PREFACE.

The joint resolution approved on August 13, 1888, under which the following work is printed is as follows:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be printed, under the editorial charge of Francis Wharton, the usual number of copies of a supplement to the Digest of International Law, printed under joint resolution of July twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and under the same conditions and limitations as are imposed in said resolution, such supplement containing the diplomatic correspondence of the American Revolution, with historical and legal notes; and that there be printed, in addition to said usual number, two thousand copies for the use of the Senate, four thousand copies for the use of the House of Representatives, and one thousand copies for the use of the Department of State."

In the report submitted to the Senate on February 6, 1888, by the Committee on Printing, on which the above resolution in its original form was based, occur these passages:

"A knowledge of the revolutionary diplomatic correspondence of the United States is essential to the understanding—

"(1) Of our revolutionary history.

“(2) Of the treaties executed during and at the close of the Revolution, which form in a large measure the basis of our international law.

“This correspondence is to be found in part in published memoirs, in part in family archives, in part in the records of the Department of State.

"A portion of the latter records was published by Mr. Sparks, under resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818; but in this publication Mr. Sparks omitted letters and portions of letters tending to show

"(1) The movement of French politicians in 1776 to supersede Washington by Marshal Broglie.

“(2) The movement by American politicians in 1776-77 to induce Washington's withdrawal and to have Franklin recalled from Paris.

'(3) The atrocities of British troops and of refugees in the United States put forward by our diplomatists as a claim against Great Britain and a set-off against British claims for indemnity to loyalists.

"Aside from these systematic omissions, important passages were dropped, showing the extent to which the fisheries, prior to the Revolution, were controlled by American fishermen; and, what is still more important, how general was the understanding between the negotiators that the treaty of 1782-83 was a treaty not of concession by Great Britain, but of partition, under which the United States retained all the territorial rights previously possessed by them in North America when part of the British empire.

"Mr. Sparks, in eliminating from the correspondence the passages showing the intrigues against Washington, was no doubt governed by his veneration for Washing

ton. But reports of these intrigues came afterwards to the public ear from other sources. While, as thus imperfectly presented, they failed to exhibit (what the full correspondence shows) that unique majesty of Washington, which compelled those who intrigued against him, when they came into his presence and saw him in the solitude of his grandeur, if not to become, as was the case with De Kalb, loyal adherents, at least to sullenly acquiesce in a supremacy they were forced to concede.

"Mr. Sparks' excision of other material, so important to us both in applying history and construing treaties, may be attributed to what we now must consider his wrong conception of the duties of a reproducer of public documents. Now we feel that in printing such documents we must give them entire, or, if we omit, to note the omissions. Mr. Sparks, on the other hand, omitted whatever he thought it was unnecessary or impolitic to print; and he left no sign whatever to show that any omission was made. Hence, by leaving out a salient point, the meaning of the document is entirely changed; as, for instance, in Silas Deane's letter of December 6, 1776, a statement that De Kalb goes to America in connection with a suggestion that Broglie be commander-in-chief is turned into a mere letter of introduction by cutting out all that relates to the character of De Kalb's mission.

"No doubt supposed want of interest was the ground of many of Mr. Sparks' omissions. But the unreliability of such a test is illustrated by the fact that, among the passages thus dropped by him, those relating to the fisheries and to the partition feature in the treaty of peace have become of all others the most important in our pending controversies with Great Britain.

"But Mr. Sparks did not confine himself to omissions. He changed words throughout the correspondence so as, in innumerable cases, to alter the style; in others, to alter the sense. Of these changes the following are a few illustrations:

"Galleons which have been impatiently

expected." (Franklin.)

"Galliots which have been patiently expected." (Sparks, ii, 43.)

"Negotiations relative to the prelimina- "Negotiations relative to the plenipoteu

ries." (Franklin.)

"Some how or other." (Livingston.)

"Wish to know." (Livingston.)

"Appropriation of each State." (Living. ston.)

tiaries." (Sparks, ii, 171.)

"By any means." (Sparks, ii, 181.)

"Like to know." (Sparks, ii, 184.)

"Proportion of each State." (Sparks, ii,

188.)

"Arguments taken from treaties." (Liv- "Agreements taken from treaties."

ingston.)

"Lengthy." (Livingston.)

"He (Arnold) seems to mix as naturally

with that polluted court (England) as pitch with tar." (Franklin.) "George III's character for falsehood and dissimulation." (Franklin.)

"Balance of the soldiers in our hands." (Livingston.)

"Any civilized people." (Franklin, when
speaking of England's spoliations as
unworthy of, etc.)

"While in the minority." (Franklin.)
"Evacuate their posts.". (Livingston.)
"I think the best answer will be the boy's
reply to Pope's God mend me."
"Necessity of which" measures of Con-

(Sparks, ii, 196.)

"Long." (Sparks, ii, 208.)
Left out by Sparks, ii, 226.

Left out by Sparks, ii, 271.

"Remainder of the soldiers in our hands." (Sparks, ii, 387.)

"Any individual people." (Sparks, ii, 394.)

"While in the ministry." Sparks, ii, 400.) "Evacuate their ports." (Sparks, ii, 441.) Omitted by Sparks, ii, 426.

"Sincerity of which." (Sparks, ii, 576.)

Submission to Parliament." (Adams.) "Subjugation to Parliament." (Sparks,