Great Britain and America. The merchants of the former credited the merchants and planters of the latter with great quantities of goods, on the common expectation that the merchants having sold the goods would make the accustomed remittances; that the planters would do the same by the labor of their negroes, and the produce of that labor, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.

England, before the goods were sold in America, sends an armed force, seizes those goods in the stores, some even in the ships that brought them, and carries them off. Seizes also and carries off the tobacco, rice, and indigo, provided by the planters to make returns, and even the negroes from whose labor they might hope to raise other produce for that purpose.

Britain now demands that the debts shall nevertheless be paid.

Will she, can she, justly refuse making compensation for such seizures?

If a draper who had sold a piece of linen to a neighbor on credit, should follow him, take the linen from him by force, and then send a bailiff to arrest him for the debt, would any court of law or equity award the payment of the debt, without ordering a restitution of the cloth?

Will not the debtors in America cry out, that if this compensation be not made, they were betrayed by the pretended credit, and are now doubly ruined, first by the enemy, and then by the negotiators at Paris, the goods and negroes sold them being taken from them, with all they had besides; and they are now to be obliged to pay for what they have been robbed of.

SIR,

TO THE HON. R. R. LIVINGSTON, ESQ.
SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Passy, Dec. 14, 1782. We have the honor to congratulate congress on the signature of the preliminaries of a peace between the crown of Great Britain and the United States of America, to be inserted in a definitive treaty so soon

as the terms between the crowns of France and Great Britain shall be agreed on. A copy of the articles is here enclosed,* and we cannot but flatter ourselves that they will appear to congress, as they do to all of us, to be consistent with the honor and interest of the United States; and we are persuaded congress would be more fully of that opinion if they were apprised of all the circumstances and reasons which have influenced the negotiation. Although it is impossible for us to go into that detail, we think it necessary nevertheless to make a few remarks on such of the articles as appear most to require elucidation.

Remarks on Article 2, relative to the boundaries.

The court of Great Britain insisted on retaining all the territories comprehended within the province of Quebec by the act of parliament respecting it. They contended that Nova Scotia should extend to the river Kennebeck; and they claimed not only all the lands in the western country, and on the Mississippi, which were not expressly included in our charters and governments, but also all such lands within them. as remained ungranted by the King of Great Britain: it would be endless to enumerate all the discussions and arguments on the subject. We knew this court and Spain to be against our claims to the western country, and having no reason to think that lines more favorable could ever have been obtained, we finally agreed to those described in this article. Indeed they appear to leave us little to complain of, and not much to desire. Congress will observe, that although our northern line is in a certain part below

the latitude of forty-five, yet in others it extends above it, divides the Lake Superior, and gives us access to its western and southern waters, from which a line in that latitude would have excluded us.

Remarks on Article 4, respecting creditors.

We had been informed that some of the states had confiscated British debts; but although each state has a right to bind its own citizens, yet in our opinion it appertains solely to congress, in whom exclusively are vested the right of making war and peace, to pass acts against the subjects of a power with which the confederacy may be at war. It therefore only remained for us to consider, whether this article is founded in justice and good policy.

In our opinion no acts of government could dissolve the obligations of good faith, résulting from lawful contracts between individuals of the two countries, prior to the war. We knew that some of the British creditors were making common cause with the refugees, and other adversaries of our independence; besides, sacrificing private justice to reasons of state and political convenience, is always an odious measure, and the purity of our reputation in this respect in all foreign commercial countries is of infinitely more importance to us, than all the sums in question. It may also be remarked, that American and British creditors are placed on an equal footing.

Remarks on Articles 5 and 6, respecting refugees.

These articles were among the first discussed, and the last agreed to; and had not the conclusion of their business, at the time of its date, been particularly important to the British administration, the

respect which both in London and Versailles is supposed to be due to the honor, dignity, and interests of royalty would probably have for ever prevented our bringing this article so near to the views of congress, and the sovereign rights of states, as it now stands. When it is considered, that it was utterly impossible to render this article perfectly consistent both with American and British ideas of honor, we presume that the middle line adopted by this article is as little unfavorable to the former, as any that could in reason be expected.

As to the separate article, we beg leave to observe that it was our policy to render the navigation of the river Mississippi, so important to Britain, as that their views might correspond with ours on that subject. Their possessing the country on the river, north of the line from the lake of the woods, affords a foundation for their claiming such navigation. And as the importance of West Florida to Britain was for the same reason rather to be strengthened than otherwise, we think it advisable to allow them the extent contained in the separate article, especially as before the war it had been annexed by Britain to West Florida, and would operate as an additional inducement to their joining with us in agreeing that the navigation of the river should for ever remain open to both. The map used in the course of our negotiations was Mitchell's.

As we had reason to imagine that the articles respecting the boundaries, the refugees, and fisheries, did not correspond with the policy of this court, we did not communicate the preliminaries to the minister until after they were signed; and not even then the separate article. We hope that these considerations

will excuse our having so far deviated from the spirit of our instructions. The Count de Vergennes on perusing the articles appeared surprised, but not displeased at their being so favorable to us.

We beg leave to add our advice, that copies be sent us of the accounts directed to be taken by the different states, of the unnecessary devastations and sufferings sustained by them from the enemy in the course of the war; should they arrive before the signature of the definitive treaty, they might possibly answer very good purposes. With great respect, we have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient and most humble servants,

SIR,

TO M. LE COMTE DE VERGENNES.

Passy, Dec. 15, 1782, I have the honor to acquaint your excellency, that our courier is to set out to-morrow at ten o'clock, with the dispatches we send to congress, by the Washington, Captain Barney, for which ship we have got a passport from the king of England. If you would make any use of this conveyance, the courier shall wait upon you to-morrow at Versailles, and receive your orders.

I hoped I might have been able to send part of the aids we have asked by this safe vessel. I beg that your excellency would at least inform me, what expectations I may give in my letters. I fear the congress will be reduced to despair, when they find that nothing is yet obtained. With the greatest and