To James Madison from Isaac Cox Barnet, 24 July 1806 (Abstract)
From Isaac Cox Barnet, 24 July 1806 (Abstract)
§ From Isaac Cox Barnet. 24 July 1806, Paris. “Although I have no doubt but the letters with the several papers accompanying them—which I had the honor of addressing to your Department on the 26th. of March and 23 d. of April last1—have been duly received, and have obtained that attention to which the Subject of them was found entitled; and although it is painful to me to replace under your view an occurrence in which I conceive I have just grounds of remonstrance against a high Officer of the President’s choice: Still I believe it to be a duty I owe both to my public and to my private character to lay before you the enclosed printed copy of a Letter (no. 1) which I wrote to the Editors of the ‘Gazette de France’ on the 16th. inst. and which was inserted in that and other papers of this metropolis.2
“I had prepared in english—translated, and committed to the Same Editors, the other letter Sent herewith and marked No. 2.3 As this letter contains a Summary statement of the transaction which was explained in the papers formerly Sent, with such remarks as I felt were necessitated by the general opinions and prejudices of men, I thought it best calculated to repel the insidiou⟨s⟩ and dastardly attack made upon my reputation by the publication to which it is an answer. But, considering on the other hand, that until I received the Sense of my Government upon the conduct of its Minister in relation to the cause of the process—I might not only incur blame but arrest in some degree that confidence which is necessary to a Minister charged with the negotiation of a great political object, If I had brought the part he acted into public notice, I withdrew this last mentioned letter before the Composito⟨r⟩ had completed it for the press-man. It therefore remains for me to hope, sir, that you will see in the forbearance and moderation manifested in the former, an additional claim to the approbation and support of an Administration so eminently distinguish⟨ed⟩ for its justice and patriotism.”
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 2). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Daniel Brent: “Statement of Isaac Cox Barnets Case, with regard to General Armstrong’s Interference concerning the Imprisonment & discharge of O Mealy, a Citizen of the U. States.” For enclosures, see nn. 2–3.
2. The enclosed clipping, in French, contested assertions, made on Michael O’Mealy’s behalf in a previous issue of the newspaper, that Barnet had filed suit against him in criminal court, demanding payment of 3,500 francs in damages and interest. Barnet summarized the circumstances of the case (for a full explanation, see his 26 Mar. and 16 (first letter) and 23 Apr. letters to JM, ibid., 425 and n. 1, 426 nn. 2–3, 482 and n. 1, 499 and nn. 1 and 3), stating obliquely that the local authorities’ immediate intention to punish O’Mealy was thwarted by difficulties that could only be removed by the intervention of the U.S. government. Until he was summoned to court four months later to repeat his statement, Barnet was unaware, he wrote, that the police had followed up his complaint on the matter; at that time he had recommended that O’Mealy be required to pay 3,000 francs in damages and interest, to be donated to Paris hospitals; and the court subsequently fined O’Mealy 100 francs with a higher penalty if the offense were repeated, as well as imposing a 600-franc payment for damages and interest, to be given to the poor and applied to court costs. In conclusion, Barnet declared that the people would not hold a public official accountable to the first madman who, on the pretext of a personal grievance, tries to attack him.
3. The enclosed letter to the editor of the Gazette de France, dated 14 July 1806 (6 pp.), repeated the assertions in Barnet’s printed letter (see note 1 above) and added a refutation of O’Mealy’s claim “that a like suit never before occurred in the Tribunals of france”; a more detailed statement of the basis of O’Mealy’s quarrel with Barnet; the information that as a result of O’Mealy’s threats, Barnet had obtained a permit to carry pistols and was accordingly armed when O’Mealy accosted him, but in consideration of his own public and family responsibilities refrained from killing him on the spot or challenging him to a duel; and an explanation that local authorities had arrested O’Mealy soon after the incident but had released him on the strength of John Armstrong’s declaration that Barnet “had no public Character.” Filed with the enclosure are copies of correspondence and other documents (16 pp.; in French and English) having to do with the case of the Young Sybrand, O’Mealy’s encounter with Barnet, and Armstrong’s response to the incident. Included are Barnet to the prefect of police, 13 Mar. 1806, Barnet to Armstrong, 14 and 16 Mar. 1806, and Armstrong to Barnet, 19 Mar. 1806, of which JM had already received copies (see 11:425 n. 1, 426 n. 3).