nable language of the French
minister was used by the orders or will be countenanced by the authority
of the King of France. You will therefore, as early as practicable after
this reaches you, call the attention of the minister of foreign affairs
to the following passage in M. Serurier's letter:

"Les plaintes que porte M. le President centre le pretendu
non-accomplissement des engagemens pris par le Gouvernement du Roi a
la suite du vote du 1er avril 1834, ne sont pas seulement etrange par
l'entiere inexactitude des allegations sur lesquelles elles reposent,
mais aussi parceque les explications qu'a recues a Paris M. Livingston,
et celles que le soussigne a donnees directement an cabinet de
Washington semblaient ne pas laisser meme la possibilite d'un
malentendu sur des points aussi delicats."

In all discussions between government and government, whatever
may be the differences of opinion on the facts or principles brought
into view, the invariable rule of courtesy and justice demands that
the sincerity of the opposing party in the views which it entertains
should never be called in question. Facts may be denied, deductions
examined, disproved, and condemned, without just cause of offense; but
no impeachment of the integrity of the Government in its reliance
on the correctness of its own views can be permitted without a total
forgetfulness of self-respect. In the sentence quoted from M. Serurier's
letter no exception is taken to the assertion that the complaints of
this Government are founded upon allegations entirely inexact, nor upon
that which declares the explanations given here or in Paris appeared,
not to have left even the possibility of a misunderstanding on such
delicate points. The correctness of these assertions we shall always
dispute, and while the records of the two Governments endure we shall
find no difficulty in shewing that they are groundless; but when M.
Serurier chooses to qualify the nonaccomplishment of the engagements
made by France, to which the President refers, as a _pretended_
nonaccomplishment, he conveys the idea that the Chief Magistrate knows
or believes that he is in error, and acting upon this known error seeks
to impose it upon Congress and the world as truth. In this sense it
is a direct attack upon the integrity of the Chief Magistrate of the
Republic. As such it must be indignantly repelled; and it being a
question of moral delinquency between the two Governme