1. Isaac Sears of the New York firm Sears & Smith reported to JJ that Richard Soderstrom, a merchant who had arrived at Boston in 1780 and had recently been appointed Swedish consul to the United States, had obtained recognition of his appointment from Governor John Hancock of Massachusetts without first presenting his commission to Congress. This, Sears erroneously suggested, Soderstrom had done to shield himself from arrest for bills of exchange he had drawn on Sears & Smith that had been protested for nonpayment. See Sears & Smith to JJ, 23 Feb. 1785, ALS, with enclosure, DNA: PCC, item 78, 21: 353, 356–59; C, DNA: PCC Misc. 5 (EJ: 11765); LbkC, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 1: 295–97 (EJ: 1669). Although he recognized an individual’s right to information about charges made against him in certain instances, JJ later recommended that Congress reject Soderstrom’s request for copies of the documents supplied JJ by Sears and Smith. See Soderstrom to Richard Henry Lee, 8 Sept. 1785, C, DNA: PCC, item 78, 21: 435 (EJ: 10908); and JJ’s report to Congress 6 Oct. 1785, DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 1: 433–36; LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 124, 1: 187–89 (EJ: 3863, 4533).

Soderstrom had twice attempted to present his commission to Congress in November 1784, but found it in recess. He travelled to Boston where, at the suggestion of William Tudor, a Boston attorney, Hancock gave him an exequatur or authorization to function as consul on 24 Jan. 1785 and issued a public proclamation to this effect on 13 Feb., three days after Soderstrom wrote JJ to inform him that his commission had been recognized by Massachusetts and to request him to present it to Congress for its approval. Massachusetts’s delegates to Congress quickly informed Hancock that his action had been “remarked on” as “adverse to the principles of confederation” and that it might “induce” an act of Congress. See LDC, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends 22: 188, 239–40.

Prior to submitting the above report, JJ asked Charles Thomson to confirm that Congress considered it obligatory for foreign consuls to seek recognition from Congress before presenting themselves to an individual state, and asked whether Soderstrom had done so. Thomson replied that he had not and commented that it was not “usual” for states to recognize consuls until they had been notified that Congress had done so. For questions raised about state jurisdiction over foreign consuls prior to the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, see the editorial note “The Franco-American Consular Convention,” below.

JJ did not question the accuracy of Sears’s charge that Soderstrom had claimed consular privileges to protect himself, nor was he aware that Soderstrom had attempted to present himself to Congress before he was presented to the governor of Massachusetts. John Lowell quickly supplied evidence to Rufus King, who forwarded it to JJ, that clearly established that Soderstrom had responded to the firm’s suit as a private person. See JJ to John Lowell, 10 May, below; Rufus King to JJ, 8 Apr. 1785, ALS, DNA; PCC, item 78, 13: 599 (EJ: 5153); LbkC, with enclosures, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 1: 191–97 (EJ: 1612); DC, description begins William A. Weaver, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789 (7 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1833–34) description ends 3: 795–806; and Gary D. Olson, “The Soderstrom Incident: A Reflection upon Federal-State Relations under the Articles of Confederation,” New-York Historical Society Quarterly 55 (April 1971): 109–18.