1. The enclosed documents included an extract of Gouverneur Morris’s second letter to Thomas Jefferson of 10 Oct. 1793, in which the U.S. minister to France wrote that he was “very anxious that Consuls & vice Consuls should be appointed in all the ports. My Countrymen are incessantly applying to me from every quarter about property taken from them. I am desired from abroad to claim such property. I have decidedly refused to lend my name on such occasions, because I am certain that I should be thereupon represented as a party interested, and of course my representations against the proceedings, which are but too frequent, would be disregarded.” To illustrate his point, Morris summarized what happened when “a deputation of four ship Captains, chosen by their bretheren of Bordeaux,” called on Morris “with a representation of the injustice they experienced in being prevented from sailing with their cargoes &c.” (DNA: RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–95, Senate Records of Legislative Proceedings, President’s Messages; the entire letter is in ASP, Foreign Relations description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , 1:373).

Also enclosed were translations of Morris’s letters to François Louis Michel Chemin Deforgues, France’s minister of foreign affairs, of 1 and 12 Oct. 1793. In the first, Morris enclosed “copies of two Judgments rendered with regard to the American vessel the George. . . . Captain Richard Stevens of the American vessel the Hope, also complains very bitterly of a sentence rendered lately against a part of the cargo of this vessel which is incontestably American property.” Morris continued, “I request you, Sir, to pardon an observation which regards the particular interests of France. The circumstances of the moment prevent the fitting out of Privateers—consequently it would cost it nothing to cause the treaty to be observed with the greatest exactitude. Then the contrast which the Americans would make between the conduct of France and that of its enemies could not but be favorable.” In the second, Morris enclosed “the Copy of a letter which has been addressed to me, by citizen Postic, a Lawyer residing at Morlaix. It appears that in the proceedings of which he has given an account, there are extraordinary irregularities, and I think it my duty to inform you of them” (both, DNA: RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–95, Senate Records of Legislative Proceedings, President’s Messages; ASP, Foreign Relations description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , 1:374, 376).

The fourth enclosure was an extract of a translation of Deforgues’ reply to Morris of 14 Oct., in which he defended France’s policies toward American vessels (DNA: RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–95, Senate Records of Legislative Proceedings, President’s Messages; a copy of the complete translation, plus the enclosed copy of the French decree of 9 May 1793, which was not sent with the extract, is in ASP, Foreign Relations description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , 1:376–77).

The fifth enclosure was a translation of Morris’s letter to Deforgues of 19 Oct., in which Morris writes: “I have examined with respectful care, the Decree of the ninth of May emanating from the conduct of your enemies, and supported by some reasons to which you have given their greatest lustre. It is possible, sir, that the difference of our position leads us to see the same object in a different manner.” Morris concluded this letter by writing: “You will agree, Sir, that it is hard for my fellow Citizens not to have the advantage either of the Treaty or of the law of nations—to lose their merchandises by the Treaty, and not to be able to compensate themselves for it, under the protection of this same Treaty, by the freight of enemy-merchandises. In comparing the facts of the same epoch, you will be amazed on seeing what passed at Paris and at Philadelphia. Your good sense will lead you to anticipate the claims of our merchants, and the insinuations of our enemies” (DNA: RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–95, Senate Records of Legislative Proceedings, President’s Messages; ASP, Foreign Relations description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , 1:378). For previous mention of problems caused by France’s policies on neutral shipping, see GW to U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 5 Dec. 1793.