Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 18 January 1804
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

No 96
Sir
Paris 18th Jany 1804
I enclose a copy of the instructions of the French Government to their Commercial agent at Tripoli upon the Subject of our prisoners. I Shall Send it by the Post to morrow to Leghorn, with directions to Mr Appleton to forward it by the first conveyance, & if none offers to Send a Small vessel with it, & the notes I have Sent him to Commodore Prebble to whom I have written on the Subject, & advised him to make the earliest communications to Mr Lear, who has I presume the President’s instructions relative to peace & the release of Prisoners.
Every day convinces me more & more, that the rank powers & instructions of your Minister here Should be commensurate to the influence & power that this Court has over almost every other in Europe, Asia, & Africa there are means where the minister has the confidence of those that direct of effecting everything we might wish and he should be accredited to every court to which your connections may extend where you have no resident minister. The Black Sea opens a new field for our enterprise, nor would there be much difficulty in obtaining the necessary priviledges but your minister must be able to command money for which he is only to account to the president with this and full powers I am persuaded that I could have made a peace with Tripoli and [proc]ured the [rel]eas[e] of prisoners by order from here for half the money that the last article would have cost you without the interference of the First Consul, which however as it is will I hope prove very useful to Mr Lear.
I have no interest, Sir, in mentioning this, because I do not intend to Stay here So long as to receive any new power or new instructions, but as a consideration that Should influence the choice & power of my Successor. Let no man be thought of who will not stand well [with] Mr Talerand be assured that he will do nothing here except the ordinary routine of business. I have yesterday received a letter from Mr Graham, containing a copy of the note of Mr Cevallos in answer to Mr Pinkney’s notice of the ratification. I immediately Sent it to the Minister for foreign affairs, with the enclosed note. I regret extremely that Mr Pinkney did not communicate to me the first information he had received of the intention of the Court of Spain to object to the cession, as I am confident that while the prince of peaces fate was doubtful and Augeraus army on the frontier of Spain I could have obtained a full and explicit recognition of the treaty by His Catholic Majesty which I shall still labour to enable Master Pinkney to obtain.
Nothing new has occurred since my last. I was mistaken when I said the Board were going on, they have indeed sent up Six cases as “Susceptible of liquidation,[”] which is certainly the last business they have to do, & as far as I See, except where doubts are raised, is totally unnecessary. The French Board have passed upon near half the causes which ours might go thro’ in ten days. But they touch none of them & consume time & money in the copying what I conceive to be useless papers.
Unless Some direction is given with respect to them, I have no doubt they will ultimately involve us with this Government as they have already done with the creditors. But I have Said enough upon this disagreable Subject my decided opinion is that Mr Maclure Should be removed. I have the honor to be Sir With the most respectful attachment Your most obt hum: Servt.
Robt R Livingston

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 9); letterbook copy (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Livingston; docketed by Wagner. Unless otherwise noted, italicized words and letters are those encoded by Livingston’s secretary and decoded here by the editors or supplied within square brackets from the letterbook copy (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:304–5 n.). RC decoded interlinearly by Wagner. Enclosures not found, but see nn. 1 and 6.

   Livingston doubtless enclosed a copy of Talleyrand to Livingston, 25 Nivôse an XII (16 Jan. 1804) (NHi: Livingston Papers; translation printed in Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 3:335), transmitting a copy of Talleyrand’s letter to Bonaventure Beaussier of the same date (NHi: Livingston Papers; translation printed ibid., 3:332), telling Beaussier to do all he could to get the prisoners released and to serve as intermediary between the U.S. and Tripoli, noting that Napoleon’s attachment to the American people and government made him desirous of a firm peace between the two countries. Talleyrand added that the letter would be forwarded through the commander of the U.S. fleet off Tripoli.

   Letterbook copy has “when.”

   Miscoded “wickured”; interlinear decoding has “secured.”

   Miscoded “394 eas,” which has no equivalent; interlinear decoding has “rele ease.”

   Miscoded “reb”; interlinear decoding has “with.”

   The enclosures were probably copies of Livingston to Talleyrand, 17 Jan. 1804 (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 3), and Cevallos to Pinckney, 31 Dec. 1803 (ibid.). Livingston stated that he had relied on Talleyrand’s statement that Charles IV had not complained to Napoleon about the transfer of Louisiana. He asked what steps Napoleon would take to eliminate any problems that might arise between the U.S. and Spain because of the cession and also thanked Talleyrand for Napoleon’s intervention with Tripoli on behalf of the American prisoners. For Cevallos’s letter, see Pinckney to JM, 24 Jan. 1804, and n. 3.

   Difficulties arose between Spain and France in the fall of 1803 when France demanded Godoy’s dismissal and the cash payments promised by Spain in the Treaty of San Ildefonso, and the French army near the Spanish border, under Pierre-François-Charles Augereau, was placed on alert (Hilt, Troubled Trinity, pp. 146–51; Luis González Santos, Godoy: Príncipe de la paz, siervo de la guerra [n.p., 1985], p. 110; Times [London], 15 Oct. 1803).

   Underlined in RC.


Title: To James Madison from Turrell Tufts, 18 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Tufts, Turrell
To: Madison, James

18 January 1804, Surinam. Has written JM several letters regarding persons condemned to banishment being forced on board U.S. vessels. “Capt John Fletcher of the Schr. Charles of Phila. has this moment informed me that a person by the name of Moor Rosier has been sent on board his Vessel & that he cannot get a passport upon any other condition than of taking him out of the Colony. He has made a declaration before me to that Effect, a Copy of which I shall forward by the next Vessel. He has a copy & I have ordered him to deliver it to the Collector of the Port where he may arrive. The Jews which I mentioned in my other Letters are ordered to be banished & I expect will be forced on board the first Vessels. I need not urge the necessity of my receiving Particular instructions to communicat⟨e⟩ to this Govt. There is about 25 Scoundrels now in prison who will be forced away in our Vessels.” Asks in a postscript that this information not be made public. “If it is—I shall suffer for it.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paramaribo, vol. 1). 2 pp.


Title: To James Madison from William Willis, 18 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Willis, William
To: Madison, James

18 January 1804, Barcelona. “From the tennor of your private favor of the 28th of May last and the arrest spoken of not taking place I have hopes that the truth has appeard and that my innocence is manifested. The Characters of my accusers Only need to be known to destroy any weight their accusation could have. I am notwithstanding much obligd to you for that letter as it manifested the greatest desire to be usefull to me.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Barcelona, vol. 1). 1 p. Cover marked “private.”

   See Willis to JM, 8 Nov. 1803, n. 1.


Title: To James Madison from William Willis, 18 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Willis, William
To: Madison, James

18 January 1804, Barcelona. “I still remain here in order to hear from you and to obey your Commands if you have any to give me. I know not yet how to account for what Mr Leonard assured me on his word of honor which was that he was appointed to supercede me as Consul or acting Consul and that you told him I was displaced &c with many other things which are too numerous for a letter. I have the hopes However the Silence of the Executive that all suspicions are remov’d and that I shall still be honord with the Confidence of the President and that I shall be either reinstated here or be appointed for Madrid. I am sorry to say Mr Leonard appears to me to have acted a deceptive part and has associated with some of the most suspicious of those who have ruined me.… War is feared between England and this Country Every day more & More.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Barcelona, vol. 1). 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 12 May.


Title: To James Madison from Jeremiah Hill, 18 January 1804
From: Hill, Jeremiah
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 18 January 1804, Biddeford. Acknowledged in Brent to Hill, 15 Feb. 1804 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14), as enclosing the protest of James March, master of the brig Paulina of Pepperrellborough, against the impressment by the British ship of war Blenheim of James Bryant of Pepperrellborough and Jonathan Emery, Jr., of Biddeford.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 19 January 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

private
Dear Sir
Washington Jany. 19. 1804
I have already, in a letter by the last British packet given you a hint of the sensation produced in Mr. & Mrs. Merry, by a circumstance of Etiquette. I had supposed that it would yield to the proofs of respect & cordiality which would be experienced by them, from all in & about the Government, and to the explanations which would be superadded. I find however that the case is to be transmitted to the British Govt. and that our new guests are to be in a kind of voluntary exile from social scenes untill they shall be authorized to wave their pretensions. I think it proper therefore, nausious as such a subject is, to put you in full possession of it, that misconceptions may be rectified if any should prevail where you are, that you may in particular, obviate political inferences from this frivolous incident, and that you may contribute towards such instructions to Mr. Merry as will place him & his family on the ground of social intercourse which we sincerely wish to maintain with them. The present administration as you know has not been disposed to cherish ceremony of any kind, and a relaxation of it has been favored by the removal of the Govt. from large Cities. The only instances in which the remains of it particularly related to foreign ministers were first the exchange of visits on their arrival, and the priority of attention at the President’s & other dinners, in handing a lady to the table, with respect to the first, the custom here as in England & elsewhere, was, for the foreign Minister, on his arrival, to pay the first visit to the Heads of Dept. Mr. Merry had understood the custom to have been different, at least as it related to his predecessor, and to the other Secretaries, than the Secy of State. The explanations given, and the appeal to the practice ⟨in⟩ his own country reclaimed him from this pretension. With respect to the second, it had been the uniform practice with the president, to hand to his table a wife of one of the Secretaries, & not of a foreign Minister, when both were present; without inquiring into the usage of his predecessors, or perhaps under a presumption that it was the same. It seems however that their usage was different, altho’ not without the dislike of Mr. Adams, and occasional dispositions in him to change it. Still the practice of Mr Jefferson had gone on for near three years without a whisper or a suspicion that it was disrelished. On the day that Mr. M. & his lady dined with him, she was of course pretermitted. At a dinner at my house some days after, the example could not with propriety be violated. It soon appeared that umbrage had been taken. Other invitations were declined except when it was known that the expected distinction would be shewn. The Spanish Minister at length broke the subject to me, in a Stile of complaint, and with an appeal to the universal practice in Europe, as well as the preceding practice here, in support of the precedence of foreign Ministers & their families over those of the Country; and wished that the President’s decision might be obtained & made known. You can judge of his distaste for such a subject. He thought it best nevertheless in order to put an end if possible to these little disquietudes which sometimes & with some tempers swell into serious embarrassments, that some decision as far as depended on him should be formed & communicated to the diplomatic gentlemen. The pêle mêle readily occurred as the most convenient in itself, and the most consonant to the principles of the Country. The Spanish & British Ministers were accordingly informed; that in all hospitable scenes such would be the practice, that on the arrival of a foreign Minister, as there must be a first visit, it would be expected from him, his family however receiving the first visit; and that on public occasions, such as an inaugural Speech, a place would be provided for the foreign & domestic Ministers with any others who might be invited on the part of the Govt; all of whom would in such place be in pêle mêle. On mentioning this to Mr. Merry, he went into a candid disclosure of his feelings, which I found had been deeply wounded, and into a recital of causes, some of which had never been dreampt of. His first complaint was that altho’ he had according to instructions waited on the President at his audience, in the fullest dress, he had been recd, not even in such a dress as the P. generally has on in the afternoon, but in the plainer dress of the morning. He was told that the P. did not observe these distinctions of dress, more than others in this country, and that he had recd. a Danish Minister, the only one who had come hither during his administration, in the same plain manner. This circumstance therefore could not have deserved attention. Mr. M. seemed to think however that as the Danish Minister was of the 3d. order, being a Resident only, whilst he was of the 2d. the cases were not precisely parallel. His next remark was that the French Chargé had been invited to dinner at the same time that he was. This he supposed would have been in rule, if the dinner had been meant to be a diplomatic one, which he inferred not to have been the case, from the omission of a Danish Chargé here. On the supposition that it was a select dinner having reference to him as a new comer, the presence of a hostile character was justly objectionable. He was told that the President gave no official dinners, altho’ in engaging his company some reference might occasionally be had to similarity of stations & pursuits; and that the French Chargé had not been omitted, because it was supposed that at third places, particularly at the President’s table, a liberal oblivion of all hostile relations ought to take place. As to the Danish Chargé, he had dined with the President two days before, and having no family was the more likely to be left out of a party made up for the most part of husbands & their wives. A third circumstance which had touched his sensibility, he said was, that no seat had been designated for him at the table, but he had been left to find one as he could, and had been particularly frustrated in an advance towards the neighbourhood of the President, by hasty preoccupancy of the seat, by another person, a member of Congress, he believed. The simple answer to all this was that the mark of distinction he had looked for had never been shewn to any particular person at the President’s table, that the pêle mêle had always been the law in that particular, and consequently no offence could justly be taken at it by any one; that it was in fact more convenient in every view than an arrangement which must often interfere with a volu[n]tary distribution of the company according to taste health, or comfort. In this country people were left to seat themselves at table with as little rule as around a fire. The last and heaviest outrage was the preference of the hand of another lady to that of Mrs. Merry, in going to dinner. This had excited surprize in the first instance at the President’s, and when repeated at the Secretary of State’s, carried such a deliberate & marked appearance, that it was impossible not to observe & feel it. It was the more striking as it contradicted the respect which he had been informed before he left England by Mr. Liston & Mr. Hammond had been invariably shewn to the ladies of foreign ministers; and even that respect which Mrs M. as a stranger might reasonably have expected from the common rules of civility. His surprize, I observed to him had been the effect of his comparing what had passed, not with the usage which had been unvaried under the present Administration, but with that of preceding ones which had been thrown into his mind by his predecessors: that to us who had witnessed constantly the mode pursued by Mr Jefferson, it would have been equally liable to remark, if a change had been made on the arrival of Mrs. M. and that if in such a case there could be room for complaint at all, it would then have justly come from the family of the Spanish Minister, to whom the distinction had never been shewn by the President, that under his circumstances, and without the requisite information, I might have had his impressions, and for a like reason, they would not have been the same in him, if what had been familiar to us, had been so to him; that at my own house in private life, it is probable that Mrs. M. as a stranger would have recd. the first attention, but in my present situation, I had thought it most proper not to deviate from the established course, and the less so, as I could not shew less respect to the wife of a co-ordinate officer, than had been shewn to mine by the President; that after all, usage was the only authority, that every Country had a right to establish that which it preferred, & that it was so different in different countries as to leave each the more free to consult its conveniency or its fancy; that in one Country (Russia) Military rank predominated over diplomatic, hereditary & every other; at Rome the ecclesiastical; at Berlin the domestic over the foreign, and in England the hereditary over all; that I thought there was the less reason for him to think hard of what had taken place, as it was certain, it had not been different from what had been experienced in the case of the American Minister on a farewell dinner given him & his Lady by Ld. Hawksbury, at which Mrs. King was postponed to the lady of the ex Minister Dundas. I observed to him that, in general there was little of fixed etiquette in England on this subject, which I was glad to find as it was so respectable a sanction to the ideas among us; and that even at the Kings Levees, which were altogether ceremonial, the pêle mêle mixt itself very much in the proceeding. He said, that altho’ he and Mrs. Merry dined at Ld. H’s with Mr. & Mrs. K. he did not recollect the precise order in which they went to the table, but he presumed, that if the fact was so the dinner was considered by Ld. H. as neither an official dinner, nor one given specially to Mr. King, but as an ordinary dinner where he was bound to no rule. He did not think proper to glance at what was probably the real ground of the distinction shewn to Lady Melville, to wit her being of the nobility, as it would have led to a repetition of the remark I had before made, that in this Country, if there was to be distinctions, they must be according to official titles no other titles being admitted, and the nation here being the fountain of honor, as the Prince was in other countries. I observed that if a precedent could be decisive, one more in point was not possible, than that referred to; since the dinner given to Mr. & Mrs. King was as much official as mine to his & Mrs. M.; that in fact no such thing as official or diplomatic dinners, strictly taken, were given by any body here, in proof of which it sufficed to remark that wifes as well as their husbands were invited, and those without, as well as those in office, when there was room for so large a company. Notwithstanding all that could be said, he persisted in considering himself as not having been treated with the public distinction he had expected, tho’ personally he had reason to be satisfied with the cordial attentions shewn him; observing that it was the standing duty of a public Minister to maintain his rights & his rank in every thing, that he admitted the right of every Govt to establish its own ceremonial, to which those who come must conform; but that foreign govts. had a right also to decide whether they would place a Minister under a particular ceremonial; that the one heretofore practised being known to his at the time he was sent, their satisfaction with it was implied, that the usage substituted not being known, he was bound to wait their orders after he should have communicated it, that in the mean time he must retire (in what degree is not yet ascertained); but that if his Govt. should direct him to wave his pretensions, he & Mrs. M. would with the greatest readiness & pleasure return fully into society. It was obvious to remark that the usage to which he demurred could not be presumed to be unknown to his Govt. as it had a Chargé here the whole time who was a frequent witness of it; but I thought it not prudent to put him too much in the wrong, especially as it would have implicated more than was necessary Mr Thornton. It was equally obvious to remark that change of this nature could hardly be deemed of such importance as to require the sanction of his Govt. for acquiescing in it, but this also was omitted for a like reason, tho’ it might have been enforced by another British example, Ld. Hawksbury, in handing Ladies to dinner, having innovated it seems on the practice of Ld. Grenville, according to which the Ladies went to dinner in mass before the men. When I mentioned the pêle mêle which would hereafter prevail, he dwelt with some sensibility on his being put on a level with a Chargé, rehearsing the subordinations which in the latter character, he had himself experienced. He returned to this mortifying effect of the d[e]cision of the President more than once; and as one to which he should be obliged particularly to draw the attention of his Govt. I could not help suspecting that he had Pichon particularly in view, and that he may possibly resolve the decision in some degree into a partiality towards France, than which nothing can be more remote from the fact; or even common sense. I told him that it was not to be understood that the President meant to interfere in the least with the rules of intercourse amg foreign ministers, but only to decline distinctions of rank so far as the officers of the Govt. &c. were to be in intercourse with them, and that in so doing he consulted what he supposed best suited the state of things here. The truth was I told him that there had not yet been time for our young Govt. to have very fixt usages, that those which had prevailed had probably taken place without much thought or enquiry, & that the reflections which had grown out of the incidents since his arrival, had been d[e]cisively in favor of a plan which would relieve us from the task of comparing the pretensions of foreign & domestic functionaries, of one foreign functionary & another, and of one foreign nation & another when their Ministers were of the same grade, and again of a minister of a lower grade from a more important nation, with a minister of a higher grade from a less important nation. Questions of this sort were known to have been endless in Europe, to have been sources of the most serious and scandalous consequences, and were many of them unsettled to this day. It was not to be expected that we should willingly enter into such a labyrinth. Our wisest course would be to keep as far from it as possible. The conversation ended with repetitions on his part of the impressions which had been made on him, of the decision he had formed, of the readiness with which he should conform to our ideas if so instructed, and with assurances that the suspense in which he must remain, should in no respect influence the most free candid & cordial intercourse of business. The concluding observations on my part were intended to satisfy him of the good dispositions we felt towards his nation as well as towards him personally, and of the sincerity of our wishes to see perfect harmony established in all lesser as well as weightier matters, depending. What complexion this nonsense may wear in his representations, I can not precisely judge. I am apprehensive that in his own justification, they must tend to beget suspicions in the British Govt. that he has been treated with intentional disrespect. This is so far from being true, that a marked attention was meant to be shewn. Every consideration suggested it. The good understanding between the two Countries, The favorable dispositions of the present British administration towards this Country, the interest we have in shunning not only the reality, but the suspicion of being prejudiced agst. G. B. the personal character enjoyed by Mr. M, and the hope that his candor & good sense would promote the objects we have in view, which altho friendly to his country as well as ours have not yet been seen by the latter in a just light. With regard to myself I felt the additional motive of your cordial introduction of them; and in order to shew the effect of [sic], invited them to a social dinner a few days after the more formal one. What had passed at the latter however had spoilt the broth at the next. Mr. Merry indeed came, but with an excuse from his lady altho’ the day had been arranged with her.
I blush at having put so much trash on paper. If it admits any excuse to you or myself, it must be that it may possibly furnish you with the means for guarding the better agst. serious inferences from the frivolous circumstances detailed. I shall not only forgive but congratulate myself, if it should enable you to get Mr. M. on a footing that will keep him among us; for I really think favorably of him as a medium of conciliatory & useful communication with his Govt. I should think still more favorably of him, if the ground taken by him on this occasion did not exhibit his character in rather a diminished stature. I make great allowances how ever for extraneous influences. Adieu Yrs.
J. M.
I have written you a few lines to be shewn as authority if such be required for entering into negociation, which you need not shew if not required. The hurry in which the despatches were made up to catch the oppy. by Mr. B. has I fear left in some obscurity the duration contemplated for the arrangt. with G. B. That proposed by Mr. King was to be in force for five years. You need not be very nice on this point. Time is however so much our partizan, that it may not be well to lay ourselves under very durable obligations perhaps of any sort.

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); Tr (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC docketed by Monroe.

   For JM’s previous descriptions of this controversy and Merry’s report to his government, see JM to Rufus King, 18 Dec. 1803, n. 1 and JM to Monroe, 26 Dec. 1803, and n. 3.

   JM to Monroe, 16 Jan. 1804.

   Alexander Baring.

   For Rufus King’s proposed agreement with Great Britain regarding impressment, see King to JM, ca. 20 July 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:203–6).


Title: From James Madison to the Marqués de Someruelos, 19 January 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Someruelos, Marqués de

Sir,
Department of State January 19th. 1804
Mr. William Cook a citizen of the United States who is a great sufferer by a decision of Mr. Viguri, late Intendant at Havana, has informed me from thence that he has expectations of obtaining relief thro’ a reversal of that Intendants proceedings by a Tribunal ordered by His Catholic Majesty to be organized with powers competent to review the decision complained of. Satisfied of the benefit to be derived in his pursuit of justice from your favorable interposition and countenance, I take the liberty of asking them in his behalf as far as may comport with the attributes of your official station: and I avail myself of this opportunity of tendering to your Excellency assurances of the distinguished consideration with which I have the honor to be your Excellencys most Ob Sert.
James Madison

   RC (AGI: Outgoing Papers from Cuba, vol. 1660); FC and Tr (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 316, Spain, Treaty of 1819 [Article XI] [Spoliation], Disallowed Claims, vol. 47); Tr (ibid., envelope 62B); Tr (AGI: Outgoing Papers from Cuba, vol. 1660). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM. FC is a letterpress copy of RC; marked duplicate. Last Tr in Spanish.

   See Cooke to JM, 27 Nov. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:277 and n. 1).

   JM sent a nearly identical letter of the same date, in which his letter to Someruelos may have been enclosed, to Yrujo (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14; 2 pp.). On 23 Jan. 1804 Yrujo replied that as he was ignorant of the damages Cooke had suffered and had received no news of the tribunal, he could intervene in no other way than to make known the interest that JM took in a successful outcome to the case (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Spain, vol. 2; 1 p.; docketed by Wagner).


Title: To James Madison from Ebenezer Stevens, 19 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Stevens, Ebenezer
To: Madison, James

19 January 1804, New York. “I have the honor of handing you herewith the award Given in favor of Mr. Daniel Cotton, by Mr. Samuel Ward & Arch. Gracie, Arbitrators appointed for the purpose of naming the allowance, that Would be proper for him to receive, as additional freight on the knees. per. Anna Maria, The sum you will observe to be, by the Same is Twelve Hundred & Eighty eight dollars. Mr. Gracie was the gentleman appointed by me on the part of the United States. I observe’d to Mr. Cotton that You would probably give me authority to draw in his favor, on the purveyor, for Amt. of the Same, He had begged that I would solicit your early attention to the same.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, ML). RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   Stevens enclosed Ward and Gracie’s 17 Jan. 1804 report (1 p.), to which they attached the certificate of Charles Browne and Foreman Cheeseman (not found), illustrating the principles on which they founded their decision. For earlier correspondence on Cotton’s case, see Stevens to JM, 18 July 1803, and JM to Stevens, 28 June 1802 and 1 Aug. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:347 and n. 1, 5:197 and nn., 257 and nn.).


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Appleton, 20 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Appleton, Thomas
To: Madison, James

20 January 1804, Leghorn. Encloses a list of American ships sailing from Leghorn during the past six months together with an account of funds advanced to distressed seamen and of postage for public letters amounting to $222.00, for which he has drawn on the State Department in favor of merchant Samuel Emery of Philadelphia. The difference in expenses for seamen between 1803 and 1802 shows the “salutary effect” of the law banning the discharging of sailors by masters. This law “prevents innumerable disorders which resulted heretofore from men being abandoned in foreign countries.”

Mentioned in his 29 Aug. dispatch having remonstrated against the illegal burdens imposed on U.S. commerce by the French commander at Leghorn and his interviews at Florence with royal ministers and with French ambassador Clarke. The queen regent assured him she would immediately inform Napoleon that the power the commander exercised in Leghorn “was not only derogatory to her personal dignity, but equally injurious to the principal sources of her revenues.” Couriers were dispatched to Paris that same day; the general has been recalled, “and the whole administration of Commerce is again thrown into the hands of those who heretofore exercised that authority.” “Every species of imposition that avarice could invent, was laid on trade which in conjunction with the evils Naturally Attendant on War, had well-nigh reduced the Port, to be a resort merely for Coasting Vessels. As I am the single consul who addressed her Majesty on the Vexations of the General (through the direct medium of the prime minister) so it is generally Conceived I have been a principal mean in restoring the liberty of the Port. The british have not blockaded our port, nor can I learn that any american Vessels have been molested, even when they were known to be bound to it. The brig Boston Still remains here; for no decision has been pronounced by the Tribunal of prizes at Paris, on the Appeal that was made by what they So improperly Call the Captors: for this Arrestation was not only Contrary to the very letter of the 14th. Article of the Commercial treaty with france, but also violated the priviledges of the Port, at the entrance of which it took place.” The matter falls under the authority of Skipwith, who will attend to it.
Has heard that the Tripolitans have floated the Philadelphia “and that they Are now repairing her by the very hands of our unfortunate countrymen—tho’ I presume the⟨y⟩ will not send this Ship to Sea, while they fear She may meet an equal force, yet She will be a Constant terror to our armed Brigs and schooners when unprotected.” “Como. Preble by our latest accounts was at Syracuse. I have advised all the foreign Consuls in Italy of the blockade of Tripoli; but I am inclined to think it is of little avail.” No political events worthy of notice have occurred “except the treaty lately entered into between His Holiness the Pope, and the President of the italian republick.”
“In the 4th. Article the sole power of Appointing Archbishops and Bishops, is in the hands of the first Consul as President of the republick—in the 11th. Art. the hospitals, Charity: houses and all Similar institutions, heretofore administered by eclesiastics, and named by the Pope, will in future be directed by an equal number of laicks and eclesiasticks. The President shall appoint both.
“In the 16h. Arte. His Holiness Confirms all the Sales of church: lands which have been made by the republick—in the 19th. Arte. he acknowledges in the President the Same rights and priviledges, as were heretofore invested in the Emperor, as Duke of Milan—the remaining articles turn on matters of little general import.”
“Lucian Bonaparte is now at Naples, and it is with Confidence Asserted, that he has demanded of the King permission to garrison the City. Should this be the truth, we may very reasonably conclude, that it is the intention of the french government to send a force likewise into Sicily, to prevent the british from taking possession of the island, which they indisputably would Attempt, when One part of the Kingdom Should be invaded.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Leghorn, vol. 1). 6 pp.; docketed by Brent. Enclosures not found.

   For Appleton’s expenditures for distressed seamen in 1802, see Appleton to JM, 8 July 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:152–53). For the act regarding distressed seamen, see ibid., 4:520 n. 2.

   Ibid., 5:354.

   For the case of the Boston, see Appleton to JM, 8 July 1803 (ibid., 5:152–53 and n. 1).

   Article 14 of the Convention of 1800 decreed that free ships made free goods “and that every thing shall be deemed to be free, and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the citizens of either of the contracting parties” (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:468).

   For Napoleon’s selection as president of the Italian Republic, see Rufus King to JM, 27 Feb. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:496 and n. 1). The concordat between the papacy and the Italian Republic signed on 16 Sept. 1803 was modeled on the concordat of 1801 with France. Many of the rights it restored to the church were largely negated by Vice President Melzi’s decree of state control in religious affairs (Roger Aubert et al., The Church between Revolution and Restoration, trans. Peter Becker, vol. 7 of History of the Church, ed. Hubert Jedin and John Dolan [New York, 1981], pp. 55–58, 77).


Title: To James Madison from James Leander Cathcart, 20 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Cathcart, James Leander
To: Madison, James

20 January 1804, Leghorn. Has drawn on JM for $5,250 in favor of Anthony Dugan for $5,000 cash received from Dugan at 5 percent discount, “said sum to be applied for the relief of the Officers & crew of the United States (late) Frigate the Philadelphia now in Captivity in Tripoli, which I request you to honor & have placed to my acct: until final settlement.”
“Mr: Dugan acting as Agent for his friends who have directed him to make his remitances to London direct, does not think himself justifiable in placing them on a worse footing than they would be were he to follow their directions implicitly & consequently has exacted from me security for 20 ⅌C. damages should the bills return protested; as I am under no apprehension that any such thing can possibly take place; I merely mention the circumstance because it has been unprecedented, in the numerous negociations which I have made since I have been employ’d in foreign parts.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tripoli, vol. 2). First RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 19 May. Second RC docketed by Wagner as received in Cathcart’s 1 Feb. 1804 dispatch.


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Pulis, 20 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Pulis, Joseph
To: Madison, James

20 January 1804, Malta. Encloses a report of U.S. vessels that arrived at Malta from July to the end of December 1803 [not found]. When Preble captured a ship passing from Tripoli to Benghazi that he planned to take to Syracuse, he directed Pulis to go there also in order to examine the papers and passengers of the prize. News of the length of the quarantine caused Preble to decide to come to Malta, where the papers could be translated. Wishes to inform JM that before his departure from Malta, Bainbridge left with Pulis some naval stores belonging to the Philadelphia, but Preble took them to Syracuse for the use of the squadron. Also informs JM of the exposition made in his presence to Preble by Salvatore Busuttil, the agent of Hamet Qaramanli, who stated that Hamet would shortly go to [Derna] to take up the reins of government there. His brother, Yusuf Qaramanli, the present pasha, knowing that many Arabs are of Hamet’s party and fearing an attack because of his usurpation of the regency, dispatched troops by land and cruisers by sea, but Hamet escaped and, being unable to sustain a long defense for lack of money, fled to Alexandria. Busuttil assured Preble on behalf of Hamet that if the U.S. would assist him, he would go to [Derna], gather his forces there, and with Preble’s aid at sea, return Tripoli to its legitimate sovereign. During his stay at Malta, Hamet assured Pulis of his long-standing friendship and in their several conversations gave Pulis to understand that with some help from the U.S. he would subjugate Tripoli and maintain an eternal peace with his protectors. Pulis believes that the U.S. should take the matter under consideration. Was extremely surprised to learn that Gavino had sent to Malta a consignment of provisions for the U.S. Navy from an Englishman, since he knew that Pulis and his warehouses were always at his service. Promises that if he can be of service to the U.S., he will follow exactly any orders committed to him.

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Malta, vol. 1). First RC 3 pp.; in French; marked “Copie”; docketed by Wagner as received 4 Apr. Second RC dated 24 Jan. 1804; docketed by Wagner as received 4 May.

   For Preble’s 23 Dec. 1803 capture of the Mastico, see Preble to Pulis, 28 Dec. 1803, and Preble to Robert Smith, 17 Jan. 1804 (printed in Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 3:300, 337–40).

   For Bainbridge’s deposit of naval stores at Malta, see Bainbridge to Preble, 4 Oct. 1803 (printed ibid., 3:103–4).

   For Busuttil’s statements to Preble, see Preble to Smith, 17 Jan. 1804 (printed ibid., 3:337–40).

   For Gavino’s consignment of U.S. goods to William Higgins, see Pulis to Preble, 26 Nov. 1803 (printed ibid., 3:236–37).


Title: To James Madison from Turrell Tufts, 20 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Tufts, Turrell
To: Madison, James

20 January 1804, Surinam. “Lately I have had the Honor to address you several times on account of this Government’s forcing condemned Criminals on board our Vessels.” Was told by Commissary General [Berranger] at their first interview “that he had express instructions” from his government not to recognize Tufts as U.S. consul. Informed JM in his last that Capt. Daniel Gould of the William and Charles cut mate Samuel Beckett’s throat with a razor “two hours before their arrival in this River.” “I examined all the people seperately and all their evidence tends to establish the opinion, which from the circumstances I had previously formed, that ‘Gould was deranged in his mind.’” On Tufts’s application Gould was imprisoned and placed in the care of the surgeon of the public hospital. “On reflecting upon the affair—I thought it not proper to allow the Capt & mate to return in the same Vessel. I therefore applied to several masters; all refused, one excepted, Vis Capt Abn Waters of Boston, who offered to deliver Gould in Boston for Two Hundred Dollars.” Notified Berranger’s secretary of his need for an order to have Gould sent on board. “Two hours after I received a Note, a copy of which is inclosed.” His broker says Berranger stated “in the presence of a number of people, that he knew of no Consul in the Colony & intimated that Capt Gould would be tried here.” “Thus sir, you see the manner in which our Countrymen are treated by the Govt of this Colony. Capt Gould was, when he committed the act—insane—there is no doubt of it. If he is tried here, Two thousand Dollars will not pay the Cost—and a fair tryal will not be had. There is not the least reason, or plea, that he should be subjected to the Laws of this Colony, as the Deed was done at Sea and on board an Amer: Vessel of which he was master.” Expects that Berranger will also refuse the vessel a passport to return to the U.S. “and that in consequence of delay the whole property will be lost, and the lives of the people heedlessly jeoparded.”
“What shall I do? There can be no necessity of my urging You to instruct me on these subjects. It is too manifest.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paramaribo, vol. 1). 3 pp. Enclosures not found.

   Tufts referred to his letter to JM of 15 Jan. 1804.


Title: To James Madison from Matthew Lyon, 21 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Lyon, Matthew
To: Madison, James

21 January 1804, Washington. “The inclosed is a letter from Mr Dinmore which I intended to have laid before you in the conversation yesterday on the subject to which it referrs.” Presumes JM will pardon his “Officiousness in reviveing that subject by sending the letter for your Consideration.”

   RC and enclosure (DLC). RC 1 p. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   The enclosure is Richard Dinmore to Lyon, 13 Jan. 1804 (1 p.; misdated 1803), reminding Lyon that the Alexandria Expositor had sustained a loss the previous year and stating that he could not bear another such loss. In reply to Lyon’s earlier inquiry why Dinmore did not apply to JM for publication of the laws, Dinmore stated that he had applied to JM once: “Mr Madisons then opinion was that he could not concede to me that favor, because the Law which requires their publication, then appeared to him, to confine that Publication to States. I suspect however the Secy of State, has since altered his then opinion, inasmuch as Mr. Smith told me some time since that he had received, for the publication of the Laws of the U. S. during the last winter in the National Intelligencer 97$.” Dinmore added that if Lyon’s friendship could obtain that sum for him, he would be obliged. For Dinmore’s earlier correspondence with JM regarding publication of the laws, see James Lyon and Richard Dinmore to JM, 21 Apr. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:150 and n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from Richard H. Wilcocks, 21 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Wilcocks, Richard H.
To: Madison, James

21 January 1804, Philadelphia. Has determined to go to St. Croix “in the course of the ensuing Spring” and wishes to obtain the appointment as consul general to that and the neighboring islands possessed by Denmark, as the post “became vacant by the resignation of Mr. Henry Cooper.” Asks JM to present his application to the president. Can easily obtain a general recommendation from the commercial community of Philadelphia should that be deemed necessary. “It was my intention to have paid my Personal respects to the President and yourself but having understood from Mr Dallas that he intends setting out on monday for Washington and he having expressed himself kindly towards my application I have thought my presence would be unnecessary and avail myself with great pleasure to forward this letter to you by that Gentleman.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Wilcocks”). 2 pp.; docketed by Jefferson: “Wilcocks Richd H. to mr Madison. to be Consul St. Croix / a red hot Federalist, young & wild.”

   Pennsylvanian Henry Cooper, appointed consul at St. Croix in 1793, formally submitted his resignation in December 1802; when no successor was named, he continued to serve until he retired to Europe in late 1805. Wilcocks withdrew his application for the post in February 1805, recommending instead Cooper’s own choice, Edward Dewhurst, who was nominated on 11 Dec. 1804 but rejected by the Senate. Thomas Gamble of Pennsylvania was finally appointed in February 1807 (Senate Exec. ProceedingsJournal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America (3 vols.; Washington, 1828)., 1:130–31, 476, 479, 2:49, 53; Cooper to JM, 18 Dec. 1802 and 7 Nov. 1806 [DNA: RG 59, CD, St. Croix, vol. 1]; Wilcocks to JM, 23 Feb. 1805 [DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Dewhurst”]).

   On 23 Jan. 1804 Thomas FitzSimons wrote JM supporting Wilcocks’s appointment, noting that he was the son of the late John Wilcocks of Philadelphia (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Wilcocks”; 1 p.). On 7 Feb. 1804 Samuel Smith also wrote JM supporting Wilcocks’s application, commenting that “The politicks of his family have not been Such as we respect, but never Violent” (ibid.; 1 p.; docketed by Jefferson).


Title: To James Madison from Turrell Tufts, 22 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Tufts, Turrell
To: Madison, James

22 January 1804, Paramaribo. “My several Letters to you will inform of some violent & disgraceful impositions lately practiced here upon our Vessels by the Governt. of this Colony.” Now recapitulates them: “I do it that you may get hold of the masters of the Vessels who are the subjects of the impositions; because I suspect, that on their arrival in the United States, they will fear to make a report of them—least they should be liable to the revenge of this Govt. on a future voyage.
“William Wyman master of the Schooner Ann of Boston, owned by Enoch James & others, came before me & made a solemn declaration, that His Excelly Peiter Berranger the Commissary General has forced upon his Vessel—a Person by the name of Desterno—banished out of this Colony for some Crime. John Fletcher of the Schooner Charles owned by William Dia⟨s⟩ of Phila. has also done the same—in respect to a Person named Moor Rosier—& Abraham Waters master of the Schr William of Boston—owned by Mess Winthrops of Cambridge—has also done the same in respect to a person named M. C. Praff. All these masters have taken Copies of their declarations, and I shall forward Copies to your Office—as soon as possible.” Has been told that this is an old practice but notes that vessels of no other country are so treated. “I am also informed by some masters of Vessels—that the same thing is Practiced in Demrary—and that it has never been made public for reasons above mentioned.” Berranger has refused to recognize Tufts as consul for the U.S., but “he would allow me to act as Agent were I particularly instructed on the subject.” “Is it possible to submit to such ignominious impositions—&c from a Petty Colony—which has been reared by the fostering care of the US. A. even from its first existence, and whose very being yet depends on the continuance of our Good will? I know it is far from the real policy of the US to take any foreign Colony under its protection. But I assure you that the People would immediately surrender it, were the demand to be made. I only mention this circumstance to impress on your mind—the consciousness of the People—that it is only to the US they can look for, or expect support.” Asks in a postscript that his letter not be made public: “were its contents known—I should suffer for it.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paramaribo, vol. 1). 3 pp.; addressed “via Baltimore Sch: Good Intent”; docketed by Wagner.


Title: To James Madison from John Martin Baker, 23 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Baker, John Martin
To: Madison, James

23 January 1804, Palma. Last wrote on 13 Jan. reporting the capture of a U.S. frigate. Now regretfully confirms this report and encloses an extract from a letter from his correspondents at Barcelona. Is happy to see that the officers and men will not be ill-treated “and that they have the promise of a friend, as far as in his power in the Danish Consul Mr. Nissen.” Offers his own assistance in any way in which he may be considered useful. Is happy to report that the last accounts from Málaga indicate that the fever has ceased and that 18 Dec. was named “a day of thanksgiving and illumination.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, Port Mahon, vol. 1). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 2 Apr. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   Baker enclosed a translated extract from a letter dated 14 Dec. 1803 from J. C. Ulrich at Leghorn (1 p.) stating that news had been received in a 2 Nov. letter from Danish consul Nissen at Tripoli, sent by way of Malta and Naples, that the Philadelphia had “run upon a sand bank” and been forced to surrender after putting up a fight against the Tripolitans. The 307 seamen and 25 officers were taken into the town, where the officers were allowed to live in the American consular house. Nissen had offered to assist them “as much as in his power.”


Title: To James Madison from the House of Representatives, 23 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: House of Representatives
To: Madison, James

23 January 1804. “Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to lay before this House, the documents and papers deposited in his Office by the South Carolina Yazoo Company, and the Virginia Yazoo Company, in support of their claims to public lands; and that the Clerk of this House do return the said documents and papers to the Office of the Secretary of State when the House shall have decided upon the memorials of the said Companies.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 1 p.; docketed by Wagner.

   JM replied to the Speaker of the House the next day, enclosing the requested documents (JM to Nathaniel Macon, 24 Jan. 1804 [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14; 1 p.; DNA: RG 233, Reports and Communications Submitted to the House, 8A-E1; 1 p.]). This letter and its enclosures were laid before the House on 25 Jan. After debating the issue, the House resolved to postpone further consideration of the disposition of the Georgia lands until the first Monday of November 1804 (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 944, 1099–1122, 1170). A note filed in the records of the House of Representatives at the National Archives states: “On the 25th of January 1804, the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the House of Representatives, accompanied with sundry documents and papers which have been deposited in his office by the South Carolina and Virginia Yazoo Companies, in support of their claims to public lands.… Note … This report is … mislaid” (DNA: RG 233, Records of Reports from Executive Departments, 5C-B1, p. 230).


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, 24 January 1804
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Madrid 24 of January 1804.
I informed you in my last that having received your Dispatch of the 8th, November, & not hearing a single word from Mr. Monroe, I had communicated to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cevallos) the Ratification & exchange of Treaties, to which he replied in the manner mentioned in his Letter heretofore sent you, & of which a Duplicate is now inclosed. In consequence of his Letter & of yours of the 8th. November, I considered it my duty to see the French Ambassador as I have already informed you, who, in pursuance of Instructions from his Government, remonstrated strongly against the objections & Language said to have been held by the Marquis de Yrujo, and received from the Prince of Peace the most positive & unequivocal assurances that Louisiana would be quietly delivered to the French according to Treaty. I then saw the Prince of Peace myself, & hastened to transmit you the intelligence the same day by the Route of Lisbon. I have not yet seen the Protest said to have been made by the Marquis de Yrujo, nor the Treaty ceding Louisiana, nor can I hear where they are to be met with. In consequence however of the ticklish and critical state of things between England and Spain and well knowing that whenever Spain was convinced a war was inevitable She would prefer selling Florida to us to its falling as it must without an opposition into the hands of the British. I have considered it as proper to have many private conferences lately with the french embassador whose influence here (as you may suppose) is very great and the interest of whose nation it is that Florida Should never be occupied by their implacable foe. He informed me that his instructions were to give every aid to its coming into our hands—that things were extremely critical between England and Spain—that it was impossible to say what would be the result as the British Minister here was threatening this government exceedingly for making remitances of cash to Paris. That as I mentioned to you in my last—He had gone so far as to threaten to leave the country and that the prince of peace had strongly & firmly replied—he was free to do as he pleased—that in short he (“the french embassador”) had no doubt that the moment Spain was certain of war with England She would sell us the Floridas—indeed he went on to say, make yourselves easy on the Subject, Florida must and will be yours.
Hearing through Channels I could not doubt that Mr. Monroe was at present importantly occupied in forming new Commercial Arrangements with England—that it was uncertain whether he would come or not before Spring, particularly if at all embarrassed in his present negociations—I considered it my duty to write the Prince of Peace the inclosed Letter, (No. 1). Finding the situation of things becoming every day apparently more favorable to our views I proceeded to write the Letter (No. 2.) & then had an interview with him on Thursday, as he is the prime minister and mover here in every thing that is important. In this interview I pressed upon him every thing that is stated in these Letters, and in all my former communications upon these subjects, on which I have written Volumes to him, & added in the strongest terms the certainty of the loss of florida in case of a war with England and the policy of their now saving it by making it the means of settling all their differences with us, & of rivetting the affection of our Government & Countrymen in a manner not easily to be weakened hereafter. I stated to him our force, the extent of our Commerce & Commercial Marine, now fast treading on the heels of even England—that She & France well knew our importance, & were each anxious to keep us out of the others Scale—that any Disputes or serious differences between Spain & us, would be extremely embarrassing to France, as it was her Interest to see us friends, while England would rejoice at an event which she would consider as drawing after it in its consequences a Rupture between France & us—that Spain would get nothing by it, for could Great Britain but once see us fairly engaged, she would immediately strike at Spain also, and then the consequences would ensue, which I had so often detailed to him & Mr. Cevallos of an Union of force between England & the United States—that he well knew the innocence & Justice of our Government, & that it was neither their wish or mine to deceive him—that our requests & demands were honorable, & such as we had a right to expect & insist upon—that the Territories of His Majesty were so extensive & valuable in all parts of the world, & Florida of so little consequence either from its fertility or Population, that I was confident upon a cool & deliberate examination of the subject, he would of himself come forward & make me some propositions for the general arrangement of all our Concerns. He conversed much with me upon the subject, said he had stated the whole to His Majesty & asked me whether I would be at Aranjuez, the Sitio where the King now is, or in Madrid—to which I replied, “that I would make a point of being whereever he or Mr. Cevallos pleased, and in the way to hear & receive any propositions he thought proper to make.” He said, all official Communications would naturally come through the Secretary of State, from whom I would hear. I could not get any thing positive from him, but he appeared in this interview to attend very much to what I said—to be uncommonly serious and to hear of the cession of florida with less repugnance than formerly. In order to afford him every information respecting our Country, that I thought would give him a favorable impression of us, I had the President’s message translated into Spanish, & gave it to him, for which he was very thankful, & expressed his highest approbation of the wise, honorable & moderate Principles and opinions it contained in every part of it. I shall continue to have very frequent interviews with the french embassador and him as I begin now to be hopeful that all will yet end well. We must be moderate and patient—the game we are playing is not a trifling one and appears now to be more within our reach than ever. When I first arrived here, I found Spain at peace. She had lost but little by the War, and thinking the Peace likely to last, she was by no means content to acquiesce in our demands however just: she promised fair but whenever brought to the point flew off and endeavors to explain away. I obtained an agreement to arbitrate the losses arising from the Acts of Spaniards, but whatever she said or wrote the fact was, she never hitherto would consent to arbitrate the french Condemnations. The pains she took to ransack the United States for Lawyer’s opinions in support of her refusal must convince you of her anxiety & determination on this point. The truth was she was determined never to arbitrate them and those Lawyers opinions have strengthened her opinion that She ought not—the approaching war will probably render her a little more supple and the mixing the whole together in one general arrangemen⟨t⟩ will afford her pride (of which she has at least as much as her Situation entitles her to) an excellent opportunity to close it without appearing to yield from necessity. In order to be ready at a moments warning to seize circumstances as they occur I am preparing such an arrangement as will consistently with your Instructions embrace every thing. The french embassador has frequently repeated to me what I knew at the time that he came expressly hither from france to obtain the floridas for her at any rate that among other things he was directed to offer the dutchy of Parma in exchange and seemd to hint that it was owing to us who were then trying to make the same purchase that he had not got it—that had france retained louisiana from the extent of the sea coast, number of good harbours and the excellent situation of florida she would have been very anxious to possess it. I well knew we had been the means of Spain not parting with it to france; but as things were changed and we are now anxious to have their aid in procuring it I considered it as best to be silent and to urge his warm and active exertion in preparing and persuading Spain to do so. I have also writen to Mr Livingston to urge the french government to pursue & continue unremittingly their instructions to their ⟨e⟩mbassador here on this subject. I inclose you for your private inspection a copy of a Letter I wrote Mr. Livingston on the … of December. since which I have not heard from him. On perusing the inclosed Letters, those before sent, & a review of the whole business, I trust you will be convinced every thing has been done here that was possible to promote the views of our Government. The part we have to act in time of peace is a difficult one: their government is haughty, slow in its movements and extremely jealous and afraid of the United States. They suspect us of things of which I am sure we have not the most distant idea they think we look with a wishful eye to their rich but feeble dominions now in our neighborhood and this jealousy of us it has hitherto been the policy of other nations to increase and inflame. I have constantly done every thing in my power to remove it, & convince them of our Justice & Love of Peace. I shall continue to do so, and am sure the moment the war commences, our affairs here will become ⟨be⟩tter. I must however repeat to you my apprehension that the sum you have limited will be considered as too small after they have refused to exchange it for Parma and after they have seen the sum given for Louisiana and particularly if they have seen the report a committee of Congress lately published and a wo[r]k or preface to a work of Mr Ellicott on the same subject which I have heared of but have not seen. I fear the sum you mention will not be thought an equivalent: of this however you are the best Judge. I wrote you before, that it was important to know what was your opinion as to the limits of the new purchase.
I had made the application directed respecting the navigation of the Mobile, a copy of which I sent you, and had conferences with the Minister on the subject, in pursuance of your instructions. Upon, however, receiving an official Letter from Mr. Livingston & Mr. Monroe, informing me they considered West Florida as included in their purchase, I considered it as proper to say nothing farther on the subject of the Mobile until I heared from you, or Mr. Monroe arrived. I inclose you my letter to the Minister, stating the manner in which I had made the application.
In pursuance of what I mentioned in my last I applied to the Ambassadour of France & the Ministers of England & Denmark & Encargado of Sweden to write to their Consuls in Tripoli to use their influence to have Our Countrymen as well treated as possible & at the same time I requested the Ambassadour of France to authorise the French Consul to advance Two or Three thousand Dollars to procure some necessaries for them, if he found it requisite on Enquiry from Captain Baimbridge & the Officers. I wrote at the same time to Colonel Lear to inform him, that I had made this attempt to get a little money to them, in aid of his Exertions or in case of an accident to them & to request him to write me whenever he thought I could be useful to him on this or any other account & that although I was not authorised I was sure our Government would approve any thing that could be done to alleviate the sufferings of our brave but unfortunate Countrymen. I inclose you such letters &c. as I have since recieved respecting this unexpected & disagreeable Event.
The intelligence I sent you respecting the intention of this Government to order five Regiments to America consisting of six or eight thousand troops may still be repeated. It is said to be only a measure of precaution—that part of them are for Cuba—it is however doubted whether they will yet go at all & whether the English will permit them. The Packet Boat the Marquis de Yrujo dispatched express to the Government here had not returned at the date of my last letter from Cadiz but was expected soon to do so. We are anxiously waiting to hear from You here & to Know how things have gone at Orleans. I shall write again the next week & in the interim requesting you to present my affectionate respects to the President & compliments to our other friends I remain with sincere regard & Esteem Dear Sir Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney

   RC, two copies, and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 6A); enclosure (DLC). First RC in a clerk’s hand, except as noted (see n. 17, below), signed by Pinckney. Italicized words are those encoded by Pinckney’s secretary and decoded interlinearly by Wagner; key not found. Second RC dated 23 Jan. 1804; in a clerk’s hand, except as noted (see n. 15, below), signed by Pinckney; marked triplicate. Also filed with the dispatch is a three-page Ms headed “Pinckneys letter of Jany 24th 1804 decyphered.” and consisting of the coded passages decoded in the hand of Daniel Brent. For surviving enclosures, see nn. 3, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 19.

   Letter not found, but see n. 5, below.

   See JM to Livingston, 9 Nov. 1803, and n.

   Pinckney enclosed a copy of Cevallos to Pinckney, 31 Dec. 1803 (2 pp.; in Spanish; docketed by Wagner as enclosed in Pinckney’s 24 Jan. 1804 dispatch; partially translated interlinearly by Wagner), in reply to Pinckney’s letter of 24 Dec. 1803. Cevallos said that he could add nothing to what he had stated to Pinckney and to what Yrujo had told the U.S. government concerning Spanish objections to the sale of Louisiana made by France after Napoleon had promised never to sell it Pinckney’s 24 Dec. 1803 letter has not been found, but a possible copy may be the undated, unaddressed, unsigned letter marked “(Duplicate.)” (4 pp.) filed following Pinckney to JM, 22 Feb. 1804 (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 6A), which refutes Spanish objections to the transfer of Louisiana to the U.S.

   See Pinckney to JM, 10 Jan. 1804. Filed with Pinckney’s 24 Jan. dispatch is a copy of Beurnonville to Pinckney, 17 Prairial an XI (6 June 1803) (2 pp.; in French), replying to Pinckney’s request for his aid in facilitating Spanish ratification of the Convention of 1802. Beurnonville asked to be informed of the contents of the convention, adding that he desired only harmony between the U.S. and Spain.

   Letter not found, but it was probably dated 12 Jan. 1804. In his 10 Jan. 1804 dispatch, which is his latest surviving letter, Pinckney mentions having an interview scheduled with Godoy for the following Thursday (12 Jan. 1804).

   Pinckney no doubt referred to the missing dispatch mentioned in n. 5, above. His 10 Jan. 1804 dispatch contains no report of John Hookham Frere’s threat to leave Madrid.

   Pinckney enclosed a copy of his 30 Dec. 1803 letter to Godoy (4 pp.; docketed by Wagner as enclosed in Pinckney’s 24 Jan. 1804 dispatch) notifying Godoy of the ratification of the Louisiana Purchase treaty and enclosing a copy of Hawkesbury to Rufus King approving the cession. He reiterated that when Monroe arrived they would jointly negotiate for Florida. He enclosed a copy of Jefferson’s message at the opening of Congress and referred Godoy to his previous arguments why Spain should pay U.S. claims and cede Florida to the U.S.

   Pinckney enclosed a copy of his 11 Jan. 1804 letter to Cevallos (7 pp.; marked “Number 2”; a note on the verso in Pinckney’s hand reads: “A Copy of this was also delivered to the Prince of Peace”; docketed by Wagner as enclosed in Pinckney’s 24 Jan. 1804 dispatch; printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:616–17), in which he reported that Congress had passed laws enabling the U.S. to possess and govern Louisiana and that Claiborne and Wilkinson had been appointed as commissioners. He repeated the history of U.S. negotiations with Spain for Louisiana and gave reasons why Spain should not object to the cession. He asked Cevallos to present propositions dealing with the boundaries that would now exist between the U.S. and Spain. He argued that Spain should cede Florida to the U.S., pressed the issue of U.S. claims against Spain, and suggested submitting the claims to impartial arbitration, since the two countries could not agree on their validity.

   For the opinions of American lawyers on Spanish liability for French spoliations, see Pinckney to JM, 20 Nov. 1803, and n. 2 and Pinckney to JM, 2 Aug. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:260–69, 270 nn. 8 and 9).

   Ellipsis dots in RC. The enclosure was a copy of Pinckney to Livingston, 4 Dec. 1803, recapitulating the applications he had made to Spain for the cession of Florida; noting that the Spanish were “alarmed” at the cession of Louisiana to the U.S., as they disrelished U.S. proximity; commenting that with all its resources Spain would, under different rulers, play a greater part in European politics; and asking about the proposed invasion of Great Britain and Napoleon’s future war plans (DLC, filed at the end of 1804; 4 pp.; docketed: “[Private] / Copy of my Letter to Mr Livingston / Since this I have Written him again to send me a Copy of the Treaty he has between France & Spain made in 1762 or 3 first ceding Louisiana to Spain & for his proofs that the Perdigo or Perdido is or ought to be the real Boundary”).

   See Pinckney to JM, 12 Dec. 1803, and n. 5.

   In a 12 Feb. 1803 report, the committee to which was referred the original resolution appropriating funds for the purchase of New Orleans and East and West Florida stated, “West Florida is bounded on the North by the Mississippi Territory, from which it is separated by no natural boundary; on the East by the river Apalachicola which divides it from East Florida; on the West by the river Mississippi, and on the South by the Gulf of Mexico” (Report of the Committee, to Whom Was Referred on the 12th Ultimo, a Motion for Appropriation of Two Millions of Dollars, in Addition to the Sum Usually Appropriated, in Relation to the Intercourse between the United States and Foreign Nations [Washington, 1803; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 5471], pp. 6–7).

   In the preface to his journal, which was printed after the Louisiana Purchase, Andrew Ellicott stated, “It does not appear by the cession of Louisiana to the United States, that we obtain the whole of both sides of the Mississippi.” Ellicott suggested that since the transfer of Louisiana to the U.S. split the territories of Spain on the Gulf of Mexico and offered the U.S. only a very narrow outlet for the vast trade coming from the southern and western U.S. settlements, it would be better for the U.S. to offer Spain the Louisiana lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for the two Floridas. This, he stated, “would prevent the commerce of a large extent of our country lying between the Mississippi, and Chattahocha rivers being put in jeopardy by the future regulations, or directions, of any foreign power” (Journal of Andrew Ellicott [Philadelphia, 1803; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 4147], pp. vi–vii). For Ellicott’s description of the boundaries of Louisiana, see Yrujo to JM, 7 Mar. 1804.

   For Livingston and Monroe to Pinckney, 7 June 1803, informing Pinckney of their belief that West Florida was included in the Louisiana Purchase, see Monroe to JM, 20 July 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:206–11 and n. 9).

   The remainder of the second RC, written in Pinckney’s hand and dated 2 Feb. 1804, reads: “The intelligence I sent you in my two last is still sent me by so many different ways that I think it my duty to repeat that this Government have had it in intention to send out about five large & complete Regiments of their best Troops to America & one account is that these Troops are to be placed partly at Pensacola & partly at the River Bravo. I have had many conferences with the French Ambassadour & English Minister on this subject & am still hopeful that none will go, unless it may be some to relieve a part of the Garrison at the Havannah. While however the Troops are said to be under orders & may go to our Neighbourhood it is my duty to apprise You of it & this is the third time I have done so within the last fortnight. Some accounts say they are to go partly to Mexico & partly to Vera Cruz leaving some Detachments at Pensacola & the Havannah. But if they are suffered to go at all it is probable I shall know exactly where & inform you of it. The Prince of Peace says he knows nothing of these troops being under orders to embark & from this I am led to believe that whatever may have been their original intention it is probably now changed—but as this is not absolutely certain I send you the report as it stands at present. In about a fortnight more I shall be able I expect to send you some very important Intelligence respecting the future situation of Spain as it relates to the belligerent Powers” (italicized words are underlined in the RC).

   Pinckney enclosed a copy of his 1 Nov. 1802 application to Cevallos asking that U.S. citizens be allowed to navigate the Mobile River (2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received in Pinckney’s 24 Jan. 1804 dispatch). For a description of the letter, see John Graham to JM, 29 Nov. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:156, 158 n. 1).

   The remainder of the first RC is in Pinckney’s hand.

   Enclosures not found. For Pinckney’s earlier report of the loss of the Philadelphia, see Pinckney to JM, 10 Jan. 1804.

   Apparently enclosed with the second RC were copies of Pinckney to Cevallos, 24 Oct. 1803 (3 pp.; marked “Original & Duplicate Via Cadiz”; docketed by Wagner as enclosed in Pinckney’s 23 Jan. 1804 dispatch), arguing that U.S. citizens at Buenos Aires had not violated regulations forbidding foreign trade with Spanish colonies, and Cevallos to Pinckney, 5 Oct. 1803 (3 pp.; in Spanish; marked “(Triplicate)” and “Original sent Via Bourdeaux Duplicate Via Cadiz & this Via Lisbon”; docketed by Wagner as received in Pinckney’s 23 Jan. 1804 dispatch), stating the reasons why Spain did not consider itself obliged to pay for French spoliations. Filed with the enclosures is a copy of a letter (4 pp.; in Spanish; unsigned; undated; addressee not indicated) reporting the revival of the 13 July 1771 royal order rescinding permission for foreign warships to enter Spanish ports.


Title: To James Madison from Daniel Clark, 24 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Clark, Daniel
To: Madison, James

24 January 1804, New Orleans. “Since the arrival of our Commissioners in this City, when my functions as Consul ceased, by possession of the Province being given to them, I have forborn to write to you persuaded there would be no further need of any Communications from me, as they could be more satisfactorily made by them; but in Justification of my Conduct and in proof of what I have constantly asserted were the Views of the French Government and of the Prefect with respect to the U. S. had they once got firmly established here, I think it necessary to intrude once more on you and mention; that at an entertainment given to our Commissioners by Monsr Laussat he unreservedly inform’d Governor Claiborne, that Bonaparte previous to the departure of Genl. Victor from Paris had told him, that he might count on a War with Great Britain in less than 12 Months after his arrival in Louisiana, and that he must immediately after a knowledge of that Event take possession of Canada. When asked by the Governor how he was to get there, the reply was thro’ your Country. Our plan was to take Post on the Lakes and with this View we should have cantoned the major part of our Forces in upper Louisiana to have them always in readiness; he added that England had a right to half the Waters of these Lakes and there was no way of drawing a Line on the Water to separate the two Nations, and as England had a right to the navigation, she of necessity must be entitled to make use of the Shores for her safety, therefore France had a right to occupy them, and would have done so to dispossess the English without its being possible for the U. S. to prevent them. He alluded to a Conversation he held with Genl. Dayton who had represented to him the impossibility of our living on friendly terms with France if she possessed Louisiana, as she would attempt the dismemberment of our Country, and said he could not deny but such would be her Policy, that it was not however their fault but that of the Mountains which were the natural boundaries of the U. S. He further confessed his having mentioned his utter disbelief of the success of Mr. Munro’s mission ’till officially [sic] by his own Government, and said that had it not been for the situation of affairs in Europe, Mr. Munro would not have dared to propose the Cession of Louisiana to the U. S. even after his arrival in Paris. He boasted of the facility with which he could have defended this Country against all the Force of the U. S. had he only 7000 French Troops, and ridiculed the idea of our attempts to dispossess him, as he said we were unacquainted with grand Movements and unable to defray the Expences they would occasion, with many other remarks of a similar nature. I was surprised at these Communications as I knew no good purpose they could possibly answer, and for the truth of them refer you to the Governor himself who could not easily get over the impression they made on him. He came to this Country much prejudiced in favor of the Prefect, but I believe he is by this time very desirous of getting fairly rid of him, and convinced that the differences formerly subsisting between Laussat & myself did not proceed from any fault of mine, but from the violence and impetuosity of his temper which led him very frequently to speak of our Country and its Government in a manner so disrespectful as could not be born by a Person holding a Commission under it. As his Language and Conduct changed so did mine with respect to him, and in his despatches to Monsr. Pichon as well as in his Communications to our Commissioners & the public here, he has given ample testimony of the satisfaction he experienced in my cooperation and the assistance I afforded him, and I may even flatter myself that it contributed more than all his own measures to preserve good Order & tranquility during his short Administration. To our own Commissioners I have given every possible aid and assistance whenever it could be useful, and shall continue to do so while my Services can avail them. They have many difficulties ⟨to⟩ encounter and some of those which I have long foreseen now present themselves. On these subjects however as they do not regard me I shall be silent, but I take the Liberty to suggest to you the necessity of making some immediate regulations with respect to the Shipping owned by the Citizens of the Country, and having the Revenue System put in force here in the same manner as in the U. S., as the payment of duties on our Exports (especially to the U. S.) causes universal dissatisfaction, and the people complain that in this respect they are placed in a worse Situation than when subjects of Spain, for under her Government imports from thence and exports to the Mother Country paid no duty whatever & to her Colonies but 2 ⅌Ct. and imports from them nothing. They have an Idea that the Government of the U. S. having put itself in the place of Spain, imports from & exports to them should be free of duty; that it was so contemplated by our Government, but misunderstood by the Collector, and on these subjects a Petition has been forwarded throu⟨gh⟩ the Governor to Congress, which if attended to will produce a great effect, and the Sums to be returned will be trifling. The Collector has mentioned to me his intention of representing to the Secretary of the Treasury the propriety of complying with the wish of the People in this particular, and with your assistance I presume there would be no difficulty in accomplishing it. The Shipping belonging to the Port, formerly entitled to Spanish Registers are deprived of these documents, and not being hitherto furnished with American Papers are laid up to the Prejudice of their owners, who had they been inclined to emigrate to other Spanish Colonies, instead of remaining Citizens of the U. S. would have their Vessels employed and every favor and indulgence shewn them by the officers of the Spanish Government, and it is to be hoped this Conduct will not be productive of injury to them.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, New Orleans, vol. 1). 5 pp.; docketed by Wagner. Printed in American Historical Review 33 (1927–28): 358–59.

   For the differences between Clark and Laussat, see Claiborne to JM, 18 Nov. 1803 (first letter), and n. 2.

   For the petition of the local merchants, see Claiborne to JM, 17 Jan. 1804, and n. 3.


Title: To James Madison from William Willis, 24 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Willis, William
To: Madison, James

24 January 1804, Barcelona. “I am Still at a loss respecting your Esteem’d private letter of the 28th of May as I have not since heard any thing of the arrest you spoke off. It gave me much pain but I am in hopes that the truth has appeard and that my innocence is evident. I had an anonymous letter a little time before I received your sa[i]d letter which anonymous letter corresponded nearly with yours and which I shewd Mr Leonard who declard that the substance accorded with your Ideas expressd to him in person. But altho I did not take your advice I shall ever [r]emember with gratitude your good will to me. I was confident that time and a knowledge of the Character of my accusers would destroy any weight they could have had in fixing an opinion against me and that my innocence would one day appear. And if not I was ready to suffer as a child by the hand of a mistaken parent rather than abandon that parent.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Barcelona, vol. 1). 2 pp. Cover marked “Private.”

   See Willis to JM, 8 Nov. 1803, n. 1.


Title: To James Madison from Albert Gallatin, 25 January 1804
From: Gallatin, Albert
To: Madison, James

25th. Jany. 1804
The papers required by the resolution of the house are not those which might have been exhibited to the Commissioners, but those deposited in the office of the Secretary of State for the purpose of being recorded under the 8th. Sect. of the Act “regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the State of Tenessee” passed 3d March 1803. It having been provided by that section that the residue of five millions of acres, (which alone by the agreement with Georgia can be appropriated towards satisfying, quieting & compensating for claims not recognized in the sd. agreement) after satisfying certain claims provided for by the act, should be appropriated towards satisfying &a. such other claims not recognized by the agreement with Georgia and derived from any act of Georgia as Congress might afterwards provide for; Provided however that no claims should be embraced by that appropriation, but those the evidence of which shall have been, before 1 Jany. 1804, exhibited by the claimants to the Secretary of State for the purpose of being recorded; it is, I presume, the intention of the House to ascertain whether such evidence has been exhibited in time to the Secretary of State by the South Carolina Yazoo & Virginia Yoozoo [sic] companies; as if they have failed doing it, they are for ever barred from any claim to compensation, unless the State of Georgia shall assent to an alteration in the articles of agreement.
The Secretary of the Treasury has the honour to return the resolution of the House with the above remarks. It must be observed that the South Carolina Yazoo Company never exhibited any thing but their petition & the law of Georgia to the Commissioners and that the Virginia Yazoo Company withdrew last month from the Commissioners all their papers. It is certain however that the resolution does not apply to any documents formerly exhibited to the Commrs.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). Unsigned.

   See House of Representatives to JM, 23 Jan. 1804, and n. 1.

   See U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:232–33.


Title: From James Madison to Jeremiah Hill, 25 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Hill, Jeremiah

25 January 1804, Department of State. “I have recd. your letter of the 12th [not found], enclosing an account for taking a protest relative to the impressment of two seamen: but on recurring to my circular of the 1st. Octr., you will find that it does not assume to pay for evidences of impressments; on the contrary the law imposes it upon the masters of Vessels from which they are made. The accot. cannot therefore be paid.”

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). 1 p.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:478.


Title: To James Madison from William Blackledge, 25 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Blackledge, William
To: Madison, James

25 January 1804, Washington. “Your favor of the 23d [not found] inclosing the passport for Mr Coakley was duly recd.; and in compliance with your esteemed advice I have withheld it till I have ascertained from Col. Wynn that Mr. Coakley has ever since the adoption of the Constitution owned & sailed Vessels in his own name as an American; and also that he Mr. C has been appointed and acted as a Justice of the peace in the State of No. Carolina. If I am not deceived none but citizens of the U.S. can obtain registers for or own & Sail American Bottoms. And I know that among the Oaths necessary to the qualification of a Justice of the peace in No Carolina is an Oath of Allegiance to that State. And by the 40th. Article of the Constitution of that State any foreigner taking the Oath of Allegiance and residing therein twelve months ‘shall be deemed a free citizen.[‘] I am from these considerations induced to believe that there can be but little do[u]bt of the Citizenship of Mr. Coakley. But as I would not … be instrumental in Commiting either the honor or interest of the United States, and as I confess myself an incompetent judge of the requisites for converting a foreigner into a citizen, I shall not venture to forward the passport, untill I can get your opinion on the above facts Communicated by Col Wynn, for the truth of which I pledge myself.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, Preliminary Inventory 15, entry 509, Letters Requesting Passports, 1791–1910). 2 pp.; docketed in an unidentified hand: “Jany 24. 1804 / recd. same day.”


Title: To James Madison from Swinton C. Holland, 25 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Holland, Swinton C.
To: Madison, James

25 January 1804, Trieste. “I had the honor to inform you on the 18th Sept. last [not found], that Vessels direct from the United States were not subject to any quarantine in this district. Since that time a new Edict has been issued to place all Vessels arriving direct from the United States under the same quarantine as those from infected places.
“The Paragon, Capt. Jenner arrived here from Baltimore a few days ago; and notwithstanding, she had a Clean bill of Health, and the crew free from disease of every kind, and had not been boarded, nor had touched at any place, during the Voyage, yet she has been subjected to a quarantine of twenty five days. I applied in mitigation of this long period, but the answer was that the Orders of the Court were such that the Officers had it not in their power to deviate from them. It is indeed permitted during quarantine to unload all articles that are not generally considered liable to imbibe infection, but besides the grievance of detention occasioned by this partial discharge, the Confinement is a peculiar hardship on the Mariners After so long a Voyage.

“The Government of this Country has hitherto shewn itself friendly to the Commerce of the U.S. and this indiscriminate quarantine may have originated in a Want of information on the situation of the different ports.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Trieste, vol. 1). 2 pp.


Title: To James Madison from Samuel A. Otis, 25 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Otis, Samuel A.
To: Madison, James

25 January 1804, “Office of the Secretary of the Senate of the United States.” “I do myself the honor to transmit to you herewith, an order of the Senate of this day, together with the petition of Moses Young, on which said order is founded.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, ML). RC 1 p. For enclosures, see nn.

   The enclosure is the 25 Jan. 1804 Senate resolution (1 p.; docketed by Wagner) that Young’s petition be referred to JM “to consider the merits of the same, and report thereon to Senate.”

   Otis forwarded Moses Young’s undated petition to Congress (DNA: RG 46, Petitions and Memorials, 8A-G1; 2 pp.; docketed as referred to JM on 25 Jan. 1804), requesting compensation for his efforts as consul and claims agent at Madrid since 1 Oct. 1797 and reiterating his earlier claim for salary due him for his services as secretary to Henry Laurens. Filed with the petition is a second copy (2 pp.) marked “Moses Young’s petition and papers accompanying,” as well as a copy of Laurens’s 14 June 1787 statement (1 p.) certifying the validity of Young’s claim and a copy (4 pp.) of Young’s [17 Feb. 1790] memorial to Congress asking further compensation for his services as Laurens’s secretary and quoting a 3 Jan. 1790 report by comptroller Nicholas Eveleigh. On Laurens’s advice Young had apparently made his original claim for only half of the salary he was allowed as secretary. After discovering that Laurens had later received the full amount allowed by Congress, Young placed a claim for the rest of his salary. For other documents filed with the petition, see Young to JM, 9 Jan. 1804, n. 5.


Title: To James Madison from Louis-André Pichon, 25 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Pichon, Louis-André
To: Madison, James

25 January 1804, Georgetown. Among the items received in a recent post from Laussat, which contained the public acts that transferred Louisiana to France and then to the U.S., was the procès-verbal of the delivery made to Laussat by the commissioners of Spain. After the steps taken by the Spanish minister relative to the treaty concluded between France and the U.S. on 30 Apr., believes it appropriate to send JM the enclosed original certificate, which seems by its nature to belong in the hands of the U.S. government.

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 11, American Original Treaty Series no. 86, Cession of Louisiana). RC 1 p.; in French; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Pichon; dated “4. Pluviose an 12. (29. Janvier 1804.)”; docketed by Wagner: “Mr. Pichon 25 Jany 1804 / recd. s[ame]. d[ay]. / The original proces-verbal of the delivery of Louisiana from Spain to France.” For enclosure, see n. 2.

   See Carlos Martínez de Yrujo to JM, 4 and 27 Sept. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:378, 464).

   The enclosure is the 30 Nov. 1803 procès-verbal (5 pp.; in French and Spanish; signed by Laussat, Salcedo, and Casa Calvo) stating that the three commissioners met that day in the municipal building accompanied by various French and Spanish officials and that the transfer of Louisiana and New Orleans to Laussat was accomplished in accordance with the Spanish order of 15 Oct. 1802.


Title: To James Madison from John Page, 25 January 1804
From: Page, John
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 25 January 1804. Calendared as a one-page letter in the lists probably made by Peter Force (DLC, series 7, container 2).


Title: To James Madison from John Gavino, 26 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Gavino, John
To: Madison, James

26 January 1804, Gibraltar. No. 142. Last wrote on 15 Jan. “I now anex you Copy of a Letter from the Danish Consul at Tripoly Mr: Nissen dated 2d: November last; Also a Dispatch received Yesterday from Consul Simpson of Tangeir.
“Only 8 Sail of the expected dispersed Convoy from England have as yet arrived.
“Our Brig Argus Lieut: Hull Saild a few days ago to Cruise has been at Tanger & suppose her now at Cadiz.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, Gibraltar, vol. 2). RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 21 Mar. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   Gavino enclosed a copy of Nicolai C. Nissen to the Danish consul at Marseilles, 2 Nov. 1803 (1 p.; printed in Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 3:182), informing him of the grounding of the Philadelphia and the capture of the crew. Nissen reported that the more than twenty-five officers were staying in the American house but that “the Populace here stripd them of every thing as soon as they came on shore … so that they have nothing but what they wore on.” Nissen added: “I am doing all what I can to render their situation supportable.”

   See Gavino to JM, 15 Jan. 1804.


Title: To James Madison from Alfred Moore, 26 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Moore, Alfred
To: Madison, James

26 January 1804, Wilmington. “The ill State of my health makes it improper that I should continue to hold the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“Be pleased to make known my resignation to his Excellency the President.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LRD). 1 p.

   North Carolina Federalist and Revolutionary War veteran Alfred Moore (1755–1810) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1799.