"Les plaintes que porte Monsieur le Président centre le prétendu non-accomplissement des engagemens pris par le Gouvernement du Roi á la suite du vote du 1er avril 1834, ne sont pas settlement étrangé par l'entière inexactitude des allégations sur lesquelles elles reposent, mais aussi parceque les explications qu'a recues á Paris M. Livingston, et celles que le soussigné a donnees directement an cabinet de Washington, semblaient ne pas laisser même la possibilité d'un malentendu sur des points aussi délicats." Each party in a discussion of this nature has an uncontested right to make its own statement of facts and draw its own conclusions from them, to acknowledge or deny the accuracy of counter proof or the force of objecting arguments, with no other restraints than those which respect for his own convictions, the opinion of the world, and the rules of common courtesy impose. This freedom of argument is essential to the discussion of all national concerns, and can not be objected to without showing an improper and irritating susceptibility. It is for this reason that the Government of the United States make no complaint of the assertion in the note presented by M. Sérurier that the statement of facts contained in the President's message is inaccurate, and that the causes assigned for the delay in presenting the law ought to have satisfied them. On their part they contest the facts, deny the accuracy of the conclusions, and appeal to the record, to reason, and to the sense of justice of His Majesty's Government on a more mature consideration of the case for their justification. But I am further instructed to say that there is one expression in the passage I have quoted which in one signification could not be admitted even within the broad limits which are allowed to discussions of this nature, and which, therefore, the President will not believe to have been used in the offensive sense that might be attributed to it. The word "_pretendu_" sometimes, it is believed, in French, and its translation always in English, implies not only that the assertion which it qualifies is untrue, but that the party making it knows it to be so and uses it for the purposes of deception. Although the President can not believe that the term was employed in this injurious sense, yet the bare possibility of a construction being put upon it which it would be incumbent on him to repel with indignation obliges him to ask for the necessary explanation. I have the honor to be, etc., EDWARD LIVINGSTON. _Mr. Livingston to Mr. Forsyth_. [Extract.] WASHINGTON, _June 29, 1835_. ... Having received my passports, I left Paris on the 29th of April. At the time of my departure the note, of which a copy has been transmitted to you, asking an explanation of the terms used in M. Sérurier's communication to the Department, remained unanswered, but I have reason to believe that the answer when given will be satisfactory. WASHINGTON, _January 20, 1836_.