Memoirs of the Duchesse de Dino (Afterwards Duchesse de Talleyrand et de Sagan), 1836-1840

by duchesse de Dorothée Dino

Our expectations, reasonably based upon promises so solemnly given, were not realised. The French Chambers met on July 31, 1834, and though our Minister at Paris urged the French Ministers to lay the matter before the Chambers, they refused. He then insisted that if the Chambers had been prorogued without coming to any conclusion in the matter, they should be again convoked in time to enable their decision to be known at Washington before the meeting of Congress. This reasonable demand was not only refused, but the Chambers were prorogued until December 29, a date so remote that their decision in all probability could not have been obtained in time to reach Washington before the Congress was forced to adjourn by the terms of the Constitution. The reasons given by the Ministry for their refusal to convoke the Chambers at a nearer date were afterwards shown to have been by no means insurmountable, for the Chambers were convoked on December 1 for the special purpose of considering home affairs, though this fact did not become known to our Government until after the last session of the Congress. As our reasonable expectations were thus deceived, it was my imperative duty to consult Congress as to the advisability of reprisals, in case the stipulations of the treaty were not promptly carried out. For this purpose a communication was indispensable. It would have been unworthy of us in the course of this communication to refrain from an explanation of all the facts necessary for an exact comprehension of the affair, or to shrink from truth for fear of offending others. On the other hand, to have gone a step further with the object of wounding the pride of a government and a people with whom we have so many reasons to cultivate friendly relations to our mutual advantage would have been both imprudent and disastrous.

As past events had warned us of the difficulty of drawing up the most simple statement of our grievances without wounding the feelings of those who had become responsible for redressing them, I did my best to prevent any interpretation of the message containing the recommendations placed before Congress as a threat to France. I disavowed any such design and further declared that the pride and the power of France were so well known that no one would expect to extort satisfaction by fear. The message did not reach Paris until more than a month after the Chambers had met, and to such an extent did the Ministry disregard our legitimate claims, that our Minister was informed that the matter would not be made a Cabinet question when it had been brought forward.

Although the message was not officially communicated to the Government and although it contained definite declarations that no menace was intended, the French Ministers determined to regard the conditional proposal of reprisals as a threat and as an insult, which the national honour made it their duty to reject.

The measures by which they proceeded to show their resentment of this supposed insult were the immediate recall of their Minister from Washington, the offer of passports to the American Minister at Paris, and a declaration in the legislative Chambers that diplomatic relations with the United States Government were suspended.

After they had thus avenged the dignity of France, they proceeded to show their justice. For this purpose a law was immediately presented to the Chamber of Deputies asking for the funds necessary to perform the terms of the treaty. As this proposal afterwards became a law, the terms of which are now one of the chief subjects of discussion between the two nations, I am bound to retrace the history of this law.

The Financial Minister in his explanation alluded to the measures which had been taken in answer to the supposed insult, and represented the performance of the treaty as imperative upon the honour and justice of France. As the mouthpiece of the Ministry he declared that the message, until it had received the sanction of Congress, was merely the simple expression of the President's personal opinion. On the other hand he declared that France had entered into engagements which were binding upon her honour. In accordance with this point of view, the only condition upon which the French Ministry proposed to consider the payment of the money was to defer this payment until it was certain that the United States Government had done nothing which could injure the interests of France, or, in other terms, that Congress had not authorised any measure hostile to France.

At this moment the French Cabinet could not have known what was the attitude or the decision of Congress, but on January 14 the Senate decided that there was no reason for the moment to take any legislative measures with reference to the business proceeding between the United States and France, and no decision upon the subject was made in the Representative Chamber. These facts were known at Paris before March 28, 1835, when the Commission which had been considering the bill of indemnity presented its report to the Chamber of Deputies. This Commission repeated the opinions of the Ministry, declared that the Congress had put aside the proposals of the President, and proposed the adoption of the law with no other restriction than that originally stated. The French Ministry and the Chambers thus knew that if the position they had adopted, and which had been so frequently stated to be incompatible with the honour of France, was maintained, and if the law was adopted in its original form, the money would be paid and this unfortunate discussion would come to an end. But this flattering hope was soon destroyed by an amendment introduced into the law at the moment of its adoption, providing that the money should not be paid until the Government had received satisfactory explanations concerning the President's message of December 2, 1834. What is still more remarkable, the President of the Council[ [148] adopted this amendment and consented to its insertion in the law. As for the pretended insult which had induced them to recall their Minister and send our Minister his passports, not until then did they propose to ask for an explanation of this incident. The proposals and opinions which they had declared could not reasonably be imputed to the American people or government were put forward as obstacles to the accomplishment of an act of justice towards this government and people. They had declared that the honour of France required the performance of an undertaking into which the King had entered unless Congress adopted the proposals of the message. They were certain that Congress had not adopted them and none the less they refused to perform the terms of the treaty until they had obtained from the President an explanation of an opinion which they had themselves characterised as personal and ineffectual. The supposition that I had intended to threaten or to insult the French Government is as unfounded as any attempt to extort from the fears of that nation that which its feelings of justice would have made it refuse, would have been foolish and ridiculous; but the Constitution of the United States obliges the President to explain to Congress the situation of the country and the American people cannot admit the intervention of any Government whatever upon earth in the free performance of the domestic duties which the Constitution has imposed upon its public officials. The discussions proceeding between the different branches of our Government concern ourselves alone, and our representatives are responsible for any words which they may utter only to their own constituents and to their fellows in office. If, in the course of these discussions, facts have been inaccurately stated, or wrong inferences have been drawn from them, correction will necessarily follow when the mistakes are perceived, from their love of justice and their sense of self-respect; but they will never submit to be questioned upon that matter as a right by any foreign Power. When these discussions lead to action, then our responsibility to foreign Powers begins, but it is then a national and not an individual responsibility. The principle upon which a demand is issued for an explanation of the terms of my message would also justify the claim of any foreign Power to demand an explanation of the terms employed in a committee report or in the speech of a member of Congress.

It is not the first time that the French Government has taken offence at messages from American presidents. President Washington and President Adams, in the performance of their duties to the American people, encountered ill-feeling on the part of the French Directory. The grievance raised by the Minister of Charles X. and removed by the explanations offered by our Minister at Paris, has already been mentioned when it was known that the Minister of the reigning King took offence at my message last year by interpreting it in a sense which the very terms of it forbade. Our last Minister at Paris in reply to the last note which showed dissatisfaction with the language of the message, sent a communication to the French Government under date January 28, 1835, which was calculated to remove all the impressions that undue susceptibility might have received. This note repeated and recalled to the attention of the French Government the disavowal contained in the message itself of any intention to use intimidation by threats; it declared in all truth that the message did not contain either in words or intention any accusation of bad faith against the King of the French; it drew a very reasonable distinction between the right of complaining in measured terms of the failure to perform the terms of the convention, and an imputation that the delay in performance was due to evil motives; in short it showed that the necessary exercise of this right was not to be regarded as an offensive imputation. Although this communication was made by our Minister without instructions and entirely upon his own responsibility, my approbation has since made it a governmental act and this approbation was officially notified to the French Government on April 25, 1835. However, it produced no effect. The law was passed with the unfortunate amendment, supported by the King's Ministers and was definitely approved by the King.

The people of the United States are reasonably inclined to pursue a pacific policy in their dealings with foreign nations; the people must therefore be informed of the loyalty of their government to this policy. In the present case this policy was carried to the furthest limits compatible with due self-respect. The note of January 28 was not the only communication which our Minister took the responsibility of offering upon the same subject and from the same point of view; when he found that it was proposed to make the payment of a just debt dependent upon the accomplishment of a condition which he knew could never be performed, he thought himself bound to make a further attempt to convince the French Government that, if our self-respect and our regard for the dignity of other nations prevented us from using any language which might give offence, at the same time we would never recognise the right of any foreign government to require an explanation of communications passing between the different branches of our public service. To prevent any misunderstanding the Minister recalled the language used in a preceding Note and added that any explanation which could be reasonably asked or honourably given, had already been furnished and that the annexation of this demand to the law as a condition, was not only useless but might be regarded as offensive and would certainly never be fulfilled.

When this last communication, to which I called the special attention of the Congress, was submitted to me, I conceived the hope that its obvious intention of securing a prompt and honourable settlement of the difficulties between the two nations would have been achieved, and I therefore did not hesitate to give it my sanction and my complete approbation. So much was due from me to the Minister who had made himself responsible for the act. The people of the United States were publicly informed of it and I am now communicating it to the people's representatives to show how far the Executive power has gone in its attempts to restore a good understanding between the two countries. My approval would have been communicated to the French Government if an official request for it had been received.