Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have complied with your request in despatch No. 158, by communicating to Mr. Thouvenel the fact that you have given to Mr. Romero informally an extract from my despatch No. 142, which reports the substance of a conversation between us as to Mexican complications.
He said at once that it was quite proper that you should have done so; he was perfectly satisfied with it. I assured him, further, that the President justly appreciated the directness and frankness of his explanations, and gave to him your despatch No. 152 to be read. After he had finished reading it, he said that notwithstanding all that had passed, he had nothing to alter or to add to his former explanations; that he had instructed their agents in Mexico in conformity with the statements heretofore made and reported by me to you; that the French troops did not go there to interfere with the form of government, nor to acquire an inch of territory, nor remain indefinitely in the country. All France sought was that her existing “griefs” should be settled, and some government established which other countries could treat with, and which would protect their commercial agents. I only observed, in reply, that the object of my visit was, notwithstanding what had been said by the commissioners of the allies, to express to him the satisfaction of the President in the assurances he had given; and I added that the United States would yet confidently rely upon those assurances.
It may be difficult to reconcile the published opinions of the commissioners acting for England and Spain in Mexico with these declarations of the French government; but your original despatch instructed me to say that I was not authorized to demand explanations, though the government would be happy to receive them. These explanations have been freely given; if they conflict with what has been said or done elsewhere, I have not felt at liberty, under my instructions, to make such conflict the subject of comment.
Were it supposed, however, that France proposed to change the form of government and establish a monarchy in a republic next to and adjoining our own, it is not to be doubted that, upon every just principle of international law or comity between states, we would have the right to demand explanations. Nor do I think that France would have felt disposed to contest [Page 349] such right. The explanations, however, such as they are, have been volunteered by them, not demanded by us.
I am, sir, your very obedient servant,
His Excellency William H. Seward, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.