James Madison Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Barnet, Isaac Cox"
sorted by: author
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/02-11-02-0342

To James Madison from Isaac Cox Barnet, 26 March 1806 (Abstract)

From Isaac Cox Barnet, 26 March 1806 (Abstract)

§ From Isaac Cox Barnet. 26 March 1806, Paris. “The enclosed papers1 will inform you of the particulars of a personal insult which has been passed upon me while in the discharge of my official duties. As a man I could have resented it without application to the aid of my Government: but believing as I did, that the independence of my office was affected, I made haste to Shelter its dignity under the protection of our Minister. I accordingly addressed to him the enclosed letters Nos. to which I received his answer under date of the 19th. inst., utterly refusing that countenance and support to which as one holding the Commission of the united States I believed myself entitled. Without commenting on a partiality which Seems to have biased the Minister—I have only to add that I have deemed it my duty to present the affair to your consideration that measures might be taken in future to protect the officers of my Country from insults so derogatory to their Commissions.

“It may be, Sir, that I am mistaken in addressing this affair to your consideration, perhaps it may not at all concern the dignity of my Government—if in your opinion it be so, I have only to apologize for having so much trespassed on your time and for having obtruded my individual concerns upon you. I pray you will accept my apologies and believe me ever devoted to the honor and welfare of my Country—as well as of yourself.”

Adds in a postscript: “P.S. The occasion of the insult, as you will perceive, Sir, may be found in the use of the word prête-nom in the Consultation herewith enclosed.2 This is a phrase entirely technical which, whatever may have been its poignancy to Mr. O’Mealy’s imagination I never proposed to be inserted and never before his apprisal of it supposed it could be considered as personal. Enclosed too, are my Letters to the Minister of Police general3 which will evince the single view I have had in noticing the insult from a Source so contemptible to the dignity I have believed to belong to my office and the respect that is due always to a Commission of the United States.”

RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 2). RC 2 pp. For enclosures, see nn.

1The enclosures (4 pp.) are copies of (1) Barnet to Armstrong, 14 Mar. 1806, stating that as he was leaving Armstrong’s house on 13 Mar., he was “insulted and assailed” by Armstrong’s friend Michael O’Mealy, who was waiting outside the house for Barnet; that he intended to seek reparation in the French courts but believed it his duty to complain to Armstrong about an “outrage” committed against an officer commissioned by the president; asking if he could receive Armstrong’s support since O’Mealy had returned to Armstrong’s presence after the assault; stating that James Bankhead and Mark Leavenworth had witnessed the attack; and requesting an answer in writing. (2) Barnet to Armstrong, 16 Mar. 1806, asking him to appoint a time when he could meet with Barnet, Bankhead, and Leavenworth, so he could obtain the latter men’s testimony, adding that it was urgent because Bankhead was leaving for Holland the following week; and (3) Armstrong to Barnet, 19 Mar. 1806, stating that if he were to interfere in the personal quarrels of all American citizens in France, it would be “not a very pleasant” addition to his duties; that the American minister had no judicial authority; that even if he had this authority, it would be improperly exercised, since Barnet had stated he would seek reparation under French law; that Barnet held no commission in Paris but was acting as deputy to Skipwith; that consuls did not, except in special circumstances, enjoy the benefit of international law; and correcting Barnet’s error in stating that O’Mealy had returned to Armstrong’s presence after the attack, noting that he had learned of it only from Barnet’s first letter.

2The enclosure (6 pp.; printed in French; signed by Joseph de la Grange, Raymond-Romain Deseze, and Nicolas François Bellart) is a 7 Feb. 1806 statement examining the claims of John Andrews and James Swan to payment for goods provided to the French Republic. Andrews, supercargo of the Young Sybrand, produced a sales agreement between himself and the Commerce Commission of the Republic, specifying the merchandise sold, and stating that payment should be one-quarter in brandies, one-half in wines, and one-quarter in luxury and manufactured goods, which Andrews was authorized to export. Swan produced a notarized declaration made at Havre by M. Delamotte of the house of Delamotte & Cie. stating that Andrews was supercargo for the account of James Swan of Boston and not owner of the cargo, although he acted as such, and further stating that because Swan was at the time residing at Paris, he wished his ownership kept secret because he did not want to expose his property to capture by the enemies of France. The examiners rejected Swan’s claim because Swan exhibited no invoices for the original purchase of the goods at Lisbon and because Swan, in spite of Delamotte’s declaration, wrote to the American consul at Paris in 1804 saying that he had bought the cargo from Andrews’s father-in-law. The examiners declared that Swan had no title at all to the claim and that Michael O’Mealy apparently also doubted this, since he had issued three different orders for the drawing of the American bills, initially to himself as representative of Andrews, secondly to himself as grantee of Andrews, and finally to himself as grantee of Swan. The examiners stated that Andrews had the right to call both Swan and O’Mealy into court, where they would be condemned to repay him. They added that since Andrews had stated in an 1803 letter that he had ceded half his claim to Swan under a deduction of a commission of five percent, that the demand would be reduced to half the amount of the claim liquidation and the payment five percent of the other half.

3The enclosures (9 pp.; in French) are copies of (1) a 13 Mar. 1806 statement, registered on 14 Mar., by the Paris commissary of police, that Barnet had appeared before him on 13 Mar. and sworn that O’Mealy had struck him under the right ear with his closed fist; that James Bankhead had witnessed this; that attorney Mark Leavenworth had heard the commotion; that Barnet, being aware of O’Mealy’s intentions, had received a permit to carry pistols; that O’Mealy’s motive for the assault was that Barnet represented Andrews’s claim and O’Mealy objected to some terms in the opinion of the three French examiners (see n. 2 above); and that Barnet claimed the protection of France; (2) 13 Mar. and 22 Mar. 1806 letters from Barnet to the prefect of police repeating much of his 13 Mar. statement to the commissary of police; and (3) Barnet’s 29 Mar. 1806 letter to the prefect of police stating that proceedings against O’Mealy had been suspended because John Armstrong had said that Barnet had no public character, enclosing six items proving that he did, and asking to be provided in writing with the reasons why the commissary of police had declined to impose the punishment he thought O’Mealy should receive.

Index Entries