To James Madison from Fulwar Skipwith, 5 June 1806
From Fulwar Skipwith
Paris. 5th. June. 1806.
Sir,
I have not thought it necessary for me to anounce to you my arrival here. Having delivered to Mr. Bowdoin the Dispatches intrusted to me by you for him, & to Genl. Armstrong those addressed to him conjointly with Mr. B, as well as his own, I concluded that they would not fail to give you the earliest intelligence thereof.1
The Hornet sailed from L’orient for the Mediterrenian on the 19th. ulto. Two circumstances have operated to detain that vessel at L’orient longer than may have been anticipated by the Secretary of the navy. 1stly., the Supply of Some money, which, owing to the particular Situation of my Colleague, Mr. Vail, I have been obliged to forward from hence for the use of the Brigt.; & 2dly., her trim, which Capt. Dent thought it prudent & necessary to change, by Shifting the Ballast.
Immediately after delivering to our Ministers their dispatches, I waited on Mr. Talleyrand with those Committed to me for him by Genl. Tureau. I was received with much Civility. He asked me if I had brought with me the act of Congress interdicting our Trade with the negroes of St. Domingo.2 I answered that doubtless he would find it among his dispatches. He wished to Know whether any of the Resolutions Spoken of in the American newspapers, respecting certain prohibitions of B. Manufactures had been or were likely to be adopted by Congress. I observed that those called Nicholsons Resolutions had been very favorably received, previous to my departure from Washington, by a very large majority of the House of Representatives, who had granted leave to bring in a bill accordingly.3 Would that bill pass the Senate? I had not been able to form an opinion on that point.
Mr T. then asked me “ou est votre Genl. Armstrong?”4 At Paris. “Que fait il? On ne le voit pas; on a beau l’inviter à nos fêtes; il est,” “il est …[”]5 He Said no more. This conversation was unintelligible to me. I made no reply except that I heard of the General being very often Confined to his apartment by indisposition. Mr. T. concluded by asking me if I had returned to my Station of Consul. I replied that I had. He Said he was very glad of it. I withdrew.
I have indeed entered into the performance of my public duties here; it was time that I Should, for our Minister had Some time Since denied that Mr. Barnet had any right to represent me in my official Capacity. Nay in his letters to the Minister of Police on the Subject of the assault made by Mr. Omealy on the person of Mr. Barnet, he divests him of any Kind of official character.6 It does not belong to me, perhaps, to offer my view of the Conduct of the General with respect to that affair, but I owe it to myself to declare that previous to my charging Mr. Barnet with the exercise of my public functions I Consulted our Minister as to its expediency & propriety; he approved of the fitness of both the person & the measure, & when I informed him officially of the fact, he Solicited by a Note to Mr. Talleyrand the recognition of Mr. Barnet in my place.
I must also be permitted to notice one other particularity in the Generals Conduct relating immediately to the business, which appears to have Set Mr. Omealy at variance with my Representative. I Speak of the case of Jno. Andrews.7 The only Single, impartial, & Safe basis in my opinion for our Minister to adopt in order to do equal justice to the contending parties, I Suggested in a letter to him dated in May, (last year) Copy of which I here transmit.8 This letter the General denied to Mr. Barnet, & in presence of Mr. Bentalow, having received. I delivered it myself; I saw it many days on his Table, & Know that he Sent it to the Minister of the Public Treasury. I will refrain from any comment, & tho’ the General has never been in the habit of acknowledging his reception of my letters, I will not allow myself to apprehend another occurrence of a Similar Nature.
I wish with respect to my own claim that it was in my power to Say that I did not think myself aggrieved by the Conduct of our Minister. By the Memorials inclosed, which I have lately presented to the Emperor & his Council of State, & the letter from me to our Minister, of which you also have a Copy you may Judge of the Nature of the difficulties I have now to Contend with.9 Genl. Armstrong did assure me before my departure for the united States that in case of Mr. Marbois persisting in his Support of Mr. Dubuissons objections to my claim, he Should nevertheless issue my bills. This he Surely might Still do without incurring any mischievous degree of responsibility, Since the liquidation in my favor has been Consummated according to every form required by the Convention, & has been once notified to him in that character by Mr. Marbois himself. But to my great disappointm., &, in my humble opinion, with much impropriety the General has Suffered my claim to be Sent back to the Council General of Liquidation for revision.
It is in the highest degree painful to my feeling⟨s⟩ to add that in various other proceedings of General Armstrong in relation to the rights of Individuals under the Convention, I find his Conduct irreconciliabl⟨e⟩ with my Sense of Common Justice or Consistency of principle. I wish, Sir, for the Sake of the President whose authority & duties he has the honor to represent here, that my opinions & present view of his mode of exercising those Sacred attributes, may prove erroneous. If on the article of my own claim I have been induced to imply an unauthorized Censure, I shall, whenever I shall be able to distinguish that fact, be disposed to make you or the General any atonement in my power, but while I remain under my present impression of his not having done a plain & indispensible duty in Support of my fair & legitimate rights, & while I have before me multiplied proofs of his extreme Complaisance towards the views & Interests of some men whose claims were rejected by the American Commission, & obviously not within the purview of the Convention or the protection, in any degree, of our Government, I cannot tamely See my helpless Family & myself deprived wrongfully & unlawfully of their legitimate & only remaining means of Subsistence.
In company with this is a proces-verbal of the death of Mr. Joseph Miller late an Inhabitan⟨t⟩ & Merchant of Philadelphia.10 Of his circumstances & effects, tho’ he had a claim to a very considerable amount paid under the Convention, I have not been able to acquire any correct Knowledge, & therefore cannot furnish your Department with Such information as may be looked for by his Family & Creditors.
You have also my Account of disbursements on my Journey with the public Dispatches from Washington to this City, In this Account I have Credited the Government with 500$ received by me in advance & after debiting the Compensation Suggested to me by the President, as usually allowed in Such Cases, the balance in my favor (exclusive of the Carriage remaining with me for Sale) is .11
I have employed a man well versed in the Knowledge of the value & quality of Books to Select those directed by you to be purchased here for your Department, but it is a Small portion only that we are likely to find in this city12—these will be dispatched from hence very Soon together with Some articles of china, which you desired Should be Sent for your own use. I am with great respect, Sir, your most obedt. Servt.
Fulwar Skipwith
P. S. 6th. June—
I have this instant received from Genl. Armstrong his reply to my letter to him respecting my own claim.13 He has mistaken exceedingly the point on which he intimates I resisted the liquidations in the cases of the Bordeaux Embargo, By recurring, if necessary, to my letters to him on that Subject copies of which are already in your possession,14 you will See that I only resisted the issuing of his bills, as was nearly happening to be the Case, to the Captains instead of the owners.
I defer to a future moment Some animadversions, which I have to make on the principles Supported in the Generals letter. If tested either by the provisions of the Convention or the plain Suggestions of Common Sense, I presume it will be denied that the French Bureauxs ought to have had the Sole power of opposing on principle, as is the fact in my case, a final liquidation, which has received the Sanction of the Concurrent authorities designated by the Convention, & especially Since the american Commission no longer exists.
F. S.
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 2). RC docketed by Wagner as received 12 Sept., with his note: “Communicated the document about Miller to Israel Whelan” (see Wagner to Whelan, 12 Sept. 1806, DNA: RG 59, DL). For surviving enclosures, see nn. 8–11, 13.
1. JM to John Armstrong and James Bowdoin, 13 Mar. 1806; to Armstrong, 14 and 15 Mar. 1806; and to Bowdoin, 18 Mar. 1806 ( 11:378–83, 387–90, 393–95, 400–401). See also Armstrong to JM, 26 Apr. 1806; and Bowdoin to JM, 20 May 1806 (ibid., 503–4, 599–600).
2. For the act, see JM to Armstrong, 15 Mar. 1806, ibid., 393, 395 n. 1.
3. For the resolution, see JM to James Monroe, 20 Mar. 1806, ibid., 411 and n. 1.
4. Where is your General Armstrong?
5. What is he doing? No one sees him. It’s no use inviting him to our parties. He is . . . .
6. For the incident, see Isaac Cox Barnet to JM, 26 Mar. and 23 Apr. 1806, 11:425 and n. 1, 426 n. 3, 499 and n. 1.
8. The enclosed copy of Skipwith’s 23 May 1805 letter to Armstrong and to the French treasury minister, François Barbé-Marbois (3 pp.; DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 2; filed in January 1806), asserted that there was no legal proof that James Swan had owned the cargo of the Young Sybrand, and recommended that bills to pay the liquidated claim be issued in John Andrews’s name. For the claim, see 11:482 n. 1.
9. For the memorials, which were “omitted to be sent” with this letter, see Skipwith to JM, 1 Aug. 1806, and n. 1. The enclosed copy of Skipwith’s letter to Armstrong was evidently that of 30 May 1806 (1 p.; DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 3), in which Skipwith enclosed a copy of his memorial to the council of state and requested that if Armstrong would not issue bills or remonstrate against the resubmission of Skipwith’s claim, he would at least press the council to render a speedy decision on the matter.
10. The enclosed copy of the statement, dated 14 May 1806 and signed by Skipwith and Isaac Cox Barnet (3 pp.; docketed by Wagner), declared that after learning that day of Miller’s death, Skipwith and Barnet went in the evening to the Paris apartment that Miller had shared with his mistress and her “little daughter.” They were told there that the mistress had rented the apartment and Miller “had resided there as a boarder”; that she had left earlier that day, before Miller’s friends removed his body, and had put her mother in charge of the apartment; that no seals had been placed on Miller’s effects; and that he had told his friends what to do in the event of his death. Skipwith then sent Barnet to the local justice of the peace, who had not yet been informed of Miller’s death, and who said that he would investigate and carry out the necessary formalities. Also filed with the enclosures is a 17 May 1806 inventory by Armstrong’s secretary, David Bailie Warden, of items found in a packet that Miller had sealed and addressed to William Temple Franklin (2 pp.), and upon which Warden had placed the seal of the U.S. legation “immediately after” Miller’s death. Among the papers were Miller’s will, six notes on the Bank of France, five French stock certificates “of four thousand francs each, in the names of his wife and four daughters,” and documentation “relative to certain claims on the french Government.” Below the inventory is Skipwith’s signed statement acknowledging that Warden had attested to the inventory before him on 21 May 1806.
11. Left blank by Skipwith. The enclosed account, dated 5 June 1806 and marked “Duplicate” (2 pp.; docketed by Wagner), showed a balance of $170.19, the price of the carriage, due to him. The $500 advance had covered all his other expenses.
12. See JM to Skipwith, 18 Mar. 1806, 11:404.
13. The enclosed copy of Armstrong’s 4 June 1806 letter to Skipwith (2 pp.) stated in reply to Skipwith’s of 30 May that Armstrong would pay no claim, even though approved by the council, without a voucher or its equivalent from the treasury minister; that “nothing in the Convention itself, nor in the uniform usage under it, forbids the Minister of the public treasury from Sending back claims to the council of Liquidation on a Suggestion of error”; that Skipwith himself had argued that placement on the council’s list of approvals could not be considered final evidence of a claim’s validity; and that Armstrong had already urged the council to decide Skipwith’s case quickly.
14. The copies have not been found, but may have been among those enclosed in Skipwith’s 7 Mar. 1805 letter to JM ( 9:118).