The United States have been induced to constitute this mission thus early, solely from the laudable views abovementioned. It is singularly unfortunate then, that the very circumstance, which they intended as a mark of particular respect and consideration for her Imperial Majesty's person and government, should be turned against them, and have an operation to defeat the design of it.
Besides, it is to be observed, that the King of Great Britain has by his Commissioner, consented to treat with the Commissioners of the United States, whose powers had date long before he had acknowledged their independence, and without requiring them to produce new ones bearing date since that time. Which is a strong and necessary implication, that he did not consider that acknowledgment as conferring their sovereignty upon them, but, on the contrary, they were a complete sovereign power before, and had a full right to name their Ministers as such, to treat with him of a peace. He cannot, therefore, consider it as a violation of the laws of neutrality, if any neutral power should consider them in the same light, and receive their Minister, whose letters of credence bear date prior to his acknowledgment of their independence.
Answer.
III. "Besides, no Minister has been received at the Court of London from America yet, and her Imperial Majesty could not consistently receive a Minister from America, before that Court had done it."
Reply.
There seems not to be any objections against the immediate reception of a Minister from the United States at the Court of London, which might not be made with equal force against the reception of Ministers from any of the other late belligerent powers, and as they have already mutually sent and received Ministers, it is highly probable there are, in fact, no such objections existing. The omission, therefore, must be attributed to the only apparent cause, viz. the great distance of the two countries, which alone would render the appearance of a Minister from the United States at the Court of London impossible. Unless it should be supposed that Court is averse to forming any intimate connexions with the United States, the contrary of which seems to be the case, from the generous, liberal, and wise policy they have in contemplation respecting them.
But if it should be laid down as a principle, that the powers of Europe could not consistently receive a Minister from the United States till one had been received at the Court of London, it might have serious consequences upon the exercise of the right of sovereignty, and the most important interests, not only of the United States, but of such of the powers of Europe, as have not already received a Minister from them. For it would oblige them, whether they chose to do it or not, if they wished to form connexions with those powers, to send a Minister to the Court of London, as a step necessarily preparatory to that end. And when they had done this, it would be in the power of that Court, by refusing to receive him, to render their design abortive, and thus to prevent all friendly and beneficial intercourse between those powers and the United States, which cannot be formed and maintained but by the instrumentality of public Ministers.
If then it is clear, that the United States are not at all concerned in the present mediation, that their provisional treaty has become absolute, and that their definitive treaty may be concluded at any time, and without waiting for the conclusion of the definitive treaty under the mediation; that their independence has been unconditionally acknowledged by the King of Great Britain, as a preliminary to any negotiation; that it is irrevocable in its nature; and if the observations made upon the other objections are well founded, it is confidently hoped from that justice and impartiality, which have ever formed so distinguished a part of her Imperial Majesty's character, that it will be thought, all obstacles to the immediate reception of a Minister from the United States are removed.
FRANCIS DANA.
St Petersburg, May 8th, 1783.