Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume III.

Your several memorials of the 8th instant have been laid before the President, as had been that of the 2nd, as soon as received. They have been considered with all the attention and the impartiality, which a firm determination to do what is equal and right between all the belligerent powers could inspire.

In one of these, you communicate, on the information of the British Consul at Charleston, that the Consul of France at the same place had condemned, as legal prize, a British vessel, captured by a French frigate, and you justly add, that this judicial act is not warranted by the usage of nations, nor by the stipulations existing between the United States and France. I observe further, that it is not warranted by any law of the land. It is consequently a mere nullity; as such it can be respected in no court, can make no part in the title to the vessel, nor give to the purchaser any other security than what he would have had without it. In short, it is so absolutely nothing, as to give no foundation of just concern to any person interested in the fate of the vessel; and in this point of view, Sir, I am in hopes you will see it. The proceeding, indeed, if the British Consul has been rightly informed (and we have no other information of it), has been an act of disrespect towards the United States, to which its government cannot be inattentive: a just sense of our own rights and duties, and the obviousness of the principle, are a security that no inconveniences will be permitted to arise from repetitions of it.

The purchase of arms and military accoutrements by an agent of the French government, in this country, with an intent to expert them to France, is the subject of another of the memorials. Of this fact we are equally uninformed as of the former. Our citizens have been always free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be hard in principle, and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal derangement in their occupations. It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced in the President’s proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their way to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned; and that even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, the benefits of them will be left equally free and open to all.

The capture of the British ship Grange by the French frigate L’Embuscade has on inquiry been found to have taken place within the bay of Delaware and jurisdiction of the United States, as stated in your memorial of the 2nd instant. The government is, therefore, taking measures for the liberation of the crew and restitution of the ship and cargo.’

It condemns, in the highest degree, the conduct of any of our citizens who may personally engage in committing hostilities at sea against any of the nations, parties to the present war, and will exert all the means with which the laws and constitution have armed them to discover such as offend herein, and bring them to condign punishment. Of these dispositions I am authorized to give assurances to all the parties, without reserve. Our real friendship for them all, our desire to pursue ourselves the path of peace, as the only one leading surely to prosperity, and our wish to preserve the morals of our citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and murder, may assure you that our proceedings, in this respect, will be with good faith, fervor, and vigilance. Instructions are consequently given to the proper law officer, to institute such proceedings as the laws will justify, for apprehending and punishing certain individuals of our citizens, suggested to have been concerned in enterprises of this kind, as mentioned in one of your memorials of the 8th instant.

The practice of commissioning, equipping, and manning vessels in our ports, to cruise on any of the belligerent parties, is equally and entirely disapproved; and the government will take effectual measures to prevent a repetition of it. The remaining point in the same memorial is reserved for further consideration.

I trust, Sir, that in the readiness with which the United States have attended to the redress of such wrongs as are committed by their citizens, or within their jurisdiction, you will see proofs of their justice and impartiality to all parties; and that it will insure to their citizens pursuing their lawful business by sea or by land, in all parts of the world, a like efficacious interposition of governing powers to protect them from injury, and redress it, where it has taken place. With such dispositions on both sides, vigilantly and faithfully carried into effect, we may hope that the blessings of peace, on the one part, will be as little impaired, and the evils of war, on the other, as little aggravated, as the nature of things will permit; and that this should be so, is, we trust, the prayer of all.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CXLVIII.*—TO M. DE TERNANT, May 15, 1793

Having received several memorials from the British Minister on subjects arising out of the present war, I take the liberty of enclosing them to you, and shall add an explanation of the determinations of the government thereon. These will serve to indicate the principles on which it is meant to proceed; and which are to be applied, with impartiality, to the proceedings of both parties. They will form, therefore, as far as they go, a rule of action for them and for us.

In one of these memorials, it is stated, that arms and military accoutrements are now buying up by a French agent in this country, with an intent to export them to France. We have answered, &c.

Another of these memorials complains that the Consul of France at Charleston, has condemned, as legal prize, a British vessel captured by a French frigate, observing that this judicial act is not warranted by the usage of nations nor by the stipulations existing between the United States and France. It is true, &c.

Our information is not perfect on the subject matter of another of these memorials, which states that a vessel has been fitted out at Charleston, manned there, and partly too with citizens of the United States, received a commission there to cruise against nations at peace with us, and has taken and sent a British vessel into this port. Without taking all these facts for granted, we have not hesitated to express our highest disapprobation of the conduct of any of our citizens who may personally engage in committing hostilities at sea against any of the nations, parties to the present war, and to declare, that if the case has happened, or that should it happen, we will exert all the measures with which the laws and constitution have armed us, to discover such offenders and bring them to condign punishment. And that the like conduct shall be observed, should the like enterprises be attempted against your nation, I am authorized to give you the most unreserved assurances.

The capture of the British ship Grange, by the French frigate L’Embuscade, within the Delaware, has been the subject of a former letter to you. On full and mature consideration, the government deems the capture to have been unquestionably within its jurisdiction, and that according to the rules of neutrality and the protection it owes to all persons while within its limits, it is bound to see that the crew be liberated, and the vessel and cargo restored to their former owners. The Attorney General of the United States has made a statement of the grounds of this determination, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose you. I am, in consequence, charged by the President of the United States to express to you his expectation, and at the same time his confidence that you will be pleased to take immediate and effectual measures for having the ship Grange and her cargo restored to the British owners, and the persons taken on board her set at liberty.

I am persuaded, Sir, you will be sensible, on mature consideration, that in forming these determinations, the government of the United States has listened to nothing but the dictates of immutable justice: they consider the rigorous exercise of that virtue as the surest means of preserving perfect harmony between the United States and the powers at war.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

[* The parts of this letter which are mere repetitions of what is contained in the preceding, to the British Minister, are omitted.]

LETTER CXLIX.—TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, May 21,1793

I have been duly honored with your favor of May the 8th, covering the letter of Mr. Newton, and that of May the 13th, with the letter of the British Consul at Norfolk and the information of Henry Tucker, all of which have been laid before the President.

The putting the several harbors of the United States into a state of defence, having never yet been the subject of deliberation and decision with the legislature, and consequently, the necessary monies not having been appropriated or levied, the President does not find himself in a situation competent to comply with the proposition on the subject of Norfolk.

Mr. Newton supposes, that by the treaties with France and Holland, those powers are authorized to arm vessels within our ports. A careful examination of the treaties will show, however, that no such permission has been stipulated therein. Measures are accordingly taken to correct this error as to the past, and others will be taken to prevent a repetition of it. Proceedings are ordered against Mr. Hooper and other American citizens who have participated in any hostilities against nations at peace with the United States, and circular instructions are given to the District Attorneys of the United States, to institute like prosecutions in all future similar cases. The bringing vessels to, of whatever nation, while within the limits of the protection of the United States, will be pointedly forbidden; the government being firmly determined to enforce a peaceable demeanor among all the parties within those limits, and to deal to all the same impartial measure. I have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect, your Excellency’s most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CL.—TO MR. VAN BERCKEL, May 29,1793

TO MR. VAN BERCKEL.

I am favored with your note of the 22nd instant, stating that under circumstances of invasion and urgent danger, their High Mightinesses, the States General of the United Netherlands, had found it necessary to lay an embargo on all vessels in their ports, and that an American ship, the Hope, being involved in this general order, the master had claimed an exemption under the eighth article of our treaty, which it had been necessary to refuse him.

I have laid this note before the President of the United States, and have it in charge from him to assure you, that the United States having the utmost confidence in the sincerity and good faith with which their High Mightinesses will observe the treaty between the two countries, feel no dissatisfaction at the circumstance mentioned in your note. They are sensible that in human affairs, there are moments of difficulty and necessity, to which it is the office of friendship to accommodate its strict rights.

The President considers the explanation, which their High Mightinesses have instructed you to give of this incident, as a proof of their desire to cultivate harmony and good understanding with these United States, and charges me to assure you that he has nothing more at heart than to convince their High Mightinesses of the same amicable sentiments on the part of this country, and of the certainty with which they may count on its justice and friendship on every occasion.

I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CLI.—TO MESSRS. CARMICHAEL AND SHORT, May 31, 1793

In my letters of October the 14th and November the 3rd, 1792, I communicated to you papers and observations on the conduct of the Spanish officers on our southwestern frontier, and particularly of the Baron de Carondelet, the Governor of New Orleans. These made it evident that he had industriously excited the southern Indians to war against us, and had furnished them with arms and ammunition in abundance, for that express purpose. We placed this under the view of the commissioners of Spain here, who undertook to communicate it to their court, and also to write on the subject to the Baron de Carondelet. They have lately made us communications from both these quarters; the aspect of which, however, is by no means such as to remove the causes of our dissatisfaction. I send you these commmunications, consisting of treaties between Spain, the Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Cherokees, handed us by express order from their court, a speech of Jiaron de Carondelet to the Cherokees, and a letter from Messrs. de Viar and Jaudenes, covering that speech, and containing in itself very serious matter.

I will first observe to you, that the question stated in that letter to have been proposed to the Cherokees, What part they would take, in the event of a war between the United States and Spain was never proposed by authority from this government. Its instructions to its agents have, on the contrary, been explicitly to cultivate, with good faith, the peace between Spain and the Indians: and from the known prudence and good conduct of Governor Blount, to whom it is imputed, it is not believed to have been proposed by him. This proposition then, you are authorized to disavow to the court of Madrid, in the most unequivocal terms. With respect to the treaties, the speech, and the letter, you will see that they undertake to espouse the concerns of Indians within our limits; to be mediators of boundary between them and us; to guaranty that boundary to them; to support them with their whole power; and hazard to us intimations of acquiescence to avoid disagreeable results. They even propose to extend their intermeddlings to the northern Indians. These are pretensions so totally inconsistent with the usages established among the white nations with respect to Indians living within their several limits, that it is believed no example of them can be produced, in times of peace; and they are presented to us in a manner which we cannot deem friendly. The consequence is, that the Indians, and particularly the Creeks, finding themselves so encouraged, have passed, without the least provocation on our part, from a state of peace, which appeared to be well settled, to that of serious hostility. Their murders and depredations, which, for some months, we were willing to hope were only individual aggressions, now assume the appearance of unequivocal war. Yet such is our desire of courting and cultivating the peace of all our Indian neighbors, that instead of marching at once into their country and taking satisfaction ourselves, we are peaceably requiring punishment of the individual aggressors; and, in the mean time, are holding ourselves entirely on the defensive. But this state of things cannot continue. Our citizens are entitled to effectual protection, and defensive measures are, at the same time, the most expensive and least effectual. If we find then, that peace cannot be obtained by the temperate means we are still pursuing, we must proceed to those which are extreme, and meet all the consequences, of whatever nature, or from whatever quarter, they may be. We have certainly been always desirous to avoid whatever might disturb our harmony with Spain. We should be still more so, at a moment when we see that nation making part of so powerful a confederacy as is formed in Europe, and under particular good understanding with England, our other neighbor. In so delicate a position, therefore, instead of expressing our sense of these things, by way of answer to Messrs. Viar and Jaudenes, the President has thought it better that it should be done to you, and to trust to your discretion the moment, the measure, and the form of communicating it to the court of Madrid. The actual state of Europe at the time you will receive this, the solidity of the confederacy, and especially as between Spain and England, the temper and views of the former, or of both, towards us, the state of your negotiation, are circumstances which will enable you better to decide how far it may be necessary to soften, or even perhaps to suppress, the expressions of our sentiments on this subject. To your discretion, therefore, it is committed by the President, to let the court of Spain see how impossible it is for us to submit with folded arms to be butchered by these savages, and to prepare them to view, with a just eye, the more vigorous measures we must pursue to put an end to their atrocities, if the moderate ones we are now taking should fail of that effect.

Our situation on other accounts and in other quarters is critical. The President is, therefore, constantly anxious to know the state of things with you: and I entreat you to keep him constantly and well informed. Mr. Yznardi, the younger, lately appointed Consul of the United States, at Cadiz, may be a convenient channel of forwarding your letters.

I have the honor to be, with great esteem and respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CLII.—TO MR. GENET, June 5,1793

In my letter of May the 15th, to M. de Ternant, your predecessor, after stating the answer which had been given to the several memorials of the British Minister, of May the 8th, it was observed that a part still remained unanswered of that which respected the fitting out armed vessels in Charleston, to cruise against nations with whom we are at peace.

In a conversation which I had afterwards the honor of holding with you, I observed that one of those armed vessels, the Citizen Genet, had come into this port with a prize: that the President had thereupon taken the case into further consideration, and after mature consultation and deliberation, was of opinion, that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace, was incompatible with the territorial sovereignty of the United States; that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to compromit their peace; and that he thought it necessary as an evidence of good faith to them, as well as a proper reparation to the sovereignty of the country, that the armed vessels of this description should depart from the ports of the United States.

The letter of the 27th instant, with which you have honored me, has been laid before the President, and that part of it which contains your observations on this subject has been particularly attended to. The respect due to whatever comes from you, friendship for the French nation, and justice to all, have induced him to re-examine the subject, and particularly to give your representations thereon the consideration they deservedly claim. After fully weighing again, however, all the principles and circumstances of the case, the result appears still to be, that it is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits; and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers; that the granting military commissions within the United States by any other authority than their own, is an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to their own citizens to lead them to acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country; that the departure of vessels thus illegally equipped from the ports of the United States, will be but an acknowledgment of respect analogous to the breach of it, while it is necessary on their part, as an evidence of their faithful neutrality. On these considerations, Sir, the President thinks that the United States owe it to themselves and to the nations in their friendship, to expect this act of reparation on the part of vessels, marked in their very equipment with offence to the laws of the land, of which the law of nations makes an integral part.

The expressions of friendly sentiments which we have already had the satisfaction of receiving from you, leave no room to doubt that, the conclusion of the President being thus made known to you, these vessels will be permitted to give no further umbrage by their presence in the ports of the United States.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of perfect esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CLIII.—TO MR. HAMMOND, June 5, 1793

In the letter which I had the honor of writing you on the 15th of May, in answer to your several memorials of the 8th of that month, I mentioned that the President reserved for further consideration, a part of the one which related to the equipment of two privateers in the port of Charleston. The part alluded to was that wherein you express your confidence that the executive government of the United States would pursue measures for repressing such practices in future, and for restoring to their rightful owners any captures, which such privateers might bring into the ports of the United States.

The President, after a full investigation of this subject and the most mature consideration, has charged me to communicate to you, that the first part of this application is found to be just, and that effectual measures are taken for preventing repetitions of the act therein complained of; but that the latter part, desiring restitution of the prizes, is understood to be inconsistent with the rules which govern such cases, and would, therefore, be unjustifiable towards the other party.

The principal agents in this transaction were French citizens. Being within the United States at the moment a war broke out between their own and another country, they determine to go into its defence; they purchase, arm, and equip a vessel with their own money, man it themselves, receive a regular commission from their nation, depart out of the United States, and then commence hostilities by capturing a vessel, If, under these circumstances, the commission of the captors was valid, the property, according to the laws of war, was by the capture transferred to them, and it would be an aggression on their nation, for the United States to rescue it from them, whether on the high seas or on coming into their ports. If the commission was not valid, and, consequently, the property not transferred by the laws of war to the captors, then the case would have been cognizable in our courts of admiralty, and the owners might have gone thither for redress. So that, on neither supposition, would the executive be justifiable in interposing.

With respect to the United States, the transaction can be in nowise imputed to them. It was in the first moment of the war, in one of their most distant ports, before measures could be provided by the government to meet all the cases which such a state of things was to produce, impossible to have been known, and, therefore, impossible to have been prevented by that government.

The moment it was known, the most energetic orders were sent to every State and port of the Union, to prevent a repetition of the accident. On a suggestion that citizens of the United States had taken part in the act, one, who was designated, was instantly committed to prison, for prosecution; one or two others have been since named, and committed in like manner; and should it appear that there were still others, no measure will be spared to bring them to justice. The President has even gone further. He has required, as a reparation of their breach of respect to the United States, that the vessels so armed and equipped, shall depart from our ports.

You will see, Sir, in these proceedings of the President, unequivocal proofs of the line of strict right which he means to pursue. The measures now mentioned, are taken in justice to the one party; the ulterior measure, of seizing and restoring the prizes, is declined in justice to the other; and the evil, thus early arrested, will be of very limited effects; perhaps, indeed, soon disappear altogether.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

LETTER CLIV.—TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, June 13, 1793

It has long since been observed, that of the three millions of livres given by the court of France to aid us in the commencement of our revolution, one million was unaccounted for by the hands into which it was paid. The date of the payment is fixed to have been the 10th of June, 1776, but to whom it was paid has never been known. Suspicions are, that it was to Beaumarchais; and that with this very money he purchased the supplies furnished us by him, for which large sums have been paid him already, and a further large sum has lately been certified to be due to him as the balance of the account. I enclose you a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject, with all the papers relative to the same which his office can furnish: and as you are on the spot, I must beg the favor of you to make an immediate and thorough investigation of it. No reasons of State can now exist for covering the transaction longer under mystery.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

[The letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, and other papers, relative to the lost million alluded to in the letter to Mr. Morris.]

LETTERS—RE THE LOST MILLION, June 10, 1793

The comptroller of the Treasury has reported to me, that ‘on examining the subsisting contracts between the United States and the government of France and the Farmers General, and a comparison thereof with the foreign accounts and documents transmitted to the Treasury, the following facts appear.

That previous to the treaty of February, 1778, the sum of three millions of livres had been advanced by the government of France to the agents of the United States, under the title of gratuitous, for which no reimbursement was to be made.

That the payments, which composed the before-mentioned sum of three millions of livres, are stated, in a letter of Mr. Durival to Mr. Grand, dated in 1786, to have been made at the following periods:

One million delivered by the Royal Treasury the 10th of June, 1776, and two other millions advanced also by the Royal Treasury in 1777, on four receipts of the Deputies of Congress, of the 17th of January, 3rd of April, 10th of June, and 15th of October of the same year.

In the account of Mr. Ferdinand Grand, banker of the United States, the following sums are credited, viz.

     1777.—January 31, ....   500,000 livres.
     April 26, ......   500,000
     June 4, ........ 1,000,000
     July 3, ........   500,000
     October 10, ....   500,000

     Amount in the whole, .. 3,000,000 livres.

The Farmers General of France claim a large balance from the United States, on account of one million of livres which they contend was advanced in June, 1777, in consequence of a special contract with Messrs. Franklin and Deane, to be repaid by the delivery of tobacco at certain stipulated prices, and the advance made by the Farmers General is said to be the same money, as is credited by Mr. Grand on the 4th of June, 1777.

After a careful examination of the foreign accounts, it is found that no more than three millions of livres have been credited by any agents of the United States.

An opinion was entertained by the late officers of the Treasury, that the sum claimed by the Farmers General composed a part of the sum supplied as gratuitous aid by the government. Subsequent explanations have however rendered it probable, that, including the claim of the Farmers General, the sum of four millions of livres were in fact received; it is, however, indispensable that it should be known to whom the money was paid.

The most direct mode of obtaining this information will be, to call for copies of the receipts mentioned in Mr. Durival’s letter of 1786, and more particularly, a copy of that said to have been given on the 10th of June, 1776.’

And as explanatory of the transaction, he has sent me the documents herewith transmitted.

The most likely conjecture, in my mind, considering the period of the advance and the circumstances of that period, is, that the unaccounted-for million went into the hands of M. de Beaumarchais. The supplies which he furnished to the United States exceeded his own probable resources, besides the imprudence of having hazarded so much at that stage of our affairs upon our ability to pay. And there were many symptoms, at the time, of his having been secretly put in motion by the government.

It is now become urgent, that the truth of the case should be known. An account has recently passed the auditor’s office, admitting in favor of M. de Beaumarchais a balance of four hundred and twenty-two thousand two hundred and sixty-five dollars and thirteen cents, with a reservation only of the question of the million. If he has received that million, which has been acknowledged as a free gift from the French government, it is unjust that he should be able to establish a claim against the United States for supplies which must have been the proceeds of that sum. If he has never received the million, every, day’s suspension of his claim, after the immense delays heretofore incurred, is a grievous hardship upon him. It concerns materially the interests, and more the justice, the credit, and the character of the United States, that as speedy a solution as possible of the enigma may be obtained.

With a view to this, I have the honor to make you the present communication, that you may be pleased to take such steps as shall appear to you the most proper and efficacious to procure, as speedily as the nature of the case will admit, the requisite explanations. With respect, I have the honor to be, &c.

The letter you honored me with, covered the copies of three letters which Mr. Thomson wrote you to obtain an explanation of a million which is not to be found in my accounts. I should have been very much embarrassed in satisfying him and proving that I had not put that million in my pocket, had I not applied to M. Durival, who, as you will see by the answer enclosed, informs me that there was a million paid by the Royal Treasury on the 10th of June, 1776. This is the very million about which Mr. Thomson inquires, as I have kept an account of the other two millions, which were also furnished by the Royal Treasury, viz.:

The million in January and April, 1777; the other in July and October of the same year; as well as that furnished by the Farmers General in June, 1777.

Here then are the three millions, exactly, which were given by the King before the treaty of 1778, and that furnished by the Farmers General. Nothing then remains to be known but who received the first million in June, 1776. It could not be by me, who was not charged with the business of Congress until January, 1777. I therefore requested of M. Durival the copy of the receipt for the one million. You have the answer which he returned to me. I wrote to him again, renewing my request, but as the carrier is just setting off, I cannot wait to give you his answer, but you will receive it in my next, if I receive one. In the mean while, I beg you will receive the assurances of the sentiments of respect, with which I have the honor to be, my Dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

I have received the letter which you did me the honor to write the 28th of this month, touching the advance of a million, which you say was made by the General Farm to the United States of America, the 3rd of June, 1777. I have no knowledge of that advance. What I have verified is, that the King by the contract of the 25th of February, 1783, has confirmed the gratuitous gift which his Majesty had previously made of the three millions hereafter mentioned, viz:

One million delivered by the Royal Treasury the 10th of June, 1776, and two other millions advanced also by the Royal Treasury in 1777, on four receipts of the Deputies of Congress of the 17th of January, 3rd of April, 10th of June, and 15th of October, of the same year. This explanation will, Sir, resolve your doubt touching the advance of the 3rd of June, 1777. I farther recommend to you, Sir, to confer on this subject with Mr. Gojard, who ought to be better informed than us, who have no knowledge of any advances but those made by the Royal Treasury.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

I hazard a letter in hopes it may be able to join that of the 9th, at L’Orient, in order to forward to you, Sir, the answer I have just received from Mr. Durival. You will therefore see, Sir, that notwithstanding my entreaty, the Minister himself refuses to give me the copy of the receipts which I asked for. I cannot conceive the reason for this reserve, more especially, since if there has been a million paid, he who received it has kept the account, and must in time be known. I shall hear with pleasure that you have been more fortunate in this respect in America than I have been in France, and repeat to you the assurances of the sentiments of regard, with which I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

I laid before the Count de Vergennes the two letters which you did me the honor, to write, touching the three millions, the free gift of which the King has confirmed in favor of the United States of America.

The Minister, Sir, observed, that this gift has nothing to do with the million which Congress may have received from the General Farm, 1777. Consequently he thinks that the receipt which you desire may be communicated to you, cannot satisfy the object of your view, and that it would be useless to give you the copy which you desire.

I have the honor to be, with perfect attachment, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

I have laid before the Count de Vergennes, as you, Sir, seem to desire, the letter which you did me the honor to write yesterday. The Minister persists in the opinion that the receipt, the copy of which you request, has no relation to the business with which you are entrusted on behalf of Congress, and that this price would be useless in the new point of view in which you have placed it. Indeed, Sir, it is easy for you to prove that the money in question was not delivered by the Royal Treasury into your hands, as you did not begin to be charged with the business of Congress until January, 1777, and the receipt is of the date of the 10th of June, 1776.

I have the honor to be, with perfect attachment, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Extract of a letter from Benjamin Franklin to Mr. Grand, banker at Paris, dated Philadelphia, July the 11th, 1786.

‘I send you enclosed some letters that have passed between the Secretary of Congress and me, respecting three millions of livres acknowledged to have been received before the treaty of 1778, as don gratuit, from the King, of which only two millions are found in your accounts; unless the million from the Fanners General be one of the three. I have been assured that all the money received from the King, whether as loan or gift, went through your hands; and as I always looked on the million we had of the Farmers General to be distinct from what we had of the crown, I wonder how I came to sign the contract acknowledging three millions of gift, when in reality there were only two, exclusive of that from the Farmers. And as both you and I examined the project of the contract before I signed it, I am surprised that neither of us took notice of the error. It is possible that the million furnished ostensibly by the Farmers, was in fact a gift of the crown, in which case, as Mr. Thomson observes, they owe us for the two ship-loads of tobacco they received on account of it. I must earnestly request of you to get this,matter explained, that it may stand clear before I die, lest some enemy should afterwards accuse me of having received a million not accounted for.’

You may remember that in the correspondence between us in June last, on the subject of a million, free gift of the King of France, acknowledged in our contract to have been received, but which did not appear to be accounted for in our banker’s accounts, unless it should be the same with the million said to be received from the Farmers General, I mentioned that an explanation might doubtless be easily obtained, by writing to Mr. Grand or Mr. Jefferson. I know not whether you have accordingly written to either of them. But being desirous that the matter should be speedily cleared up, I wrote myself to Mr. Grand a letter upon it, of which I now enclose a copy with his answer, and several letters from Mr. Durival, who is chef du bureau des fonds (and has under his care la finance des affaires étrangerès). You will see by these letters, that the million in question was delivered to somebody on the 10th of June, 1776, but it does not appear to whom. It is clear that it could not be to Mr. Grand, nor to the commissioners from Congress, for we did not meet in France till the end of December, 1777. That banker was not charged before with our affairs. By the Minister’s refusing him a copy of the receipt, I conjecture it must be money advanced for our use to Mr. Beaumarchais, and that it is a mystère du cabinet, which perhaps should not be further inquired into, unless necessary to guard against more demands than may be just from that agent: for it may well be supposed that if the court furnished him with the means of supplying us, they may not be willing to furnish authentic proofs of such a transaction so early in our dispute with Britain.

Pray tell me, has he dropped his demands, or does he still continue to worry you with them?

I should like to have these original letters returned to me, but you may, if you please, keep copies of them.

It is true, the million in question makes no difference in your accounts with the King of France, it not being mentioned or charged as so much lent and repaid, but stood as freely given. Yet if it was put into the hands of any of our agents or ministers, they ought certainly to account for it. I do not recollect whether Mr. Deane had arrived in France before the 10th of June, 1776, but from his great want of money when I joined him a few months after, I hardly think it could have been paid him.

Possibly Mr. Jefferson may obtain the information, though Mr. Grand could not, and I wish he may be directed to make the inquiry, as I know he would do it directly; I mean, if by Hortales and Co.’ s further demands, or for any other reason, such an inquiry should be thought necessary.

LETTER CXLVII.—TO MR. HAMMOND, May 15, 1793