In its conduct toward these United States we have seen a plan of
hostility pursued with unremitted constancy, equally disregarding the
obligations of treaties and the rights of individuals. We have seen
two embassies, formed for the purpose of mutual explanations and
clothed with the most extensive and liberal powers, dismissed without
recognition and even without a hearing. The Government of France has not
only refused to repeal but has recently enjoined the observance of its
former edict respecting merchandise of British fabric or produce the
property of neutrals, by which the interruption of our lawful commerce
and the spoliation of the property of our citizens have again received a
public sanction. These facts indicate no change of system or disposition;
they speak a more intelligible language than professions of solicitude
to avoid a rupture, however ardently made. But if, after the repeated
proofs we have given of a sincere desire for peace, these professions
should be accompanied by insinuations implicating the integrity
with which it has been pursued; if, neglecting and passing by the
constitutional and authorized agents of the Government, they are
made through the medium of individuals without public character or
authority, and, above all, if they carry with them a claim to prescribe
the political qualifications of the minister of the United States to
be employed in the negotiation, they are not entitled to attention or
consideration, but ought to be regarded as designed to separate the
people from their Government and to bring about by intrigue that which
open force could not effect.

We are of opinion with you, sir, that there has nothing yet been
discovered in the conduct of France which can justify a relaxation of
the means of defense adopted during the last session of Congress, the
happy result of which is so strongly and generally marked. If the force
by sea and land which the existing laws authorize should be judged