To James Madison from John Armstrong, 2 June 1806
From John Armstrong
Paris 2d. June 1806.
Sir,
I send herewith nine additional documents in the case of the New-Jersey1 and three in relation to that of the Pigou.2 No. 8. exhibits the whole of my agency (previously to drawing the bills) in the latter of these cases.3
Finding by the public papers that Mr J. Randolph has denounced “the ministry of the United States at Paris as unfaithful and dishonest” and has referred the House of Representatives to the correspondence of the late board of Commissioners under the treaty of 1803 and to Mr. John Mercer, one of those Commissioners, for proofs of the truth of his allegations,4 I have to beg from your friendship and justice that copies of such parts of the correspondence alluded to, as go to the crimination of my conduct, may be made and forwarded as expeditiously as possible; and that no time be lost, in inviting Mr. Mercer to communicate any information (having the same tendency) that he may be possessed of.
You will, I am persuaded, readily enter into my feelings on this occasion and yeild to my sollicitations the only steps, which, under present circumstances, can be adopted to render me justice. I have the honor to be, Sir, with the highest respect, Your most obedient & very humble Servant,
John Armstrong.
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 10). Docketed by Wagner as received 27 Sept., with his note, evidently added at a later date, referring to JM to Armstrong, 26 Oct. 1806: “Answered in a private letter suggesting that the correspondence of the Board of Commissrs related to a period prior to his ministry and that the allusions on the floor of Congress had not been considered by the Executive as requiring its particular attention.” For enclosures, see nn. 1–3.
1. For the case of the New Jersey, see Philip Nicklin and Robert Eaglesfield Griffith to JM, 25 July 1805, 10:133–37. The enclosures (26 pp.) are 1) a translation, certified by Lewis Goldsmith, “duly admitted & Sworn Interpreter & Translator,” of director general of the liquidation of the public debt Jacques Defermon to Armstrong, 4 Feb. 1806 (for the letter, see ibid., 11:365 n. 6); 2) a translation, certified by Goldsmith, of a 21 May 1806 statement by Jean de Lacoste, “Member of the Council of Prizes & reporter in the American Prize Cause the New Jersey,” averring that insurance was not discussed in the council of prizes’ proceedings on the case; 3) translations, certified by Goldsmith, of French treasury minister Nicolas François Mollien to Armstrong, 19 June 1806 (evidently dated in error), answering Armstrong’s of “the 10 Inst” by forwarding Defermon to Mollien, 31 May 1806, which asserted in reply to Mollien’s “letter of the 29th” that Defermon “could not have giv⟨en⟩ room for” a report of a conversation with him made by Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours and Joseph E. G. M. de La Grange, and that he had already informed Armstrong of this (for Du Pont de Nemours and La Grange’s report, see ibid.); 4) U.S. commercial agent at Paris Isaac Cox Barnet to Armstrong, 5 Apr. 1806, explaining Barnet’s certification for Du Pont de Nemours and La Grange of letters to him from Armstrong on the New Jersey case; 5) Barnet to David Bailie Warden, Armstrong’s secretary, 31 May 1806, stating the same at greater length; 6) a 19 Oct. 1804 extract from the U.S. board of claims commissioners’ register, certified by Nathaniel Cutting and marked “No. 6.,” summarizing the New Jersey case and documenting commissioner John Mercer’s dissent from the commission’s decision to admit it on grounds that payment had not been sought from the captor; 7) a 31 May 1806 copy of Du Pont de Nemours and La Grange to Armstrong and French minister to the United States Louis-Marie Turreau, 30 Floreal an 13 / 20 May 1805, in French and English, certified by the secretary of the French treasury as a true copy of the original deposited at that place (docketed 20 May 1806 in error and marked “No. 9.”), seeking payment of the claim on behalf of the North America and Pennsylvania insurance companies, to the extent possible with the remaining funds; 8) a 4 Mar. 1806 copy of a 20 Fructidor an 13 (ca. 7 Sept. 1805) certificate of payment of 300,000 francs from the French treasury for the New Jersey claim, signed by La Grange and Du Pont de Nemours, (marked “No. 8.”); 9) extracts from the New Jersey insurance policies on file at the French treasury, made on 29 May 1806 by Goldsmith (marked “n. 7.”); and 10) a translation, certified by Goldsmith, of Mollien to Armstrong, 29 May 1806, replying to Armstrong to Mollien, 7 May 1806, by summarizing the records on file at the French treasury with regard to the proceedings in the New Jersey case, which exonerated Armstrong from charges that he had delayed the payment of the claim (marked “No. 3.”).
2. The enclosures (6 pp.) are 1) an extract in French from the record of former treasury minister François Barbé-Marbois’s 1 Jan. 1805 report to Napoleon recommending that the owners of the U.S. ship Pigou be granted a reimbursement of 200,000 francs, which the emperor approved (marked “⟨N⟩o. 2”); 2) a copy of Armstrong to Marbois, dated “Paris, 1805.,” transmitting the memorial (not found) of Henry L. Waddell, supercargo and co-owner of the Pigou, requesting “an additional compensation of 263.833 francs” for a loss he had suffered by being paid in paper money instead of specie, which claim Armstrong supported (marked “No. 4.”); and 3) a duplicate of the U.S. commissioners’ 18 June 1804 certificate recommending that the claim be paid (marked “No. 10.”). For the case of the Pigou, or Pégou, see 2:360 n. 4.
3. None of the enclosures match this description, but the tenth enclosure with regard to the New Jersey, marked “No. 3.” (see note 1 above), lists Armstrong’s actions in that case.
4. In addition to the comments mentioned by Armstrong, John Randolph’s 6 Mar. 1806 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives included assertions that the case of the New Jersey was “among the least exceptionable instances of misconduct” by Armstrong; that there were “hundreds of cases even worse than this”; that the Pigou’s claim was fraudulent and had been recommended for payment “to the exclusion … of bona fide claims”; and that the funds designated by the 1803 claims convention to compensate U.S. citizens for French spoliations had disappeared “into the pockets of renegadoes, and … the harpies of the French bureaux” (, 9th Cong., 1st sess., 574, 592, 603–4).