TO MR. PAINE.Philadelphia, July 29, 1791. Dear Sir,—Your favor of Sept. 28th, 1790, did not come to my hands till Feb. 11th, and I have not answered it sooner because it said you would be here in the spring. That expectation being past, I now acknowledge the receipt. Indeed I am glad you did not come away till you had written your "Rights of Man." That has been much read here with avidity and pleasure. A writer under the signature of Publicola has attacked it. A Your observations on the subject of a copper coinage has satisfied my mind on that subject, which I confess had wavered before between difficulties. As a different plan is under consideration of Congress, and will be taken up at their meeting, I think to watch the proper moment, and publish your observations (except the notes which contain facts relative to particular persons, which I presume you would dislike to see published, and which are not necessary to establish the main object), adding your name, because it will attract attention and give weight to the publication. As this cannot take place under four months, there is time for you to forbid me, if it should be disagreeable to you to have the observations published, which, however, I hope it will not be. General Scott has just returned from a successful expedition against the Indians, having killed thirty-two warriors, and taken fifty-eight women and children, and burnt several towns. I hope they will now consent to peace, which is all we ask. Our funds are near par; the crops of wheat remarkably fine; and a great degree of general prosperity arising from four years successive of plentiful crops, a great diffusion of domestic manufacture, a return to economy, and a reasonable faith in the new government. I shall be happy to hear from you, and still more to see you, being with great, and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your friend and servant. TO THE PRESIDENT.Philadelphia, July 30, 1791. Sir,—I have the honor to inclose for your perusal, a letter which I have prepared for Mr. Short. The ill humor into which the French colonies are getting, and the little dependence on the troops sent thither, may produce a hesitation in the National Assembly as to the conditions they will impose in their constitution. In a moment of hesitation, small matters may influence their decision. They may see the impolicy of insisting on particular conditions, which, operating as grievances on us, as well as on their colonists, might produce a concert of action. I have thought it would not be amiss to trust to Mr. Short the sentiments in the cyphered part of the letter, leaving him to govern himself by circumstances, whether to let them leak out at all or not, and whether so as that it may be known or remain unknown that they come from us. A perfect knowledge of his judgment and discretion leaves me entirely satisfied, that they will be not used, or so used as events shall render proper. But if you think that the possibility that harm may be done, overweighs the chance of good, I would expunge them, as, in cases of doubt, it is better to say too little than too much. I have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect and attachment, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO GENERAL KNOX.Philadelphia, August 10, 1791. Dear Sir,—I have now the honor to return you the petition of Mr. Moultrie on behalf of the South Carolina Yazoo company. Without noticing that some of the highest functions of sovereignty are assumed in the very papers which he annexes as his justification, I am of opinion that government should firmly maintain this ground; that the Indians have a right to the occupation of their lands, independent of the States within whose It is in compliance with your request, my dear Sir, that I submit these ideas to you, to whom it belongs to give place to them, or such others as your better judgment shall prefer, in answer to Mr. Moultrie. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most sincere and respectful esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO COLONEL HARVIE.Philadelphia, August 14, 1791. Dear Sir,—Being charged with the preparation of a statement to Congress of all their lands north of the Ohio, it becomes necessary for me to know what quantity of lands was assigned to the Virginia Continental line on the south side of the Ohio, say on the Cumberland, in satisfaction of their claims of bounty lands against the Continent. If I can by any means come at this quantity, by deducting it from the sum total of bounty lands given to all the lines, which sum total I know, the residue will be exactly what the army is entitled to on the north side of the Ohio. I am in hopes your office can furnish me with this information, TO MR. CARMICHAEL.Philadelphia, August 24, 1791. Sir,—Your letter of January 24, is still the only one received from you within the period so often mentioned. Mine to you of the present year have been of March 12 and 17, April 11, May 16, and June 23. I have lately preferred sending my letters for you to Colonel Humphreys, in hopes he might find means of conveying them to you. The subjects of those of the 12th and 17th of March are still pressed on you, and especially the first, the great object of which cannot be delayed without consequences which both nations should deprecate. Mr. Jaudenes arrived here some time ago, and has been received as joint commissioner with Mr. Viar. The concurring interests of Spain and this country certainly require the presence of able and discreet ministers. The crop of wheat of the present year has surpassed all expectation as to quantity, and is of fine quality. Other articles of agriculture will differ more by an extraordinary drought. I enclose you a copy of our census, which, so far as it is written in black ink, is founded on actual returns, what is in red ink being conjectured, but very near the truth. Making very small Our first expedition against the Indians, under General Scott, has been completely successful; he having killed thirty odd, taken fifty odd, and burnt their towns. A second expedition against them has commenced, and we expect daily the result. The public credit continues firm. The domestic debt funded at six per cent., is twelve and a half per cent. above par. A spirit, however, of gambling in our public paper has seized on too many of our citizens, and we fear it will check our commerce, arts, manufactures, and agriculture, unless stopped. Newspapers for you accompany this, addressed to the care of Colonel Humphreys. I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO SIR JOHN SINCLAIR.Philadelphia, August 24, 1791. Dear Sir,—I am to acknowledge the receipt of your two favors of December 25 and May 14, with the pamphlets which accompanied them, and to return you my thanks for them. The Corn Law, I perceive, has not passed in the form you expected. My wishes on that subject were nearer yours than you imagined. We both in fact desired the same thing for different reasons, respecting the interests of our respective countries, and therefore justifiable in both. You wished the bill so moulded as to encourage strongly your national agriculture. The clause for warehousing foreign corn tended to lessen the confidence of the farmer in the demand for his corn. I wished the clause omitted, that our corn might pass directly to the country of the consumer, and save us the loss of an intermediate deposit, which it can illy bear. That no commercial arrangements between Great Britain and the United States have taken place, as you wish should be done, cannot be imputed to us. The proposition has surely been often enough made, perhaps too often. It is a happy circumstance We are now under the first impression of the news of the King's flight from Paris, and his re-capture. It would be unfortunate were it in the power of any one man to defeat the issue of so beautiful a revolution. I hope and trust it is not, and that, for the good of suffering humanity all over the earth, that revolution will be established and spread through the whole world. I shall always be happy, my dear Sir, to hear of your health and happiness, being with sentiments of the most cordial esteem and respect, dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO E. RUTLEDGE, ESQ.Philadelphia, August 25, 1791. My Dear Sir,—I have received your favor of the 7th, by Mr. Harper, and that also by Mr. Butler. I thank you for both, and shall duly respect both. I find by the last that, not your letter on the subject of British commerce, but mine in answer to it, has miscarried. Yours was dated June 20, 1790, was received July 2, and answered July 4. I send you a copy of the answer, which will read now like an old almanac; but it will show you I am incapable of neglecting anything which comes from you. The measures therein spoken of as in contemplation, for the purpose of bringing Great Britain to reason, vanished in a reference of the subject to me to report on our commerce and navigation generally, to the next session of Congress. I have little hope that the result will be anything more than to turn the left cheek to him who has smitten the right. We have to encounter not only the prejudices in favor of England, but those against the Eastern States, whose ships, in the opinion of some, will overrun our land. I have been sorry to see that your State has been over-jealous of the measures proposed on this subject, and which really tend to relieve them from the effects of British broils. I wish you may be able to convert Mr. Barnwell, because you Would to God yourself, General Pinckney and Major Pinckney, would come forward and aid us with your efforts. You are all known, respected, wished for; but you refuse yourselves to everything. What is to become of us, my dear friend, if the vine and the fig tree withdraw, and leave us to the bramble and thorn? You will have heard before this reaches you, of the peril into which the French revolution is brought by the flight of their King. Such are the fruits of that form of government, which heaps importance on idiots, and of which the Tories of the present day are trying to preach into our favor. I still hope the French revolution will issue happily. I feel that the permanence of our own, leans in some degree on that; and that a failure TO MESSRS. JOHNSON, STUART, AND CARROL.Philadelphia, August 28, 1791. Gentlemen,—Your joint letter of the 2d instant to the President, as also Mr. Carrol's separate letters of the 5th and 15th, have been duly received. Major L'Enfant also having arrived here and laid his plan of the Federal City before the President, he was pleased to desire a conference of certain persons, in his presence, on these several subjects. It is the opinion of the President, in consequence thereof, that an immediate meeting of the Commissioners at Georgetown is requisite; that certain measures may be decided on, and put into a course of preparation for a commencement of sale on the 17th of October, as advertised. As Mr. Madison and myself, who were present at the conference, propose to pass through Georgetown on our way to Virginia, the President supposes that our attendance at the meeting of the Commissioners might be of service to them, as we could communicate to them the sentiments developed at the conferences here and approved by the President, under whatever point of view they may have occasion to know them. The circumstances of time and distance oblige me to take the liberty of proposing the day of meeting, and to say that we will be in Georgetown on the evening of the 7th or morning of the 8th of the next month, in time to attend any meeting of the Commissioners on that day, and in hopes they may be able, in the course of it, to make all the use of us they may think proper, so that we may pursue our journey the next day. To that meeting, therefore, the answers to the several letters before mentioned are referred. This letter is addressed to Mr. Carrol only, with a requisition to the Postmaster at Georgetown to send it to him by express, under the hope that it will, by expresses to the other gentlemen, take timely measures for the proposed meeting on the 8th. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect and esteem, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO WILLIAM SHORT.Philadelphia, August 29, 1791. Dear Sir,—I am to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 67, June the 6th, No. 68, June the 10th, No. 69, June the 22d, No. 70, June the 26th, No. 71, June the 29th; the three last by the British packet. My last to you was of July the 28th, by a vessel bound to Havre. This goes to the same port, because accompanied by newspapers. It will be the last I shall write you these two months, as I am to set out for Virginia the next week. I now enclose you a copy of my letter of March the 12th, to Mr. Carmichael, which you say was not in that of the same date to you. There was no paper to accompany it but St. Marie's, which you say you received. I enclose you also a copy of our census, written in black ink, so far as we have actual returns, and supplied by conjecture in red ink, where we have no returns; but the conjectures are known to be very near the truth. Making very small allowance for omissions, which we know to have been very great, we are certainly above four millions, probably about four millions one hundred thousand. There is a vessel now lying at Philadelphia, advertising to receive emigrants to Louisiana, gratis, on account of the Spanish government. Be so good as to mention this to M. de Montmorin, who will be a judge what we must feel under so impudent a transaction. You observe, that if Drost does not come, you have not been authorized to engage another coiner. If he does not come, there will probably be one engaged here. If he comes, I should think The decree of the National Assembly, relative to tobacco carried in French or American ships, is likely to have such an effect in our ports, as to render it impossible to conjecture what may or may not be done. It is impossible to let it go on without a vigorous correction. If that should be administered on our part, it will produce irritation on both sides, and lessen that disposition which we feel cordially to concur in a treaty, which shall melt the two nations as to commercial matters into one, as nearly as possible. It is extremely desirable, that the National Assembly should themselves correct the decree, by a repeal founded on the expectation of an arrangement. We have, as yet, no news of the event of our second expedition against the Indians. I am, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your friend and servant. TO M. LA MOTTE.Philadelphia, August 30, 1791. Sir,—I am now to acknowledge the receipt of your favors of February the 9th, March the 25th, and April the 24th; as also of the several packages of wine, carriages, &c., which came safe to hand, and for your care of which be pleased to accept my thanks. I am sensible of the difficulties to which our consuls are exposed by the applications of sailors, calling themselves Americans. Though the difference of dialect between the Irish and The difference of duty on tobacco carried to France in French and American bottoms, has excited great uneasiness. We presume the National Assembly must have been hurried into the measure, without being allowed time to reflect on its consequences. A moment's consideration must convince anybody, that no nation upon earth ever submitted to so enormous an assault on the transportation of their own produce. Retaliation, to be equal, will have the air of extreme severity and hostility. Such would be an additional tonnage of twelve livres ten sous the ton burthen, on all French ships entering our ports. Yet this would but exactly balance an additional duty of six livres five sous the hogshead of tobacco, brought in American ships entering in the ports of France. I hope, either that the National Assembly will repeal the measure, or the proposed treaty be so hastened, as to get this matter out of the way before it shall be necessary for the ensuing legislature to act on it. Their measure, and our retaliation on it, which is unavoidable, will very illy prepare the minds of both parties for a liberal treaty. My confidence in the friendly dispositions of the National Assembly, and in the sincerity of what they have expressed on the subject, induce I have the honor to be, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.Philadelphia, August 30, 1791. Dear Sir,—My letter of July the 26th covered my first of exchange for a thousand dollars, and though that went by so sure an opportunity as to leave little doubt of its receipt, yet, for greater security, I enclose a second. The tranquillity of our country leaves us nothing to relate, which may interest a mind surrounded by such buoyant scenes as yours. No matter; I will still tell you the charming though homespun news, that our crops of wheat have been abundant and of superior quality; that very great though partial drought has destroyed the crops of hay to the north, and corn to the south; that the late rains may recover the tobacco to a middling crop, and that the fields of rice are promising. I informed you in my last, of the success of our first expedition against the Indians. A second has gone against them, the result of which is not yet known. Our public credit is good, but the abundance of paper has produced a spirit of gambling in the funds, which has laid up our ships at the wharves, as too slow instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure itself. I wish it may; but I have rarely seen a gamester cured, even by the disasters of his vocation. Some new indications of the ideas with which the British cabinet are coming into treaty, confirm your opinions, which I know to be right, but the Anglomany of some would not permit them to accede to. Adieu, my dear Sir. Your affectionate humble servant. TO BENJ. BANNEKER.Philadelphia, August 30, 1791. Sir,—I thank you sincerely for your letter of the 19th instant, and for the Almanac it contained. Nobody wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the others colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa and America. I can add with truth, that nobody wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body and mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit. I have taken the liberty of sending your Almanac to Monsieur de Condorcet, Secretary of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, and member of the Philanthropic society, because I considered it as a document to which your color had a right for their justification against the doubts which have been entertained of them. I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO JOHN ADAMS.Philadelphia, August 30, 1791. My Dear Sir,—I received some time ago your favor of July 29, and was happy to find that you saw in its true point of view the way in which I had been drawn into the scene, which must have been so disagreeable to you. The importance which you still seem to allow to my note, and the effect you suppose it to have had, though unintentional in me, induces me to show you that it really had no effect. Paine's pamphlet, with my note, was published here about the second week in May. Not a word ever appeared in the public papers here on the subject for more than a month; and I am certain not a word on the subject would ever have been said, had not a writer, under the name of Publicola, You speak of the execrable paragraph in the Connecticut papers. This, it is true, appeared before Publicola; but it had no more relation to Paine's pamphlet and my note, than to the Alcoran. I am satisfied the writer of it had never seen either; for when I passed through Connecticut about the middle of June, not a copy had ever been seen by anybody, either in Hartford or New Haven, nor probably in that whole State; and that paragraph was so notoriously the reverse of the disinterestedness of character which you are known to possess by everybody who knows your name, that I never heard a person speak of the paragraph, but with an indignation in your behalf which did you entire justice. This paragraph, then, certainly did not flow from my note, any more than the publications which Publicola produced. Indeed it was impossible that my note should occasion your name to be brought into question; for so far from naming you, I had not even in view any writing which I might Thus I hope, my dear Sir, that you will see me to have been as ignorant in effect as I was in intention. I was brought before the public without my own consent, and from the first moment of seeing the effect of the real aggression in this business to keep me before the public, I determined that nothing should induce me to put pen to paper in the controversy. The business is now over, and I hope its effects are over, and that our friendship will never be suffered to be committed, whatever use others may think proper to make of our names. The event of the King's flight from Paris and his recapture, will have struck you with its importance. It appears, I think, that the nation is firm within, and it only remains to see whether there will be any movement from without. I confess I have not changed my confidence in the favorable issue of that revolution, because it has always rested on my own ocular evidence of the unanimity of the nation, and wisdom of the patriotic party in the National Assembly. The last advices render it probable that the Emperor will recommence hostilities against the Porte. It remains to see whether England and Prussia will take a part. Present me to Mrs. Adams with all the affections I feel for her, and be assured of those devoted to yourself by, my dear Sir, your sincere friend and servant. TO ADMIRAL PAUL JONES.Philadelphia, August 31, 1791. Dear Sir,—I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of March 20th, with the several papers it enclosed, which were duly communicated to the President. No proof was necessary to satisfy us here of your good conduct everywhere. In answer to your request to obtain and transmit the proper authority of the Our new Constitution works well, and gives general satisfaction Public credit is high. We have made a successful expedition against the Indians this summer, and another is gone against them, and we hope will induce them to peace. A census of our numbers, taken this summer, gives us reason to believe we are about four millions of all ages and sexes. A state of tranquil prosperity furnishing no particular and interesting events to communicate to you, I have only to add assurances of the constant esteem and attachment of, dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO MONSIEUR DE TERNANT, Minister Plenipotentiary of France.Philadelphia, September 1, 1791. Sir,—I have communicated to the President what passed between us the other day, on the subject of the payments made to France by the United States in the assignats of that country, since they have lost their par with gold and silver; and after conferences, by his instruction, with the Secretary of the Treasury, I am authorized to assure you, that the government of the United States have no idea of paying their debt in a depreciated medium, and that in the final liquidation of the payments which shall have been made, due regard will be had to an equitable allowance for the circumstance of depreciation. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO T. NEWTON.Georgetown, September 8, 1791. Dear Sir,—I was in the moment of my departure from Philadelphia, for Virginia, when I received your favor, inquiring how far the law of nations is to govern in proceedings respecting foreign consuls. The law of nations does not of itself extend to consuls at all. They are not of the diplomatic class of characters, to which alone that law extends of right. Convention, indeed, may give it to them, and sometimes has done so; but in that case, the convention can be produced. In ours with France, it is expressly declared that consuls shall not have the privileges of that law, and we have no convention with any other nation. Congress have had before them a bill on the subject of consuls, but have not as yet passed it. Their code then furnishes no law to govern these cases. Consequently, they are to be decided by the State laws alone. Some of these, I know, have given certain privileges to consuls; and I think those of Virginia did at one time. Of the extent and continuance of those laws, you are a better judge than I am. Independently of law, consuls are to be considered as distinguished foreigners, dignified by a commission from their sovereign, and specially recommended by him to the respect of the nation with whom they reside. They are subject to the laws of the land, indeed, precisely as other foreigners are, a convention, where there is one, making a part of the laws of the land: but if at any time, their conduct should render it necessary to assert the authority of the laws over them, the rigor of those laws should be tempered by our respect for their sovereign, as far as the case will admit. This moderate and respectful treatment towards foreign consuls, it is my duty to recommend and press on our citizens, because I ask it for their good towards our own consuls, from the people with whom they reside. In what I have said, I beg leave to be understood as laying down general principles only, and not as applying them to the I have the honor to be, with great esteem, your most obedient humble servant. TO MR. HAMMOND.October 26, 1791. Mr. Jefferson has the honor of presenting his compliments to Mr. Hammond, of expressing his regrets that he happened to be from home when Mr. Hammond did him the honor of calling on him, and was equally unlucky in not finding him at home when he waited on him on Monday. Being informed by Mr. Bond, that Mr. Hammond is charged with a public mission to the government of the United States, relative to which some previous explanations might be proper, Mr. Jefferson has the honor to assure Mr. Hammond, he shall be ready to receive any communications and enter into explanations, either formally or informally, as Mr. Hammond shall choose, and at any time suitable to him. He recollects with pleasure his acquaintance with Mr. Hammond in Paris, and shall be happy in every opportunity of rendering him such offices and attentions as may be acceptable to him. TO J. MADISON.November 1, 1791. In my report on How's case, where I state that it should go to the President, it will become a question with the House whether they shall refer it to the President themselves, or give it back to the petitioner, and let him so address it, as he ought to have done at first. I think the latter proper, 1, because it is a case belonging purely to the Executive; 2, the legislature should never show itself in a matter with a foreign nation, but where the case is very serious and they mean to commit the nation on its issue; TO THE PRESIDENT.November 6, 1791. Sir,—I have the honor to enclose you the draught of a letter to Governor Pinckney, and to observe, that I suppose it to be proper that there should, on fit occasions, be a direct correspondence between the President of the United States and the Governors of the States; and that it will probably be grateful to them to receive from the President, answers to the letters they address to him. The correspondence with them on ordinary business, may still be kept up by the Secretary of State, in his own name. I enclose also a letter to Major Pinckney, with a blank to be filled up, when you shall have made up your mind on it. I have conferred with Mr. M. on the idea of the commissioners of the federal town proceeding to make private sales of the lots, and he thinks it advisable. I cannot but repeat, that if the surveyors will begin on the river, laying off the lots from Rock Creek to the Eastern Branch, and go on abreast, in that way, from the river towards the back part of the town, they may pass the avenue from the President's house to the capitol, before the spring; and as soon as they shall have passed it, a public sale may take place, without injustice to either the Georgetown or Carrolsburg I have the honor to be, with the most sincere respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO MAJOR THOMAS PINCKNEY.Philadelphia, November 6, 1791. Sir,—The mission of a Minister Plenipotentiary to the court of London being now to take place, the President of the United States is desirous of availing the public of your services in that office. I have it in charge, therefore, from him, to ask whether it will be agreeable that he should nominate you for that purpose to the Senate. We know that higher motives will alone influence your mind in the acceptance of this charge. Yet it is proper, at the same time, to inform you, that as a provision for your expenses in the exercise of it, an outfit of nine thousand dollars is allowed, and an annual salary to the same amount, payable quarterly. On receiving your permission, the necessary orders for these sums, together with your credentials, shall be forwarded to you, and it would be expected that you should proceed on the mission as soon as you can have made those arrangements for your private affairs, which such an absence may render indispensable. Let me only ask the favor of you to give me an immediate answer, and by duplicate, by sea and post, that we may have the benefit of both chances for receiving it as early as possible. Though I have not the honor of a personal acquaintance with you, yet I beg you to be assured, that I feel all that anxiety for your entrance on this important mission, which a thorough conviction of your fitness for it can inspire; and that in its relations with my office, I shall always endeavor to render it as agreeable to you as possible. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT.Philadelphia, November 7, 1791. Sir,—I have duly considered the letter you were pleased to refer to me, of the 18th of August, from his Excellency Governor Pinckney to yourself, together with the draught of one proposed to be written by him to the Governor of Florida, claiming the re-delivery of certain fugitives from justice, who have been received in that country. The inconveniences of such a receptacle for debtors and malefactors in the neighborhood of the southern States, are obvious and great, and I wish the remedy were as certain and short as the latter seems to suppose. The delivery of fugitives from one country to another, as practised by several nations, is in consequence of conventions settled between them, defining precisely the cases wherein such deliveries shall take place. I know that such conventions exist between France and Spain, France and Sardinia, France and Germany, France and the United Netherlands; between the several sovereigns constituting the Germanic body, and, I believe, very generally between co-terminous States on the continent of Europe. England has no such convention with any nation, and their laws have given no power to their executive to surrender fugitives of any description; they are, accordingly, constantly refused, and hence England has been the asylum of the Paolis, the La Mottes, the Calonnes, in short, of the most atrocious offenders as well as the most innocent victims, who have been able to get there. The laws of the United States, like those of England, receive every fugitive, and no authority has been given to our executives to deliver them up. In the case of Longchamp, a subject of France, a formal demand was made by the minister of France, and was refused. He had, indeed, committed an offence within the United States; but he was not demanded as a criminal but as a subject. The French government has shown great anxiety to have such a convention with the United States, as might authorize them to command their subjects coming here; they got a clause If, then, the United States could not deliver up to Governor Quesada, a fugitive from the laws of his country, we cannot claim as a right the delivery of fugitives from us; and it is worthy consideration, whether the demand proposed to be made in Governor Pinckney's letter, should it be complied with by the other party, might not commit us disagreeably, perhaps dishonorably in event; for I do not think we can take for granted, that the legislature of the United States will establish a convention for the mutual delivery of fugitives; and without a reasonable certainty that they will, I think we ought not to give Governor Quesada any grounds to expect, that in a similar case, we would re-deliver fugitives from his government. I have the honor to be, with the most profound respect and attachment, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MESSRS. JOHNSON, STEWART AND CARROL.Philadelphia, November 21, 1791. Gentlemen,—A Mr. Blodget has a scheme in contemplation for purchasing and building a whole street in the new city, and any one of them which you may think best. The magnitude of the proposition occasioned it to be little attended to in the beginning. However, great as it is, it is believed by good judges to be practicable. It may not be amiss, therefore, to be ready for TO MR. ELLICOTT.Philadelphia, November 21, 1791. Dear Sir,—It is excessively desirable that an extensive sale of lots in Washington should take place as soon as possible. It has been recommitted to the commissioners to have all the squares adjacent to the avenue from the President's house to the Capitol, on both sides, and from thence to the river, through the whole breadth of the ground between Rock Creek and Eastern Branch, first laid off; the object of the present is to ask your private opinion of the earliest time at which this portion of the work can be completed, which I will beg the favor of you to communicate to me by letter. In order that the sale may not be delayed by the engraving, it is hoped that by communicating what is executed from time to time, the engraver may nearly keep pace with you. I am, with great esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient servant. TO WILLIAM SHORT.Philadelphia, November 24, 1791. Dear Sir,—My last to you was of August the 29th, acknowledging the receipt of your Nos. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, and informing you I was about setting out to Virginia, and should not again write to you till my return. Only one vessel has sailed from hence to Havre since my return, and my notice of her departure was so short, that I could not avail myself of it. Your Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, came here during my absence, and 79, 80, were received October the 28th. The Nos. 76 and 77 seem to be missing. You mention that Drost wishes the devices of our money to be sent to him, that he may engrave them there. This cannot be done, because not yet decided on. The devices will be fixed by the law which shall establish the mint. M. de Ternant tells me he has no instructions to propose to us the negotiation of a commercial treaty, and that he does not expect any. I wish it were possible to draw that negotiation to this place. In your letter of July the 24th, is the following paragraph. "It is published in the English newspapers, that war is inevitable between the United States and Spain, and that preparations are making for it on both sides. M. de Montmorin asked me how the business stood at present, and seemed somewhat surprised at my telling him, that I knew nothing later than what I had formerly mentioned to him. I have, in more than one instance, experienced the inconvenience of being without information. In this, it is disagreeable, as it may have the appearance with M. de Montmorin, of my having something to conceal from him, which not being the case, it would be wrong that he should be allowed to take up such an idea. I observed, that I did not suppose there was any new circumstance, as you had not informed me of it." Your observation was certainly just. It would be an Augean task for me to go through the London newspapers, and formally contradict all their lies, even those relating to America. On our side, there having been certainly no preparations for war against Some proceedings of the assembly of St. Domingo have lately taken place, which it is necessary for me to state to you exactly, that you may be able to do the same to M. de Montmorin. When the insurrection of their negroes assumed a very threatening appearance, the Assembly sent a deputy here to ask assistance of military stores and provisions. He addressed himself to M. de Ternant, who (the President being then in Virginia, as I was also) applied to the Secretaries of the Treasury and War. They furnished one thousand stand of arms, other military stores, and placed forty thousand dollars in the treasury, subject to the order of M. de Ternant, to be laid out in provisions, or otherwise, as he should think best. He sent the arms and other military stores; but the want of provisions did not seem so instantaneous as to render it necessary, in his opinion, to send any at that time. Before the vessel arrived in St. Domingo, the Assembly, further urged by the appearance of danger, sent two deputies more, with larger demands, viz., eight thousand fusils and bayonets, two thousand mousquators, three thousand pistols, three thousand sabres, twenty-four thousand barrels of flour, four hundred thousand livres worth of Indian meal, rice, peas, and hay, and a large quantity of plank, &c. to repair the buildings destroyed. They Our Indian expeditions have proved successful. As yet, however, they have not led to peace. Mr. Hammond has lately arrived here as Minister Plenipotentiary from the court of London, and we propose to name one to that court in return. Congress will probably establish the ratio of representation by a bill now before them, at one representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants. Besides the newspapers, as usual, you will receive I am, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MR. HUMPHREYS.Philadelphia, November 29, 1791. Dear Sir,—My last to you was of August 23, acknowledging the receipt of your Nos. 19, 21, and 22. Since that, I have received from 23 to 33 inclusive. In mine, I informed you I was about setting out for Virginia, and consequently should not write to you till my return. This opportunity, by Captain Wicks, is the first since my return. The party which had gone, at the date of my last, against the Indians north of the Ohio, were commanded by General Wilkinson, and were as successful as the first, having killed and taken about eighty persons, burnt some towns, and lost, I believe, not a man. As yet, however, it has not produced peace. A very formidable insurrection of the negroes in French St. Domingo has taken place. From thirty to fifty thousand are said to be in arms. They have sent here for aids of military stores and provisions, which we furnish just as far as the French minister here approves. Mr. Hammond is arrived here as Minister Plenipotentiary from Great Britain, and we are about sending one to that court from hence. The census, particularly as to each part of every State, is now in the press; if done in time for this conveyance, it shall be forwarded. The Legislature have before them a bill for allowing one representative for every thirty thousand persons, which has passed the Representatives, and is now with the Senate. Some late inquiries into the state of our domestic manufactories give a very flattering result. Their extent is great and growing through all the States. Some manufactories on a large scale are under contemplation. As to the article of Etrennes inquired after in one of your letters, it was under TO DANIEL SMITH, ESQ.Philadelphia, November 29, 1791. Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favors of September 1 and October 4, together with the report of the Executive proceedings in the South-Western government from March 1 to July 26. In answer to that part of yours of September 1 on the subject of a seal for the use of that government, I think it extremely proper and necessary, and that one should be provided at public expense. The opposition made by Governor Blount and yourself to all attempts by citizens of the United States to settle within the Indian lines without authority from the General Government, is approved, and should be continued. There being a prospect that Congress, who have now the Post office bill before them, will establish a post from Richmond to Stanton, and continue it thence towards the South-West government a good distance, if not nearly to it, our future correspondence will be more easy, quick, and certain. I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.Philadelphia, December 5, 1791. Dear Sir,—The enclosed memorial from the British minister, on the case of Thomas Pagan, containing a complaint of injustice in the dispensations of law by the courts of Massachusetts, to a British subject, the President approves of my referring it to you, to report thereon your opinion of the proceedings, and whether anything, and what, can or ought to be done by the government in consequence thereof. I am, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. The Memorial of the British Minister. The undersigned, his Britannic Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States of America, has the honor of laying before the Secretary of State, the following brief abstract of the case of Thomas Pagan, a subject of his Britannic Majesty, now confined in the prison of Boston, under an execution issued against him out of the Supreme judicial court of Massachusetts Bay. To this abstract, the undersigned has taken the liberty of annexing some observations, which naturally arise out of the statement of the transaction, and which may perhaps tend to throw some small degree of light on the general merits of the case. In the late war, Thomas Pagan was agent for, and part owner of a privateer called the Industry, which, on the 25th of March, 1783, off Cape Ann, captured a brigantine called the Thomas, belonging to Mr. Stephen Hooper, of Newport. The brigantine and cargo were libelled in the court of vice-admiralty in Nova Scotia, and that court ordered the prize to be restored. An appeal was, however, moved for by the captors, and regularly prosecuted in England before the Lords of Appeals for prize causes, who, in February, 1790, reversed the decree of the vice-admiralty court of Nova Scotia, and condemned the brigantine and cargo as good and lawful prize. In December, 1788, a judgment was obtained by Stephen Hooper in the court of common pleas for the county of Essex, in Massachusetts, against Thomas Pagan, for three thousand five hundred pounds lawful money, for money had and received to the plaintiff's use. An appeal was brought thereon in May, 1789, to the Supreme judicial court of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, held at Ipswich, for the county of Essex, and on the 16th of June, 1789, a verdict was found for Mr. Hooper, and damages were assessed at three thousand and nine pounds two shillings and ten pence, which sum is "for the vessel called the brigantine Thomas, her cargo and every article found on board." After this verdict, and before entering the judgment, Mr. Pagan moved for a new trial, suggesting that the verdict was against law; because the merits of the case originated in a question, whether a certain brigantine called the Thomas, with her cargo, taken on the high seas by a private ship of war called the Industry, was prize or no prize, and that the court had no authority to give judgment in a cause where the point of a resulting or implied promise arose upon a question of this sort. The supreme judicial court refused this motion for a new trial, because it appeared to the court, that in order to a legal decision it is not necessary to inquire whether this prize and her cargo were prize or no prize, and because the case did not, in their opinion, involve a question relative to any matter or thing necessarily consequent upon the capture thereof: it was therefore considered by the court, that Hooper should receive of Pagan three thousand and nine pounds two shillings and ten pence lawful money, damages: and taxed costs, sixteen pounds two shillings and ten pence. From this judgment, Pagan claimed an appeal to the supreme judicial court of the United States of America, for these reasons: that the judgment was given in an action brought by Hooper, who is, and at the time of commencing the action was, a citizen of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the United States, against Pagan, who, at the time when the action was commenced, was, and ever since has been, a subject of the King of Great Britain, residing in and inhabiting his province of It is to be observed, that in August, 1789, Mr. Pagan petitioned the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts for a new trial, and after hearing the arguments of counsel, a new trial was refused. On the 1st of January, 1791, his Britannic Majesty's consul at Boston applied for redress on behalf of Mr. Pagan, to the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, who, in his letter of the 28th of January, 1791, was pleased to recommend this matter to the serious attention of the Senate and House of Representatives of that State. On the 14th of February, 1791, the British consul memorialized the Senate and House of Representatives on this subject. On the 22d of February, a committee of both Houses reported a resolution, that the memorial of the consul and message from the Governor, with all the papers, be referred to the consideration of the justices of the supreme judicial court, who were directed, as far as may be, to examine into and consider the circumstances of the case, and if they found that by the force and effect allowed by the law of nations to foreign admiralty jurisdictions, &c., Hooper ought not to have recovered judgment against Pagan, the court was authorized to grant a review of the action. On the 13th of June, 1791, the British consul again represented to the Senate and House of Representatives, that the justices of the supreme judicial court had not been pleased to signify their decision on this subject, referred to them by the resolution of the 22d of February. This representation was considered by a committee of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, who concluded that one of them should make inquiry of some of the judges to know their determination, and It is somewhat remarkable, that the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts Bay, should allege that this case did not necessarily involve a question relative to prize or no prize, when the very jury to whom the court referred the decision of the case established the fact; their verdict was for three thousand and nine pounds two shillings and ten pence, damages, which sum is for the vessel called the brigantine Thomas, her cargo, and everything found on board. Hence it is evident, that the case did involve a question of prize or no prize, and having received a formal decision by the only court competent to take cognizance thereof, (viz. the high court of appeals for prize causes in England,) everything that at all related to the property in question, or to the legality of the capture, was thereby finally determined. The legality of the capture being confirmed by the high court of appeals in England, cannot consistently with the principles of the law of nations be discussed in a foreign court of law, or at least, if a foreign court of common law is, by any local regulations, deemed competent to interfere in matters relating to captures, the decisions of admiralty courts or courts of appeal, should be received and taken as conclusive evidence of the legality or illegality of captures. By such decisions, property is either adjudged to the captors or restored to the owners; if adjudged to The proceedings of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts Bay, are in direct violation of the rules and usages that have been universally practised among nations in the determination of the validity of captures, and of all collateral questions that may have reference thereto. The General Court of Massachusetts Bay, among other things, kept this point in view, when they referred the case of Mr. Pagan to the consideration of the justices of the supreme judicial court, and authorized the court to grant a review of the action, if it should be found that by the force and effect allowed by the law of nations to foreign admiralty jurisdictions, Mr. Hooper ought not to have recovered judgment against Mr. Pagan. But the supreme judicial court have not only evaded this material consideration, upon which the whole question incontestibly turns, but have assumed a fact in direct contradiction to the truth of the case, viz. that the case did not involve a question of prize or no prize. Moreover, they have denied Mr. Pagan the benefit of appeal to that court which is competent to decide on the force of treaties, and which court, by the constitution of the United States, is declared to possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, in all cases of controversy between citizens of the United States and subjects of foreign countries, to which class this case is peculiarly and strictly to be referred. From the foregoing abstract of the case of Thomas Pagan, it appears that he is now detained in prison, in Boston, in consequence of a judgment given by a court which is not competent to decide upon his case, or which, if competent, refused to admit the only evidence that ought to have given jurisdiction, and that he is denied the means of appealing to the highest court of judicature known in these States, which exists in the very organization of the constitution of the United States, and is declared to possess appellate jurisdiction in all cases of a nature similar to this. For these reasons, the undersigned begs leave respectfully to submit the whole matter to the consideration of the Secretary of State, and to request him to take such measures as may appear to him the best adapted for the purpose of obtaining for the said Thomas Pagan, such speedy and effectual redress as his case may seem to require. George Hammond. Philadelphia, November 26, 1791. TO MR. MCALISTER.Philadelphia, December 22, 1791. Sir,—I am favored with yours of the 1st of November, and recollect with pleasure our acquaintance in Virginia. With respect to the schools of Europe, my mind is perfectly made up, and on full enquiry. The best in the world is Edinburgh. Latterly, too, the spirit of republicanism has become that of the students in general, and of the younger professors; so on that account also it is eligible for an American. On the continent of Europe, no place is comparable to Geneva. The sciences are there more modernized than anywhere else. There, too, the spirit of republicanism is strong with the body of the inhabitants: but that of aristocracy is strong also with a particular class; so that it is of some consequence to attend to the class of society in which a youth is made to move. It is a cheap place. Of all these particulars Mr. Kinloch and Mr. Huger, of South Carolina, can give you the best account, as they were educated there, and the latter is lately from thence. I have the honor to be, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO MR. STUART.Philadelphia, December 23, 1791. Dear Sir,—I received duly your favor of October 22, and should have answered it by the gentleman who delivered it, but that he left town before I knew of it. That it is really important to provide a constitution for our State cannot be doubted: as little can it be doubted that the ordinance called by that name has important defects. But before we attempt it, we should endeavor to be as certain as is practicable that in the attempt we should not make bad worse. I have understood that Mr. Henry has always been opposed to this undertaking; and I confess that I consider his talents and influence such as that, were it decided that we should call a convention for the purpose of amending, I should fear he might induce that convention either to fix the thing as at present, or change it for the worse. Would it not therefore be well that means should be adopted for coming at his ideas of the changes he would agree to, and for communicating to him those which we should propose? Perhaps he might find ours not so distant from his, but that some mutual sacrifices might bring them together. I shall hazard my own ideas to you as hastily as my business obliges me. I wish to preserve the line drawn by the federal constitution between the general and particular governments as it stands at present, and to take every prudent means of preventing either from stepping over it. Though the experiment has not yet had a long enough course to show us from which quarter encroachments are most to be feared, yet it is easy to foresee, from the nature of things, that the encroachments of the State governments will tend to an excess of liberty which will correct itself, (as in the late instance,) while those of the general government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day, instead of working its own cure, as all experience shows. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Then it is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done by any change in the federal constitution, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the States themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. A weak one will lose ground in every TO THE PRESIDENT.Philadelphia, December 23, 1791. Sir,—As the conditions of our commerce with the French and British dominions are important, and a moment seems to be Port charges are so different, according to the size of the vessel and the dexterity of the captain, that an examination of a greater number of port bills might, perhaps, produce a different result. I can only say, that that expressed in the table is fairly drawn from such bills as I could readily get access to, and that I have no reason to suppose it varies much from the truth, nor on which side the variation would lie. Still, I cannot make myself responsible for this article. The authorities cited will vouch the rest. I have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect and attachment, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. Footing of the Commerce of the United States with France and England, and with the French and English American Colonies.
NOTES. (a) By Arret of December the 29th, 1787. (b) By Arret of 1763. (c) By Arret of August the 30th, 1784. (d) By Arret of 1788. (e) By Arret of 1760. (f) Taken from the Custom House returns of the United States. (g) There is a general law of France prohibiting foreign flour in their islands, with a suspending power to their Governors, in cases of necessity. An Arret of May the 9th, 1789, by their Governor, makes it free till August, 1794; and in fact it is generally free there. (h) The Arret of September the 18th, 1785, gave a premium of ten livres the kental, on fish brought in their own bottoms, for five years, so that the law expired September the 18th, 1790. Another Arret, passed a week after, laid a duty of five livres the kental, on fish brought in foreign vessels, to raise money for the premium before mentioned. The last Arret was not limited in time; yet seems to be understood as only commensurate with the other. Accordingly, an Arret of May the 9th, 1789, has made fish in foreign bottoms liable to three livres the kental only till August the 1st, 1794. (i) The port charges are estimated from bills collected from the merchants of Philadelphia. They are different in different ports of the same country, and different in the same ports on vessels of different sizes. Where I had several bills of the same port, I averaged them together. The dollar is rated at 4s. 4½d. sterling in England, at 6s. 8d. in the British West Indies, and five livres twelve sous in France, and at eight livres five sous in the French West Indies. Several articles stated to be free in France, do in fact pay one-eighth of a per cent., which was retained merely to oblige an entry to be made in their Custom House books. In like manner, several of the articles stated to be free in England, do, in fact, pay a light duty. The English duties are taken from the book of rates. (k)
The exportations certainly known then, are five-eighths of the whole. TO THE PRESIDENT.Philadelphia, January 4, 1792. Sir,—Having been in conversation to-day with Monsieur Payan, one of the St. Domingo deputies, I took occasion to inquire of him the footing on which our commerce there stands at present, and particularly whether the colonial Arret of 1789, permitting a free importation of our flour till 1793, was still in force. He answered, that that Arret was revoked in France on the clamors of the merchants there; and with a like permission to carry flour to the three usual ports, and he thinks to bring away coffee and sugar, was immediately renewed by the Governor. Whether this has been regularly kept up by renewed Arrets, during the present troubles, he cannot say, but is sure that in practice it has never been discontinued, and that not by contraband, but openly and legally, as is understood. The public application to us to send flour there, is a proof of it. Instead, therefore, of resting this permission on a colonial Arret till 1793, it should be rested on temporary Arrets renewed from time to time, as heretofore. This correction of the notes I took the liberty of laying before you, with the table containing a comparative view of our commerce with France and England, I thought it my duty to make. I have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect and attachment, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MR. SHORT.Philadelphia, January 5, 1792. Dear Sir,—My last to you was of November 24th, since which I have received yours, Nos. 76, 77, and 81 to 87 inclusive. Your letter of October 6th, with your account to June, 1791, is not yet arrived, nor the box mentioned in your number 84. The memorial of the crew of the Indian shall be sent to the Governor of South Carolina. In a former letter I informed you that two balanciers would suffice for us, which will have We have been in expectation for some time that some overture would have been made to us from the Court of France, on the subject of the treaty of commerce recommended by the National Assembly to be entered into between the two nations. The executive of ours are perfectly disposed to meet such overtures, and to concur in giving them effect on the most liberal principles. This sentiment you may freely express to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We receive with deep regret daily information of the progress of insurrection and devastation in St. Domingo. Nothing indicates as yet that the evil is at its height, and the materials, as yet untouched, but open to conflagration, are immense. The newspapers heretofore sent you, and those now sent, will have informed you of a very bloody action we have had with the Northern Indians, in which our army was defeated. This imposes the necessity of stronger preparations than were before thought requisite. Some communications from the Court of Madrid having been lately, for the first time, made to us, these shall be the subject of a separate letter. You mention some failures in the receipt of the journals of Congress and other public papers. I trust always to Mr. Remson to make them up from time to time, and I can answer for his punctuality. I send you his statement of those which have been sent, so that the failure has probably arisen from the inexactitude of those to whom they have been confided. At present we watch for vessels bound to Havre whereby to send them. You will receive some by the de Jeune Eole, which sails from hence to that port next week. I am not certain whether this letter will go by the same conveyance, or by the English packet. I am, with the highest esteem and attachment, your affectionate humble servant. TO THOMAS PINCKNEY.Philadelphia, January 17, 1792. Sir,—Your favors of November the 29th, 30th, and December the 1st, came duly to hand, and gave sincere pleasure, by announcing your disposition to accept the appointment to London. The nominations to Paris and the Hague having been detained till yours could be made, they were all immediately sent in to the Senate, to wit, yourself for London, Mr. G. Morris for Paris, Mr. Short for the Hague. Some members of the Senate, apprehending they had a right of determining on the expediency of foreign missions, as well as on the persons named, took that occasion of bringing forward the discussion of that question, by which the nominations were delayed two or three weeks. I am happy to be able to assure you, that not a single personal motive with respect to yourself entered into the objections to these appointments. On the contrary, I believe that your nomination gave general satisfaction. Your commission will be immediately made out, but as the opportunities of conveyance at this season are precarious, and you propose coming to this place, I think it better to retain it. As to the delay proposed in your letter, it was to be expected: indeed, a winter passage from Charleston to this place, or across the Atlantic, is so disagreeable, that if either that circumstance or the arrangement of your affairs should render it in the smallest degree eligible to you, to remain at home till the temperate season comes on, stay till after the vernal equinox; there will be no inconvenience to the public attending it. On the contrary, as we are just opening certain negotiations with the British minister here, which have not yet assumed any determinate complexion, a delay till that time will enable us to form some judgment of the issue they make take, and to know exactly in what way your co-operation at the place of your destination, may aid us. On this and other accounts, it will be highly useful that you take this place in your way, where, or at New York, I have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO WILLIAM SHORT.Philadelphia, January 23, 1792. Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure to inform you, that the President of the United States has appointed you minister resident for the United States at the Hague, which was approved by the Senate on the 16th instant. This new mark of the President's confidence will be the more pleasing to you, as it imports an approbation of your former conduct, whereon be pleased to accept my congratulations. You will receive herewith, a letter from myself to Monsieur de Montmorin, closing your former mission, your new commission, letters of credence from the President for the States General and Stadtholder, sealed, and copies of them open for your own satisfaction. You will keep the cypher we have heretofore used. Your past experience in the same line, renders it unnecessary for me to particularize your duties on closing your present, or conducting your future mission. Harmony with our friends being our object, you are sensible how much it will be promoted by attention to the manner as well as the matter of your communications with the government of the United Netherlands. I feel myself particularly bound to recommend, as the most important of your charges, the patronage of our commerce and the extension of its privileges, both in the United Netherlands and their colonies, but most especially the latter. The allowance to a minister resident of the United States, is four thousand five hundred dollars a year, for all his personal services and other expenses, a year's salary for his outfit, and a quarter's salary for his return. It is understood that the personal services and other expenses here meant, do not extend to the cost of You shall receive from me, from time to time, the laws and journals of Congress, gazettes and other interesting papers: for whatever information is in possession of the public, I shall leave you generally to the gazettes, and only undertake to communicate by letter, such, relative to the business of your mission, as the gazetteers cannot give. From you I shall ask, once or twice a month regularly, a communication of interesting occurrences in The President has also joined you in a special and temporary commission with Mr. Carmichael to repair to Madrid, and there negotiate certain matters respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, and other points of common interest between Spain and us. As some time will be necessary to make out the instructions and transcripts necessary in this business, they can only be forwarded by some future occasion; but they shall be soon forwarded, as we wish not to lose a moment in advancing negotiations so essential to our peace. For this reason, I must urge you to repair to the Hague at the earliest day the settlement of your affairs at Paris will admit, that your reception may be over, and the idea of your being established there strengthened, before you receive the new orders. I have the honor to be, with sincere respect and esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.Philadelphia, January 23, 1792. Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure to inform you, that the President of the United States has appointed you Minister Plenipotentiary To you, it would be more than unnecessary for me to undertake a general delineation of the functions of the office to which you are appointed. I shall therefore only express our desire, that they be constantly exercised in that spirit of sincere friendship and attachment which we bear to the French nation; and that in all transactions with the minister, his good dispositions be conciliated by whatever in language or attentions may tend to that effect. With respect to their government, we are under no call to express opinions which might please or offend any party, and therefore it will be best to avoid them on all occasions, public or private. Could any circumstances require unavoidably such expressions, they would naturally be in conformity with the sentiments of the great mass of our countrymen, who, having first, in modern times, taken the ground of government founded on the will of the people, cannot but be delighted on seeing so distinguished and so esteemed a nation arrive on the same ground, and plant their standard by our side. I feel myself particularly bound to recommend, as the most important of your charges, the patronage of our commerce, and the extension of its privileges, both in France and her colonies, but most especially the latter. Our consuls in France are under general instructions to correspond with the minister of the United States at Paris; from them you may often receive interesting information. Joseph Fenwick is consul at Bordeaux, and Burwell Carnes at Nantz; Monsieur de la Motte vice consul at Havre, and Monsieur Cathalan at Marseilles. An act of Congress, of July the 1st, 1790, has limited the allowance of a Minister Plenipotentiary to nine thousand dollars a year for all his personal services and other expenses, a year's salary for his outfit, and a quarter's salary for his return. It is understood You shall receive from me, from time to time, the laws and journals of Congress, gazettes and other interesting papers; for whatever information is in possession of the public, I shall leave you generally to the gazettes, and only undertake to communicate by letter, such, relative to the business of your mission, as the gazettes cannot give. From you I shall ask, once or twice a month regularly, a Mr. Short will receive by the same conveyance, his appointment as minister resident at the Hague. I have the honor to be, with great esteem and respect, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO MONSIEUR DE MONTMORIN.Philadelphia, January 23, 1792. Sir,—The President of the United States having destined Mr. Short to another employment, he is instructed to take leave of the court of France. The perfect knowledge I have of his understanding and dispositions, gives me full confidence that he has so conducted himself during his residence near them, as to merit their approbation; and that he will mark his departure with those respectful attentions and assurances which will give them entire satisfaction. Above all things, I hope that every exercise of his functions has been consistent with the sincerity of the friendship we bear to the King and nation, and that you will be persuaded, that no one is more cordial in that sentiment than he who has the honor to be, with the most profound respect and attachment, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO DON JOSEPH JAUDENES, AND DON JOSEPH VIAR.Philadelphia, January 25, 1792. Gentlemen,—Don Joseph Jaudenes having communicated to me verbally that his Catholic Majesty had been apprised of our solicitude to have some arrangements made respecting our free navigation of the Mississippi, and a port thereon convenient for the deposit of merchandize of export and import for lading and unlading the sea and river vessels, and that his Majesty would be ready to enter into treaty thereon directly with us, whensoever we should send to Madrid a proper and acceptable person authorized to treat on our part, I laid the communication before the President of the United States. I am authorized by him to assure you that our government has nothing more at heart than to meet the friendly advances of his Catholic Majesty with cordiality, and to concur in such arrangements on the subject proposed, as may tend best to secure peace and friendship between the two nations on a permanent footing. The President has, therefore, with the approbation of the Senate, appointed Mr. Short, our present minister resident at the Hague, to proceed to Madrid as a joint commissioner with Mr. Carmichael, with full powers to treat on the subject before mentioned, and I have no doubt that these gentlemen will so conduct themselves as to give entire satisfaction. Mr. Short's business at the Hague will occasion a short delay of his departure from that place for Madrid, but he will be duly urged to make it as short as possible. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MR. SHORT.Philadelphia, January 28, 1792. Dear Sir,—My last private letter to you was of November 25th, your last received was of September 29th. Though the present will be very confidential, and will go, I do not know how, I cannot take time to cypher it all. What has lately occurred I am, with sincere attachment, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant. TO COLONEL HAMILTON.February —, 1792. Dear Sir,—I return you the report on the mint, which I have read over with a great deal of satisfaction. I concur with you in thinking that the unit must stand on both metals, that the alloy should be the same in both, also in the proportion you establish between the value of the two metals. As to the question on whom the expense of coinage is to fall, I have been so little able to make up an opinion satisfactory to myself, as to be ready to concur in either decision. With respect to the dollar, it must be admitted by all the world, that there is great incertainty in the meaning of the term, and therefore all the world will have justified Congress for their first act of removing the incertainty by declaring what they understand by the term, but the incertainty once removed, exists no longer, and I very much doubt a right now to change the value, and especially to lessen it. It would lead to so easy a mode of paying off their debts. Besides, the parties injured by this reduction of the value would have so much matter to urge in support of the first point of fixation. Should it be thought, however, that Congress may reduce the value of the dollar, I should be for adopting for our unit, instead of the dollar, either one ounce of pure silver, or one ounce of standard silver, so as to keep the unit of money a part of the system of measures, weights and coins. I hazard these thoughts to you extempore and am, dear Sir, respectfully and affectionately. TO MR. HAMMOND.Philadelphia, February 2, 1792. Sir,—On the receipt of your letter of the 14th of December, I communicated it to the President of the United States, and under the sanction of his authority, the principal members of the executive department made it their duty to make known in conversations generally, the explicit disclaimer, in the name of your You have seen too much, Sir, of the conduct of the press in countries where it is free, to consider the gazettes as evidence of the sentiments of any part of the government; you have seen them bestow on the government itself, in all its parts, its full share of inculpation. Of the sentiments of our government on the subject of your letter, I cannot give you better evidence than the statement of the causes of the Indian war, made by the Secretary of War on the 26th of the last month, by order of the President, and inserted in the public papers. No interference on the part of your nation is therein stated among the causes of the war. I am happy, however, in the hope, that a due execution of the treaty will shortly silence those expressions of public feeling by removing their cause. I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Philadelphia, February 4, 1792. Sir,—The late appointment of a Minister Resident to the Hague, has brought under consideration the condition of Mr. Dumas, and the question, whether he is, or is not, at present in the service of the United States? Mr. Dumas, very early in the war, was employed first by Dr. Franklin, afterwards by Mr. Adams, to transact the affairs of the However, I would not wish to take on myself alone the decision of a question so important, whether considered in a legal or constitutional view; and therefore submit it to you, Sir, whether it is not a proper question whereon to take the opinion of the Attorney General? Another question then arises, Ought Mr. Dumas to be discontinued? I am of opinion he ought not. 1. Not at this time; because Mr. Short's mission to Madrid will occasion an immediate vacancy at the Hague again; and because, by the time that will be over, his appointment at the Hague must be discontinued altogether, unless Congress should enlarge the foreign fund. 2. Not at any time; because, when, after the peace, Mr. Dumas' agency became of less importance, Congress, under various views of his sacrifices and services, manifested that their continuance of him was in consideration of these, and of his advanced years and infirm state, which render it impossible for him to launch into a new line of gaining a livelihood; and they thought the continuance of moderate competence to him for moderate services, was more honorable to the United States than to abandon him in the face of Europe, after and under such circumstances. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect and attachment. Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Philadelphia, February 7, 1792. Sir,—An account presented to me by Mr. John B. Cutting, for expenditures incurred by him in liberating the seamen of the United States in British ports, during the impressments, which took place under that government in the year 1790, obliges me to recall some former transactions to your mind. You will be pleased to recollect the numerous instances of complaint or information to us, about that time, of the violence committed on our seafaring citizens in British ports, by their press-gangs and officers, and that, not having even a consul there at that time, it was thought fortunate that a private citizen, who happened to be on the spot, stept forward for their protection; that it was obvious that these exertions on his part must be attended with expense, and that a particular demand of fifty pounds sterling for this purpose coming incidentally to my knowledge, it was immediately remitted to Mr. Cutting, with a request to account for it in convenient time. He now presents an account of all his expenditures in this business, which I have the honor to communicate herewith. According to this, the oppression extends to a much greater number of our citizens, and their relief is more costly, than had been contemplated. It will be necessary to lay the account before the Legislature; because, the expenses being of a description which had not occurred before, no appropriation heretofore made would authorize payment at the treasury; because, too, the nature of the transactions may in some instances require, justly, that the ordinary rules of evidence, which the Auditor is bound to apply to ordinary cases, should suffer relaxations, which he probably will not think himself authorized to admit, without the orders of the Legislature. The practice in Great Britain of impressing seamen whenever war is apprehended, will fall more heavily on ours than on those of any other foreign nation, on account of the sameness of language. Our minister at that court, therefore, will, on these occasions, be under the necessity of interfering for their protection, Mr. Cutting, being on the spot, will himself furnish the explanations and documents of his case, either to the legislature or a committee of it, or to the Auditor, as he shall be required. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MR. HAMMOND.Philadelphia, February 25, 1792. Sir,—I have now the honor to enclose you the answer of the Attorney General to a letter I wrote him on the subject of yours of the 18th instant. It appears that the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States are open to the application of Mr. Pagan for a writ of error to revise his case. This writ is to be granted, indeed, or refused, at the discretion of the judge; but the discretion of a judge is governed by the rules of law; if these be in favor of Mr. Pagan's application, his case will be reviewed in the Supreme Court, and the decision against him corrected, if wrong; if these be against his application, he will then be at the end of the ordinary course of law, at which term alone it is usual for nations to take up the clause of an individual, and to inquire whether their judges have refused him justice. At present, therefore, I have the honor to be, with the highest esteem, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO MESSRS. JOHNSON, CARROL, AND STEWART.Philadelphia, March 6, 1792. Gentlemen,—It having been found impracticable to employ Major L'Enfant about the federal city, in that degree of subordination which was lawful and proper, he has been notified that his services are at an end. It is now proper that he should receive the reward of his past services; and the wish that he should have no just cause of discontent, suggests that it should be liberal. The President thinks of two thousand five hundred, or three thousand dollars: but leaves the determination to you. Ellicott is to go on, the week after the next, to finish laying off the plan on the ground, and surveying and platting the district. I have remonstrated with him on the excess of five dollars a day and his expenses, and he has proposed striking off the latter; but this also is left to you, and to make the allowance retrospective. He is fully apprised that he is entirely under your orders, and there will be no person employed but under your orders. The enemies of this enterprise will take advantage of the retirement of L'Enfant, to trumpet an abortion of the whole. This will require double exertions, to be counteracted. I enclose you the project of a loan which is agreed on, if you approve it. Your answer will be immediately expected, and is kept entirely secret, till the subscriptions are actually opened. With this money, in aid of your other funds, the works may be pushed with such spirit as to evince to the world that they will not be relaxed. The immediate employment of a superintendent, of activity
The affair of Mr. Carrol, of Duddington's house, seems to call for settlement. The President thinks the most just course would be, to rebuild the house in the same degree, using the same materials as far as they will go, and supplying what are destroyed or rendered unfit; so that the effect will be in fact, only the removal of the house within his lot, and in a position square with the streets. Do you not think it would be expedient to take measures for importing a number of Germans and Highlanders? This need not be to such an extent as to prevent the employment of eastern laborers, which is eligible for particular reasons. If you approve of the importation of Germans and have a good channel for it, you will use it, of course. If you have no channel, I can help you to one. Though Roberdeau's conduct has been really blamable, yet we suppose the principal object of the arrest was to remove him off the ground. As the prosecution of him to judgment might give room to misrepresentation of the I have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem and respect, gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.Philadelphia, March 10, 1792. Dear Sir,—My letter of January the 23d, put under cover to Mr. Johnson in London, and sent by a passenger in the British packet of February, will have conveyed to you your appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, at the court of France. By the Pennsylvania, Captain Harding, bound to Havre de Grace, and plying pretty regularly between this place and that, you will receive the present letter, with the laws of the United States, journals of Congress, and gazettes to this day, addressed to the care of M. de la Motte. You will also receive a letter from the President to the King of France, in answer to his announcing the acceptance of the Constitution, which came to hand only a week ago. A copy of this letter is sent for your own use. You will be pleased to deliver the sealed one, (to the minister, I presume, according to the ancient etiquette of the court,) accompanying it with the assurances of friendship, which the occasion may permit you to express, and which are cordially felt by the President and the great body of our nation. We wish no occasion to be omitted of impressing the National Assembly with this truth. We had expected, ere this, that in consequence of the recommendation of their predecessors, some overtures would have been made to us on the subject of a treaty of I am, with great respect and esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. * * * * * Since writing the preceding, the two Houses have come to resolutions on the King's letter, which are enclosed in the President's, and copies of them accompany this for your use. TO MESSRS. CARMICHAEL AND SHORT.Philadelphia, March 18, 1792. Gentlemen,—The President having thought proper to appoint you joint commissioners plenipotentiary, on the part of the United States, to treat with the court of Madrid on the subjects of the navigation of the Mississippi, arrangements on our limits, and commerce, you will herewith receive your commission; as also observations on these several subjects, reported to the President and approved by him, which will therefore serve as instructions for you. These expressing minutely the sense of our government and what they wish to have done, it is unnecessary for me to do more here than desire you to pursue these objects unremittingly, and endeavor to bring them to an issue in the course of the ensuing summer. It is desirable that you should keep an exact journal of what shall pass between yourselves and the court or their negotiator, and communicate it from time to time to me, that your progress and prospects may be known. You I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO WILLIAM SHORT, ESQ.Philadelphia, March 18, 1792. Sir,—You will receive herewith a commission appointing Mr. Carmichael and yourself joint commissioners plenipotentiary for treating on the subject therein expressed with the Court of Madrid; to which place it is necessary of course that you repair. The instructions and other papers accompanying the commission, (and of which no duplicate is hazarded,) leave nothing to be added here but to express the desire that this object be pursued immediately. It is hoped that in consequence of my former letter you will have made the necessary arrangements for an immediate departure on your receipt of this. You will of course apprise the Court at the Hague in the most respectful and friendly manner, that matters of high moment committed to you, oblige you to a temporary absence. You will then be pleased to proceed by such route as you think best to Madrid, taking care to furnish yourself from the representative of Spain at the Hague, or Paris, with such letters or passports as may ensure your papers from being taken out of your possession, or searched. You will judge from existing circumstances whether, when you approach the limits of Spain, it may not be prudent for you to ascertain previously that you will be permitted to pass unsearched. When arrived at Madrid, the other papers before mentioned mark out the line to be pursued. I am, with great and sincere esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. Philadelphia, March 18, 1792. My Dear Sir,—I shall not repeat in this private dispatch anything said in the public ones sent herewith. I have avoided saying in them what you are to do, when the business you go on shall be finished or become desperate, because I hope to hear what you wish. It is decided that Carmichael will be permitted to come away at that precise epoch, so you need have no delicacy on that subject, if you chose to remain there in your present grade. I become more and more satisfied that the Legislature will refuse the money for continuing any diplomatic character at the Hague. I hope you will consider success in the object you go on, as the most important one of your life: that you will meditate the matter day and night, and make yourself thoroughly master of it, in every possible form they may force you to discuss it. A former letter has apprised you of my private intentions at the close of the present federal cycle. My successor and his dispositions are equally unknown. The administration may change then in other of its parts. It is essential that this business be completed before any idea of these things get abroad. Otherwise Spain may delay in hopes of a change of consuls here. It will be a great comfort to leave this business safely and amicably settled, which has so long and immediately threatened our peace. Gardoqui will probably be the negotiator on their part. No attentions should be spared towards him, or the Count Florida Blanca. Let what will be said or done, preserve your sang froid immovably, and to every obstacle, oppose patience, perseverance, and soothing language. Pardon my sermonizing; it proceeds from the interest I feel in this business, and in your success. It will be well that you examine with the most minute attention all the circumstances which may enable you to judge and communicate to us whether the situation of Spain admits her to go to war. The failure of some stock gamblers and some other circumstances, have brought the public paper low. The 6 per cents Some bishop of Spain, who was for some time in Mexico, found there copies of Cortez's correspondence, and on his return to Spain, published them. I have made many efforts to get this book, but in vain. I must beg of you to procure it for me while there. It is not many years since it was published. I am, with constant and sincere attachment, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant. TO MESSRS. DE VIAR AND DE JAUDENES.Philadelphia, March 23, 1792. Gentlemen,—I have the honor to inform you that a commission has been issued to Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Short, as Commissioners Plenipotentiary for the United States, to confer, treat, and negotiate with any person or persons duly authorized TO COLONEL PICKERING.Philadelphia, March 28, 1792. Sir,—The President has desired me to confer with you on the proposition I made the other day, of endeavoring to move the posts at the rate of one hundred miles a day. It is believed to be practicable here, because it is practised in every other country. The difference of expense alone appeared to produce doubts with you on the subject. If you have no engagement for dinner to-day, and will do me the favor to come and dine with me, we I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO MR. HAMMOND.Philadelphia, March 31, 1792. Sir,—I received yesterday your favor of the day before, and immediately laid it before the President of the United States. I have it in charge from him to express to you the perfect satisfaction which these assurances on the part of your court have given him, that Bowles, who is the subject of them, is an unauthorized impostor. The promptitude of their disavowal of what their candor had forbidden him to credit, is a new proof of their friendly dispositions, and a fresh incitement to us to cherish corresponding sentiments. To these we are led both by interest and inclination, and I am authorized to assure you that no occasion will be omitted on our part, of manifesting their sincerity. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO GOVERNOR PINCKNEY.Philadelphia, April 1, 1792. Sir,—Your letter of January the 8th to the President of the United States, having been referred to me, I have given the subject of it as mature consideration as I am able. Two neighboring and free governments, with laws equally mild and just, would find no difficulty in forming a convention for the interchange of fugitive criminals. Nor would two neighboring despotic governments, with laws of equal severity. The latter wish that no door should be opened to their subjects flying from the oppression of their laws. The fact is, that most of the governments on the continent of Europe have such conventions; but England, the only free one till lately, has never yet consented either to enter into a convention for this purpose, or to give up a fugitive. The difficulty between a free government and a despotic one, is indeed great. I have the honor to enclose to your Excellency a sketch of the considerations which occurred to me on the subject, and which I laid before the President. He has, in consequence, instructed me to prepare a project of a convention, to be proposed to the court of Madrid, which I have accordingly done, and now enclose a copy of it. I wish it may appear to you satisfactory. Against property we may hope it would be effectual; whilst it leaves a door open to life and liberty except in a single unquestionable case. Messrs. Carmichael and Short will be instructed to make this one of the subjects of their negotiation with the court of Spain. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON.Philadelphia, April 9, 1792. Gentlemen,—In a former letter I enclosed you an idea of Mr. Lee's for an immediate appropriation of a number of lots to raise TO COLONEL N. LEWIS.Philadelphia, April 12, 1792. Dear Sir,—Unremitting business must be my apology, as it is really the true one, for my having been longer without writing to you than my affections dictated. I am never a day without wishing myself with you, and more and more as the fine sunshine comes on, which was made for all the world but me. Congress will rise about the 21st. They have passed the Representation bill at one for thirty-three thousand, which gives to Virginia nineteen members. They have voted an army of five thousand men, and the President has given the command to General Wayne, with four brigadiers, to wit, Morgan, Brooks, Willet and Wilkinson. Congress is now engaged on the ways and means of raising money to pay this army. A further assumption of State debt has been proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, which has been rejected by a small majority; but the chickens of the treasury have so many contrivances, and are so indefatigable within doors and without, that we all fear they will get it in yet some way or other. As the doctrine is that a public debt is a public blessing, so they think a perpetual one is a perpetual blessing, and therefore wish to make it so large that we can never pay it off. Your friend and servant. TO THE PRESIDENT.Philadelphia, April 13, 1792. Sir,—I have the honor to lay before you a communication from Mr. Hammond, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty, I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect and attachment Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO MESSRS. CARMICHAEL AND SHORT.Philadelphia, April 24, 1792. Gentlemen,—My letter of March the 18th, conveyed to you full powers for treating with Spain on the subjects therein expressed. Since that, our attention has been drawn to the case of fugitive debtors and criminals, whereon it is always well that coterminous States should understand one another, as far as their ideas on the rightful powers of government can be made to go together. Where they separate, the cases may be left unprovided for. The enclosed paper, approved by the President, will explain to you how far we can go, in an agreement with Spain for her I have the honor to be, with great respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. [The annexed are the papers referred to in the preceding.] Project of a convention with the Spanish provinces. Any person having committed murder or malice prepense, not of the nature of treason, within the United States or the Spanish provinces adjoining thereto, and fleeing from the justice of the country, shall be delivered up by the government where he shall be found, to that from which he fled, whenever demanded by the same. The manner of the demand by the Spanish government, and of the compliance by that of the United States, shall be as follows. The person authorized by the Spanish government where the murder was committed, to pursue the fugitive, may apply to any justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, or to the district judge of the place where the fugitive is, exhibiting proof on oath that a murder has been committed by the said fugitive within the said government, who shall thereon issue his warrant to the marshal or deputy marshal of the same place, to arrest the fugitive and have him before the said district judge, or the said pursuer And the manner of demand by the United States and of compliance by the Spanish government, shall be as follows. The person authorized by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, or by the district judge where the murder was committed, to pursue the fugitive, may apply to —— Evidence on oath, though written and ex parte, shall have the same weight with the judge and grand jury in the preceding cases, as if the same had been given before them orally and in presence of the prisoner. The courts of justice of the said States and provinces, shall be reciprocally open for the demand and recovery of debts due to any person inhabiting the one, from any person fled therefrom and found in the other, in like manner as they are open to their own citizens; likewise, for the recovery of the property, or the value thereof, carried away from any person inhabiting the one, by any person fled therefrom and found in the other, which carrying This convention shall continue in force —— years from the exchange of ratifications, and shall not extend to anything happening previous to such exchange. Heads of consideration on the establishment of conventions between the United States and their neighbors, for the mutual delivery of fugitives from justice. Has a nation a right to punish a person who has not offended itself? Writers on the law of nature agree that it has not. That, on the contrary, exiles and fugitives are, to it, as other strangers, and have a right of residence, unless their presence would be noxious; e. g. infectious persons. One writer extends the exception to atrocious criminals, too imminently dangerous to society; namely, to pirates, murderers, and incendiaries. Vattel, L.1.5. 233. The punishment of piracy being provided for by our laws, need not be so by convention. Murder. Agreed that this is one of the extreme crimes justifying a denial of habitation, arrest and re-delivery. It should be carefully restrained by definition to homicide of malice prepense, and not of the nature of treason. Incendiaries, or those guilty of arson. This crime is so rare as not to call for extraordinary provision by a convention. The The punishment of all real crimes is certainly desirable, as a security to society; the security is greater in proportion as the chances of avoiding punishment are less. But does the fugitive, from his country avoid punishment? He incurs exile, not voluntary, but under a moral necessity as strong as physical. Exile, in some countries, has been the highest punishment allowed by the laws. To most minds it is next to death; to many beyond it. The fugitive indeed is not of the latter; he must estimate it somewhat less than death. It may be said that to some, as foreigners, it is no punishment. Answer. These cases are few. Laws are to be made for the mass of cases. The object of a convention then, in other cases, would be, that the fugitive might not avoid the difference between exile and the legal punishment of the case. Now in what case would this difference be so important, as to overweigh even the single inconvenience of multiplying compacts? 1. Treason. This, when real, merits the highest punishment. But most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the oppressions of the government; the latter are virtues; yet they have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former; because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny, have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries. Reformation of government with our neighbors, being as much wanted now as reformation of religion is, or ever was anywhere, we should not wish then, to give up to the executioner, the patriot who fails, and flees to us. Treasons then, taking the simulated with the real, are sufficiently punished by exile. 2. Crimes against property; the punishment in most countries, immensely disproportionate to the crime. In England and probably in Canada, to steal a horse is death, the first offence; to steal above the value of twelve pence is death, the second offence. All excess of punishment is a crime. To remit a fugitive to excessive punishment is to be accessary to the crime. Ought we to wish for the obligation, or the right to do it? Better, on the whole, to consider these crimes as sufficiently punished by the exile. There is one crime, however, against property, pressed by its consequences into more particular notice, to-wit: Forgery, whether of coin or paper; and whether paper of public or private obligation. But the fugitive for forgery is punished by exile and confiscation of the property he leaves; to which add by convention, a civil action against the property he carries or acquires, to the amount of the special damage done by his forgery. The carrying away of the property of another, may also be reasonably made to found a civil action. A convention then may include forgery and the carrying away the property of others under the head of, 3. Flight from debts. To remit the fugitive in this case, would be to remit him in every case. For in the present state of things, it is next to impossible not to owe something. But I see neither injustice nor inconvenience in permitting the fugitive to be sued in our courts. The laws of some countries punishing the unfortunate debtor by perpetual imprisonment, he is right to liberate himself by flight, and it would be wrong to re-imprison him in the country to which he flies. Let all process, therefore, be confined to his property. Murder, not amounting to treason, being the only case in which the fugitive is to be delivered: On what evidence, and by whom, shall he be delivered? In this country, let any justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, or other judge of the district where the fugitive is found, use the same proceedings as for a murder committed on the high seas, until the finding of the "true bill" by the grand A true bill being found by the grand jury, let the officer in whose custody the fugitive is, deliver him to the person charged to demand and receive him. In the British provinces adjoining us the same proceedings will do. In the Spanish provinces, a proceeding adapted to the course of their laws should be agreed on. March 22, 1792. TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.Philadelphia, April 28, 1792. Dear Sir,—My last letter to you was of the 10th of March. The preceding one of January the 23d, had conveyed to you your appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary to the court of France. The present will, I hope, find you there. I now enclose you the correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and minister of France, on the subject of the moneys furnished to the distressed of their colonies. You will perceive that the minister chose to leave the adjustment of the terms to be settled at Paris, between yourself and the King's ministers. This you will therefore be pleased to do on this principle; that we wish to avoid any loss by the mode of payment, but would not choose to make a gain which should throw loss on them. But the letters of the Secretary of the Treasury will sufficiently explain the desire of the government, and be a sufficient guide to you. I now enclose you the act passed by Congress for facilitating the execution of the consular convention with France. In a bill which has passed the House of Representatives for raising moneys for the support of the Indian war, while the duties on every other species of wine are raised from one to three-fourths more than they were, the best wines of France will pay little more than the worst of any other country, to wit, between six and I am, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Philadelphia, May 16, 1792. Dear Sir,—The day after your departure, I received from a Mr. Green, a merchant now at New York, through a third person, the following communication: "that he had had very late TO MESSRS. DE VIAR AND DE JAUDENES.Philadelphia, May 17, 1792. Gentlemen,—We lately received from Mr. Leagrove, our Indian agent for the Southern Department, a letter, of which the enclosed is an extract, whereby it appeared that a party of the Creek Indians, under the influence of the adventurer Bowles, had meditated some depredations on the Spanish settlements, from which they had been diverted by a friend of our agent, but that their disposition to do injury was, perhaps, not quite extinguished. Sensible how much it is in the power of neighbor nations to contribute to mutual happiness and prosperity, by faithfully using their good offices wherever they can procure the peace and advantage of each other, and feeling a union of interest with Spain in whatever regards the adjacent possessions, we have not hesitated to give general instructions to our agent in that department to cultivate in the Indians the same friendly dispositions towards the Spanish settlements as towards ourselves, and to promote their peace and interest in every case with the same zeal as our own. I have the honor to enclose you one of those orders, to congratulate you on the intelligence that the leader, who gave occasion to this particular interposition, is no longer in a situation to threaten further danger, and to assure you that, as far as shall depend on us, we will, on every future occasion, sincerely use what influence we may have with the Indians to discountenance and prevent every measure they may meditate against the peace or prosperity of your subjects. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Philadelphia, May 18, 1792. Dear Sir,—Since I wrote you the day before yesterday, I have received a letter of March 25, from Colonel Humphreys, informing I have the honor to be, with great and sincere respect and attachment, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Philadelphia, May 23, 1792. Dear Sir,—I have determined to make the subject of a letter what for some time past has been a subject of inquietude to my mind, without having found a good occasion of disburthening itself to you in conversation, during the busy scenes which occupied you here. Perhaps, too, you may be able in your present situation, or on the road, to give it more time and reflection than you could do here at any moment. When you first mentioned to me your purpose of retiring from the government, though I felt all the magnitude of the event, I was in a considerable degree silent. I knew that, to such a mind as yours, persuasion was idle and impertinent; that before forming your decision you had weighed all the reasons for and against the measure, had made up your mind on full view of them, and that there could be little hope of changing the result. Pursuing my reflections, too, I knew we were some day to try to walk alone, and if the essay should be made while you should be alive and looking on, we should derive confidence from that circumstance, and resource, if it failed. The public mind, too, was calm and confident, and therefore in a favorable state for making the experiment. Had no change of circumstances intervened, I should not, with any hopes of success, have now ventured to propose to you a change of purpose. But the public mind is no longer confident and serene; and that from causes in which you are no ways personally mixed. Though these causes have been hackneyed in the public papers in detail, it may not be amiss, in order to calculate the effect they are capable of producing, to take a view of them in the mass, giving to each the form, real or imaginary, under which they have been presented. It has been urged, then, that a public debt, greater than we can possibly pay, before other causes of adding new debt to it will occur, has been artificially created by adding together the whole amount of the debtor and creditor sides of accounts, instead of only taking their balances, which could have been paid off in a short time: that this accumulation of debt has taken forever out of our power those easy sources of revenue which, applied to the ordinary necessities and exigencies of government, would have answered them habitually, and covered us from habitual murmurings against taxes and tax-gatherers, reserving extraordinary calls for those extraordinary occasions which would animate the people to meet them: that though the calls for money have been no greater than we must expect generally, for the same or equivalent exigencies, yet we are already obliged to strain the impost till it produces clamor, and will produce evasion and Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before mentioned, none is so afflicting and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the Legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it became the instrument for producing the risk, and will be the instrument for producing in future a king, lords and commons, or whatever else those who direct it may choose. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, and particularly to that of the conduct of their own representatives, they will form the most corrupt government on earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented. The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members will be, probably, either in principle or interest, with the present majority; but it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the republican party. They will not be able to undo all which the two preceding Legislatures, and especially the first, have done. Public faith and right will oppose this. But some parts of the system may be rightfully reformed, a liberation from the rest unremittingly pursued as fast as right will permit, and the door shut in future against similar commitments of the nation. Should the next Legislature take this course, it will draw upon them the whole monarchical and paper interest; but the latter, I I am perfectly aware of the oppression under which your present office lays your mind, and of the ardor with which you pant for domestic life. But there is sometimes an eminence of character on which society have such peculiar claims as to control the predelictions of the individual for a particular walk of happiness, and restrain him to that alone arising from the present and future benedictions of mankind. This seems to be your condition, and the law imposed on you by providence in forming your character, and fashioning the events on which it was to operate; and it is to motives like these, and not to personal anxieties of mine or others who have no right to call on you for sacrifices, that I appeal, and urge a revisal of it, on the ground of change in the aspect of things. Should an honest majority result from the new and enlarged representation; should those acquiesce whose principles or interest they may control, your wishes for retirement would be gratified with less danger, as soon as that shall be manifest, without awaiting the completion of the second period of four years. One or two sessions will determine the crisis; and I cannot but hope that you can resolve to add more to the many years you have already sacrificed to the good of mankind. The fear of suspicion that any selfish motive of continuance in office may enter into this solicitation on my part, obliges me to declare that no such motive exists. It is a thing of mere indifference to the public whether I retain or relinquish my purpose of closing my tour with the first periodical renovation of the government. I know my own measure too well to suppose that my services contribute anything to the public confidence, or the public utility. Multitudes can fill the office in which you have been MR. JEFFERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO MR. HAMMOND.Philadelphia, May 29, 1792. Sir,—Your favor of March 5th has been longer unanswered than consisted with my wishes, to forward as much as possible explanations of the several matters it contained. But these matters were very various, and the evidence of them not easily to be obtained, even were it could be obtained at all. It has been a work of time and trouble, to collect from the different States all the acts themselves, of which you had cited the titles, and to investigate the judiciary decisions which were classed with those acts as infractions of the treaty of peace. To these causes of delay may be added the daily duties of my office, necessarily multiplied during the sessions of the Legislature. Section 1. I can assure you with truth, that we meet you on Sec. 2. We now come together to consider that instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new chapter in our history. The state in which that found things, is to be considered as rightful: so says the law of nations. Congress, on the 24th of March, 1783, received informal intelligence from the Marquis de la Fayette, that provisional articles were concluded; and, on the same day, they received a copy of the articles, in a letter of March 19th, from General Carleton and Admiral Digby. They immediately gave orders for recalling all armed vessels, and communicated the orders to those officers, who answered, on the 26th and 27th, that they were not authorized to concur in the recall of armed vessels, on their part. On the 11th of April, Congress received an official copy of these articles from Dr. Franklin, with notice that a preliminary treaty was now signed between France, Spain and England. The event having now taken place on which the provisional articles were to come into effect, on the usual footing of preliminaries, Congress immediately proclaim them, and, on the 19th of April, a cessation of hostilities is published by the commander-in-chief. These particulars place all acts preceding the 11th of April out of the present discussion, and confine it to the treaty itself, and the circumstances attending its execution. I have therefore taken the liberty of extracting from your list of American acts all of those preceding that epoch, and of throwing them together in the paper No. 6, as things out of question. The subsequent acts shall be distributed, according to their several subjects, of I. Exile and confiscation: II. Debts: and III. Interest on those debts: Beginning, I. with those of exile and confiscation, which will Sec. 3. It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to seize the property of its enemies found within its own limits, or taken in war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession. This is so perspicuously laid down by one of the most respectable writers on subjects of this kind, that I shall use his words, Sec. 4. "Art. V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights, and properties, of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties, as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, should universally prevail; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last-mentioned persons, shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons, who may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given), which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties, since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage, settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights." "Art. VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made." Sec. 5. Observe, that in every other article, the parties agree expressly, that such and such things shall be done; in this, they only agree to recommend that they shall be done. You are Sec. 6. But the evidence on this occasion removes all question. It is well known that the British court had it extremely at heart, to procure a restitution of the estates of the refugees who had gone over to their side; that they proposed it in the first inferences, and insisted on it to the last; that our commissioners, on the other hand, refused it from first to last, urging, 1st. That it was unreasonable to restore the confiscated property of the refugees, unless they would reimburse the destruction of the property of our citizens, committed on their part; and 2dly. That it was beyond the powers of the commissions to stipulate, or of Congress to enforce. On this point, the treaty hung long. It was the subject of a special mission of a confidential agent of the British negotiator from Paris to London. It was still insisted on, on his return, and still protested against, by our commissioners; and when they were urged to agree only, that Congress should recommend to the State Legislatures to restore the estates, &c., of the refugees, they were expressly told that the Legislatures would not regard the recommendation. In proof of this, I subjoin extracts from the letters and journals of Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, two of our commissioners, the originals of which are among the records of the Department of State, and shall be open to you for a verification of the copies. These prove, beyond all question, that the difference between an express agreement to do a thing, and to recommend it to be done, was well understood by both parties, and that the British negotiators were put on their guard by those on our part, not only that the Legislature will be free to refuse, but that they probably would refuse. And it is evident from all circumstances, that Mr. Oswald accepted the recommendation merely to have something to oppose to the clamors of the refugees—to keep alive a hope in them, that they might yet get their property from the State Legislatures; and that, if they should fail in this, they would have ground to demand indemnification from their own Government; and he might think it a circumstance of present relief at least, that the question of indemnification Sec. 7. The same was perfectly understood by the British ministry, and by the members of both Houses in Parliament, as well those who advocated, as those who oppose the treaty; the latter of whom, being out of the secrets of the negotiation, must have formed their judgments on the mere import of the terms. That all parties concurred in this exposition, will appear by the following extracts from the parliamentary register; a work, which, without pretending to give what is spoken with verbal accuracy, may yet be relied on, we presume, for the general reasoning and opinions of the speakers. House of Commons.—The preliminary articles under consideration; 1783, February 17th. Mr. Thomas Pitt.—"That the interests of the sincere loyalists were as dear to him, as to any man; but that he could never think it would have been promoted by carrying on that unfortunate war, which Parliament had in fact suspended before the beginning of the treaty; that it was impossible, after the part Congress was pleased to take in it, to conceive that their recommendation would not have its proper influence on the different Legislatures; that he did not himself see what more could have been done on their behalf, except by renewing the war for their sakes, and increasing our and their calamities."—9 Debrett's Parliamentary Register, 233. Mr. Wilberforce.—"When he considered the case of the loyalists, he confessed he felt himself there conquered; there he saw his country humiliated; he saw her at the feet of America! Still he was induced to believe, that Congress would religiously comply with the article, and that the loyalists would obtain redress from America. Should they not, this country was bound to afford it them. They must be compensated. Ministers, he was persuaded, meant to keep the faith of the nation with them, and he verily believed, had obtained the best terms they possibly could for them."—Ib. 236. Mr. Secretary Townsend.—"He was ready to admit, that many of the loyalists had the strongest claims upon this country; and he trusted, should the recommendation of Congress to the American States prove unsuccessful, which he flattered himself would not be the case, this country would feel itself bound in honor to make them full compensation for their losses."—Ib. 262. House of Lords.—February 17, 1783. Lord Shelburne.—"A part must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish. If better terms could be had, think you, my lords, that I would not have embraced them? You all know my creed. You all know my steadiness. If it were possible to put aside the bitter cup the adversities of this country presented to me, you know I would have done it; but you called for peace. I had 'but the alternative, either to accept the terms (said Congress) of our recommendation to the States in favor of the colonists, or continue the war. It is in our power to do no more than recommend.' Is there any man who hears me, who will clap his hand on his heart, and step forward and say, I ought to have broken off the treaty? If there be, I am sure he neither knows the state of the country, nor yet has he paid any attention to the wishes of it. But say the worst, and that, after all, this estimable set of men are not received and cherished in the bosom of their own country—is England so lost to gratitude, and all the feelings of humanity, as not to afford them an asylum? Who can be so base as to think she will refuse it to them? Surely it cannot be that noble-minded man, who would plunge his country again knee deep in blood, and saddle it with an expense of twenty millions, for the purpose of restoring them. Without one drop of blood spilt, and without one-fifth of the expense of one year's campaign, happiness and ease can be given the loyalists in as ample a manner as these blessings were ever in their enjoyment; therefore, let the outcry cease on this head."—Ib. 70, 71. Lord Hawke.—"In America," said he, "Congress had engaged to recommend their [the loyalists'] cause to the Legislatures Lord Walsingham.—"We had only the recommendation of Congress to trust to, and how often had their recommendations been fruitless? There were many cases in point in which provincial assemblies had peremptorily refused the recommendations of Congress. It was but the other day the States refused money on the recommendations of Congress. Rhode Island unanimously refused, when the Congress desired to be authorized to lay a duty of five per cent. because the funds had failed. Many other circumstances might be produced of the failure of the recommendations of Congress, and therefore we ought not, in negotiating for the loyalists, to have trusted to the recommendations of Congress. Nothing but the repeal of the acts existing against them ought to have sufficed, as nothing else could give effect to the treaty; repeal was not mentioned. They had only stipulated to revise and reconsider them."—11 Debrett's Parliamentary Reg. 44. Lord Sackville.—"The King's ministers had weakly imagined that the recommendation of Congress was a sufficient security for these unhappy men. For his own part, so far from believing that this would be sufficient, or anything like sufficient, for their protection, he was of a direct contrary opinion; and if they entertained any notions of this sort, he would put an end to their idle hopes at once, by reading from a paper in his pocket, a resolution, which the assembly of Virginia had come to, so late as Some of the speakers seem to have had not very accurate ideas of our government. All of them, however, have perfectly understood, that a recommendation was a matter, not of obligation or coercion, but of persuasion and influence, merely. They appear to have entertained greater or less degrees of hope or doubt, as to its effect on the Legislatures, and though willing to see the result of this chance, yet, if it failed, they were prepared to take the work of indemnification on themselves. Sec. 8. The agreement then being only that Congress should recommend to the State Legislatures a restitution of estates, and liberty to remain a twelvemonth for the purpose of soliciting the restitution, and to recommend a revision of all acts regarding the premises, Congress did, immediately on the receipt of the definitive articles, to wit, on the 14th of January, 1784, come to the following resolution, viz: "Resolved unanimously, nine States being present, that it be, and it is hereby, earnestly recommended to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; and also, of the estates, rights, and properties, of persons resident in districts which were in the possession of his Britannic Majesty's arms, at any time between the 30th day of November, 1782, and the 14th day of January, 1784, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve "Ordered, That a copy of the proclamation of this date, together with the recommendation, be transmitted to the several States by the Secretary." Sec. 9. The British negotiators had been told by ours, that all the States would refuse to comply with this recommendation; one only, however, refused altogether. The others complied in a greater or less degree, according to the circumstances and dispositions in which the events of the war had left them; but, had all of them refused, it would have been no violation of the 5th article, but an exercise of that freedom of will, which was reserved to them, and so understood by all parties. The following are the acts of your catalogue which belong to this head, with such short observations as are necessary to explain them; beginning at that end of the Union, where, the war having raged most, we shall meet with the most repugnance to favor: Sec. 10. Georgia.—1783, July 29. An act releasing certain persons from their bargains. A law had been passed during the war, to wit, in 1782, [A. 30.] confiscating the estates of persons therein named, and directing them to be sold; they were sold; but some misunderstanding happened to prevail among the purchasers, as to the mode of payment. This act of 1783, therefore, permits such persons to relinquish their bargains, and authorizes 1785, Feb. 22. An act to authorize the auditor to liquidate the demands of such persons as have claims against the confiscated estates. In the same law of confiscations made during the war, it had been provided that the estates confiscated should be subject to pay the debts of their former owner. This law of 1785, gave authority to the auditor to settle with, and pay the creditors, and to sell the remaining part of the estate confiscated as before. 1787, Feb. 10. An act to compel the settlement of public accounts, for inflicting penalties, and vesting the auditor with certain powers. This law also is founded on the same confiscation law of 1782, requiring the auditor to press the settlement with the creditors, &c. 1785, Feb. 7. An act for ascertaining the rights of aliens, and pointing out the mode for the admission of citizens. It first describes what persons shall be free to become citizens, and then declares none shall be capable of that character who had been named in any confiscation law, or banished, or had borne arms against them. This act does not prohibit either the refugees, or real British subjects, from coming into the State to pursue their lawful affairs. It only excludes the former from the right of citizenship, and it is to be observed, that this recommendatory article does not say a word about giving them a right to become citizens. If the conduct of Georgia should appear to have been peculiarly uncomplying, it must be remembered that that State had peculiarly suffered; that the British army had entirely overrun it; had held possession of it for some years; and that all the inhabitants had been obliged either to abandon their estates and fly their country, or to remain in it under a military government. Sec. 11. South Carolina.—1783, August 15th. An act to vest 180 acres of land, late the property of James Holmes, in certain persons, in trust for the benefit of a public school. These lands had been confiscated and sold during the war. The present 1786, March 22. An act to amend the confiscation act, and for other purposes therein mentioned. This relates only to estates which had been confiscated before the peace. It makes some provision towards a final settlement, and relieves a number of persons from the amercements which had been imposed on them during the war, for the part they had taken. 1784, March 26. An act restoring to certain persons their estates, and permitting the said persons to return, and for other purposes. This act recites, that certain estates had been confiscated, and the owners, 124 in number, banished by former laws; that Congress had earnestly recommended in the terms of the treaty—it therefore distributes them into three lists or classes, restoring to all of them the lands themselves, where they remained unsold, and the price, where sold, requiring from those in lists No. 1, and 3, to pay 12 per cent. on the value of what was restored, and No. 2, nothing; and it permits all of them to return, only disqualifying those of No. 1 and 3, who had borne military commissions against them, from holding any office for seven years. Governor Moultrie's letter of June 21, 1786, informs us, that most of the confiscations had been restored; that the value of those not restored, was far less than that of the property of their citizens carried off by the British, and that fifteen, instead of twelve months, had been allowed to the persons for whom permission was recommended to come and solicit restitution. Sec. 12. North Carolina.—1784, October. An act directing the sale of confiscated property. 1785, Dec. 29. An act to secure and quiet in their possessions, the purchasers of lands, goods, &c., sold, or to be sold by the commissioners of forfeited estates. These two acts relate expressly to property "heretofore confiscated," and secure purchasers under those former confiscations. 1790. The case of Bayard v. Singleton, adjudged in a court of judicature in North Carolina. Bayard was a purchaser of part 1785, Nov. 19. An act was passed to restore a confiscated estate to the former proprietor, Edward Bridgen. 1784, Oct. An act to describe and ascertain such persons as owed allegiance to the State, and impose certain disqualifications on certain persons therein named. 1785, Nov. An act to amend the preceding act. 1788, April. An act of pardon and oblivion. The two first of these acts exercised the right of the State to describe who should be its citizens, and who should be disqualified from holding offices. The last, entitled An act of pardon and oblivion, I have not been able to see; but, so far as it pardons, it is a compliance with the recommendation of Congress under the treaty, and so far as it excepts persons out of the pardon, it is a refusal to comply with the recommendation, which it had a right to do. It does not appear that there has been any obstruction to the return of those persons who had claims to prosecute. Sec. 13. Virginia.—The catalogue under examination, presents no act of this State subsequent to the treaty of peace, on the subject of confiscations. By one of October 18, 1784, they declared there should be no future confiscations. But they did not choose to comply with the recommendation of Congress, as to the restoration of property which had been already confiscated; with respect to persons, the first assembly which met after the peace, passed— 1783, October, The act prohibiting the migration of certain persons to this commonwealth, and for other purposes therein mentioned, which was afterwards amended by, 1786, October, An act to explain and amend the preceding. These acts, after declaring who shall not have a right to migrate to, or become citizens of, the State, have each an express proviso, that nothing contained in them shall be so construed as to contravene the treaty of peace with Great Britain; and a great number Sec. 14. Maryland.—1785, Nov. An act to vest certain powers in the Governor and council. Sec. 3; 1788. Nov. An act to empower the Governor and council to compound with the discoveries of British property and for other purposes. These acts relate purely to property which had been confiscated during the war; and the State not choosing to restore it, as recommended by Congress, passed them for bringing to a conclusion the settlement of all transactions relative to the confiscated property. I do not find any law of this State, which could prohibit the free return of their refugees, or the reception of the subjects of Great Britain, or of any other country. And I find that they passed, in 1786, Nov. An act to repeal that part of the act for the security of their government, which disqualified non-jurors from holding offices, and voting at elections. 1790. The ease of Harrison's representatives in the court of chancery of Maryland, is in the list of infractions. These representatives being British subjects, and the laws of this country, like those of England, not permitting aliens to hold lands, the question was, whether British subjects were aliens. They decided that they were; consequently, that they could not take lands; and consequently, also, that the lands in this case escheated to the State. Whereupon, the Legislature immediately interposed, and passed a special act, allowing the benefits of the succession to the representatives. But had they not relieved them, the case would not have come under the treaty; for there is no stipulation Sec. 15. Delaware.—This State, in the year 1778, passed an act of confiscation against forty-six citizens, by name, who had joined in arms against them, unless they should come in by a given day, and stand their trial. The estates of those who did not, were sold, and the whole business soon closed. They never passed any other act on the subject, either before or after the peace. There was no restitution, because there was nothing to restore, their debts having more than exhausted the proceeds of the sales of their property, as appears by Mr. Read's letter, and that all persons were permitted to return, and such as chose it, have remained there in quiet to this day. Sec. 16. Pennsylvania.—The catalogue furnishes no transaction of this State subsequent to the arrival of the treaty of peace, on the subject of confiscation, except 1790, August. An order of the executive council to sell part of Harry Gordon's real estate, under the act of January 31, 1783. This person had been summoned by proclamation, by the name of Henry Gordon, to appear before the first day of November, 1781, and failing, his estate was seized by the commissioners of forfeitures, and most of it sold. The act of 1783, January 31, cured the misnomer, and directed what remained of his estate to be sold. The confiscation being complete, it was for them to say whether they would restore it, in compliance with the recommendation of Congress. They did not, and the executive completed the sale, as they were bound to do. All persons were permitted to return to this State, and you see many of them living here to this day in quiet and esteem. Sec. 17. New Jersey.—The only act alleged against this State, as to the recommendatory article, is, 1783, December 23, An act to appropriate certain forfeited estates. This was the estate of John Zabriski, which had been forfeited during the war, and the act gives it to Major-General Baron Steuben, in reward for his services. The confiscation being complete, the Legislature were free to do this. Governor Livingston's Sec. 18. New York.—This State had been among the first invaded; the greatest part of it had been possessed by the enemy through the war; it was the last evacuated; its inhabitants had in great numbers been driven off their farms; their property wasted, and themselves living in exile and penury, and reduced from affluence to want, it is not to be wondered at, if their sensations were among the most lively; accordingly, they, in the very first moment, gave a flat refusal to the recommendation, as to the restoration of property. See document No. 17, containing their reasons. They passed, however, 1784, May 12, the act to preserve the freedom and independence of this State, and for other purposes therein mentioned, in which, after disqualifying refugees from offices, they permit them to come, and remain as long as may be absolutely necessary to defend their estates. Sec. 19. Connecticut.—A single act only on the same subject is alleged against this State, after the treaty of peace. This was 1790, An act directing certain confiscated estates to be sold. The title shows they were old confiscations, not new ones, and Governor Huntington's letter informs us, that all confiscations and prosecutions were stopped on the peace; that some restorations of property took place, and all persons were free to return. Sec. 20. Rhode Island.—The titles of four acts of this State are cited in your Appendix, to wit: 1783, May 27, An act to send out of the State N. Spink and I. Underwood, who had formerly joined the enemy, and were returned to Rhode Island. 1783, June 8, An act to send William Young, theretofore banished out of the State, and forbidden to return at his peril. 1783, June 12, An act allowing William Brenton, late an absentee, to visit his family for one week, then sent away, not to return. 1783, October, An act to banish S. Knowles (whose estate had been forfeited), on pain of death if he return. Mr. Channing, the attorney of the United States for that district, says, in his letter, "he had sent me all the acts of that Legislature, that affect either the debts, or the persons of British subjects, or American refugees." The acts above cited are not among them. In the answer of April 6, which you were pleased to give to mine of March 30, desiring copies of these, among other papers, you say the book is no longer in your possession. These circumstances will, I hope, excuse my not answering or admitting these acts, and justify my proceeding to observe, that nothing is produced against this State on the subject, after the treaty; and the district attorney's letter, before cited, informs us, that their courts considered the treaty as paramount to the laws of the State, and decided accordingly, both as to persons and property, and that the estates of all British subjects, seized by the State, had been restored, and the rents and profits accounted for. Governor Collins' letter, No. 20, is a further evidence of the compliance of this State. Sec. 21. Massachusetts.—1784, March 24. This State passed an act for repealing two laws of this State, and for asserting the right of this free and sovereign commonwealth to expel such aliens as may be dangerous to the peace and good order of government, the effect of which was to reject the recommendation of Congress, as to the return of persons, but to restore to them such of their lands as were not confiscated, unless they were pledged for debt; and by— 1784, November 10, An act in addition to an act for repealing two laws of this State, they allowed them to redeem their lands pledged for debt, by paying the debt. Sec. 22. New Hampshire.—Against New Hampshire nothing is alleged; that State having not been invaded at all, was not induced to exercise any acts of right against the subjects or adherents of their enemies. The acts, then, which have been complained of as violations of the 5th article, were such as the States were free to pass, notwithstanding Sec. 23. And we may further observe, with respect to the same acts, that they have been considered as infractions not only of the 5th article, which recommended the restoration of the confiscations which had taken place during the war, but also of that part of the 6th article which forbade future confiscations. But not one of them touched an estate which had not been before confiscated; for you will observe, that an act of the Legislature, confiscating lands, stands in place of an office found in ordinary cases; and that, on the passage of the act, as on the finding of the office, the State stands, ipso facto, possessed of the lands, without a formal entry. The confiscation then is complete by the passage of the act. Both the title and possession being divested out of the former proprietor, and vested in the State, no subsequent proceedings relative to the lands are acts of confiscation, but are mere exercises of ownership, whether by levying profits, conveying for a time, by lease, or in perpetuo, by an absolute deed. I believe, therefore, it may be said with truth, that there was not a single confiscation made in any one of the United States, after notification of the treaty; and, consequently, it will not be necessary to notice again this part of the 6th article. Sec. 24. Before quitting the recommendatory article, two passages in the letter are to be noted, which, applying to all the States in general, could not have been properly answered under any one of them in particular. In page 16 is the following passage: "The express provision in the treaty, for the restitution of the estates and properties of persons of both these descriptions [British subjects and Americans who had stayed within the British lines, but had not borne arms] certainly comprehended a virtual acquiescence in their right to reside where their property was situated, and to be restored to the privileges of citizenship." Here seems to be a double error, first in supposing an express provision, whereas the words of the article, and the collateral Sec. 25. Again, in page 34, it is said, "The nation of Great Britain has been involved in the payment to them of no less a sum than four millions sterling, as a partial compensation for the losses they had sustained." It has been before proved, that Mr. Oswald understood perfectly, that no indemnification was claimable from us; that, on the contrary, we had a counter claim of indemnification to much larger amount. It has been supposed, and not without grounds, that the glimmering of hope, provided by the recommendatory article, was to quiet, for the present, the clamors of the sufferers, and to keep their weight out of the scale of opposition to the peace, trusting to time and events for an oblivion of these claims, or a gradual ripening of the public mind to meet and satisfy them at a moment of less embarrassment: the latter is the turn which the thing took. The claimants continued their importunities, and the Government determined at length to indemnify them for their losses; and, open-handedly as they went to work, it cost them less than to have settled with us the just account of mutual indemnification urged by our commissioners. It may be well doubted, whether there were not single States of our Union to which the four millions you have paid would have been no indemnification for the losses of property sustained contrary even to the laws of war; and what sum would have indemnified the whole thirteen, and, consequently, to what sum our whole losses of this description have amounted, would be difficult to say. However, though in nowise interested in Sec. 26. II. The article of debts is next in order; but to place on their true grounds our proceedings relative to them, it will be necessary to take a view of the British proceedings, which are the subject of complaint in my letter of December 15. In the 7th article, it was stipulated, that his Britannic Majesty should withdraw his armies, garrisons, and fleets, without carrying away any negroes, or other property of the American inhabitants. This stipulation was known to the British commanding officers, before the 19th of March, 1783, as provisionally agreed; and on the 5th of April they received official notice from their court of the conclusion and ratification of the preliminary articles between France, Spain, and Great Britain, which gave activity to ours, as appears by the letter of Sir Guy Carleton to General Washington, dated April 6, 1783. Document No. 21. From this time, then, surely, no negroes could be carried away without a violation of the treaty. Yet we find that, so early as May 6, a large number of them had already been embarked for Nova Scotia, of which, as contrary to an express stipulation in the treaty, General Washington declared to him his sense and surprise. In the letter of Sir Guy Carleton of May 12 (annexed to mine to you of the 15th of December), he admits the fact; palliates Sec. 27. By the same article, his Britannic Majesty stipulates, that he will, with all convenient speed, withdraw his garrisons from every post within the United States. "When no precise term," says a writer on the Law of Nations [Vattel, 1. 4. c. 26.], "has been marked for the accomplishment of a treaty, and for the execution of each of its articles, good sense determines that every point should be executed as soon as possible. This is, without doubt, what was understood." On the 3d of August, 1783, Major-General Baron Steuben, by orders from General Washington, having repaired to Canada for this purpose, wrote the letter No. 22 to General Haldimand, Governor Again, on the 19th of March, 1784, Governor Clinton, of New York, within the limits of which State some of these posts are, writes to General Haldimand, the letter No. 25; and that General, answering him, May 10, from Quebec, says, "Not having had the honor to receive orders and instructions relative to withdrawing the garrisons," &c.; fourteen months were now elapsed, and the orders not yet received, which might have been received in four. Again, on the 12th of July, Colonel Hull, by order from General Knox, the Secretary of War, writes to General Haldimand, the letter No. 27; and General Haldimand gives the answer of the 13th, No. 28, wherein he says, "Though I am now informed, by his Majesty's ministers, of the ratification, &c., I remain, &c., not having received any orders to evacuate the posts which are without the limits," &c. And this is eighteen months after the signature of the general pacification! Now, is it not fair to conclude, if the order was not arrived on the 13th of August, 1783, if it was not arrived on the 10th of May, 1784, nor yet on the 13th of July, in the same year, that, in truth, the order had never been given? and if it had never been given, may we not conclude that it never had been intended to be given? From what moment is it we are to date this infraction? From that, at which, with convenient speed, the order to evacuate the upper posts might have been given. No legitimate reason can be assigned, why that order might not have been given as early, and at the same time, as the order to evacuate New York; and all delay, after this, was in contravention of the treaty. Sec. 28. Was this delay merely innocent and unimportant to us, setting aside all considerations but of interest and safety? 1. It cut us off from the fur-trade, which before the war had been always of great importance as a branch of commerce, and as a source of remittance for the payment of our debts to Great Britain; for the injury of withholding our posts, they added the obstruction of all passage along the lakes and their communications. 2. It secluded us from connection with the northwestern Indians, from all opportunity of keeping up with them friendly and neighborly intercourse, brought on us consequently, from their known dispositions, constant and expensive war, in which numbers of men, women, and children, have been, and still are, daily falling victims to the scalping knife, and to which there will be no period, but in our possession of the posts which command their country. It may safely be said, then, that the treaty was violated in England, before it was known in America, and in America, as soon as it was known, and that too, in points so essential, as that, without them, it would never have been concluded. Sec. 29. And what was the effect of these infractions on the American mind? On the breach of any article of a treaty by the one party, the other has its election to declare it dissolved in all its articles, or to compensate itself by withholding execution of equivalent articles; or to waive notice of the breach altogether. Congress being informed that the British commanding officer was carrying away the negroes from New York, in avowed violation of the treaty, and against the repeated remonstrances of General Washington, they take up the subject on the 26th of May, 1783; they declare that it is contrary to the treaty; direct that the proper papers be sent to their ministers plenipotentiary in Europe to remonstrate, and demand reparation, and that, in the meantime, General Washington continue his remonstrances to the British commanding officer, and insist on the discontinuance of the measure. See document No. 29. Sec. 30. The State of Virginia, materially affected by this infraction, Sec. 31. South Carolina was the second State which moved in consequence of the British infractions, urged thereto by the desolated condition in which their armies had left that country, by the debts they owed, and the almost entire destruction of the means of paying them. They passed [D. 7. 20.] 1784, March 26th, an ordinance respecting the recovery of debts, suspending the recovery of all actions, as well American as British, for nine months, and then allowing them to recover payment at four equal and annual instalments only, requiring the debtor in the meantime, to give good security for his debt, or otherwise refusing him the benefit of the act, by— [D. 21.] 1787, March 28, An act to regulate the recovery and payment of debts, and prohibiting the importation of negroes, they extended the instalments, a year further in a very few cases. I have not been able to procure the two following acts [D. 14.] 1785, October 12th, An act for regulating sales under executions, and for other purposes therein mentioned; and [D. 22.] 1788, Nov. 4, An act to regulate the payment and recovery of debts, and to prohibit the importation of negroes for Sec. 32. Rhode Island next acted on the British infractions, and imposed modifications in favor of such debtors as should be pursued by their creditors, permitting them to relieve their bodies from execution by the payment of paper money, or delivery of property. This was the effect of [D. 12.] 1786, March, An act to enable any debtor in jail, on execution at the suit of any creditor, to tender real, or certain specified articles of personal estate; and [D. 16.] 1786, May, An act making paper money a legal tender. But observe, that this was not till three years after the infractions by Great Britain, and repeated and constant refusals of compliance on their part. Sec. 33. New Jersey did the same thing, by— [D. 13.] 1786, March 23, An act to direct the modes of proceedings on writs on fieri facias, and for transferring lands and chattels for payment of debts; and [D. 18.] 1786, May 26, An act for striking, and making current £100,000 in bills of credit, to be let out on loan; and [D. 17.] 1786, June 1, An act for making bills, emitted by the act for raising a revenue of £31,259 5s. per annum, for twenty-five years, a legal tender; and Sec. 34. Georgia, by [D. 19.] 1786, August 14, An act for emitting the sum of £50,000 in bills of credit, and for establishing a fund for the redemption, and for other purposes therein mentioned, made paper money also a legal tender. These are the only States which appear, by the acts cited in your letter, to have modified the recovery of debts. But I believe that North Carolina also emitted a sum of paper money and made it a tender in discharge of executions; though, not having seen the act, I cannot affirm it with certainty. I have not mentioned, because I do not view the act of Maryland [D. 15.] 1786, Nov. c. 29, for the settlement of public accounts, &c., as a modification of the recovery of debts. It obliged the British subject, before he could recover what was due to him within the State, to give bond for the payment of what he owed therein. It is reasonable that every one, who asks justice, should do justice; and it is usual to consider the property of a foreigner, in any country, as a fund appropriated to the payment of what he owes in that country, exclusively. It is a care which most nations take of their own citizens, not to let the property, which is to answer their demands, be withdrawn from its jurisdiction, and send them to seek it in foreign countries, and before foreign tribunals. Sec. 35. With respect to the obstacles thus opposed to the British creditor, besides their general justification, as being produced by the previous infractions on the part of Great Britain, each of them admits of a special apology. They are, 1st. Delay of judgment; 2d. Liberating the body from execution, on the delivery of property; 3d. Admitting executions to be discharged in paper money. As to the 1st, let it be considered, that, from the nature of the commerce carried on between these States and Great Britain, they were generally kept in debt; that a great part of the country, and most particularly Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, had been ravaged by an enemy, movable property carried off, houses burnt, lands abandoned, the proprietors forced off into exile and poverty. When the peace permitted them to return again to their lands, naked and desolate as they were, was instant payment practicable? The contrary was so palpable, that the British creditors themselves were sensible that, were they to rush to judgment immediately against their debtors, it would involve To the necessities for some delay in the payment of debts may be added the British commercial regulations, lessening our means of payment, by prohibiting us from carrying in our own bottoms our own produce to their dominions in our neighborhood, and excluding valuable branches of it from their home markets by prohibitory duties. The means of payment constitute one of the motives to purchase, at the moment of purchasing. If these means are taken away, by the creditor himself, he ought not in conscience to complain of a mere retardation of his debt, which is the effect of his own act, and the least injurious to those it is capable of producing. The instalment acts before enumerated have been much less general, and for a shorter term than what the chairman of the American merchants thought reasonable. Most of them required the debtor to give security, in the meantime, to his creditor, and provided complete indemnification of the delay by the payment of interest, which was enjoined in every case. Sec. 36. The second species of obstacle was the admitting the debtor to relieve his body from imprisonment, by the delivery of lands or goods to his creditor. And is this idea original, and peculiar to us? or whence have we taken it? From England, from Europe, from natural right and reason. For it may be safely affirmed, that neither natural right nor reason subjects the body of a man to restraint for debt. It is one of the abuses introduced by commerce and credit, and which even the most commercial nations have been obliged to relax, in certain Sec. 37. The third obstacle was the allowing paper money to be paid for goods sold under execution. The complaint on this head is only against Georgia, South Carolina, Jersey, and Rhode Island; and this obstruction, like the two others, sprung out of the peculiar nature of the war; for those will form very false conclusions, who reason, as to this war, from the circumstances So that, when it is considered, that the other party had broken the treaty, from the beginning, and that, too, in points which lessened our ability to pay their debts, it was a proof of the moderation of our nation, to make no other use of the opportunity of retaliation presented to them, than to indulge the debtors with that time for discharging their debts, which their distresses called for, and the interests and the reason of their creditors approved. Sec. 38. It is to be observed, that, during all this time, Congress, who alone possessed the power of peace and war, of making treaties, and, consequently, of declaring their infractions, had abstained from every public declaration, and had confined itself to the resolution of May 26th, 1783, and to repeated efforts, through their minister plenipotentiary at the court of London, to The Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the United States, by order of Congress, immediately wrote circular letters to the Governors of the several States, dated May 3, 1786, No. 31, to obtain information how far they had complied with the proclamation of January 14th, 1784, and the recommendation accompanying it; and April 13, 1787, Congress, desirous of removing every pretext which might continue to cloak the inexecution of the treaty, wrote a circular letter to the several States, in which, in order to produce more surely the effect desired, they demonstrate that Congress alone possess the right of interpreting, restraining, impeding, or counteracting the operation and execution of treaties, which, on being constitutionally made, become, by the confederation, a part of the law of the land, and, as such, independent Sec. 39. In consequence of these letters, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, passed the acts Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. New Jersey and Pennsylvania declared that no law existed with them repugnant to the treaty—see documents Nos. 41, 42, 43. Georgia had no law existing against the treaty. South Carolina, indeed, had a law existing, which subjected all persons, foreign or native, No. 44, to certain modifications of recovery and payment. But the liberality of her conduct on the other points is a proof she would have conformed in this also, had it appeared that the fullest conformity would have moved Great Britain to compliance, and had an express repeal been really necessary. Sec. 40. For indeed all this was supererogation. It resulted from the instrument of confederation among the States, that treaties made by Congress, according to the confederation, were superior to the laws of the States. The circular letter of Congress had declared and demonstrated it, and the several States, by their acts and explanations before mentioned, had shown it to be their own sense, as we may safely affirm it to have been the general sense of those, at least, who were of the profession of the law. Besides the proof of this, drawn from the act of confederation Sec. 41. The very case of Rutgers, vs. Waddington, [E. 8.] which is a subject of complaint in your letter, is a proof that the courts consider the treaty as paramount to the laws of the States. Some parts of your information, as to that case, have been inexact. The State of New York had, during the war, passed an act [C. 16.] declaring that, in any action by the proprietor of a house or tenement against the occupant, for rent or damage, no military order should be a justification; and, May 4, 1784, after the refusal of the British to deliver up the posts in the State of New York, that Legislature revived the same act. [C. 19.] Waddington, a British subject, had occupied a brew-house in New York, belonging to Rutgers, an American, while the British were in possession of New York. During a part of the time he had only permission from the quartermaster general; for another part he had an order of the commanding officer to authorize his possession. After the evacuation of the city, Rutgers, under the authority of this law of the State, brought an action against Sec. 42. The same kind of doubt brought on the arrest of John Smith Hatfield in New Jersey, whose case [E. 9.] is another ground of complaint in your letter. A refugee, sent out by the British as a spy, was taken within the American lines, regularly tried by a court martial, found guilty, and executed. There was Sec. 43. In Georgia, Judge Walton, in a charge to a grand jury, says, "The State of Rhode Island having acceded to the Federal Constitution, the Union and Government have become complete. To comprehend the extent of the General Government, and to discern the relation between that and those of the States, will be equally our interest and duty. The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union are paramount." And in the same State, in their last federal circuit court, we learn from the public papers, that, in a case wherein the plaintiffs were Brailsford and others, British subjects, whose debts had been sequestered (not confiscated) by an act of the State during the war, the judges declared the treaty of peace a repeal of the act of the State, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Sec. 44. The integrity of those opinions and proceedings of the several courts should have shielded them from the insinuations hazarded against them. In pages 9 and 10, it is said, "That during the war, the Legislatures passed laws to confiscate the estates of the loyalists, to enable debtors to pay into the State treasuries paper money, then exceedingly depreciated, in discharge of their debts." And page 24, "The dispensations of law by the State courts have been as unpropitious to the subjects of the crown, as the legislative acts of the different assemblies." Let us compare, if you please, Sir, these unpropitious opinions of our State courts with those of foreign lawyers' writing on the same subject. Sec. 45. Again it is said, page 34, "In one State the supreme federal court has thought proper to suspend for many months the final judgment on an action of debt, brought by a British creditor." If by the supreme federal court be meant the supreme court of the United States, I have had their records examined, in order to know what may be the case here alluded to; and I am authorized to say, there neither does, nor ever did exist any cause before that court, between a British subject and a citizen of the United States. See the certificate of the clerk of the court, No. 48. If by the supreme federal court be meant one of the circuit courts of the United States, then which circuit, in which State, and what case is meant? In the course of inquiries I have been obliged to make, to find whether there exists any case, in any district of any circuit court of the United States, which Sec. 46. You say again, p. 29, "The few attempts to recover British debts, in the courts of Virginia, have universally failed, and these are the courts wherein, from the smallness of the sum, a considerable number of debts can only be recovered." Again, p. 34, "In the same State, county courts (which alone can take cognizance of debts of limited amount) have uniformly rejected all suits instituted for the recovery of sums due to the subjects of the crown of Great Britain." In the first place, the county courts, till of late, have had exclusive jurisdiction only of sums below 10l., and it is known, that a very inconsiderable proportion of the British debt consists in demands below that sum. A late law, we are told, requires, that actions below 30l. shall be commenced in those courts; but allows, at the same time, an appeal to correct any errors into which they may fall. In the second place, the evidence of gentlemen who are in the way of knowing the fact, Sec. 47. A much broader assertion is hazarded, page 29. "In some of the Southern States, there does not exist a single instance of the recovery of British debt in their courts, though many years have expired since the establishment of peace between the two countries." The particular States are not specified. I have therefore thought it my duty to extend my inquiries to all the States which could be designated under the description of Southern, to wit: Maryland, and those to the south of that. As to Maryland, the joint certificate of the senators and delegates of the State in Congress, the letter of Mr. Tilghman, a gentleman of the law in the same State, and that of Mr. Gwinn, clerk of their general court, prove that British suits have been maintained in the superior and inferior courts throughout the State without any obstruction; that British claimants have, in every instance, enjoyed every facility in the tribunals of justice equally with their own citizens; and have recovered in due course of law, and remitted large debts, as well under contracts previous, as subsequent to the war. In Virginia, the letters of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Giles, members of Congress from that State, and lawyers of eminence in it, prove that the courts of law in that State have been open and freely resorted to by the British creditors, who have recovered and levied their moneys without obstruction; for we have no right to consider as obstructions the dilatory pleas of here and there a debtor, distressed perhaps for time, or even an accidental error of opinion in a subordinate court, when such pleas have been overruled, and such errors corrected in a due course of proceeding marked out by the laws in such cases. The general fact suffices to show In North Carolina, Mr. Johnston, one of the senators of that State, tells us he has heard indeed but of few suits brought by British creditors in that State; but that he never heard that any one had failed of a recovery because he was a British subject; and he names a particular case, of Elmesly v. Lee's executors, "of the recovery of a British debt in the superior court at Edenton." See Mr. Johnston's letter, No. 54. In South Carolina, we learn, from No. 55, of particular judgments rendered, and prosecutions carried on, without obstacle, by British creditors, and that the courts are open to them there as elsewhere. As to the modifications of the execution heretofore made by the State law having been the same for foreigner and citizen, a court would decide whether the treaty is satisfied by this equal measure; and if the British creditor is privileged by that against even the same modifications to which citizens and foreigners of all other nations were equally subjected, then the law imposing them was a mere nullity. In Georgia, the letter of the senators and representatives in Congress, No. 56, assures us that, though they do not know of any recovery of a British debt, in their State, neither do they know of a denial to recover since the ratification of the treaty, the creditors having mostly preferred amicable settlement; and that the federal court is as open and unobstructed to British creditors there, as in any other of the United States; and this is further proved by the late recovery of Brailsford and others, before cited. Sec. 48. You say more particularly of that State, page 25, "It is to be lamented, that, in a more distant State, (Georgia) it was a received principle, inculcated by an opinion of the highest judicial authority there, that as no Legislative act of the State ever existed, confirming the treaty of peace with Great Britain, war still continued between the two countries—a principle which may perhaps still continue in that State." No judge, no case, no time, is named. Imputations on the judiciary of a country are too Sec. 49. The latter part of the quotation before made, merits notice also, to wit, where, after saying not a single instance exists of the recovery of a British debt, it is added, "though many years have expired since the establishment of peace between the two countries." It is evident from the preceding testimony, that many suits have been brought, and with effect; yet it has often been matter of surprise that more were not brought, and earlier, since it is most certain that the courts would have sustained their actions and given them judgments. This abstinence on the part of the creditors has excited a suspicion that they wished rather to recur to the treasury of their own country; and to have color for this, they would have it believed that there were obstructions here to bringing their suits. Their testimony is in fact the sole, to which your court till now, has given access. Had the opportunity now presented been given us sooner, they should sooner have known that the courts of the United States, whenever the creditors would choose that recourse, and would press, if necessary, to the highest tribunals, would be found as open to their suits, and as impartial to their subjects, as theirs to ours. Sec. 50. There is an expression in your letter, page 7, that "British creditors have not been countenanced or supported, either by the respective Legislatures, or by the State courts, in their endeavors to recover the full value of debts contracted antecedently to the treaty of peace." And again, in p. 8, "In many of the States, the subjects of the crown in endeavoring to obtain the restitution of their forfeited estates and property, have been treated with indignity." From which an inference might be drawn, which I am sure you did not intend, to wit: that the creditors have been deterred from resorting to the courts by popular tumults, and not protected by the laws of the country. I recollect to have heard of one or two attempts, by popular collections, to deter the prosecution of British claims. One of these is mentioned in No. 49. But these were immediately on the close of the war, while its passions had not yet had time to subside, and while the ashes of our houses were still smoking. Since that, say for many years past, nothing like popular interposition, on Sec. 51. Some notice is to be taken, as to the great deficiencies in collection urged on behalf of the British merchants. The course of our commerce with Great Britain was ever for the merchant there to give his correspondent here a year's credit; so that we were regularly indebted from a year to a year and a half's amount of our exports. It is the opinion of judicious merchants, that it never exceeded the latter term, and that it did not exceed the former at the commencement of the war. Let the holders then of this debt be classed into, 1st. Those who were insolvent at that time. 2d. Those solvent then, who became insolvent during the operations of the war—a numerous class. 3d. Those solvent at the close of the war, but insolvent now. 4th. Those solvent at the close of the war, who have since paid or settled satisfactorily with their creditors—a numerous class also. 5th. Those solvent then and now, who have neither paid, nor made satisfactory arrangements with their creditors. This last class, the only one now in question, is little numerous, and the amount of their debts but a moderate proportion of the aggregate which was due at the commencement of the war; insomuch, that it is the opinion, that we do not owe to Great Britain, at this moment, of separate debts, old and new, more than a year, or a year and a quarter's exports, the ordinary amount of the debt resulting from the common course of dealings. Sec. 52. In drawing a comparison between the proceedings of Great Britain and the United States, you say, page 35, "The conduct of Great Britain, in all these respects, has been widely Sec. 53. III. It is made an objection to the proceedings of our legislative and judiciary bodies, that they have refused to allow interest to run on debts during the course of the war. The decision of the right to this rests with the judiciary alone, neither the Legislative nor the Executive having any authority to intermeddle. The administration of justice is a branch of the sovereignty over a country, and belongs exclusively to the nation inhabiting it. No foreign power can pretend to participate in their jurisdiction, or that their citizens received there are not subject to it. When a cause has been adjudged according to the rules and forms of the country, its justice ought to be presumed. Even error in the highest court which has been provided as the last means of correcting the errors of others, and whose decrees are, therefore, subject to no further revisal, is one of those inconveniences flowing from the imperfection of our faculties, to which every society must submit; because there must be somewhere a last resort, wherein contestations may end. Multiply bodies of revisal as you please, their number must still be finite, and they must finish in the hands of fallible men as judges. If the error be evident, palpable, Sec. 54. The treaty is the text of the law in the present case, and its words are, that there shall be no lawful impediment to the recovery of bona fide debts. Nothing is said of interest on these debts; and the sole question is, whether, where a debt is given, interest thereon flows from the general principles of the law? Interest is not a part of the debt, but something added to the debt by way of damage for the detention of it. This is the definition of the English lawyers themselves, who say, "Interest is recovered by way of damages ratione detentionis debiti."
And we may add, once for all, that there is no instrument or title to debt, so formal and sacred, as to give a right to interest on it, under all possible circumstances—the words of Lord Mansfield, Dougl. 753, where he says: "That the question was, what was to be the rule for assessing the damage, and that, in this case, the interest ought to be the measure of the damage, the action being for a debt, but that, in a case of another sort, the rule might be different:" his words, Dougl. 376, "That interest might be payable in cases of delay, if a jury, in their discretion, shall think fit to allow it." And the doctrine in Giles v. Hart. 2 Salk. 622, that damages, or interest, are but an accessary to the debt, which may be barred by circumstances, which do not touch the debt itself, suffice to prove that interest is not a part of the debt, neither comprehended in the thing, nor in the While the taking interest on money has thus been considered, in some countries, as morally wrong in all cases, in others made legally right but in particular cases, the taking profits from lands, or rents in lieu of profits, has been allowed everywhere, and at all times, both in morality and law. Hence it is laid down as a general rule, Wolf, s. 229, "Si quis fundum alienum possidet, domini est quantum valet usas fundi, et possessoris quantum valet These reasons, and others like these, have probably operated on the different courts to produce decisions, that "no interest should run during the time this general and national calamity lasted;" and they seem sufficient at least to rescue their decisions from that flagrant denial of right, which can alone authorize one nation to come forward with complaints against the judiciary proceedings of another. Sec. 55. The States have been uniform in the allowance of interest before and since the war, but not of that claimed during the war. Thus we know by [E. 1.] the case of Neate's executors v. Sands, in New York, and Mildred v. Dorsey, in Maryland, that in those States interest during the war is disallowed by the courts. By [D. 8.] 1784, May, the act relating to debts due to persons who have been, and remained within the enemy's power or lines during the late war. That Connecticut left it to their Court of Chancery to determine the matter according to the rules of equity, or to leave it to referees; by [E. 2.] the case of TO RECAPITULATE. Sec. 56. I have, by way of preliminary, placed out of the present discussion all acts and proceedings prior to the treaty of peace, considering them as settled by that instrument, and that the then state of things was adopted by the parties, with such alterations only as that instrument provided. I have then taken up the subsequent acts and proceedings, of which you complain as infractions, distributing them according to their subjects, to wit:
I. Exile and confiscations. After premising, that these are lawful acts of war, I have shown that the 5th article was recommendatory only, its stipulations being, not to restore the confiscations and exiles, but to recommend to the State Legislatures to restore them: That this word, having but one meaning, establishes the intent of the parties; and moreover, that it was particularly explained by the American negotiators, that the Legislatures would be free to comply with the recommendation or not, and probably would not comply: That the British negotiators so understood it: That the British ministry so understood it: And the members of both Houses of Parliament, as well those who approved, as who disapproved the article. I have shown, that Congress did recommend, earnestly and bona fide: That the States refused or complied, in a greater or less degree, according to circumstances, but more of them, and in a greater degree than was expected: And that compensation, by the British treasury, to British sufferers, was the alternative of her own choice, our negotiators having offered to do that, if she would compensate such losses as we had sustained by acts authorized by the modern and moderate principles of war. II. Before entering on the subject of debts, it was necessary— 1st. To review the British infractions, and refer them to their exact dates. To show that the carrying away of the negroes preceded the 6th of May, 1783. That instead of evacuating the upper posts with all convenient None had been received May 10, 1784. None had been received July 13, 1784. From whence I conclude none had ever been given, And thence, that none had ever been intended. In the latter case, this infraction would date from the signature of the treaty. But founding it on the not giving the order with convenient speed, it dates from April, 1783, when the order for evacuating New York was given, as there can be no reason why it should have been inconvenient to give this order as early. The infraction, then, respecting the upper posts, was before the treaty was known in America. That respecting the negroes, was as soon as it was known. I have observed that these infractions were highly injurious. The first, by depriving us of our fur trade, profitable in itself, and valuable as a means of remittance for paying the debts; by intercepting our friendly and neighborly intercourse with the Indian nations, and consequently keeping us in constant, expensive, and barbarous war with them. The second, by withdrawing the cultivators of the soil, the produce of which was to pay the debts. 2d. After fixing the date of the British infractions, I have shown, That, as they preceded, so they produced the acts on our part complained of, as obstacles to the recovery of the debts. That when one party breaks any stipulation of a treaty, the other is free to break it also, either in the whole, or in equivalent parts, at its pleasure. That Congress having made no elections, Four of the States assumed, separately, to modify the recovery of debts— 1. By indulging their citizens with longer and more practicable times of payment. 2. By liberating their bodies from execution, on their delivering 3. By admitting, during the first moments of the non-existence of coin among us, a discharge of executions by payment in paper money. The first of these acts of retaliation, was in December, 1783, nine months after the infractions committed by the other party. And all of them were so moderate, of so short duration, the result of such necessities, and so produced, that we might, with confidence, have referred them, alterius principis, quo boni viri, arbitrio. 3. That induced, at length, by assurances from the British court, that they would concur in a fulfilment of the treaty, Congress, in 1787, declared to the States its will, that even the appearance of obstacle, raised by their acts, should no longer continue; And required a formal repeal of every act of that nature; and to avoid question, required it as well from those who had not, as from those who had passed such acts; which was complied with so fully, that no such laws remained in any State of the Union, except one; And even that one could not have forborne, if any symptoms of compliance from the opposite party had rendered a reiterated requisition from Congress important. 4. That, indeed, the requiring such a repeal, was only to take away pretext: For, that it was at all times perfectly understood, that treaties controlled the laws of the States— The confederation having made them obligatory on the whole: Congress having so declared and demonstrated them: The Legislatures and Executives of most of the States having admitted it: And the Judiciaries, both of the separate and General Governments, so deciding. That the courts are open everywhere upon this principle: That the British creditors have, for some time, been in the habit and course of recovering their debts at law: That the class of separate and unsettled debts contracted before the war, forms now but a small proportion of the original amount: That the integrity and independence of the courts of justice in the United States, are liable to no reproach: Nor have popular tumults furnished any ground for suggesting, that either courts or creditors are overawed by them in their proceedings. III. Proceeding to the article of interest, I have observed: That the decision, whether it shall or shall not be allowed during the war, rests, by our constitution, with the courts altogether. That if these have generally decided against the allowance, the reasons of their decisions appear so weighty, as to clear them from the charge of that palpable degree of wrong, which may authorize national complaint, or give a right of refusing execution of the treaty, by way of reprisal. To vindicate them, I have stated shortly, some of the reasons which support their opinion. That interest during the war, was not expressly given by the treaty: That the revival of debts did not, ex vi termini, give interest on them: That interest is not a part of the debt, but damages for the detention of the debt: That it is disallowed habitually in most countries; Yet has never been deemed a ground of national complaint against them: That in England also, it was formerly unlawful in all cases: That at this day it is denied there, in such a variety of instances, as to protect from it a great part of the transactions of life: That, in fact, there is not a single title to debt, so formal and sacred, as to give a right to interest, under all possible circumstances, either there or here: That of these circumstances, judges and jurors are to decide, in their discretion, and are accordingly in the habit of augmenting, diminishing, or refusing interest, in every case, according to their discretion: That the circumstances against the allowance, are unquestionably of the strongest in our case: That a great national calamity rendering the lands unproductive, which were to pay the interest, has been adjudged a sufficient cause of itself, to suspend interest: That, were both plaintiff and defendant equally innocent of that cause, The question, who should avoid loss? would be in favor of the party in possession: And, À fortiori, in his favor, where the calamity was produced by the act of the demandant. That, moreover, the laws of the party creditor had cut off the personal access of his debtor, And the transportation of his produce or money to the country of the creditor, or to any other for him: And where the creditor prevents payment both of principal and interest, the latter, at least, is justly extinguished. That the departure of the creditor, leaving no agent in the country of the debtor, would have stopped interest of itself, The debtor not being obliged to go out of the country to seek him. That the British minister was heretofore sensible of the weight of the objections to the claim of interest: That the declarations of Congress and our plenipotentiaries, previous to the definitive treaty, and the silence of that instrument, afford proof that interest was not intended on our part, nor insisted on, on the other: That, were we to admit interest on money, to equal favor with profits on land, arrears of profits would not be demandable in the present case, nor consequently arrears of interest: And, on the whole, without undertaking to say what the law is, which is not the province of the Executive, We say, that the reasons of those judges, who deny interest during the war, appear sufficiently cogent— To account for their opinion on honest principles: To exempt it from the charge of palpable and flagrant wrong, in re minime dubiÂ: And to take away all pretence of withholding execution of the treaty, by way of reprisal for that cause. Sec. 57. I have now, sir, gone through the several acts and proceedings enumerated in your appendix, as infractions of the treaty, omitting, I believe, not a single one, as may be seen by a table hereto subjoined, wherein every one of them, as marked and numbered in your appendix, is referred to the section of this letter in which it is brought into view; and the result has been, as you have seen— 1. That there was no absolute stipulation to restore antecedent confiscations, and that none subsequent took place: 2. That the recovery of the debts was obstructed validly in none of our States, invalidly only in a few, and that not till long after the infractions committed on the other side; and 3. That the decisions of courts and juries against the claims of interest are too probably founded to give cause for questioning their integrity. These things being evident, I cannot but flatter myself, after the assurances received from you of his Britannic Majesty's desire to remove every occasion of misunderstanding from between us, that an end will now be put to the disquieting situation of the two countries, by as complete execution of the treaty as circumstances render practicable at this late day: that it is to be done so late has been the source of heavy losses, of blood and treasure, to the United States. Still our desire of friendly accommodation is, and has been, constant. No "lawful impediment has been opposed to the prosecution of the just rights of your citizens." And if any instances of unlawful impediment have existed in any of the inferior tribunals, they would, like other unlawful proceedings, have been overruled on appeal to the higher courts. If not overruled there, a complaint to the Government would have been regular, and their interference | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
