§ From Louis-Marie Turreau. 10 August 1806, Baltimore. After JM’s letter about complaints made to him about the French consul at New York, by Messrs. Murray & Harman [not found], Turreau hastened to obtain information on the matter. The result is that had there been real reason to complain about the transaction between these gentlemen and the French consul, it would be the latter who had a right to do so because Messrs. Murray & Harman did not honor their agreement with him, and in consequence, the interests of Turreau’s government were injured. This conclusion rests upon positive facts: Messrs. Murray & Harman refused to take three officers and five enlisted sailors on board, but later offered to take four of the sailors for free. The consul accepted this proposition, on condition that he should pay two francs fifty centimes per day for each sailor’s crossing. Messrs. Murray & Harman agreed to the arrangement, received payment for the passage of four sailors, and at the moment of departure took only two of them on board, for whom the Consul was obliged to pay additional passage, on another ship.1 No one refused a certificate of origin to Messrs. Murray & Harman, but it was deferred until the nature of the cargo could be determined with certainty. In this matter the consul did his duty, because Turreau’s positive orders, which conform to the interests as well as to the intentions of his government, instruct commercial agents to withhold such certification for merchandise of doubtful origin. One might observe that the usage has been to grant a certificate on sight of the items offered for customs inspection. But here Turreau appeals to JM’s good faith and discernment. Does the president think that French agents can place a blind confidence in U.S. customs officers, and has not experience shown that their confidence has often been betrayed, and the interests of Turreau’s government thus compromised? Turreau has no intention of apologizing here for the French commercial agent at New York who has no need of it. His sole object is to draw JM’s attention for a moment to the complaints of Messrs. Murray & Harman, and to Turreau’s letter. JM will readily conclude that ill will and animosity against the French nation emerge repeatedly in Murray & Harman’s claim; while Turreau’s letter is based solely on facts, the particular result of which is the trickery with regard to the price of passage for two sailors which these gentlemen found it suitable to appropriate for themselves.