. In such cases it is the duty of the Executive to sacrifice their personal interests (which would be promoted by publicity) to the public interest. If the negotiations with England are at an end, if not given to the public now, when are they to be given? and what moment can be so interesting? If anything amiss should happen from the concealment, where will the blame originate at last? It may be said, indeed, that the President puts it in the power of the Legislature to communicate these proceedings to their constituents; but is it more their duty to communicate them to their constituents, than it is the President's to communicate them to his constituents? and if they were desirous of communicating them, ought the President to restrain them by making the communication confidential? I think no harm can be done by the publication, because it is impossible England, after doing us an injury, should declare war against us, merely because we tell our constituents of it; and I think good may be done, because while it puts it in the power of the Legislature to adopt peaceable measures of doing ourselves justice, it prepares the minds of our constituents to go cheerfully into an acquiescence under the measures, by impressing them with a thorough and enlightened conviction that they are founded in right. The motive, too, of proving to the people the impartiality of the Executive between the two nations of France and England, urges strongly that while they are to see the disagreeable things which have been going on as to France, we should not conceal from them what has been passing with England, and induce a belief that nothing has been doing.
TO MR. GENET
Philadelphia, December 9, 1793.
Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, which has been duly laid before the President.
We are very far from admitting your principle, that the government on either side has no other right, on the presentation of a consular commission, than to certify that, having examined it, they find it according to rule. The governments of both nations have a right, and that of yours has exercised it as to us, of considering the character of the person appointed; the place for which he is appointed, and other material circumstances; and of taking precautions as to his conduct, if necessary; and this does not defeat the general object of the convention, which, in stipulating that consuls shall be permitted on both sides, could not mean to supersede reasonable objections to particular persons, who might at the moment be obnoxious to the nation to which they were sent, or whose conduct might render them so at any time after. In fact, every foreign agent depends on the double will of the two governments, of that which sends him, and of that which 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
December 11, 1793.
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
Philadelphia, December 11, 1793.
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.
