sistent with the article of the treaty of peace respecting the

tories.

It is very true that Mitchell's map governed the American. and British plenipotentiaries in settling the line between the two nations. There is upon that map but one river which is marked with the name of St. Croix, and that was the object undoubtedly fixed upon. There is no river upon that map, that I remember, marked with the name of Schoodack or Megacadava. Next to the great river St. Johns, proceeding westward on that map, is a little river inscribed Mechior; next to that, is another stream running between the words Carriage harbor; next to that we come to a larger river, running from Kousaki lake into the bay Passamaquoddy, and inscribed with the name of river St. Croix; next to that, still proceeding westward, is Passamaquoddy river. But that inscribed, river St. Croix, running from the sea, or what I call Passamaquoddy bay, up to the Kousaki lake, was marked with the pencil for the boundary. It is impossible for me to say more. If the true St. Croix cannot be discovered by these marks, there is no remedy but by an ulterior agreement, or the law of the strongest. It is astonishing that, to this hour, no man can produce a map of all the bays, harbors, islands, and rivers in that neighborhood, that can be depended on. If the ministry will meet me in a fair discussion of the question, or in any of the methods pointed out to me by my superiors for a settlement, I shall be glad. They have it under consideration, and, as soon as they give me an answer, I shall transmit it to congress; but, as they do not love pains and trouble so well as you and I do, I fear they will leave it all to Sir Guy Carleton, who is no more of a friend to the United States than any other British knight, and will be guided by the royalists more than by maps or surveys. Why any of my countrymen should choose to give to these royalists so much importance as they do, I know not. We should recollect that all parties in this country are pledged to support them, and party faith is a stronger tie than national faith.

The paper relative to Alexander Gross of Truro, I must transmit to Mr. Jefferson, it being in his department. I may, nevertheless, previously communicate it to the Comte d'Adhemar, and request his friendly offices in the matter. Yours, JOHN ADAMS.

TO COUNT D'ADHEMAR.

London, 3 June, 1786.

SIR,I do myself the honor to inclose to your Excellency an extract of a letter I received yesterday from his Excellency James Bowdoin, Governor of Massachusetts, together with the documents under the seal of the State, therein referred to.

As the ransoming captain is an Englishman, he no doubt applauds himself for the address with which he persuaded a simple American to go as a hostage upon promises, which, as he never has given himself any concern about, he probably never intended to fulfil. At present, as Gross can have no remedy against him, he has no compassion for Gross, and would probably with great indifference suffer him to pass all his days in prison, and as the relations of the hostage are poor and unable to pay the ransom, he must remain in prison till he perishes, unless the government or the persons interested will consent to his liberation.

I beg leave to intercede with your Excellency, in behalf of my unfortunate countryman, that his case may be transmitted to your Court, to the end that he may be set at liberty, either by the humanity of the persons interested, or by the authority of government, upon whom the expense of his maintenance in prison for life will otherwise fall.

Yours,

JOHN ADAMS.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

London, 6 June, 1786.

DEAR SIR, Yesterday I received your favor of 30th May, with its inclosures. You have, since that day, no doubt received my answer to yours of the 11th, in which I agreed perfectly with you in the propriety of sending Mr. Lamb to congress without loss of time. I am content to send Mr. Randal with him, but had rather he should come to you first, and then to me, and embark in London after we shall have had opportunity, from his conversation, to learn as much as we can.

The Comte de Vergennes is undoubtedly right in his judg ment that avarice and fear are the only agents at Algiers, and

that we shall not have peace with them the cheaper for having a treaty with the Sublime Porte. But is he certain we can ever, at any price, have peace with Algiers, unless we have it previously with Constantinople? And do not the Turks from Constantinople send rovers into the Mediterranean? And would not even treaties of peace with Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, and Morocco, be ineffectual for the security of our Mediterranean trade, without a peace with the Porte? The Porte is at present the theatre of the politics of Europe, and commercial information might be obtained there.

The first question is, what will it cost us to make peace with all five of them. Set it, if you will, at five hundred thousand pounds sterling, though I doubt not it might be done for three, or perhaps for two. The second question is, what damage shall we suffer if we do not treat. Compute six or eight per cent. insurance upon all your exports and imports; compute the total loss of all the Mediterranean and Levant trade; compute the loss of one half your trade to Portugal and Spain. The third question is, what will it cost to fight them. I answer at least half a million a year, without protecting your trade; and when you leave off fighting, you must pay as much money as it would cost you now for peace. The interest of half a million sterling is, even at six per cent., 30,000 guineas a year. For an annual interest of £30,000 sterling, then, and perhaps for £15,000 or £10,000, we can have peace, when a war would sink us annually ten times as much.

But, for God's sake, don't let us amuse our countrymen with any further projects of sounding. We know all about it, as much as ever we can know, until we have the money to offer. We know if we send an ambassador to Constantinople, he must give presents. How much, the Comte de Vergennes can tell you better than any man in Europe.

We are fundamentally wrong. The first thing to be done is for congress to have a revenue. Taxes, duties, must be laid on by congress or the assemblies, and appropriated to the payment of interest. The moment this is done, we may borrow a sum adequate to all our necessities; if it is not done, in my opinion, you and I, as well as every other servant of the United States in Europe, ought to go home, give up all points, and let all our exports and imports be done in European bottoms. My indig

nation is roused beyond all patience to see the people in all the United States in a torpor, and see them a prey, to every robber, pirate, and cheat in Europe. Jews and Judaizing Christians are now scheming to buy up all our continental notes at two or three shillings in the pound, in order to oblige us to pay them at twenty shillings. This will be richer plunder than that of Algerines, or Lloyd's coffee-house. I remain, &c.

JOHN ADAMS.

TO SECRETARY JAY.

Grosvenor Square, 16 June, 1786.

your

letter

DEAR SIR, Two days ago I was honored with of the 4th of May, in which another of the 1st of the same month is referred to, and as I hear there is a passenger expected from the packet, I hope to receive it from him when he arrives in town.

Lord Carmarthen told me, yesterday, that he had letters from Mr. Anstey, mentioning his civil reception. His Lordship said, too, that a minister plenipotentiary would certainly be sent to congress; that it was not from any coldness or want of respect to the United States that it had not been already done, but merely from the difficulty of finding a proper person; that he had received many applications, but they had been generally from persons who, he was sure, would not be agreeable in America; and, in some instances, from persons more suitable for a place in the customs than in the corps diplomatique.

A long conversation ensued upon the subject of the posts, debts, &c., little of which being new is worth repeating. The policy of giving up the interest during the war, and of agreeing to a plan of payment by instalments, was again insisted on, from various considerations, particularly from the evident injustice of demanding interest for that period. It was argued that the claim of interest, in most cases, was grounded upon custom and the mutual understanding of the parties; but that it never had been the custom, nor had it ever been understood or foreseen, that an act of parliament should be passed, casting the American debtor out of the protection of the crown, cutting

off all correspondence, and rendering all intercourse criminal, for that was the result and the legal construction during the whole war. Here his Lordship fully agreed with me, and even outwent me in saying that it was very true that, by construction of the law of this land, it was high treason in a creditor in Great Britain to receive a remittance from his debtor in America during the war. His Lordship added some slight expressions concerning the interest, and wished that the courts were open for recovering the principal. We might leave the interest for an after consideration. In short, they waited only for some appearance of a disposition. The answer to my memorial of 30th November contained their true intentions. They sincerely meant to fulfil every engagement, whenever they saw a disposition on our part.

These expressions, you see, are somewhat oracular; but they conveyed so much meaning to me, that I will no longer hesitate to recommend to congress to take up this matter and decide it at once. It would be going too far to point out the mode, but it may be suggested to require of all the States, who have made laws irreconcilable to the treaty, immediately to repeal them, declaring, at the same time, that interest upon book debts and simple contracts, during the war, cannot be considered as any part of the bona fide debts intended in the treaty. As to specialties, there may be, in some cases, more difficulty. Yet I do not see but the same reasoning is applicable to all. The legal contract was dissolved by throwing us out of the protection of the crown, and our subsequent assumption of independence, and had no existence until renewed by treaty. Private honor and conscience are out of this question. Those who think themselves bound by these ties, will do as they please. But I believe, under all the circumstances, few persons, even of the most delicate sentiments, will be scrupulous. If such a declaration should be made by congress, candor will require that it should extend to both sides, to the British and refugee debtor, to American creditors, as well as vice versa.

If congress should choose to avoid involving themselves in such a declaration, it would not be proper for individual States to do it; and in this case, I humbly conceive the laws ought to be repealed, and the question left to judges and juries, who,