The first is, "that the United States are named before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom observed in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are the contracting parties." With respect to this, it seems to me we should distinguish between that act in which both join, to wit, the treaty, and that which is the act of each separately, the ratification. It is necessary, that all the modes of expression in the joint act should be agreed to by both parties, though in their separate acts each party is master of, and alone unaccountable for its own mode. And, on inspecting the treaty, it will be found that his Majesty is always regularly named before the United States. Thus, "the established custom _in treaties_ between crowned heads and republics," contended for on your part, is strictly observed; and the ratification following the treaty contains these words. "Now know ye, that we, the United States in Congress assembled, having seen and considered the definitive articles aforesaid, have _approved_, _ratified_, and _confirmed_, and by these presents do _approve_, _ratify_, and _confirm_ the said articles, AND EVERY PART AND CLAUSE THEREOF," &c. Hereby all those articles, parts, and clauses, wherein the King is named before the United States, are _approved_, _ratified_, and _confirmed_, and this solemnly under the signature of the President of Congress, with the public seal affixed by their order, and countersigned by their Secretary. No declaration on the subject more determinate or more authentic can possibly be made or given, which, when considered, may probably induce his Majesty's Ministers to waive the proposition of our signing a similar declaration, or of sending back the ratification to be corrected in this point, neither appearing to be really necessary. I will, however, if it be still desired, transmit to Congress the observation, and the difficulty occasioned by it, and request their orders upon it. In the meantime I may venture to say, that I am confident there was no intention of affronting his Majesty by their order of nomination, but that it resulted merely from that sort of complaisance, which every nation seems to have for itself, and of that respect for its own government, customarily so expressed in its own acts, of which the English among the rest afford an instance, when in the title of the King they always name Great Britain before France. The second objection is, "that the term definitive _articles_ is used instead of definitive _treaty_" If the words _definitive treaty_ had been used in the ratification instead of _definitive articles_, it might have been more correct, though the difference seems not great nor of much importance, as in the treaty itself it is called the present _Definitive Treaty_.