RC (Adams Papers).

All of the documents referred to in this letter were carried by Col. Josiah Harmar. Franklin sent the president of Congress’ letter to the commissioners of 14 Jan. (vol. 15:455–456) with which were enclosed Congress’ 14 Jan. proclamation of the treaty and its 14 Jan. resolution recommending that the states comply with the treaty’s provisions regarding loyalists ( JCC , 26:29–31). The president’s letter and its enclosures are at 14 Jan. in the Adams Papers. While Franklin refers to “three Letters for yourself,” there were probably four. These were from Elbridge Gerry and Arthur Lee, both 14 Jan., and Samuel Osgood, 7 Dec. 1783 and [14 Jan. 1784] (vol. 15:398–414, 447–455). The endorsements on the letters from Lee and Osgood indicate that each was received on 5 April. While Gerry’s letter is not similarly endorsed, he indicates that it was to go with 106 Harmar, which is confirmed by JA in his reply to Gerry of 27 June, below.

Franklin and John Jay wrote to David Hartley on 31 March indicating that despite delays caused by bad weather, the ratified treaty had arrived and they were ready to exchange ratifications at Hartley’s convenience (Jay, Unpublished Papers , 2:707). Hartley replied on 9 April that measures to affect the exchange “with all convenient Speed” were under way (PCC, No. 85, f. 436). Replying to Franklin’s letter on 10 April, JA expressed his hope that the exchange would occur expeditiously, but it did not take place until 12 May (LbC, APM Reel 107; Miller, Treaties , 2:151).

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “To his Excelly. John Adams Esqr. / at the Hague.”

LbC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Their Excellencys Benjamin Franklin / & John Jay Esqrs”; APM Reel 107.

This was the 28 Feb. letter from Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, above. It was presumably communicated to the Baron von Thulemeier in early March, but there is no reference to it in any of JA’s previous letters.

JA had received a letter of 10 Nov. 1783 from John Hurd (Adams Papers), a Boston merchant, requesting his assistance in obtaining a clarification of the date on which hostilities had ceased in American waters. Enclosed with the letter was a copy (not found) of the 18 Aug. petition to Congress signed by seventy merchants from Boston and nearby ports, including Hurd and Isaac Smith Sr. The petitioners complained that they had assumed that hostilities ended in American waters on 3 March, but that British authorities at New York considered 3 April to be the decisive date, resulting in the seizure and condemnation of vessels that the merchants had thought to be in no danger (PCC, No. 41, I, f. 383–386). At issue was the language of the proclamations of the cessation of hostilities signed by George III on [14 Feb.] and by JA, Franklin, and Jay on 20 February. The proclamations declared the end of hostilities would date from the signature of the Anglo-French preliminary treaty on 3 February. The relevant passage with regard to the merchants’ complaint was “that the Term Should be one Month from the Channel and the North Seas as far as the Canary Islands, inclusively, whether in the Ocean or the Mediterranean; Two Months from the Said Canary Islands, as far as the Equinoctial Line or Equator” (vol. 14:264–266, 281, 284–285). The Canary Islands lay on the 28th parallel, which runs through central Florida, south of any of the thirteen United States. Americans, therefore, assumed, and JA agreed here and elsewhere, that 3 March was the applicable date. This issue had been raised in Robert R. Livingston’s letter to the commissioners of 21 April and again in Congress’ instructions of 29 October. JA and his colleagues always assumed that the 3 March date applied to the United States and should be self-evident to all parties (vol. 14:437; 15:34, 36, 146, 332–333). For further comments on the issue, see Franklin’s letter of 16 April 1784; JA’s 20 April letters to Franklin and Jay and to Hurd; and the commissioners’ second letter of 28 Oct. to the Duke of Dorset, all below.