John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Jay, John" AND Period="Confederation Period"
sorted by: author
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-04-02-0150

From John Jay to John Temple, 7 April 1786

To John Temple

N York 7th. April 1786

Sir

The Letters you did me the Honor to write on the 25th. Feby. & 17th March last together with the Papers they inclosed were immediately communicated to Congress1 Altho I am not ^yet^ directed to say any thing officially on the Subject, yet wishing that the Irritation left in both ^our^ Countries by the War, may not be increased by mistakes and ^mis^apprehensions I take the Liberty of mentioning to You one or two circumstances which place the Complaints in Question in a point of view in which I believe they have not been generally seen.

That certain Individuals do complain of Infractions of the Treaty is evident, and it is equally true that not one of them they have thought proper to apply to Congress for Redress either by Petition, Memorial or otherwise—^[in margin] Whether these Individuals or any of & wh of them are british Subjects are Questions which merit accurate Inquiry for a variety of important Reasons which are too obvious to require minute Enumeration—but be that as it may^ It certainly is more natural and more proper that they who want Redress should apply for it, than that Government should as inquire after them, and take pains to seek for and decide upon Cases which the Parties interested shew no Disposition to bring before them. What ever may be the Cause of this Disinclination, I think it fair to conclude that they who will not apply for redress in the ordinary and established manner, have no Right to be dissatisfied if it they do not receive it.

The Information you have been pleased to convey to Congress respecting the Persons who applied to you; cannot be deemed such an application as the Forms of business in all Countries require—

In Cases where complaints arise from a supposed violation of Treaty, I think there can be but two [illegible] proper Modes of applying for Redress. The one is by the Direct application of the Party interested and the other is by the Sovereign affected by such Infraction.

In the present Case the Parties interested have made no direct application, & it is much to be regretted that your Commission ^wh. is understood to^ extend only to Matters respecting Trade and navigation does not enable you ^supposing it to be proper^ to apply officially on the Part of his britannic Majesty. If this opinion should be erroneous it would give ^[in margin] me Pleasure to be better informed.^

Such being the State of things the Silence of Congress appears to me very natural for the self Respect observed by all Governments must oppose their their interfering in ^those^ matters which however proper for their Cognizance are only so when properly regularly brought before them; especially too ^when^ the regular way is plain known and open, and when no necessity or accidental Circumstances render a Deviation from it unavoidable an2

I assure you Sir it gives me Pain to see any obstacles retarding the Return of good Humour and mutual Content between our two Countries for altho all Minds are not superior to the Influence of the Irritation before Spoken of, yet I am persuaded the wisest & best Men on both ^either^ Sides think it more consistent with the Dignity and Happiness of both People to repress rather than to cherish it that Irritation—With great Respect & Esteem I have the Honor to be Sir

PS—

Congress have lately ordered me “to report particularly and specially how far the several States have complied with the Proclamation of Congress of the 14th. January 1784, & the Recommendation accompanying the same, pursuant to the definitive Treaty of Peace, between the Ud. States of A. & G. Britain.—”3

Dft, NNC (EJ: 5802); C, DNA: PCC, item 80, 2: 203–5 (EJ: 1905); C, PRO: FO 4/4, 113–14 (EJ: 5049); LbkC, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 2: 232–35; DC, description begins William A. Weaver, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789 (7 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1833–34) description ends 6, 25–27. For Temple’s reply of 7 Apr. 1786, see LS, DNA: PCC, item 92, 520–21 (EJ: 10859); C, DNA: PCC, item 80, 2: 207 (EJ: 197); LbkC, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 2: 235 (EJ: 1906).

1See JJ’s report of 8 Mar., above.

2Carmarthen instructed Temple to demand that Congress order Richard Lawrence’s release and the restitution of property taken from him to cover damages he had caused to estates on Staten Island and at Morissania. JJ failed to persuade Temple to handle the matter “informally.” When Temple informed him that Carmarthen’s orders to apply to Congress were “peremptory,” JJ sent Congress the documentation on the case under cover of a letter of 20 Mar. 1788, DS, DNA: PCC, item 80, 3: 454–56 (EJ: 334); LbkC, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 3: 339 (EJ: 2249); Dft, NNC (EJ: 5836); JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 34: 106.

In his report to Congress of 26 May 1788 JJ noted that juries had found Lawrence, a Staten Island ship’s carpenter who joined the British forces, guilty on three charges, and that court records showed no instance in which the word “treaty” was mentioned, which, he considered, made the claim that the treaty had been violated unfounded. DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 3: 63–70; LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 124, 3: 173–79 (EJ: 4625); JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 34: 220–30. JJ noted that Temple had no commission that would render his king responsible for anything Temple did or said in his name. Prudence, he said, mandated regarding him as a private individual in all matters not related to his consular jurisdiction. For JJ’s insistence that Temple’s functions be so limited. see the editorial note “Consuls de Gratia: The Role of British Consuls,” and JJ’s report of 31 Dec. 1785, both above. For JJ’s opinion on the merits of the cases of New York Loyalists, including Lawrence, all claiming violations of the treaty of peace, see his letter to the President of Congress, 22 Aug. 1786, below.

3The proclamation called upon the states to observe the Definitive Treaty; the recommendation urged the restoration of Loyalist estates confiscated since 30 Nov. 1782. See JJSP, description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 2010—) description ends 3: 544, 544n1, 545. On state violations of the peace treaty, see JJ’s report of 13 Oct. 1786, below; and LDC, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends 23: 318–20.

Index Entries