of next week, when I shall be able to treat more fully the subject of
your letters of December 21st, and January 3d and 15th, which have
been duly received, and which are now under the consideration of
Congress. This is principally designed to cover the enclosed
resolution, directing your return, unless you should have commenced a
treaty of commerce. But upon examining your instructions, you will
find that the embarrassment you speak of with respect to the money to
be paid upon signing the treaty, cannot exist under your present
powers. With respect to the Neutral Confederacy, it is a treaty which
is now of little consequence to us, and since we were not admitted to
it during the war, we ought not to pay for admission upon a peace;
besides, that it can no more be considered as a treaty with her
Imperial Majesty than it is a treaty with all the other neutral
powers, whose Ministers may with equal propriety demand the
perquisites you speak of. Therefore, let it be understood, that as the
United States, or their servants, are above receiving perquisites or
presents, so they have not the presumption to assume such superiority
over those with whom they treat as to offer them.
With respect to a commercial treaty, none can be signed by you, as
your powers only extend to "communicate with her Imperial Majesty's
Ministers on the subject of a treaty, &c." but not to sign it; so that
you will find no difficulty upon the subject you speak of; if you
should, I am persuaded that it is the wish of Congress rather to
postpone any treaty with Russia, than to buy one at this day.
I have seen your letter to Mr Morris on the subject of your salary.
The mistake you mention shall be corrected. I was led into it by not
having been furnished with the resolution you mention, among those
relative to salaries sent me from the Secretary's office. However, it
is of no consequence as yet, since the sums remitted with what you
have received from Dr Franklin, will exceed the amount of your demand.
You can now draw on Dr Franklin for three quarters' salary, at one
thousand pounds sterling, a fourth is enclosed in a letter from Mr
Lewis Morris to you; the last quarter's due in April will be subject
to some deductions, as you will see by the enclosed resolutions
transmitted you by Mr Lewis Morris, out of that quarter. I shall pay
Mr Tracy's order, counting the commencement of the year from the date
of the order.
I am, Sir, with great respect, &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
* * * * *
TO COUNT OSTERMANN.
St Petersburg, May 8th, 1783.
Sir,
I do myself the honor to lay before your Excellency the enclosed
Memorial, containing what I take to be the substance of the answer to
my letter, communicating my mission to your Excellency, which you
delivered to me verbally on the 23d ultimo, and also the reply which I
then made to it, together with some other observations upon it, which,
fearing to obtrude too much upon your time, I omitted to make. The
whole being thus reduced to writing, takes away all danger of mistakes
on either part, and may be more deliberately and accurately
considered. I hope this will be deemed a sufficient apology for the
additional trouble it may give your Excellency. I pray you would be
pleased to favor me with an answer to this Memorial in writing, or
otherwise to grant me the honor of an interview with your Excellency,
that I may know the final pleasure of her Imperial Majesty respecting
my mission.
I have the honor to be, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
_Mr Dana's Memorial to Count Ostermann._
The undersigned, named by the United States of America to reside near
her Majesty, the Empress of all the Russias, in the character of
their Minister, has the honor to lay before your Excellency this
Memorial, containing the substance of the answer he received verbally
from your Excellency on the 23d ultimo, to his letter communicating to
you his mission abovementioned, and also his reply to the same.
The answer which your Excellency has given to him on the part of her
Imperial Majesty, is unexpected not only to himself, but to the United
States also; for which last reason he is unable to say anything upon
it from instructions. He nevertheless thinks it to be his duty in so
extraordinary a case, which will not admit of his waiting for their
particular instructions to make use of his best discretion, in
replying to it. He prays, therefore, that this Memorial may be
considered as containing his private sentiments only. Whether they
will accord with those of the United States he cannot be certain.
Sensible that it is the right of every sovereign, to judge whether it
is compatible with his views, or the interests of his empire, to
receive the Minister of another; and persuaded also, that the United
States have not even a wish to obtrude their Minister upon any
Sovereign, the undersigned has not the least intention to oppose
himself to her Imperial Majesty's pleasure, whatever that may finally
be, but only to make such observations upon the answer he has received
as have occurred to him, which, from the known justice of her Imperial
Majesty's character, he has no doubt will be taken into deliberate
consideration, and be allowed their full weight.
He would improve this occasion, to express the high respect which the
United States entertain for her Imperial Majesty, and their sincere
desire to cultivate the friendship of a Sovereign, whose glorious
reign, and eminent virtues have so long fixed the attention, and
commanded the applause of the world. They consider her as one of the
first Sovereigns of it, and in a manner the great legislator of
nations, by her wise and equitable system of neutrality, which they
have fully approved, and have made the principles of it the invariable
rules of their conduct during the late war. Animated with sentiments
of this kind, they wished to give some strong proofs of a
distinguished attention and consideration for her Imperial Majesty's
person and government. With this view, they early named a Minister to
reside near her, that he might improve the first occasion to display
his character, which the course of events should afford. From these
dispositions the United States were naturally led to expect, that her
Imperial Majesty would be the first of the neutral powers, as they had
intended, which should receive a Minister from them.
_Answer._
I. "Her Imperial Majesty having been invited by the Courts of
Versailles, Madrid, and London, to mediate in conjunction with the
Emperor, at the conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace between
them, and having accepted that trust till those arrangements are
completed, and the definitive treaty is concluded, she cannot,
consistent with her character as mediatrix, receive a Minister from
America, without the consent of those powers; the treaty with America
is provisional only, and depends upon those arrangements. Though there
is no doubt but they will take place and the definitive treaty be
concluded, yet till that is done, her Imperial Majesty cannot consider
you in your character as the Minister of America."
_Reply._
The present mediation differs from the former one, which had been
tendered by their Imperial Majesties, in two essential respects. That
was tendered during the continuance of hostilities, and while the
great object of the war, the independence of the United States, was
still in question. It contained also a proposition, which inseparably
connected their interests with those of the other belligerent powers.
At such a time for her Imperial Majesty to have received a Minister
from the United States, would have been to prejudge the most capital
subject of the proposed negotiation, and most certainly repugnant to
the character of a mediator, if not to the laws of neutrality. But in
the present mediation there is no question relative to the United
States, nor can there regularly be any made upon their interests, as
they are not parties to the mediation, and consequently have no right
to send their Ministers to the Congress. If then the United States are
not concerned in any arrangements to be made under the present
mediation, the matter seems to rest upon the general law of nations,
and to be reduced to this simple question: whether the reception of a
Minister from them at this moment, would be incompatible with the laws
of neutrality? If their independence is already completely
acknowledged by the King of Great Britain, is not the question decided
in the negative?
In the preliminary treaty, "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the
United States to be free, sovereign, and independent States; that _he
treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs, and successors,
relinquishes all claim to the government, property and territorial
rights of the same, and every part thereof_." But it is said, the
preliminary treaty between the United States and Great Britain is
provisional only, and depends upon the arrangements to be made at the
conclusion of the definitive treaty, between Great Britain and the
other late belligerent powers, under the mediation of their Imperial
Majesties. If we look into that preliminary treaty, we shall find,
that the only provision or condition contained in it is, that the
definitive treaty between the parties "_is not to be concluded until
terms of a peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and
France_." Now these terms having been agreed upon by the preliminary
treaty between their Most Christian and Britannic Majesties, the
preliminary treaty between the United States and his Britannic Majesty
has become absolute, and the definitive treaty between them may be
concluded at any time, and without waiting for the conclusion of the
definitive treaty of peace between France and Great Britain. It may
not be improper to remark here, that even that condition was not
annexed to the acknowledgment of the independence of the United
States; it was far from having been inserted into the treaty at the
request of the British Commissioner. It was inserted by the
Commissioners of the United States, to save their faith plighted to
his Most Christian Majesty. However this fact may be, it seems to be
certain, that neither the preliminary treaty, nor definitive treaty
between the United States and Great Britain, can depend upon any
arrangements to be made under the present mediation.
But if the case should be otherwise, it is conceived, that the
provisional nature of the preliminary treaty, cannot affect the
acknowledgment of their independence, by the King of Great Britain.
For although from abundant caution, this has been inserted into the
preliminary treaty of peace, yet it has never been a subject of
negotiation. The United States would never submit to negotiate for
their independence their very existence. They early resolved, and have
uniformly persisted in that resolution, that they would not enter into
negotiation with the King of Great Britain, unless, as a preliminary
thereto, he would acknowledge their independence. Hence the failure of
many attempts to draw them into a negotiation, without a compliance
with that resolution. And hence the necessity the King of Great
Britain has been under, to revoke a former commission granted to Mr
Oswald, on the 7th of August last, to treat with them under the name
of "_certain Colonies and Plantations in America_," and of granting
him a new one, on the 27th of September, in which he was authorised
and required to treat of a peace or truce, with the Commissioners of
the "_Thirteen United States of America_" (naming them all,) "_any
law, act, or acts of Parliament matter or thing to the contrary
notwithstanding_," giving them their proper corporate name and title.
Their independence being thus clearly, unconditionally, and solemnly
acknowledged by this commission, passed under the great seal of the
kingdom, as a preliminary to any negotiation, and in full compliance
with the foregoing resolution, the negotiations were then, and not
before, opened, and have by the blessing of God, been brought to a
happy conclusion. Their independence being once acknowledged, is it
not irrevocable in its nature? If in the moment the British
Commissioner entered into negotiation with the Commissioners of the
United States, in virtue of his last commission, any neutral power had
declared it would consider and treat them in every respect, as
sovereign and independent States, and would protect the lawful
commerce of its subjects with them, would this have been a violation
of the laws of neutrality? If not, much less could the King of Great
Britain pretend it would be so, after the conclusion of the
preliminary treaty with them, after that treaty has become absolute,
by the conclusion of the preliminary treaty between his Most Christian
Majesty and himself, after a cessation of hostilities has been
proclaimed by them, and also by the Commissioners of the United
States, and finally, after the Parliament of Great Britain has
solemnly engaged to observe and maintain those treaties, which puts an
end to the question, if it was ever seriously made, upon the authority
of the King, to make such a treaty with the United States.
In conformity with sentiments of this kind, we have seen that the
Queen of Portugal, a member of the neutral confederation, and a
Sovereign in the strictest amity with the King of Great Britain, has
by an edict opened the ports of her kingdom to the vessels of the
United States, and promised them the enjoyment of the same hospitality
and favor, which the vessels of other nations there enjoy. In all
probability the King of Denmark has adopted a similar line of conduct
towards the United States.
_Answer._
II. "When these arrangements shall be completed, and the definitive
treaty be concluded, if you shall produce new letters of credence,
bearing date since the King of Great Britain has acknowledged the
independence of America, her Imperial Majesty will be very willing to
receive you as the Minister of America. But it would be incompatible
with that exact neutrality, which she has hitherto observed, to
receive you while your letter of credence bears date before that
time."
_Reply._
This objection seems deeply to affect the rights and interests of the
United States. The United Colonies, on the 4th of July, 1776, erected
themselves into an Independent Sovereign Power. Great Britain,
notwithstanding, kept up her claim of sovereignty over them, without
having any in fact. The war was continued on the one part, to maintain
the actual possession of sovereignty, and on the other, to regain that
sovereignty which had been lost. Despairing of success, Great Britain
acknowledges, but does not grant, the independence of the United
States. The United States have not, therefore, acquired the rights of
sovereignty, in consequence of this acknowledgment of their
independence. Their independence must necessarily have existed prior
to the acknowledgment of it by the King of Great Britain. At what
period then can the commencement of it be fixed, if not at the time
when they declared themselves independent? Have they not from the
moment of the declaration of their independence, been constantly in
the actual possession and full exercise of their sovereignty? Not to
meddle with the matter of right, the fact is beyond all question. The
undersigned thinks, therefore, it is incompatible for him to propose
to the United States to revoke his present letter of credence, because
it bears date prior to the acknowledgment of their independence by the
King of Great Britain, and to grant him another bearing date since
that time, for the following among other reasons.
1st. Because it would be to propose to the United States, in effect,
to strike off near seven years of their existence, as free, sovereign,
and independent States.
2dly. Because their compliance with it would amount to a confession on
their part, that they owed their existence, as a free nation, to the
acknowledgment of their independence by the King of Great Britain.
3dly. Because it would go to annul all their acts of sovereignty prior
to that period, and among others, the important ones of their treaties
with his Most Christian Majesty, and with the United Provinces of the
Low Countries, as well as their commissions granted to their Ministers
at the Court of Madrid, and other Courts, and such treaties as they
have already made, or shall make in virtue thereof.
4thly. Because it would be repugnant to a resolution contained in
their declaration of independence, viz. "that as free and sovereign
States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things,
which independent States may of right do."
The United States have been induced to constitute this mission thus
early, solely from the laudable views abovementioned. It is singularly
unfortunate then, that the very circumstance, which they intended as a
mark of particular respect and consideration for her Imperial
Majesty's person and government, should be turned against them, and
have an operation to defeat the design of it.
Besides, it is to be observed, that the King of Great Britain has by
his Commissioner, consented to treat with the Commissioners of the
United States, whose powers had date long before he had acknowledged
their independence, and without requiring them to produce new ones
bearing date since that time. Which is a strong and necessary
implication, that he did not consider that acknowledgment as
conferring their sovereignty upon them, but, on the contrary, they
were a complete sovereign power before, and had a full right to name
their Ministers as such, to treat with him of a peace. He cannot,
therefore, consider it as a violation of the laws of neutrality, if
any neutral power should consider them in the same light, and receive
their Minister, whose letters of credence bear date prior to his
acknowledgment of their independence.
_Answer._
III. "Besides, no Minister has been received at the Court of London
from America yet, and her Imperial Majesty could not consistently
receive a Minister from America, before that Court had done it."
_Reply._
There seems not to be any objections against the immediate reception
of a Minister from the United States at the Court of London, which
might not be made with equal force against the reception of Ministers
from any of the other late belligerent powers, and as they have
already mutually sent and received Ministers, it is highly probable
there are, in fact, no such objections existing. The omission,
therefore, must be attributed to the only apparent cause, viz. the
great distance of the two countries, which alone would render the
appearance of a Minister from the United States at the Court of London
impossible. Unless it should be supposed that Court is averse to
forming any intimate connexions with the United States, the contrary
of which seems to be the case, from the generous, liberal, and wise
policy they have in contemplation respecting them.
But if it should be laid down as a principle, that the powers of
Europe could not consistently receive a Minister from the United
States till one had been received at the Court of London, it might
have serious consequences upon the exercise of the right of
sovereignty, and the most important interests, not only of the United
States, but of such of the powers of Europe, as have not already
received a Minister from them. For it would oblige them, whether they
chose to do it or not, if they wished to form connexions with those
powers, to send a Minister to the Court of London, as a step
necessarily preparatory to that end. And when they had done this, it
would be in the power of that Court, by refusing to receive him, to
render their design abortive, and thus to prevent all friendly and
beneficial intercourse between those powers and the United States,
which cannot be formed and maintained but by the instrumentality of
public Ministers.
If then it is clear, that the United States are not at all concerned
in the present mediation, that their provisional treaty has become
absolute, and that their definitive treaty may be concluded at any
time, and without waiting for the conclusion of the definitive treaty
under the mediation; that their independence has been unconditionally
acknowledged by the King of Great Britain, as a preliminary to any
negotiation; that it is irrevocable in its nature; and if the
observations made upon the other objections are well founded, it is
confidently hoped from that justice and impartiality, which have ever
formed so distinguished a part of her Imperial Majesty's character,
that it will be thought, all obstacles to the immediate reception of a
Minister from the United States are removed.
FRANCIS DANA.
_St Petersburg, May 8th, 1783._
* * * * *
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
St Petersburg, May 9th, 1783.
Sir,
Having very little doubt that this letter will be opened at the post
office, I do but enclose a copy of the Memorial spoken of in my last,
which I sent yesterday to the Vice Chancellor, and of my letter
accompanying it. They will not, I presume, detain the letter merely to
give themselves the trouble of copying or translating papers, the
original of which is in the hands of the principal Minister. I have
only to apologise to you for the slovenly appearance of this copy,
with its interlineations and obliterations. I have not time to make a
fair copy for this day's post, and though but a few days might be lost
here by waiting for the next post, yet an opportunity might be lost
for a long time by it, of forwarding it from some port in France.
I have the honor to be, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
* * * * *
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
St Petersburg, May 9th, 1783.
Sir,
By this day's post I have sent you, by the way of France, a copy of
the Memorial, which I yesterday delivered to the Vice Chancellor. In
that I have expressly declared, that I could not reply to the answer I
had received from instructions, and desired that it might be
considered as containing my private sentiments only upon the subject.
This I thought it advisable to do, not only because it was the strict
truth, but that Congress might be more at liberty, if they should
judge it expedient, to disavow the whole. A reply I deemed absolutely
necessary for me to make, to endeavor to show that the objections,
which had been made to my immediate reception were invalid in
themselves. Whether I have succeeded in the design, is for others to
judge. It is to be observed, however, that I have thought myself under
the necessity of omitting to urge some very obvious and forcible
reasons, from an apprehension, that from the extreme sensibility of
her Imperial Majesty, they would give offence, which I was determined
to avoid as far as possible, without sacrificing the honor of the
United States.
What the effect of this Memorial will be, it is impossible to say. I
have no sanguine hopes from it. If it should not effect a change of
resolution upon the matter, I still think I ought to leave this
empire, without waiting here at least six months longer, to learn
certainly whether Congress would consent to revoke my present letter
of credence, and to grant me a new one bearing date since the
acknowledgment of the independence of the United States by the King of
Great Britain, of which I have not the least expectation. But if they
should be inclined even to do this, would it not be more eligible for
me to return, when they would have an opportunity to get rid of the
matter without any revocation of letters of credence, by nominating
another Minister after I had quitted the empire. If I might offer my
opinion upon this subject, I do not think the advantage of a Minister
at this Court will compensate for the expense of it.
Of all the causes, which might occasion this answer of her Imperial
Majesty, I can think of none which is likely to have more influence in
the case, than the second matter pointed out in my letter of April
17th, as having happened since my communication was made. It will be
wondered, perhaps, how that could have such an effect, and it may be
supposed it would have a direct contrary one. I supposed quite
otherwise when I mentioned it, and I feared the consequence of it when
it was known here. This is to be accounted for only, from particular
local knowledge of what kind of influence governs here. I shall lose
this day's post, if I do not immediately close this letter.
I have the honor to be, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
* * * * *
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
St Petersburg, May 13th, 1783.
Sir,
I did myself the honor to forward to you, by the last post, of the 9th
instant, by the way of France, a copy of the Memorial I presented the
day before to the Vice Chancellor, and of my letter accompanying the
same. By this day's post, I send you a second copy of them through the
same channel, and a third, by the way of Holland. I wrote you a
separate letter on the day of the last post, not thinking it advisable
to trust it with the packet. For the same reason, I send those by
today's post unaccompanied with any letter to you.