Papers of John Adams, volume 14

From C. W. F. Dumas, 30 May 1783 Dumas, C. W. F. Adams, John

From C. W. F. Dumas

Monsieur Lahaie 30e. May 1783

Je viens d’avoir un Entretien avec un des premiers personnages de ce pays, dont ce qui suit me paroît de nature à devoir vous être com̃uniqué sur le champ: savoir, 10. que votre Emprunt à Amsterdam, de 5 millions de florins, seroit rempli depuis longtemps, si Mrs. Wm. & Jn. Willink l’avoient eu seuls entre les mains; non que les 2 autres Maisons co-Directrices eussent manqué de bonne volonté, mais parce qu’elles ne pouvoient ni s’y prendre aussi bien, ni disposer avec le même ascendant, concert & succès, des Bourses, tant à Amsterdam que dans les autres villes:— 20. Que si le Congrès, tout en laissant les 3 Maisons continuer à compléter les cinq millions contractés, vouloit ouvrir un nouvel Emprunt de 10 millions de florins au moins, entre les mains seules de Mrs. Wm. & Jn. Willink, on assure positivement, que cet Emprunt seroit rempli 509trèsrapidement, & avant même que celui des 5 millions puisse être complet.— Il faudroit, ajoute-t-on, se presser pour cela, avant que d’autres négotiations, qu’on croit que ce pays va faire pour luimême, rafflent l’argent, tandis qu’il n’y auroit pas pour les prêteurs de choix à faire d’un intérêt plus haut.— On m’a protesté que Mrs. Willink n’ont aucune connoissance que cette ouverture m’ait été faite. Et outre son importance, j’ai encore une raison spéciale pour me presser de vous en faire part, après en avoir demandé la permission; c’est que, dans peu, cette notion ne pourra manquer d’être communiquée, en conversation, à tout Membre du Congrès qui s’informera des moyens & de la méthode de lever de l’argent en Hollande, avec la même promptitude & facilité qu’ont éprouvée depuis si longtemps, entre autres & sur-tout, les Anglois.l

Après vous avoir exposé fidelement, & le plus exactement qu’il m’a été possible, ce que dessus, il me reste à vous prier, Monsieur, quelque usage que vous jugiez à propos d’en faire, de vouloir bien éviter que les 2. autres maisons ne m’en puissent vouloir, com̃e si je me prêtois aux vues d’autrui pour les faire exclure, ce dont je n’ai ni la pensée ni le moindre motif. Je veux simplement faire mon devoir, ne vous laisser rien ignorer de ce qui pourroit être utile, &, au cas que vous jugeassiez nécessaire que j’allasse demander à Mrs. W. des Explications, ou le projet d’un plan, soit de votre part, soit de maniere à ne point Vous compromettre, de suivre de mon mieux vos ordres pro bono publico.

Je Suis avec un vrai & grand respect, / De Votre Excellence / Le très-humble & très-obéis- / sant serviteur

C.w.f. Dumas

P.S. La personne en question (que je vous nom̃erai dans une autre Lettre, si vous ne la devinez, par celle ci) m’a assuré sérieusement & positivement, qu’il sera aussi aisé de lever successivement 50 millions, que les 10 millions dont il est question par la présente. Mais cette personne ne sera plus ici pour être consultée quand vous me répondrez, Monsieur; & voilà pourquoi il n’y a plus d’éclaircissemens à avoir là-dessus, qu’en s’adressant directement & secretement à Mrs. W, au cas que vous en desiriez.

2e. P.S. Mr. Texeira un Juif Portugais ici, m’a prié de consulter V. E. Si & com̃ent on pourroit acheter des terres en Sud-Caroline, sans que le Proprietaire fût obligé d’y aller résider lui même autremt. que par Procureur ou Mandataire. Cest leur Synagogue ici qui spécule pour une telle acquisition, afin d’y envoyer & employer utilement une troupe de leurs pauvres dont ils se trouvent 510surcharges. Mr. Texeira m’a dit qu’ils avoient dejà été en Marché pour des terres que Mrs. Salvador de leur religion à Londres possedent en ninty-Six, mais que les possesseurs ne vouloient s’en défaire. Et le Neveu de Mr. Salvador m’a dit que le márché n’avoit pu se conclure, parce qu’on n’avoit offert que [6?]000 £. St. pour des terres qui valoient beaucoup plus. Ceci pourroit être com̃uniqué, avec mes meilleurs respects à S. E. Mr. Laurens[. . .].2

Translation

Sir The Hague, 30 May 1783

I have just had a conversation with one of the most important men in the country, and the matters we discussed appear so urgent as to be communicated to you at once. Be informed that, first, your loan from Amsterdam of five million florins would have long since been filled had it been handled by Wilhem & Jan Willink alone, not because the two other participating banks lacked the will, but because, having less standing, they could not command the same influence, cooperation, and success in the exchanges of either Amsterdam or the other cities; and, second, that if Congress, while still allowing the three houses to complete the first contract for five million, wished also to open a new loan for at least ten million florins to be handled solely by Wilhem & Jan Willink, we are assured that this loan would be filled very quickly, even before the one for five million could be completed. I am told that speed is of the essence, before the other transactions, increasingly being made for this country itself, sweep up the money, and before the lenders have the option of raising interest rates. He declared to me that the Willinks have no knowledge that this overture has been made to me. In addition to its importance, I have another special reason for urgently sharing this information with you after receiving permission to do so: it is that in no time this notion is sure to be passed in conversation to any member of Congress seeking to find out how to raise money in Holland with the same ease and speed enjoyed so particularly and for so long by the English.1

Having set forth the above as faithfully and exactly as I could, it remains, sir, for me to ask that, however you may decide to use this information, you will take care to avoid giving the two other houses reason to resent me, as if I had adopted other people's opinions in order to exclude them, when in fact nothing was further from my thoughts. I wish simply to do my duty and to inform you of everything that might prove useful; and, should you deem it necessary for me to ask the Willinks for an explanation or the outline of a plan, either on your behalf or in a manner that does not compromise you, I wish to follow as best I can your orders pro bono publico.

I am with true and deep respect your excellency's very humble and very obedient servant

C.w.f. Dumas 511

P.S. The person in question (whom I shall name in another letter, if you do not guess his identity from this) gave me serious, positive assurances that it would be as easy to raise fifty million successively as the ten million mentioned here. But this gentleman will no longer be available for consultation when you reply, sir, and that is why it is only possible to obtain further clarification by writing directly and in secret to the Willinks, if you so desire.

2d. P.S. Mr. Texeira, a Portuguese Jew here, beseeched me to consult your excellency about whether and how one might purchase lands in South Carolina without the owner being obliged to go live there himself otherwise than by a proxy or by an authorized agent. It is their synagogue here that is considering making such a purchase, in order to send and provide useful employment for a troupe of their poor, with whom they are overburdened. Mr. Texeira told me that they were already in the market for lands that the Salvadors, their co-religionists in London, possessed in Ninety-Six, but that the owners did not want to get rid of them. And Mr. Salvador's nephew told me that the sale was not able to be concluded because they only offered [6?]000 £ sterling for lands that were worth much more. This could be communicated, with my respects to his excellency Mr. Laurens[. . .].2

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Paris à S. E. Mr. Adams M. P.”; endorsed: “Mr Dumas / 30 May. Ansd 5 June / 1783.” FC (Nationaal Archief:Dumas Papers, Microfilm, Reel 2, f. 547–548).

The proposal came from Pieter Johan van Berckel, the new Dutch minister to the United States. JA identifies him obliquely in his reply of 5 June (LbC, APM Reel 108) and by name in his 11 July letter to Robert Morris (Morris, Papers , 8:275–276). In Winter, Amer. Finance and Dutch Investment (1:122), Pieter J. van Winter attributes Van Berckel's motives, at least in part, to his dissatisfaction with the Van Staphorsts for failing to sign a petition supporting his brother, Engelbert François van Berckel, during his political troubles. In his 5 June reply, JA indicates his apprehension “that the Gentleman you conversed with concerning the Loan is decieved, as his worthy Brother was on a former occasion, by whose Advice chiefly I was led to open the Loan with those three Houses. He was then of opinion, that even ten Millions might be obtained; whereas the three Houses have not been able to obtain in a year, so much Money as Mr. Hodshon would have obtained in a Month, if not in the first day.” Engelbert had been one of the principal people involved in convincing JA to switch his loan from John Hodshon, considered pro-British, to bankers more closely allied with the antistadholder Patriot Party. It is noteworthy that in his letter of 16 June to Robert R. Livingston as well as in that of 11 July to Morris, JA advocated turning to the house of Hope, also considered pro-British, if a new effort to raise a loan was to be undertaken (vol. 11:53; 12:434–435, 450, 462–463; Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 6:490).

The second postscript is not with this letter in the Adams Papers and is supplied from Dumas’ file copy. In his reply of 5 June JA reported that he had “waited last Evening on Mr. Laurens with your Postscript, respecting the Purchase of Lands in South Carolina— Mr. Laurens will give me his Sentiments of it” (LbC, APM Reel 108). No response by Laurens, either through JA or directly to Dumas, has been found, and nothing further than is related here is known about the proposal or its outcome. The synagogue presumably was interested in the 100,000 acres on the Saluda River near the Ninety-Six District purchased in 1755 by Joseph Salvador, a London merchant originally from Amsterdam. By 1783, however, business reverses had forced him to sell or otherwise convey nearly all of the acreage, 512most of it in 1775 when Rebecca Mendes Da Costa received 20,000 acres to satisfy a legal judgment and 59,900 acres were sold to a consortium that also included Da Costa. Left only with a heavily mortgaged plantation, Salvador moved to South Carolina in 1784 and died at Charleston in 1786 (Barnett A. Elzas, The Jews of South Carolina, Phila., 1905, p. 109–114; Laurens, Papers , 4:334–335).

Robert R. Livingston to the American Peace Commissioners, 31 May 1783 Livingston, Robert R. Adams, John Franklin, Benjamin Jay, John

Robert R. Livingston to the American Peace Commissioners

(Copy) No: 4. Gentlemen, Philadelphia. 31st: May. 83.

Congress were yesterday pleased to pass the enclosed Resolutions on the subject of the payment of British Debts—1 The language they speak requires no Comment— I complained in my last of your long Silence, or rather laid before you the Complaint of Congress. These I think receive additional force from Intelligence I have since had, that the Negotiations are still going on, and that important Propositions have been made you from Holland.2 As Congress have adjourned for two Days, & the Packet sails tomorrow, I cannot procure their Instructions on this Subject, tho’ I think I may venture to say, that they will not, without reluctance, go one step further than their honor requires of them, in making new engagements which may involve them in the disputes of Europe, from which they wish to be totally disengaged.—

I make no observations on these Propositions, or your power to accede to them, being well persuaded that you will take no Steps in this business without a full persuasion that important Advantages will result therefrom to these States.— The second Proposition, in case France & Spain should decline acceding to the first, is more peculiarly delicate from the inability of the contracting Powers to enforce them, if, which is hardly to be supposed, they should unite in wishing it. I cannot help lamenting, since so much time has elapsed before any Conclusion is formed, that you had not thought it adviseable to write to me on this subject, explaining the advantages & disadvantages of the measure and ennabling me to take the Sense of Congress thereon: for tho’ they have the highest Confidence in your judgement, & knowledge of the true Interests of this Country, yet, I am persuaded, that they think it a duty to see with their own eyes & to form their own Conclusions on great national Objects, where there is a possibility of so doing. The experience of 513the last war has shewn that the Propositions of the Empress of Russia were little more than a dead letter— those whom England dared to offend derived no advantage from them. Our Engagements therefore on this head will, in my opinion, add little weight to them, unless the great Maritime Powers of Europe agree to support them, and they may involve us in disagreable discussions. These howr: are only my Sentiments: those of Congress I am ignorant of—

The 5th: & 6th. Articles of the Provisional Treaty excite much ferment here, for, tho’ the most dissatisfied Spirits acknowledge the whole Treaty taken together to answer their highest expectations, yet they wish to take only what they like, & leave out what they disapprove, and such is the relaxation of Governmt: so great the disorders & licentiousness introduced by the war, that it will be found very difficult to bridle the just resentments of some, and the unfounded apprehensions that others entertain of re-imbursements, that may affect their particular Interests.—

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, / with the greatest esteem & respect, / Yr: Most Obedt: humle: servt:

(signed) Robt: R. Livingston—

RC and enclosure (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Hoñble, John Adams / Benja: Franklin, / John Jay, & / Henry Laurens. / Esquires.”; endorsed: “Mr Livingstone to the Ministers / for Peace 31. May. 1783.”

Livingston enclosed a copy of Congress’ resolution of 30 May responding to Virginia's resolution of 17 Dec. 1782 and a 19 March 1783 letter from the legislature of Pennsylvania, both concerning the payment of debts owed British creditors. The peace commissioners were directed to make representations to the British negotiators to delay demands for repayment until three years after the signing of the definitive treaty and to renounce the interest accrued on the amounts owed during the war. The commissioners were also instructed to seek, in the definitive treaty, a reciprocal arrangement for the settlement of the expenses incurred for the subsistence of prisoners of war ( JCC , 24:372–376). Livingston also enclosed a copy of Congress’ 26 May resolution directing the peace commissioners and Washington to protest the British removal of slaves and other property during their evacuation, for which see Livingston's 28 May letter to the commissioners, and note 1, above.

Livingston is here referring to C. W. F. Dumas’ letter of 20 March, with which he enclosed extracts of eighteen letters written by him to various people between 24 Jan. and 14 March (PCC, No. 93, II, f. 220–232, 291–292). Included were his letters to JA of 24, 28, and 30 Jan; 4, 13, and 18 Feb.; and 6 March, all above. These letters concerned, wholly or in part, the proposal offered by Engelbert François van Berckel and supported by Pieter van Bleiswyck that Dumas passed on to JA and his colleagues in his letter of 24 January. The two men suggested that to remove obstacles to an Anglo-Dutch peace treaty with regard to Dutch neutral commerce, the United States should accede to the Armed Neutrality and enter into a similar agreement with France, Spain, and the Netherlands or a bilateral agreement with the Netherlands. For the reasoning behind the proposal, see note 2 to the letter of 24 Jan., above. Dumas did not include JA's letter of 29 Jan., above, in which he indicated that the commissioners believed that the power to formally accede to the Armed Neutrality resided in Francis Dana, but that Congress’ resolution of 5 Oct. 1780 ( JCC , 51418:905–906) permitted them “to pledge the faith of the United-States to the observance of the Principles of the Armed Neutrality.”

In his report on Dumas’ letter of 20 March 1783 and its enclosures, Livingston attributed the Dutch proposals to the States General and inferred, without having seen JA's letter of 29 Jan., that the commissioners had encouraged the first two proposals but that the end of the war had nullified whatever power they or Dana held to accede to the Armed Neutrality or to any other agreement specifically establishing neutral rights. Livingston recommended that the commissioners be permitted to include an article on neutral rights in the definitive peace treaty; to conclude an agreement establishing neutral rights with France, Spain, and the Netherlands if absolutely necessary; but not to agree to any agreement of such a nature to which France, Spain, and the Netherlands were not parties (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 6:473–474).

On 12 June Congress resolved that “as the true interest of these states requires that they should be as little as possible entangled in the politics and controversies of European nations,” the power to accede to the Armed Neutrality should not be renewed and that if any provisions on neutral rights were included in the definitive treaty the commissioners were “to avoid accompanying them by any engagements which shall oblige the contracting parties to support those stipulations by arms” ( JCC , 24:393–394).