What can we do? If a French Minister advises us to cede to the Spaniards the whole river of the Mississippi, and five hundred miles of territory to the eastward of it, are we bound by our instructions to put our signature to the cession, when the English themselves are willing we should extend to the river, and enjoy our natural right to its navigation? If we should be counselled to relinquish our right to the fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, when the British Ministry are ready, by treaty, to acknowledge our right to it, are we obliged to relinquish it? If we are advised to restore and compensate the tories, are we to comply? If we know, or have reasons to believe, that things, which will have weight upon the minds of the British Ministry against us upon some points, will be communicated to them in some way or other, secret or open, if we communicate it to this Court, are we bound to do it?
I cannot think, that a construction, so literal and severe, was ever intended to be put upon it; and, therefore, I see no way of doing my duty to Congress, but to interpret the instruction, as we do all general precepts and maxims, by such restrictions and limitations, as reason, necessity, and the nature of things demand.
It may sometimes be known to a deputy, that an instruction from his principal was given upon information of mistaken facts, what is he to do? When he knows, that if the truth had been known, his principal would have given a directly contrary order, is he to follow that, which issued upon mistake? When he knows, or has only good reason to believe, that, if his principal were on the spot, and fully informed of the present state of facts, he would give contrary directions, is he bound by such as were given before? It cannot be denied, that instructions are binding, that it is a duty to obey them, and that a departure from them cannot be justified; but I think it cannot be denied on the other hand, that in our peculiar situation, cases may happen, in which it might become our duty to depend upon being excused, (or, if you will, pardoned) for presuming, that if Congress were upon the spot, they would judge as we do.
I presume not to dictate, nor to advise, but I may venture to give my opinion, as I do freely, and with much real concern for the public, that it would be better, if every instruction in being were totally repealed, which enjoins upon any American Minister to follow, or ask the advice, or even to communicate with any French, or other Minister, or Ambassador in the world. It is an inextricable embarrassment everywhere. Advice would not be more seldom asked, nor communication less frequent. It would be more freely given. A communication of information, or a request of council would then be received as a compliment, and a mark of respect; it is now considered as a duty and a right. Your Ministers would have more weight, and be the more respected through the world. Congress cannot do too much to give weight to their own Ministers, for, they may depend upon it, great and unjustifiable pains are taken to prevent them from acquiring reputation, and even to prevent an idea taking root in any part of Europe, that anything has been, or can be done by them. And there is nothing, that humbles and depresses, nothing that shackles and confines, in short, nothing that renders totally useless all your Ministers in Europe, so much as these positive instructions, to consult and communicate with French Ministers, upon all occasions, and follow their advice. And I really think it would be better to constitute the Count de Vergennes, our sole Minister, and give him full powers to make peace and treat with all Europe, than to continue any of us in the service, under the instructions in being, if they are to be understood in that unlimited sense, which some persons contend for.
I hope, that nothing indecent has escaped me upon this occasion. If any expressions appear too strong, the great importance of the subject, and the deep impression it has made on my mind and heart, must be my apology.
I am, Sir, your humble servant,
JOHN ADAMS.
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
Paris, November 24th, 1782.
Sir,