is Majesty's ministers the better to assure the
passage of the law. Of this, sir, I never had a doubt, and immediately
so advised my Government, and informed it, as was the fact, that I
perfectly acquiesced in the delay."

Thus it must be evident, not only that no offensive charge of ill faith
is made in the message, but that, as is expressly stated in the first
extract, full justice was done at Washington to the intentions of the
French Government. While the delay is complained of us a wrong, no
improper motives are attributed to the Government in causing it. Again,
sir, the whole tenor of that part of my letter which relates to the
inexecution of the promise made by M. Serurier, while it asserts the
construction put upon it by the President to be the true one, and
appeals to facts and circumstances to support that construction, yet it
avoids charging the French Government with any intentional violation, by
attributing their delay to an erroneous construction only; for in the
letter (I again quote literally) I say:

"I have entered into this detail with the object of showing that
although the ministers of the King, under the interpretation they seem
to have given to M. Serurier's promise, may have considered themselves
at liberty to defer the presentation of the law until the period
which they thought would best secure its success, yet the President,
interpreting that promise differently, feeling that in consequence of it
he had forborne to do what might be strictly called a duty, and seeing
that its performance had not taken place, could not avoid stating the
whole case clearly and distinctly to Congress."

Thus, sir, the President, in stating the acts of which he thought his
country had reason to complain, does not make a single imputation of
improper motive, and to avoid all misconstruction he offers a voluntary
declaration that none such were entertained.

The part of the message which seems to have caused the greatest
sensation in France is that in which, after a statement of the causes
of complaint, it enters into a consideration of the measures to obtain
redress which in similar cases are sanctioned by the laws of nations.
The complaint seems to be that, in a discussion it was impossible to
avoid, of the efficacy and convenience of each, a preference was given
to reprisals, considered as a remedial, not as a hostile, measure,
and this has been construed into a menace. If any explanations were
necessary on th