do not
presume to advise you; but mention it only for your consideration." But
Adams had already taken his own measures for presenting the case before
Congress.

[Note 75: Franklin's _Works_, vii. 110-112.]

Such is the full story of Franklin's doings in this affair. His
connection with it was limited to an effort to counteract the mischief
which another had done. Whether he thought that the "inconvenience"
which "_ought_ to fall" only on Americans could be arranged to do so,
does not appear; probably he never concerned himself to work out a
problem entirely outside his own department. As a diplomatist, who had
to gain time for angry people to cool down for amicable discussion, he
was content to throw out this general remark, and to express confidence
that his countrymen would do liberal justice. So far as he was
concerned, this should have been the end of the matter, and Adams should
have been grateful to a man whose tranquil wisdom and skillful tact had
saved him from the self-reproach which he would ever have felt had his
well-intentioned, ill-timed act borne its full possible fruit of injury
to the cause of the States. But Adams, who knew that his views were
intrinsically correct, emerged from the imbroglio with an extreme
resentment against his rescuer, nor was he ever able to see that
Franklin did right in not reiterating the same views. He wished not to
be saved but to be vindicated. The consequence has been unfortunate for
Franklin, because the affair has furnished material for one of the
counts in the indictment which the Adamses have filed against him before
the bar of posterity.

It may be remarked here that the few words which Franklin ever let drop
concerning paper money indicate that he had given it little thought. He
said that in Europe it seemed "a mystery," "a wonderful machine;" and
there is no reason why he should have understood it better than other
people in Europe. He also said that the general effect of the
depreciation had operated as a gradual tax on the citizens, and "perhaps
the most equal of all taxes, since it depreciated in the hands of the
holders of money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the sums they
held and the time they held it, which is generally in proportion to
men's wealth."[76] The remark could not keep a place in any very
profound discussion of the subject; but it should be noted that in this
point of view the contention of de Vergennes might be logically
defended, o