A few days afterward Madison wrote to Armstrong fresh instructions founded on the Act of May 1, which was to be the new diplomatic guide. These instructions,[252] dated June 5, were of course signed by the Secretary of State, Robert Smith, who afterward claimed credit for them; but their style, both of thought and expression, belonged to Madison. Even the unfailing note of his mind--irritability without passion--was not wanting. He would wait, he said, for further advices before making the proper comments on Cadore’s letter of February 14 and on its doctrine of reprisals. “I cannot, however, forbear informing you that a high indignation is felt by the President, as well as by the public, at this act of violence on our property, and at the outrage both in the language and in the matter of the letter of the Duc de Cadore.” Turning from this subject, the despatch requested that Napoleon would make use of the suggestion contained in the Act of May 1, 1810. “If there be sincerity in the language held at different times by the French government, and especially in the late overture, to proceed to amicable and just arrangements in case of our refusal to submit to the British Orders in Council, no pretext can be found for longer declining to put an end to the decrees of which the United States have so justly complained.” One condition alone was imposed on Armstrong preliminary to the acceptance of French action under the law of May 1, but this condition was essential: “If, however, the arrangement contemplated by the law should be acceptable to the French government, you will understand it to be the purpose of the President not to proceed in giving it effect in case the late seizure of the property of the citizens of the United States has been followed by an absolute confiscation, and restoration be finally refused. The only ground short of a preliminary restoration of the property on which the contemplated arrangement can be made will be an understanding that the confiscation is reversible, and that it will become immediately the subject of discussion with a reasonable prospect of justice to our injured citizens.”