Passy, 10 June 1778. printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography , 4:135. The Commissioners requested a list of Jones' prisoners for a possible exchange and noted the arrival of Jones' account of his differences with the Ranger's crew, about which he would soon receive their opinion.

The request for a list of Jones' prisoners, together with a similar demand to Abraham Whipple on 23 June ( Diary and Autobiography , 4:140), stemmed from David Hartley's letter to Benjamin Franklin of 5 June announcing a prisoner exchange and requesting a list of those held by the Americans (Edward E. Hale and Edward E. Hale Jr., Franklin in 198France, 2 vols., Boston, 1887–1888, 1:203). Franklin, in a reply of 16 June on behalf of the Commissioners, promised to procure the lists and suggested procedures to be followed (same, 1:203–204). Adams copied Franklin's reply into his Letterbook and later included it, with some alterations, in his Autobiography, where Adams mistakenly gives himself and Lee as cosigners (Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 92; Diary and Autobiography , 4:138–139; compare JA's two versions with Arthur Lee's copy in PCC, No. 102, IV).

It is, however, unlikely that Jones received the present letter. On or about 10 June, the date on which he paroled Thomas Simpson, Jones left Brest for Passy, arriving there on or about the 18th (Simpson to the Commissioners, 3 July, below; Jones to James Gooch, 18 June; and to Rev. Father John, 18 June, both in ViU: Lee Papers).

Jones' report of troubles with his crew was contained in those portions of his letter to Franklin of 1 June ( Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , 1:433), shown to JA and Arthur Lee, and to which Franklin replied on the 10th, giving there additional information on the proposed prisoner exchange (Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:610).

Passy, 10 June 1778. printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography , 4:134–135. The Commissioners, responding to Schweighauser's letter of 4 June (not found), commended him for refusing to pay 1,200 livres to William Morris, possibly an escaped prisoner ( Deane Papers , 2:258), and reminded him that no disbursements could be made without the Commissioners' orders. Schweighauser was directed to act with Capt. Whipple in the disposal of a prize and to evaluate the Flammand, a ship offered by John Joseph Monthieu for a voyage to America. Finally, in a postscript, he was ordered to pay John Paul Jones' expenses to and from Paris.

This postscript, written in a darker ink than the text, was appended to the wrong letter in Adams' Letterbook (Microfilms, Reel No. 92), for neither he nor Lee knew on 10 June that Franklin had invited Jones to Passy, and Jones did not arrive there until after the 16th (see Commissioners to Jones, 25 May, calendared above; 16 June, calendared below). It was probably intended to be part of the Commissioners' letter to Schweighauser of 23 June (calendared below).

The following paragraph was deleted in JA's Letterbook: “The Fusees from Berlin, the Druggs from Marseilles, and the Remittances from London being Subjects which We in our Capacity of Commissioners at this Court have nothing to do with, our Mr. Arthur Lee will write you in particular concerning them.” Arthur Lee notes in his Letterbook (PCC, No. 102, IV, f. 13) that “this paragraph being in the Letter drawn by Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin refused to sign it, because he said it would be acknowledging Mr. Lee's right to manage the affairs of Spain. The Letter was detained a day to erase this paragraph.”

Franklin's objection was presumably twofold. He probably saw the paragraph as implying that Arthur Lee was responsible for everything not explicitly stated in the Commissioners' instructions and commission to the French Court. Franklin may also have believed that it indicated a change in his status vis-à-vis Arthur Lee in regard to Spain. Both men had been commissioned to the Spanish Court: Franklin on 2 Jan. 1777 and Lee on 5 June 1777 ( JCC , 8:521–523, note). Franklin did not act under his commission, but Lee went to Spain in 1777 in an unsuccessful effort to gain Spanish recognition. If Lee was seen as responsible for transactions not directly related to the French Court, it might be inferred that he had superseded Franklin in dealings with Spain. This would have been unacceptable to Franklin even had he been on good terms with Lee. In the absence of such a relationship it was presumably intolerable.