letter I informed you that two balanciers would suffice for us, which will

have served as an answer to that part of your late letters on the same subject. With respect to the Assayer, it will be better to defer taking any measures till the bill establishing a mint, which is now before the legislature, shall have passed.

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, you will always be sure of finding a convenient passage to England.

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 gazettes and pamphlet's transmitted to the Secretary of State's office, to translating or printing necessary papers, postage, couriers, and necessary aids to poor American sailors. These additional charges, therefore, may be inserted in your accounts; but no other of any description, unless where they are expressly directed to be incurred. The salary of your new grade being the same as of your former one, and your services continued, though the scene of them is changed, there will be no intermission of salary; the new one beginning where the former ends, and ending when you shall receive notice of your permission to return. For the same reason there can be but one allowance of outfit and return, the former to take place now, the latter only on your final return. The funds appropriated to the support of the foreign establishment, do not admit the allowance of a secretary to a minister resident. I have thought it best to state these things to you minutely, that you may be relieved from all doubt as to the matter of your accounts. I will beg leave to add a most earnest request, that on the 1st day of July next, and on the same day annually afterwards, you make out your account to that day, and send it by the first vessel, and by duplicates. In this I must be very urgent and particular; because at the meeting of the ensuing Congress always, it is expected that I prepare for them a statement of the disbursements from this fund, from July to June inclusive. I shall give orders by the first opportunity, to our bankers in Amsterdam, to answer your drafts for the allowances herein before mentioned, recruiting them at the same time by an adequate remitment; as I expect that by the time you receive this, they will not have remaining on hand of this fund, more than seven or eight thousand dollars.

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 Holland, of the general affairs of Europe, and the regular transmission of the Leyden gazette by every British packet, in the way it now comes, which proves to be very regular. Send also such other publications as may be important enough to be read by one who can spare little time to read anything, or which may contain matter proper to be turned to, on interesting subjects and occasions. The English packet is the most certain channel for such epistolatory communications as are not very secret, and by those packets I would wish always to receive a letter from you, by way of corrective to the farrago of news they generally bring. Intermediate letters, secret communications, gazettes, and other printed papers, had better come by private vessels from Amsterdam; which channel I shall use generally for my letters, and always for gazettes and other printed papers.

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 for the United States, at the court of France, which was approved by the Senate on the 12th instant; on which be pleased to accept my congratulations. You will receive herewith your commission, a letter of credence for the King, sealed, and a copy of it open for your own satisfaction, as also a cypher, to be used on proper occasions in the correspondence between us.

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 that _the personal services and other expenses_ here meant, do not extend to the cost of gazettes and pamphlets transmitted to the Secretary of State's office, to translating or printing necessary papers, postage, couriers, and necessary aids to poor American sailors. These additional charges, therefore, may be inserted in your accounts; but no other of any description, unless where they are expressly directed to be incurred. By an ancient rule of Congress, your salary will commence from the day you receive this letter, if you be then at Paris, or from the day you set out for Paris from any other place at which it may find you; it ceases on receiving notice or permission to return, after which the additional quarter's allowance takes place. You are free to name your own private secretary, who will receive from the public a salary of thirteen hundred and fifty dollars a year, without allowance for any _extras_. I have thought it best to state these things to you minutely, that you may be relieved from all doubt as to the matter of your accounts. I will beg leave to add a most earnest request, that on the 1st day of July next, and on the same day annually afterwards, you make out your account to that day, and send it by the first vessel, and by duplicates. In this I must be very urgent and particular, because at the meeting of the ensuing Congress always, it is expected that I prepare for them a statement of the disbursements from this fund, from July to June inclusive. I shall give orders by the first opportunity to our bankers in Amsterdam, to answer your drafts for the allowances herein before mentioned, recruiting them at the same time by an adequate remitment, as I expect that by the time you receive this, they will not have remaining on hand of this fund more than seven or eight thousand dollars.

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 communication of interesting occurrences in France, of the general affairs of Europe, and transmission of the Leyden gazette, the _journal logographe_, and the best paper of Paris for their colonial affairs, with such other publications as may be important enough to be read by one who can spare little time to read anything, or which may contain matter proper to be turned to, on interesting subjects and occasions. The English packet is the most certain channel for such epistolary communications as are not very secret, and by those packets I would wish always to receive a letter from you by way of corrective to the farrago of news they generally bring. Intermediate letters, secret communications, gazettes and other printed papers, had better come through the channel of Monsieur de La Motte at Havre, to whom I shall also generally address my letters to you, and always the gazettes and other printed papers.

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 here will convince you I have been right in not raising your expectations as to an appointment. The President proposed at first the nomination of Mr. T. Pinckney to the court of London, but would not name him till we could have an assurance from him that he would accept, nor did he indicate what the other appointments would be till Mr. Pinckney's answer came. Then he nominated to the Senate Mr. Morris, M. P. for France, Pinckney, M. P. for London, and yourself M. R. for the Hague. The first of these appointments was extremely unpopular, and so little relished by several of the Senate, that every effort was used to negative it. Those whose personal objections to Mr. Morris overruled their deference to the President, finding themselves a minority, joined with another small party who are against all foreign appointments, and endeavored with them to put down the whole system rather than let this article pass. This plan was defeated, and Mr. Morris passed by a vote of 16 against 11. When your nomination came on, it was consented to, by 15 against 11, every man of the latter, however, rising and declaring, that as to yourself they had no personal objection, but only meant by their vote to declare their opinion against keeping any person at the Hague. Those who voted in the negative were not exactly the same in both cases. When the biennial bill furnishing money for the support of the foreign establishment shall come up at the next session, to be continued, the same contest will arise again, and I think it very possible that if the opponents of Mr. Morris cannot remove him otherwise, they will join again with those who are against the whole establishment, and try to discontinue the whole. If they fail in this, I still see no security in their continuing the mission to the Hague; because to do this they must enlarge the fund from forty to fifty thousand dollars. The President afterwards proceeded to join you to Carmichael on a special mission to Spain, to which there was no opposition, except from three gentlemen who were against opening the Mississippi.

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 court, which you had been pleased to give us, that the government of Canada had supported or encouraged the hostilities of our Indian neighbors in the western country. Your favor of January the 30th, to the same purpose, has been, in like manner, communicated to the President, and I am authorized to assure you, that he is duly sensible of this additional proof of the disposition of the court of London, to confine the proceedings of their officers in our vicinage within the limits of friendship and good neighborhood, and that a conduct so friendly and just, will furnish us a motive the more for those duties and good offices which neighbor nations owe each other.

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 United States in Holland. Congress never passed any express vote of confirmation, but they opened a direct correspondence with Mr. Dumas, sent him orders to be executed, confirmed and augmented his salary, made that augmentation retrospective, directed him to take up his residence in their hotel at the Hague, and passed such other votes from time to time as established him _de facto_ their agent at the Hague. On the change in the organization of our government in 1789, no commission nor new appointment took place with respect to him, though it did in most other cases; yet the correspondence with him from the office of Foreign Affairs has been continued, and he has regularly received his salary. A doubt has been suggested, whether this be legal. I have myself no doubt but what it is legal. I consider the source of authority with us to be the Nation. Their will, declared through its proper organ, is valid, till revoked by their will declared through its proper organ again also. Between 1776 and 1789, the proper organ for pronouncing their will, whether legislative or executive, was a Congress formed in a particular manner. Since 1789 it is a Congress formed in a different manner, for laws, and a President, elected in a particular way, for making appointments and doing other executive acts. The laws and appointments of the ancient Congress were as valid and permanent in their nature, as the laws of the new Congress, or appointments of the new Executive; these laws and appointments, in both cases deriving equally their source from the will of the nation; and when a question arises, whether any particular law or appointment is still in force, we are to examine, not whether it was pronounced by the ancient or present organ, but whether it has been at any time revoked by the authority of the nation, expressed by the organ competent at the time. The nation, by the act of their federal convention, established some new principles and some new organizations of the government. This was a valid declaration of their will, and _ipso facto_ revoked some laws before passed, and discontinued some officers and offices before appointed. Wherever, by this instrument, an old office was suspended by a new one, a new appointment became necessary; but where the new Constitution did not demolish an office, either expressly or virtually, nor the President remove the officer, both the office and officer remained. This was the case of several; in many of them, indeed, an excess of caution dictated the superaddition of a new appointment; but where there was no such superaddition, as in the instance of Mr. Dumas, both the office and officer still remained: for the will of the nation, validly pronounced by the proper organ of the day, had constituted him their agent, and that will has not, through any of its successive organs, revoked its appointment. I think, therefore, there is no room to doubt its continuance, and that the receipt of salary by him has been lawful.

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, in a way which will call for expense. It is desirable that these expenses should be reduced to certain rules, as far as the nature of the case will admit, and the sooner they are so reduced the better. This may be done, however, on surer grounds after the government of Great Britain shall have entered with us into these arrangements on this particular subject which the seriousness of the case calls for on our part, and its difficulty may admit on theirs. This done, it will be desirable that legislative rules be framed which may equally guide and justify the proceedings of our minister, or other agent, at that court, and at the same time extend to our seafaring citizens the protection of which they have so much need.

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 am not able to say more, than that the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States will receive Mr. Pagan's application for a writ of error to revise the judgment given against him by the inferior court, and that there can be no doubt they will do on that application what shall be right.

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 and intelligence equal to the nature of his functions and the public expectations, becomes important. You will, doubtless, also consider it as necessary to advertise immediately for plans of the Capitol and President's house. The sketch of an advertisement for the plan of a Capitol, which Mr. Johnson had sent to the President, is now returned with some alterations, and one also for a President's house. Both of them are subject to your pleasure, and when accommodated to that, if you will return them, they shall be advertised here and elsewhere. The President thinks it of primary importance to press the providing as great quantities of brick, stone, lime, plank, timber, &c., this year as possible. It will occur to you that the stone should be got by a skilful hand. Knowing what will be your funds, you will be able to decide which of the following works had better be undertaken for the present year.

The cellars of both houses. The foundations of one, or both. Bridge over Rock Creek, and the post road brought over it. Canal. Wharves.

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 motives, perhaps you may think it not amiss to discontinue the proceedings. You will receive herewith a packet of papers, among which are several projects and estimates which have been given in by different persons, and which are handed on to you, not as by any means carrying with them any degree of approbation, but merely, that if you find anything good in them, you may convert it to some account. Some of these contain the views of L'Enfant.

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 commerce. An authentic copy of the recommendation was delivered, but nothing said about carrying it into effect. Perhaps they expect that we should declare our readiness to meet them on the ground of treaty. If they do, we have no hesitation to declare it. In the meantime, if the present communications produce any sensation, perhaps it may furnish a good occasion to endeavor to have matters re-placed _in statu quo_, by repealing the late innovations as to our ships, tobacco and whale oil. It is right that things should be on their ancient footing, at opening the treaty. M. Ternant has applied here for four thousand dollars for the succor of the French colonies. The Secretary of the Treasury has reason to believe, that the late loan at Antwerp has paid up all our arrearages to France, both of principal and interest, and consequently, that there is no part of our debt exigible at this time. However, the Legislature having authorized the President to proceed in borrowing to pay off the residue, provided it can be done to the _advantage_ of the United States, it is thought the law will be satisfied with _avoiding loss_ to the United States. This has obliged the Secretary of the Treasury to require some conditions, which may remove from us that loss which we encountered, from an unfavorable exchange, to pay what was _exigible_, and transfer it to France as to payments not exigible. These shall be fully detailed to you when settled. In the meantime, the money will be furnished as far as it can be done. Indeed, our wishes are cordial for the re-establishment of peace and commerce in those colonies, and to give such proofs of our good faith both to them and the mother country, as to suppress all that jealousy which might oppose itself to the free exchange of our _mutual productions_, so essential to the prosperity of those colonies, and to the preservation of _our agricultural_ interest. This is our true interest and our true object, and we have no reason to conceal views so justifiable, though the expression of them may require that the occasions be proper and the terms chosen with delicacy. The gazettes will inform you of the proceedings of Congress, the laws passed and proposed, and generally speaking, of all public transactions. You will perceive that the Indian war calls for sensible exertions. It would have been a trifle had we only avowed enemies to contend with. The British court have disavowed all aid to the Indians. Whatever may have been their orders in that direction, the Indians are fully and notoriously supplied by their agents with everything necessary to carry on the war. Time will show how all this is to end. Besides the laws, journals and newspapers, before mentioned, you will receive herewith the State constitutions, the census and almanac, and an answer to Lord Sheffield on our commerce. A cypher is ready for you, but cannot be sent till we can find a trusty passenger going to Paris.

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 will be the best judges whether to send your letters by Lisbon, Cadiz, or what other route; but we shall be anxious to hear from you as often as possible. If no safe conveyance occurs from Madrid to Lisbon, and your matter should be of importance sufficient to justify the expense, a courier must be sent; but do not incur the expense unless it be to answer some good end.

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.

TO MR. SHORT.

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 have fallen from 26 to 21 1-4, and bank stock from 115 or 120 to 73 or 74, within two or three weeks. This nefarious business is becoming more and more the public detestation, and cannot fail, when the knowledge of it shall be sufficiently extended, to tumble its authors headlong from their heights. Money is leaving the remoter parts of the Union, and flowing to this place to purchase paper; and here, a paper medium supplying its place, it is shipped off in exchange for luxuries. The value of property is necessarily falling in the places left bare of money. In Virginia, for instance, property has fallen 25 per cent. in the last twelve months. I wish to God you had some person who could dispose of your paper at a judicious moment for you, and invest it in good lands. I would do anything my duty would permit, but were I to advise your agent (who is himself a stock dealer) to sell out yours at this or that moment, it would be used as a signal to guide speculations. There can never be a fear but that the paper which represents the public debt will be ever sacredly good. The public faith is bound for this, and no change of system will ever be permitted to touch this; but no other paper stands on ground equally sure. I am glad therefore that yours is all of this kind.

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 by his Catholic Majesty, of and concerning the navigation of the river Mississippi, and such other matters relative to the confines of their territories, and the intercourse to be had thereon, as the mutual interests and general harmony of neighboring and friendly nations require should be precisely adjusted and regulated, and of and concerning the general commerce between the United States and the kingdom and dominions of his Catholic Majesty; and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions thereon, saving as usual the right of ratification, which commission is already on its way to Mr. Short, whom it will find at the Hague, and who is desired immediately to proceed to Madrid. I expect his route will be by Bordeaux, and thence across the Pyrenees by the usual road. Might I hope your application to your Court to send a passport and proper orders to their officers, where he must first enter the kingdom, to protect his passage into and through the kingdom, in order to prevent loss of time, which would be incurred by his waiting there till he could ask and receive a passport from Madrid? With the sincerest wishes that the matters not yet settled between the two countries may be so adjusted as to give a free course to that conduct on both sides which an unity of interest evidently prescribes, and with sentiments of perfect esteem and respect for yourselves, I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

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 will be entirely alone, and it will give us time to go over the matter and weigh it thoroughly. I will, in that case, ask the favor of you to furnish yourself with such notes as may ascertain the present expense of the posts, for one day in the week, to Boston and Richmond, and enable us to calculate the savings which may be made by availing ourselves of the stages. Be pleased to observe that the stages travel all the day. There seems nothing necessary for us then, but to hand the mail along through the night till it may fall in with another stage the next day, if motives of economy should oblige us to be thus attentive to small savings. If a little latitude of expense can be allowed, I should be for only using the stages the first day, and then have our riders. I am anxious that the thing should be begun by way of experiment, for a short distance, because I believe it will so increase the income of the post-office as to show we may go through with it. I shall hope to see you at three o'clock.

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 a sum of money for erecting a national monument in the city of Washington. It was scarcely to be doubted but that you would avoid appropriations for matters of ornament till a sufficient sum should be secured out of the proceeds of your sales to accomplish the public buildings, bridges and other such objects as are essential. Mr. Caracchi, the artist, who had proposed to execute the monument, has had hopes that a subscription set on foot for that purpose, would have sufficed to effect it. That hope is now over, and he is about to return to Europe. He is unquestionably an artist of the first class. He has had the advantage of taking the model of the President's person in plaster, equal to every wish in resemblance and spirit. It is pretty certain that the equestrian statue of the President can never be executed by an equal workman, who has had equal advantages, and the question is whether a prudent caution will permit you to enter into any engagement now, taking time enough before the term of payment to have accomplished the more material objects of the public buildings, &c. He says to execute the equestrian statue, with the cost of the materials, in marble, will be worth 20,000 guineas; that he would begin it on his return, if four or five years hence you can engage to pay him 20,000 dollars, and the same sum annually afterwards, till the whole is paid, before which time the statue shall be ready. It is rather probable that within some time Congress would take it off your hands, in compliance with an ancient vote of that body. The questions for your considerations are, whether, supposing no difficulty as to the means, you think such a work might be undertaken by you? Whether you can have so much confidence in the productiveness of your funds as to engage for a residuum of this amount, all more necessary objects being first secured, and that this may be within the time before proposed? and, in fine, which will preponderate in your minds, the hazard of undertaking this now, or that of losing the aid of this artist? The nature of this proposition will satisfy you that it has not been communicated to the President, and of course would not be, unless a previous acceptance on your part, should render it necessary to obtain his sanction. Your answer is necessary for the satisfaction of Mr. Caracchi, at whose instance I submit the proposal to you, and who, I believe, will only wait here the return of that answer. I have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem, gentlemen, your most obedient and most humble servant.

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, covering a clause of a statute of that country relative to its commerce with us, and notifying a determination to carry it into execution henceforward. Conceiving that the determination announced could not be really meant as extensively as the words import, I asked and received an explanation from the minister, as expressed in the letter and answer herein enclosed; and on consideration of all circumstances, I cannot but confide in the opinion expressed by him, that its sole object is to exclude foreign vessels from the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey. The want of proportion between the motives expressed and the measure, its magnitude and consequences, total silence as to the proclamation on which the intercourse between the two countries has hitherto hung, and of which, in this broad sense, it would be a revocation, and the recent manifestations of the disposition of that government to concur with this in mutual offices of friendship and good will, support his construction. The minister, moreover, assured me verbally, that he would immediately write to his court for an explanation, and in the meantime, is of opinion that the usual intercourse of commerce between the two countries (Jersey and Guernsey excepted) need not be suspended.

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 territories bordering on us_; and the plan of a convention is there stated. You are desired to propose the matter to that court, and establish with them so much of it as they approve, filling up the blank for the manner of the demand by us and compliance with them, in such a way, as their laws and the organization of their government may require. But recollect that they bound on us between two and three thousand miles, and consequently, that they should authorize a delivery by some description of officers to be found on every inhabitable part of their border. We have thought it best to agree, specially, the manner of proceeding _in our country_, on a demand of theirs, because the convention will in that way execute itself, without the necessity of a new law for the purpose. Your general powers being comprehensive enough to take in this subject, no new ones are issued.

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 may apply to such marshal or deputy marshal directly, who, on exhibition of proof as aforesaid, shall thereupon arrest the fugitive, and carry him before the said district judge; and when before him in either way, he shall within not less than ---- days, nor more than ----, hold a special court of inquiry, causing a grand jury to be summoned thereto, and charging them to inquire whether the fugitive hath committed a murder, not of the nature of treason, within the province demanding him, and on their finding a true bill, the judge shall order the officer in whose custody the fugitive is, to deliver him over to the person authorized as aforesaid to receive him, and shall give such further authorities to aid the said person in safe keeping and conveying the said fugitive to the limits of the United States, as shall be necessary and within his powers; and his powers shall expressly extend to command the aid of _posse_ of every district through which the said fugitive is to be carried. And the said justices, judges and other officers, shall use in the premises the same process and proceedings, _mutatis mutandis_, and govern themselves by the same principles and rules of law, as in cases of murder committed on the high seas.

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 away shall give a right of civil action, whether the fugitive came to the original possession lawfully or unlawfully, even feloniously; likewise, for the recovery of damages sustained by any forgery committed by such fugitive. And the same provision shall hold in favor of the representatives of the original creditor or sufferer, and against the representatives of the original debtor, carrier away or forger; also, in favor of either government or of corporations, as of natural persons. But in no case, shall the person of the defendant be imprisoned for the debt, though the process, whether original, mesne, or final, be for the form sake directed against his person. If the time between the flight and the commencement of the action exceed not ---- years, it shall be counted but as one day under any act of limitations.

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 only _rightful_ subject then of arrest and delivery, for which we have _need_, is _murder_. Ought we to wish to strain the natural right of arresting and re-delivering fugitives to other cases?

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 jury; but evidence on oath from the country demanding him, though in _writing_ and _ex parte_, should have the same effect as if delivered _orally_ at the _examination_.

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 seven cents a bottle; and where this exceeds forty per cent. on their cost, they will pay but the forty per cent. I consider this latter provision as likely to introduce in abundance the cheaper wines of France, and the more so, as the tax on ardent spirits is considerably raised. I hope that these manifestations of friendly dispositions towards that country, will induce them to repeal the very obnoxious laws respecting our commerce, which were passed by the preceding National Assembly. The present session of Congress will pass over, without any other notice of them than the friendly preferences before mentioned. But if these should not produce a retaliation of good on their part, a retaliation of evil must follow on ours. It will be impossible to defer longer than the next session of Congress, some counter regulations for the protection of our navigation and commerce. I must entreat you therefore, to avail yourself of every occasion of friendly remonstrance on this subject. If they wish an equal and cordial treaty with us, we are ready to enter into it. We would wish that this could be the scene of negotiation, from considerations suggested by the nature of our government, which will readily occur to you. Congress will rise on this day sen'night. I enclose you a letter from Mrs. Greene, who asks your aid in getting her son forwarded by the Diligence to London, on his way to America. The letter will explain to you the mode and the means, and the parentage and genius of the young gentleman will insure your aid to him. As this goes by the French packet, I send no newspapers, laws, or other articles of that kind, the postage of which would be high.

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_ advices from Spain, _by way of the Spanish islands_, to this effect, that war with France was inevitable, that troops were marching from all quarters of the kingdom to the frontiers, and that fifty sail of the line had been commissioned." This was permitted to be mentioned to me, but, for particular reasons, to no other persons. I suppose the particular reasons were some mercantile speculation founded on the intelligence; perhaps it may be to buy up all our flour. We have London news from the 1st of April, and nothing of this is mentioned. I have a letter from Colonel Humphreys of March 18, which says nothing of it. I am in hopes, therefore, the only effect will be to get us a good price for our flour or fish; this being our look out, while the success of the speculation is that of the adventurer. You will recollect that we had learned the death of the Emperor of Morocco, after a battle in which he was victorious. The brother opposed to him, it seems, was killed in the same action, and the one--Muley Islema--who had been so long in the sanctuary, is proclaimed Emperor. He was the best character of the three, and is likely to be peaceable. This information is from Colonel Humphreys. The Queen of Portugal is still in the same state. Wyllys does not pronounce her curable, though he says there is nothing which indicates the contrary. He has removed from her all her former physicians. Mr. Madison has favored me with some corrections for my letter to Mr. H. It is now in the hands of the Attorney General, and shall then be submitted to Colonel Hamilton. I find that these examinations will retard the delivery of it considerably. However, delay is preferable to error. Mr. Pinckney is engaged in going over such papers of my office as may put him in possession of whatever has passed between us and the court he is going to. I have one hundred olive trees, and some caper plants, arrived here from Marseilles, which I am sending on to Charleston, where, Mr. Pinckney tells me, they have already that number living of those I had before sent them. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect respect and attachment, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

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 me that the Queen of Portugal was considerably better, as also mentioning the death of the Emperor of Germany. What effect this last event will have on the affairs of Europe, cannot be foreseen, the character of the successor being absolutely unknown. He is twenty-four years of age. One would conjecture that, if he has any dispositions to war, he would think a little time necessary to get his election passed in form, to see if the troubles within his dominions quieted by his father, would be likely to break out or not, &c., and that this would hold him back one campaign. Still, this event renders peace less certain, as the character of his father was so decidedly pacific, that one might count on that. There seems to have been a magnificent story current in London for the three or four last days of March, of the capture of Seringapatam and Tippoo Saib, great slaughter, &c.; but, on the 1st of April, the date of the latest paper which the vessel brings (she is from Glasgow), it had died away to a _hum_ raised by stock jobbers, who wanted to sell out. It did in fact raise East India stock two or three per cent. Still it was not fallen into entire discredit, as appears by some paragraphs, and consequently cannot be decidedly pronounced untrue. Perhaps the contradiction of it was the counter hum of those who wanted to buy in.

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 war on our own citizens to collect it, and even to resort to an _excise_ law of odious character with the people, partial in its operation, unproductive unless enforced by arbitrary and vexatious means, and committing the authority of the government in parts where resistance is most probable and coercion least practicable. They cite propositions in Congress, and suspect other projects on foot still to increase the mass of debt. They say, that by borrowing at two-thirds of the interest, we might have paid off the principal in two-thirds of the time; but that from this we are precluded by its being made irredeemable but in small portions and long terms; that this irredeemable quality was given it for the avowed purpose of inviting its transfer to foreign countries. They predict that this transfer of the principal, when completed, will occasion an exportation of three millions of dollars annually for the interest, a drain of coin, of which, as there has been no examples, no calculation can be made of its consequences: that the banishment of our coin will be complicated by the creation of ten millions of paper money, in the form of bank bills now issuing into circulation. They think the ten or twelve per cent. annual profit paid to the lenders of this paper medium taken out of the pockets of the people, who would have had without interest the coin it is banishing: that all the capital employed in paper speculation is barren and useless, producing, like that on a gaming table, no accession to itself, and is withdrawn from commerce and agriculture, where it would have produced addition to the common mass: that it nourishes in our citizens habits of vice and idleness, instead of industry and morality: that it has furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature as turns the balance between the honest voters, whichever way it is directed: that this corrupt squadron, deciding the voice of the legislature, have manifested their dispositions to get rid of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the general legislature, limitations, on the faith of which, the States acceded to that instrument: that the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change from the present republican form of government to that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the model: that this was contemplated by the convention is no secret, because its partisans have made more of it. To effect it then was impracticable, but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing everything for its ultimate attainment. So many of them have got into the Legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses. The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in its present form, are fewer in number; they are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists, who, though they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government; but, being less so to a republican than a monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil.

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 think, will not go all lengths with the former, because creditors will never, of their own accord, fly off entirely from their debtors; therefore, this is the alternative least likely to produce convulsion. But should the majority of the new members be still in the same principles with the present, and show that we have nothing to expect but a continuance of the same practices, it is not easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be resorted to for correction of the evil. True wisdom would direct that they should be temperate and peaceable; but the division of sentiment and interest happens unfortunately to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise and temperate would prevail against what is most easy and obvious? I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts. Yet when we consider the mass which opposed the original coalescence; when we consider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter; that the Legislature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, but on the contrary, whenever Northern and Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed and the former soothed; that the owers of the debt are in the Southern, and the holders of it in the Northern division; that the anti-federal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfillment of their predictions; that this has been brought about by the monarchical federalists themselves, who, having been for the new government merely as a stepping stone to monarchy, have themselves adopted the very constructions of the Constitution, of which, when advocating its acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they declared it unsusceptible; that the republican federalists who espoused the same government for its intrinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons; that which they denied as prophecy, having now become true history, who can be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on the other side? And this is the event at which I tremble, and to prevent which I consider your continuing at the head of affairs as of the last importance. The confidence of the whole Union is centred in you. Your being at the helm will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the people in any quarter, into violence and secession. North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on; and if the first correction of a numerous representation should fail in its effect, your presence will give time for trying others, not inconsistent with the union and peace of the States.

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 pleased to place me, as much to their advantage and satisfaction. I have, therefore, no motive to consult but my own inclination, which is bent irresistibly on the tranquil enjoyment of my family, my farm and my books. I should repose among them, it is true, in far greater security, if I were to know that you remained at the watch; and I hope it will be so. To the inducements urged from a view of our domestic affairs, I will add a bare mention, of what indeed need only to be mentioned, that weighty motives for your continuance are to be found in our foreign affairs. I think it probable that both the Spanish and English negotiations, if not completed before your purpose is known, will be suspended from the moment it is known, and that the latter nation will then use double diligence in fomenting the Indian War. With my wishes for the future, I shall at the same time express my gratitude for the past, at least my portion in it; and beg permission to follow you, whether in public or private life, with those sentiments of sincere attachment and respect, with which I am unalterably, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and humble servant.

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 this occasion, with the sincerest dispositions to remove from between the two countries those obstacles to a cordial friendship, which have arisen from an inexecution of some articles of the treaty of peace. The desire entertained by this country, to be on the best terms with yours, has been constant, and has manifested itself through its different forms of administration, by repeated overtures to enter into such explanations and arrangements as should be right and necessary to bring about a complete execution of the treaty. The same dispositions lead us to wish, that the occasion now presented should not be defeated by useless recapitulations of what had taken place anterior to that instrument. It was with concern, therefore, I observed that you had thought it necessary to go back to the very commencement of the war, and in several parts of your letter to enumerate and comment on all the acts of our different legislatures, passed during the whole course of it, in order to deduce from thence, imputations which your justice would have suppressed, had the whole truth been presented to your view, instead of particular traits, detached from the ground on which they stood. However easy it would be to justify our country, by bringing into view the whole ground, on both sides, to show that legislative warfare began with the British Parliament; that when they levelled at persons or property, it was against entire towns or countries, without discrimination of cause or conduct, while we touched individuals only; naming them man by man, after due consideration of each case, and careful attention not to confound the innocent with the guilty; however advantageously we might compare the distant and tranquil situation of their Legislature with the scenes in the midst of which ours were obliged to legislate; and might then ask, whether the difference of circumstance and situation would not have justified a contrary difference of conduct, and whether the wonder ought to be, that our legislatures had done so much, or so little? we will waive all this, because it would lead to recollections, as unprofitable as unconciliating. The titles of some of your acts, and a single clause of one of them only, shall be thrown among the documents at the end of this letter, No. 1, 2, and with this we will drop forever the curtain on this tragedy!

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. [6]"L'état où les choses se trouvent au moment du traité doit passer pour legitime; et si l'on veut y apporter du changement il faut que le traité en fasse une mention expresse. Par consequent toutes les choses dont le traité ne dit rien, doivent demeurer dans l'etat où elles se trouvent lors de sa conclusion." Vattel, 1. 4, s. 21. [7]"De quibus nihil dictum, ea manent quo sunt loco." Wolf, 1222. No alterations then are to be claimed on either side, but those which the treaty has provided. The moment, too, to which it refers, as a rule of conduct for this country at large, was the moment of its notification to the country at large. Vattel, 1. 4, s. 24. [8]"Le traité de paix oblige les _parties contractantes_ du moment qu'il est conclu aussitôt qu'il a reçu toute sa forme; et elles doivent procurer incessamment l'execution; mais ce traité n'oblige les _sujets_ que du moment qu'il leur est notifié." And s. 25. "Le traité devient _par la publication_, une loi pour les sujets, et ils sont obligés de se conformer désormais aux dispositions dont on y est convenu." And another author as pointedly says, [9]"Pactio pacis _paciscentes_ statim obligat quam primum _perfecta_, cum ex pacto veniat obligatio. Subditos vero et milites, quam primum iisdem fuerit _publicata_; cum de eâ _ante publicationem ipsis certo constare non possit_." Wolf, s. 1229. It was stipulated, indeed, by the ninth article, that "if, before its arrival in America," any place or territory, belonging to either party, should be conquered by the arms of the other, it should be restored. This was the only case in which transactions, intervening between the signature and publication, were to be nullified.

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 be considered together, because blended together in most of the acts, and blended also in the same article of the treaty.

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, [10]"Cum ea sit belli conditio, ut hostes sint omni jure spoliati, rationis est, quascunque res hostium apud hostes inventas dominum mutare, et fisco cedere. Solet præterea in singulis fere belli indictionibus constitui, ut bona hostium, tam _apud nos reperta_, quam capta bello publicentur. Si merum jus belli sequamur, etiam _immobilia_ possent vendi, et eorum pretium in fiscum redigi, ut in mobilibus obtinet. Sed in omni fere Europa sola fit annotatio, ut eorum fructus, durante bello, percipiat fiscus, finito autem bello, ipsa immobilia ex pactis restituuntur pristinis dominis." Bynkersh. Quest. Jur. Pub. 1. 1, c. 7. Every nation, indeed, would wish to pursue the latter practice, if under circumstances leaving them their usual resources. But the circumstances of our war were without example; excluded from all commerce, even with neutral nations, without arms, money, or the means of getting them abroad, we were obliged to avail ourselves of such resources as we found at home. Great Britain, too, did not consider it as an ordinary war, but a rebellion; she did not conduct it according to the rules of war, established by the law of nations, but according to her acts of parliament, made from time to time, to suit circumstances. She would not admit our title even to the _strict rights_ of ordinary war; she cannot then claim from us its _liberalities_; yet the confiscations of property were by no means universal, and that of debts still less so. What effect was to be produced on them by the treaty, will be seen by the words of the fifth article, which are as follows:

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 pleased to say (page 7), "It cannot be presumed, that the Commissioners, who negotiated the treaty of peace, would engage, in behalf of Congress, to make _recommendations_ to the Legislatures of the respective States, which they did not expect to be effectual, or enter into direct stipulations which they had not the power to enforce." On the contrary, we may fairly presume that, if they had had the power to _enforce_, they would not merely have _recommended_. When, in every other article, they agree expressly _to do_, why in this do they change the style suddenly, and agree only to _recommend_? Because the things here proposed to be done were retrospective in their nature--would tear up the laws of the several States, and the contracts and transactions, private and public, which had taken place under them; and retrospective laws were forbidden by the constitutions of several of the States. Between persons whose native language is that of his treaty, it is unnecessary to explain the difference between _enacting_ a thing to be done, and _recommending_ it to be done; the words themselves being as well understood as any by which they could be explained. But it may not be unnecessary to observe, that _recommendations_ to the people, instead of _laws_, had been introduced among us, and were rendered familiar in the interval between discontinuing the old, and establishing the new governments. The conventions and committees who then assembled, to guide the conduct of the People, having no authority to oblige them by law, took up the practice of simply recommending measures to them. These recommendations they either complied with or not, at their pleasure. If they refused, there was complaint, but no compulsion. So, after organizing the Governments, if at any time it became expedient that a thing should be done, which Congress, or any other of the organized bodies, were not authorized to ordain, they simply recommended, and left to the People, or their Legislatures, to comply, or not, as they pleased. It was impossible that the negotiators on either side should have been ignorant of the difference between agreeing _to do_ a thing, and agreeing only to _recommend_ it to be done. The import of the terms is so different, that no deception or surprise could be supposed, even if there were no evidence that the difference was attended to, explained, and understood.

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 by them should be kept out of sight, till time and events should open it upon the nation insensibly.

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 of the country. What other term could they adopt? He had searched the journals of Congress on this subject; what other term did they, or do they ever adopt in their requisitions to the different provinces? It is an undertaking on the part of Congress; that body, like the King here, is the executive power in America. Can the crown undertake for the two Houses of Parliament? It can only recommend. He flattered himself that recommendation would be attended with success; but, said he, state the case, that it will not, the liberality of Great Britain is still open to them. Ministers had pledged themselves to indemnify them; not only in the address now moved for, but even in the last address, and in the speech from the throne."

_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 on the 17th of December last. The resolution was as follows: 'That all demands or requests of the British court for the restitution of property, confiscated by this State, being neither supported by law, equity, or policy, are wholly inadmissible; and that our delegates in Congress be instructed to move Congress, that they may direct their deputies, who shall represent these States in the general Congress, for adjusting a peace or truce, neither to agree to any such restitution, or submit that the laws made by any independent State in this Union, be subjected to the adjudication of any power or powers on earth.'"--_Ib._ _pages_ 62, 63.

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 months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties, as may have been confiscated; and it is also hereby earnestly recommended to the several States, to reconsider and revise all their 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 it is hereby also earnestly recommended to the several States, that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last-mentioned persons should 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.

"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 a new sale; the lands remaining confiscated under the law made previous to the peace.

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 law prescribes certain proceedings as to the purchasers, and provides for paying the debts of the former proprietors.

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 of an estate confiscated during the war, and the court adjudged his title valid; and it is difficult to conceive on what principle that adjudication can be complained of, as an infraction of the treaty.

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 of the refugees having come into the State, under the protection of the first law, and it being understood that a party was forming in the State to ill-treat them, the Governor, July 26, 1784, published the proclamation, No. 14, enjoining all magistrates and other civil officers, to protect them, and secure to them the rights derived from the treaty, and acts of assembly aforesaid, and to bring to punishment all who should offend herein, in consequence of which, those persons remained quietly in the State; and many of them have remained to this day.

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 in that doing away the laws of alienage, and enabling the members of each nation to inherit or hold lands in the other.

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 letter is an additional testimony of the moderation of this State, after the proclamation of peace, and from that we have a right to conclude, that no persons were prevented from returning and remaining indefinitely.

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 the recommendation; such as it was well understood they would be free to pass without any imputation of infraction, and may therefore be put entirely out of question.

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 testimony adduced, have shown that the provision was neither _express_, nor meant to be so. And secondly, in inferring, from a restitution of the estate, a virtual acquiescence in the right of the party to reside where the estate is. Nothing is more frequent than for a sovereign to banish the person, and leave him possessed of his estate. The inference in the present case, too, is contradicted, as to the _refugees_, by the recommendation to permit their residence twelve months; and as to British subjects, by the silence of the article, and the improbability that the British plenipotentiary meant to stipulate a right for British subjects to emigrate and become members of another community.

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 the sums you thought proper to give to the refugees, we could not be inattentive to the measure in which they were dealt out. Those who were on the spot, and who knew intimately the state of affairs with the individuals of this description, who knew that their debts often exceeded their possessions, insomuch that the most faithful administration made them pay but a few shillings in the pound, heard with wonder of the sums given, and could not but conclude, that those largesses were meant for something more than loss of property--that services and other circumstances must have had great influence. The sum paid is therefore no imputation on us. We have borne our own losses. We have even lessened yours, by numerous restitutions, where circumstances admitted them; and we have much the worst of the bargain by the alternative you choose to accept, of indemnifying your own sufferers, rather than ours.

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 it by saying he had no right to deprive the negroes of that liberty he found them _possessed_ of; that it was unfriendly to suppose that the King's minister could stipulate to be guilty of a notorious breach of the public faith towards the negroes; and that, _if it was his intention, it must be adjusted by compensation_, restoration being utterly impracticable, where inseparable from a breach of public faith. But surely, sir, an officer of the King is not to question the validity of the King's engagements, nor violate his solemn treaties, on his own scruples about the public faith. Under this pretext, however, General Carleton went on in daily infractions, embarking, from time to time, between his notice of the treaty and the 5th of April, and the evacuation of New York, November 25, 3,000 negroes, of whom our commissioners had inspection, and a very large number more, in public and private vessels, of whom they were not permitted to have inspection. Here, then, was a direct, unequivocal and avowed violation of this part of the 7th article, in the first moments of its being known; an article which had been of extreme solicitude on our part, on the fulfilment of which depended the means of paying debts, in proportion to the number of laborers withdrawn; and when, in the very act of violation, we warn, and put the commanding officer on his guard, he says, directly, he will go through with the act, and leave it to his court to adjust it by compensation.

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."[11] The term in the treaty, _with all convenient speed_, amounts to the same thing, and clearly excludes all unnecessary delay. The general pacification being signed on the 20th of January, some time would be requisite for the orders for evacuation to come over to America, for the removal of stores, property, and persons, and finally for the act of evacuation. The larger the post, the longer the time necessary to remove all its contents; the smaller, the sooner done. Hence, though General Carleton received his orders to evacuate New York in the month of April, the evacuation was not completed till late in November. It had been the principal place of arms and stores; the seat, as it were, of their general government, and the asylum of those who had fled to them. A great quantity of shipping was necessary, therefore, for the removal, and the General was obliged to call for a part from foreign countries. These causes of delay were duly respected on our part. But the posts of Michillimackinac,[12] Detroit, Niagara, Oswego, Oswegatchie, Point-au-Fer, Dutchman's Point, were not of this magnitude. The orders for evacuation, which reached General Carleton, in New York, early in April, might have gone, in one month more, to the most remote of these posts. Some of them might have been evacuated in a few days after, and the largest in a few weeks. Certainly they might all have been delivered, without any _inconvenient speed_ in the operations, by the end of May, from the known facility furnished by the lakes, and the water connecting them; or by crossing immediately over into their own territory, and availing themselves of the season for making new establishments there, if that was intended. Or whatever time might, in event, have been necessary for their evacuation, certainly the order for it should have been given from England, and might have been given as early as that from New York. Was any order ever given? Would not an _unnecessary delay_ of the order, producing an equal delay in the evacuation, be an infraction of the treaty? Let us investigate this matter.

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 of the province, and received from him the answer of August 13, No. 23. Wherein he says, "The orders I have received, direct a discontinuance of every hostile measure _only_," &c. And in his conference with Baron Steuben, he says expressly, "That he _had not received any orders_ for making the least arrangements for the evacuation of a single post." The orders, then, which might have been with him by the last of April, were unknown, if they existed, the middle of August. See Baron Steuben's letter, No. 24.

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, because the laborers thus carried away were chiefly from thence, while heavy debts were now to be paid to the very nation which was depriving them of the means, took up the subject in December, 1783, that is to say, seven months after that particular infraction, and four months after the first refusal to deliver up the posts, and instead of arresting the debts absolutely, in reprisal for their negroes carried away, they passed [D. 5.] the act to revive and continue the several acts for suspending the issuing executions on certain judgments until December, 1783, that is to say, they revived, till their next meeting, two acts passed during the war, which suspended all _voluntary and fraudulent_ assignments of debt, and as to _others_, allowed real and personal estate to be tendered in discharge of executions; the effect of which was to relieve the body of the debtor from prison, by authorizing him to deliver property in discharge of the debt. In June following, thirteen months after the violation last mentioned, and after a second refusal by the British commanding officer to deliver up the posts, they came to the resolution No. 30, reciting specially the infraction respecting their negroes, instructing their delegates in Congress to press for reparation; and resolving, that the courts shall be opened to British suits, as soon as _reparation shall be made_, or otherwise, _as soon as Congress shall judge it indispensably necessary_. And in 1787, they passed [C. 7.] the act to repeal so much of all and every act or acts of assembly, as prohibits the recovery of British debts; and, at the same time [E. 6.] the act to repeal part of an act for the protection and encouragement of the commerce of nations acknowledging the independence of the United States of America. The former was not to be in force till the evacuation of the posts, and reparation for the negroes carried away. The latter requires particular explanation. The small supplies of European goods, which reached us during the war, were frequently brought by captains of vessels and supercargoes, who, as soon as they had sold their goods, were to return to Europe with their vessels. To persons under such circumstances, it was necessary to give a summary remedy for the recovery of the proceeds of their sale. This had been done by the law for the protection and encouragement of the commerce of nations acknowledging the independence of the United States, which was meant but as a temporary thing, to continue while the same circumstances continued. On the return of peace, the supplies of foreign goods were made, as before the war, by merchants resident here. There was no longer reason to continue to them the summary remedy, which had been provided for the transient vender of goods. And, indeed, it would have been unequal to have given the resident merchant instantaneous judgment against a farmer or tradesman, while the farmer or tradesman, could pursue those who owed him money but in the ordinary way, and with the ordinary delay. The British creditor had no such unequal privilege while we were under British government, and had no title to it, in justice, or by the treaty, after the war. When the Legislature proceeded, then, to repeal the law, as to other nations, it would have been extraordinary to have continued it for Great Britain.

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 the time therein limited; and I know nothing of their effect, or their existence, but from your letter, which says, their effect was to deliver property in execution, in relief of the body of the debtor, and still further to postpone the instalments. If, during the existence of material infractions on the part of Great Britain, it were necessary to apologize for these modifications of the proceedings of the debtor, grounds might be found in the peculiar distresses of that State, and the liberality with which they had complied with the recommendatory articles, notwithstanding their sufferings might have inspired other dispositions, having pardoned everybody, received everybody, restored all confiscated lands not sold, and the prices of those sold.

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 5_s._ 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 the debtor in total ruin, without relieving the creditor. It is a fact, for which we may appeal to the knowledge of one member at least of the British administration of 1783, that the chairman of the North American merchants, conferring on behalf of those merchants with the American ministers then in London, was so sensible that time was necessary as well to save the creditor as debtor, that he declared there would not be a moment's hesitation, on the part of the creditors, to allow payment by instalments annually for seven years, and that this arrangement was not made, was neither his fault nor ours.

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 cases. The Roman law, the principles of which are the nearest to natural reason of those of any municipal code hitherto known, allowed imprisonment of the body in criminal cases only, or those wherein the party had expressly submitted himself to it. The French laws allow it only in criminal or commercial cases. The laws of England, in certain descriptions of cases (as bankruptcy) release the body. Many of the United States do the same in all cases, on a cession of property by the debtor. The _levari facias_, an execution affording only the _profits of lands_, is the only one allowed in England, in certain cases. The _elegit_, another execution of that and this country, attaches first on a man's chattels, which are not to be sold, but to be _delivered to the plaintiff_, on a _reasonable appraisement_, in part of satisfaction for his debt, and if not sufficient, one half only of his lands are then to be delivered to the plaintiff, till the _profits_ shall have satisfied him. The tender laws of these States were generally more favorable than the execution by _elegit_, because they not only gave, as that does, the whole property in chattels, but also _the whole property_ in the lands, and not merely the _profits_ of them. It is, therefore, an execution framed on the model of the English _elegit_, or rather an amendment of that writ, taking away, indeed, the election of the party against the _body_ of his debtor, but giving him, in exchange for it, much more complete remedy against his _lands_. Let it be observed, too, that this proceeding was allowed against citizens, as well as foreigners; and it may be questioned, whether the treaty is not satisfied, while the same measure is dealt out to British subjects, as to foreigners of all other nations, and to natives themselves. For it would seem, that all a friend can expect, is to be treated as a native citizen.

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 which have attended other wars, and other nations. When any nation of Europe is attacked by another, it has neighbors, with whom its accustomary commerce goes on, without interruption; and its commerce with more distant nations is carried on by sea, in foreign bottoms, at least under protection of the laws of neutrality. The produce of its soil can be exchanged for money, as usual, and the stock of that medium of circulation is not at all diminished by war; so that property sells as readily and as well, for real money, at the close, as at the commencement of the war. But how different was our case: on the north and south, were our enemies; on the west, deserts inhabited by savages in league with them; on the east, an ocean of one thousand leagues, beyond which, indeed, were nations, who might have purchased the produce of our soil, and have given us real money in exchange, and thus kept up our stock of money, but who were deterred from coming to us by threats of war on the part of our enemies, if they should presume to consider us as a people, entitled to partake the benefit of that law of war, which allows commerce with neutral nations. What were the consequences? The stock of hard money, which we possessed in an ample degree, at the beginning of the war, soon flowed into Europe for supplies of arms, ammunition, and other necessaries, which we were not in the habit of manufacturing for ourselves. The produce of our soil, attempted to be carried in our own bottoms to Europe, fell, two-thirds of it, into the hands of our enemies, who were masters of the sea; the other third illy sufficed to procure the necessary implements of war; so that no returns of money supplied the place of that which had gone off. We were reduced, then, to the resource of a paper medium, and that completed the exile of the hard money; so that, in the latter stages of the war, we were, for years together, without seeing a single coin of the precious metals in circulation. It was closed with a stipulation that we should pay a large mass of debt, in such coin. If the whole soil of the United States had been offered for sale for ready coin, it would not have raised as much as would have satisfied this stipulation. The thing, then, was impossible, and reason and authority declare, "Si l'empêchement est reel, il faut donner du tems; car nul n'est tenu a l'impossible."[13] Vattel, l. 4, s. 51. We should, with confidence, have referred the case to the arbiter proposed by another jurist, who lays it down that a party, "Non ultra obligari, quam in quantum facere potest; et an possit, permittendum alterius principis, quo boni viri arbitrio."[14] Bynk. Q. J. P. l. 2, c. 10. That four of the States should resort, under such circumstances, to very small emissions of paper money, is not wonderful; that all did not, proves their firmness under sufferance, and that they were disposed to bear whatever could be borne, rather than contravene, even by way of equivalent, stipulations which had been authoritatively entered into for them. And even in the four States, which emitted paper money, it was in such small sums, and so secured, as to suffer only a short-lived, and not great depreciation of value; nor did they continue its quality as a tender, after the first paroxysms of distress were over. Here, too, it is to be observed, that natives were to receive this species of payment, equally with British subjects.

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 lead that court into a compliance on their part, and reparation of the breach they had committed. But the other party now laid hold of those very proceedings of our States, which their previous infractions had produced, as a ground for further refusal; and inverting the natural order of cause and effect, alleged that these proceedings of ours were the causes of the infractions, which they had committed months and years before. Thus the British minister for foreign affairs, in his answer of February 28th, 1786, to Mr. Adams' memorial, says, "The engagements entered into by treaty ought to be mutual, and equally binding on the respective contracting parties. It would, therefore, be the height of folly, as well as injustice, to suppose one party alone obliged to a strict observance of the public faith, while the other might remain free to deviate from its own engagements, as often as convenience might render such deviation necessary, though at the expense of its own national credit and importance; I flatter myself, however, Sir, that justice will speedily be done to British creditors; and I can assure you, Sir, that whenever America shall manifest a real intention to fulfil her part of the treaty, Great Britain will not hesitate to prove her sincerity to co-operate in whatever points depend upon her, for carrying every article of it into real and complete effect." Facts will furnish the best commentary on this letter. Let us pursue them.

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 of the will and power of the Legislatures; that, in this point of view, the State acts, establishing provisions relative to the same objects, and incompatible with it, must be improper; resolving that all such acts now existing ought to be forthwith repealed, as well to prevent their continuing to be regarded as violations of the treaty, as to avoid the disagreeable necessity of discussing their validity; recommending, in order to obviate all future disputes and questions, that every State, as well those which had passed no such acts as those which had, should pass an act, repealing, in general terms, all acts and parts of acts repugnant to the treaty; and encouraging them to do this, by informing them that they had the strongest assurances that an exact compliance with the treaty on our part, would be followed by a punctual performance of it on the part of Great Britain.

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 itself, the declaration of Congress, and the acts of the States before mentioned, the same principle will be found acknowledged in several of the documents hereto annexed for other purposes. Thus, in Rhode Island, Governor Collins, in his letter, No. 20, says, "The treaty, in all _its absolute parts_, has been fully complied with, and to those parts that are merely _recommendatory_ and _depend upon the legislative discretion_, the most candid attention hath been paid." Plainly implying that the _absolute parts_ did not _depend upon the legislative discretion_. Mr. Channing, the attorney for the United States in that State, No. 19, speaking of an act passed before the treaty, says, "This act was considered by our courts as _annulled by the treaty of peace_, and subsequent to the ratification thereof no proceedings have been had thereon." The Governor of Connecticut, in his letter, No 18, says, "The sixth article of the treaty was immediately observed on receiving the same with the proclamation of Congress; the courts of justice adopted it _as a principle of law_. No further prosecutions were instituted against any person who came within that article, and all such prosecutions as were then pending were discontinued." Thus, prosecutions going on, under the law of the State, were discontinued, by the treaty operating as a repeal of the law. In Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis, attorney for the United States, says, in his letter, No. 60, "The judges have, uniformly and without hesitation, declared in favor of the treaty, on the ground of its being the supreme law of the land. On this ground, they have not only discharged attainted traitors from arrest, but have frequently declared that they were entitled by the treaty to protection." The case of the Commonwealth _vs._ Gordon, January, 1788, Dallas' Reports, 233, is a proof of this. In Maryland, in the case of Mildred _vs._ Dorsey, cited in your letter [E. 4.] a law of the State, made during the war, had compelled those who owed debts to British subjects to pay them into the treasury of that State. This had been done by Dorsey, before the date of the treaty; yet the judges of the _State_ general court decided that the treaty not only repealed the law for the future, but for the past also, and decreed that the defendant should pay the money over again to the British creditor. In Virginia, Mr. Monroe, one of the Senators of that State in Congress, and a lawyer of eminence, tells us, No. 52, that both court and counsel there avowed the opinion, that the treaty would control any law of the State opposed to it. And the Legislature itself, in an act of October, 1787, c. 36, concerning moneys carried into the public loan office, in payment of British debts, use these expressions: "And whereas it belongs not to the Legislature to decide particular questions, of which the judiciary have cognizance, and it is, therefore, unfit for them to determine whether the payments so made into the loan office be good or void between the creditor and debtor." In New York, Mr. Harrison, attorney for the United States in that district, assures us, No. 45, that the act of 1782, of that State, relative to the debts due to persons within the enemy's line, was, immediately after the treaty, restrained _by the superior courts of the State_ from operating on British creditors, and that he did not know a single instance to the contrary--a full proof that they considered the treaty as a law of the land, paramount to the law of their State.

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 Waddington for rent and damages, in the Mayor's court of New York. Waddington pleaded the treaty, and the court declared the treaty a justification, in opposition to the law of the State, for that portion of the time authorized by the commanding officer, his authority being competent, and gave judgment for that part in favor of the defendant; but, for the time he held the house under permission of the quartermaster general only, they gave judgment against the defendant, considering the permission of that officer incompetent, according to the regulations of the existing powers. From this part of the judgment the defendant appealed. The first part, however, was an unequivocal decision of the superior authority of the treaty over the law. The latter part could only have been founded in an opinion of the sense of the treaty in that part of the 6th article which declares, "There shall be no future prosecutions against any persons for the part he may have taken in the war, and that no person should, on that account, suffer any future loss or damage in their property," &c. They must have understood this as only protecting actions which were conformable with the laws and authority existing at the time and place. The tenure of the defendant under the quartermaster general was not so conformable. That under the commanding officer was. Some may think that murders, and other crimes and offences, characterized as such by the authority of the time and place where committed, were meant to be protected by this paragraph of the treaty; and, perhaps, for peace sake, this construction may be the most convenient. The Mayor's court, however, seems to have revolted at it. The defendant appealed, and the question would have been authoritatively decided by the superior court, had not an amicable compromise taken place between the parties. See Mr. Hamilton's statement of this case, No. 46.

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 one Ball, an inhabitant of the American part of Jersey, who, contrary to the laws of his country, was in the habit of secretly supplying the British camp in Staten Island with provisions. The first time Ball went over, after the execution of the spy, of which it does not appear he had any knowledge, and certainly no agency in his prosecution, John Smith Hatfield, a refugee also from Jersey, and some others of the same description, seized him, against the express orders of the British commanding officer, brought him out of the British lines, and Hatfield hung him with his own hands. The British officer sent a message to the Americans, disavowing this act, declaring that the British had nothing to do with it, and that those who had perpetrated the crime ought alone to suffer for it. The right to punish the guilty individual seems to have been yielded by the one party, and accepted by the other, in exchange for that of retaliation on an innocent person; an exchange which humanity would wish to see habitual. The criminal came afterwards into the very neighborhood, a member of which he had murdered. Peace, indeed, had now been made; but the magistrate, thinking probably, that it was for the honest soldier and citizen only, and not for the murderer, and supposing, with the mayor's court of New York, that the paragraph of the treaty against future persecutions meant to cover authorized acts only, and not murders and other atrocities, disavowed by the existing authority, arrested Hatfield. At the court which met for his trial, the witnesses failed to attend. The court released the criminal from confinement, on his giving the security required by law for his appearance at another court. He fled; and you say that, "as his friends doubted the disposition of the court to determine according to the terms of the treaty, they thought it more prudent to suffer the forfeiture of the recognizances, than to put his life again into jeopardy." But your information in this, Sir, has not been exact. The recognizances are not forfeited. His friends, confident in the opinion of their counsel, and the integrity of the judges, have determined to plead the treaty, and not even give themselves the trouble of asking a release from the Legislature; and the case is now depending. See the letter of Mr. Boudinot, member of Congress for Jersey, No. 47.

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. [15]"Quod dixi de actionibus recto publicandis ita demum obtinet; si quod subditi nostri hostibus nostris debent, princeps a subditis suis revera exegerit. Si exegerit, recte solutum est, si non exegerit, pace facta, reviviscit jus pristinum creditoris; secundum, hæc inter gentes fere convenit, ut nominibus bello publicatis, pace deinde factâ, exacta censeantur periisse, et maneant extincta; non autem exacta reviviscant et restiuantur veris creditoribus." Bynk. Q. J. P. l. 1, c. 7. But what said the judges of the State court of Maryland in the case of Mildred and Dorsey? That a debt forced from an American debtor into the treasury of his sovereign, is not extinct, but shall be paid over again to his British creditor. Which is most propitious, the unbiassed foreign jurist, or the American judge, charged with dispensing justice with favor and partiality? But from this, you say, there is an appeal. Is that the fault of the judge, or the fault of anybody? Is there a country on earth, or ought there to be one, allowing no appeal from the first errors of their courts? and if allowed from errors, how will those from just judgments be prevented? In England, as in other countries, an appeal is admitted to the party thinking himself injured; and here, had the judgment been against the British creditor, and an appeal denied, there would have been better cause of complaint than for not having denied it to his adversary. If an _illegal_ judgment be ultimately rendered on the appeal, then will arise the right to question its propriety.

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 might have given rise to this complaint, I have learnt, that an action was brought to issue, and argued in the circuit court of the United States, in Virginia, at their last term, between Jones, a British subject, plaintiff, and Walker, an American, defendant; wherein the question was the same as in the case of Mildred and Dorsey, to wit; Whether a payment into the treasury, during the war, under a law of the State, discharged the debtor? One of the judges retiring from court, in the midst of the argument, on the accident of the death of an only son, and the case being _primæ impressionis_ in that court, it was adjourned, for consideration, till the ensuing term. Had the two remaining judges felt no motive but of predilection to one of the parties; had they considered only to which party their wishes were propitious or unpropitious; they possibly might have decided that question on the spot. But, learned enough in their science to see difficulties which escape others, and having characters and consciences to satisfy, they followed the example so habitually and so laudably set by the courts of your country, and of every country, where law, and not favor, is the rule of decision, of taking time to consider. Time and consideration are favorable to the right cause, precipitation to the wrong one.

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 10_l._, 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 30_l._ 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, No. 52, 53, is, that though there have been accidental checks in some of the subordinate courts, arising from the chicanery of the debtors, and sometimes, perhaps, a moment of error in the court itself, yet these particular instances have been immediately rectified, either in the same or the superior court, while the great mass of suits for the recovery of sums due to the subjects of the crown of Great Britain, have been uniformly sustained to judgment and execution.

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 that the assertion under examination cannot be applied to this State.

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 serious to be neglected. I have thought it my duty, therefore, to spare no endeavors to find on what fact this censure was meant to be affixed. I have found that Judge Walton of Georgia, in the summer of 1783, the definitive treaty not yet signed in Europe, much less known and ratified here, set aside a writ in the case of Thompson, (a British subject) _v._ Thompson, assigning for reasons, 1st. "That there was no law authorizing a subject of England to sue a citizen of that State; 2d. That the war had not been _definitively_ concluded; or 3d. If concluded, the treaty not _known to, or ratified by_, the Legislature; nor 4th. Was it in any manner ascertained how those debts were to be liquidated." With respect to the last reason, it was generally expected that some more specific arrangements, as to the manner of liquidating and times of paying British debts would have been settled in the definitive treaty. No. 58 shows, that such arrangements were under contemplation. And the judge seems to have been of opinion that it was necessary the treaty should be _definitively_ concluded, before it could become a law of the land, so as to change the legal character of an _alien enemy_, who cannot maintain an action, into that of an _alien friend_, who may. Without entering into the question, whether, between the provisional and definitive treaties, a subject of either party could maintain an action in the courts of the other (a question of no consequence, considering how short the interval was, and this, probably the only action essayed), we must admit that, if the judge was right in his opinion, that a _definitive_ conclusion was necessary, he was right in his consequence that it should be _made known_ to the Legislature of the State, or, in other words, to the State; and that, till that _notification_, it was not a law authorizing a subject of England to sue a citizen of that State. The subsequent doctrine of the same judge, Walton, with respect to the treaties, _when duly completed_, that they are paramount to the laws of the several States, as has been seen in this charge to a grand jury, before spoken of, (Sec. 43,) will relieve your doubts whether the "principle still continues in that State, of the _continuance of war between the two countries_."

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 this subject, has been heard of in any part of our land. There is no country, which is not sometimes subject to irregular interpositions of the People. There is no country able, at all times, to punish them. There is no country which has less of this to reproach itself with, than the United States, nor any, where the laws have more regular course, or are more habitually and cheerfully acquiesced in. Confident that your own observation and information will have satisfied you of this truth, I rely that the inference was not intended, which seems to result from these expressions.

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 different from that which has been observed by the United States. In the courts of law of the former country, the citizens of the United States have experienced, _without exception_, the same protection and _impartial_ distribution of justice, as the subjects of the crown." No nation can answer for perfect exactitude of proceedings in all their inferior courts. It suffices to provide a supreme judicature, where all error and partiality will be ultimately corrected. With this qualification, we have heretofore been in the habit of considering the administration of justice in Great Britain as extremely pure. With the same qualification, we have no fear to risk everything which a nation holds dear, on the assertion, that the administration of justice here will be found equally pure. When the citizens of either party complain of the judiciary proceedings of the other, they naturally present but one side of the case to view, and are, therefore, to be listened to with caution. Numerous condemnations have taken place in your courts of vessels taken from us after the expirations of the terms of one and two months stipulated in the armistice. The State of Maryland has been making ineffectual efforts, for nine years, to recover a sum of £55,000 sterling, lodged in the bank of England previous to the war. A judge of the King's bench lately declared, in the case of Greene, an American citizen, _v._ Buchanan and Charnock, British subjects, that a citizen of the United States, who had delivered £43,000 sterling worth of East India goods to a British subject at Ostend, receiving only £18,000 in part payment, is not entitled to maintain an action for the balance in a court of Great Britain, though his debtor is found there, is in custody of the court, and acknowledges the fact. These cases appear strong to us. If your judges have done wrong in them, we expect redress. If right, we expect explanations. Some of them have already been laid before your court. The others will be so in due time. These, and such as these, are the smaller matters between the two nations, which, in my letter of December 15th, I had the honor to intimate, that it would be better to refer for settlement through the ordinary channel of our ministers, than embarrass the present important discussions with them. Such cases will be constantly produced by a collision of interests in the dealings of individuals, and will be easily adjusted by a readiness to do right on both sides, regardless of party.

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, [16]et in re minime dubiâ, it then, indeed, assumes another form; it excites presumption that it was not mere error, but premeditated wrong; and the foreigner, as well as native, suffering by the wrong, may reasonably complain, as for a wrong committed in any other way. In such case, there being no redress in the ordinary forms of the country, a foreign prince may listen to complaint from his subjects injured by the adjudication, may inquire into its principles to prove their criminality, and, according to the magnitude of the wrong, take his measures of redress by reprisal, or by a refusal of right on his part. If the denial of interest, in our case, be justified by law, or even if it be against law, but not in that gross, evident, and palpable degree, which proves it to flow from the wickedness of the heart, and not error of the head in the judges, then is it no cause for just complaint, much less for a refusal of right, or self-redress in any other way. The reasons on which the denial of interest is grounded shall be stated summarily, yet sufficiently to justify the integrity of the judge, and even to produce a presumption that they might be extended to that of his science also, were that material to the present object.

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."[17] 2 Salk. 622, 623. Formerly, all interest was considered as unlawful, in every country of Europe; it is still so in Roman Catholic countries, and countries little commercial. From this, as a general rule, a few special cases are excepted. In France, particularly, the exceptions are those of minors, marriage portions, and money, the price of lands. So thoroughly do their laws condemn the allowance of interest, that a party who has paid it voluntarily, may recover it back again whenever he pleases. Yet this has never been taken up as a gross and flagrant denial of justice, authorizing national complaint against those governments. In England, also, all interest was against law, till the stat. 37 H. 8, c. 9. The growing spirit of commerce, no longer restrained by the principles of the Roman church, then first began to tolerate it. The same causes produced the same effect in Holland, and, perhaps, in some other commercial and Catholic countries. But, even in England, the allowance of interest is not given by _express law_, but rests on the _discretion of judges and juries_, as the arbiters of damages. Sometimes the judge has enlarged the interest to 20 per cent. per annum. [1 Chanc. Rep. 57.] In other cases, he fixes it, habitually, one per cent. lower than the legal rate, [2 T. Atk. 343,] and in a multitude of cases he refuses it altogether. As, for instance, no interest is allowed--

1. On arrears of rents, profits, or annuities. 1 Chan. Rep. 184, 2 P. W. 163. Ca. temp. Talbot 2.

2. For maintenance. Vin. Abr. Interest. c. 10.

3. For moneys advanced by executors. 2 Abr. Eq. 531, 15.

4. For goods sold and delivered. 3. Wilson, 206.

5. On book debts, open accounts, or simple contracts. 3 Ch. Rep. 64. Freem. Ch. Rep. 133. Dougl. 376.

6. For money lent without a note. 2 Stra. 910.

7. On an inland bill of exchange, if no protest is taken. 2 Stra. 910.

8. On a bond after 20 years. 2 Vern. 458, or after a tender.

9. On decrees in certain cases. Freem. Ch. Rep. 181.

10. On judgments in certain cases, as battery and slander. Freem. Ch. Rep. 37.

11. On any decrees or judgments in certain courts, as the exchequer chamber. Douglass, 752.

12. On costs. 2 Abr. Eq. 530, 7.

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 term; that words, which pass the debt, do not give interest necessarily; that the interest _depends altogether on the discretion of the judges and jurors_, who will govern themselves by all existing circumstances, will take the legal interest for the measure of their damages, or more or less, as they think right; will give it from the date of the contract, or from a year after, or deny it altogether, according as the fault or the sufferings of the one or the other party shall dictate. Our laws are, generally, an adoption of yours, and I do not know that any of the States have changed them in this particular. But there is one rule of your and our law, which, while it proves that every title of debt is liable to a disallowance of interest under special circumstances, is so applicable to our case, that I shall cite it as a text, and apply it to the circumstances of our case. It is laid down in Vin. Abr. Interest. c. 7, and 2 Abr. Eq. 5293, and elsewhere, in these words: "Where, by a _general and national calamity_, nothing is made out of lands which are assigned for payment of interest, it ought not to run on _during the time of such calamity_." This is exactly the case in question. Can a more _general national calamity_ be conceived, than that universal devastation which took place in many of these States during war? Was it ever more exactly the case anywhere, _that nothing was made out of the lands which were to pay the interest_? The produce of those lands, for want of the opportunity of exporting it safely, was down to almost nothing in real money, e. g. tobacco was less than a dollar the hundred weight. Imported articles of clothing for consumption were from four to eight times their usual price. A bushel of salt was usually sold for 100 lbs. of tobacco. At the same time, these lands, and other property, in which the money of the British creditor was vested, were paying high taxes for their own protection, and the debtor, as nominal holder, stood ultimate insurer of their value to the creditor, who was the real proprietor, because they were bought with his money. And who will estimate the value of this insurance, or say what would have been the forfeit, in a contrary event of the war? Who will say that the risk of the property was not worth the interest of its price? _General calamity_, then, prevented profit and, consequently, stopped interest, which is in lieu of profit. The creditor says, indeed, he has laid out of his money; he has therefore lost the use of it. The debtor replies, that, if the creditor has lost, he has not gained it; that this may be a question between two parties, both of whom have lost. In that case, the courts will not double the loss of the one, to save all loss from the other. That it is a rule of natural as well as municipal law, that in questions "de damno evitando melior est conditio possidentis." If this maxim be just, where each party is equally innocent, how much more so, where the loss has been produced by the act of the creditor? For, a nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society. It was the act of the lender, or of his nation, which annihilated the profits of the money lent; he cannot then demand profits which he either prevented from coming into existence, or burnt, or otherwise destroyed, after they were produced. If, then, there be no instrument, or title of debt so formal and sacred as to give right to interest under all possible circumstances, and if circumstances of exemption, stronger than in the present case, cannot possibly be found, then no instrument or title of debt, however formal or sacred, can give right to interest under the circumstances of our case. Let us present the question in another point of view. Your own law forbade the payment of interest, when it forbade the receipt of American produce into Great Britain, and made that produce fair prize on its way from the debtor to the creditor, or to any other, for his use of reimbursement. All personal access between creditor and debtor was made illegal; and the debtor, who endeavored to make a remitment of his debt, or interest, must have done it three times, to answer its getting once to hand; for two out of three vessels were generally taken by the creditor nation, and, sometimes, by the creditor himself, as many of them turned their trading vessels into privateers. Where no place has been agreed on for the payment of a debt, the laws of England oblige the debtor to seek his creditor wheresoever he is to be found _within the realm_--Coke Lit. 210, b. but do not bind him to go out of the realm in search of him. This is our law too. The first act, generally, of the creditors and their agents here, was, to withdraw from the United States with their books and papers. The creditor thus withdrawing from his debtor, so as to render payment impossible, either of the principal or interest, makes it like the common case of a tender and refusal of money, after which, interest stops, both by your laws and ours. We see, too, from the letter of Mr. Adams, June 16, 1786, No. 57, that the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs was sensible that a British statute, having rendered criminal all intercourse between the debtor and creditor, had placed the article of interest on a different footing from the principal. And the letter of our plenipotentiaries to Mr. Hartley, the British plenipotentiary, for forming the definitive treaty, No. 58, shows, that the omission to express _interest_ in the treaty, was not merely an oversight of the parties; that its allowance was considered by our plenipotentiaries as a thing not to be intended in the treaty, was declared against by Congress, and that declaration communicated to Mr. Hartley. After such an explanation, the omission is a proof of acquiescence, and an intention not to claim it. It appears, then, that the _debt_ and _interest_ on that debt are separate things in every country, and under separate rules. That, in every country, a _debt_ is recoverable, while, in most countries, interest is refused in all cases; in others, given or refused, diminished or augmented, at the discretion of the judge; nowhere given in all cases indiscriminately, and consequently nowhere so incorporated with the _debt_ as to pass with that, _ex vi termini_, or otherwise to be considered as a determinate and _vestat_ thing.

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 ejus cultura et cura."[18] But even in the case of lands restored by a treaty, the _arrears_ of profits or rents are never restored, unless they be particularly stipulated. "Si res vi pacis restituendæ, restituendi quoque sunt fructus a die _concessionis_,"[19] say Wolf, s. 1224; and Grotius, "cui pace res conceditur, ei et fructus conceduntur à _tempore concessionis_: NON RETRO."[20] l. 3. c. 20. s. 22. To place the right to interest on money on a level with the right to profits on land, is placing it more advantageously than has been hitherto authorized; and if, as we have seen, a stipulation to restore lands does not include a stipulation to restore the _back profits_, we may certainly conclude, _à fortiori_, that the restitution of debts does not include an allowance of _back interest_ on them.

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 Osborn _v._ Mifflin's executors, and [E. 3.] Hare _v._ Allen, explained in the letter of Mr. Rawle, attorney of the United States, No. 59. And by the letter of Mr. Lewis, judge of the district court of the United States, No. 60, that in Pennsylvania the rule is, that where neither the creditor nor any agent was within the State, no interest was allowed; where either remained, they gave interest. In all the other States, I believe it is left discretionary in the courts and juries. In Massachusetts the practice has varied. In November, 1784, they instruct their Delegates in Congress to ask the determination of Congress, whether they understood the word "debts" in the treaty as including interest? and whether it is their opinion, that interest during the war should be paid? and at the same time they pass [D. 9.] the act directing the courts to suspend rendering judgment for any interest that might have accrued between April 19, 1775, and January 20, 1783. But in 1787, when there was a general compliance enacted through all the United States, in order to see if that would produce a counter compliance, their Legislature passed the act repealing all laws repugnant to the treaty, No. 33, and their courts, on their part, changed their rule relative to interest during the war, which they have uniformly allowed since that time. The Circuit Court of the United States, at their sessions at ----, in 1790, determined in like manner that interest should be allowed during the war. So that, on the whole, we see that, in one State interest during the war is given in every case; in another it is given wherever the creditor, or any agent for him, remained in the country, so as to be accessible; in the others, it is left to the courts and juries to decide according to their discretion and the circumstances of the case.

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. II. Debts. III. Interest.

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 speed_, no order had been received for the evacuation, August 13, 1783.

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 property to the creditor, to the full amount of his demand, on a fair appraisement, as practised always under the elegit.

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 probably effectual. If your citizens would not prosecute their rights, it was impossible they should recover them, or be denied recovery; and till a denial of right through all the tribunals, there is no ground for complaint; much less for a refusal to comply with solemn stipulations, the execution of which is too important to us ever to be dispensed with. These difficulties being removed from between the two nations, I am persuaded the interests of both will be found in the strictest friendship. The considerations which lead to it are too numerous and forcible to fail of their effect; and that they may be permitted to have their full effect, no one wishes more sincerely than he, who has the honor to be, &c.[21]

FOOTNOTES:

[6] "The state in which things are found at the moment of the treaty, should be considered as lawful; and if it is meant to make any change init, the treaty must expressly mention it. Consequently, all things, about which the treaty is silent, must remain in the state in which they are found at its conclusion." Vattel, 1. 4. s. 21.

[7] "Those things of which nothing is said, remain in the state in which they are." Wolf, 1222.

[8] Vattel, 1. 4, s. 24.--"The treaty of peace binds the _contracting parties_ from the moment it is concluded, as soon as it has received its whole form, and they ought immediately to have it executed. But this treaty does not bind the _subjects_, but from the moment it is notified to them." And s. 25.--"The treaty becomes, by its _publication_, a law for the subjects, and they are obliged, _thenceforward_, to conform themselvesto the stipulations therein agreed on."

[9] "The paction of the peace binds the _contractors_ immediately, as it is _perfect_, since the obligation is derived from the pact; but the _subjects_ and soldiers, as soon as it is _published_ to them; since _they cannot have certain evidence of it before its publication_." Wolf, s. 1229.

[10] "Since it is a condition of war, that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it is reasonable that everything of an enemy's, found among his enemies, should change its owner, and go to the treasury. It is, moreover, usually directed, in all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well _those found among us_, as those taken in war, shall beconfiscated. If we follow the mere right of war, even _immovable_ property may be sold, and its price carried into the treasury, as is the customwith movable property. But in almost all Europe, it is only notified that their profits, during the war, shall be received by the treasury; and the war being ended, the immovable property itself is restored, by agreement, to the former owner." Bynk. Ques. Jur. Pub. 1. 1, c. 7.

[11] "Lors qu'on n'a point marqué de terme pour l'accomplissement du traité, et pour l'execution de chacun des articles, le bon sens dit que chaque point doit être executé _aussitôt qu'il est possible_. C'est sans doute ainsi qu'on l'a entendu."

[12] Instead of this, Fort Erie was, by error, inserted in my letter of December 15.

[13] "If the obstacle be real, time must be given, for no one is bound to an impossibility." Vattel l. 4, s. 51.

[14] "No one is bound beyond what he can do, and whether he can, may be left to the decision of the other prince, as an honest man." Bynk. Q. J. P. l. 2, c. 10.

[15] "What I have said of things in action being rightly confiscated hold thus: If the prince really exacts from his subjects what they owed to our enemies, if he shall have exacted it, it is rightfully paid, if he shall not have exacted it, peace being made, the former right of the creditor revives; accordingly, it is for the most part agreed among nations, that things in action being confiscated in war, the peace being made, those which were paid are deemed to have perished and remain extinct; but those not paid, revive, and are restored to their true creditors."--Bynk. Q. J. P. l. 1, c. 7.

[16] In a matter susceptible of no doubt.

[17] On account of the detention of the debt.

[18] "If any one is in possession of another's land, so much belongs to the owner as the use of the land is worth, and so much to the possessor as his labor and care are worth."

[19] "If things are to be restored by virtue of the peace, the profits are also to be restored _from the day of the cession_."

[20] "To whomsoever a thing is conceded by the peace, to him also the profits are conceded, _from the time of the concession_, BUT NOT BACK."

[21] For documents referred to in this letter, see American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, vol. ii., p. 216.

CIRCULAR TO THE AMERICAN CONSULS.

Philadelphia, May 31, 1792.

Sir,--Congress having closed their session on the 8th instant, I have now the honor to forward you a copy of the laws passed thereat. One of these, chapter twenty-four, will require your particular attention, as it contains such regulations relative to the consular office, as it has been thought proper to establish legislatively.

With respect to the security required by the sixth section, I would prefer persons residing within the United States, where the party can procure such to be his security. In this case, his own bond duly executed may be sent to me, and his sureties here may enter into a separate bond. Where the party cannot conveniently find sureties within the United States, my distance and want of means of knowing their sufficiency, oblige me to refer him to the minister or chargé des affaires of the United States, within the same government, if there be one, and if not, then to the minister of the United States, resident at Paris. The securities which they shall approve, will be admitted as good. In like manner, the account for their disbursements, authorized by this law (and no other can be allowed), are to be settled at stated periods with the minister or chargé within their residence, if there be one, if none, then with the minister of the United States at Paris. The person who settles the account is authorized to pay it. Our consuls in America are not meant to be included in these directions as to securityship and the settlement of their accounts, as their situation gives them a more convenient communication with me. It is also recommended to the consuls to keep an ordinary correspondence with the minister or chargé to whom they are thus referred; but it would be also useful, if they could forward directly to me, from time to time, the prices current of their place, and any other circumstance which it might be interesting to make known to our merchants without delay.

The prices of our funds have undergone some variations within the last three months. The six per cents were pushed by gambling adventurers up to twenty-six and a half, or twenty-seven and a half shillings the pound. A bankruptcy having taken place among these, and considerably affected the more respectable part of the paper holders, a greater quantity of paper was thrown suddenly on the market than there was demand or money to take up. The prices fell to nineteen shillings. This crisis has passed, and they are getting up towards their value. Though the price of public paper is considered as the barometer of the public credit, it is truly so only as to the general average of prices. The real credit of the United States depends on their ability, and the immutability of their will to pay their debts. These were as evident when their paper fell to nineteen shillings, as when it was at twenty-seven shillings. The momentary variation was like that in the price of corn, or any other commodity, the result of a momentary disproportion between the demand and supply.

The unsuccessful issue of our expedition against the savages the last year, is not unknown to you. More adequate preparations are making for the present year, and in the meantime, some of the tribes have accepted peace, and others have expressed a readiness to do the same.

Another plentiful year has been added to those which had preceded it, and the present bids fair to be equally so. A prosperity built on the basis of agriculture is that which is most desirable to us, because to the efforts of labor it adds the efforts of a greater proportion of soil. The checks, however, which the commercial regulations of Europe have given to the sale of our produce, have produced a very considerable degree of domestic manufacture, which, so far as it is of the household kind, will doubtless continue, and so far as it is more public, will depend on the continuance or discontinuance of the European policy.

I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant.

TO JOHN PAUL JONES.

Philadelphia, June 1, 1792.

Sir,--The President of the United States having thought proper to appoint you commissioner for treating with the Dey and government of Algiers, on the subjects of peace and ransom of our captives, I have the honor to enclose you the commission, of which Mr. Thomas Pinckney, now on his way to London as our Minister Plenipotentiary there, will be the bearer. Supposing that there exists a disposition to thwart our negotiations with the Algerines, and that this would be very practicable, we have thought it advisable that the knowledge of this appointment should rest with the President, Mr. Pinckney and myself; for which reason you will perceive, that the commissions are all in my own hand writing. For the same reason, entire secrecy is recommended to you, and that you so cover from the public your departure and destination, as that they may not be conjectured or noticed; and at the same time, that you set out after as short delay as your affairs will possibly permit.

In order to enable you to enter on this business with full information, it will be necessary to give you a history of what has passed.

On the 25th of July, 1785, the schooner Maria, Captain Stevens, belonging to a Mr. Foster, of Boston, was taken off Cape St. Vincents, by an Algerine cruiser; and five days afterwards, the ship Dauphin, Captain O'Bryan, belonging to Messrs. Irwins, of Philadelphia, was taken by another, about fifty leagues westward of Lisbon. These vessels, with their cargoes and crews, twenty-one persons in number, were carried into Algiers. Mr. John Lambe, appointed agent for treating of peace between the United States and the government of Algiers, was ready to set out from France on that business, when Mr. Adams and myself heard of these two captures. The ransom of prisoners being a case not existing when our powers were prepared, no provision had been made for it. We thought, however, we ought to endeavor to ransom our countrymen, without waiting for orders; but at the same time, that acting without authority, we should keep within the lowest price which had been given by any other nation. We therefore gave a supplementary instruction to Mr. Lambe to ransom our captives, if it could be done for two hundred dollars a man, as we knew that three hundred French captives had been just ransomed by the Mathurins, at a price very little above this sum. He proceeded to Algiers; but his mission proved fruitless. He wrote us word from thence, that the Dey asked fifty-nine thousand four hundred and ninety-six dollars for the twenty-one captives, and that it was not probable he would abate much from that price. But he never intimated an idea of agreeing to give it. As he has never settled the accounts of his mission, no further information has been received. It has been said that he entered into a positive stipulation with the Dey, to pay for the prisoners the price above mentioned, or something near it; and that he came away with an assurance to return with the money. We cannot believe the fact true; and if it were, we disavow it totally, as far beyond his powers. We have never disavowed it formally, because it has never come to our knowledge with any degree of certainty.

In February, 1787, I wrote to Congress to ask leave to employ the Mathurins of France in ransoming our captives; and on the 19th of September, I received their orders to do so, and to call for the money from our bankers at Amsterdam, as soon as it could be furnished. It was long before they could furnish the money, and as soon as they notified that they could, the business was put into train by the General of the Mathurins, not with the appearance of acting for the United States, or with their knowledge, but merely on the usual ground of charity. This expedient was rendered abortive by the revolution of France, the derangement of ecclesiastical orders there and the revocation of church property, before any proposition, perhaps, had been made in form by the Mathurins to the Dey of Algiers. I have some reason to believe that Mr. Eustace, while in Spain, endeavored to engage the court of Spain to employ their Mathurins in this business; but whether they actually moved in it or not, I have never learned.

We have also been told, that a Mr. Simpson of Gibraltar, by the direction of the Messrs. Bulkeleys of Lisbon, contracted for the ransom of our prisoners (then reduced by death and ransom to fourteen) at thirty-four thousand seven hundred and ninety-two dollars. By whose orders they did it, we could never learn. I have suspected it was some association in London, which, finding the prices far above their conception, did not go through with their purpose, which probably had been merely a philanthropic one. Be this as it may, it was without our authority or knowledge.

Again, Mr. Cathalan, our consul at Marseilles, without any instruction from the government, and actuated merely, as we presume, by willingness to do something agreeable, set on foot another negotiation for their redemption; which ended in nothing.

These several volunteer interferences, though undertaken with good intentions, run directly counter to our plan; which was, to avoid the appearance of any purpose on our part ever to ransom our captives, and by that semblance of neglect, to reduce the demands of the Algerines to such a price, as might make it hereafter less their interest to pursue our citizens than any others. On the contrary, they have supposed all these propositions directly or indirectly came from us; they inferred from thence the greatest anxiety on our part, where we had been endeavoring to make them suppose there was none; kept up their demands for our captives at the highest prices ever paid by any nation; and thus these charitable, though unauthorized interpositions, have had the double effect of strengthening the chains they were meant to break, and making us at last set a much higher rate of ransom for our citizens, present and future, than we probably should have obtained, if we had been left alone to do our own work in our own way. Thus stands this business then at present. A formal bargain, as I am informed, being registered in the books of the former Dey, on the part of the Bulkeleys of Lisbon, which they suppose to be obligatory on us, but which is to be utterly disavowed, as having never been authorized by us, nor its source even known to us.

In 1790, this subject was laid before Congress fully, and at the late session, moneys have been provided, and authority given to proceed to the ransom of our captive citizens at Algiers, provided it shall not exceed a given sum, and provided also, a peace shall be previously negotiated within certain limits of expense. And in consequence of these proceedings, your mission has been decided on by the President.

Since, then, no _ransom_ is to take place without a _peace_, you will of course take up first the negotiation of peace; or, if you find it better that peace and ransom should be treated of together, you will take care that no agreement for the latter be concluded, unless the former be established before or in the same instant.

As to the conditions, it is understood that no peace can be made with that government, but for a larger sum of money to be paid at once for the whole time of its duration, or for a smaller one to be annually paid. The former plan we entirely refuse, and adopt the latter. We have also understood that peace might be bought cheaper with naval stores than with money; but we will not furnish them with naval stores, because we think it not right to furnish them means which we know they will employ to do wrong, and because there might be no economy in it as to ourselves, in the end, as it would increase the expenses of that coercion which we may in future be obliged to practise towards them. The only question then, is, what sum of _money_ will we agree to pay them _annually_, for peace? By a letter from Captain O'Bryan, a copy of which you will receive herewith, we have his opinion that a peace could be purchased with _money_, for sixty thousand pounds sterling, or with _naval stores_, for one hundred thousand dollars. An annual payment equivalent to the first, would be three thousand pounds sterling, or thirteen thousand and five hundred dollars, the interest of the sum in gross. If we could obtain it for as small a sum as the second, in _money_, the annual payment equivalent to it would be five thousand dollars. In another part of the same letter, Captain O'Bryan says, "if maritime stores and two light cruisers be given, and a tribute paid in maritime stores every two years, amounting to twelve thousand dollars in America," a peace can be had. The gift of stores and cruisers here supposed, converted into an annual equivalent, may be stated at nine thousand dollars, and adding to it half the biennial sum, would make fifteen thousand dollars, to be annually paid. You will, of course, use your best endeavors to get it at the lowest sum practicable; whereupon I shall only say, that we should be pleased with ten thousand dollars, contented with fifteen thousand, think twenty thousand a very hard bargain, yet go as far as twenty-five thousand, if it be impossible to get it for less; but not a copper further, this being fixed by law as the utmost limit. These are meant as annual sums. If you can put off the first annual payment to the end of the first year, you may employ any sum not exceeding that, in presents to be paid down; but if the first payment is to be made in hand, that and the presents cannot by law exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.

And here we meet a difficulty, arising from the small degree of information we have respecting the Barbary States. Tunis is said to be tributary to Algiers. But whether the effect of this be, that peace being made with Algiers, is of course with the Tunisians without separate treaty, or separate price, is what we know not. If it be possible to have it placed on this footing, so much the better. In any event, it will be necessary to stipulate with Algiers, that her influence be interposed as strongly as possible with Tunis, whenever we shall proceed to treat with the latter; which cannot be till information of the event of your negotiation, and another session of Congress.

As to the articles and form of the treaty in general, our treaty with Morocco was so well digested that I enclose you a copy of that, to be the model with Algiers, as nearly as it can be obtained, only inserting the clause with respect to Tunis.

The ransom of the captives is next to be considered. They are now thirteen in number; to wit, Richard O'Bryan and Isaac Stevens, captains, Andrew Montgomery and Alexander Forsyth, mates, Jacob Tessanier, a French passenger, William Patterson, Philip Sloan, Peleg Lorin, James Hall, James Cathcart, George Smith, John Gregory, James Hermit, seamen. It has been a fixed principle with Congress, to establish the rate of ransom of American captives with the Barbary States at as low a point as possible, that it may not be the interest of those States to go in quest of our citizens in preference to those of other countries. Had it not been for the danger it would have brought on the residue of our seamen, by exciting the cupidity of those rovers against them, our citizens now in Algiers would have been long ago redeemed, without regard to price. The mere money for this particular redemption neither has been, nor is, an object with anybody here. It is from the same regard to the safety of our seamen at large, that they have now restrained us from any ransom unaccompanied with peace. This being secured, we are led to consent to terms of ransom, to which, otherwise, our government never would have consented; that is to say, to the terms stated by Captain O'Bryan in the following passage of the same letter: "By giving the minister of the marine (the present Dey's favorite) the sum of one thousand sequins, I would stake my life that we would be ransomed for thirteen thousand sequins, and all expenses included." Extravagant as this sum is, we will, under the security of peace in future, go so far; not doubting, at the same time, that you will obtain it as much lower as possible, and not indeed without a hope that a lower ransom will be practicable, from the assurances given us in other letters from Captain O'Bryan, that prices are likely to be abated by the present Dey, and particularly with us, towards whom he has been represented as well disposed. You will consider this sum, therefore, say twenty-seven thousand dollars, as your ultimate limit, including ransom, duties, and gratifications of every kind.

As soon as the ransom is completed, you will be pleased to have the captives well clothed and sent home at the expense of the United States, with as much economy as will consist with their reasonable comfort. It is thought best, that Mr. Pinckney, our minister at London, should be the confidential channel of communication between us. He is enabled to answer your drafts for money within the limits before expressed; and as this will be by re-drawing on Amsterdam, you must settle with him the number of days _after sight_, at which your bills shall be payable in London, so as to give him time, in the meanwhile, to draw the money from Amsterdam.

We shall be anxious to know as soon and as often as possible, your prospects in these negotiations. You will receive herewith a cypher, which will enable you to make them with safety. London and Lisbon (where Colonel Humphreys will forward my letters) will be the safest and best ports of communication. I also enclose two separate commissions, for the objects of peace and ransom. To these is added a commission to you as consul for the United States, at Algiers, on the possibility that it might be useful for you to remain there till the ratification of the treaties shall be returned from hence; though you are not to delay till their return the sending the captives home, nor the necessary payments of money within the limits before prescribed. Should you be willing to remain there, even after the completion of the business, as consul for the United States, you will be free to do so, giving me notice, that no other nomination may be made. These commissions, being issued during the recess of the Senate, are in force, by the Constitution, only till the next session of the Senate. But their renewal then is so much a matter of course and of necessity, that you may consider that as certain, and proceed without any interruption. I have not mentioned this in the commissions, because it is in all cases surplusage, and because it might be difficult of explanation to those to whom you are addressed.

The allowance for all your expenses and time (exclusive of the ransom, price of peace, duties, presents, maintenance and transportation of the captives) is at the rate of two thousand dollars a year, to commence from the day on which you shall set out for Algiers, from whatever place you may take your departure. The particular objects of peace and ransom once out of the way, the two thousand dollars annually are to go in satisfaction of time, services, and expenses of every kind, whether you act as consul or commissioner.

As the duration of this peace cannot be counted on with certainty, and we look forward to the necessity of coercion by cruises on their coast, to be kept up during the whole of their cruising season, you will be pleased to inform yourself, as minutely as possible, of every circumstance which may influence or guide us in undertaking and conducting such an operation, making your communications by safe opportunities.

I must recommend to your particular notice, Captain O'Bryan, one of the captives, from whom we have received a great deal of useful information. The zeal which he has displayed under the trying circumstances of his present situation, has been very distinguished. You will find him intimately acquainted with the manner in which, and characters with whom business is to be done there, and perhaps he may be an useful instrument to you, especially in the outset of your undertaking, which will require the utmost caution and the best information. He will be able to give you the characters of the European consuls there, though you will, probably, not think it prudent to repose confidence in any of them.

Should you be able successfully to accomplish the objects of your mission in time to convey notice of it to us as early as possible during the next session of Congress, which meets in the beginning of November and rises the 4th of March, it would have a very pleasant effect.

I am, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO MR. MADISON.

Philadelphia, June 4, 1792.

Dear Sir,--I wrote you on the 1st inst., which I will call No. 1, and number my letters in future that you may know when any are missing. Mr. Hammond has given me an answer in writing, saying, he must send my letter to his court and wait their instructions. On this I desired a personal interview, that we might consider the matter together in a familiar way. He came accordingly, yesterday, and took a solo dinner with me, during which our conversation was full, unreserved, and of a nature to inspire mutual confidence. The result was that he acknowledged explicitly that his country had hitherto heard one side of the question only, and that from prejudiced persons, that it was now for the first time discussed, that it was placed on entirely new ground, his court having no idea of a charge of first infractions on them, and a justification on that ground of what had been done by our States, that this made it quite a new case to which no instructions he had could apply. He found, from my expressions, that I had entertained an idea of his being able to give an order to the Governor of Canada to deliver up the posts, and smiled at the idea; and it was evident from his conversation that it had not at all entered into the expectations of his court that they were to deliver up the posts. He did not say so expressly, but he said that they considered the retaining of the posts as a very imperfect compensation for the losses their subjects had sustained; under the cover of the clause of the treaty which admits them to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the evident mistake of the negotiators in supposing that a line due west from the Lake of the Woods would strike the Mississippi, he suppose an explanatory convention necessary, and showed a desire that such a slice of our Northwestern Territory might be cut off for them as would admit them to the navigation and profit of the Mississippi, &c., &c. He expects he can have his final instructions by the meeting of Congress. I have not yet had the conversation mentioned in my last. Do you remember that you were to leave me a list of names? Pray send them to me. My only view is that, if the P. asks me for a list of particulars, I may enumerate names to him, without naming my authority, and show him that I had not been speaking merely at random. If we do not have our conversation before, I can make a comparative table of the debts and numbers of all modern nations. I will show him how high we stand indebted by the poll in that table. I omitted Hammond's admission that the debt from the Potowmac North might be considered as liquidated, that that of Virginia was now the only great object, and cause of anxiety, amounting to two millions sterling. Adieu. Yours, affectionately.

TO THOMAS BARCLAY, ESQUIRE.

Philadelphia, June 11, 1792.

Sir,--Congress having furnished me with means for procuring peace, and ransoming our captive citizens from the government of Algiers, I have thought it best, while you are engaged at Morocco, to appoint Admiral Jones to proceed to Algiers, and therefore have sent him a commission for establishing peace, another for the ransom of our captives, and a third to act there as consul for the United States, and full instructions are given in a letter from the Secretary of State to him, of all which papers, Mr. Pinckney, now proceeding to London as our Minister Plenipotentiary there, is the bearer, as he is also of this letter. It is some time, however, since we have heard of Admiral Jones, and as in the event of any accident to him, it might occasion an injurious delay, were the business to await new commissions from hence, I have thought it best in such an event, that Mr. Pinckney should forward to you all the papers addressed to Admiral Jones, with this letter, signed by myself, giving you authority on receipt of those papers, to consider them addressed to you, and to proceed under them in every respect as if your name stood in each of them in the place of that of John Paul Jones. You will of course finish the business of your mission to Morocco with all the dispatch practicable, and then proceed to Algiers on that hereby confided to you, where this letter, with the commissions addressed to Admiral Jones, and an explanation of circumstances, will doubtless procure you credit as acting in the name and on the behalf of the United States, and more especially when you shall efficaciously prove your authority by the fact of making on the spot, the payments you shall stipulate. With full confidence in the prudence and integrity with which you will fulfill the objects of the present mission, I give to this letter the effect of a commission and full powers, by hereunto subscribing my name, this eleventh day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two.

TO MR. PINCKNEY.

Philadelphia, June 11, 1792.

Dear Sir,--I have already had the honor of delivering to you your commission as Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at the court of London, and have now that of enclosing your letter of credence to the King, sealed, and a copy of it open for your own information. Mr. Adams, your predecessor, seemed to understand, on his being presented to that court, that a letter was expected for the Queen also. You will be pleased to inform yourself whether the custom of that court requires this from us: and to enable you to comply with it, if it should, I enclose a letter sealed for the Queen, and a copy of it open for your own information. Should its delivery not be requisite you will be so good as to return it, as we do not wish to set a precedent which may bind us hereafter to a single unnecessary ceremony. To you, Sir, it will be unnecessary to undertake a general delineation of the duties of the office to which you are appointed. I shall therefore only express a desire that they be constantly exercised in that spirit of sincere friendship which we bear to the English 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, or policy, as concerning themselves or other nations, we wish not to intermeddle in word or deed, and that it be not understood that our government permits itself to entertain either a will or opinion on the subject.

I particularly recommend to you, as the most important of your charges, the patronage of our commerce, and its liberation from embarrassments in all the British dominions; but most especially in the West Indies. Our consuls in Great Britain and Ireland are under general instructions to correspond with you, as you will perceive by a copy of a circular letter lately written to them, and now enclosed. From them you may often receive interesting information. Mr. Joshua Johnson is consul for us at London, James Maury, at Liverpool, Elias Vanderhorst, at Bristol, Thomas Auldjo, vice-consul at Pool (resident at Cowes), and William Knox, consul at Dublin. The jurisdiction of each is exclusive and independent, and extends to all places within the same allegiance nearer to him than to the residence of any other consul or vice-consul of the United States. The settlement of their accounts from time to time, and the payment of them, are referred to you, and in this, the act respecting consuls and any other laws made, or to be made, are to be your guide. Charges which these do not authorize, you will be pleased not to allow. These accounts are to be settled up to the first day of July in every year, and to be transmitted to the Secretary of State.

The peculiar custom in England, of impressing seamen on every appearance of war, will occasionally expose our seamen to peculiar oppressions and vexations. These will require your most active exertions and protection, which we know cannot be effectual without incurring considerable expense; and as no law has as yet provided for this, we think it fairer to take the risk of it on the executive than to leave it on your shoulders. You will, therefore, with all due economy, and on the best vouchers the nature of the case will admit, meet those expenses, transmitting an account of them to the Secretary of State, to be communicated to the Legislature. It will be expedient that you take proper opportunities in the meantime, of conferring with the minister on this subject, in order to form some arrangement for the protection of our seamen on those occasions. We entirely reject the mode which was the subject of a conversation between Mr. Morris and him, which was, that our seamen should always carry about them certificates of their citizenship. This is a condition never yet submitted to by any nation, one with which seamen would never have the precaution to comply; the casualties of their calling would expose them to the constant destruction or loss of this paper evidence, and thus, the British government would be armed with _legal authority_ to impress the whole of our seamen. The simplest rule will be, that the vessel being American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board her are such. If they apprehend that our vessels might thus become asylums for the fugitives of their own nation from impress-gangs, the number of men to be protected by a vessel may be limited by her tonnage, and one or two officers only be permitted to enter the vessel in order to examine the numbers on board; but no press-gang should be allowed ever to go on board an American vessel, till after it shall be found that there are more than their stipulated number on board, nor till after the master shall have refused to deliver the supernumeraries (to be named by himself) to the press-officer who has come on board for that purpose; and even then, the American consul should be called in. In order to urge a settlement of this point, before a new occasion may arise, it may not be amiss to draw their attention to the peculiar irritation excited on the last occasion, and the difficulty of avoiding our making immediate reprisals on their seamen here. You will be so good as to communicate to me what shall pass on this subject, and it may be made an article of convention, to be entered into either there or here.

You will receive herewith a copy of the journals of the ancient Congress, and of the laws, journals and reports of the present. Those for the future, with gazettes and other interesting papers, shall be sent you from time to time; and I shall leave you generally to the gazettes, for whatever information is in possession of the public, and shall especially undertake to communicate by letter, such only relative to the business of your mission as the gazetteers cannot give. From you I ask, once or twice a month, a communication of interesting occurrences in England, of the general affairs of Europe, the court gazette, the best paper in the interest of the ministry and the best of the opposition party, most particularly, that one of each which shall give the best account of the debates of parliament, the parliamentary register annually, and such other political publications as may be important enough to be read by one who can spare little time to read anything, or which may contain matter proper to be kept and turned to, on interesting subjects and occasions. The English packet is the most certain channel for such epistolary communications as are not very secret, and intermediate occasions by private vessels may be resorted to for secret communications, and for such as would come too expensively burthened with postage, by the packets. You are furnished with a cypher for greater secrecy of communication. To the papers before mentioned, I must desire you to add the Leyden gazette, paper by paper as it comes out, by the first vessel sailing after its receipt.

I enclose you the papers in the case of a Mr. Wilson, ruined by the capture of his vessel, after the term limited by the armistice. They will inform you of the circumstances of his case, and where you may find him personally, and I recommend his case to your particular representations to the British court. It is possible that other similar cases may be transmitted to you. You have already received some letters of Mr. Adams' explanations of the principles of the armistice, and of what had passed between him and the British minister on the subject.

Mr. Greene, of Rhode Island, will deliver you his papers, and I am to desire that you may patronize his claims so far as shall be just and right, leaving to himself and his agent to follow up the minute details of solicitation, and coming forward yourself only when there shall be proper occasion for you to do so in the name of your nation.

Mr. Cutting has a claim against the government, vouchers for which he is to procure from England. As you are acquainted with the circumstances of it, I have only to desire that you will satisfy yourself as to the facts relative thereto, the evidence of which cannot be transmitted, and that you will communicate the same to me, that justice may be done between the public and the claimant.

We shall have occasion to ask your assistance in procuring a workman or two for our mint; but this shall be the subject of a separate letter, after I shall have received more particular explanations from the director of the mint.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO THOMAS PINCKNEY.

Philadelphia, June 11, 1792.

Sir,--The letter I have addressed to Admiral Jones, of which you have had the perusal, has informed you of the mission with which the President has thought proper to charge him at Algiers, and how far your agency is desired for conveying to him the several papers, for receiving and paying his drafts to the amount therein permitted, by re-drawing yourself on our bankers in Amsterdam who are instructed to honor your bills, and by acting as a channel of correspondence between us. It has been some time, however, since we have heard of Admiral Jones. Should any accident have happened to his life, or should you be unable to learn where he is, or should distance, refusal to act, or any other circumstance deprive us of his services on this occasion, or be likely to produce too great a delay, of which you are to be the judge, you will then be pleased to send all the papers confided to you for him, to Mr. Thomas Barclay, our consul at Morocco, with the letter addressed to him, which is delivered you open, and by which you will perceive that he is, in that event, substituted to every intent and purpose in the place of Admiral Jones. You will be pleased not to pass any of the papers confided to you on this business, through any post office.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, Sir, your most obedient humble servant.

TO MR PINCKNEY.

Philadelphia, June 14, 1792.

Sir,--The United States being now about to establish a mint, it becomes necessary to ask your assistance in procuring persons to carry on some parts of it; and to enable you to give it, you must be apprised of some facts.

Congress, some time ago, authorized the President to take measures for procuring some artists from any place where they were to be had. It was known that a Mr. Drost, a Swiss, had made an improvement in the method of coining, and some specimens of his coinage were exhibited here, which were superior to anything we had ever seen. Mr. Short was, therefore, authorized to engage Drost to come over, to erect the proper machinery, and instruct persons to go on with the coinage; and as he supposed this would require about a year, we agreed to give him a thousand louis a year and his expenses. The agreement was made, two coining mills, or screws, were ordered by him; but in the end, he declined coming. We have reason to believe he was drawn off by the English East India Company, and that he is now at work for them in England. Mr. Bolton had also made a proposition to coin for us in England, which was declined. Since this, the act has been passed for establishing our mint, which authorizes, among other things, the employment of an assayer at fifteen hundred dollars a year, a chief coiner at the same, and an engraver at twelve hundred dollars. But it admits of the employment of one person, both as engraver and chief coiner; this we expect may be done, as we presume that any engraver who has been used to work for a coinage, must be well enough acquainted with all the operations of coinage to direct them; and it is an economy worth attention, if we can have the services performed by one officer instead of two, in which case, it is proposed to give him the salary of the chief coiner, that is to say, fifteen hundred dollars a year. I have, therefore, to request that you will endeavor, on your arrival in Europe, to engage and send us an assayer of approved skill and well-attested integrity, and a chief coiner and engraver, in one person, if possible, acquainted with all the improvements in coining, and particularly those of Drost and Bolton. Their salaries may commence from the day of their sailing for America. If Drost be in England, I think he will feel himself under some obligation to aid you in procuring persons. How far Bolton will do it, seems uncertain. You will, doubtless, make what you can of the good dispositions of either of these or any other person. Should you find it impracticable to procure an engraver capable of performing the functions of chief coiner also, we must be content that you engage separate characters. Let these persons bring with them all the implements necessary for carrying on the business, except such as you shall think too bulky and easily made here. It would be proper, therefore, that they should consult you as to the necessary implements and their prices, that they may act under your control. The method of your paying for these implements and making reasonable advances to the workmen, shall be the subject of another letter, after the President shall have decided thereon. It should be a part of the agreement of these people, that they will faithfully instruct all persons in their art, whom we shall put under them for that purpose. Your contract with them, may be made for any term not exceeding four years.

I have the honor to be, with great and much esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

P. S. Should you not be able to procure persons of eminent qualifications for their business, in England, it will be proper to open a correspondence with Mr. Morris on the subject, and see whether he cannot get such from France. Next to the obtaining the ablest artists, a very important circumstance is to send them to us as soon as possible.

TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.

Philadelphia, June 16, 1792.

Dear Sir,--My last to you was of March the 28th. Yours of April the 6th and 10th came to hand three days ago.

With respect to the particular objects of commerce susceptible of being placed on a better footing, on which you ask my ideas, they will show themselves by the enclosed table of the situation of our commerce with France and England. That with France is stated as it stood at the time I left that country, when the only objects whereon change was still desirable, were those of salted provisions, tobacco and tar, pitch and turpentine. The first was in negotiation when I came away, and was pursued by Mr. Short with prospects of success, till their general tariff so unexpectedly deranged our commerce with them as to other articles. Our commerce with their West Indies had never admitted amelioration during my stay in France. The temper of that period did not allow even the essay, and it was as much as we could do to hold the ground given us by the Marshal de Castries' _Arret_, admitting us to their colonies with salted provisions, &c. As to both these branches of commerce, to wit, with France and her colonies, we have hoped they would pursue their own proposition of arranging them by treaty, and that we could draw that treaty to this place. There is no other where the dependence of their colonies on our States for their prosperity is so obvious as here, nor where their negotiator would feel it so much. But it would be imprudent to leave to the uncertain issue of such a treaty, the re-establishment of our commerce with _France_ on the footing on which it was in the beginning of their revolution. That treaty may be long on the anvil; in the meantime, we cannot consent to the late innovations, without taking measures to do justice to our own navigation. This object, therefore, is particularly recommended to you, while you will also be availing yourself of every opportunity which may arise, of benefiting our commerce in any other part. I am in hopes you will have found the moment favorable on your arrival in France, when Monsieur Claviere was in the ministry, and the dispositions of the National Assembly favorable to the ministers. Your cypher has not been sent hitherto, because it required a most confidential channel of conveyance. It is now committed to Mr. Pinckney, who also carries the gazettes, laws, and other public papers for you. We have been long without any vessel going to Havre. Some of the Indian tribes have acceded to terms of peace. The greater part, however, still hold off, and oblige us to pursue more vigorous measures for war. I enclose you an extract from a circular letter to our consuls, by which you will perceive that those in countries where we have no diplomatic representative, are desired to settle their accounts annually with the minister of the United States at Paris. This business, I must desire you to undertake. The act concerning consuls will be your guide, and I shall be glad that the first of July be the day to which their accounts shall be annually settled and paid, and that they may be forwarded as soon after that as possible to the office of the Secretary of State, to enter into the general account of his department, which it is necessary he should make up always before the meeting of Congress.

I am, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

P. S. I have said nothing of our whale oil, because I believe it is on a better footing since the tariff than before.

TO M. DE LA FAYETTE.

Philadelphia, June 16, 1792.

Behold you, then, my dear friend, at the head of a great army establishing the liberties of your country against a foreign enemy. May heaven favor your cause, and make you the channel through which it may pour its favors. While you are estimating the monster Aristocracy, and pulling out the teeth and fangs of its associate, Monarchy, a contrary tendency is discovered in some here. A sect has shown itself among us, who declare they espoused our new Constitution not as a good and sufficient thing in itself, but only as a step to an English constitution, the only thing good and sufficient in itself, in their eye. It is happy for us that these are preachers without followers, and that our people are firm and constant in their republican purity. You will wonder to be told that it is from the eastward chiefly that these champions for a king, lords, and commons, come. They get some important associates from New York, and are puffed up by a tribe of Agioteurs which have been hatched in a bed of corruption made up after the model of their beloved England. Too many of these stock-jobbers and king-jobbers have come into our Legislature, or rather too many of our Legislature have become stock-jobbers and king-jobbers. However, the voice of the people is beginning to make itself heard, and will probably cleanse their seats at the ensuing election. The machinations of our old enemies are such as to keep us still at bay with our Indian neighbors. What are you doing for your colonies? They will be lost, if not more effectually succored. Indeed, no future efforts you can make will ever be able to reduce the blacks. All that can be done, in my opinion, will be to compound with them, as has been done formerly in Jamaica. We have been less zealous in aiding them, lest your government should feel any jealousy on our account. But, in truth, we as sincerely wish their restoration and their connection with you, as you do yourselves. We are satisfied that neither your justice nor their distresses will ever again permit their being forced to seek at dear and distant markets those first necessaries of life which they may have at cheaper markets, placed by nature at their door, and formed by her for their support. What is become of Madame de Tessy and Madame de Tott? I have not heard of them since they went to Switzerland. I think they would have done better to have come and reposed under the poplars of Virginia. Pour into their bosoms the warmest effusions of my friendship, and tell them they will be warm and constant unto death. Accept of them also for Madame de La Fayette, and your dear children; but I am forgetting that you are in the field of war, and they I hope in those of peace. Adieu, my dear friend. God bless you all. Yours affectionately.

TO MR. BARLOW.

Philadelphia, June 20, 1792.

Dear Sir,--Though I am in hopes you are now on the ocean home-bound, yet I cannot omit the chance of my thanks reaching you, for your "Conspiracy of Kings" and advice to the privileged orders, the second part of which I am in hopes is out by this time. Be assured that your endeavors to bring the trans-Atlantic world into the road of reason, are not without their effect here. Some here are disposed to move retrograde, and to take their stand in the rear of Europe, now advancing to the high ground of natural right; but of all this your friend Mr. Baldwin gives you information, and doubtless paints to you the indignation with which the heresies of some people here fill us.

This will be conveyed by Mr. Pinckney, an honest, sensible man, and good republican. He goes our Minister Plenipotentiary to London. He will arrive at an interesting moment in Europe. God send that all the nations who join in attacking the liberties of France may end in the attainment of their own. I still hope this will not find you in Europe, and therefore add nothing more than assurances of affectionate esteem from, dear Sir, your sincere friend and servant.

TO PETER CARR.

Philadelphia, June 22, 1792.

Dear Sir,--I received in due time your favor of May 28, with the notes it contained on the subject of Waste. Your view of the subject, as far as it goes, is perfectly proper. Perhaps, on such a question in this country, where the husbandry is so different, it might be necessary to go further, and inquire whether any difference of this kind should produce a difference in the law. The main objects of the law of waste in England are, 1st, to prevent any disguise of the lands which might lessen the revisioner's evidence of title, such as the change of pasture into arable; 2d, to prevent any deterioration of it, as the cutting down forest, which in England is an injury. So careful is the law there against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvements _in the same line_, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, &c., yet it will not permit improvements _in a different line_, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, &c., lest this should lead to a deterioration. Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it. Consequently, there is no reason for adopting different rules of waste here from those established in England.

Your objection to Lord Kaims, that he is too metaphysical, is just, and it is the chief objection to which his writings are liable. It is to be observed also, that though he has given us what should be the system of equity, yet it is not the one actually established, at least not in all its parts. The English Chancellors have gone on from one thing to another without any comprehensive or systematic view of the whole field of equity, and therefore they have sometimes run into inconsistencies and contradictions.

Never fear the want of business. A man who qualifies himself well for his calling, never fails of employment in it. The foundation you will have laid in legal reading, will enable you to take a higher ground than most of your competitors, and even ignorant men can see who it is that is not one of themselves. Go on then with courage, and you will be sure of success; for which be assured no one wishes more ardently, nor has more sincere sentiments of friendship towards you, than, dear Sir, your affectionate friend.

TO MR. VAN BERCKEL.

Philadelphia, July 2, 1792.

Sir,--It was with extreme concern that I learned from your letter of June the 25th, that a violation of the protection due to you as the representative of your nation had been committed, by an officer of this State entering your house and serving therein a process on one of your servants. There could be no question but that this was a breach of privilege; the only one was, how it was to be punished. To ascertain this, I referred your letter to the Attorney General, whose answer I have the honor to enclose you. By this you will perceive, that from the circumstance of your servant's not being registered in the Secretary of State's office, we cannot avail ourselves of the more certain and effectual proceeding which had been provided by an act of Congress for punishing infractions of the law of nations, that act having thought proper to confine the benefit of its provisions to such domestics only, as should have been registered. We are to proceed, therefore, as if that act had never been made, and the Attorney General's letter indicates two modes of proceeding. 1. By a warrant before a single magistrate, to recover the money paid by the servant under a process declared void by law. Herein the servant must be the actor, and the government not intermeddle at all. The smallness of the sum to be re-demanded will place this cause in the class of those in which no appeal to the higher tribunal is permitted, even in the case of manifest error, so that if the magistrate should err, the government has no means of correcting the error. 2. The second mode of proceeding would be, to indict the officer in the Supreme Court of the United States; with whom it would rest to punish him at their discretion, in proportion to the injury done and the malice from which it proceeded; and it would end in punishment alone, and not in a restitution of the money. In this mode of proceeding, the government of the United States is actor, taking the management of the cause into its own hands, and giving you no other trouble than that of bearing witness to such material facts as may not be otherwise supported. You will be so good as to decide in which of these two ways you would choose the proceeding should be; if the latter, I will immediately take measures for having the offender prosecuted according to law.

I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.

TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA.

Philadelphia, July 3, 1792.

Sir,--I have the honor to enclose to your Excellency, the copy of a