that they were also due to France. The two countries, once allies, were now in the most painful relations. Washington was no longer President; but his Farewell Address, in some of its most important parts, was evidently inspired by the counter-claims of France, especially when he warned his fellow-countrymen “to steer clear of _permanent alliances_ with any portion of the foreign world, _so far as we are now at liberty to do it_,”--“to have with foreign nations as little _political_ connection as possible,”--“to be constantly awake against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,”--and then asked in well-known words, “Why quit our own, to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by _interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe_, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”[180] In these remarkable words, where the same tone, if not the same lesson, recurs, we discern the undissembled anxieties of the hour. By the guaranty and other stipulations of 1778, our peace and prosperity had been entangled, even if our destiny had not been interwoven, in distant toils. France was urgent and brutal. War seemed impending. At last another triumvirate of plenipotentiaries, Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray, was commissioned to attempt again the adjustment of complications that had thus far baffled the wisdom of Washington; but compensation for the “individual” claims of American citizens was required as an indispensable condition. Such are the counter-claims of France in origin and history. And now again we are brought to the very point where the Committee had arrived in exhibiting the claims of our citizens. The plenipotentiaries on each side have met to negotiate, while the First Consul has gone to Marengo. On each side they are equally tenacious. There is a dead-lock. How this was overcome belongs to the next chapter. III. ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE BY THE SET-OFF AND MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS. The rules of duty and of conduct between individuals are applicable also to nations, and the proceedings on this occasion illustrate this principle. The two parties could not agree. Clearly, then, for the sake of harmony, it was essential to postpone both claims and counter-claims, for some future negotiation, or, if this were not done, to treat them as a set-off to each other. Such, unquestionably, would have been the action between individuals. But the history of this negotiation shows the adoption of these two modes successively. Postponement was first tried, but it gave way at last to _set-off_, by virtue of which the _international_ controversy was closed. This conclusion was reached slowly and by stages, as is seen in a simple narrative of the negotiation.