Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton
Sir: In your despatch of the 8th of June, No. 484, which has already been acknowledged, you remark that you thought M. Drouyn de l’Huys was rather disposed to find fault with late proceedings of this government; that he referred again to our refusal of coal to the French fleet and to our giving up “to be hanged,” as he said, the secretary of Vidaurri, who had fled to Brownsville for protection, although there now was scarcely a man against France in Mexico. You state that M. Drouyn de l’Huys further remarked that after their military officers were on the ocean to visit our country with a view to examine what was to be seen there with our assent and assurance of welcome, they were then informed that this line or that could not be examined, and that it would have been agreeable if notice had been sooner given. (The remark to which this is in allusion is omitted in Mr. Dayton’s note, as printed.) In your despatch No. 483 you intimate an apprehension that the French government may not be unwilling to find us acting so as to enable it to assume that it is put on the defensive, and entitled to vindicate its honor.
The remarks of M. Drouyn de l’Huys, although not intrinsically grave, derive importance from the peculiar position of the relations between France and the United States. The executive government of this country has no such susceptibilities as to make it desire or favor any misunderstanding with the government of France. On the contrary, it is an administration which, by its very constitution, would be pacific and friendly towards France, and towards all nations, even if it did not find especial and urgent persuasions to that policy in the distractions of our unhappy civil war. Nevertheless it is not well to overlook the fact that a large mass of the American people, owing to the war of France against Mexico, are not less open to alienating influences in regard to France than the government of France can be in regard to the United States. It will be well, therefore, for you to let M. Drouyn de l’Huys understand that you communicated his complaints to me, and to give him my answer to them, which is as follows:
First. In relation to the supply of coals for the French fleet: the same practice was followed in regard to France in that case which is followed in regard to all other nations. Second. The restrictions on the supply of coals to foreign vessels were adopted for our own safety against a dangerous internal enemy, and for the guarding of our neutrality, as much in regard to Mexico as in regard to France. Third. That the difficulty about the exportation of the coals in question was accommodated to the satisfaction of the French government. Fourth. In regard to the delivery of the secretary of Vidaurri to the authorities of Mexico: the French government has not complained of that transaction, nor has this government been officially called upon to express itself concerning the affair. The proceeding was a military one; it occurred on a distant and disturbed frontier, without any knowledge on the part of the Executive, and, so far as this government has subsequently received any knowledge or information, the offending Mexican who was delivered up to his own government was an open enemy of the United States, and the general who delivered him up had no knowledge or reason to believe that the Mexican authorities would deal with him other than as a prisoner of war. Fifthly. As to the delay of the French officers on their way to the army of the Potomac after this government had assented to their visit: the assent was given with no reservation, because no occasion for any was anticipated. A military exigency of extreme delicacy and importance subsequently occurred, and the commanding general of the armies of the United States deemed it important to exclude, for the time, all visitors from the army. [Page 116] Notice was given to the French as well as to the British commission at the first moment when this necessity was announced to this government. The French commission was received here with all the hospitalities of the government, and as soon as the exigency referred to had passed, they were sent forward to the field of observation. You may make these explanations to M. Drouyn de l’Huys. You may say to him that this government cannot admit that in either of the transactions I have thus reviewed, it has been either unjust, discourteous, or unfriendly to the government of France. This government avoids with equal care the putting unfriendly constructions upon the proceedings of the government of France and on other foreign states, and the giving of accidental offence on our own part to all foreign nations.
Pursuing this course, we calmly abide events which must determine whether, in spite of our devotion to peace, the field of war on this continent must be enlarged.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William L. Dayton Esq., &c.,&c., &c.