General Washington were expressed to be in virtue of the authority
vested in him; while those given by Sir William Howe contained no such
declaration.

This omission produced an objection on the part of the United States;
but General Howe refused to change the language, alleging that he
designed the treaty to be of a personal nature, founded on the mutual
confidence and honour of the contracting generals; and had no
intention either to bind his government, or to extend the cartel
beyond the limits and duration of his own command.

This explanation being unsatisfactory to the American commissioners,
and General Howe persisting in his refusal to make the required
alteration in his powers, the negotiation was broken off, and this
fair prospect of terminating the distresses of numerous unfortunate
persons passed away, without effecting the good it had promised.

Some time after the failure of this negotiation for a general cartel,
Sir William Howe proposed that all prisoners actually exchangeable
should be sent in to the nearest posts, and returns made of officer
for officer of equal rank, and soldier for soldier, as far as numbers
would admit; and that if a surplus of officers, should remain, they
should be exchanged for an equivalent in privates.

[Sidenote: A partial exchange agreed to.]

On the representations of General Washington, congress acceded to this
proposition, so far as related to the exchange of officer for officer,
and soldier for soldier; but rejected the part which admitted an
equivalent in privates for a surplus of officers, because the officers