1. This apparently was the date when the report was first read in Congress and debated (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 305–7), even though 23 and 24 May in succession had been assigned on the calendar for the submission of the report. See headnote. On the earlier of these days there seems to have been no quorum (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 289–90), while on the latter a letter from Robert Morris rather than a recommendation by the committee led Congress to discuss one of the subjects which would be embraced in the report (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 290–96). See n. 3, below.

2. On 9 May 1782 Robert Morris’ letter of 8 May and Robert R. Livingston’s letters of 8 and 9 May were referred by Congress to David Ramsay, JM, and Abraham Clark (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 255 n.). Having been advised by La Luzerne that the court of Versailles could no longer provide money to pay “the ministers of the United States in Europe,” Morris recommended to Congress “that in future all such salaries as are payable to foreign ministers, be advanced in America.” Again at La Luzerne’s suggestion, Morris urged Congress to authorize Franklin “finally to settle those accounts; and in the name of the United States to execute the proper obligations for securing the debt, and fixing the periods of payment.” On his own initiative Morris also reminded Congress that to settle “the publick accounts of these states with their servants in Europe” had come to be “highly necessary” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 253–55). In his letter of 8 May, Livingston presented to Congress the limited information at his command about prices in Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, and St. Petersburg and the “manner of living” of Jay, Franklin, and John Adams in the first three of these capitals, respectively. Livingston’s letter of the following day mainly comprised eight suggested resolutions, proposing the amount of annual salary for each of these ministers plenipotentiary, for Henry Laurens, Francis Dana, and William Carmichael, and for the private secretary of a minister plenipotentiary or a minister resident (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 255–60).

3. Although the committee’s report first appears in the journal of Congress on 28 May (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 305–7), the subject of this paragraph of the report had been debated four days earlier, when Morris submitted to Congress a copy of Franklin’s letter of 4 March to Morris and of Vergennes’ letter of 6 February to Franklin, both dealing with the “moneys obtained in Europe for account of the United States” (NA: PCC, No. 137, I, 471–82). During the debate on 24 May, Congress unanimously adopted a motion, introduced by John Rutledge and seconded by JM, reading, “That the Superintendant of finance lay before Congress an account of all money borrowed or granted in Europe, by or to the United States, antecedent to the 4 day of March last; and also a general state of the purposes to which the same has been applied” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 295–96). This resolution obviously dovetails in subject with the present paragraph, which was agreed to on 28 May. Livingston forwarded a copy of this resolution to Franklin on 30 May. When the latter, in a dispatch to Morris on 12 August 1782, acknowledged receipt of the directive, he commented, much too optimistically, “The liquidation of our accounts with the court was completed before the vote of Congress directing it came to hand” (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 462, 659).

4. On 28 May Congress adopted this paragraph after deleting “That the Superintendt of Finance nominate to Congress a fit person for such appointment.” Congress left the blank after “allowed” unfilled. Finally on 18 November 1782 Congress elected Thomas Barclay to this position and ordered Morris to “report the necessary instructions for the said commissioner, pursuant to the order of the 29th of May last” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 306, 308, 421, and n.; XXIII, 730). See Comment on Settlement of Foreign Accounts, 29 July 1782, editorial note and footnote.

5. Congress adopted this paragraph on 29 May 1782 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 308). Two days later Morris protested that “The tenor of this resolution would, I believe, give to every officer of the United States, both civil and military, the right of drawing upon me, which would be liable to this objection, among many others, that I should frequently be obliged to protest the bills for want of funds to discharge them. If, therefore, the object of the resolution was to provide for the foreign servants only, it might, perhaps, be proper to make some alteration in the terms.” Furthermore, Morris recommended that the drafts for salary not be sent directly to him but to the appropriate “department of the civil list” to “be made up and settled at the treasury quarterly.” “If this mode be pursued with respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs,” Morris continued, “the moneys may be remitted to those who are abroad by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, until they shall have appointed their respective agents to receive it from him here” (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 463–64).

Upon receiving Morris’ letter on 3 June, Congress returned the resolution for reconsideration by the committee. JM had become its chairman, and Samuel Osgood had replaced Abraham Clark (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 313–14, 314, n. 1). On 5 June 1782 the committee’s recommendation in the form of a substitute resolution embodying Morris’ suggestions was accepted by Congress. See Report on Paying Representatives Abroad, 5 June 1782.

6. On 29 May 1782, Congress decided to postpone consideration of the remainder of the report, beginning with this paragraph. This fact is noted in the printed journal (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 306). On the manuscript, the left edge of this paragraph and the salary table immediately following was marginated, probably by JM, with a perpendicular line and the abbreviation, “Committ.” In view of this action, it is strange that the notation to this effect on one of the copies of the report (see headnote) should have been deleted. As this copy also indicates, nearly three months elapsed before most of the remainder of the report received further consideration. See JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 307, n. 1.

7. This word and the following words through “annum” were interlineated by someone other than JM. See JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 306, n. 1.

8. In his letter of 9 May 1782, Livingston had recommended no more than a $5,000 annual salary for a minister plenipotentiary, no more than $3,000 for a resident minister, and, as in this report, an unspecified amount for “household expences” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 259–60).

9. Benjamin Franklin.

10. John Jay.

11. John Adams had been recognized on 22 April 1782 by “their high mightinesses, the States-General of the United Provinces” as the minister plenipotentiary from the United States (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 319). A copy of the document extending the recognition was first published in the United States in the Pennsylvania Journal of 20 July 1782.

12. Although Congress on 19 December 1780 had appointed Francis Dana minister plenipotentiary to the court of Tsarina Catherine II, it was 1809 before a minister from the United States was accredited to, and received formally by, Russia (Samuel F. Bemis, Diplomatic History of the United States, pp. 44–45).

13. Preceding “to,” JM’s draft of this paragraph originally read: “That the Commission of Minister Plenipo. from the U.S. to the Court of Petersbg granted to Francis Dana Esqr. on the   day of   unless he shall have been acknowledged in that quality, be & the same is hereby revoked; and that a Commission issue Constituting him Minister at the said Court; and that Francis Dana Esqr. be authorized, as soon as he shall be acknowledged in his public character.” Although the copy in the printed journal (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 306–7) is identical to this, except for variations in capitalization, punctuation, and the avoidance of abbreviations, it seems plausible to assume that the paragraph had been shortened to the form shown in the text as a result of the adoption by Congress on 27 May of JM’s Motion on Instructions to Francis Dana (q.v. and its editorial note). In the margin of the manuscript, opposite the amended form of the paragraph, “passd” is written, apparently in JM’s hand. This probably took place on 28 or 29 May 1782, although the fact is not noted in the printed journal for those days (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 306–11). See n. 6, above.

14. Livingston had recommended $800 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 259).

15. Livingston had suggested that the peace commissioners appoint a secretary with a salary of one thousand dollars per annum (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 259).

16. Congress had elected William Carmichael as John Jay’s secretary on 29 September 1779 and as provisional chargé d’affaires on 20 April 1782. Livingston had recommended that Carmichael be appointed secretary of embassy at the court of Versailles at a salary of $4,000 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XV, 1127; XXII, 258; Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1961 [Washington, 1961], p. 663). JM’s committee evidently wished to pay Carmichael half that sum annually for being chargé d’affaires and secretary of embassy. This paragraph, somewhat altered in phraseology and with the salary unmentioned, was agreed to by Congress on 10 July 1782 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 380).

17. Livingston had recommended $1,000 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 259).

18. Livingston had suggested $1,000 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 259). The British had confiscated the commission and instructions of Henry Laurens when they captured him at sea while on his way from the United States to The Hague. During his imprisonment in the Tower of London, Congress elected him to be one of the commissioners for negotiating peace with Great Britain. Before naming Laurens to this office, and without canceling his appointment to the Netherlands, Congress had chosen John Adams to be minister plenipotentiary to the same country for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of alliance and treaty of amity and commerce (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , II, 225, n. 5; III, 154, n. 5; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 876–80). Released by the British on 27 April 1782, Laurens proceeded to The Hague. Lacking his commission and finding that Adams already had been recognized by the States-General as the duly accredited representative of the United States, Laurens welcomed the opportunity of going to southern France to recover from the effects of his long incarceration. In September 1782, upon receiving his letter of 20 May declining to be a peace commissioner, Congress overrode the objections of JM and other delegates by refusing to accept Laurens’ resignation. Although in “a very infirm state of health,” he bowed to the will of Congress and reached Paris from Great Britain the day before the preliminary articles of peace were signed on 30 November 1782 (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 456–57; VI, 99, 138; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 593).

19. Livingston had made no suggestion concerning the salary of John Adams’ secretary except to comment in the letter of 8 May that Congress probably would consent to assume the cost of Adams’ amanuensis (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 257). From the outset of his mission abroad, John Adams had paid £100 sterling annually from his own funds to a private secretary, John Thaxter, Jr. (1721–1802). In letters of 16 May and 7 September 1782 and 1 September 1783 Adams recommended this devoted and able “clerk” to the favorable attention of Congress, which, in Adams’ words, he had served by 1783 for five years “without the least reward” (L[yman] H. Butterfield et al., eds., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams [4 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1961], I, 280, n. 1; Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 421, 708; VI, 668–69).