Papers of John Adams, volume 17

To William Carmichael, 29 July 1785 Adams, John Carmichael, William
To William Carmichael
Sir Grosvenor Square Westminster July 29. 1785

Mr Samuel Watson, a Citizen of the United States of America and Settled at Charlestown South Carolina as a Merchant Sailed from thence about two Years ago on board a Vessell bound to the Havannah and nothing has been heard of him or Vessell Since, till lately, a Gentleman from the Havannah has reported that a Mr Watson from Charleston was taken in the Bay of Mexico and carried into Carthagena, and from thence Sent to the Castle of St Juan, de Ulua la vera Cruz, and afterwards Sent to Trascala,1 where it is Supposed he is, at present. it is Supposed his Youth and Inexperience has been the Cause of his trespassing on the Spanish Navigation Acts, for which he has Suffered a Severe loss of Property and his Liberty So long. his Father and numerous Relations are very anxious for his Fate and earnestly desire that You would interest yourself for his Release, if that be attainable, but if that cannot be 283had in full, that you would endeavour to procure his Removal to old Spain, that his Friends may hear from him and procure Intelligence respecting the Property he may have left behind him in Charlestown.2 I have ventured to give assurances that you would obtain one or the other of their favours, if they can be obtained by any body, and I have undertaken to apply to Mr Del Campo, the Spanish Minister here, and to write to Mr Jefferson to Speak to the Comte D’Aranda.3 Whether all will not be in vain I know not, but this We know that our Endeavours to the Utmost of our Power to serve a Country man in so unhappy Circumstances will give Us Satisfaction enough to reward Us for our Pains, whether We succeed or not. With much / Respect and Esteem I have the Honour to be, sir &c.

LbC (Adams Papers); internal address: “William Charmichael Esqr / Chargé des Affairs of the United States / of America at the Court of Madrid.”; APM Reel 111.

1.

Probably Tlaxcala, Mexico.

2.

Carmichael replied on 18 Aug. (Adams Papers), indicating that he would take the matter up with the Conde de Floridablanca, and that he expected his appeal to have some success because the “court appears sincerely disposed to cultivate a good understanding with the United States.” For Carmichael’s more detailed account of his efforts, see his letter of 2 Sept., below.

3.

For JA’s appeal to Thomas Jefferson, see his letter of 4 Aug., below.

To John Jay, 29 July 1785 Adams, John Jay, John
To John Jay
Sir. Grosvenor Square Westminster July 29th. 1785

I have the honour to inclose a Copy of a Letter to the Marquis of Carmarthen of the 14th. of July, another of the 27th. with a project of a Declaration concerning the construction of the Armistice, and another of this date with a project of a Treaty of Commerce— It is high time something should be done, to turn the attention of Administration to the relation between this Country and the United States, and it seemed most advisable to lay the project of a Treaty directly before the Ministry, rather than first negociate the appointment of any other Minister to treat with me, than the Marquis of Carmarthen himself— If I had first proposed the appointment of a minister, they would have procrastinated the business, for six Months and perhaps twelve, before I could have communicated any thing to them— Now they can have no excuse— The offer is made & hereafter they may repent of their error, if they do not accept it, or something nearly like it immediately. I am very sensible it will greatly embarrass Administration, because most of them I believe are sensible that some such treaty must be one day agreed to, and 284that it would be wise to agree to it now, but they are affraid of oppositions from many quarters— I must not however disguise my real sentiments. The present Ministry are too much under the influence of Chalmers & Smith1 and others of that Stamp & have been artfully drawn into so many manifestations of a Determination to maintain their Navigation Laws relatively to the United states, and of a Jealousy of our Naval Power—Small as it is, that I fear they have committed themselves too far to receed. Their Newfoundland Act, as well as their proclamations, and the fourth of their Irish Propositions2 are in this Style— I have no expectation that the proposed Treaty will be soon agreed to, nor that I shall have any counter project, or indeed any answer for a long time. it is very apparent, that we shall never have a satisfactory arrangement with this Country untill Congress shall be made by the States, supreme in matters of foreign Commerce, and Treaties of Commerce, and untill Congress shall have exerted that supremacy with a decent Firmness—

I am with great esteem / Your most Obedient / Humble Serv.

John Adams.—3

RC and enclosures in WSS’s hand (PCC, No. 84, V, f. 546–584); internal address: “His Excellency / John Jay / Secretary of State—” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 111.

1.

Chalmers was probably George Chalmers (1742–1825), a noted antiquarian born in Scotland who went to Maryland in the 1760s and practiced law in Baltimore, but returned to England at the outbreak of the Revolution. Smith may have been William Smith, former chief justice of New York, who in Sept. 1785 was appointed chief justice of Quebec ( DNB ; DAB ).

2.

JA presumably refers to the fourth proposition of the twenty propositions regarding Anglo-Irish trade that were adopted by the British Parliament on 25 July ( Parliamentary Hist. , 25:935). There it was stated “that it is highly important to the general interests of the British empire, that the laws for regulating trade and navigation should be the same in Great Britain and Ireland; and therefore that it is essential, towards carrying into effect the present settlement, that all laws which have been made, or shall be made, in Great Britain, for securing exclusive privileges to the ships and mariners of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British colonies and plantations, and for regulating and restraining the trade of the British colonies and plantations (such laws imposing the same restraints, and conferring the same benefits, on the subjects of both kingdoms), should be in force in Ireland, by laws to be passed in the parliament of that kingdom, for the same time, and in the same manner, as in Great Britain.”

3.

In JA’s hand.