ration in the name of Congress for preventing the particular mode of expression, so far as it relates to precedency in the first paragraph, being considered as a precedent to be adopted on any future occasion, or else by having a new copy made out in America, in which these mistakes should be corrected, and which might be done without any prejudice arising to either of the parties from the delay. I am sir, with great respect and consideration, etc.,

D. HARTLEY.

MCCLXXIX

TO DAVID HARTLEY

PASSY, 2 June, 1784.

SIR: I have considered the observations you did me the honor of communicating to me, concerning certain inaccuracies of expression and supposed defects of formality in the instrument of ratification, some of which are said to be of such a nature as to affect the validity of the instrument.

The first is, "that the United States are named

"I received this morning the ratification of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America; and I own that it was with the greatest surprise that I perceived so essential a want of form as appears in the very first paragraph of that instrument, wherein the United States are mentioned before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom observed in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are contracting parties. The conclusion likewise appears extremely deficient, as it is neither signed by the President, nor is it dated, and consequently is wanting in some of the most essential points of form necessary towards authenticating the validity of the instrument."-St. James', May 28, 1784. Lord Carmathen to Mr. Hartley.

before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom observed in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are the contracting parties." With respect to this, it seems to me we should distinguish between that act in which both join, to wit, the treaty, and that which is the act of each separately, the ratification. It is necessary that all the modes of expression in the joint act should be agreed to by both parties, though in their separate acts each party is master of, and alone accountable for, its mode. And, on inspecting the treaty, it will be found that his Majesty is always regularly named before the United States. Thus "the established custom in treaties between crowned heads and republics," contended for on your part, is strictly observed; and the ratification following the treaty contains these words: "Now know ye, that we, the United States in Congress assembled, having seen and considered the definitive articles aforesaid, have approved, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do approve, ratify, and confirm the said articles, and EVERY PART AND CLAUSE THEREOF," etc. Hereby all those articles, parts, and clauses wherein the king is named before the United States are approved, ratified, and confirmed, and this solemnly, under the signature of the President of Congress, with the public seal affixed by their order, and countersigned by their secretary.

No declaration on this subject more determinate or more authentic can possibly be made or given; which, when considered, may probably induce his Majesty's ministers to waive the proposition of our

signing a similar declaration, or of sending back the ratification to be corrected in this point, neither appearing to be really necessary. I will, however, if it be still desired, transmit to Congress the observation, and the difficulty occasioned by it, and request their orders upon it. In the meantime I may venture to say that I am confident there was no intention of affronting his Majesty by their order of nomination, but that it resulted merely from that sort of complaisance which every nation seems to have for itself, and of that respect for its own government, customarily so expressed in its own acts, of which the English among the rest afford an instance, when in the title of the king they always name Great Britain before France.

The second objection is, "that the term definitive articles is used instead of definitive treaty." If the words definitive treaty had been used in the ratification instead of definitive articles, it might have been more correct, though the difference seems not great nor of much importance, as in the treaty itself it is called "the present definitive treaty."

The other objections are, "that the conclusion likewise appears deficient, as it is neither signed by the President, nor is it dated, and consequently is wanting in some of the most essential points of form necessary towards authenticating the validity of the instrument." The situation of seals and signatures in public instruments differs in different countries, though all equally valid; for, when all the parts of an instrument are connected by a riband, whose ends are secured under the impression of the seal, the sig

nature and seal, wherever placed, are understood as relating to and authenticating the whole. Our usage is to place them both together in the broad margin near the beginning of the piece; and so they stand in the present ratification, the concluding words of which declare the intention of such signing and sealing to be giving authenticity to the whole instrument, viz.: "In testimony whereof, We have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed; Witness his Excellency Thomas Mifflin, Esquire, President"; and the date supposed to be omitted, perhaps from its not appearing in figures, is nevertheless to be found written in words at length, viz.: "this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four," which made the figures unnecessary. With great esteem and respect, I have the honor to be, etc., B. FRANKLIN.

MCCLXXX

TO THE COUNT DE CAMPOMANES

PASSY, 5 June, 1784.

SIR: I have received much instruction and pleasure in reading your excellent writings. I wish it

▾ Campomanes held various high offices at different times in Spain, and, among others, those of President of the Royal Academy of History, President of the Council of Castile, and Minister of State. Dr. Robertson, speaking of some of his writings, said: "There are not many authors, even in the nations most eminent for commercial knowledge, who have carried on their inquiries with a more thorough knowledge of those various subjects, and a more perfect freedom from vulgar and national prejudices, or who have united more happily the calm researches of philosophy with the ardent zeal of a public-spirited citizen."-EDITOR.

were in my power to make you a suitable return of the same kind. I embrace the opportunity my much esteemed friend, Mr. Carmichael, affords me, of sending you a late collection of some of my occasional pieces, of which, if I should live to get home, I hope to publish another edition much larger, more correct, and less unworthy your acceptance.

You are engaged in a great work, reforming the ancient habitudes, removing the prejudices, and promoting the industry of your nation. nation. You have in the Spanish people good stuff to work upon, and by a steady perseverance you will obtain perhaps a success beyond your expectation; for it is incredible the quantity of good that may be done in a country by a single man who will make a business of it, and not suffer himself to be diverted from that purpose by different avocations, studies, or amusements.

There are two opinions prevalent in Europe which have mischievous effects in diminishing national felicity-the one, that useful labor is dishonorable; the other, that families may be perpetuated with estates. In America we have neither of these prejudices, which is a great advantage to us. You will see our ideas respecting the first in a little piece I send you, called "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America." The second is mathematically demonstrable to be an impossibility under the present rules of law and religion, since, though the estate may remain entire, the family is continually dividing. For a man's son is but half of his family, his grandson but a fourth, his great-grandson but an eighth, the next but a sixteenth of his family, and,

VOL. X.-23.