same article to our navigation. Perhaps they may do what we should feel much more severely, they may turn their eyes to the favors granted us by their arrets of December 29, 1787, and December 7, 1788, which hang on their will alone, unconnected with the treaty. Those arrets, among other advantages, admit our whale oils to the exclusion of that of all other foreigners. And this monopoly procures a vent for seven-twelfths of the produce of that fishery, which experience has taught us could find no other market. Near two-thirds of the produce of our cod fisheries, too, have lately found a free vent in the colonies of France. This, indeed, has been an irregularity growing out of the anarchy reigning in those colonies. Yet the demands of the colonists, even of the Government party among them (if an auxiliary disposition can be excited by some marks of friendship and distinction on our part), may perhaps produce a constitutional concession to them to procure their provisions at the cheapest market; that is to say, at ours.

Considering the value of the interests we have at stake and considering the smallness of difference between foreign and native tonnage on French vessels alone, it might perhaps be thought advisable to make the sacrifice asked, and especially if it can be so done as to give no title to other the most favored nations to claim it. If the act should put French vessels on the footing of those of natives, and declare it to be in consideration of the favors granted us by the arrets of December 29, 1787, and December 7, 1788 (and perhaps this would satisfy them), no nation could then demand the same favor without offering an equivalent compensation. It might strengthen, too, the tenure by which those arrets are held, which must be precarious so long as they are gratuitous.

It is desirable in many instances to exchange mutual advantages by legislative acts rather than by treaty, because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient can be dropped at the will of either party; whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent, let a change of circumstances render them ever so burdensome.

On the whole, if it be the opinion that the first construction is to be insisted on as ours, in opposition to the second urged by the Court of France, and that no relaxation is to be admitted, an answer shall be given to that Court defending that construction, and explaining in as friendly terms as possible the difficulties opposed to the exemption they claim.

2. If it be the opinion that it is advantageous for us to close with France in her interpretation of a reciprocal and perpetual exemption from tonnage, a repeal of so much of the tonnage law will be the answer.

3. If it be thought better to waive rigorous and nice discussions of right and to make the modification an act of friendship and of compensation for favors received, the passage of such a bill will then be the answer.

TH: JEFFERSON.

[Translation.]

L. G. Otto to the Secretary of State.

PHILADELPHIA, December 13, 1790.

SIR: During the long stay you made in France you had opportunities of being satisfied of the favorable dispositions of His Majesty to render permanent the ties that united the two nations and to give stability to the treaties of alliance and of commerce which form the basis of this union. These treaties were so well maintained by the Congress formed under the ancient Confederation that they thought it their duty to interpose their authority whenever any laws made by individual States appeared to infringe their stipulations, and particularly in 1785, when the States of New Hampshire and of Massachusetts had imposed an extraordinary tonnage on

foreign vessels without exempting those of the French nation. The reflections that I have the honor to address to you in the subjoined note being founded on the same principles, I flatter myself that they will merit on the part of the Government of the United States the most serious attention.

I am, with respect, etc.,

L. G. OTTO.

[Translation.]

L. G. Otto to the Secretary of State.

PHILADELPHIA, December 13, 1790.

NOTE.-The underwritten, chargé d'affaires of France, has received the express order of his Court to represent to the United States that the act passed by Congress the 20th July, 1789, and renewed the 20th July of the present year, which imposes an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels without excepting French vessels, is directly contrary to the spirit and to the object of the treaty of commerce which unites the two nations, and of which His Majesty has not only scrupulously observed the tenor, but of which he has extended the advantages by many regulations very favorable to the commerce and navigation of the United States.

By the fifth article of this treaty the citizens of these States are declared exempt from the tonnage duty imposed in France on foreign vessels, and they are not subject to that duty but in the coasting business. Congress has reserved the privilege of establishing a duty equivalent to this last, a stipulation founded on the state in which matters were in America at the time of the signature of the treaty. There did not exist at that epoch any duty on tonnage in the United States.

It is evident that it was the nonexistence of this duty and the motive of a perfect reciprocity stipulated in the preamble of the treaty that had determined the King to grant the exemption contained in the article fifth; and a proof that Congress had no intention to contravene this reciprocity is that it only reserves a privilege of establishing on the coasting business a duty equivalent to that which is levied in France. This reservation would have been completely useless if by the words of the treaty Congress thought themselves at liberty to lay any tonnage they should think proper on French vessels.

The undersigned has the honor to observe that this contravention of the fifth article of the treaty of commerce might have authorized His Majesty to modify proportionately the favors granted by the same article to the American navigation; but the King, always faithful to the principles of friendship and attachment to the United States, and desirous of strengthening more and more the ties which subsist so happily between the French nation and these States, thinks it more conformable to these views to order the undersigned to make representations on this subject, and to ask in favor of French vessels a modification of the act which imposes an extraordinary tonnage on foreign vessels. His Majesty does not doubt but that the United States will acknowledge the justice of this claim, and will be disposed to restore things to the footing on which they were at the signature of the treaty of the 6th February, 1778. L. G. OTTO.

[Translation.]

L. G. Otto to the Secretary of State.

His Excellency M. JEFFERSON,

Secretary of State.

NEW YORK, January 8, 1791.

SIR: I have the honor herewith to send you a letter from the King to Congress, and one which M. de Montmorin has written to yourself. You will find therein the

sincere sentiments with which you have inspired our Government, and the regret of the minister in not having a more near relation of correspondence with you. In these every person who has had the advantage of knowing you in France participates. At the same time, it gives me pain, sir, to be obliged to announce to you that the complaints of our merchants on the subject of the tonnage duty increase, and that they have excited not only the attention of the King but that of several departments of the Kingdom. I have received new orders to request of the United States a decision on this matter and to solicit in favor of the aggrieved merchants the restitution of the duties which have already been paid. I earnestly beg of you, sir, not to lose sight of an object which, as I have already had the honor to tell you verbally, is of the greatest importance for cementing the future commercial connections between the two nations.

In more particularly examining this question you will perhaps find that motives of convenience are as powerful as those of justice to engage the United States to give to His Majesty the satisfaction which he requires. At least twice as many American vessels enter the ports of France as do those of France the ports of America. The exemption of the tonnage of duty, then, is evidently less advantageous for the French than for the navigators of the United States. Be this as it may, I can assure you, sir, that the delay of a decision in this respect by augmenting the just complaints of the French merchants will only augment the difficulties.

I therefore beg of you to enable me before the sailing of the packet, which will take place toward the last of this month, to give to my Court a satisfactory answer. I have the honor to be, etc.,

L. G. OTTO.

UNITED STATES, January 24, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I lay before you a statement relative to the frontiers of the United States, which has been submitted to me by the Secretary for the Department of War.

I rely upon your wisdom to make such arrangements as may be essential for the preservation of good order and the effectual protection of the frontiers.

GO WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, January 24, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

In execution of the powers with which Congress were pleased to invest me by their act entitled "An act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government of the United States," and on mature consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the several positions within the limits prescribed by the said act, I have by a proclamation bearing date this day (a copy of which is herewith transmitted) directed commissioners, appointed in pursuance of the act, to survey and limit a part of the territory of 10 miles square on both sides of the river Potomac, so as to comprehend Georgetown, in Maryland, and extend to the Eastern Branch.

I have not by this first act given to the said territory the whole extent of which it is susceptible in the direction of the river, because I thought it important that Congress should have an opportunity of considering whether by an amendatory law they would authorize the location of the residue at the lower end of the present, so as to comprehend the Eastern Branch itself and some of the country on its lower side, in the State of Maryland, and the town of Alexandria, in Virginia. If, however, they are of opinion that the Federal territory should be bounded by the water edge of the Eastern Branch, the location of the residue will be to be made at the upper end of what is now directed.

I have thought best to await a survey of the territory before it is decided on what particular spot on the northeastern side of the river the public buildings shall be erected.

GO WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, January 26, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I lay before you the copy of a letter from the President of the National Assembly of France to the President of the United States, and of a decree of that Assembly, which was transmitted with the above-mentioned letter.

GO WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, January 27, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

In order that you may be fully informed of the situation of the frontiers and the prospect of hostility in that quarter, I lay before you the intelligence of some recent depredations, received since my message to you upon this subject of the 24th instant.

GO WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, February 9, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have received from the governor of Vermont authentic documents, expressing the consent of the legislatures of New York and of the Territory of Vermont that the said Territory shall be admitted to be a distinct member of our Union; and a memorial of Nathaniel Chipman and Lewis R. Morris, commissioners from the said Territory, praying the consent of Congress to that admission, by the name and style of the State of Vermont, copies of which I now lay before Congress, with whom the Constitution has vested the object of these proceedings.

GO WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, February 14, 1791.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Soon after I was called to the administration of the Government I found it important to come to an understanding with the Court of London on several points interesting to the United States, and particularly to know whether they were disposed to enter into arrangements by mutual consent which might fix the commerce between the two nations on principles of reciprocal advantage. For this purpose I authorized informal conferences with their ministers, and from these I do not infer any disposition on their part to enter into any arrangements merely commercial. I have thought it proper to give you this information, as it might at some time have influence on matters under your consideration.

GO WASHINGTON.

Gentlemen of the Senate:

UNITED STATES, February 14, 1791.

For

Conceiving that in the possible event of a refusal of justice on the part of Great Britain we should stand less committed should it be made to a private rather than to a public person, I employed Mr. Gouverneur Morris, who was on the spot, and without giving him any definite character, to enter informally into the conferences before mentioned. your more particular information I lay before you the instructions I gave him and those parts of his communications wherein the British ministers appear either in conversation or by letter. These are two letters from the Duke of Leeds to Mr. Morris, and three letters of Mr. Morris giving an account of two conferences with the Duke of Leeds and one with him and Mr. Pitt. The sum of these is that they declare without scruple they do not mean to fulfill what remains of the treaty of peace to be fulfilled on their part (by which we are to understand the delivery of the posts and payment for property carried off) till performance on our part, and compensation where the delay has rendered the performance now impracticable; that on the subject of a treaty of commerce they avoided direct answers, so as to satisfy Mr. Morris they did not mean to enter into one unless it could be extended to a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive, or unless in the event of a rupture with Spain.

As to the sending a minister here, they made excuses at the first conference, seemed disposed to it in the second, and in the last express an intention of so doing.

Their views being thus sufficiently ascertained, I have directed Mr. Morris to discontinue his communications with them.

GO WASHINGTON.