TO WILLIAM SHORT.

Philadelphia, April 25, 1791.

Dear Sir,

My late letters to you have been of the 8th, 12th, 15th, and

19th of March; yours received and acknowledged, are as follows,

******

I consider the consular convention as securing clearly our right to appoint Consuls in the French colonies.  The words ‘Etats du roi’ unquestionably extend to all his dominions.  If they had been merely synonymous with ‘la France,’ why was the alteration made?  When I proposed that alteration, I explained my reasons, and it cannot be supposed I would offer a change of language, but for some matter of substance.  Again, in the translation, it is ‘dominions of France.’  This translation was submitted to M. de Montmorin and M. de Reyneval, with a request that they would note any deviation in it from the original, or otherwise it would be considered as faithful.  No part was objected to.  M. de Reyneval says, we must decide by the instrument itself, and not by the explanations which took place.  It is a rule, where expressions are susceptible of two meanings, to recur to other explanations.  Good faith is in favor of this recurrence.  However, in the present case, the expression does not admit of two constructions; it is co-extensive with the dominions of the King.  I insist on this, only as a reservation of our right, and not with a view to exercise it, if it shall be inconvenient or disagreeable to the government of France.  Only two appointments have as yet been made (Mr. Skipwith at Martinique and Guadaloupe, and Mr. Bourne in St. Dominique), and they shall be instructed not to ask a regular Exequatur.  We certainly wish to press nothing on our friends, which shall be inconvenient.  I shall hope that M. de Montmorin will order such attentions to be shown to those gentlemen as the patronage of commerce may call for, and may not be inconvenient to the government.  These gentlemen are most pointedly instructed not to intermeddle, by word or deed, with political matters.

My letter of August, 1790, to Mr. Carmichael, was delivered to him by Colonel Humphreys.

The report you mention of the prospect of our captives at Algiers being liberated, has not taken its rise from any authoritative source.  Unfortunately for us, there have been so many persons, who (from friendly or charitable motives, or to recommend themselves) have busied themselves about this redemption, as to excite great expectations in the captors, and render our countrymen in fact irredeemable.  We have not a single operation on foot for that purpose, but what you know of, and the more all voluntary interpositions are discouraged, the better for our unhappy friends whom they are meant to serve.