Report to Congress, 25 July 1789
Report to Congress
Office for foreign affairs 25th. July 1789
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of foreign affairs under the former Congress, in pursuance of the following Resolution vizt.
“In Senate 22d July 1789”
“Whereas a Convention referred this day to the Senate, bears reference to a Convention pending between the most Christian King and the United States, previous to the adoption of our present Constitution.”
“Resolved, that the Secretary of foreign affairs, under the former Congress, be requested to peruse the said Convention, and to give his opinion how far he conceives the faith of the United States to be engaged, either by former agreed stipulations, or negociations entered into by our Minister at the Court of Versailles, to ratify in its present sense or form, the Convention now referred to the Senate.1 (Signed) Sam. A. Otis, Secy.”
Reports
That he has compared the two Conventions of 1784 and 1788.
That the copies of them received from Mr. Jefferson and now before the Senate, are so printed and their variations so clearly marked ^as^ that he cannot contrast them in a manner better calculated for an easy and accurate comparison.
That in his opinion there exist in the Convention of 1788 no variations from the original Scheme sent to Dr. Franklin in 1782, nor from the Convention of 1784, but such as render it less ineligible than either of the other two.
That although he apprehends that this Convention will prove more inconvenient than beneficial to the United States, yet he thinks that the circumstances under which it was formed, render its being ratified by them indispensable.
The circumstances alluded to are these.
The original Scheme of 1782 however exceptionable, was framed and agreed to by Congress.
The Convention of 1784 was modelled by that Scheme, but in certain ^instances^ deviated from it;— but both of them were to be perpetual in their duration.
On account of those deviations Congress refused to ratify it; but promised to ratify one corresponding with the Scheme, provided its duration was limited to eight or ten years; but they afterwards extended it to twelve.
By an instruction to Mr. Jefferson of 3d October 1786, he was among other things directed to propose to the King “that the said Convention be so amended as perfectly to correspond with the Scheme in every part where a deviation from the same is not permitted by the said act (of 1782) and further that he represent to his Majesty the desire of Congress to make the said Convention probationary by adding a clause for limiting its duration to eight or ten years. That he assure his Majesty of the determination of Congress to observe on all occasions the highest respect for candor and good faith in all their proceedings, and that on receiving the Convention so amended, and with such a Clause they will immediately ratify it.”
In the Letter which accompanied these instructions is the following paragraph.
“The original Scheme of the Convention is far from being unexceptionable, but a former Congress having agreed to it, it would be improper now to recede, and therefore Congress are content to ratify a Convention made conformable to that Scheme, and to their Act of 25th. January 1782, provided a Clause limiting its duration be added.”
on 27th July 1787 Congress gave to Mr. Jefferson a commission in general terms to negociate and conclude with his most Christian Majesty a Convention for regulating the privileges, &c. of their respective Consuls. In one of the Letters then written to him is this paragraph.
“Congress confide fully in your Talents and discretion, and they will ratify any Convention that is not liable to more objections than the one already in part concluded, provided that an article limiting its duration to a term not exceeding twelve years be inserted.”
As the Convention in question is free from several objections to which the one of 1784 was liable, and is in every respect preferable to it, and as it contains a clause limiting its duration to twelve years, it seems to follow as of necessary consequence that the united States ought to ratify it.2
All which is submitted to the Wisdom of the Senate.
(signed) John Jay
LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 124, 3: 205–9 (EJ: 04633).
1. In his entry in the of this date JJ added that he had also been ordered by the Senate to supply all papers requisite to give full information on the convention. A list of the papers he provided follows. The journal entry of 25 July indicates that, in response to the Senate’s resolution of 22 July asking whether the faith of the United States obligated it to ratify the convention, JJ had responded in the affirmative. On 29 July, JJ sent GW a Senate resolve of that date advising him to ratify the convention; and, on 30 July, JJ presented GW with a form of ratification for it. See , July 1789 (EJ: 03801).
2. See the editorial note “The Franco-American Consular Convention,” , 4: 112–20.