PrC (DLC). When TJ wrote the above, he had not yet received the proposal made by Schweighauser & Dobrée in theirs of 14 Apr. 1789.

Just as in the matter of the concessions made by the French government through Calonne, the whale trade, and the Consular Convention, the tangled affair of Schweighauser & Dobrée brought TJ into conflict with La Luzerne, minister of marine. TJ had solicited an order the preceding Nov., just after concluding the negotiations over the Consular Convention and Montmorin had at once presented the question to La Luzerne in terms of the broad question whether the goods of a sovereign could be seized (see TJ to Jay, 14 Nov. 1788; TJ’s State of the Case, at end of Nov. 1788, particularly Vol. 14: 323). On receiving TJ’s present letter Montmorin wrote again to La Luzerne, having had no reply from him, and pointed out that TJ was “au moment de partir pour l’Amerique et qu’il desiroit d’y être porteur de la decision du Roi sur une affaire aussi désagreable.” This produced a prompt and wholly unsatisfactory response: La Luzerne agreed in principle that the goods of a sovereign could not be seized, but the circumstances of the case required modification of the principle. The seizure arose out of the rights of merchants that had been founded on a resolution of Congress itself, adopted on 23 Aug. 1781 (of which a copy was enclosed), and in the stopping of payment and the direction to the merchants to seek redress from the admiralty in Boston, there was established in effect “dans le Royaume une Autorité Superieure aux Loix Subsistantes.” It was proper that the goods of the United States should be released, but the difficult question was how to do this without injuring the rights of the merchants or the laws of the realm and without exposing the French government to the risk of having to pay the amount due. La Luzerne suggested that, since Barclay had brought his claim before the consular judges of Nantes in 1783, it was necessary to let the courts determine the claim and, after judgment had been rendered, a decision could be made about the seized goods; meantime, in accord with the principle stated, TJ could ask for the release of the goods, giving surety for them. This solution, La Luzerne thought, would do justice to the merchants, who he said had acted in good faith, and would meet “les vues de M. Jefferson auquel je vous prie de vouloir bien répondre dans ces principes.” The arguments advanced by La Luzerne were so displeasing to Montmorin that, in conversation with TJ, the minister informed him he would “combat and protest against them” (TJ to Jay, 12 May 1789). This was done in a memoir prepared by “one of their ablest counsel” and transmitted to La Luzerne by Montmorin with this observation: “J’ai cru … ne pouvoir mieux vous faire connoitre la maniere dont cette affaire m’a paru devoir être envisagée qu’en vous adressant les observations ci-jointes. Les principes de droit public qui en font la baze, me parroissent … bien propres à fixer votre attention, et je me persuade que vous porterez le même jugement que moi sur cette affaire.” The counsel’s argument, after stating the facts of the case (possibly being aided by a copy of TJ’s summation), concluded: “Les Saisies prononcées contre les Etats-Unis de l’Amerique par un simple tribunal francois sont par conséquent une violation des premieres maximes du droit des gens, et une atteinte donnée à la Souveraineté et à l’independance des Etats Unis.—Le Roi peut interposer ses bons offices pour faire rendre justice aux Sieurs Puchelberger et Schweighauser, mais S.M. ne peut pas s’ériger en juge des Etats-Unis.—Ce seroit blesser à la fois les maximes du droit des gens et la regle des procédés usités entre des Souverains et des Puissances alliées que d’ordonner des représailles contre une d’elles dans le tems même qu’elle offre de satisfaire à des contrats passés par ses agents, et d’en soumettre même la connoissance à des arbitres.—Si dans le moment actuel l’Amirauté de Boston faisoit saisir sur la Requête de quelque particulier Américain les bleds que le Gouvernement a Achetés en Amerique pour les besoins du Royaume on se recrieroit avec raison contre ce procedé et contre cette violation du droit des gens: Les mêmes circonstances peuvent se reproduire en d’autres tems: autoriserions-nous par notre exemple qu’en tems de guerre un Convoi francois refugié ou rassemblé dans les ports de l’Amerique, et destiné á l’avitaillement de nos flottes ou de nos Colonies soit saisi á la requete d’un Americain soudoye par les Anglois et qui se pretendroit Creancier de S.M.—La Justice la plus rigoureuse, la dignité du Roi, les égards que S.M. doit aux Etats-Unis considerés comme Souverains et comme une puissance alliée de la france, et notre propre interêt exigent donc que la saisie accordée trop legèrement par les juges-Consuls de Nantes aux Sieurs Puchelberger et Schweighauser soit cassée et abrogée par le Conseil du Roi, sauf à S.M. à employer ses bons offices pour faire rendre justice a ces particuliers.” To this Rayneval added a note that Barclay was never authorized to negotiate this affair and therefore the point made by La Luzerne concerning his claim was irrelevant: besides, “c’est un phenomène sans exemple que de voir les Etats Unis justiciables des juges consuls de Nantes.” The example chosen by the author of the memoir must have been deliberately pointed. For flour destined for the French navy had been seized in Pennsylvania and there had been an outcry (see Vol. 14: 68). La Luzerne turned this argument over to Chardon, who had handled the affair from the beginning, with, as he pointed out to Montmorin, the approbation of Vergennes; that minister had felt that, in view of the copy of the summons sent by Barclay to Castries “et de l’assignation qu’il avoit donnée devant les juges Consuls de Nantes, au nom des Etats Unis,” the matter should be left for determination in the ordinary courts of justice. But Chardon said it was not his province to discuss the fundamental question: he proposed to suggest to La Luzerne that the matter be brought before the king in council for settlement. Montmorin and La Luzerne agreed to this in conference on 9 July 1789 and Chardon was directed to write Puchelberg proposing that he accept TJ’s offer of arbitration and to inform. TJ that, if this was unacceptable, the matter would be decided in council (Chardon to TJ, 10 July 1789). Puchelberg declined, on the ground that Puchelberg & Cie. had been dissolved by law and the matter no longer concerned him, and asked that a copy of his letter be sent to La Luzerne. La Luzerne therefore stated the case to Schweighauser & Dobrée and said: “Je desire … que vous preniez promptement une resolution definitive sur la proposition de M. de Jefferson, à laquelle il me paroit d’autant plus avantageux que vous accediez, qu’elle tend à terminer promptement cette affaire, et votre interet personnel doit même vous y engager… . Vous voudrez bien me faire part le plutot possible du parti que vous aurez adopté.” Chardon informed Montmorin of this, and the minister replied directly to La Luzerne, recalling that this affair, which interested “directement cet Etat Souverain, ne Sauroit absolument etre soumise à la connoissance daucun de nos tribunaux: ni etre decidée d’apres d’autres Loix que les Maximes du droit des gens.” The arbitrary action of Barclay in taking it before the courts, which he was not authorized to do by Congress, had not at all diminished the “droits inaltérables de cette puissance étrangere, que certainement nous ne dirons pas qu’il dependoit de cet agent subalterne de ranger dans la classe des justiciables francois.” Moreover, the formal disavowal of that action by the minister of the United States totally destroyed it in principle and in effect. Montmorin therefore renewed his request and asked that steps be taken “le plutot possible” to revoke the seizure since “Cet acte de justice est rigoureusement prescrit a Sa Majté. par le droit Sacré des Nations: et vous sentes aussi bien que moi que l’interet le plus precieux du Roy et de l’Etat exige que nous effacions jusqu’a la derniere trace d’un abus de droit qui etant retorqué contre nous produiroit les effets les plus funestes.” Words from one minister to another could scarcely have been stronger. After the meeting of the council on 17 Aug., Montmorin spoke to La Luzerne, again asking him to revoke the seizure, but, as Chardon reported later, he had persisted in his refusal, even though Chardon himself thought it a proper course. Chardon sent to Montmorin a copy of his report to La Luzerne (“pour la decharge de ma Conscience”); at its close La Luzerne had written: “Il me paroit de plus en plus delicat d’accorder cette évocation; Je pense qu’il faudroit communiquer le tout a M. le Garde des Sceaux et leur proposer de Consulter des Magistrats.” This closed the period of La Luzerne’s inveterate opposition to TJ—but not the case (Montmorin to La Luzerne, 25 Apr., 31 May, 9 Aug. 1789; La Luzerne to Montmorin, 2 May 1789; Chardon to Montmorin, 26 June, 10 July, 4 Aug., 22 Aug. [enclosing report dated 17 Aug.] 1789; Puchelberg to Chardon, 15 July 1789; La Luzerne to Schweighauser & Dobrée, 2 Aug. 1789; Arch. Aff. Etr., Corr. Pol., E.-U., xxxiv; Tr in DLC).