§ From Louis-Marie Turreau. 24 August 1806, Baltimore. JM did Turreau the honor to reply [not found] to Turreau’s letter of 15 July last, relative to the affair of a French cruiser with two armed vessels belonging to Baltimore merchants. JM stated that Mr. Stephen, the district attorney, had been ordered to investigate the matter and to satisfy the complainants, if their case was well-founded. Stephen was also supposed to obtain from the French consul at Baltimore all the information available from various reports, if necessary; Turreau had therefore instructed the consul to satisfy such demands. To date, however, nothing has been done. The consul, surprised that the district attorney had asked him no questions, visited the attorney’s office and inquired as to the reason for this silence. Stephen replied that he had been told that the consul had left for Europe; that ten days earlier he had instructed the collector of customs to gather information on the individuals implicated in the affair; that he had received nothing; that the matter was being pursued as a criminal case; and that the court would not sit until 17 Nov. 1806. JM must be astonished that the collector at Baltimore cleared the schooner Nonpareil for sea, commanded by the same captain, and armed for war, despite knowing that it was one of the vessels that had abused the cruiser; it sailed on 15 Aug. for an unknown location. The collector concealed its departure by not informing the newspapers or the keeper of shipping records. This schooner Nonpareil, Captain Bishop, owned by a Mr. Tenant, carried ten cannon and a crew of fifty men, and escorted the unarmed schooners Jane, Cameleon, and Pearl. Why was their departure not announced? Why was this armed schooner permitted to depart, particularly the captain and all those who could testify in this affair? Why, at least, was a bond not required? Why was the Warren, a vessel as strong as the biggest corvette, recently armed in the same port of Baltimore? What is the cargo of that vessel? Will let JM judge what impression such events must make on the French agents in the United States, and what Turreau’s government will think when it learns that a recent law, which was supposed to be a new link of friendship between the two nations, is violated daily, and with impunity, in most regions of the Atlantic.1 It is very painful to be continually complaining to JM on so grave a subject, which by law is left entirely to the discretion and authority of the executive power. It is not for Turreau to guess how the federal Government will stop these abuses and prevent their consequences, but he states that a strong, severe action against careless or disloyal agents would satisfy the French government, and is urged by its minister.