A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.
close

Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 7



Search for a response to this letter.

C. W. F. Dumas to Benjamin Franklin: A Translation

Docno: PJA07d152

Author: Dumas, Charles William Frederic
Recipient: Franklin, Benjamin
Recipient: Lee, Arthur
Recipient: JA
Recipient: First Joint Commission at Paris
Date: 1778-11-03

[salute] Gentlemen

Following the dispatch of my letter of 30 October, I went to wish our friend a good trip. He will return this evening.
Mr. Baker, Secretary of the Amsterdam Admiralty, made a command appearance before the Pensionary, Mr. van Berckel, who, sensing that the Secretary wished to sound him out, took the opportunity to express himself in no uncertain terms.
“Sir,” he said to him, “let the Admiralty be warned about the preliminary advisory it will issue next week: if it is of a nature to render useless the representations that have been or will be made to the Court of London by encouraging the said Court, through an apathetic accommodation, to act as it always has, I announce and swear to you that I will take this preliminary advisory ad referendum and communicate it to the Bourse.”1
{p. 188}
Such a démarche would have serious consequences. It would certainly bring a third Address to Their High Mightinesses, raise the dissatisfaction to its maximum, &c. It is in conformity with the preliminary advisory of the admiralty that decisions are usually made regarding convoys, the urgency and strictness of orders given to captains, &c. I am with very great respect, gentlemen, your very humble and very obedient servant
[signed] Dumas
RC PPAmP: Franklin Papers; addressed: “a Leurs Excellences Messieurs les Plenipotentiaries des Etats-Unis de l'Amerique a Passy”; docketed by William Temple Franklin: “M. Dumas 3d Nov. 78.” LbC Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, Eerste Afdeline, Dumas Papers, vol. 1.
 
1. In the Letterbook copy this quotation was heavily revised for style, but not content. Van Berckel's fear was soon confirmed (see Dumas' letter of 10 Nov., below). The Amsterdam Admiralty's policy regarding convoys and the seizure of Dutch ships could differ from that of Amsterdam's representatives to the States General because of the peculiarity of Dutch naval administration. The Dutch navy was a reflection of the decentralized and complex organization of the government of the Netherlands, which almost assured that no decisive action could be taken in time of crisis. No central agency, but rather five separate admiralty colleges for the regions of Amsterdam, the Meuse, North Holland and West Friesland, Zeeland, and Friesland had responsibility for the navy. Although united under the Stadholder as Admiral-General and subject to the authority of the States General, each had considerable independent authority and differed sharply in their conduct of business. Each college consisted of an eightto twelve-member board composed of representatives from the region under the admiralty's jurisdiction, as well as from areas outside it, including the inland provinces whose primary concern was the augmentation of the army. The Admiralty of Amsterdam, for example, had eleven members, six from Holland and the others from Guilderland, Zeeland, Friesland, Overijssel, and the city of Amsterdam. As a result, the policy decided upon and issued in the form of a preavis might or might not accurately reflect the interests of a particular region, depending on the degree to which the Stadholder and the members from outside the admiralty's jurisdiction influenced the deliberations. At the same time, the position taken by a single admiralty college might frustrate concerted action by all five (F. P. Renaut, Le crepuscule d'une puissance navale: La marine hollandaise de 1776 a 1783, Paris, 1932, p. 49–52).

The Commissioners to J. D. Schweighauser

Docno: PJA07d153

Author: Franklin, Benjamin
Author: Lee, Arthur
Author: JA
Author: First Joint Commission at Paris
Recipient: Schweighauser, John Daniel
Date: 1778-11-04
We have at length obtained a sight of Mr. Bersoles Accounts,1 and take this opportunity to communicate to you, our Observations upon them.
As by the Resolutions of Congress, the whole of all Vessells of War, taken by our Frigates belong to the officers and Men: nay farther as they have even an Additional Encouragement of a Bounty upon every Man and every Gun, that is on board such Prizes: it was never the Intention of Congress to be at any further Expence, on Account of such Prizes.2
{p. 189}
Every Article of these Accounts therefore that relates to Repairs of the Drake or Funiture for the Drake, must be charged to Captain Jones, his officers and Men and come out of the Proceeds of the sale of the Drake, or be furnished upon her Credit, and that of the officers and Men of the Ranger. It would certainly be a Misapplication of the public Interest, if we should <be> pay3 any Part of it.
In the next Place, all those Articles of these Accounts, which consist in Supplies of Slops or other Things furnished the officers and Men of the Ranger, must be paid for by them not by Us. Their shares of Prize Money, in the Drake the Lord Chatham and other Prizes, made by the Ranger, will be abundantly Sufficient to discharge these Debts, and in no such Cases can We justify, advancing any Thing to officers or Men.
As the Lord Chatham belongs half to the public and half to the Captors, all necessary Expences, on her Account should, be paid, a Moiety out of the Captors half and the other Moiety out of the half that belongs to the United States.
All necessary supplies of Munition, and Repairs, to the Ranger, and of Victuals to her Company, We shall agree to pay at the Expence of the United States. For the sustenance of the Prisoners, of all the Prizes, after they were put on shore, We suppose the United States must pay.4
These Rules are so simple, and Captain Jones being now at Brest, it should seem that Captain Jones and your Agent might very easily settle this matter.
We have received your Favour of the 29, of last Month.5 We wrote you on the 27th. and advised you to proceed against Mr. P. Dudoyer.6 We are glad to find, that Mr. Williams has delivered, the Effects according to the Inventory inclosed to Us, and, approve of the Receipt you have signed.
You have our Permission to draw Bills upon Us, to the Amount of such Part of your Account as may be necessary to you to which We shall pay all due Honour.
That poor fellow Barns,7 you will8 do well to supply with Necessaries and send home, but dont give him any Mony he has not discretion to use it.
You have our hearty Consent to employ, as many of the Prisoners as you think proper,9 and as are willing to engage in your Service.
We thank you for the News from Brest, and wish you to enquire of Captain Bell and the other American <Captains> Masters lately arrived What Dispatches they brought for Us. We have received, some Packetts of Newspapers, and two or three scattering Letters, but not a {p. 190} Word from Congress or any Committee or Member of Congress, which is to Us, unaccountable, and <incites suspicions> leaves room to fear that some Accident has happend to our Dispatches.
We are, &c.
 
1. Accounts not found, but for Bersolle and John Paul Jones' financial dealings with him in connection with the Ranger and its prizes, see vol. 6:index and references there.
 
2. See the resolutions of 30 Oct. and 15 Nov. 1776( JCC , 6:913, 954).
 
3. This word was interlined by Benjamin Franklin.
 
4. This sentence was interlined at the end of this paragraph.
 
5. Not found.
 
6. The letter of 27 Oct. was in response to Schweighauser's of 26 Sept., complaining about Pettier du Doyer (both above).
 
7. Probably Thomas Barnes (vol. 6:394–396, 400–401).
 
8. This word, as well as “supply with Necessaries and,” was interlined by Benjamin Franklin.
 
9. The remainder of this sentence was in Franklin's hand.
Cite web page as: Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, ed.C. James Taylor. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2007.
http://www.masshist.org/ff/