University of Virginia Library

TO JOHN ARMSTRONG.

On reviewing the letters from you not yet acknowledged,
I find them under the following dates viz 12th November,
24, 25 & 30th Decem. 14th Feby. and 18th March last.

I have the pleasure to observe to you that the President
entirely approves the just and dignified answer given to the
venal suggestions emanating from the French functionaries
as explained in your letter of the 24th December. The
United States owe it to the world as well as to themselves
to let the example of one Government at least, protest against
the corruption which prevails. If the merit of this honest
policy were questionable, interest alone ought to be a sufficient
recommendation of it. It is impossible that the destinies
of any Nation, more than of an individual, can be injured by
an adherence to the maxims of virtue. To suppose it, would
be to arraign the justice of Heaven, and the order of nature.
Whilst we proceed therefore in the plain path which those
maxims prescribe, we have the best of securities that we
shall, in the end, be found wiser than those crooked politicians,
who regarding the scruples of morality as a weakness in the
management of public affairs, place their wisdom in making
the vices of others, the instruments of their own.

Previous to the receipt of your last letters inclosing copies
of your two to Mr. Monroe, the communications from Madrid

had given us a view of the unfavorable posture which the
negotiations with Spain was taking. The extract now inclosed,
of the answer which is gone to Madrid, will shew the
turn which it is thought most expedient to give to the negotiation,
in case its general object should fail, and will
enable you to manage your communications with the French
Government with a more distinct reference to the course of
things at Madrid. This is the more necessary, as it is evident
that the Spanish Government must derive its boldness and
its obstinacy, from the French Cabinet. The part which
France takes in our controversies with Spain, is not a little
extraordinary. That she should wish well to her ally, and
even lean towards her, in the terms of an adjustment with
the United States, was perhaps to be expected. But that
she should take side wholly with Spain, and stimulate pretensions,
which threatening the peace of the two countries
might end in placing the United States on the side of Great
Britain, with resentments turned against France as the real
source of their disappointment, this is more than was to be
expected, and more than can easily be explained. If the
Imperial cabinet be regardless of the weight which this
Country could add to the British scale, it is a proof that the
prospects in Europe are extremely flattering to its views. If
the object be, as you finally conjecture, and as on the whole
seems least improbable, merely to convert the negotiations
with Spain into a pecuniary job for France and her Agents,
the speculation altho' pushed with a singular temerity, may
finally be abandoned under a despair of success, and yield
to the obvious policy of promoting equitable arrangements
between Spain and the United States.

Whatever the views of France may be, there is little ground
to rely on the effect of an appeal to right or to reasoning in
behalf of our claims on Spain. Were it otherwise it would
seem impossible for her to withhold her acquiescence in them.
Not to repeat what has been sufficiently urged in the communications
you already possess, it may be observed that

nothing can be more preposterous than the joint attempt now
made by the French and Spanish Governments in discussing
the boundaries of Louisiana, to appeal from the text of the
Convention which describes them, to a secret understanding
or explanations on that subject between those Governments.
France sold us Louisiana as described in the Deed of conveyance,
which copies the description from the Deed of Spain
to France. If France sold more than she had a right to sell,
she would at least be bound to supply the deficiency by a
further purchase from Spain, or to remit protanto, the price
stipulated by us. But the case rests on a still better footing.
France assigned to us Louisiana as described in the Conveyance
to her from Spain. Our title to the written description
is therefore good against both, notwithstanding any separate
explanation or covenant between them, unless it be shewn
that notice thereof was given to the Uinted States before
their bona fide purchase was made. This is a principle of
universal justice, no less than of municipal law. With respect
to France it will scarcely be pretended that any such notice
was given. On the contrary she corroborated our title according
to the text of the bargain by the language of Mr.
Tallyrand to Mr. Livingston; she corroborated our particular
construction of the Text, in relation to the Eastern boundary
of Louisiana by the language of Mr. Marbois; and she corroborated
our construction in relation to both Eastern and
Western boundaries by her silence under the known extent
to which that construction carried them. And with respect
to Spain, who is equally bound by the assignment of the
ostensible title of France, unless she can prove a notice to
the United States that the real title was different from the
ostensible one, it is to be observed, first, that no such proof
has ever been attempted; and next, that Spain cannot even
pretend an ignorance of the necessity of such notice. This is
evinced by her conduct in another instance where a secret
stipulation with France, contrary to the tenor of her Treaty
with France, was alledged in opposition to the Treaty of the
United States with France. France it appears had promised
to Spain, thro' her Minister at Madrid, that she would in
no event alienate the Territory ceded to her by Spain. The
Spanish Government sensible that this promise could not
invalidate the meaning of the instrument, which exhibited
the title of France as absolute and therefore alienable, no
sooner heard of the purchase concluded at Paris by the Ministers
of the United States, than she instructed her Minister
at Washington to communicate without delay to the Government
of the United States the alledged engagement of France
not to alienate. This communication was made on the 9th
of Sept. 1803; and so convinced was Spain of the necessity
of the most formal notice on such occasions, that the Spanish
Minister here repeated the same notice on the 27th of the same
month, with the addition of some other pretended defects
in the title of France, and urged on the Government here an
obligation to forbear under such circumstances to ratify
the Convention with France. Now if it was necessary for
Spain, in order to protect herself by a secret engagement of
France not to alienate, against the overt transaction giving
France a right to alienate, that she should give notice of that
engagement to third parties; and if Spain knew this to be
necessary the same course was equally necessary and equally
obvious, when the effect of the overt stipulation as to
the limits of the Territory sold was to be arrested or restricted
by any separate agreement between the original
parties. Yet this course has not been pursued. So far from
it, Spain, in finally notifying thro' her Minister here, a
relinquishment of her opposition to the assignment of Louisiana
to the United States, and consequently to the title of
France as derived from the Treaty itself never gave the
least intimation of any other secret articles or engagements
whatever, which were to qualify the exposition of
the overt description of boundaries contained in the text of
the Treaty; fully acquiescing thereby in the meaning of
the text according to the ordinary rules of expounding
it.[23]

In your letter of Feby. 14th, it is intimated that a disposition
appeared in the French Government to open the
Colonial Trade to the U. States, in consideration of a pecuniary
equivalent. The objections to such an arrangement
are considered by the President as insuperable. If made in
time of War, it would beget discontents in Great Britain who
would suspect or pretend that the arrangement was a cover
for a subsidy; and with the more plausibility, as during war,
nearly the same privileges are allowed without purchase.
The precedent, in the next place, would be a novel and a
noxious one. Add that our trade with the French Colonies,
in time of war, being more important to France than to the
United States, there is as much reason why she should buy it

of us in time of war, as that we should buy it of her in time of
peace. Finally, the reciprocity of advantages in the Trade
at all times, makes it the real interest of France as of other
nations, to lay it open to us at all times. Of this truth, the
enlightened Statesmen of Europe are becoming every day
more sensible; and the time is not distant when the United
States with a reduced debt, and a surplus of revenue, will be
able, without risking the public credit, to say with effect, to
whatever nation they please, that they will shut their trade
with its Colonies in time of war, if it be not opened to them
equally at all times.

Still the peculiar situation of St. Domingo makes it desirable
that some such arrangement should take place as is
suggested in my letters to Mr. Livingston of 31st Jany & 31
March 1804, extracts from which are inclosed. And the late
Acts of Congress, having done what ought to be followed by
proofs of a corresponding disposition on the part of France,
the President thinks it proper that you should not lose sight
of that object. It is thought proper also, that you should
continue to press on favorable occasions the reasonableness
of permitting Commercial Agents of the United States to
reside wherever a commerce is permitted.

You have already been apprized of the depredations committed
by the lawless cruizers of France in the West Indies;
sometimes in connection with French ports; sometimes in
connection with Spanish ports. This subject claims the
serious attention of the French Government; as laying the
foundation for just claims of indemnity, as well as producing
irritations unfriendly to the relations prescribed by the interest
and it is hoped by the dispositions of both Countries.
In some instances great irregularities are committed, beyond
those of mere depredation. Inclosed is a statement of a
peculiar outrage, and of the letter written to Turreau on the
subject with his answer. France cannot give a more acceptable
proof of her justice, nor a more seasonable one of her
sound policy, than by provisions that will effectually remove
such grounds of complaint.

I inclose also a copy of a very extraordinary decree issued
by the French Commandant at Santo Domingo. The letter
written by Genl. Turreau, of which a copy, with one of his
in answer, is inclosed, will explain the sentiments of the President
thereon, and be a guide to the representations which
you will make to the French Government. I add a copy of
a letter to the President from Mr. Walton residing at Santo
Domingo, which, having, relation to our affairs with that
Island may assist your view of them. There is no reason to
believe that under the decree of Genl. Ferrand any of our
Citizens have been put to death; but it seems certain that
they have suffered the indignity and the outrage of corporal
punishment, and consequently that an exemplary satisfaction
is due from the French Government, at least, in cases which
fall not under municipal law but that of Nations. Genl-Turreau,
you will observe, undertakes to vindicate the justice
of the bloody decree, at the same time that he promises to
interpose against its effects. It was thought unnecessary
to reply to his answer, which would have brought on a fruitless
and endless discussion, and the more unnecessary as the
principles maintained by the United States, with respect

to the trade with St. Domingo, were sufficiently understood.

In the course of last month sailed for the Mediterranean,
a reinforcement consisting of the frigate John Adams of 32
Guns and 600 men, 9 Gun boats carrying each about 20 men
and most of them two thirty two pounders, and two bomb
vessels with 13 inch Mortars. The boats are of a size and
structure supposed to be much superior to any yet known
in that sea, and to be peculiarly fitted for the service in which
they are to be employed.

Mr. Bowdoin sailed from Boston about the loth of last
Month, in the Baltic, Cap Blount for St. Andero.

The laws of the last Session of Congress being just edited,
a copy is transmitted by this opportunity.