1. On 9 December 1782 Robert R. Livingston, secretary for foreign affairs, informed Elias Boudinot, president of Congress, that La Luzerne had sought and received “assurances,” presumably from the Comte de Rochambeau and the Marquis de Vaudreuil, of “such a force” of warships to “be detached from the West Indies as would be adequate to the protection of the trade upon this coast during the winter” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 121–22). See also Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 429, n. 5. For the resolution thanking La Luzerne for this “new proof of his attachment to the welfare of the United States,” see JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 3, and n. 1.

In requesting Boudinot to have the resolution with its allusion to the disposition of the French fleet during the winter “repealed,” La Luzerne may have been motivated by considerations of military security. Even though the resolution had been entered only in the manuscript secret journal of Congress, the proclivity of David Howell to disclose confidential information afforded a warning much too recent to go unheeded.

2. The “irritation” had been caused late in December 1782 by John Jay’s dispatch questioning the good faith of France toward the United States in the peace negotiations and by the intercepted dispatch of Barbé-Marbois opposing the American claim to share in the Newfoundland fisheries. See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 436; 438, nn. 5, 7. Marbois’s opposition only reflected that of the Comte de Vergennes on the same issue (Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence [New York, 1965], pp. 325–26).

3. For the case of David Howell (R.I.), see Index to Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, under Howell, David, secret proceedings of Congress. On 27 and 31 December 1782, Howell, and on 3 January 1783, his Rhode Island colleagues, Jonathan Arnold and John Collins, introduced motions in Congress to send Governor William Greene of Rhode Island copies or extracts of dispatches to Robert R. Livingston or Robert Morris from ministers, agents, or other friends of the United States in Europe (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 832–33, 837; XXIV, 3, 32–34). Although the delegates from Rhode Island asserted that Howell wished to use these documents only to demonstrate the accuracy of his sanguine statements about the credit of the United States abroad, the motions were vexatious. They “frequently interrupted and delayed the important business of Congress,” usually included quotations from confidential communications, and the quotations, being out of context, were “liable to misguide.” The “expedient” of entering these motions “only in the manuscript Secret (Domestic) Journal, and in Secret Journal, No. 8”—thereby preserving their secret nature by excluding them from the journal to be printed—came as an unpleasant surprise to the Rhode Island delegation and was of doubtful constitutionality (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 32, n. 2, 36; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 10). See also Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 194–97.

Article IX of the Articles of Confederation stipulated that Congress “shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 220; XX, 588; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 148, n. 1; 339–40; 340, n. 1). The motions of the Rhode Island delegates related only indirectly to any of these three exceptions. For this reason, confining a record of the motions to the secret journal denied these delegates their probable constitutional right to submit an official “transcript” of their motions to the legislature of their state and also appeared, in effect, to infringe their guaranteed right of “Freedom of speech and debate in Congress” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 215, 220–21).

Following what probably was a long debate, Congress decided to postpone further consideration of the issue and to refer to a committee the motions of the Rhode Island delegates and several suggestions for amending the motions or for amending the proposed amendments thereto (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 32–36). This committee, with John Taylor Gilman (N.H.) as its chairman, reported on 13 January (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 77). See also JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 45–46, 46, n. 1.

4. See n. 2. On 3 January a translation of La Luzerne’s “note” of 31 December 1782 to Congress was read to the delegates. The French minister conveyed “the satisfaction which the King his master has felt” because Congress not only had refused to negotiate terms of peace with British emissaries in America but was also holding firm in every other respect to the terms of the alliance with France. Although La Luzerne was hopeful “that this just and wise as well as prudent advantageous conduct” would soon bring “a happy termination” of the war, he mentioned recent British naval victories as a warning to Congress not to slacken its “preparations for an ensuing campaign.” Congress thereupon directed Livingston to express to La Luzerne the “great pleasure” occasioned by his communication and the “abhorrence” with which all the delegates regarded “every act derogatory to the principles of the alliance” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 4–6).

5. For the unanimous decision on 30 December 1782 in favor of Pennsylvania rendered by the commissioners appointed by Congress to adjudicate the boundary dispute between that state and Connecticut, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 419, n. 23. The “debates” on 3 January evidently centered upon the meaning of the provision of Article IX of the Articles of Confederation which directed that “the judgment or sentence and other proceedings” of a court adjudicating a dispute between states should be “lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the parties concerned” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 218).

6. For Eliphalet Dyer, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 289; 292, n. 16. As representatives of a state already embarrassed by the adverse decision of the court, he and his Connecticut colleagues may have insisted that to “lodge” the pertinent papers did not entail their being “entered at large on the Journals” for publication.