government, our natural ally against Great Britain as long as she shall continue our enemy, and that will be at least as long as she shall hold a foot of ground in America, however she may disguise it, and whatever peace or truce she may make.

Your sentiments of the fishery, as a source of wealth, of commerce, and naval power, are perfectly just, and therefore this object will and ought to be attended to with precision and cherished with care. Nevertheless, agriculture is the most essential interest of America, and even of the Massachusetts Bay; and it is very possible to injure both, by diverting too much of the thoughts and labor of the people from the cultivation of the earth to adventures upon the sea. And this, in the opinion of some persons, has been the fault in the Massachusetts Bay. Experience has taught us in the course of this war, that the fishery was not so essential to our welfare as it was once thought. Necessity has taught us to dig in the ground instead of fishing in the sea for our bread, and we have found that the resource did not fail us.

The fishery was a source of luxury and vanity that did us much injury; yet this was the fault of the management, not of the fishery. One part of our fish went to the West India Islands for rum, and molasses to be distilled into rum, which injured our health and our morals; the other part went to Spain and Portugal for gold and silver, almost the whole of which went to London, sometimes for valuable articles of clothing, but too often for lace and ribbands. If, therefore, the cessation of the fishery for twenty years to come was to introduce the culture of flax and wool, which certainly it would do as far as would be necessary for the purposes of decency and comfort, if a loss of wealth should be the consequence of it, the acquisition of morals and of wisdom would perhaps make us gainers in the end.

These are vain speculations I know. The taste for rum and ribbands will continue, and there are no means for the New England people to obtain them so convenient as the fishery, and therefore the first opportunity will be eagerly embraced to revive it. As a nursery of seamen and a source of naval power it has been and is an object of serious importance, and perhaps indispensably necessary to the accomplishment and the preservation of our independence. I shall, therefore, always think it my duty to defend and secure our rights to it with all industry and zeal, and shall ever be obliged to you your advice and coöperation.

Pardon the length of this letter, and believe me, with much esteem, your friend and servant,

JOHN ADAMS.

TO RALPH IZARD.

Passy, October 2d, 1778.

Sir,

I have the pleasure of yours of the 28th, and agree with you in sentiment, that if the money which has heretofore been squandered upon articles of luxury, could for the future be applied to discharge our national debt, it would be a great felicity. But is it certain that it will? Will not the national debt itself be the means, at least a temptation to continue, if not increase, the luxury? It is with great pleasure that I see you mention sumptuary laws. But is there room to hope that our Legislatures will pass such laws? Or that the people have or can be persuaded to acquire those qualities that are necessary to execute such laws? I wish your answer may be in the affirmative, and that it may be found true in fact and experience. But much prudence and delicacy will be necessary, 1 think, to bring all our countrymen to this just way of thinking upon this head. There is such a charm to the human heart in elegance, it is so flattering to our self-love to be distinguished from the world in general by extraordinary degrees of splendor, in dress, in furniture equipage, buildings, &c., and our countrymen, by their connexion with Europe, are so much infected with the habit of this taste and these passions, that I fear it will be a work of time and difficulty, if not quite impracticable, to introduce an alteration; to which the late condition of our trade and currency, besides the great inequality of fortune, and the late enterprizes introduced by privateers are dangerous enemies.

You ask my opinion, whether the reasons in your last letter are well founded? It is observable, that the French Court were not content with the treaty proposed by Congress, whic

in my opinion, which is contained in the

in the treaty of the 6th of February. inserting the words, "indefinite and

tained all,

v stands had for conjecture.*

Amity and Commerce

The suspicion that they meant more than the treaty proposed by Congress expressed, arises from a fact, which you remember, viz., that the French at the time of the last peace claimed more. I wish to know if there is any letter or memorial extant, in which such a claim is contained, or whether it was only a verbal claim made by their ambassadors? Whether any of the magazines of that time mention and discuss any such claim? If the fact is incontestible, that they made such a claim, it is possible that it may be revived under the words "indefinite and exclusive." But I hope it will not, and I hope it was not intended when these words were inserted. Yet I confess I cannot think of any other reason for inserting them. The word "indefinite" is not amiss, for it is a right of catching fish and drying them on land, which is a right indefinite enough. But the word "exclusive" is more mysterious. It cannot mean that Americans and all other nations shall be "excluded" from the same right of fishing and drying on land, between the same limits of Bonavista and Riche. It would be much easier to suppose, that the following words, "in that part only, and no other besides that,” gave rise to the word "exclusive;" that is, that right of fishing and drying within those limits, for which we have excluded ourselves from all others. I will undertake to show better reasons, or at least as good, for this sense of the word "exclusive," as the most subtle interpreter of treaties can offer for the other, although I think them both untenable.

My opinion further is this, that as contemporaneous exposition is allowed by all writers on the law of nations to be the best interpreter of treaties, as well as of all other writings, and as neither the treaty of Utrecht, or the treaty of Paris in 1763, ever received such an interpretation as you are apprehensive may hereafter be contended for, and as the uninterrupted practice has been against such a construction, so I think that the treaty of Paris of the 6th of February, 1778, is not justly liable to such a construction, and that it cannot be attempted with any prospect of success. I agree with you, however, that as we are young States, and not practised in the art of negociation, it becomes us to look into all these things with as much caution and exactness as possible, and furnish ourselves with the best historical light, and every other honest means of securing our rights. For which reason I requested your sentiments upon this subject in writing, and continue to desire in the same way your observations on

other parts of the treaty. Reduced to writing, such things remain in letters and letter books, as well as more distinctly in the memory, and the same men or other men may recur to them at future opportunities, whereas transient conversations, especially among men who have many things to do and to think of, slip away and are forgotten. I shall make use of all the prudence I can, that these letters may not come to the knowledge of improper persons, or be used to the disadvantage of our country, or to you or me in our present capacity.

I am, &c.,

JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,

TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.

Passy, October 2d, 1778.

I have the honor to enclose the latest gazettes, by which Congress will perceive that we have no intelligence from America since the departure of the Count d'Estaing from Sandy Hook; our anxiety is very great, but we hope that a few hours will relieve it. In the midst of a war in Germany, and between France and England, there was scarcely ever a greater dearth of news in a profound peace.

Captain McNeil, the bearer of this, makes the most conversation, having taken and destroyed, I think, thirteen vessels in the course of his last cruise, six of which have safely arrived in France; the others, not destroyed, he sent to America. His cruise will prove a great disappointment to the enemy, having deprived them of a great quantity of naval stores upon which they depended.

I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, &c.,

JOHN ADAMS.

COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,

Philadelphia, October 28th, 1778.

While we officially communicate to you the enclosed resolve, the foundation of which you cannot remain a stranger to, we must entreat you to be assiduous in sending to those Commissioners who have left France and gone to the Courts for which they were respectively appointed, all the American intelligence, which you

have greater opportunity than they of receiving from hence, particularly to Mr. Izard and Mr. William Lee. We do not often send more than one set of gazettes by one opportunity; and we hear of several vessels which have miscarried.

Congress must and will speedily determine upon the general arrangement of their foreign affairs. This is become, so far as regards you, peculiarly necessary, upon a new commission being sent to Dr. Franklin. In the mean time we hope you will exercise your whole extensive abilities on the subject of our finances. The Doctor will communicate to you our situation in that regard.

To the gazettes, and to conversation with the Marquis de la Fayette, we must refer you for what relates to our enemies, and close with our most cordial wishes for your happiness.

I have the honor to enclose to Congress the latest newspapers. As they contain the speech at the opening of Parliament, and some of the debates in both Houses upon the addresses in answer to it, they are of very great importance. I learn by some newspapers and private letters, that an opinion has been prevalent in America, that the enemy intended to withdraw from the United States; and considering the cruel devastations of the war, and the unfortunate situation of our finances, nothing would give me so much joy as to see reasons to concur in that opinion, and to furnish Congress with intelligence in support of it. But I am sorry to say the reverse is too apparent. We may call it obstinacy or blindness, if we will; but such is the state of parties in England, so deep would be the disgrace, and perhaps so great the personal danger to those who have commenced and prosecuted this war, that they cannot but persevere in it at every hazard; and nothing is clearer in my mind, than that they never will quit the United States until they are either driven or starved out of them. I hope, therefore, Congress will excuse me for suggesting, that there is but one course for us to take,

1