Memoirs of the Duchesse de Dino (Afterwards Duchesse de Talleyrand et de Sagan), 1836-1840
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.
[148] At that time the Duc de Broglie.
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.
As the French Government had thus received all the explanations which
honour and principle could allow, we hoped that there would be no
further hesitation in paying the instalments as they fell due. The
agent authorised to receive the money was instructed to inform the
French Government of his readiness; by way of reply he was informed
that the money could not then be paid because the formalities required
by the act of the Chambers had not been fulfilled.
As I had received no official communication concerning the intentions
of the French Government, and as I was anxious to conclude this
disagreeable affair before the meeting of Congress, I instructed our
Minister at Paris to inquire into the final determination of the
French Government and if the due payment of the instalment was
refused, to return to the United States without further explanations.