Title: Commercial Discrimination, [14 January] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[14 January 1794]

   In a lengthy speech made in the Committee of the Whole, Smith (South Carolina) on 13 January opposed commercial retaliation against Britain as set forth in Jefferson’s report of 16 December 1793 and JM’s resolutions of 3 January 1794 (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 3d Cong., 1st sess., 174–209). JM responded to Smith’s speech on 14 January.

He began, by observing that he had expected, from what was intimated yesterday, the sequel of what was then said against the resolutions before the committee; but as there was a silence in that quarter, and no other member has risen on either side of the question, he himself would request the attention of the committee.
It had been much pressed, that in the discussion of this subject, it should be viewed in its commercial relations only. He was perfectly willing to meet every objection that could be urged on that ground: But as he conceived it impossible to do full justice to the interests of the United States without taking some collateral considerations into view; he should be obliged in the course of his remarks, to point at the political disposition and conduct of some of the nations of Europe towards this country.
The propositions immediately before the committee, turned on the question whether any thing ought to be done at this time, in the way of commercial regulations, towards vindicating and advancing our national interests. Perhaps it might be made a question with some, whether in any case, legislative regulations of commerce were consistent with its nature and prosperity.
He professed himself to be a friend to the theory which gives to industry a free course, under the impulse of individual interest, and the guidance of individual sagacity. He was persuaded that it would be happy for all nations, if the barriers erected by prejudice, by avarice, and by despotism, were broken down, and a free intercourse established among them. Yet to this, as to all other general rules, there might be exceptions: And the rule itself required, what did not exist, that it should be general.

To illustrate this observation, he referred to the navigation act of Great-Britain, which not being counterbalanced by any similar acts on the part of rival nations, had secured to Great-Britain no less than eleven-twelfths of the shipping and seamen employed in her trade. It is stated, that in 1660, when the British act passed, the foreign tonnage was to the British as one to four: In 1700, less than one to six: In 1725 as one to nineteen: In 1750, as one to twelve: In 1774, nearly the same. At the commencement of the period, the tonnage was but 95,266 tons: At the end of it, 1,136,162.
As another illustration, he mentioned the case where two countries happened to be in such a relation to each other, that the one, by discouraging the manufactures of the other, might not only invigorate its own, but transplant the manufacturers themselves. Here the gain would be a clear one; and the effect evidently consistent with the principle of the theory.
To allow trade to regulate itself is not therefore to be admitted as a maxim universally found. Our own experience has taught us that in certain cases, it is the same thing with allowing one nation to regulate it for another. Were the United States in fact in commercial intercourse with one nation only, and to oppose no restrictions whatever to a system of foreign restrictions, they would of necessity be deprived of all share in the carriage, altho’ their vessels might be able to do it cheapest; as well as of the only resources for defence on that side, where they must always be most exposed to attack. A small burden only in foreign ports on American vessels, and a perfect equality of foreign vessels with our own in our own ports, would gradually banish the latter altogether.
This subject, as had been remarked on a former occasion, was not a novel one. It was co-eval with our political birth; and has at all times exercised the thoughts of reflecting citizens. As early as the year succeeding the peace, the effect of the foreign policy which began to be felt in our trade and navigation, excited universal attention and inquietude. The first effort thought of, was an application of Congress to the states for a grant of power for a limited time, to regulate our foreign commerce; with a view to control the influence of unfavorable regulations in some cases, and to conciliate an extension of favorable ones in others. From some circumstances then incident to our situation, and particularly from a radical vice in the then political system of the United States, the experiment did not take effect.
The states next endeavored to effect their purpose by separate but concurrent regulations. Massachusetts opened a correspondence with Virginia and other states, in order to bring about the plan. Here again the effort was abortive.

Out of this experience, grew the measures which terminated in the establishment of a government competent to the regulation of our commercial interests, and the vindication of our commercial rights.
As these were the first objects of the people in the steps taken for establishing the present government, they were universally expected to be among the first fruits of its operation. In this expectation the public were disappointed. An attempt was made in different forms and received the repeated sanction of this branch of the legislature, but they expired in the Senate: Not indeed, as was alledged, from a dislike to the attempt altogether, but the modifications given to it. It has not appeared, however, that it was ever renewed in a different form in that house; & for some time it has been allowed to sleep in both.
If the reasons which originally prevailed against measures, such as those now proposed, had weight in them, they can no longer furnish a pretext for opposition.
When the subject was discussed in the first Congress at New-York, it was said, that we ought to try the effect of a generous policy towards Great-Britain; that we ought to give time for negociating a treaty of commerce; that we ought to await the close of negociations for explaining and executing the treaty of peace. We have now waited a term of more than four years. The treaty of peace remains unexecuted on her part; tho’ all pretext for delay has been removed by the steps taken on ours. No treaty of commerce is either in train, or in prospect. Instead of relaxations in former articles complained of, we suffer new and aggravated violations of our rights.
In the view which he took of the subject, he called the attention of the committee particularly to the subject of navigation, of manufactures, and of the discrimination proposed in the motion, between some nations and others.
On the subject of navigation, he observed that we were prohibited by the British laws from carrying to Great-Britain the produce of other countries from their ports, or our own produce from the ports of other countries, or the produce of other countries from our own ports; or to send our own produce from our own or other ports in the vessels of other countries. This last restriction was, he observed, felt by the United States at the present moment. It was indeed the practice of Great-Britain sometimes to relax her navigation act so far in time of war, as to permit to neutral vessels a circuitous carriage; but as yet the act was in full force against the use of them for transporting the produce of the United States.
On the other hand, the laws of the United States allowed Great-Britain to bring into their ports, any thing she might please, from her own or from other ports; and in her own or in other vessels.
In the trade between the United States and the British West-Indies, the vessels of the former were under an absolute prohibition; whilst British vessels in that trade enjoyed all the privileges granted to other, even the most favored nations in their trade with us. The inequality in this case was the more striking, as it was evident that the West-Indies were dependant on the United States for the supplies essential to them, and that the circumstances which secured to the United States this advantage, enabled their vessels to transport the supplies on far better terms than could be done by British vessels.
To illustrate the policy requisite in our commercial intercourse with other nations, he presented a comparative view of the American and foreign tonnage employed in the respective branches of it, from which it appeared that the foreign stood to the American as follows—

Spain
1
to
5

Portugal
1
to
6

The United Netherlands,
1
to
15

Denmark,
1
to
12

Russia,
–

–

France,
1
to
5

Great-Britain,
5
to
1

It results from these facts that in proportion as the trade might be diminished with Great-Britain and increased with other nations, would be the probable increase of the American tonnage. It appeared, for example, that as the trade might pass from British channels into those of France it would augment our tonnage at the rate of ten to one.
The above calculation, he said, had been made out on the documents of 1790, and on the amount of the tonnage entered in the several ports. A document, stating the amounts of the actual tonnage in the American trade, had been just reported to that house. If this, which was liable to some remarks that might hereafter be made, was to be substituted, it afforded another calculation, diminishing the excess in favor of Great-Britain, but augmenting it in favor of the United States in most of the other instances.
According to this calculation the foreign to the American tonnage might be stated, as follows:

Spain,
1
to
16

Portugal,
1
to
17

United Netherlands,
1
to
26

Denmark,
1
to
15

Russia,
1
to
14

France,
1
to
between 4 & 5

Great-Britain, nearly as
3
to
1

Such a disproportion, taking even the reduced one, in the navigation with Great-Britain, was the more mortifying, when the nature and amount of our exports are considered. Our exports are not only for the most part, either immediately necessaries of life, or ultimately as necessaries to manufactures, necessaries of employment and life to manufacturers, and must thence command a sure market wherever they are received at all: But the peculiar bulkiness of them furnishes an advantage over the exports of every other country; and particularly over those of Great-Britain. If such an advantage belonged to that nation, the policy which governs her navigation laws, would probably have given the exclusive carriage to her own bottoms. It is equally in our power, if so selfish a principle should be forced upon us, to secure to our bottoms the same monopoly; leaving to other nations with which we trade, the like exclusive carriage of their exports. The regulation would, to be sure, be mutually inconvenient; and by forcing the vessels of each party to return empty from foreign markets, be so far a tax on the intercourse. This effect, however, did not disprove the power in general which the character of our exports gave us, over the carriage of them, nor lessen the argument drawn from it. Examine it in relation to Great-Britain. The bulk of her exports to us compared with that of ours to her, is as nothing. An inconsiderable quantity of shipping would suffice for hers, whilst ours can load about 222,000 tons: Including the articles she exports from the West-Indies to this country, they bear no proportion to ours. Yet in the entire trade between the United States and the British dominions, her tonnage is to that of the United States as 156,000, employing 9,360 seamen, to 66,000, employing 3,690 seamen. Were a rigid exertion of our right to take place, it would extend our tonnage to 222,000; and leave to G. B. employment for much less than the actual share now enjoyed by the United States. It could not be wished to push matters to this extremity. It shewed, however, the very unequal and unfavorable footing, on which the carrying trade, the great resource of our safety and respectability, was placed by foreign regulations, and the reasonableness of peaceable attempts to meliorate it. We might at least, in availing ourselves of the merit of our exports, contend for such regulations as would reverse the proportion, and give the United States the 156,000 tonnage and 9,360 seamen, instead of the 66,000 tonnage and 3,690 seamen.
He here adverted to the discount of ten per cent. on the duties paid by goods imported in American bottoms; remarking that it was not founded on the true policy of encouraging our shipping. It was not the imports but exports that regulated the quantity of tonnage. What was imported in American vessels, which would otherwise return empty, was no doubt, a benefit to the American merchant, but could slightly only, if at all, increase the mass of our tonnage. The way to effect this was to secure exportations to American bottoms.
Proceeding to the subject of manufactures, he observed that it presented no compensations for the inequalities in the principles and effects of the navigation system.
We consume British manufactures to double the amount of what Britain takes from us; and quadruple the amount of what she actually consumes.
We take everything after it has undergone all the profitable labor that can be bestowed on it: She receives in return, raw materials, the food of her industry.
We send necessaries to her: She sends superfluities to us.
We admit every thing she pleases to send us, whether of her own or alien production. She refuses not only our manufactures, but the articles we wish most to send her; our wheat and flour, our fish, and our salted provisions. These constitute our best staples for exportation; as her manufactures constitute hers.
It appeared by an authentic document he had examined, that of the manufactured articles imported in 1790, amounting to 15,295,638 dollars 97 cents, we received from and thro’ Great Britain, 13,965,464 dollars 95 cents.
During the same year, the manufactures imported from France, the next great commercial country, and consuming more of our produce than Great-Britain, amounted to no more than 155,136 dollars and 63 cents.
To give a fuller view of our foreign commerce, he stated the balances with the several nations of Europe and their dominions, as follow:

Dollars.

Spain
1,670,797
in favor of U. S.

Portugal
1,687,699
do.

U. Netherlands
791,118
do.

Sweden
32,965
do.

Denmark
126,949
against the U. S.

France
2,630,387
in favor of U. S.

G. Britain
5,922,012
against the U. S.

This enormous balance to G. B. is on the exports to her. On her consumption the balance is still greater, amounting to nine or ten millions, to which again is to be added her profits on the re-exports in a manufactured and raw state.
It might be said that an unfavorable balance was no proof of an unfavorable trade; that the only important balance was the ultimate one on our aggregate commerce.

That there was much truth in this general doctrine was admitted; at the same time it was equally certain that there were exceptions to it, some of which were conceived to be applicable to the situation of the United States.
But whether the doctrine were just or not, as applied to the United States, it was well known that the reasoning and practice of other countries were governed by a contrary doctrine. In all of them, an unfavorable balance to be paid in specie, was considered as an evil. Great-Britain in particular had always studied to prevent it as much as she could. What then may be the effect on the policy of a nation with which we have the most friendly and beneficial relations, when it sees the balance of trade with us not only so much against her, but all the specie that pays it, flowing immediately into the lap of her greatest rival, if not her most inveterate enemy.
As to the discrimination proposed between nations having, and not having commercial treaties with us, the principle was embraced by the laws of most, if not all the states, whilst the regulation of trade was in their hands.
It had the repeated sanction of votes in the house of representatives, during the session of the present government at New-York.
It has been practised by other nations, and in a late instance against the United States.
It tends to procure beneficial treaties from those who refuse them, by making them the price of enjoying an equality with other nations in our commerce.
It tends, as a conciliatory preference, to procure better treaties from those who have not refused them.
It was a prudent consideration, in dispensing commercial advantages, to favor rather those whose friendship and support may be expected in case of necessity, than those whose disposition wore a contrary aspect. He did not wish to enter at present, nor at all, if unnecessary, into a display of the unfriendly features which marked the policy of Great-Britain towards the United States. He should be content to lay aside, at least for the present, the subject of the Indians, the Algerines, the spoliations, &c. but he could not forbear remarking generally, that if that, or any other nation were known to bear us a settled ill-will, nothing could be more impolitic than to foster resources which would be more likely to be turned against us, than exerted in our favor.
It had been admitted by the gentleman who spoke yesterday (Mr. Smith of South Carolina) to be a misfortune, that our trade should be so far engrossed by any one nation, as it is, in the hands of Great-Britain. But the gentleman added nothing to alleviate the misfortune, when he advised us to make no efforts for putting an end to it. The evils resulting from such a state of things were as serious as they were numerous. To say nothing of sudden derangements from the caprice with which sovereigns might be seized, there were casualities which might not be avoidable. A general bankruptcy, which was a possible event, in a nation with which we were so connected, would reverberate upon us with a most dreadful shock. A partial bankruptcy, had actually and lately taken place; and was severely felt in our commerce. War is a common event particularly, to G. Britain, and involves us in the embarrassments it brings on her commerce whilst ours is so disproportionately interwoven with it. Add, the influence that may be conveyed into the public councils by a nation directing the course of our trade by her capital, & holding so great a share in our pecuniary institutions; and the effect that may finally ensue on our taste, our manners, and our form of government itself.
If the question be asked, what might be the consequence of counter-efforts, and whether this attempt to vindicate our public interests would not produce them? His answer was, that he did not in the least apprehend such a consequence, as well because the measure afforded no pretext, being short of what was already done by Great-Britain in her commercial system, as because she would be the greatest sufferer from a stagnation of the trade, between the two countries if she should force on such a crisis.
Her merchants would feel it. Her navigation would feel it. Her manufacturers would feel it. Her West-Indies would be ruined by it. Her revenue would deeply feel it. And her government would feel it thro’ every nerve of its operations. We too should suffer in some respects, but in a less degree, and, if the virtue and temper of our fellow citizens were not mistaken, the experiment would find in them a far greater readiness to bear it. It was clear to him, therefore, that if Great-Britain should, contrary to all the rules of probability, stop the commerce between the two countries, the issue would be a compleat triumph to the United States.
He dwelt particularly on the dependence of British manufactures on the market of the United States. He referred to a paper in Andersons history of commerce, which states the amount of British manufactures at £.51,310,000 sterling, and the number of souls employed in, and supported by them, at 5,250,000. Supposing the United States to consume two and a half millions of British manufactures which is a moderate estimate, the loss of their market, would deprive of subsistence 250,000 souls. Add 50,000 who depend for employment on our raw materials. Here are 300,000 souls, who live by our custom. Let them be driven to poverty and despair by acts of their own government, and what would be the consequence? Most probably an acquisition of so many useful citizens to the United States, which form the natural asylum against the distresses of Europe. But whether they should remain in discontent and wretchedness in their own country, or seek their fortunes in another, the evil would be felt by the British government as equally great, and be avoided with equal caution.
It might be regarded, he observed, as a general rule, that where one nation consumed the necessaries of life produced by another, the consuming nation was dependent on the producing one. On the other hand, where the consumption consisted of superfluities, the producing nation was dependent on the consuming one. The United States were in the fortunate situation of enjoying both these advantages over Great-Britain. They supply a part of her dominions with the necessaries of life. They consume superfluities which give bread to her people in another part. Great Britain therefore is under a double dependence on the commerce of the United States. She depends on them for what she herself consumes: she depends on them for what they consume.
In proportion as a nation manufactures luxuries must be its disadvantage in contests of every sort with its customers. The reason is obvious. What is a luxury to the consumer is a necessary to the manufacturer. By changing a fashion, or disappointing a fancy only, bread may be taken from the mouths of thousands whose industry is devoted to the gratification of artificial wants.
He mentioned the case of a petition from a great body of buckle makers presented a few years ago to the prince of Wales, complaining of the use of strings instead of buckles in the shoes, and supplicating his royal highness as giving the law to fashions, to save them from want and misery, by discontinuing the new one. It was not, he observed, the prince who petitioned the manufacturers to continue to make the buckles, but the manufacturers who petitioned their customers to buy them. The relation was similar between the American customers and the British manufacturers. And if a law were to pass for putting a stop to the use of their superfluities, or a stop were otherwise to be put to it, it would quickly be seen from which the distress and supplications would flow.
Suppose that Great Britain received from us alone the whole of the necessaries she consumes; and that our market alone took off the luxuries with which she paid for them. Here the dependence would be compleat; and we might impose whatever terms we pleased on the exchange. This to be sure is not absolutely the case; but in proportion as it is the case, her dependence is on us.
The West-Indies however are an example of compleat dependence. They cannot subsist without our food. They cannot flourish without our lumber, and our use of their rum. On the other hand we depend on them for not a single necessary, and can supply ourselves with their luxuries from other sources. Sugar is the only article about which there was ever a question, and he was authorised to say, that there was not at the most, one sixth of our consumption supplied from the British islands.
In time of war or famine the dependence of the West-Indies is felt in all its energy. It is sometimes such as to appeal to our humanity as well as our interest for relief. At this moment, the governor of Jamaica is making proclamation of their distresses. If ever therefore there was a case where one country could dictate to another the regulations of trade between them, it is the case of the United States, and the British West-Indies. And yet the gentleman from South-Carolina (Mr. Smith) had considered it as a favor that we were allowed to send our provisions in British bottoms & in these only, to the West-Indies. The favor reduced to plain language in the mouth of their planters, would run thus: We will agree to buy your provisions rather than starve, and let you have our rum, which we can sell nowhere else; but we reserve out of this indulgence a monopoly of the carriage to British vessels.
With regard to revenue, the British resources were extremely exhausted in comparison with those of the United States.
The people of Great-Britain were taxed at the rate of 40/ a head: the people of the United States at not more than 6/ a head; less than one-sixth of the British tax.
As the price of labor which pays the tax is double in the United States, to what it is in Great-Britain, the burden on American citizens is less than one-twelfth of the burden on British subjects.
It is true indeed that Britain alone does not bear the whole burden. She levies indirect taxes on her West-Indies and on her East-Indies; and derives from an acquiescence in her monopolizing regulations, an imperceptible tribute from the whole commercial world.
Still however the difference of burden in the two countries is immense.
Britain has moreover great arrears of unfunded debts. She is threatened with defects in her revenue even at this time. She is engaged in an expensive war. And she raises the supplies for it on the most expensive terms.
Add to the whole that her population is stationary if not diminishing, whilst that of the United States is in a course of increase beyond example.
Should it still be asked whether the impost might not be affected, and how a deficiency could be supplied? He thought sufficient answers might be given.
He took for granted that the articles subjected to the additional duties would continue to come according to the demand for them: And believed if the duties were prudently adjusted, the increase of the duties would balance the decrease of importation.

Our country is able to import, and probably will import, in proportion to our exports. Our exports amount, say, to twenty millions of dollars. If we import less from one country we shall import more from another. If we import less of some things we shall import more of other things; and according to our imports will be our revenue.
Suppose Great-Britain to make the rash and improbable experiment of prohibiting all commerce with the United States: She does not consume more than one-fourth of our exports; and we derive perhaps nearly half our revenue from the productions of other countries. In this point of view we should at the worst have three-fourths of our exports to pay for our reduced imports; and consequently a balance of about five millions of specie flowing into our country. The faculty which this would give to operations of revenue, together with the consideration that the labor employed on one-fourth of our ordinary exports would be employed for internal purposes, might assure us that a judicious government would easily be able to provide the means of supplying the deficiency of impost.
But it was superfluous to enter into calculations of this sort. He recurred to the utter improbability that such a contingency should happen. He was fully persuaded that the resolutions, if agreed to, would not impair the revenue.
It is objected, that Spain and Portugal who are good customers to us, and the latter particularly friendly, having no commercial treaty with us, will come within the operation of the resolutions.
Several answers may be given to this objection.
1. They do not manufacture the articles in question so as to be sensibly affected.
2. They employ but little tonnage in our trade: Spain 2,689 tons only; Portugal 2,340 tons only: They are supposed to be little anxious to increase the foreign branches of their carrying trade, being content with the internal trade carried on with their own dominions. As they have no navigation act within the purview of the resolutions, they would not be exposed to the retaliating clauses on that subject.
3. If friendly, they can be admitted to treaty on equitable conditions whenever they please.
4. They can easily be excepted, if thought expedient, either by a general proviso that the resolutions shall not extend to nations having no navigation act such as is therein described; or by providing that they shall not extend to countries south of Cape-Finisterre, a distinction familiar to the British statute-book.
It is said that Great-Britain treats the United States as well as she treats other nations, and therefore they ought to be satisfied.
If other nations were willing to bear unequal regulations, or unable to vindicate their rights, it was no example for us.

But is it true that the same degree of reciprocity subsists between the United States & Great-Britain, as between Great-Britain and other countries? He did not admit this to be the case. Where treaties existed, they stipulated in many instances, mutual and equal conditions of intercourse. He gave an example in the treaty of Methuen, in which the admission of British woolens by Portugal was balanced by the admission of Portugal wine, by Great-Britain. The treaty with France of late date, was another example, where a variety of reciprocal privileges and countervailing duties, were minutely provided for. Where no treaties existed or where they were silent, there were often legal regulations reciprocating the regulations of Great-Britain. He referred to the laws of Sweden and Denmark on the subject of manufactures as instances.
It is said that Great-Britain treats us as well as other nations treat us. What nation he asked, had such a navigation act? What nation besides, excludes us from a circuitous trade? What nation excludes us from carrying our own commodities in our own bottoms, where the carriage is allowed to her bottoms?
It is said, that at least Great-Britain treats us as well as we are treated by France, who will be favored by the resolutions. This point was particularly labored yesterday, by the gentleman from South-Carolina, (Mr. Smith,) who made a comparison of those two countries the principal basis of the discussion. As they were in fact the two countries which stood in the most important relations to the United States, the subject required a pretty accurate view of their respective dispositions, regulations, and intercourse with this country.
On the subject of the dispositions of France and Great-Britain towards the United States, the gentleman, (Mr. Smith) was of a very different opinion, Mr. Madison observed, from that expressed in the message of the President. The message informed the house, that France had generally manifested a friendly disposition towards the United States, had granted advantages to their commerce, and had actually made overtures for placing it permanently on a better footing. While the language of the communications, with respect to Great-Britain, sufficiently proves that there was no room for compliments of a like kind to that nation.
He meant to shew, however, from a particular review, in what light the two nations stood to us; and for that purpose should submit to the committee a comparative statement, as the gentleman had done, of their commercial policy towards us. He premised, however, that he could not follow the example of recurring to a period antecedent to the French revolution for evidence in relation to France. Mr. Smith, seemed to think that the order of things subsequent to that period, could not be regarded as a settled order. He, (Mr. Madison) on the contrary, considered it as the only settled order. He hoped and believed, that the revolution was not a fugitive thing, as some might wish, but that it was irreversibly established, and that the new republic would flourish for ever on the ruins of the ancient monarchy. He should not, however, he said, reject from his enquiry, what was done previous to the date of the republic in favor of the United States, because it could not be reasonably supposed that the disposition of the nation would be less favorable now, than it was under the former government.
He then proceeded to a view of the footing on which the commerce stood with the British and French dominions.
Wheat and Flour. In France free, that is to say, under a duty of one-eighth per cent. as a custom-house regulation, merely for ascertaining the quantity imported. This remark is to be applied to several other articles, which will be mentioned as free.
In Great-Britain, wheat and flour are prohibited, till the price is up at 6/3 sterling a bushel; which as to the United States, may be deemed a perpetual prohibition.
In the French West-Indies, these articles are also free; and as he at first stated, by a general law which had been suspended from time to time; but being told that he was mistaken, the articles being prohibited by a general law, and free only by suspensions, he said, that altho’ his documents gave him other information, he should leave the fact for further examination; adding, however, that it was not essential, as the actual practice and disposition of France on this subject were chiefly to be regarded.
In the British West-Indies these articles were free, but in British bottoms only.
Rice. In France free. In Britain under a duty of 7/4 sterling the hundred. In the French islands under a duty of one per cent. In the British, free in British bottoms.
Salted Fish. In France under a duty of 8 livres the kental. In Britain prohibited. In French islands admitted under some discouragements, which did not however prevent a great consumption. In the British islands prohibited.
Salted Beef. In France under a duty of 5 livres a kental. In Britain prohibited. In French islands under a duty of 1 per cent. and 3 livres a kental. In British islands prohibited.
Salted Pork. In France, under a duty of 5 livres a kental in some ports; prohibited in others. In Britain under a prohibitory duty of 44/9 a kental. In the British and French islands prohibited.
Indigo. In France under a duty of 5 livres a kental. In Britain free. In the British and French islands prohibited.
Whale Oil. In France under a duty of 7 livres 10 sols a barrel of 520 lbs. In Britain under a duty of £.18.3. a ton. In both West-Indies prohibited.
Tar, Pitch, and Turpentine. In France under a duty of 2 per cent. In Britain, under duties, tar and pitch 11d. per barrel, turpentine ⅔ per 100 lb.
Tobacco is on a footing pretty similar in the two countries. So are wood, pot and pearl ash and flax-seed.
Indian Corn, Wood, Live Animals (except horses and mules which are free) in the French islands pay a duty of 1 per cent. In the British they are free, in British bottoms, prohibited in American bottoms.
Ships. In France, free to be naturalized. In Britain prohibited.
He proceeded to state the comparative amount of our exports and imports in the commerce with the two nations, and the balances on them as before shewn. He noticed particularly the excess of the exports to the French West-Indies which amounted to 3,284,656 dollars, over those to the British, which amounted to 2,357,583: Observing the importance of that market, and the more especially as it supplies the article of molasses, the only raw material imported into the United States, and otherwise so much valued as an article of consumption. He adverted also to the superior proportion of American tonnage in the trade with the French dominions, as had also been before shewn.
From this review, he left the committee to infer the true policy of the United States with regard to their commerce, in its two most considerable branches. He thought it clear, that in every view it was incumbent on the United States to cultivate the connection and intercourse with the French nation. As a market for our produce, their vast population, and their use of our articles of mere consumption, were peculiarly precious to our agriculture. They could do better without our trade than Great-Britain, yet they shewed more disposition to favor it. And what was by no means to be disregarded, they were the only considerable power on the face of the earth, sincerely friendly to the republican form of government established in this country.
Of all the objections which Mr. Madison had heard suggested against the resolutions, the most extravagant and chimerical was the idea of a war with Great-Britain in consequence of them. He was at a loss to say whether such an objection were a greater insult to the character of that nation or to the understanding of America. At the utmost the propositions go only to a reciprocity. They do not in fact go so far. On what imaginable pretext then can Great-Britain make war upon us. If we are no longer colonies, but independent states, we surely can do what all independent states do, regulate our trade as may suit our own interests. And Great-Britain can have the least right of any nation to complain of it, because it is her own example which we follow. If war therefore should be made on us it would only prove a fixt predetermination to make it. And in that case pretexts more plausible than any commercial regulations could easily be found or framed for the purpose.
The next ground on which he examined the subject was it’s operation among the several parts of the union. It was admitted and regretted, that the immediate benefits and burdens would not be equally distributed among all the states. More than a due share of the former would flow to the northern division: More than a due share of the latter would fall on the southern. This was unavoidably produced by the unequal advances made in manufactures and navigation; and it was an inconvenience that had necessarily taken place in a variety of other instances. It would be found, however, on a fair attention to the subject, that the inequality would be less than at first appeared.
With respect to manufactures, the southern states were at least equally interested in encouraging and distributing a competition for our market, among different nations of Europe, instead of being so much in the hands of a single one.
The duty on the finer articles imported would fall on those most able to bear it; and would be pretty equally diffused through the union.
The duty on the coarser articles would be saved in proportion to the progress made in manufactures among ourselves; and he was able to say, with great pleasure, that those carried on, not in public factories, but in the household or family way, which he regarded as the most important way, were nearly, if not quite as far advanced in the southern country as in the middle and northern. Virginia was proceeding with great spirit in this branch of industry. North-Carolina he understood was doing the same; and there was no reason why the more southern states would not avail themselves of the resource, especially as they enjoyed superior advantages in the article of cotton, a primary material for the business.
The exports would not be materially affected unless Great-Britain, should contrary to all probability, renounce the benefits of the trade in them, and expose her West-India islands to the danger of famine; and in that case, the inconveniences would be not local but general.
Even in the article of tonnage the inequality at present tho’ considerable, was not so great as he had imagined, before he examined the real state of it. It appeared from the official reports lately made on that subject, that the states south of Pennsylvania (which has about her due share,) have within one-third of their due quota. Georgia has more than her share. South-Carolina nearly her share. North Carolina has three eighths below her share. Virginia has about half her share. Maryland has more than her share. Delaware less than her share.
This computation is not perhaps very accurate, because it is founded on the relative population of the states. It should rather have reference to the value and volume of the produce exported from the several states. But as several of them carry on their trade thro’ their neighbours, this rule of calculation would in fact be more uncertain than the other.
Whatever be the rule, Virginia, he remarked, was the state that appeared most deficient; her exports both in value and bulk, being in full proportion to her population, and her tonnage being more short of that, than could be said of any state. He had every reason, notwithstanding, to believe that the great body of the people of Virginia, would chearfully concur in any temporary sacrifices, that might be necessary to vindicate our public rights, and our commercial interests.
It was a consideration that ought to have great weight with the southern states, that a home market for their naval stores would be extended by every measure, favoring our own navigation; and that they must soon begin themselves to turn to effect their natural advantages for ship building. Having the materials on the spot, they would not be long in imitating their northern brethren, North-Carolina was singularly favored in this particular. There was not a single article used in the various component parts of a ship, which she did not possess, or could not raise within herself.
The capacity of the United States, to provide with celerity for the transportation of their produce, was strongly attested by what they had effected before the revolution. In the marine of the British empire, whilst the United States were part of it, the American built ships were to the British built as 23 to 40. New-England furnished about three fifths of the former.
In two points of view, the southern states were peculiarly interested in promoting our navigation.
First. As they are in some respects the weaker part of the Union, and have most wealth exposed on the sea, they have most need of that protection, which results from extensive marine resources. The existence of these will either prevent attack, or can readily be turned into the means of repelling it.
Secondly. As they have so much valuable and bulky produce to carry to market, it is their interest to possess a conveyance for it, that may be as little affected as possible by the contingencies and wars of other nations; and particularly of Great-Britain, a nation which is so frequently at war, and which has so disproportionate a share in our carrying trade. This subject, he said, had been placed in so striking a view, by the Secretary of State in a former report on the fisheries, that he should rely on the patience of the committee in reading the observations and calculations to which he alluded. He here read the following note at the end of that report.

“That the encouragement of our carrying business is interesting, not only to the carrying states, but in a high degree also to the others, will result from the following facts.

Dollars.

The whole exports of the United States, may be stated at
25,000,000

Great-Britain carries two-fifths of these in value, that is to say,
10,000,000

Freight and insurance on this in times of peace, are about twenty-two and one half per cent.
2,250,000

The same charges in war are very various, according to the circumstances of the war, we may say, however fifty-five per cent.
5,500,000

The difference between peace and war, freight and insurance, then is annually
3,250,000

Taxed on our agriculture by British wars, during their continuance, and our dependance on British bottoms.
Of the last one hundred years, Great-Britain has had* forty-two years of war and fifty-eight of peace, which is three of war to every four of peace, nearly.

*Y.
M.

1689. May.
}
Y.
M.

Peace.
4
8
{
1697. Sept.
8
4
War.

1702. May.
}
10
3

6
4
{
1712. August

1718. Dec.
}
2
6

5
8
{
1721. June.

1727. March
}
0
2

12
4
{
1727. May.

1739. Oct.
}
8
7

7
0
{
1748. May.

1755. June.
}
7
5

15
7
{
1762. Nov.

1778. June.
}
4
9

6
2
{
1783. March

1789. May.

57
9

42

In every term of seven years then, we pay three times three million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or nine million seven hundred and fifty thousand, which, averaged on the years of peace & war, are annually and constantly one million three hundred & ninety-two thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven more than we should, if we could raise our own shipping to be competent to the carriage of all our productions. Besides this, many of our bulky articles, not bearing a war freight, cannot be exported, if exposed, to that, so that their total loss is to be added to that before estimated.”
This was a demonstration of the interest the United States had, particularly the southern states, in obtaining an independent transportation for their commodities; and the effect of the present war to which Britain as a party, in depriving them of the ordinary foreign resource, is bringing the evidence home to their feelings at the present moment.
It had been asked what ground there was for concluding, that Great-Britain would be led by the measures proposed, to change her policy towards the United States. He thought we had the best ground for relying on such an effect.
It is well known, that when she apprehended such measures would be taken, she manifested a readiness to admit a greater reciprocity into the commerce between the two countries. A bill for the purpose was brought into the house of commons by the present minister Mr. Pitt, and would probably have passed into a law, if hopes had not sprung up that they should be able to maintain their exclusive system. Knox, an under secretary, appears from a collection of papers published by him, to have been the chief adviser in the cabinet, as Lord Sheffield was the great champion before the public, of this experiment. It was founded according to both these witnesses, on a belief—1st. That Nova-Scotia and Canada, would soon be able to feed the West-Indies, and thereby make them independent of supplies from the United States. 2dly. That the general government was so feeble that it could not execute a plan of retaliating restrictions—and, 3dly. That local interests and prejudices predominated so much among the states, that they would never even agree in making an attempt.
It is now thoroughly understood and admitted by the most biassed judges, that the British continental colonies cannot supply the islands; that as well as the islands, they depend frequently for essential supplies on the United States. This calculation therefore has failed Great-Britain.
The next has been completely destroyed by the change of our former frail confederacy, into a government which is found to be adequate to all its national objects. This hope has therefore in like manner failed.
The only remaining hope that can induce Great-Britain to persevere in the plan of conduct she has adopted towards the United States, lies in the supposed difficulty of reconciling their different interests and local prejudices. The present occasion will decide whether this hope also shall be withdrawn from her; or whether she is to be inspired with fresh confidence in pursuing her own interests without a due respect either for our interests or for our rights.
He could not but view the present as perhaps the final chance of combining the opinions and interests of the several quarters of the Union in some proper and adequate plan. If at a moment when so many occurrences conspire to unite the public councils; when the public mind is so well disposed to second all equitable and peaceable means of doing justice to our country; and when our commerce is so critically important to the vital resources of Great-Britain, it should be found that nothing can be done, he could foresee no circumstances under which success was to be expected. To reject the propositions therefore, whilst nothing better was substituted, must convey the most unfavorable impressions of our national character, and rivet the fetters on our commerce, as well as prolong other causes which had produced such injurious consequences to our country. He would not permit himself to apprehend that such would be the event of the deliberations of the committee.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 27 Feb. 1794 (also reported in Philadelphia Gazette, 16 Jan. 1794, General Advertiser, 16, 17, and 18 Jan. 1794, and Gazette of the U.S., 17, 18, and 20 Jan. 1794). Reprinted in James Madison, Speech in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, Delivered January 14, 1794, by James Madison, of Virginia, in Support of His Propositions for the Promotion of the Commerce of the United States, and in Reply to William Smith, of South Carolina (New York, 1794; EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography …
          1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). Roger P. Bristol, ed., Supplement to Charles Evans’ American Bibliography
        (Charlottesville, Va., 1970). 27258), pp. 1–27.

   JM gleaned these figures from Sheffield, Observations on Commerce (1784 ed.), pp. 136–37. For his previous use of this information, see For the National Gazette, 19 Nov. 1791, PJMRobert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers
          of James Madison: Presidential Series (1 vol. to date; Charlottesville, Va.,
        1984—)., 14:119, 122 n. 3.

   On 30 Apr. 1784 the Continental Congress passed resolutions recommending that the states grant to Congress for fifteen years the power to exclude the carrying trade of nations not having a commercial treaty with the U.S. and cargoes imported in ships not of the same country of origin (JCCWorthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals
          of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37)., 26:322).

   JM’s reciprocity proposals for the impost and tonnage bills of 1789 passed the House but were defeated in the Senate (PJMRobert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers
          of James Madison: Presidential Series (1 vol. to date; Charlottesville, Va.,
        1984—)., 12:54–55).

   Hamilton’s “Statement of the Actual Tonnage of American Vessels,” 10 Jan. 1794 (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents,
          Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.;
        Washington, 1832–61)., Commerce and Navigation, 1:252).

   This discount was provided for in section 5 of the Impost Act of 1789 (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United
          States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 1:27).

   The figures in this and the succeeding paragraph appear in JM’s List of Imports, 1789–1790, ca. 29 Dec. 1793, probably based on an “authentic document” supplied by Tench Coxe.

   JM arrived at these figures by calculating the differences between exports and imports as stated in the “Report of the Secretary of State on the Privileges and Restrictions on the Commerce of the United States in Foreign Countries” of 16 Dec. 1793 (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents,
          Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.;
        Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 1:301).

   Anderson, Origin of Commerce (1790 ed.), 6:699.

   For JM’s previous use of this example, see For the National Gazette, 20 Mar. 1792, PJMRobert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers
          of James Madison: Presidential Series (1 vol. to date; Charlottesville, Va.,
        1984—)., 14:257–59 and n. 1.

   Great Britain concluded the Methuen Treaty with Portugal in 1703 and the Eden Treaty with France in 1786.

   JM paraphrased part of Washington’s 5 Dec. 1793 message to Congress (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents,
          Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.;
        Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 1:141).

   “Report on the American Fisheries by the Secretary of State,” 1 Feb. 1791, appendix no. 18 (Boyd, Papers of JeffersonJulian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of
          Thomas Jefferson (21 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950—)., 19:236). JM provided this information for Jefferson in his memorandum of ca. 31 Jan. 1791 (PJMRobert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers
          of James Madison: Presidential Series (1 vol. to date; Charlottesville, Va.,
        1984—)., 13:362–63).

   During the last days of Lord Shelburne’s government in 1783, William Pitt the younger as chancellor of the exchequer (then in his liberal period) proposed an American intercourse bill to reestablish commercial relations on the basis of reciprocity. Shelburne’s ministry had already lost a vote of confidence over the terms of the peace treaty with the U.S., and the new Fox-North coalition won passage of an alternative bill that authorized the king in council to regulate trade with the U.S. (Setser, Commercial Reciprocity Policy of the United States, 1774–1829, p. 44; Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 23:609–11, 724–25, 762; 23 Geo. 3, chap. 39, Statutes at Large [1786 ed.], 14:331).

   William Knox, Extra Official State Papers Addressed to the Right Hon. Lord Rawdon (2 vols.; London, 1789), 2: appendix, 69–71, 75–76; Sheffield, Observations on Commerce (1784 ed.), pp. 168, 198–200.


Title: Commercial Discrimination, [15 January] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[15 January 1794]

   Ames objected to a motion to go into Committee of the Whole, since papers from the secretary of state, relating to negotiations with Britain for a commercial treaty, had not yet been printed for the House.

Mr. Madison said that it was somewhat singular, that an objection should be made to the going into a committee for the want of these papers. This want ought to have been stated upon Monday. As to the idea of a friendly disposition on the part of Britain, for entering into a treaty of commerce, he was convinced that Britain had no disposition that way. This he inferred from some passages in the speech of the President, which were, at his desire, read by the clerk. He trusted that the house would not hesitate in resolving itself into a committee of the whole immediately, in order to discuss the propositions.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 18 Jan. 1794 (reprinted in General Advertiser, 21 Jan. 1794).

[15 January 1794]
In Committee of the Whole, FitzSimons opposed JM’s first resolution of 3 January, saying it “was by far too indefinite.”
Mr. Madison regarded the objection of the gentleman as entirely of a new kind. He had refused his consent to the first of the resolutions, because it was indefinite. But the propositions laid before the house a few days ago, with respect to the Algerines, were fully as indefinite; and yet the gentleman who spoke last had recommended them. The order of proceedings, in the present question, were perfectly candid and regular. They were consonant to the practice of the house, and the practice of the gentleman himself.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 18 Jan. 1794 (reprinted in General Advertiser, 21 Jan. 1794).

   JM referred to the House resolutions of 2 Jan. providing for a naval force against the Algerine corsairs. FitzSimons was chairman of the select committee appointed to report on that naval force and the ways and means necessary to meet its cost (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 3d Cong., 1st sess., 154–55).


Title: From James Madison to John Dawson, 15 January 1794
From: Madison, James
To: Dawson, John

Letter not found. 15 January 1794. Acknowledged in Dawson to JM, 23 Jan. 1794. Mentions two causes of opposition to JM’s resolutions on commercial discrimination.


Title: To James Madison from Alexander White, 19 January 1794
From: White, Alexander
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Woodville 19th. January 1794
I cannot dispense with making my acknowledgements for your attention, and the communications you have favd. me with—in return I have little to inform you, the season has been unfavourable to the winter grain, the early fall of snow is nearly gone, and tho’ we have had some moderate weather the frost has at other times been very severe.
We are anxious to hear the event of the representation to the French Goverment on the subject of Mr Genets conduct, indeed nothing but anxious thoughts can arise from every reference to Forreign Nations. Every Nation no doubt has a right to secure peace to herself, but the manner in which that between Portugal and Algiers was brought about is truly alarming. I still however hope that by proper exertions on our part the greatest of all Calamities War, may be prevented—and that the People awakened by the sense of danger will submit to the necessary burdens. Various reports respecting men and measures circulate here, which I need not repeat, because if true, they will be authenticated before I could possibly receive an answer to this. Sally Hite was married last Tuesday to Alexr Pitt Buchanan of Baltimore. I am with real regard Your sincere Friend
Alexr White


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 20 January 1794
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir!
Rich: Januy 20. 94.
On my return to this place on saturday evening I haves [sic] favourd with your letter of the 31. of the last month, with its enclosure, for which I thank you.
By the en[c]losd paper you will find that the situation of the republic of France is very flattering. I was in Suffolk when the sloop arrivd, & think that the accounts which she brings may be depended on—but presume you will by this have all the particulars, as the despatches to the minister have, no doubt, gone on.
I think with you on the subject of the Algerine business, and highly approve the resolutions which you have offerd to the Committee—they will no doubt be opposd by a certain party, tho I trust without success.
I wrote Colo Monroe & yourself some time ago fully relative to the British frigate the Dædalus. I will now only observe, inter nos, that the French Consul, Oster, at Norfolk, is one about whom many suspicions are entertaind at Norfolk—that he & the B. Consul, are frequently together, and in no case has he appeard to have exerted himself in behalf of his nation.
We shall be in a very disagreeable situation for some months the citizens having this day determind on a general innoculation for the small pox. With real regard Yr. friend & Sert
J Dawson


Title: Commercial Discrimination, [20 January] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[20 January 1794]

   Smith (South Carolina) observed that supporters of JM’s resolutions had argued that Britain had demonstrated no desire for a commercial treaty with the United States. Smith alleged that in the correspondence between the president and the British minister “as printed by order of the house, it appears, that there is a chasm occasioned by the omission of a letter from the secretary of state, to that minister, which letter is referred [to] in a subsequent letter.”

Mr. Madison thought that there was a chasm which should be filled up, but it might do as well to defer the matter for a day or two, till enquiry should be made of the secretary of state, why it had been withheld. Upon informing the president, he would either give it up, or mention the reasons why it should not.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 21 January 1794 (Abstract)
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

21 January 1794, Richmond. Introduces Francis Goode.


Title: To James Madison from Henry Lee, 23 January 1794
From: Lee, Henry
To: Madison, James

Jany 23d. 94.
I had the pleasure my dear sir to receive your letter by Mr. Adair & shall pay every attention to that gentleman. He seems to be a man of letters & a man of worth. We hear nothing here but what must be known to you. A report has prevailed for some days past that Mr. Randolph is appointed Secretary of State, Lewis Attorney general & Mr Genet recalled. The conduct of the latter gentleman is so different from what I had conceived from the few moments I spent with him that I am lost in my attempts to account for it. I am very happy to find Congress proceed with temper & in evident attention to our critical situation. Your late propositions I have read & approve the principle on which they are founded but do not so far understand our connexions with forgeign [sic] nations as to say to what extent the policy should be carried or whether this moment is proper to apply it. Indeed to Judge with truth on these two points a very accurate knowledge of our foreign relationships commercial & other is an indispensible prerequisite. What is the true state of the So. Carolina attempt to embody men? Much is said about it but I cannot discover the situation of that matter. I see only scraps of Congressional debates generally so brief as to be unintelligible. I suppose the printers have not yet recovered from their share in the late Calamity.


Title: Commercial Discrimination, [23 January] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[23 January 1794]

   In Committee of the Whole, Dexter argued that British regulations had not greatly harmed American prosperity and that JM’s resolutions could lead to war with Britain.

Mr. Madison next rose in reply to some remarks made by Mr. Dexter. He said that he wondered how gentlemen could suppose, that to be war on the table. Did they suppose Britain so unwise or so unjust as to declare a war. Every consideration of interest must prevent it. He hoped that we did not now deliberate as a colony, but as an independent people, whose measures were not to be dictated by any other powers. What could Britain gain by a contest? Would war employ her starving manufacturers? Would war furnish provisions to her West-India islands which in that case, must also starve? Would war give employment to the vessels that had formerly imported luxuries to America? Were Britain to declare war, he could give no name equal to her folly. She would plunge herself ten times deeper in the difficulties that she wanted to avoid. Every counterregulation would be a stroke against herself.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 25 Jan. 1794.

[23 January 1794]

   Giles defended JM’s resolutions in a long speech.

Mr. Madison rose to take notice of one or two remarks, that had fallen from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Dexter). He was surprized; he owned, to hear that gentleman say, this country might be considered as enjoying perfect health, after full proof of the injustice of some regulations imposed on us, by the British, was strong in every Member’s mind; whilst we are sensible that they incite the Indians on one side, and have let loose the Algerines on the other, whilst our commerce suffers by incessant spoliations; and whilst the treaty of peace, is yet unfulfilled on their part.
Mr. Dexter explained, that he agreed that in a political point of view, we are undoubtedly sufferers; but in a commercial light, the body politic is in full health.
Mr. Madison continued and observed, that before this country grows to the state of vigour intended by nature, we must remove the trammels that impede our growth. He next made some remarks on the observation that had fallen from more than one quarter, that the adoption of the resolutions would excite retaliation on the part of Great-Britain. If the paper on the table, as asserted, is war, war now exists. The resolutions only go half way towards meeting the regulations on the part of Great-Britain. On what pretence could they retaliate? The ground meant to be occupied, we have full right to possess. If, disregarding all prudence and justice, they should incline to resent it, still their interest will prevent them. Great-Britain too much depends on us, for the consumption of her manufactures, and her colonies are too dependent on us, for necessaries, to allow her to retaliate.
But the fear of what Britain might do unjustly, should not deter us from doing what we have a right to do; and notwithstanding the eloquence displayed this day, the committee must still be convinced, that they have a right to deliberate on the interests and to maintain the rights of Americans.

   General Advertiser, 5 Feb. 1794.


Title: Commercial Discrimination, [24 January] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[24 January 1794]

   In Committee of the Whole, Dayton asserted: “If we really labor under wrongs, something more effectual than the measures proposed should be contemplated; but first it is our duty, to endeavor to obtain redress by pacific means, and before irritating measures are adopted, we should be well assured that redress has been refused.”

Mr. Madison saw no ground to hope for redress from negociation, we must be satisfied that that resource has failed. He could not see, admitting we are injured, that we are bound by honor or prudence, to resent the injury, by the last appeal, to arms. It is best, he conceived, to try whether a more pacific weapon may not prove even more effectual. We can make use of none against Great-Britain, more effectual than commercial weapons, in that part, their commerce, that country is most vulnerable. He thought this the most eligible time for the exercise of those means most clearly in our power.


Title: To James Madison from Charles Fierer, 26 January 1794
From: Fierer, Charles
To: Madison, James

Hond. Sir
Dumfries Jany. 26th 1794
The many civilities I have received from you, Sir, on a former occasion, induces me to solicit your patronage to a petition which the Honble. Richard B. Lee will lay before the Honble. House of which you are a member. I will not take up your time with a detail of the particulars of my case, as the petition and the vouchers attending the same will explain my situation. I will only observe, that having had the misfortune lately to break a leg, which by being injured in the service of this Country during the late war, has made me a Cripple.
Should I be fortunate enough, to obtain in you, Sir, a friend to espouse my cause, my gratitude would be as lasting, as my present situation is distressing. I have the honour to be with Sentiments of perfect respect Hond. Sir, Your most Obt. & very humble Servant
Charles Fierer


Title: To James Madison from James Madison, Sr., 27 January 1794
From: Madison, James, Sr.
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 27 January 1794. Acknowledged in JM to James Madison, Sr., 21 Feb. 1794. Asks JM to collect interest on his father’s U.S. treasury certificates by virtue of power of attorney. Inquires about pecan and apple trees to be planted at Montpelier. Mentions money left at Fredericksburg in November 1793 by JM for his father that has not been received.


Title: To James Madison from Francis Brooke, February 1794 (Abstract)
From: Brooke, Francis
To: Madison, James

February 1794. Applies for the customs collectorship at Tappahannock, Virginia.


Title: To James Madison from Laurence Muse, 1 February 1794
From: Muse, Laurence
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Virginia Port Tappahannock Febry 1. 1794
From the inclosed, I take the liberty of soliciting your interest with the President in my favor, in the appointment of a Collector for this port, which I apprehend will take place immediately. Having been imployed in that business from the Commencement of the Collection Law under the present Government [I] flatter myself I have now acquired a Knowledge sufficient to do justice to the public, and individuals. For your friendly aid in the business I shall ever consider myself under obligations And, With much Respect I am Sir Your Obt Servt
Laurence Muse


Title: To James Madison from Horatio Gates, 3 February 1794
From: Gates, Horatio
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
New York 3d: February 1794.
Amongst the Multitude of your Friends, and Admirers, permit me to Congratulate you upon The Fame you have acquired by your Excellent, and truly Patriotic Speech, in Support of Mr: Jeffersons Report, on the Trade & Commerce of The United States: it has gaind you the General plaudit from East to West; The Murmurings of rank Tories, and Interested Factors, serve only to Increase your Popularity; Proceed, & Prosper; The Gentleman who does me the Favour to present You this Letter, is Dr: Robertson, from Bath in England, He goes to philadelphia to see his, and his Ladys Friends; & to indulge his Curiosity at the Seat of The Federal Government. Having a good property both here, and in Europe, he has given up the practice of physick and lives at his Ease; but his best recommendation is, He is a Staunch Whigg; don’t you come here in Summer? Mary, & I hope to see you again under Our Roof: believe me dear Sir Your Affectionate Humble Servant
Horatio Gates
P. S. No late arrival from Europe.


Title: To James Madison from Fontaine Maury, 4 February 1794
From: Maury, Fontaine
To: Madison, James

Dear sir
Fredg. Feby. 4. 94
Having good reason to suppose that the Office of Collector at Tappahanock will soon be vacant, I have taken the Liberty to request you will do any thing which may be convenient to promote the Election of Mr Laurence Muse, who has long served with much reputation as a deputy in the above office, and is in all respects perfectly Qualified to do the Public every justice. Excuse the Liberty I am taking, and assure yourself it will at all times give me singular pleasure to render you acceptable returns, being with real esteem Dr Sir your mo. obt
Fontaine Maury


Title: Commercial Discrimination, [5 February] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[5 February 1794]

   Lyman moved to postpone further consideration of JM’s resolutions until the first Monday in March. Dexter opposed delay and urged that the resolutions be either voted on or withdrawn.

Mr. Madison assured the gentleman from Massachusetts who wished the resolutions withdrawn, that they were brought forward upon mature reflection, and that with an intention of having the sense of the representatives of the Union upon them. Should he, he said, be finally in the minority in the business, and again hold a seat in the house by the voice of the people he again would bring them forward. Something like the resolutions offered, he believed necessary, especially at this time. Whether the subject is considered in a political or a commercial point of view, whether we endeavour to place our trade with Great Britain on a footing of reciprocity, or whether we mean to obtain redress for the injuries we suffer from that quarter, in both aspects he conceived them equally proper. Tho’ of opinion that the pending questions might be decided, without the imputation of unbecoming haste, at the present time, yet he could object to comply with the wish of those gentlemen who required a short delay to consult the sense of the constituents. As the subject is of very great moment he hoped it would not be postponed, to so late a day as to endanger a fair decision on it during the present session.

   General Advertiser, 7 Feb. 1794.

[5 February 1794]

   Ames and Dayton opposed the motion.

Mr. Madison remarked that he was not so vain as to imagine that his propositions were absolutely perfect, neither would he allow that they were more imperfect than they could be proved to be. When the general nature of them was first explained gentlemen were so candid as to approve? If, however, he had confined himself to bringing forward the first resolution, it might, it would have been objected, that what it was meant to lead to was quite in the dark, a developement of it would have been asked; he, therefore, thought it proper to enter into the detailed view he had taken of the subject. Some parts of that detail may be exceptionable, may require amendment, he expected they would, interests must be compared, small local sacrifices must be made to obtain a great general good, he came prepared to sacrifice his own opinions in matters of lesser moment to that spirit of accommodation necessary in framing a system of regulations intended to embrace the interests of so widely extended a continent. When he spoke of the imperfections of the system he offered & of the amendments it might require he intended to be understood in this light.

   General Advertiser, 7 Feb. 1794 (also reported in Philadelphia Gazette, 6 Feb. 1794). After further debate, JM voted with the majority when the House approved the motion (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 3d Cong., 1st sess., 431–32).


Title: Naval Force against Algerine Corsairs, [6 February] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[6 February 1794]

   On 20 January the select committee on financing a naval force against the Algerine corsairs submitted its report, which proposed an appropriation of $600,000 to support six warships. The sum was to be raised by increased impost and tonnage duties (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 3d Cong., 1st sess., 250). On 6 February the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union considered a resolution for building the ships.

When the resolution was read, for building four ships of 44 guns and two ships of 20 guns, Mr. Madison rose to enquire, whether there was, in the public stores of the United States, a sufficient quantity of cedar and live oak for building the six vessels? These were the kinds of timber proposed by the resolutions. He was answered, that there was not. He then observed, that it was evident this fleet could not be ready for effective service in the course of the present year. He imagined that there was another resolution, precedent as to the time of voting it, of which he did not know what had become. The resolution to which he alluded was that assigning a sum of money to buy a cessation of hostilities from the regency of Algiers. He was of opinion, that the project of fitting out an armed squadron, was liable to many solid objections. There were two points of light in which this subject might be surveyed. The first of these was, whether the Algerines acted from their own impulse in this business. In that case, they were known to be in the habit of selling a peace; and if they are willing to do so, he fancied that it might be purchased for less money than the armament would cost. On the other hand, if they do not act from their own impulse, but upon the instigation of Britain, we may depend upon it, that they cannot be bought. Britain will keep them hostile. There is infinitely more danger of a British war from the fitting out of ships than from the resolutions on the report of the Secretary of State. The distance which the ships would have to sail is not less than three thousand miles: and their number is too small for a decisive advantage. The combined powers would embrace the equipment of these ships as an excellent opportunity to pick a quarrel with the United States. Mr. Madison expressed his doubts with regard to the propriety of this measure, because the expence was immense, and there was no certainty of reaping any benefit from it.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 7 Feb. 1794.

   JM alluded to the first of three resolutions that the House passed on 2 Jan. (see JM’s speech of 27 Dec. 1793, n. and n. 1).

[6 February 1794]

   Smith (Maryland) said that America could afford to build a navy because “our profit was twice as great at present, in commerce, as it was before the war…. As an evidence of this fact, he mentioned the high price of wheat at present in this market” (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 3d Cong., 1st sess., 435).

Mr. Madison in reply to some remarks which had fallen from Mr. Smith, respecting the present high price of wheat in the American market, said that he had been informed of a place where wheat gives only four shillings and six pence per bushel, where the dollar passes for six shillings. He supposed that Britain could render very essential service to the Algerines, without embarking in a war. She has not embarked in a war to the northwest of the Ohio; but she has done the same thing in substance by supplying the Indians with arms, ammunition and perhaps with subsistence. He did not assert that Britain directed the plan of the Indian expeditions, for he had no explicit evidence that they actually did so. In the same way that they give under-hand assistance to the Indians, they would give it to the Algerines, rather than hazard an open war.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 7 Feb. 1794.


Title: Naval Force against Algerine Corsairs, [7 February] 1794
From: Madison, James
To:

[7 February 1794]

   The Committee of the Whole resumed its consideration of the resolution for building a navy.

Mr. Madison thought this expedient unlikely to answer the purpose, and liable to many objections. Before the American squadron can be equipped, the truce between Algiers and Portugal must expire. When that expiration shall take place she either will not renew the truce at all, or she will stipulate that the United States shall be comprehended in it. He would save the money intended for the fleet, and hire the Portuguese ships of war, with it, as soon as the truce ends. He wished that the committee might reject the present motion, and when they did so, he would move a resolution, a copy of which he read to the committee. It was in substance, “that the sum of  dollars be provided, to be employed in such a manner as should be found most effectual for obtaining a peace with the regency of Algiers; and failing of this, that the sum should be applied to the end of obtaining protection from some of the European powers.” He considered the armament at present proposed, as quite too small to answer any efficient purpose.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 10 Feb. 1794 (also reported in General Advertiser, 10 Feb. 1794).

[7 February 1794]
FitzSimons and Goodhue, among others, favored the resolution.
Mr. Madison said that gentlemen thought so differently on this subject, and advanced arguments against his side of the question of such a different nature, that it was difficult or impossible to give them an answer. He then proceeded to quote the speech of Mr. Goodhue. That gentleman rose and said that Mr. Madison had misunderstood him. He gave an explanation of his meaning; and when Mr. Madison rose to comment upon it, Mr. Goodhue got up a second time and said that the member misunderstood his explanation. Mr. Madison then proceeded to quote the speeches of Mr. Fitzsimons and Mr. S. Smith.

   Philadelphia Gazette, 10 Feb. 1794.

   The newspaper account of the debate continued: “Both these gentlemen were upon their legs more than once to contradict him as having misquoted them; a charge that he peremptorily denied. In a speech of considerable length, he was not suffered to proceed for any time together without an interruption of this nature. This produced a scene of confusion and altercation through which it was impossible to follow the members, and to prevent a charge of misrepresentation on our part it is safer to pass it over altogether…. In the course of this last debate some reflections were cast out against Mr. Madison which it seems better not to repeat.”


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 8 February 1794
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
New Yk. Feby 8. 1794.
I arrived yesterday too late for the post to bear the acct. of it. I found Mrs. M & the child well tho the former had been nearly lost by the sinking of the ice as she came. Mr. Kortright is living & perfectly in his senses, free from pain & perhaps not near his end. He is however on the decline & confined to his room. I find him most friendly & affectionate, but as yet I am not sufficiently acquainted with his affrs. to say any thing respecting them.
I am happy to hear that yr. resolutions are postponed & by the authority you mention. I think the publick sentiment with them. I found it a subject of complaint as I passd thro Jersey that the doors of the H. of R. were not shut as those of the Senate were, because the people were already so hostile to G. B. that it wod. be difficult to keep them within bounds if encouraged in that licentious spirit by the discussions in Congress. And one officer of the latter place as I understood who came up from Phila. to Trenton, said the resolutions wod. not pass but that the Secry of T. was preparing some thing that wod. do better. But even this man said he wished France well & felt resentment towards Britn. I hope to hear regularly whilst I stay from you & Colo. Taylor. Affecy. I am yr. friend
Jas. Monroe


Title: To James Madison from Hudson Muse, 8 February 1794
From: Muse, Hudson
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Virginia Port Tappa. Feby 8. 1794.
I have acted imprudent in granting indulgences, and by my returns from this office, made myself lyable for m[o]n[e]y in expectation of it’s being ready when call’d for; by which means has lately been presented draughts for three thousand dollars, that I was not prepared to pay, and consequently were returned. And as such is conduct for which I am lyable to censure, shall esteem myself much obliged to you for doing me kindness to speake to the President, and Secretary of the Treasury, on the occasion, & apologize for me; assuring them, they may relye on the Money being ready for their order in the course of next month, and that I shall take care in future never to be in the like Situation. I am dear sir, with much respect Your Obedt Sert.
Hudson Muse


Title: To James Madison from George Washington, [8 February] 1794
From: Washington, George
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Saturday Morning [8 February 1794]
The Agricultural Society of Philadelphia, are preparing the “outlines of a Plan for establishing a state Society of Agriculture in Pennsylvania” to be laid before the Legislature. Mr. Peters to whom sometime ago I mentioned the Pamphlets &ca. which had been sent me by Sir John Sinclair; & who is appointed to prepare the business for the Legislature—wishes to have the perusal of those Pamphlets—as at this moment—they might be particularly serviceable to him. I would, for this reason, thank you for them. They shall be returned to you, after he has availed himself of any information which is to be derived from them. I am sincerely & Affectionately Yours
Go: Washington


Title: From James Madison to George Washington, 12 February 1794
From: Madison, James
To: Washington, George

Feby. 12. 1794
Mr. Madison presents his respectful compliments to the President, and begs leave to lay before him the inclosed letters, on behalf of a candidate for a vacancy in the Custom-House Department in Virginia. Mr. M. being a perfect stranger to the candidate can add no information whatever of his own. He knows Mr. Maury well, and considers his recommendation ⟨as res⟩pectable.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 12 February 1794
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir!
Richmond Febry. 12. 94.
It was with much pleasure I heard by the last evenings stage that the first of your resolutions had pervaild by a majority of five in the house of representatives, & most sincerely do I wish that they may ultimately succeed, fully convincd of this important truth “that the nation which commands our commerce, will have a weight in our public counsels.[”] The thing cannot be otherwise.
Some of our members I find are however opposd to them—& never was I more astonishd than to find Parker among the number, as I am assurd there are several letters from him expressive of his warmest approbation. They may not suit the meridian of the borough of Norfolk but woud give general satisfaction in the districts.
On the 8 Inst. a frigate of the French republic, L’Charante of 44 guns, arrivd at Norfolk in 46 days from Rochefort. Nothing particular had transpird at the date of my information, as only one person had been on shore. The general news was, that Toulon was not retaken—that the French were overcoming all Catalonia & Austrian Flanders—that the affairs of the Republic were in the most flourishing situation—immense preparations were making throughout the Kingdom for an Angloexpe[di]tion—that confidence was restord, & faction destroyd. With real esteem Yr. friend & Sert
J Dawson.


Title: To James Madison from Samuel Vaughan, Jr., 14 February 1794
From: Vaughan, Samuel, Jr.
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
London. 14 Feby. 1794
The present calamatous times afford me the opportunity of introducing to Your acquaintance Monsieur Talleyrand Perigord, whom You are by reputation well acquainted with under the Title of the Bishop of Autun. Altho’ You will lament as much as myself the cause of his retiring to Your Continent, Yet I have no doubt You will feel a Pleasure in showing him those civilities & attentions which his Merit & Character entitle him to.
I beg You to rest assured of the respect I still have & always shall have for Your distinguished Talents—& of my anxiety to hold a place in Your Esteem. I remain Dr Sir Your faithful & obedt humble Servt
Samuel Vaughan Junr


Title: To James Madison from Samuel Vaughan, Jr., 14 February 1794
From: Vaughan, Samuel, Jr.
To: Madison, James

Dear sir
London 14 Feby. 1794
I beg leave to introduce to Your acquaintance Monsieur Beaumé lately a Member of the Constituent Assembly, & who is driven by the Dangers of the present Time to the Universal Assylum of the Oppressed & Unsuccessful Advocates in the cause of Liberty—America. The Nature of his Situation & his Merit will both interest You in his favor & ensure those civilities towards him which I am solicitous to procure him. With the greatest respect & Attention I am Dear Sir Your faithful hble Servt.
saml Vaughan Junr.


Title: To James Madison from Alexander White, 17 February 1794
From: White, Alexander
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Woodville 17th. Feb: 1794
I have to acknowledge your favr. of 4th instant with the enclosures, and in return as usual can say little except with respect to the weather which has been so mild as to carry of[f] the late snow and leave the grain exposed to the various changes of season which may take place, but for want of more important subjects will enter into a Family detail commencing with an event probably known to you, the marriage of Nelly Hite with Mr. Theodorick Lee last April. A similar Union took place between Sally Hite and Mr Alexr Pitt Buchanan of Baltimore 14th Ulo. With them Betsy Briscoe is gone, and Polly Hite is with her Sister Lee, so that we remain solus cum sola unless A White whose scene of Action or rather scene of thought is the Office can be considered of our company. Thus situated; the correspondence and Miscellaneous communications of absent Friends become the more engaging. Are Mr. Priestly or Mr Couper the Author of Reports The Task &c yet in Philadelphia? Do they intend this way? How do they like our Country? Mr Toulman I understand has a high opinion of Kentucky as a farming Country. He spent some time with me before he went there; I was much pleased with his company, and to render the scene more agreeable Miss Madison was of the party. Has our Friend our Republican Friend Page made his appearance yet? If he has give my particular Complts. and tell him he has neglected me as he was among the first I wrote to. Adieu And believe me sincerely yours
Alexr White

P. S A letter from a Gentleman in Baltimore this moment informs me, that the Court of G B. has demanded from America a categorical answer to this Question—What part will you take in the War? Is this true?


Title: To James Madison from James Madison, Sr., 17 February 1794
From: Madison, James, Sr.
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 17 February 1794. Acknowledged in JM to James Madison, Sr., 10 Mar. 1794. Asks JM to make inquiries in Philadelphia about purchasing a piano for his sister Frances Taylor Madison. Requests advice on building a gristmill. Asks for information about a threshing mill (probably the model recently procured by Jefferson). Informs JM that apple trees have been purchased. Inquires about Edmond Charles Genet.


Title: From James Madison to James Madison, Sr., 21 February 1794
From: Madison, James
To: Madison, James, Sr.

Hond Sir
Philada. Feby. 21. 94.
The last I recd. from you was of the 27. Ult. I have not yet had time to examine whether I can draw your interest here by virtue of the power in my hands. It does not seem necessary to decide now on the spot for the Peccan trees, if any should proceed from the Nuts left with you by Mr. Jefferson. They can be easily removed at any time. I have not fixed on any particular no. of Apple Trees. I would chuse a pretty large orchard if to be had and of the sort you think best. If a sufficient number cannot be got for Black-Meadow & Sawney’s, I would be glad to have them divided; & if not worth that, to be planted rather at Sawney’s. How has it happened that the Money left for you in Fredg. has not been recd.? I suppose it has never been applied for.
The British packet lately arrived has brought despatches from our Minister there which are no doubt important; but the subject of them is not yet disclosed to Congress. As the British Minister here, has also despatches, & nothing has leaked from that quarter it may be inferred that the intelligence has nothing agreeable to him in it as to the internal affairs of G. B. or agreeable to us in relation to our affairs with that Country.
The Commercial propositions moved sometime ago, were postponed till 1st. Monday in March, at the instance of some Eastern Members friendly to them, who wished to communicate with their Constituents. The proposition for a fleet to block up the Algerines was carried in its first stage by 47 to 45. & this small majority is going on with the ways & means. The opponents of the measure consider it as inadequate to the object—that if adequate, it wd. not be permitted by the policy which let loose the Algerines, to take effect—that if this policy did not oppose, a less sum wd. purchase peace—& that sending ships of force among the armed powers, would entangle us in the war, if any thing wd. do it.
Several French Ships of war are arrived in Chesapeak Bay, which are said to have brought a Successor to Mr. Genet, and accounts of the greatest prosperity in the affairs of France.
If Mr. Hite & my sister shd. have visited Orange—as he intended when he last wrote me, tell him that I answered his letter on that subject. It is not probable that an adjournment will take place in time for me to see him before his return. What is the prospect in the Wheat fields? What account does Collins give of my Timothy? What has Louis Collins done, and what doing? &ca. My Affection to My Mother & the family. Yr Affe Son
Js. Madison Jr


Title: From James Madison to Horatio Gates, 23 February 1794
From: Madison, James
To: Gates, Horatio

Dear Sir
Philada. Feby. 23. 1794
Your favor of the 3d. was handed me by Docr. Robertson, whose return to N. York gives me this opportunity of thanking you for his acquaintance. It has been a mortification that I could not avail myself more of it.
The Budget from Mr. Pinkney has not yet been laid before Congress. If there were any thing agreeable in the internal affairs of G. B. or in those which concern this Country, it would probably have found its way into conversation from Mr. Hammond’s correspondence. I understand that great reserve has been maintained in that quarter.
You will have seen by the Newspapers that a Successor to Genet has just made his appearance. I have not yet seen him; but am told his deportment, tho’ a young man, promises more temperance than marked the character of his predecessor. He left France the 24 Decr. but undertakes to decide nothing with regard to Toulon, beyond the immense exertions in train for reducing it. He represents the condition of France in general as auspicious, and the Revolution as firm as a Rock.
The question so long agitated in the Senate as well as out of it, in relation to their doors, has at last been carried for opening them. There being no preparation of a Gallery, the rule will not be put in practice till the ensuing Session, but is on a footing that secures it against all possible danger of being then frustrated. After it was discovered that the vote could not be defeated 19 members fell into it; some who had been most intrepid in opposing the public voice on this Subject.
The House of Reps. have been of late occupied with the project of a fleet to block up the Mediterranean. It has passed thro’ several stages, but by such bare majorities that the final success of the measure is not certain. The opponents of it—among whom I include myself, think the force proposed as well as any we can afford, inadequate to the object: that if adequate the same policy that removed the portuguese fleet—would not permit ours to do what that was not allowed to do: that if a fleet would be permitted to force the Algerines into our views, they might be accomplished on better terms either by tribute to those Barbarians, or by arrangements with Portugal, who is more interested in our trade than we are ourselves.
I do not know that it will be convenient for me to visit N. York before I return to Virginia. The pleasure to which you invite me will be a motive that will have its full effect. I am sorry to hear that you sometimes complain of symtoms of infirm health. Let me recommend the best medicine in the world: a long journey, at a mild Season, thro’ a pleasant Country, in easy stages. As you best know our whole Country, you can best select the season & route that claim these merits. Present my choicest respects to Mrs. Gates, and be assured of the affectionate esteem with which I am Dear Sir Yr friend & servt
Js. Madison Jr


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 25 February 1794
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir!
Richd Feby. 25: 94.
I am favourd with your letter. It may have been politic to pos[t]pone the resolutions offerd by you, but realy I cannot at this distance see through it.
On the last evening a meeting of a number of Citizens was to have been held in this place to declare to their representative their opinions of his vote. What the[y] did I know not but presume it will be immediately forwarded to him, & will no doubt be warmly in favour of the resolutions.
I am very anxious to hear some thing about our new French minister, & of what has become of Genet. Yrs. sincerely
J Dawson


Title: To James Madison from Pechy Bledsoe, 28 February 1794
From: Bledsoe, Pechy
To: Madison, James

Honrd. Sir,
Fedrixburg 28th. Feby 1794.
The hapiness of having had a slight acquaintance with you, induces me to trouble you with a small piece of business, respecting The servise of a man from your own County, whose Discharge you will Receive inclos’d.
I made application to Colo. Maddison Senr. for Advice respecting the Conduction of this business. Himself, with several other Gentleman Supposed my Power of Attourney was not Sufficient to Make you a Legal power, But Rather thought it expedient for me to send on the Discharge to your Honour, who cou’d Lay in the Claim, before the Expiration of the time Limited, By Act of Congress for the purpose of Setling Claims against the United States, (Which time Expires on or about the 27th March, as I have been informd) As they expected it would be sufficient to Secure it, untill a person properly authouris’d shou’d make application.
This man Serv’d Two years, which I suppose the Continental Books will Shew, as the Regiment he enlisted & serv’d in, was recruted for that Term of time.
I have the pleasure to inform you, that this state has pass a Law, in favour of the Pettion, you was so Obliging as to Draw for me respecting my own Service To Virginia.
Any thing necessary, Respecting Mr. Thomasons Service, I shou’d be glad to be inform’d off [sic], A Letter Directed to me Inclos’d in one to the Colo. your Father wou’d in a short time get to my hands Especially, if to the Care of my Uncle Aaron Bledsoe. I am Sir With Esteem Your Hume. Servt.
Pechy Bledsoe


Title: To James Madison from James Maury, 1 March 1794
From: Maury, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Liverpool 1 Mar 1794
I had this pleasure the 8 November. All your Sales being now closed, I lay them before you. The 3 stemed Hhds were treated in the Manner I had several Times recommended; & I am well pleased to see they have answered my Expectations.
For the News I beg to refer you to the papers wch. will be delivered to you by this opportunity. Notwithstanding the immense warlike preparations, I stil[l] flatter myself peace is not remote. I am with true Esteem dr Sir yr obliged friend & St
James Maury

⅌
Venus
4 hhds
39.10—

Jessie
1. do
6.14.3

Maria
3. do
 61.14.1

107.18.4


Title: To James Madison from Alexander White, 1 March 1794
From: White, Alexander
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Woodville 1st. March 1794
I am favd. with yours of 17th Ulo. with the enclosures. I have never seen a fair discussion in support of your resolutions—only desultory observations of several Members. Smith’s Speach has arrived I have had a cursory reading of it only. I am not sufficiently informed to give a decided opinion with respect to equipping a Fleet to check the Algerines. I am rather inclined in favor of it—but my great object is our internal defence—Security to our Coasts and Harbours with a Militia well regulated and well armed. I am just now informed that there is in Winchester an address from General Clarke to the People encouraging them to enlist under his Banners, in the address he styles himself General of the Revolutionary Legions of Kentucky Also General St Clairs Counter Proclamation, they will be in the Winchesters paper of Monday. During the Night of the 22d a heavy Snow fell. Sunday was mild—but Monday Tuesday and Wednesday were the severest days we have had this winter, the weather has since moderated and the snow wasted but yet covers the ground. Electioneering has taken deep root in this County no less than six Candidates. Our Friend Zane has been brought into trouble. Some falsehoods were propagated with regard to Mr. Pages conduct in the last Assembly. Zane was mentioned as the Author. Page wrote to Zane for explanation or denial. Zane resented the insinuation, and wrote an irritating answer. Page sent a Message by General Morgan, which procured a letter from Zane disavowing his being the author of the report. Page expected some further acknowledgement, which Zane refusing to give Page published the letter above mentioned with an introduction in which he said Zane was constrained to write it—to a paper war succeeded challenges, Seconds chosen times & places appointed, but at length a Quaker Alderman of Winchester (after several of the County Magestrates had refused to interfere) granted a peace Warrant. The Gentlemen were both bound to their good behaviour, and thus ended the great affair. Zane you no doubt have heard is a general. If I had had anything more interesting I should not have blotted Paper with this silly Tale. Adieu, and believe me Yours sincerely
Alexr White