Xlje * PHiIAV l. L P HIA 1 FRIDAY KVtNWG, MAY t 9 T<« Thomas Jeff-*son, Esquire, Vice Prelident of the United States and Presi dent of the Senate. ' Sir, YOt- R arrival at the feat of government immediately after the publication of a letter said to written by ymi to your friend Maz 'n Italy, affords you a fair opportunity ofdotng away any b?d imprefli.m refpefting your charafter, which the falfeiy afcilhing trt you improper fentimmts may hitherto have qccaiio*ed. For the honor of the American Dame. 1 would wish the letter to be a Forgery, alth > 1 mult confefs, that your silence upon the fubjeft, and the conduft of that pa>ty with which you appear, at present, to aft, leaves hut little probability of its not having proceeded from your pen. If it is not your produftion, an explicit disavowal of it ap pears incumbent on you, for several reafous. 1. Because it implies a eontrsdiftion of those fentimrntv, refpefting our excellent con st 1 1ution, which you have formerly held, be tore a disappointed ambition threw you into the. hands of a desperate faftion, by w.:ofe means you expefted, no doubt, to have filled the firft office of our government. 2. Because it is a direst libel on therha rafter of those men, whom the choice of a free people called to the exercise of the ex ecutive and judiciary powers of our govern ment;— And, 3- Because its publication in a country, from whose government and citizens we havt met with every kind of injury and insult, has a tendency to encourage a continuance qf such conduft in our allies, from a pei ("nation, that our internal situation would admit of its exercise wiah impunity. \ou dated truly when you reprefen'ed all our proprietors of land as friendly to republi can principles, and if you had gone further and declared all our native citizens as faithful to they had formed, and dif f>ofed to defend their lights as an independent uation, from the insidious attacks of foreign foes, vou would have run no risque of a con. tradiftion. It is to be sure unfortunate for the ancient dominion of Virginia, that the R,ames of the late secretary Randolph, Giles, i.ladifon, Monroe & yourfelf are found in its lolls of citizens; but whi'fl she pofleefls the idoveri IVajh'mgton ; and the memory of his great achievements and illulirious charafter is cherished hy Americans, those names, like fpeeks upon the fnn's diflc, wili be but tran siently observed, and detraft but inconsider ably ftom her Indie. But it probably suited youi puipofe better to fay, " Our political " si uation is prodigiously changed since you " left us. Inffead of that noble love of li " betty, and that republican government, which carried us triumphantly through the dangers of the war, an anglo-monarchi " co-aristocratic party has ariftn. Their avowed objeft is to impose on us the fub llance, as they have already given us the " form, of the British government. Never thelcfs the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles. " All oui proprietor of lands are friendly " to those principles, as also the mass of men " of talents. We have against 11s (republi -41 ca is) the executive power, the judiciary " power (two of the three branches of our " government) all the offi.-ers of government, " all who are lacking offites, all timid men, •' who piefer the calm of despotism to the " tempeltuous sea of liberty, the British mer " chants, and the Ameticans who trade on «' British capitals, the ■ speculators, persons iuterelled in the banks aiu'l public funds «« (etfablifhments invented with views of cor " ruption and to aflimilate lis to the British " model in all its corrupt parts.)" Supposing for an iuftant, what I can by no means admit, that such is the present situa tion of our country, is i», fir, the part of a friend to his country—is it the part of a citi zen, who had been frequently intruded with the management bf public concerns, thus to expefe the failings of his brethren—the wreak and vulnerable part of his native land, to a prattling foreigner, whose felf-confequence and pride, abdrafted from any other motive, might induce him to make an improper use of this, at lead, veiy impru lent confidence ? We have not forgotten the fin* theme, which the precious confejjions of your countryman Randolph fuinilhed to a former F'ench mini ster, and ws can readily conceive, that your letter, under the improving hand of an in triguing Italian, may prove the source of ac cumulating evils to the United Stjtei Have we boi repeatedly shewn our attachment c« the cause of liberty and to France ? Did we not exert every muscle—drain every nerve, to aflid her in eflabliftiing her right to make Iter own form of government untrammelled by the will of other nations?— And that too, when those who now basely fawn by her fide, and ignominioufly lick the dud from her sett, were foremofl in their opposition to th» re generation of 1 numerous people. Did we not, for ajong time, patiently bear with the cringing insolence of Genet—t!»e impertinent fuggedions of Fauchet—and the dark and insidious manoeuvres of Adet, without fhew mg any intemperance of conduft at their be haviour, 01 ceasing our good offices ts their nation, or their compatriots ? True it it, fir, that the feeble attempts of a rising republic, ■withont a navy or large dandingarmv, could be of little service in battle, to either of the contending parties—of this, in the commence ment of her ltruggle, France seemed fully sensible, and was aware of the advantage to be derived from our remaining neutral. And is it for this, we are charged by you with in gratitude and injudice, and are those men, whom you once thought Solcmont in council, and Samp/ent in comlat, for this to be brand ed by you, with the name of /Ipoflatct f But I am perhaps intruding upon your time, ai.d taking up some moments which might be more profitably employed in atten tion to poblic affairs ; I (lull therefore close itSis lettcf, a irlfl, that if the writing I afciibefl to yon is fpnrioaa it may bedif»wn esl. In doiit j- this, yeu will render a justice due to rorirfclfi and «;*e many of your fel lor/ citizens, bnt no one more than A NATIVE AMERICAN. CONGRESS. t „ i,, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, IVtJnefdtty, Alay 18. Mr. Coit moved that a Standing Commit tee of rrvif.il and upfittifhed business be ap pointed. Mr. Hartley hoped such a fommittee would not be appointed, as, if all the unfirtifh ed business of lad feifion were to be reported and afted upon, the fclTion would be pru trafted to a length which he truded was not the with of the members ef that house. Mr. Coit observed, that the appointment of such a committee did not infer that the house would go into the confidcration of all the unfir ifhed business which might be re ported j but there might be some fuhjefts which would require attention, particularly any laws which might be about to expire. Mr. Thatcher was opposed to the appoint mei't of this committee ; he was agailt at tending to any private business ; he wished only to attend to the important fubjeft for which they had been called together. As to any laws being about to expire, he did not believe there were any, as all fcich were at tended to lad fifli >n. Mr. Giles thought there was no neceflity for this committee. He thought the question, however, of some importance, as the decision upon it would (hew whether rhe house in tended to attend to ordinary bnfinefs, or merely to that which would arise from the .Speech of the Piefident For his part, he wished to gc: away as soon as poflible, and, therefore, to confine their business to that fubjeft upon which they were called t» de liberate ; and though the Speech contained a variety of import .nt objefts, he hoped they fh iuld soon be able to get through (hem. He hoped, therefore, no bufir.efs would be taken up until that was disposed of. Mr. Sitgreaves said, the opposition to the appointment of this committee was totally without objeft. It should be recollefted, he said, that the appointment of this committee was a part of the (landing rules of tN* House; unless it vere appointed, therefore, there would be a contravention of a rule [Mr.. S. read the rule}. For his own part, he was net prepared to fay, with the gentleman from Maffachufe ts (Mr. Thatcher) that there wete no laws which Wv<uld expire be fore the ntxt feflion of Congress It was true, that these had been attended to lad feflion ; but it was also true, that laws which were passed for a limited time, were said to be for so long, "and until the end of the next feflion of Congress and this feflion, being an extraordinary one, might put a period to some of such laws. But, suppose this were not the cafe, what mifchief, he asked, could the appointment of this committee effeft ? He could fee none. It would, by reporti. the unfinifhed business, and any expiring laws (if such there were) take the trouble of enquiry from the house ; and, when the business was reported, any part of it might be taken up, or not, as the house should determine. It might, therefore, be of some advantage, but could be of no disad vantage to appoir.t this committee. Mr. Coit said, his principal objeft in the' motion he had made, was to attend to ex piring laws. The gentleman from Maffachu i'etts was mistaken, when he averted no law would expire before the next meeting of Congress. One he resollefted ; there might be others. It was a law palled May 6, 1796, relative to Revenue Cutters, which was to remain in force for onejyear.and from thence to the end ofthe next feflion of Congress; of course tt would expire, if no provision was made to prevent it, with this feflion. Mr. Thatcher withdrew his objections to the motion. Mr. Giles did not know that the appoint ment of this committee would protraft the feflion ; but if gentlemen attended to lh» duties of this committe, they would find, that if the house were to attend to all the fubjefts upon which they were to report, it would of neceflity occupy a eonliderable length of time. [He read what these were.} If, indeed, it were underdood, that thiscom mittee was only to extend to expiring laws, he should have no objection to its being ap pointed ; but, should a general repott be made, and the house aft upon it, the feflion would be extended to a period beyond what any member contemplated. Mr. Hartley hoped the committee would not be appointed, ss he said there wete from goto TOO private cases on the lift of unfinifh j ed business, to consider which would make a long fefTton. If it were intended merely to enquire what laws were expiring, he would agree to it ; buTnot otfierwife. The rules which wete before them, he said, we.ee in tended only for their Ordinary annual feflions, and not to govern an extraordinary meeting ; like the present. If this comirittee were ap pointed, they might proceed to the appoin ! ment of a committee of claims. He hoped they should not decide any thing, before they had disposed of the President's speech. Mr. Nicholas hoped this business would be fettled fa as to meet the wishes of the House. He hoped a committee would be appointed and afterwards discharged from all other parts of their duty except what re lated to expiring laws. The queition being put it was carried, there being 5J votes in favor of it ; and a committee of three wete appointed ac cordingly. Mr. Nicholas then moved that the eommittee be discharged from" examining and reporting from the journal of last si fiion, all such matters as vrere then depending and undetermined, and alio from revifiug the liws for the eflablifhraeut of offices, and from reporting from time to time such provifious and expense attending them, as naiy appear to have tieoome nectfiary." Mr. Gilei fecended the motion. The only obje&ion which he had to this procedure wa9 that it was rather aukward firft to appoint a Somm'ttec, and then to it froiVi great part of its duties ; but having appointed tke committee, he hoped this course would be tak en, as gentlemen would recoiled! bow easy it was to glide from one step of business to anoth er, which was not at full intended, when so much lay before them. Mr. Craik wis not prepared to fay that- it would be improper to ait upon atiy of the un finilhed business of last session. He felt a< strong a difpolition to make the present feffioii a ihort one as other gentlemen ; but to enable them to dojthc bufmefs properly, he thought the best way would be to fuller this committee to take the whole cf it before them, as it wds not in the power of individual members to go over the journal of last session, and l'av wh t was necei farytobe gone into. Upon a view of the fub jedt, there might be measures which it would be elFential to have a<sled upon ; and, after the report was made, the Houle would not be obli ged to take up any things which it did not think necefTary, and therefore no inconvenience could result from it. Mr. Swanwick said, whatever might be the decision of the House upon this queltion, there was one cafe which he thought in some degree connedled wi,h the fubjcdl of the President's Speech, which he wished to be considered. It >*asthe cafe of North & Vefey of Charleston, merchants, who prayed for the refunding of certain duties. There were circumstances in this"cafe, he believed, which were infringements of exilting treaties. Mr. Giles said, if they gave way to business of this liort they might expedt to fit all the sum mer, as every member had business entrufled to him which he thought of the tirft importance. He hoped they should attend only to the bulintfs upon whtch they were called. Mr.Swanwick hoped, if the present motion were agreed to, an exception would be made in f»vor of the cafe he had mentioned. The Speaker said the exception would not be in order. Then, —Mr. Swanwick added, — He Ihould vote against the motion. As he looked on this bulinel's as of the fir ft importance, and ihat whillt we were attending to our own rights, we ought, in some degree, to refpefl those of other nations. Mr. Macon said, it was of little consequence how the matter was determined, since, if the motion <was carried, it would be in the power of any two members to bring forward any lubjedt they plea fed. He thought it would be best to determine to do no private business at ail. Mr. Hartley oblerved that if any private cafe were taken up, none deserved attention) more than tint of Mn. Carmichael. Mr. Nicnolas knew that it was in the power of any two membeis t® bring forward any private business, and, if they could perluade the house to doit, to have it decided: but be concluded, if this vote pa fig , all such attempts would be in Tain. The question wa> put and carried without a di vision. * Mr. Swanwick then wished the House to resolve itlelf into a committee of the whole en the (late of the Union, in order to take up the President's speech. Mr. Giles obferyed that this would be prema ture, since the President had promised tlie»i cer tain papers which were not received, and they had yet to determine upon an a- fwer to his speech. Mr. Williams said, perhaps the business would be best expedited hy an adjournment, since it would allow the gentlemen on the committee appointed tor the purpose, time to pr pare an anlwer to the Speech, and report it the earlier. He made a motion ts that effedt, which was carr '« d - [/?. D. A.~] INT ERESTING COR RESPONDE NCE, RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS Of FR ANCE AND THE UNITED STATES. The following correspondence, eomprifing the mojl important of the documents contained in the President's message to Congress of 19th January laj!, if pcrufed -with candor and attention, mujl fatisfy every independent A merican of thefincere, aßive and unceasing effurts of our government to maintain invio Tate the rights of France, refilling from the duties of neutrality, the law of nations and exifling treaties, andtnofl completely vindicates our nation from the unjufl reproaches and , complaints of the French Directory and its agents. " A government which required only a know " 'edge of the truth to juftify its measures, could " not but be anxious to have this fully and frankly " displayed." • president's MESSAGE, JAN. 19, '97. Letter from Mr. Fauchet to Mr. Randolph. (Continued from tVednefday's Gazette.) I hare gone over in detail the different point* Hated in our correspondence ; let us return to that part of your letter which con siders the neutrality of the United States. I conceived, fir,, that the refpedt and cir cumfpedtion with which I had touched on this qfleftion, would have spared me tha bit ter rcfledtions which your letter appears to contain on that matter. However great may be my desire to enter into details for my own defence, yet I (hall wave them, from the fame motives which didated my firft letter. But, \ fir, if these fentiraents had net been with me so weighty, I could at lead take off the veil which you seem willing, to leave over the measures of the English, and refute the application of the principle upon which you ground the silence of the government of the United States on thefubjedtof these measures. I might make it doubtful whether jhe arbi trary proclamations of the English govern ment and generals were but the ordinary eh- JruQions -with which neutral commerce is aj faihd in all wars. I might in like manner hesitate to admit that the federal government had not fufficient grounds to demand their revocation. But that would lead against my inclination into an examination of the cases in which a neutral power Ihould a&ually ac knowledge the legality of an interruption of its cotr.milrce, such as those of a place lloci aded and contraband. I fbould also be obli ged to examine whether the principles with which the English government endeavor to ' support itfelf are consecrated by the law of 1 nations, or whether they are not rather efta- 1 | bltfhed 10 serve on the present occasion ; ' whether in changing the language the cabi net of London has changed its measures j— whether the fucceflive orders of the Bth June ' and 6th November 1793, and of the Bth ' January 1794, are not variations of the fame fyilem, to which the depredations Hill exer- 1 cifed on your commerce, are the sequel; ' whether in a word it is true that the Unite') ' States are fuffcring with all neutral nations under the fame insults, cr particularly fieri- 1 (iced to eiclufite vexation*. In enumerating t t | these things, I only remind you of what has 1 ; already come to your knowledge, and trace | fails against which I know yoil are not less indignant than-France against whsm rhey are , specially diredted. The history of your neu trality would perhaps prove my assertion, that t it has been a prey to the arbitrary condudt of - Cjreat Britain, and would have served as a > jullification as what I might ami (hould re ' present on the fubjedt. r In fad) from the evidently precaiious Gtua . tion of the neutrality of America, and from : the vexations to which she is fubjedted, could : 1 not (how that tins neutrality i 9 in a violent • litua 1 ion to which the United States cannot j consent ; from this violent fit nation would I not have reason to infer the neefflity of an energetic and vigorous reatfion and of a f<»- Icmn reparation, which b) giving to America I what her honor requires would have mini frfled towards the French republic, the in clination and intentions of your government ? I would have remaiked th.it their reparations had been announced at a certain period, but that if public report were believed they ap peared as far off as ever. From this contra dilution between the promises and the perfoim ance of them, this consequence fecms toarife, that the United States had not yet ellablifhed their neutrality upon as a rcfpedtable a foot ing as France desired and had inftrufied me to demand : I was going to conclude that your government had not done in this refpedt every thing in its power, arid feared lelt this backwardness Ihould arise from a lukewarm nefs towards its antient ally, who has not ceased, on the contrary, to tcility to it how much she desired to fee the bands which con nedt the two- csuntries brought closer to gether. This idea fuggefls to me a refleflion that the frtendlhip profeffed by the United States towards our republic of which they haveon several occasions repeated assurances, does not peimit them to alter their situation towards our mod mortal enemies, to our djf advantageand amidlt hortilities, theorigiivof which u .doubtedly take date from the pendence of America These remarks which I have iong revolved iD my mind, led me, Sir, accidentally to speak to you of the treaty in my letter of the 2d of May ; but feeling all the circumfpec tion which the silence observed on that adt prescribed, I only presented doubts to you, and did not even imagine that the manner in which I wrote to you would have given rife to acontroverfy between us. Besides, Sir, j »t would luperfluous for me at present to com mence such a fubjeft with you. I there fore close by appealing, specially to the at tention of the federal government upon points which truly interest the i-'reneh re public, to wit—the energetic and liberal exe cution of her treaties with the United States, and the support of their neutrality upon a re l peSable footing towards and againfl all. J conceive it my du'y to point out a thing as infinitely defirsble ; which is that nothing definitively be concluded as to the treaty sub mitted for ratification of the Senate,until my successor who is mtimently expedled fhaP have communicated to you the inftruftions which without doubt he has received upor that important fubjedl. I conjure you Sir, to submit this reflection immediately to the President. I have but one word more to fay, Sir, on therlofe of your letter, in whiJi you recti: to contrails between the present and the past I cannot believe that the Piefident had me in view when you inlinuate on his part thai endeavours are (till making to injure the bar mony exifling between the two nations. 1 do not think that any one has ever givefi greater evidence than myfelf of a sincere dc I fire of cultivating it. Still less can 1 admit notwithllanding some of your expressions. that your objedt was toinfpire me with fea> as to the the manner in which I have conduc ted. You know well, Sir, that a public man who from any personal cpnfideration wlia'foever (hould compound with his duty would be unworthy the confidence of his country. Accept, Sir, rfly esteem, JH. FAUCHET. Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, to Mr. Fauchet,* Mini Her Plenipotentiary of the French Republic. Department of State, June 1 y.b, 1795. Sir, I HAVE not been able to aeknowledge sooner your letter of the Bth, inflant, which. I had the honour of receivingon the fame day. If the plan, pursued in mine of the 29th ultimo, be more extensive, than the one pro posed in yours of the 2d, you will afcribt thr enlargement of it to my solicitude to remove every diflatisfadtion, felt by the miniller of our ally. A part, however, of that plan being to colled) with fidelity thr fadts, applicable ta your various charges, an J to comment upon them with candor, I dial: not relinquilh it, in now replying to the old or new matter of your last letter. But I mufl be pardoned, if 2 pass over without much flrefs, any general declarations, which - are not fufceptiblt of a precise argument. For how fliall t defend our government againlt undetailed ipfinuatious, like these : " That pofitivc engagements, which give " France a right to certain privileges, have " beeo neglected or executed with indiff;r ---" ence : that other rights, common to all, " have become doubtful, for you by too " much fubmiflion to the adla of other " powers : that you could cite a great " number of examples : that it will be easy, " more at leisure to have a colledtion made "of them in tbe different consulates: that " almost all the prizes have been fubjedted " to artifices : and that one of the most dif " agreeable parts of your functions has been " to reply to the just complaints of your in " jured fellow citizens," &c. Being unable to add any other vindica tion in regard to the Favourite ; and not being informed of the veflel going to Cua dalonpe, and said to have been arrested at * It jppceri that »fier this letter h«d been drafted, and while it wastranferibipg, Mr Arict was received as Ihe miniller plenipotmtiaiy of the I*'i encb republic, to whom in cenlcquencc it was (cot, is Norfolk, on suspicion of infringing our lieu, re t-rality 5 nor yet, how it supports the com fa plaint, relative to the Favourite, I leave the e fubjeft here. But Ift the veflel destined to 1- Gu daloupe, be in any predicament whaifo it ever, the countermanding of the orders given >f by the Governor of Virginia to the militia a officert of Norfolk, to refufe comfort to Britilh veflels, using our waters as a ftatioa; cannot Ue tortured into any connexion with i- her. FOl the aft of the President nfver au. n thoriied the Stale Executives to issue f«ch ■1 an order :No other Executive misunderstood it it : The Executive of Virginia revoked it i it week before the'rcvoeatioii was heard ofby I the Federal Executive, and you may deter n mine from my coirefpondence with Mr. 1. Haifimond, on this fubjeft, what the Prefi a dent finally contemplated. Upon this point a few word* will be f < ffi - cietjt.. Of the re-aftron towards Gtea' Bri ? tair) and of the reparation towar soii-feJTes, s the United States arc the only legitimate t. judges. They will adapt the one and the . <iiher to their estimate of their own power, and intoreft. Being the defenders of their own honour and welfare, they will n„t be t lulpefted of voluntarily abandoning cither * ] nid if they do uoJ mount to the pitch, which - the French republic would prefer, their good ; will and intentions towards it ought nor to t be doubted. What you call, fir, luke warmth t to our ancient ally, is an upright neutrality, s The new arrangements against which yo« • have exprefTed ynurfclf, are a part of the great fubjeft, which is now at the disposal r of the Senate. There are some miscellaneous matters, which remain to be touched briefly. 1 We agree to submit the conltruftion of '7 th article of this treaty ro explanations between the two governments. But in the mean trme I mull own, ihat I do npt feel the importance of Mr. Hammond's acknow ler'gement to your reaforiing He had ron tended, th&t under our treaty with France, we could not expel the prizes made by the' . 1 "uifers. 1 had infifte.l upon our 'ight to drive them off, and by way of ar gument reminded him of a conltr lift ion which we had adopted refpefti„g the efuiferj themfelvcs, and wh'kh by his literal expofi. non wsuld be defea'ed. You do not fcrm to be aware of thr dilemma, to which this m )de of reafonlog. exp.ifes you If Mr. Hammond be correct, ihen are your com! plaints again# the admiflion of p ,-j zeß . our anxiety to prevent it, wholly unfounded : and our harbours may swarm with tjt'em. If he be incoreft the conc.ffioa amounls to nothing. Between us It surely i, avai | whether a British minister reasons well or ill • though I do not »eo«lleit. that he has repeat' C<l this branch of his pofjiion, fiircc he has been apprised of its tc ,ncy. Wheresoever truth lies, it is our dury ir, follow ; and I ell our conft-uftion upon this frs. k princi ple : That notwithlKnding \\^J e ttir of the treaty j its fpi it, ir s context, and the rule 6 .if interpretation will uphold the regulations t our government. • In-a procedure; '|ke this, it will not be e.iiy to find a leaning «r fubfervi'ccy to G. Biitain. ft »s a leaning and ftfbf. rvienty to the charafter of our nation. Your letter itrorgly demohftrates the propriety of my cmark, that a neutral nation, while it* de fends itfelft against charges from one of the .varring powers, may fecra to palliate the mis. lo.ngs of another. I3ur we fmely ought to nave been exempt from this reflection ; as you are particularly desired not to infer f,om my juflificatioo of the executive that the-va -1 dity of the proclamation of blockade is af feuted to : as you admit " Thar we are in. " dignant at the injuries which Great Bri '• tain has done us ana as we have employ ed no argument which is not derived from national law.* Until you fliall permit your! ielf to be more fpecilL- in your accusations, we cannot surrender the confeioufnefs of our political purity. It is with real regret, that I read in your last .ester an idea, that we have not done justice to your proclamation, to your difplea iure at the crew of the Concorde, and to your general conduft towards our govern- How much more is. that regret in . jreafed, when any of my exprctOous can be kwnught into an attempt to inspire. you with lear, or to deter you by personal confidera •lons from the discharge of \oor duty. A efpeft to ourselves, would forbid such an at empt ; a refpeft for you, wobld foibid it ; having no poffi' le objeft, dillinft from the interest of the Ut ited States, we are incapa* lie of it ; being confident in our power to ullrate ony incroachmenls, we can never in j to plant in your bread so unworthy a notive. As you again disclaim an approba 'io« Mr. Genet's exccfles; so am 1 not scrupulous to confefs that 1 fljould not have ■ ecurred to them, had I not inferred from /our letter on inclination to bring them up •vilh some fliare of countenance to them.— But this being as you inform . me, the mo ment of our official feparstion, 1 am compel, led by candor tp intimate to you, what, under other tireumftanccs, would have beer, ftatrd o you and minutely. The citizen*- of the Unitpd States have a right, .and will exereife the right, freely to investi gate the meafurei of government. A for. eign minister has a right to remonlliate with the Executive to whom he is accredited, up. on any of those meafiues afFefting hit roun try. But it will ever be denied'as a right of a foreign minister, that he should endea vour, by an addreft to the people, oral or written, to foreftall a depending tteafure, ur to dtfeat one, which has been decided. " This remark i 3 made now; becatrfe it cannot be erroneously wrested into a defence or out work of the treaty with Great Britain and bccawfe tt is an afTertion of the fove reignt/ot the United States, confident with what is past, and we tiuft not likely to be contradifted hereafter. I cannot conclude thig letter without of fering to you my Cticere wishes for your hep pinefs, a personal afTurance of the great est refpeft and efierm, with which I have the honour to be, fir, your mod obedfent servant, EDM. RANDOLPH.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers