FOOTNOTES:
[104] Letter of Jay to Monroe, dated February 5, 1795.—Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. i., page 336.
[105] Entitled “A View of the Conduct of the Executive of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the Years 1794, '5, & '6.”
[106] Washington asked the opinion of his cabinet on the subject of a change of ministers, and at a meeting on the second of July, the three secretaries, Pickering, Wolcott, and M'Henry, addressed a letter to him, in which they said:—
“On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require, that they have near the French government some faithful organ to explain their real views, and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents, to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealous and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We, therefore, conceive it to be indispensably necessary, that the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead.... In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him, which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, can not be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thomas Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and, from the connection of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt the anonymous letters were written with his privity.
“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of a public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister designs, and show that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.”
The attorney-general, in his letter to the president, said: “I have formed an opinion that our minister plenipotentiary at Paris ought not to be permitted to continue there any longer, than until the arrival of his successor; and that it is not only expedient, but absolutely necessary, that he should be immediately recalled, and another minister appointed. Upon this subject I concur in sentiment with the heads of departments, as expressed in their letter of the second instant.”
The attorney-general then gave, as reasons for his opinion—First, that “from his letters in the office of the department of state, it appears he has neglected or failed to justify, or truly represent, to the republic of France the conduct and motives of his own country, relative to the treaty with Great Britain.” Secondly, that “his correspondence with the executive of the United States has been, and is, infrequent, unsatisfactory, reserved, and without cordiality or confidence on his part.”
“I might add other reasons, if they were necessary,” continued the attorney-general; “for instance, that he corresponds less confidentially with the executive of the United States, than with the opposers and libellers of his administration; and that there is too much reason to believe he is furthering the views of a faction in America, more than the peace and happiness of the United States.”