ered that
it was not a "dignified" course, and Pinckney was ordered to
leave French territory, under the existing decree against
foreigners who had no permit to remain.--_Editor._.

Paris, Sept. 27, 1797. Editors of the Bien-in forme.

Citizens: in your 19th number of the complementary 5th, you gave an
analysis of the letters of James Monroe to Timothy Pickering. The
newspapers of Paris and the departments have copied this correspondence
between the ambassador of the United States and the Secretary of State.
I notice, however, that a few of them have omitted some important facts,
whilst indulging in comments of such an extraordinary nature that it is
clear they know neither Monroe's integrity nor the intrigues of Pitt in
this affair.

The recall of Monroe is connected with circumstances so important to the
interests of France and the United States, that we must be careful not
to confound it with the recall of an ordinary individual. The Washington
faction had affected to spread it abroad that James Monroe was the cause
of rupture between the two Republics. This accusation is a perfidious
and calumnious one; since the main point in this affair is not so much
the recall of a worthy, enlightened and republican minister, as
the ingratitude and clandestine manoeuvering of the government of
Washington, who caused the misunderstanding by signing a treaty
injurious to the French Republic.

James Monroe, in his letters, does not deny the right of government to
withdraw its confidence from any one of its delegates, representatives,
or agents. He has hinted, it is true, that caprice and temper are not
in accordance with the spirit of paternal rule, and that whenever a
representative government punishes or rewards, good faith, integrity and
justice should replace _the good pleasure of Kings_.

In the present case, they have done more than recall an agent. Had they
confined themselves to depriving him of his appointment, James Monroe
would have kept silence; but he has been accused of lighting the torch
of discord in both Republics. The refutation of this absurd and infamous
reproach is the chief object of his correspondence. If he did not
immediately complain of these slanders in his letters of the 6th and
8th [July], it is because he wished to use at first a certain degree of
caution, and, if it were possible, to stifle intestine troubles at
their birth. He wished to reopen the way to peaceful negotiations to