Almost two months had passed since the Baron von Thulemeier had first broached the subject of a Prussian-American treaty at his meeting with JA on 19 February. The delay in submitting the draft treaty to JA was likely owing to the inability of either the Prussian diplomat or JA to immediately obtain a copy of the 1783 Swedish-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, upon which Thulemeier planned to base his proposed treaty; see Thulemeier’s letter of 14 March 1784, and note 2, above.

True to his intentions, Thulemeier’s draft treaty closely resembled the Swedish treaty. The most obvious difference, of course, was that references to the king of Sweden were changed to the king of Prussia. But the preamble, the concluding “Article Separé,” and 24 of the treaty’s 27 articles are virtually identical to their Swedish counterparts. These articles, with their Swedish equivalents in brackets, were Arts. 1–2 [1–2], 6 [3–4], 7–23 [5–21], 24–27 [24–27]. Art. 5 of the draft does not appear in the body of the Swedish treaty but rather is the fifth of five separate articles signed at the same time as the main treaty (Miller, Treaties , 2:123–148).

The two articles from the Swedish treaty not included were Nos. 22 and 23. The first concerned the time allotted for “merchants and subjects” from both sides to evacuate with their “effects and moveables” in the event that war broke out between Sweden and the United States. The second prohibited Swedes and Americans from obtaining letters of marque from a nation with which Sweden or the United States was at war (same, p. 141–142).

In the left margin of the translation is the note: “The word North is not in the Stile or Title of the Confederation.” This perhaps is the best evidence of the source of John Pintard’s translation, for in the margin at this point in the Franklin-Jay copy, John Jay wrote, “The word septentrionale is not in the Stile or Title of the Confederation.” The formula “United States of North America” is identical to that used in the Swedish treaty as well as in the 1778 Franco-American treaties of commerce and alliance, but it differs from the 1782 Dutch-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which referred to the United States of America. In his draft of the Dutch treaty JA had used that term, and when the Dutch sought to add the word “North” to precede “America,” he refused to alter his original wording. But in another respect Thulemeier’s draft differed from the treaties previously concluded by the United States with France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, for at this point those treaties continued “to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts …,” listing all of the thirteen United States (vol. 13:263, 301, 333, 348; Miller, Treaties , 2:3, 35, 123).

At this point, and elsewhere in the draft treaty where appropriate, Jay inserted the word “Citoyens” to distinguish citizens of the United States from subjects of the king of Prussia. In his translation, Pintard here and elsewhere included the word citizen but then crossed it out.

This and the following article, referring as they do to specific Prussian concerns, do not appear in the Swedish-American treaty.

In the margin of the Franklin-Jay copy, Jay wrote, for insertion at this point, “Productions, Fabriques, &.”

This article is derived from Arts. 3 and 4 of the Swedish-American treaty. There the right of each nation to most-favored nation status in the ports of the other was stated in separate articles, but as the right was reciprocal, only one article was really necessary. The Dutch sought to do the same thing in the 1782 Dutch-American treaty, but the final treaty retained two articles (vol. 13:267–268, 304, 328, 351–352; Miller, Treaties , 2:125–126).

In the margin of the Franklin-Jay copy, Jay wrote, “qu: what does this mean?” and underlined the passage to which he referred: “moyennant qu’il se soumette à la demonstration publique suivant les loix du pays.” Pintard retained the underlining in his translation.

In the Swedish treaty the article contained an additional sentence stating that papers could not be required of vessels under convoy by warships. The omission of that provision was probably owing to Prussia’s lack of a significant navy (Miller, Treaties , 2:132–133).

In the Franklin-Jay copy, Jay wrote, “l’inventaire” to replace “l’ouverture,” that is, inventory as opposed to opening. The wording was Thulemeier’s because in the Swedish treaty the word was “l’inventaire” (same, p. 133).

In the margin of the Franklin-Jay copy, Jay wrote, “See the article on the Subject in our Treaty with France Will they not interfere?” Jay referred to Art. 17 (19 as originally 158 numbered) of the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (same, p. 16–17).

To this point this article is virtually identical to Art. 26 in the Swedish treaty, but there, rather than the consular functions being established according to the usual practices of the two nations, they were to be defined by a “Convention particuliere.” No such consular convention was ever negotiated, and the functions of the consuls of the respective countries were not defined until the conclusion of a new commercial treaty with Sweden and Norway in 1827 (same, 2:144, 3:292–295).

MS (Adams Papers); endorsed by JA: “Observations.” Filmed at [April 1784].

MS (PCC, No. 84, V, f. 337–338); notation: “Faithfully translated / from the Original by / John Pintard.” Pintard did the translation from a copy of the French text in C. W. F. Dumas’ hand (same, f. 335–336) enclosed by JA with his 7 June letter to the president of Congress, below.

This memorandum recounts JA’s conversation with the Baron von Thulemeier on the evening of 5 May (to Thulemeier, 4 May, and note 2, below). Early on the 5th, JA sent Thulemeier the copy of the draft treaty (LbC, APM Reel 107) that Benjamin Franklin and John Jay had returned with their suggestions for changes, for which see the 29 April letter from Franklin and Jay, below. At his meeting with Thulemeier, JA presumably discussed his colleagues’ proposals for alterations as well as his own. The Prussian 161 diplomat then produced a memorandum of the conversation, which he sent to JA to ensure that there was no misunderstanding regarding the American proposals that Thulemeier would be sending to the foreign ministry at Berlin for its consideration. Since JA did not reply to Thulemeier regarding the memorandum or offer any objections to the Prussian’s account of the points discussed, it can be assumed that the memorandum accurately recounts the exchange. On 6 June Thulemeier called on JA and presented him with the foreign ministry’s response to the American suggestions for changes. The document, in French and dated [ante 6 June], contained three columns (Adams Papers, filmed at [April 1784]). The first contained the text of articles 3, 17, 15, and 21, for which substantial changes were requested. The second column contained the text of Thulemeier’s [post 5 May] memorandum. The third column contained the Prussian response to the American proposals. The notes that follow give the Prussian response for each point raised in the [post 5 May] memorandum then the translation of that response taken from Pintard’s translation (PCC, No. 84, V, f. 332–333).

“Peut se changer sans difficulté.”; “May be changed without any difficulty.”

“De même.”; “The same.”

“Accordé, d’autant plus que le terme général de marchandises comprend également les productions crues et fabriquées.”; “Granted, the rather as the general term of Merchandizes comprehends alike, productions that grow & Manufactures.”

The French text and the English translation provide an accurate rendition of Art. 4 of the 1782 Dutch-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (vol. 13:352–353). The Prussian response was: “Cet article pourra être minuté ainsi qu’on le desire dans les observations.”; “This Article can be minuted as is desired in the Observations.”

“Accordé.”; “Granted.”

The French text and the English translation provide an accurate rendition of Art. 17 (19 as originally numbered) of the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (Miller, Treaties , 2:16–17). The Prussian response was: “On pourra minuter cet article de la manière suivante: ‘Les vaisseaux armés de l’une des parties contractantes ne pourront conduire les prises qu’ils auront faites sur leurs ennemis, dans les ports de l’autre, à moins qu’ils ne soyent forcés d’y entrer par tempête ou péril de la mer. En ce dernier cas elles ne pourront être arrêteés ni saisies; mais on les fera sortir le plutôt possible.’”; “This Article may be minuted in the following manner. ‘The armed Vessels of one of the contracting parties, shall not conduct the prizes they shall have taken from their ennemies, into the Ports of the other, unless they are forced to enter therein by stress of Weather or danger of the sea. In this last case they shall not be stopped nor seized; but shall be obliged to go away as soon as possible.’”