Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, SECRETARY OF STATE. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

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

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, SECRETARY OF STATE. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798) [1892]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XIII (1794-1798).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 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.


TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mount Vernon, 22 July, 1795.

Dear Sir,

Both your letters, dated the 17th instant, found me at this place, where I arrived on Monday. The letter from the commissioners to you, I return, as I also do the gazettes of Pittsburg and Boston. The proceedings at the latter place are of a very unpleasant nature. The result I forwarded to you from Baltimore, accompanied with a few hasty lines, written at the moment I was departing from thence; with a request that it might be considered by the confidential officers of government, and returned to me with an answer thereto, if an answer should be deemed advisable.1

In my hurry, I did not signify the propriety of letting those gentlemen know fully my determination with respect to the ratification of the treaty, and the train it was in; but as this was necessary, in order to enable them to form their opinions on the subject submitted, I take it for granted that both were communicated to them by you as a matter of course. The first, that is, the conditional ratification (if the late order, which we have heard of, respecting provision vessels, is not in operation,) may, on all fit occasions, be spoken of as my determination, unless from any thing you have heard or met with since I left you, it should be thought more advisable to communicate further with me on the subject. My opinion respecting the treaty is the same now that it was, namely, not favorable to it, but that it is better to ratify it in the manner the Senate have advised, and with the reservation already mentioned, than to suffer matters to remain as they are, unsettled. Little has been said to me on the subject of this treaty along the road I passed, and I have seen no one since, from whom I could hear much concerning it; but, from indirect discourses, I find endeavors are not wanting to place it in all the odious points of view, of which it is susceptible, and in some, which it will not admit. * * *

As you have discovered your mistake, with respect to the dates of the French decrees, I shall add nothing on that, nor on any other subject at this time, further than a desire to know if you have heard any thing more from M. Adet on the treaty with Great Britain; and whether Mr. Jaudenes has replied to your letter to him on the score of his inconsistency. I am, &c.1

P. S. A Solomon is not necessary to interpret the design of the oration of Mr. Brackenridge.

[1 ]He had written: “The application is of an unusual and disagreeable nature, and moreover is intended, I have no doubt, to place me in an embarrassed situation, from whence an advantage may be taken.”

[1 ]A few days previous to the date of the above letter, a conversation had taken place between M. Adet and the Secretary of State, which was reported by the latter to the President as follows:

“M. Adet came to the office and told me, that he had come to express to me in an amiable manner the uneasiness, which the treaty with Great Britain had excited in him. Professing not to have seen it, I promised him a copy, and that day delivered it to him. He stated some days afterwards in writing three objections. 1. That we had granted to Great Britain liberty to seize our naval stores going to France; while France, by her commercial treaty with the United States, could not seize naval stores of the United States going to England. 2. That Engish privateers may find an asylum in our ports, even during the present war with France. 3. That France could not open a new negotiation with us, as we were prevented from departing, in a new treaty, from this stipulation in favor of British privateers; and France would not give up her prior right.

“In answer to the first objection, I have written to him, that contraband is left unchanged, where it stands by the law of nations; that the working of our treaty with France is reciprocal, inasmuch as if we were at war with England, France would be just where we are now; and that this working of our treaty was plainly foreseen, when it was made. Still I tell him, that, upon the principles of hardship, or injury to a friend, it shall be a subject of our new negotiation; shall not wait for the general treaty; and I doubt not that some modification may be devised.

“In answer to the second, I have written to him, that English privateers will not be admitted into our ports, during this or any other war with France; that our stipulation is exactly the same with that in the treaty of France with England in 1786; that the French treaty is protected from infraction by a positive clause in the treaty with Great Britain, and that it never shall be violated.

“In answer to the third objection, I have written to him, that we would not ask him to renounce the advantages given to French privateers, in exclusion of the enemies of France; and that the old treaty might be continued in force respecting this particular, so as still to give this right a priority to the like right, stipulated by the treaty with Great Britain.

“In the last paragraph of my letter I desire, that, if any embarrassment still hangs upon these points, he may afford me an opportunity of meeting them, before his communications are despatched to the Committee of Public Safety. While I was transcribing my letter, he came to see me; and I read to him the observations on the last point. He exclaimed that they were very good, very good; and, I inferred, satisfactory. I met him at the President’s some time afterwards, and asked him if he had received my letter. He said, ‘Yes.’ I told him that I hoped I had placed the subject upon a satisfactory footing. He expressed a degree of satisfaction; but not so pointed, as what he had said to me as to the part of the letter relative to the third objection. He added something about his not intending to discuss the law of the 23d of March; but he spoke in so low a voice, that I did not catch his meaning.”—July 14th.