The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution Volume VIII Part 44

2dly. That she could not do it even then, consistent with the laws of neutrality, while his letter of credence bore date prior to the acknowledgment of their independence by the King of Great Britain;

3dly. That she could not do it regularly, while his letter of credence bore date before she herself had acknowledged their independence;

4thly. That she could not do it consistently before a Minister had been received from the United States in Great Britain.

I desired him to favor me with a note containing the substance of this answer, as it was of great importance, and much in affairs of this sort depended upon the very expressions; that with the fairest intentions, I might misrepresent some parts of it through forgetfulness, and that I would deliver him my observations upon it in writing for consideration, when the exact state of the matter would be known. Finding, as I had expected, that he declined this, I began my reply with a preface of this sort; the answer, which your Excellency has given me on the part of her Imperial Majesty, is wholly unexpected, not only to myself, but to the United States. I cannot, therefore, take upon me to say anything upon it from instructions. I beg you would be pleased to consider whatever I may say as my private sentiments; whether they will accord with those of my Sovereign, I am not certain. At this great distance, I must use my best discretion in all such extraordinary cases. I have no design to oppose myself to her Majesty's pleasure, whatever that may be, but only to make some observations upon the answer, that if they are of any weight, they may be taken into consideration, as I have no doubt they will be. I would beg to take this occasion to express the high respect, which the United States entertain for her Imperial Majesty, and their sincere desire to cultivate her friendship; that they considered her as one of the first sovereigns of the world, and, in a manner, the great legislator of nations by her system of neutrality, which they had early highly applauded, and had made the principles of it the invariable rules of their conduct during the war; that, animated with sentiments of this kind, they wished to give some strong proofs of a distinguished attention and consideration for her Majesty's person and government. With this view, they had early named a Minister to reside near her, as a compliment to the Sovereign who presided over the Neutral Confederation with so much glory; that he might improve the earliest occasion to display his character, which the course of events should afford.

From these dispositions, they were naturally led to expect, as they had intended, that her Imperial Majesty would be the first of the neutral powers, which should receive a Minister from them; that as to the objections, which had been made to my present reception, I begged leave to observe, that the present mediation differed from the former one, which had been tendered by their Imperial Majesties, in two essential respects, that that was tendered during the continuance of hostilities, and that there was a proposition in it, which materially concerned the United States, but in this there was no question relative to them; that their negotiations with Great Britain had been conducted apart from those of the other belligerent powers, and were brought to a happy conclusion. I here took up all the facts stated to him in my second letter of the 21st instant, and enlarged upon them. I added to them, the bill pending before the House of Commons in the beginning of March, for regulating a commercial intercourse between Great Britain and America, as between States, in fact, and absolutely independent; and that the bill itself recited, that the King had concluded a peace with them, and expressly declared the vessels of their citizens should be admitted into all the ports of Great Britain, as the vessels of other independent States; that all were agreed to consider them as such. From these matters, I drew the same conclusion as is mentioned in that letter.

This closed my observations upon the first article. As to the second, I went over the reasons contained in my letter of the 22d instant to you, urging strongly the four first, but pa.s.sing gently over the rest.

Upon the third, it was to be observed, that the mode of expression "before her Majesty had acknowledged the independence of America,"

seemed to lead beside the matter. That there was no question in the acknowledgment of that independence. The only question was, whether her Majesty would receive a Minister from the United States, who now presents himself. The United States do not ask the acknowledgment of their independence, nor have they a wish, nor do they claim a right to impose their Minister upon any Sovereign. Every Sovereign will judge, whether it is for the interest of his empire to receive the Minister of another, and may do this without deciding upon the perfect rights of that other. This is rather what I would have said, than what I did say upon that point. I could not fully advance the idea, as he several times prevented me, by returning to the matter he had before spoken upon, as if he saw what I intended to say and wished to avoid it. The fourth and last point was chiefly answered by the arguments used upon the first. I did not, however, forget the distance of the countries as the only probable cause of that delay.

Thus, Sir, I have given you a clear idea of a conference, which rests wholly upon my memory, and which had continued an hour wanting a few minutes, as far as I am able to do. Other arguments occurred to me in the time, which might have been urged, but I was apprehensive of obtruding too much upon the patience of the Vice Chancellor, whose view it must be considered, was rather to communicate the answer, than to discuss the points of it.

An important question arises out of this state of things. What remains to be done on the part of the United States? It belongs to me only to answer what I propose to do further myself, which is to draw a memorial containing this answer, with such observations upon it as shall occur to me, tending to show the futility of the objections, which have been made to my immediate reception, and to send it to the Vice Chancellor. To such a measure I am advised _on a good part_. If this answer should be persisted in, I believe it may be truly said, that the honor of the United States will not suffer by it, in the estimation of any other Sovereign in the world. It is so different from the line of conduct, which some of the powers, who are members of the Neutral Confederation, have adopted already respecting the United States, as for example, Portugal, Denmark, and Sweden, and that which it has been intimated the Emperor was ready to adopt, (of which Mr Adams received an account through Mr William Lee, and which he immediately transmitted to me, and, probably, to Congress also) that, if I mistake not, the effect of it will be quite of another kind. It will be seen to be subversive of the very principles upon which it is pretended to be established, and so revolting in its nature, that it is utterly impossible the United States could ever comply with it.

I plainly told the Vice Chancellor, that for myself, I could never make the proposition respecting my letters of credence; and that if I should, I had no expectation they would ever adopt it, and, therefore, my waiting here the length of time, which it would be necessary for me to learn the pleasure of Congress upon it, seemed to be useless. I cannot in any case quit this country till towards the end of May, because there is no getting out of it before by land or water. I still hope it will not be thought I have precipitated the measure at a time when, if ever it could be, the course of events had prepared the way for it, and when it shall be considered too, that the first objection arises from a matter which took place since. As to the others, they are of so strange a nature, that they could not have been expected by any one, and which no time can do away.

I am under a necessity of closing this letter, without adding anything which may attempt to account for this very unexpected conduct on the part of her Imperial Majesty, otherwise I shall lose the post of the day.

I have the honor to be, with much respect, &c.

FRANCIS DANA.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO FRANCIS DANA.

Philadelphia, May 1st, 1783.

Sir,

An opportunity will offer of writing to you by a frigate in the course 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 embarra.s.sment 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 a.s.sume 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 t.i.tle.

Their independence being thus clearly, unconditionally, and solemnly acknowledged by this commission, pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d, 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. .h.i.therto 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.