letter of the 28th of July, was not applied, as you seem to have supposed, to all which had taken place-to "these transaction," as you say. The word had not in my pen the sense which it might have had in English; it only regarded the grave offenses committed against the casual by calling hind a "fellow," searching his pockets, and writing to him that he had "prostituted his flag to a base purpose." It is only these acts, sir, acts which the Government of the United States (I am happy to acknowledge) has hasten to decline to be responsible for, that I have I taken the liberty of characterizing as "outrage." It was for such acts, sir, that the King's Government (as I had the honor to represent to you in my letter of the 28th of July) flattered itself that a friendly Government would not refuse to give it ultimate satisfaction. It is a general custom, as no person better knows than you, sit, that not only grave offenses are censured, but that the authors of them are punished.

Now, when the President and Government of the United States have made their decisions conformable to the conclusion of the excellent report of the Honorable Revery Johnson, according to which the $800,000 seized by order of Major-General Butler was an amount of silver legitimately delivered on deposit to the consul of the Netherlands; now, when the good faith of the consul is acknowledged; now more than ever is flagrant the insult offered, according to the orders or with the approval of Major-General Butler, to the consul of the Netherlands, to whom, in answer to his just complaint, he wrote or caused to be written the letter of which I find myself compelled to transmit to you herewith a copy.*

It is with great regret that I come back to this letter, for you will do me the justice, sir, to believe that everything which can exasperate is as far from my sentiment as from my intentions. To conciliate is one of my most cherished duties, but I cannot sacrificed the dignity of international relations, and I respectfully request you to be pleased to consider again whether it is just that the author of such a letter should remain in official relations with with foreign consuls.

In your letter of the 20th of this month you have been pleased to remark that the Government of the United States does not conceal "that the dissatisfaction with Major-General Butler's precipitancy and harshness i the transactions concerned was among the causes for transferring the administration of public affairs at New Orleans to General Shepley." You have been pleased to bring to mind that you had previously made know to me (in your letter of the 5th of June) that "the President has also appointed a military governor of the State of Louisiana, who has been instructed to pay due respect to all consular rights and privileges;" but, as various newspapers in the United States have continued to make mention of new orders or new regulations of Major-General Butler relative to confiscations or penalties imposed on citizens of New Orleans, and as one, namely, the New York Times- a journal which, if I mistake not, is generally respected and valued-has published in its number of Tuesday, the 26th of this month, two letters of Major-General Butler-the first to the consul of France, in answer to an official letter that the latter had addressed to "the assistant military command of New Orleans;" the second to the consul of Spain, concerning a quarantine imposed on a Spain frigate; one dated on the 14th and the other on the 16th of this month-it would seem that Brigadier- General Shepley has not accepted

---------------

* See p. 124.

---------------