John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Recipient="Deane, Silas" AND Recipient="Deane, Silas" AND Period="Revolutionary War"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-02-02-0158

From John Jay to Silas Deane, 10 March 1781

To Silas Deane

Madrid 10 March 1781

Dear Sir

I had Yesterday the Pleasure of recg yours of the 23d Ulto.1 Much Time has elapsed since the Date of my last Letter advising you of the arrival of the Papers about which you enquire. It is true that I have in the Interim recd. several long and acceptable Letters from you, and that I have not replied to any of them.2 I do not wonder that you thought my Silence very singular; I should have thought the same had I been in your Situation— These Papers were to become the Subject of Inquiry by a Court said to be often influenced by light Jealousies and Suspicions, and I had Reason to think that the ^Contract^ would not be ratified because it was made, but only in Case it should appear expedient. That my applications might have their due weight, it was necessary that I should neither be suspected of being concerned in it, nor of having any private Views to serve by it, for my being really disinterested would avail little, if contrary Suspicion should be entertained—appearances tho trivial would then overballance assurances however honest, and any Information or opinions I might give would be recd as partial and influenced—frequent Letters to and an appearance of an intimate Connection with you were therefore to be suspended for the present and the utile to be preferred to the dulce. I expected long before this to have recd. a decided Answer. To this Day I have recd. none— And I really believe that the whole Business will be referred to the Successor of Mr. Miralles to adjust in America.3 If my Conjectures are well founded you will easily percieve how the Affair will terminate it will depend on the Ideas he may there gain, the Connections he may there form, and the particular objects he may have in View. You may ask me who will be the Person— I am not as yet at Liberty to say a Syllable on this Subject—as soon as I am you shall know.4 My last Conversation with Mr Galvez abt this Contract was three Days ago—he told me it was still under the Consideration of the Minister of Marine where I suspect it will long continue. I expect to hear more about it next Wednesday and should any thing now arise you shall immediately be informed of it—5 I have pressed the necessity of a Decision by observing that the Season was already far advanced, and that if the Contractors were not speedily enabled to proceed, they would not be in Capacity to furnish Supplies so soon as perhaps the public Exigencies might render convenient &c. &c.—but you know too much of the Manner in which these Affairs are often conducted to suppose that things will be done merely because they ought to be done.

What in the world could lead you to conjecture that the Subjects of some of your Letters were disagreable to me? How could you imagine that because I am one of the Servants of Congress that therefore Inquiries into the propriety of their Measures must be offensive to me? There is you know a Distinction between being a Servant and a Slave. As to the Affairs which concern you personally I am far from being indifferent. I wish them well and justly terminated on your Account, and also on the public Account— I wish that the Conduct of our Rulers may always be worthy of their Stations and that their Servants be at no Time Objects either of improper Resentments or capricious Partialities. Perhaps you think that while at Philadelphia I should have been less reserved with you on these Subjects. When you recollect the Situation I was then in you will not blame that Reserve— As a Member of Congress I could neither be your Advocate or your Enemy, and the Fact is that I was neither Sundry of the Delay and Acts affecting you appeared to me unnecessary and improper and on both Principles I opposed them as you may see by the printed Journals. The Reason which determined my Judgment on each of the Points relative to you were not personal in any Sense—they are still fresh in my Memory I think them as conclusive now as I did then, and under similar Circumstances should again give the like Votes— That Congress have used you ^ill^ I admit, tho perhaps you and I may differ as to the particular Instances.

If your Information is well founded that certain Gentlemen said they supported you merely as a matter of political Convenience, their Conduct was certainly very reprehensible. The Letters from France to a member of Congress to which I believe you allude,6 I not only heard of, but partly inspected— They were put into my Hands to read, but before I had Leisure to do more than dip into them here and there, they were called for— I had them long enough indeed to have read them thro’, but the many official Letters I was daily obliged to read and write, together with my constant attendance in the House left me little Room for minute attention to papers which I suspected would shortly be read and canvassed in Congress. Whether these Letters were ordered to be communicated to you, or to Congress, or whether they had or had not been communicated to you, are Matters respecting which I have no other knowledge but what your Letter conveyed to me.

That they were not communicated to Congress I know, and when told the Reasons, thought them good. If I remember right they were that these papers had already been shewed to a great many of the members, whereby a Knowledge of their Contents had been generally diffused—that therefore it could not have been necessary to offer them to Congress as Intelligence, and that being private Letters such a step (unsollicited) might have been imputed more to a Desire of scourging Individuals than of informing the House, especially considering how the Gentleman who had those Letters was then circumstanced with Respect to the Persons affected by them. I supposed indeed that his own Discretion had been his only Guide as to the use of those Letters, for there can be no Doubt but that if he had express Orders to communicate them to you to Congress or to others, but that he ought to have done it—

To be continued—for the present I must bid you Adieu— I am Dr Sir your friend & Servt

John Jay

ALS, NjP: Crosseley (EJ: 4068). Endorsed: “ . . . Thinks Mr. Deane ill used by Congress—”. Misdated 10 May 1781 in Deane Papers description begins The Deane Papers, 1774–1790 (5 vols.; New-York Historical Society, Collections, vols. 19–23; New York, 1887–91) description ends , 4: 307–11.

1Deane to JJ, 23 Feb. 1781, Deane Papers description begins The Deane Papers, 1774–1790 (5 vols.; New-York Historical Society, Collections, vols. 19–23; New York, 1887–91) description ends , 4: 277–79, in which Deane described his inability to settle his accounts. He complained that he had returned to Europe at personal expense to do this and had been refused payment until the accounts and vouchers were examined and passed in Congress.

2See JJ to Deane, 26 Oct., above; and Deane to JJ, 16 Oct. and 16 Nov. 1780, above, and November 1780, Deane Papers description begins The Deane Papers, 1774–1790 (5 vols.; New-York Historical Society, Collections, vols. 19–23; New York, 1887–91) description ends , 4: 261–63.

3Deane and his partners, including William Duer and James Wilson, had negotiated a proposed contract with Spanish agent Juan de Miralles and sought to secure its approval in Spain. The proposal and Miralles’s letter of support were sent in Deane’s letter to JJ of 23 Aug., ALS, NNC (EJ: 7776), and mentioned again in his letter of 4 Sept. 1780, LbkC, CtHi (EJ: 2899). On Deane’s unsuccessful attempts to secure contracts for ship masts and other naval timbers with both Spain and France, see also JJ to Deane, 2 Oct., above; 1 Nov. 1780, above, note 21; and 28 Mar. 1781, below; Deane to JJ, 8 Apr. 1781, below; Deane to William Duer, 4 June and 23 Aug. 1780, and to James Wilson, 11 May 1781, Deane Papers description begins The Deane Papers, 1774–1790 (5 vols.; New-York Historical Society, Collections, vols. 19–23; New York, 1887–91) description ends , 4: 168, 190, 316–17; Deane to JJ, 28 Feb. 1783, Deane Papers description begins The Deane Papers, 1774–1790 (5 vols.; New-York Historical Society, Collections, vols. 19–23; New York, 1887–91) description ends , 5: 140–41. On these endeavors and on subsequent efforts by American merchants to implement similar plans with Spain and France after the war, see also PRM description begins E. James Ferguson et al., eds., The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784 (9 vols.; Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973–99) description ends , 8: 266, 326, 486–87, 566, 879; and Paul W. Bamford, “France and the American Market in Naval Timber and Masts, 1776–1786,” Journal of Economic History 12 (1952): 21–34.

4On Gardoqui’s designation as successor to Miralles, see Notes on John Jay’s Conference with Floridablanca, 5 July 1780, above. JJ had revealed the identity of the “person” in his letter to Congress of 6 Nov. 1780, above.

6On these letters, see Deane to JJ, 16 Nov. 1780, above.

Index Entries