1. See GW’s first letter to the U.S. Senate of 16 April 1794, and n.2 to that document; and Senate Executive Journal, description begins Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America: From the commencement of the First, to the termination of the Nineteenth Congress. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C., 1828. description ends 151–52.

2. For the text of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 19 Nov. 1794, see Miller, Treaties, description begins Hunter Miller, ed. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Vol. 2, 1776-1818. Washington, D.C., 1931. description ends 245–64; see also ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 1:520–25.

3. On 26 April, Edmund Randolph informed John Jay that he and the president intended to limit the submission of papers to the Senate that related to the negotiations. Anticipating Senate requests for additional documents, Randolph and GW considered the following questions, most likely during the week before the start of the special Senate session to consider the treaty:

“1. Ought any letters, written from the department of state, after it was morally certain, that they could not reach Mr Jay, before a treaty should be signed to be laid before the senate? Some of these letters criticize on some things, which are actually found in the treaty.

“2. Ought any letters, written by Mr Jay, in answer to any of those objections, to be laid before the senate?

“3. If any of the letters, mentioned in the second question, should explain a difficulty in the treaty, would it be well to select them, only when the rest are withheld?

“4. Suppose the senate call for these letters; are they to be given up?

“5. Suppose the senate call for the instructions, & correspondence of Colo. Monroe, from a fancied association with the British treaty; are they to be given up?

“6. Suppose the senate should require the attendance of the Secretary of State, to explain generally, what they may require; ought he to attend under any circumstances of this kind; or if he should attend at all, ought not the inquirys to be made of him, to be previously specified in writing; in order that the President, under whose directions alone the secretary acts, may understand the whole extent of the business beforehand?

“7. Suppose the French Minister should offer to the Secretary of state a memorial Against the British treaty, and desire it to be transmitted to the senate; is that the request to be refused?

“8. What notice is to be taken of him; if he should present a like memorial to the senate, or be known to endeavour to sway individual members by representing displeasure or danger from the French Republic?” (AD, DLC:GW).

A large number of letters and documents relating to the treaty negotiations are filed with GW’s letter to the Senate on 8 June (DNA: RG 46, Records of the U.S. Senate, Records of Executive Proceedings, President’s Messages—Foreign Relations; see also ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 1:470–520). A note in Randolph’s hand states: “The following dispatches from Mr Jay, and letters from the Secy of State, with the exception of Dispatch No. 22, were not communicated to the Senate with the Treaty” (DNA: RG 46, Records of the U.S. Senate, Records of Executive Proceedings, President’s Messages—Foreign Relations).

Dispatch No. 22 was Jay’s letter to Randolph of 19 Nov. 1794. Jay enclosed a copy of the treaty and provided an overview of the negotiation process: “The difficulties which retarded its accomplishment frequently had the appearance of being insurmountable; they have at last yielded to modifications of the articles, in which they existed, and to that mutual disposition to agreement which reconciled Lord Grenville and myself to an unusual degree of trouble and application. They who have levelled uneven grounds, know how little of the work afterwards appears.” He also suggested that “Explanatory remarks on certain articles might be useful, by casting light on governing principles, which in some instances, are not so obvious as to be distinctly seen on the first view. Feeling the want of leisure and relaxation, I cannot undertake it in this moment of haste; I must confine myself to a few cursory observations, and hope allowances will be made for inaccuracies and omissions.”

Concluding the letter, Jay informed Randolph: “It will give you pleasure to hear that great reserve, and delicacy has been observed respecting our concerns with France. The stipulation in favor of existing treaties was agreed to without hesitation; Not an expectation nor even a wish has been expressed that our conduct towards France should be otherwise than fair and friendly: In a word: I do not know how the negociation could have been conducted on their part, with more delicacy, friendliness, and propriety, than it has been from first to last” (DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain; see also ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 1:503–4).

For Jay’s overview of various articles in the treaty, see his letter to GW of 19 Nov. 1794, n.1.