that the claims of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew to the late General
Oglethorpe, to his possessions within your State, have attracted the
attention of the ministry here; and that considering them as protected
by their treaty with us, they have viewed as derogatory of that, the
doubts which have been expressed on the subject. I have thought it best
to present to them those claims in the least favorable point of view,
to lessen as much as possible the ill effects of a disappointment: but
I think it my duty to ask your notice and patronage of this case, as
one whose decision will have an effect on the general interests of the
Union.
The Chevalier de Mezieres is nephew to General Oglethorpe; he is a
person of great estimation, powerfully related and protected. His
interests are espoused by those whom it is our interest to gratify. I
will take the liberty, therefore, of soliciting your recommendations of
him to the generosity of your legislature, and to the patronage and good
offices of your friends, whose efforts, though in a private case, will
do a public good. The pecuniary advantages of confiscation, in this
instance, cannot compensate its ill effects. It is difficult to make
foreigners understand those legal distinctions between the effects of
forfeiture of escheat, and of conveyance, on which the professors of
the law might build their opinions in this case. They can see only the
outlines of the case; to wit, the death of a possessor of lands lying
within the United States, leaving an heir in France, and the State
claiming those lands in opposition to the heir. An individual thinking
himself injured makes more noise than a State. Perhaps too, in every
case which either party to a treaty thinks to be within its provisions,
it is better not to weigh the syllables and letters of the treaty, but
to show that gratitude and affection render that appeal unnecessary. I
take the freedom, therefore, of submitting to your wisdom the motives
which present themselves in favor of a grant to the Chevalier de
Mezieres, and the expediency of urging them on your State as far as you
may think proper.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect,
Gentlemen,
your most obedient
and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXLV.--TO JOHN ADAMS, December 27, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, December 27, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Your favors of the 13th and 20th were put into my hands today. This will
be delivered to you by Mr. Dalrymple, secretary to the legation of Mr.
Crawford. I do not know whether you were acquainted with him here. He
is a young man of learning and candor, and exhibits a phenomenon I never
before met with, that is, a republican born on the north side of the
Tweed.
You have been consulted in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew
to General Oglethorpe, and are understood to have given an opinion
derogatory of our treaty with France. I was also consulted, and
understood in the same way. I was of opinion the Chevalier had no right
to the estate, and as he had determined the treaty gave him a right, I
suppose he made the inference for me, that the treaty was of no weight.
The Count de Vergennes mentioned it to me in such a manner, that I
found it was necessary to explain the case to him, and show him that
the treaty had nothing to do with it. I enclose you a copy of the
explanation I delivered him.
Mr. Boylston sold his cargo to an agent of Monsieur Sangrain. He got for
it fifty-five livres the hundred weight. I do not think that his being
joined to a company here would contribute to its success. His capital is
not wanting. Le Conteux has agreed that the merchants of Boston, sending
whale-oil here, may draw-on him for a certain proportion of money, only
giving such a time in their drafts, as will admit the actual arrival of
the oil into a port of France for his security. Upon these drafts, Mr.
Barrett is satisfied they will be able to raise money to make their
purchases in America. The duty is seven livres and ten sols on the
barrel of five hundred and twenty pounds French, and ten sous on
every livre, which raises it to eleven livres and five sols, the sum I
mentioned to you. France uses between five and six millions of pounds’
weight French, which is between three and four thousand tons English.
Their own fisheries do not furnish one million, and there is no
probability of their improving. Sangrain purchases himself upwards of
a million. He tells me our oil is better than the Dutch or English,
because we make it fresh; whereas they cut up the whale, and bring it
home to be made, so that it is by that time entered into fermentation.
Mr. Barrett says, that fifty livres the hundred weight will pay the
prime cost and duties, and leave a profit of sixteen per cent, to the
merchant. I hope that England will, within a year or two, be obliged to
come here to buy whale-oil for her lamps.
I like as little as you do, to have the gift of appointments. I hope
Congress will not transfer the appointment of their consuls to their
ministers. But if they do, Portugal is more naturally under the
superintendence of the minister at Madrid, and still more naturally
under that of the minister at Lisbon, where it is clear they ought to
have one. If all my hopes fail, the letters of Governor Bowdoin and
Gushing, in favor of young Mr. Warren, and your more detailed testimony
in his behalf, are not likely to be opposed by evidence of equal weight,
in favor of any other. I think with you, too, that it is for the public
interest to encourage sacrifices and services, by rewarding them, and
that they should weigh to a certain point, in the decision between
candidates.
I am sorry for the illness of the Chevalier Pinto. I think that treaty
important: and the moment to urge it, is that of a treaty between France
and England.
Lambe, who left this place the 6th of November, was at Madrid the 10th
of this month. Since his departure, Mr. Barclay has discovered that no
copies of the full powers were furnished to himself, nor of course to
Lambe. Colonel Franks has prepared copies, which I will endeavor to get,
to send by this conveyance for your attestation: which you will be so
good as to send back by the first safe conveyance, and I will forward
them. Mr. Barclay and Colonel Franks being at this moment at St.
Germain, I am not sure of getting the papers in time to go by Mr.
Dalrymple. In that case, I will send them by Mr. Bingham.
Be so good as to present me affectionately to Mrs. and Miss Adams, to
Colonels Smith and Humphreys, and accept assurances of the esteem with
which I am, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXLVI.--TO JOHN JAY, January 2,1786
TO JOHN JAY.
Sir,
Paris, January 2,1786
Several conferences and letters having passed between the Count de
Vergennes and myself, on the subject of the commerce of this country
with the United States, I think them sufficiently interesting to be
communicated to Congress. They are stated in the form of a report,
and are herein enclosed. The length of this despatch, perhaps, needs
apology. Yet I have not been able to abridge it, without omitting
circumstances which I thought Congress would rather choose to know.
Some of the objects of these conferences present but small hopes for the
present, but they seem to admit a possibility of success at some future
moment.
*****
I am, Sir, your most obedient
and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
[The following is an extract from the report referred to in
the preceding letter, embracing every thing interesting
therein, not communicated to the reader in the previous
correspondence.]
*****
The next levee day at Versailles, I meant to bring again under the
view of the Count de Vergennes, the whole subject of our commerce with
France; but the number of audiences of ambassadors and other ministers,
which take place, of course, before mine, and which seldom, indeed,
leave me an opportunity of audience at all, prevented me that day. I was
only able to ask of the Count de Vergennes, as a particular favor, that
he would permit me to wait on him some day that week. He did so, and I
went to Versailles the Friday following, (the 9th of December.) M.
de Reyneval was with the Count. Our conversation began with the usual
topic; that the trade of the United States had not yet learned the way
to France, but continued to centre in England, though no longer obliged
by law to go there. I observed, that the real cause of this was to
be found in the difference of the commercial arrangements in the two
countries; that merchants would not, and could not, trade but where
there was to be some gain; that the commerce between two countries could
not be kept up, but by an exchange of commodities; that, if an American
merchant was forced to carry his produce to London, it could not be
expected he would make a voyage from thence to France, with the money,
to lay it out here; and, in like manner, that if he could bring his
commodities with advantage to this country, he would not make another
voyage to England, with the money, to lay it out there, but would take
in exchange the merchandise of this country. The Count de Vergennes
agreed to this, and particularly, that where there was no exchange of
merchandise, there could be no durable commerce; and that it was natural
for merchants to take their returns in the port where they sold their
cargo. I desired his permission then, to take a summary view of the
productions of the United States, that we might see which of them could
be brought here to advantage.
1. Rice. France gets from the Mediterranean a rice not so good indeed,
but cheaper than ours. He said that they bought of our rice, but that
they got from Egypt, also, rice of a very fine quality. I observed that
such was the actual state of their commerce in that article, that
they take little from us. 2. Indigo. They make a plenty in their own
colonies. He observed that they did, and that they thought it better
than ours. 3. Flour, fish, and provisions of all sorts, they produce for
themselves. That these articles might, therefore, be considered as not
existing, for commerce, between the United States and the kingdom of
France.
I proceeded to those capable of becoming objects of exchange between
the two nations. 1. Peltry and furs. Our posts being in the hands of the
English, we are cut off from that article. I am not sure even, whether
we are not obliged to buy of them, for our own use. When these posts
are given up, if ever they are, we shall be able to furnish France with
skins and furs, to the amount of two millions of livres, in exchange for
her merchandise: but, at present, these articles are to be counted as
nothing. 2. Potash. An experiment is making whether this can be brought
here. We hope it may, but at present it stands for nothing. He observed
that it was much wanted in France, and he thought it would succeed. 3.
Naval stores. Trials are also making on these, as subjects of commerce
with France. They are heavy, and the voyage long. The result, therefore,
is doubtful. At present, they are as nothing in our commerce with this
country. 4. Whale-oil: I told him I had great hopes, that the late
diminution of duty would enable us to bring this article with advantage,
to France: that a merchant was just arrived (Mr. Barrett), who proposed
to settle at L’Orient, for the purpose of selling the cargoes of this
article, and choosing the returns. That he had informed me, that in the
first year, it would be necessary to take one third in money, and
the remainder only in merchandise; because the fishermen require,
indispensably, some money. But he thought that after the first year,
the merchandise of the preceding year would always produce money for
the ensuing one, and that the whole amount would continue to be taken
annually afterwards, in merchandise. I added, that though the diminution
of duty was expressed to be but for one year, yet I hoped they would
find their advantage in renewing and continuing it: for that if they
intended really to admit it for one year only, the fishermen would not
find it worth while to rebuild their vessels and to prepare themselves
for the business. The Count expressed satisfaction on the view of
commercial exchange held up by this article. He made no answer as to the
continuance of it; and I did not choose to tell him, at that time, that
we should claim its continuance under their treaty with the Hanseatic
towns, which fixes this duty for them, and our own treaty, which gives
us the rights of the most favored nation. 5. Tobacco. I recalled to the
memory of the Count de Vergennes the letter I had written to him on
this article; and the object of the present conversation being, how
to facilitate the exchange of commerciable articles between the two
countries, I pressed that of tobacco in this point of view; observed
that France, at present, paid us two millions of livres for this
article; that for such portions of it as were bought in London, they
sent the money directly there, and for what they bought in the United
States, the money was still remitted to London, by bills of exchange:
whereas, if thy would permit our merchants to sell this article
freely, they would bring it here, and take the returns on the spot,
in merchandise, not money. The Count observed, that my proposition
contained what was doubtless useful, but that the King received on this
article, at present, a revenue of twenty-eight millions, which was so
considerable, as to render them fearful of tampering with it; that the
collection of this revenue by way of Farm, was of very ancient date, and
that it was always hazardous to alter arrangements of long standing, and
of such infinite combinations with the fiscal system. I answered, that
the simplicity of the mode of collection proposed for this article,
withdrew it from all fear of deranging other parts of their system; that
I supposed they would confine the importation to some of their principal
ports, probably not more than five or six; that a single collector in
each of these, was the only new officer requisite; that he could get
rich himself on six livres a hogshead, and would receive the whole
revenue, and pay it into the treasury, at short hand. M. de Reyneval
entered particularly into this part of the conversation, and explained
to the Count, more in detail, the advantages and simplicity of it, and
concluded by observing to me, that it sometimes happened that useful
propositions, though not practicable at one time, might become so at
another. I told him that that consideration had induced me to press the
matter when I did, because I had understood the renewal of the Farm was
then on the carpet, and that it was the precise moment, when I supposed
that this portion might be detached from the mass of the Farms. I asked
the Count de Vergennes whether, if the renewal of the Farm was pressing,
this article might not be separated, merely in suspense, till government
should have time to satisfy themselves on the expediency of renewing it.
He said no promise could be made.
In the course of this conversation, he had mentioned the liberty we
enjoyed of carrying our fish to the French islands. I repeated to
him what I had hinted in my letter of November the 20th, 1785, that I
considered as a prohibition, the laying such duties on our fish, and
giving such premiums on theirs, as made a difference between their and
our fishermen of fifteen livres the quintal, in an article which sold
for but fifteen livres. He said it would not have that effect, for two
reasons. 1. That their fishermen could not furnish supplies sufficient
for their islands, and, of course, the inhabitants must, of necessity,
buy our fish. 2. That from the constancy of our fishery, and the short
season during which theirs continued, and also from the economy and
management of ours, compared with the expense of theirs, we had always
been able to sell our fish, in their islands, at twenty-five livres the
quintal, while they were obliged to ask thirty-six livres. (I suppose he
meant the livre of the French islands.) That thus, the duty and premium
had been a necessary operation on their side, to place the sale of their
fish on a level with ours, and, that without this, theirs could not bear
the competition.
I have here brought together the substance of what was said on the
preceding subjects, not pretending to give it verbatim, which my memory
does not enable me to do. I have, probably, omitted many things
which were spoken, but have mentioned nothing which was not. I was
interrupted, at times, with collateral matters. One of these was
important. The Count de Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of
stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements
taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it; first, in
a conversation at Fontainebleau, when he first complained to me of the
navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire; secondly, in his
letter of October the 30th, 1785, on the same subject; and now, in the
present conversation, wherein he added, as another instance, the case
of the Chevalier de Mezieres, heir of General Oglethorpe, who,
notwithstanding that the 11th article of the treaty provides, that the
subjects or citizens of either party shall succeed, _ab intestato_, to
the lands of their ancestors, within the dominions of the other,
had been informed from Mr. Adams, and by me also, that his right of
succession to the General’s estate in Georgia was doubtful. He observed
too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch,
that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States,
considered it as desperate; and, that our commercial regulations, in
general, were disgusting to them. These ideas were new, serious, and
delicate. I decided, therefore, not to enter into them at that moment,
and the rather, as we were speaking in French, in which language I
did not choose to hazard myself. I withdrew from the objections of the
tardiness of justice with us, and the disagreeableness of our commercial
regulations, by a general observation, that I was not sensible they were
well founded. With respect to the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, I
was obliged to enter into some explanations. They related chiefly to
the legal operation of our Declaration of Independence, to the undecided
question whether our citizens and British subjects were thereby made
aliens to one another, to the general laws as to conveyances of land to
aliens, and the doubt, whether an act of the Assembly of Georgia might
not have been passed, to confiscate General Oglethorpe’s property,
which would of course prevent its devolution on any heir. M. Reyneval
observed, that in this case, it became a mere question of fact, whether
a confiscation of these lands had taken place before the death of
General Oglethorpe, which fact might be easily known by, inquiries in
Georgia, where the possessions lay. I thought it very material, that
the opinion of this court should be set to rights on these points. On
my return, therefore, I wrote the following observations on them,
which, the next time I went to Versailles (not having an opportunity
of speaking to the Count de Vergennes), I put into the hands of M.
Reyneval, praying him to read them, and to ask the favor of the Count to
do the same.
_Explanations on some of the subjects of the conversation, which I had
the honor of having with his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, when I
was last at Versailles_.
The principal design of that conversation was, to discuss, those
articles of commerce which the United States could spare, which are
wanted in France, and, if received there on a convenient footing, would
be exchanged for the productions of France. But in the course of the
conversation, some circumstances were incidentally mentioned by
the Count de Vergennes, which induced me to suppose he had received
impressions, neither favorable to us, nor derived from perfect
information.
The case of the Chevalier de Mezieres was supposed to furnish an
instance of our disregard to treatises; and the event of that case was
inferred from opinions supposed to have been given by Mr. Adams and
myself. This is ascribing a weight to our opinions, to which they are
not entitled. They will have no influence on the decision of the case.
The judges in our courts would not suffer them to be read. Their guide
is the law of the land, of which law its treaties make a part. Indeed, I
know not what opinion Mr. Adams may have given on the case. And, if any
be imputed to him derogatory of our regard to the treaty with France,
I think his opinion has been misunderstood. With respect to myself, the
doubts which I expressed to the Chevalier de Mezieres, as to the success
of his claims, were not founded on any question whether the treaty
between France and the United States would be observed. On the contrary,
I venture to pronounce that it will be religiously observed, if his case
comes under it. But I doubted whether it would come under the treaty.
The case, as I understand it, is this. General Oglethorpe, a British
subject, had lands in Georgia. He died since the peace, having devised
these lands to his wife. His heirs are the Chevalier de Mezieres, son
of his eldest sister, and the Marquis de Bellegarde, son of his younger
sister. This case gives rise to legal questions, some of which have
not yet been decided, either in England or America, the laws of which
countries are nearly the same.
1. It is a question under the laws of those countries, whether persons
born before their separation, and once completely invested, in both,
with the character of natural subjects, can ever become aliens in
either? There are respectable opinions on both sides. If the negative be
right, then General Oglethorpe having never become an alien, and having
devised his lands to his wife, who, on this supposition, also, was not
an alien, the devise has transferred the lands to her, and there is
nothing left for the treaty to operate on.
2. If the affirmative opinion be right, and the inhabitants of Great
Britain and America, born before the Revolution, are become aliens to
each other, it follows by the laws of both, that the lands which either
possessed, within the jurisdiction of the other, became the property of
the State in which they are. But a question arises, whether the transfer
of the property took place on the Declaration of Independence, or not
till an office, or an act of Assembly, had declared the transfer. If the
property passed to the State on the Declaration of Independence, then it
did not remain in General Oglethorpe, and, of course, at the time of his
death, he having nothing, there was nothing to pass to his heirs, and so
nothing for the treaty to operate on.
3. If the property does not pass till declared by an office found by
jury, or an act passed by the Assembly, the question then is, whether
an office had been found, or an act of Assembly been passed for that
purpose, before the peace. If there was, the lands had passed to the
State during his life, and nothing being left in him, there is nothing
for his heirs to claim under the treaty.