To this I merely replied in general terms, that I had no reason to doubt that the future relations between the United States and France would be marked by the same friendly considerations which had hitherto characterised them.
I did not ask what kind of aid from the United States he meant, presuming that he reckoned on forbearance rather than on any active co-operation.
I may also mention on this subject that I returned yesterday from Biarritz, where 1 was informed by M. Pereire, the proprietor of the Franco-Mexican line of packet-boats, that his agent had finally signed the contract with the minister of war for bringing home the whole French army during next March.[1]
He had received the day before, as I understood, the letter advising him of this fact. Some detachments of troops, he said, would be brought home this autumn, and all the rest before the end of March. I have reason to think that he had been requested to give me this information.John Bigelow.From these two documents it is easy to see, what was thought of French policy on the other side of the ocean. And it was nothing but justice. Whatever might be the cause, our head-quarters still remained in complete ignorance of these diplomatic manœuvres. As to General Castelnau's mission, its almost threatening character was not long in transpiring. The public feeling spread as far as Mexico, and M. Larès, the president of the council, undertook to express the general impression to our head-quarters authorities. The reply only reaffirmed the principle, which its powers and personal conviction fully confirmed, that
- ↑ The alteration in the first contract with this line of packets, which was made with an idea of withdrawing the troops in three divisions, was a great loss to the French treasury.
