Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow ELBRIDGE GERRY TO JOHN ADAMS. - The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Return to Title Page for The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

ELBRIDGE GERRY TO JOHN ADAMS. - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799) [1853]

Edition used:

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 8.

Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


ELBRIDGE GERRY TO JOHN ADAMS.

Cambridge, 20 October, 1798.

Dear Sir,—

I have the honor to inform you, that there has lately been published, in the Boston gazettes, a letter signed “Timothy Pickering,” addressed to P. Johnson, Esq., of Prince Edward county, Virginia, dated the 29th of September last, wherein Mr. Pickering, speaking of the despatches of the envoys, says that “M. Talleyrand affects an utter ignorance of the persons, designated in the despatches by the letters W, X, Y, and Z; and in his letter of May 30th, with solemn grimace, requests Mr. Gerry immediately to communicate to him the names for which those letters stand. And Mr. Gerry, although he knew that Talleyrand was much better acquainted with X, Y, and Z, than he was himself, having complied with this insulting request, M. Talleyrand makes a formal record of their names,” &c.

Had Mr. Pickering waited until my return, he would, I presume, have been convinced, by my despatches, of the impropriety of forming his judgment by the representations only of M. Talleyrand, who had, by the publication of the despatches of the envoys, become my antagonist. He would have seen that I could not with propriety have refused a compliance with that insulting request, as he styled it; that the publication of the despatches of the envoys had rendered me peculiarly obnoxious to the minister because by my communications only it appeared, that he had had connection with the intriguers; that the French government, who were supposed to be implicated in this affair, had a right to demand of me, through their minister, such information as might be necessary to confirm his report respecting the names of the intriguers; and that, in such a critical state, to have refused the information, to have thus provoked the French government, and to have furnished it with a pretext for indignant measures against myself, would have been a rash and unwarrantable act. Mr. Pickering was not well informed when he asserted that the despatches of the envoys were not published in France; for they were published in some of the Northern departments of the republic. Neither is he warranted in his assertion, that “I knew that Talleyrand was much better acquainted with X, Y, and Z, than I was myself.” I presumed that this was the case with respect to Y; but Z I had known in the United States when driven from St. Domingo; and I knew nothing more of his connection, or of X’s, with M. Talleyrand, than what has been communicated to the public.

Mr. Pickering, proceeding, states that there is “one other important fact” relative to this business, not mentioned in the despatches from the envoys, which ought to be universally known, and of the truth of which he has incontrovertible evidence. It is this; “the company at the private dinner to which Mr. Gerry was invited by M. Talleyrand, consisted of X, Y, and Z. After rising from table, X and Y renewed to Mr. Gerry in the room, and in the presence (though perhaps not in the hearing) of Talleyrand, the money propositions which the envoys had before rejected,” &c.

This “important fact,” notwithstanding the “incontrovertible evidence,” which Mr. Pickering speaks of, never existed. I dined with M. Talleyrand but twice, once at his table and once at my own, whilst the other envoys were in Paris. X, Y, and Z, were at his table, and Y and Z at mine, with fifteen or twenty other persons, at each dinner. How, then, it can be said that “I was invited by M. Talleyrand at a private dinner,” and that “the company consisted of X, Y, and Z,” I am yet to learn. The proposition, which X and Y then made, was, I think, relative to the loan only. Be this as it may, it was instantly rejected by my declaring that we had neither power nor funds for the purpose. This was subsequent to the dates of the letters of the envoys, Nos. 1 and 2, in which we had detailed our conferences with X and Y on the money propositions. Nevertheless, had the envoys supposed this fact necessary to have been added to our voluminous communications on the same subject, I was ready to adopt the measure, and to have made it as “universally known” as the latter.

I shall make, Sir, no further comments on the letter referred to, because I am persuaded that your Excellency will be convinced of the errors pointed out, and will be disposed, in the most public and prompt manner, to do me justice; and because I presume that Mr. Pickering will readily promote the same measure.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, &c.

Elbridge Gerry.