Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 26 July 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

No. 11
Sir,
London 26. July 1803
On the 20th Ulto. I wrote Lord Hawkesbury by Mr. Sumter & apprized him of my arrival in town in the character of Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States to his Britannic Majesty & requested that he would be pleased to appoint a time when I might have the honor to wait on him with my letters of credence. His Lordship answered that he would receive me the next day at one oclock at his office if that hour was convenient to me. I called there at that hour with Mr. Sumter & was recieved by him. I gave him a copy of my letters of credence & expressed a desire to be presented to their Majesties as soon as it might be convenient. He regretted that I had not arrived a few days sooner, as in that case I might have been presented at the last levee, but added that it should be soon done. I asked him in what mode I should proceed, whether I should call on him again for information? He replied that Sir Stephen Cotterel would present me by whom I should be informed of the time. Not much conversation took place on political subjects in the interview. He observed that all the points in which there had been heretofore any collision between the two Nations were now happily arranged, such as the debts, Spoliations & boundaries the latter of which he had adjusted by treaty with Mr. King just before he sailed. I assured him in general terms, that it was the wish of our government to be on the most friendly terms with Great Britain. He then congratulated me on the conclusion of our treaty with France which he said I had found in a good train on my arrival there & been lucky enough to arrange to my satisfaction. I replied that I hoped it had been concluded on terms that would be found advantageous to our country & be approved by our government: that we had been careful in forming the treaty not to interfere with the rights of any other friendly power. The conversation was otherwise not sufficiently interesting to be repeated. As such interviews are formal, especially when the parties are entirely strangers to each other as we were, they are I believe generally short. As soon therefore as it appeared that the object of the interview was fully answered I withdrew.
The next levee is early in the next month at which time I hope to be presented to his Majesty, & in the interim I shall endeavor to make myself acquainted with the state of our affairs in this country, with which we have so many relations that are so highly interesting to us, and which I shall endeavor to preserve & if possible improve.
You will observe that I expressed myself in my replies to Lord Hawkesbury’s remarks in general rather than precise terms, and from your knowledge of facts you will I am persuaded be sensible that it was impossible for me to do otherwise. As I knew nothing of the treaty lately concluded with this got by Mr. King I could of course say nothing about it; nor could I well reply otherwise to his allusion to the state in which I found the negotiation on my arrival in Paris. His Lordship did not state the pretensions of any party to agency or service in that transaction which I knew to be unfounded, and it was therefore unnecessary & impolitic to presume such was his intention. Still as his allusion might be construed into a countenance of such pretensions, I thought it my duty to express myself in a manner which while it Manifested a disposition to conciliate, should nevertheless give them no sanction. It would be matter of regret if such pretensions existed, since every transaction should appear in its true character, and be attributed to its proper causes. Justice & candor require this in all cases in reference to the parties concerned. In the present one it is peculiarly important that this correct maxim should be strictly observed. This affair is not yet concluded, tho’ I hope it is in a good train & will soon be put beyond the reach of fortune. Our Got. ought to know to the minutest detail the motives which induced the got. of France to adopt this measure, to enable it to do justice to those motives & bring the affair itself to a happy conclusion. The extrication of ourselves from a dangerous perhaps a disastrous war, by the acquisition of an important territory which gives such vast relief & comfort to some of our people, is an event which if the causes which produced it are well understood, may serve as a monitory lesson to influence if not prescribe the course to be pursued in our future controversies with the European powers, if any should occur. America certainly has a very distinct relation to Europe, from what the several powers of the latter bear to each other which it is equally important for her to understand and to have understood by the latter. Of this truth the event referred to is a striking example as it is a very satisfactory illustration. I should weary you if I pursued this subject. I have touched it to remark that for these and other obvious reasons I have considered it my duty to communicate to you every fact belonging to this transaction, with which I was acquainted, that it might be seen by the President in its true light. To these I shall at present take the liberty to add a few observations.
You saw by Mr. Livingstons & my joint letter which bore date a day or two before I left Paris, about the 11th. Ulto., that the English Got. had no agency in this affair: that it never had made a question of Louisiana in its discussions with the Got. of France at any period since the French possessed it. This information was obtained of Lord Whitworth on the application of Mr. Livingston, on his and my part, at a time when we deemed it important to know what interest this power had taken in the affair if any. Lord Whitworths answer was as I understood frank and explicit to that effect. It therefore proves fully that the cession of Louisiana did not proceed from any interference of great Britain respecting it.
The proof is in other respects positive and conclusive that it was produced by the measures of our government, and that the decision to make the cession was intended to meet them in the spirit in which they were taken. It is a well established fact that before those measures were known in France the first Consul had manifested no inclination to make the cession. For some time after they were known his disposition to retain the territory remained unshaken, tho’ it was evident that he had become more conciliatory in his deportment towards our country. As late as the 10th. of March he announced his resolution not even to discuss the subject in any light until after he had sent a Minister to the U. States & recieved from him such information as he deemed necessary for the purpose. On the 22d. of march he manifested his desire to retain the country to be as strong as ever, intimated that he had always considered the possession of it as furnishing him with the means of giving new proofs of his friendship for the U. States, by which he meant, as is presumed, the opening of the river to our citizens, on more favorable terms than had yet been enjoyed by them, he absolutely refused to treat at that time, tho’ he acknowledged his sensibility to the conduct of the President in the conjuncture which had produced an extraordinary mission, and declared that he would recieve the Envoy with pleasure & hoped that his mission would terminate to the satisfaction of both powers. The decision to make the cession was taken on the 10th. of April after the arrival of that Envoy at Hâvre (which was on the 8th.) was known at Paris, and with a view to lay the foundation of the negotiation which was so soon to commence. For the proof of these facts I refer you to the official notes of Mr. Taleyrand to Mr. Livingston of the 10th. & 22d. of March, which I presume are in your possession, and to such other information as you have heretofore recieved of the latter. The demonstration which they furnish of what I have above stated is too strong to be resisted by any one whose mind is not sealed by prejudice against the clearest result. Had the disposition of the first Consul to make the cession been produced by any but the measures of our got. and Country taken together, but more especially by the firm & dignified yet conciliating conduct of the President, he would not have postponed the discussion of the subject till he was apprized of those measures, nor would he after he knew of them, have delayed the avowal of his disposition to the period that he did, or have assigned the motive which he gave, in the letter of March 22d. for the delay.
It was impossible, had we possessed the requisite power, after our negotiation commenced to have opened any communication with this got. without great hazard to our interest and credit, while it was impossible to derive any advantage from it. A proposition to Britain for her agency in the affair, could not have been expected to succeed without our paying some equivalent for it, which must have been by making common cause with her in her own controversy and perhaps also by giving her some portion of the territory or rights in the navigation of the river. Had we stipulated either of these considerations we should most probably have been carried into the war with her, the result of which is very uncertain. By making any stipulations in favor of G. Britain we should have tied up our hands in the degree from doing any thing for ourselves, While we bound ourselves to her fortunes. Had we made any overture for such an arrangement, we hazarded its being made known with a view to her own interest, to the French Got. with whom it could not fail to have produced an ill effect in regard to ours. Perfect freedom, to take such part as our interest required, was the happiest situation in which we could be placed in the negotiation, and it equally comported with honor and policy not only to remain so in reality, but to preserve also the appearance of it, while there was a prospect of success. Had we erred in the present case our folly & disposition for intrigue must have been extreme, since from the commencement there was great probability of success, which continued to encrease till the object was accomplished.
It cannot be doubted that there were a variety of causes which contributed to produce a change in the mind of the first Consul relative to Louisiana and facilitate the cession which I flatter myself our Got. has been fortunate in obtaining. Among these may be calculated the failure of the expedition to St. Domingo, the press of the crisis in Europe &c. These are occasions which it is fair and honorable for every got. to take advantage of & which none fail to do when those at their head have discernment enough to see them. They are such as our distance from Europe and fortunate situation in other respects will I hope always furnish us when they may be necessary. I affirm however with perfect confidence in the opinion, that notwithstanding these favorable circumstances, we should not have succeeded, had the amicable relations between America & France been broken, or had the President taken an attitude of menace towards that power, or any other than precisely that which he did take. I am with great respect & esteem your very hule. Sert.
Jas. Monroe
I have been happy to take advantage of the services of Mr. Sumter, who lives in the Neighborhood of London, which his friendship & disposition to be useful have induced him to render me. As he will embark in a month or six weeks for the U. S. I shall experience some embarrassment when he leaves me unless Mr. Purviance arrives in the mean time. If he has not yet sailed I beg of you to prevail on him to do so as soon as possible.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 12); letterbook copy (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Monroe; marked “Duplicate”; docketed by Wagner as received 12 Oct. For enclosures, see n. 1.

   Monroe enclosed a copy of his letter to Hawkesbury, 20 July 1803 (1 p.), and of the latter’s reply of the same date (1 p.).

   For the boundary convention negotiated between Great Britain and the U.S., see King to JM, 13 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:607 and nn.).

   Monroe no doubt referred to their joint letter to JM of 12 July 1803.

   For Talleyrand to Livingston, 10 and 22 Mar. 1803, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:412 n. 5, 448 n. 3.


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 26 July 1803 (Abstract)
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

26 July 1803, London. Forwards the enclosed letters at the request of John M. Forbes, U.S. consul at Hamburg.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, London, vol. 8). RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 26 Sept.

   For descriptions of the enclosed letters (7 pp.; docketed by Wagner), see Forbes to JM, 13 June 1803, and n. 1.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: To James Madison from John M. Forbes, 27 July 1803 (Abstract)
From: Forbes, John M.
To: Madison, James

27 July 1803, Hamburg. Since his letter of 8 July “nothing new has transpired.” Hanover has made a second capitulation. The French have crossed the Elbe and taken possession of the duchy of Lauenburg. The British have blockaded the Elbe “and have called on the powers pledged for the neutrality of it’s navigation to restore it, promising on this event to raise the blockade.” “In this state, things have remained for the last fifteen days. We now experience that awful Calm in the political Atmosphere which in the natural, often forebodes the gathering of a most desolating tempest.” Expects Hamburg to be occupied if the northern powers oppose the French. Has heard a coalition spoken of among Russia, Denmark, Sweden, and Great Britain. “Should this prove the Case, we shall be in the Center of all their military operations.… I expect to be the only neutral Agent here, it is my fixed determination and shall be my Constant endeavour, to Conform, as far as possible, to the duties of this Character.” Has had a second discussion with the British chargé d’affaires about American vessels being boarded prior to the notification of the blockade. The American snow Debby, Captain Elliot, was ordered to return to port by the British ship La Fortunée, Captain Vansittart. Instructed Captain Elliot “to proceed again to Sea and in Case his departure should be opposed, to demand a legal discussion in the British Court of Admiralty.” Encloses a copy of his instructions. “Since this measure, the Concession on the part of the English has been general to all neutral Vessels under similar Circumstances.” Believes his conduct has been viewed with satisfaction by the Hamburg merchants; hopes JM will approve of it. “I have demanded of the Chamber or College of Commerce of this City, General Tables of duties, Light money, Anchorage &c &c payable by their own Ships, by American Ships, and by other foreign Ships, and hope in a few days to transmit the same to you.” Believes “there was never a more favorable moment than the present” to encourage the emigration of “thousands of sober, industrious Cultivators” to the U.S.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Hamburg, vol. 1). RC 2 pp.; marked triplicate; docketed by Wagner as received 26 Sept. RC begins on second page of Forbes’s 8 July dispatch (first RC). For enclosures, see nn.

   Filed with this letter are copies of two circulars, both dated 11 July. The first (2 pp.) was addressed to the captains and supercargoes of all American ships “as may present themselves at the mouth of the Elbe, being destined for the Port of Hamburg,” and advised them to go “into the nearest neutral Port, which you may be allowed to enter” and to seek advice from the merchant houses to which their cargo was consigned. The second (1 p.) was addressed to captains of American ships in Hamburg harbor and advised them to abide strictly by the blockade, not to load their vessels with any more cargo, “to provide yourself with the best proof, that what is already loaded, has been delivered and loaded before your knowledge of the Blockade; and to hasten as much as possible your Departure.”

   Forbes’s letter to Captain Elliot, 18 July 1803 (2 pp.; docketed by Wagner), instructed him to sail to Great Britain and enter a protest with George W. Erving over his detention at sea by the British navy after leaving the port of Hamburg prior to the declaration of blockade. The letter also discussed two decisions made by Sir William Scott in similar cases of blockade.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: From James Madison to Richard O’Brien, 28 July 1803
From: Madison, James
To: O’Brien, Richard

Sir.
Department of State July 28th. 1803.
Mr. Lear your successor being on the point of departure, I take the occasion to enclose copies of my two last letters, and to notice some personal subjects contained in yours, respecting which you seem desirous of having answers.
A small sum only appears to have been paid out of your salary at the Office, but as on your return you will of course settle all your public accounts, the balance to be struck will be the result of a liquidation of the whole in which the balance of the Salary will be blended. It would therefore be preferable that you should omit drawing for it at present. It has been determined to allow the Consuls on the Coast of Barbary an outfit equal to a years Salary, seeing that the nature of the Office admits of and requires it, and as it will enable the Treasury to strike out some charges in the Consular accounts, which are deemed inconvenient to be admitted, & at the same time are supposed to have been in a degree necessary to be disbursed. Your Salary will be computed from the date of your Commission and a quarters salary allowed in lieu of the expenses of your return. It would have been an agreeable circumstance had it been possible that you could have a passage to the United States in the Constitution, in which Mr. Lear proceeds to the Mediterranean, but she is destined to remain and cruize there. In order however to accommodate you as far as possible, the Secretary of the Navy has given orders to Commodore Preble, who supersedes Commodore Morris in the command, to send one of the returning Ships if any should remain to receive you & your Family on board; you providing the necessary Sea stores, as is usual in such cases. I am &c.
James Madison.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1). Enclosures not found, but see n. 1.

   JM to O’Brien, 30 Mar. (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:459–60) and 31 May 1803.

   O’Brien to JM, 22 Oct. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:45–50).


Title: To James Madison from Elias Vander Horst, 28 July 1803 (Abstract)
From: Vanderhorst, Elias
To: Madison, James

28 July 1803. Has not heard from JM since he last wrote on 10 July. Encloses newspapers and a London price current; “the picture they draw is not the most exact resemblance of truth, yet they serve in some degree to shew the State & course of Public affairs.” “One would suppose from them that the War is popular but I must confess to you that my judgment fails me greatly if this is really the case. Unhappily for Mankind War is become too much a Trade with us & Perhaps with some other Nations also, owing to the Rich Harvest it yields to those in Power.” Fears “a National Bankruptcy … bolstered up by that delicate Shadow of wealth—Paper.” The weather “continues uncommonly fine,” with “the most flattering prospect of an abundant Harvest.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bristol, vol. 2). 2 pp.; written at foot of second copy of Vander Horst to JM, 10 July 1803; docketed by Wagner as received 30 Sept.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: From James Madison to Robert R. Livingston, 29 July 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Livingston, Robert R.

Sir,
Washington, department of State July 29th 1803.
Since the date of my last which was May 24 I have received your several letters of April 11. 13. & 17th and May 12th. As they relate almost wholly to the subject which was happily terminated on the 30th April, a particular answer is rendered unnecessary by that event and by the answer, which goes by this conveyance to the joint letter from yourself and Mr Monroe of the 13th of May. It will only be observed, first, that the difference in the diplomatic title given to Mr. Monroe from that given to you and which you understand to have ranked him above you was the result merely of an error in the clerk who copied the document[s] and which escaped attention when they were signed. It was not the intention of the president that any distinction of grade should be made between you. Indeed according to the authority of Vattel the characters of minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary are precisely of the same grade altho’ it is said that the usage in France particularly does not correspond with this idea. Secondly that the relation of the first consul to the Italian Republic received the compliment deemed sufficient in the answer to a note of Mr. Pichon communicating the flag of that nation. Copy of the communication and of the answer are now enclosed.
The boundaries of Louisiana seem to be so imperfectly understood and are of so much importance that the President wishes them to be investigated wherever information is likely to be obtained. You will be pleased to attend particularly to this object as it relates to the Spanish possessions both on the west and on the east side of the Mississippi. The proofs countenancing our claim to a part of West Florida may be of immediate use in the negotiations which are to take place at Madrid. Should Mr. Monroe has [sic] proceeded thither as is probable and any such proofs should after his departure have come to your knowledge you will of course have transmitted them to him.
You will find by our Gazettes that your memorial drawn up about a year ago on the subject of Louisiana has found its way into public circulation. The passages in it which strike at Great Britain have undergone some comments and will probably be conveyed to the attention of that government. The document appears to have been sent from Paris where you will be able no doubt to trace the indiscretion to its author.
No answer has yet been received either from you or Mr Monroe of the diplomatic arrangement for London and Paris. The importance of shortening the interval at the former and preventing one at the latter makes us anxious on this point. As your late letters have not repeated your intention of returning home this fall it is hoped that the interesting scenes which have since supervened may reconcile you to a longer stay in Europe. I have the Honor to be, with very great Respect and Consideration, sir, Your Mo: obed servant,
James Madison

   RC, triplicate, and extract (NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM. Italicized words are those encoded by a clerk and decoded here by the editors (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:304–5 n.). Extract in Livingston’s hand.

   JM to Livingston, 25 May 1803.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:500–502, 511–15, 524–27, 590–94.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:601–6.

   This word was omitted in the RC and extract and has been supplied from the letterbook copy.

   Enclosures not found, but presumably they were copies of Pichon to JM, 17 Oct. 1802, and JM to Pichon, 18 Oct. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:29).

   The essay, with editorial comment, was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette of the U.S., 13 July 1803. For a discussion of the essay, see Livingston to JM, 10 Aug. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:467–69, 470 n. 3).


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 29 July 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Sir
Department of State July 29th. 1803
The communications by Mr. Hughes including the Treaty and conventions signed with the French Government were safely delivered on the 14th. instant. Inclosed is a copy [of] a letter written in consequence of them to Mr. Livingston and yourself.
On the presumption which accords with the information given by Mr. Hughes that you will have proceeded to Madrid in pursuance of the instructions of the seventeenth of February last it is thought proper to observe to you that although Louisiana may in some respects be more important than the Floridas and has more than exhausted the funds allotted for the purchase of the latter the acquisition of the Floridas is still to be pursued especially as the crisis must be favorable to it.
You will be at no loss for the arguments most likely to have weight in prevailing on Spain to yield to our wishes. These colonies separated from her other territories on this continent by New Orleans the Mississippi and the whole of western Louisiana are now of less value to her than ever, while to the United States they retain the peculiar importance derived from their position and their relations to us thro the navigable rivers running from the United States into the Gulph of Mexico. In the hands of Spain they must ever be a dead expense in time of peace, indefensible in time of war, and at all times a source of irritation and ill blood with the United States. The Spanish Government must understand in fact that the United States can never consider the amicable relations between Spain and them as definitively and permanently secured without an arrangement on this subject, which will substitute the manifest indications of nature for the artificial and inconvenient state of things now existing.

The advantage to be derived to your negotiations from the war which has just commenced will certainly not escape you. Powerful and it might be presumed effectual use may be made of the fact that Great Britain had meant to seize New Orleans with a view to the anxiety of the United States to obtain it and of the inference from that fact, that the same policy will be pursued with respect to the Floridas. Should Spain be engaged in the war it cannot be doubted that they will be quickly occupied by a British force and held out on some conditions or other to the United States. Should Spain be still at peace and wish not to lose her neutrality, she should reflect that the facility and policy of seizing the Floridas must strengthen the temptations of Great Britain to force her into the war. In every view it will be better for Spain that the Floridas should be in the hands of the United States than of Great Britain and equally so that they should be ceded on beneficial terms by herself than that they should find their way to us thro the hands of Great Britain.
The Spanish Government may be assured [of] the sincere and continued desire of the United States to live in harmony with Spain; that this motive enters deeply into the solicitude of their government for a removal of the danger to it which is inseparable from such a neighborhood as that of the Floridas and that having by a late convention with Great Britain adjusted every territorial question and interest with that nation and the treaty [with] France concerning Louisiana having just done the same with her it only remains that the example be copied into an arrangement with Spain who is evidently not less interested in it than we are.
By the inclosed note from the Spanish Minister here, you will see the refusal of Spain to listen to our past overtures, with her reasons for the refusal. The answer to that communication is also inclosed. The reply to such reasons will be very easy. Neither the reputation nor the duty of His Catholic Majesty can suffer from any measure founded in wisdom and the true interest of Spain. There is as little ground for supposing that maritime powers of Europe will complain of or be dissatisfied with a cession of the two Floridas to the United States more than with the late cession of Louisiana by Spain to France or more than with the former cessions thro which the Floridas themselves have passed. What the Treaties are subsequent to that of Utrecht which are alledged to preclude Spain from the proposed alienation have not been examined. Admitting them to exist in the sense put upon them there is probably no maritime power who would not readily acquiesce in our acquisition of the Floridas as more advantageous to itself than the retention of them by Spain shut up against all foreign commerce and liable at every moment to be thrown into the preponderant scale of Great Britain. Great Britain herself would unquestionably have no objection to their being transferred to us unless it should be drawn from her intention to conquer them for herself or from the use she might expect to make of them in a negotiation with the United States. And with respect to France silence at least is imposed on her by the cession to the United States of the province ceded to her by Spain not to mention that she must wish to see the Floridas like Louisiana kept out of the hands of Great Britain and has doubtless felt that motive in promising her good offices with Spain for obtaining these possessions for the United States. Of this promise you will of course make the proper use in your negotiations.
For the price to be given for the Floridas you are referred generally to the original instructions on this point. Although the change of circumstances lessens the anxiety for acquiring immediately a territory which now more certainly than ever must drop into our hand and notwithstanding the pressure of the bargain with France on our treasury yet for the sake of a peaceable and fair completion of a great object you are permitted by the president in case a less sum will not be accepted to give two millions and a quarter of dollars the sum heretofore apportioned to this purchase. It will be expected however that the part of it if necessary be made applicable to the discharge of debts and damages claimed from Spain as well those not yet admitted by her government as those covered by the convention signed with it by Mr. Pinckney on the  day of  Augt. 1802 and which was not ratified by the Senate because it embraced no more of the just responsibilities of Spain. On the subject of these claims you will hold a strong language. The Spanish government may be told plainly that they will not be abandoned any farther than an impartial tribunal may make exceptions to them. Energy in the appeal to its feelings will not only tend to justice for past wrongs, but to prevent a repetition of them in case Spain should become a party to the present war.
In arranging the mode the times and the priorities of paying the assumed debts the ease of the treasury is to be consulted as much as possible less is not to be done with that now, than was enjoined in the case of the French debts to our citizens. The stock to be engaged in the transaction is not to be made irredeemable without a necessity not likely to arise and the interest as well as the principal should be payable at the treasury of the United States. The only admissible limitation on the redemption of the stock is that the holder should not be paid off in less than about one fifth or one fourth of the amount in one year.
Indemnifications for the violation of our deposit at New Orleans have been constantly kept in view in our remonstrances and demands on that subject. It will be desirable to comprehend them in the arrangement. A distinction however is to be made between the positive and specific damages sustained by individuals and the general injury accruing from that breach of treaty. The latter could be provided for by a gross and vague estimate only and need not be pressed as an indispensable condition. The claim however may be represented as strictly just and a forbearance to insist on it as an item in the valuable considerations for which the cession is made. Greater stress may be laid on the positive and specific damages capable of being formally verified by individuals but there is a point beyond which it may be prudent not to insist even here especially as the incalculable advantage accruing from the acquisition of New Orleans will diffuse a joy throughout the western country that will drown the sense of these little sacrifices. Should no bargain be made on the subject of the Floridas, our claims of every sort are to be kept in force.
If it be impossible to bring Spain to a cession of the whole of the two Floridas a trial is to be made for obtaining either or any important part of either. The part of West Florida adjoining the territories now ours and including the principal rivers falling into the gulf will be particularly important and convenient.
It is not improbable that Spain in treating on a cession of the Floridas, may propose an exchange of them for Louisiana beyond the Mississippi or may make a serious point of some particular boundary to that territory. Such an exchange is inadmissible. In intrinsic value there is no equality besides the advantage given us by the western bank of the entire jurisdiction of the river. We are the less disposed also to make sacrifices to obtain the Floridas because their position and the manifest course of events guarantee an early and reasonable acquisition of them. With respect to the adjustment of a boundary between Louisiana and the Spanish territories there might be no objection to combining it with a cession of the Floridas if our knowledge of the extent and character of Louisiana were less imperfect. At present any arrangement would be a step too much in the dark to be hazarded and this will be a proper answer to the Spanish government. Perhaps the intercommunications with the Spanish government on this subject with other opportunities at Madrid may enable you to collect useful information and proofs of the first limits or of the want of fixed limits to western Louisiana. Your enquiries may also be directed to the question whether any and how much of what passes for West Florida be fairly included in the Territory ceded to us by France. The Treaties and transactions between Spain & France will claim particular attention in this enquiry.
Should no cession whatever be attainable, it will remain only for the present to provide for the free use of the rivers running from the United States into the gulf. A convenient deposit is to be pressed as equally reasonable there as the Mississippi and the inconveniency experienced on the latter from the want of a jurisdiction over the deposit will be an argument for such an improvement of the stipulation. The free use of those rivers for our external commerce is to be insisted on as an important right without which the United States can never be satisfied and without an admission of which by Spain they can never confide either in her justice or her disposition to cultivate harmony and good neighbourhood with them. It will not be adviseable to commit the United States into the alternative of war or a compliance on the part of Spain but no representation short of that can be stronger than the case merits.
The instruction to urge on Spain some provision for preventing or rectifying by a delegated authority here aggressions and abuses committed by her colonial officers is to be regarded as of high importance. Nothing else may be able to save the United States from the necessity of doing themselves summary justice. It cannot be expected that they will long continue to wait the delays and the difficulties of negotiating on every emergency beyond the atlantic. It is more easy and infinitely more just that Spain and other European nations should establish a remedy on this side of the Atlantic where the source of the wrongs is established than that the complaints of the United States should be carried to the other side and perhaps wait till the Atlantic has moreover been twice crossed in procuring information for the other party without which a decision may be refused.
The navigation of the Bay of St. Mary’s is common to spain and the United [States]; but a light house, and the customary water marks can be established within the Spanish jurisdiction only. Hitherto the Spanish officers have refused every proper accommodation on this subject. The case may be stated to the Government of Spain with our just expectation that we may be permitted either to provide the requisite establishments ourselves or to make use of those provided by spain.
This letter will be addressed to madrid. But as it is possible that you may not have left Paris, or may have proceeded to London a copy will be forwarded to Paris, to be thence if necessary sent on to London. In case it should find you either at Paris or London, it must be left to your own decision how far the call for you at either of those places ought to suspend these instructions. Should you decide to go to Madrid it may be proper first to present your credence to the French or British government as the case may be—and to charge a fit person with the public business during your absence. Should you even be at Paris and your commission be filled up for London it may be best to proceed first to London if the call to Madrid be not very urgent.
I shall write to Mr. Pinckney and inform him that this letter is intended for his use jointly with yours; tho’ addressed to you alone, because in part not applicable to him. Should you suspend or have suspended your visit to Madrid, you will please to write to him also, giving him your ideas as to the expediency of prosecuting the object of the joint instructions or not until you can be with him. I have the honor to be with very great respect and consideration your most ob. Servant.
James Madison

   RC (DLC); RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM; docketed by Monroe. Italicized words are those encoded by a State Department clerk and decoded here by the editors (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:352 n. 1). Second RC decoded interlinearly by Monroe.

   Enclosure not found, but it was no doubt a copy of JM to Livingston and Monroe, 29 July 1803.

   See JM to Pinckney and Monroe, 2 Mar. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:381–82 and n. 1).

   This word was omitted by the clerk; it is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   Miscoded “moist.”

   Miscoded “efbenual.”

   Miscoded “their.”

   This word was omitted by the clerk; it is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   This word was omitted by the clerk; it is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   Enclosure not found, but see Yrujo to JM, 2 July 1803, and n.

   Enclosure not found, but see JM to Yrujo, 8 July 1803.

   This word was miscoded “resolutions.”

   This word was miscoded “resolutions.”

   Miscoded “anthoseicty.”

   This word was omitted by the clerk; it is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   The letterbook copy reads “whole” here; the second RC has “sight.”

   Blanks left in RC. The letterbook copy reads “11th. Augt. 1802” here.

   The phrase “justice for past wrongs, but to prevent a repetition” was omitted from the RC. It is encoded in the second RC and is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   Miscoded “L.”

   Miscoded “like.”

   Miscoded “groundrante”; not decoded on the second RC.

   Miscoded “imbem.”

   Miscoded “ordinanceharsions.”

   For Jefferson’s complaints to JM on this score, see Jefferson to JM, 30 Aug. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:527).

   Miscoded “evilxy.”

   St. Marys Bay (present-day Cumberland Sound) is the outlet of St. Marys River, which formed part of the boundary between Spanish Florida and Georgia.

   See JM to Charles Pinckney, 29 July 1803.


Title: From James Madison to Charles Pinckney, 29 July 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Pinckney, Charles

Sir,
Department of State July 29. 1803
My last letter was of the  day of . Those received from you since that date are of .
You will have learnt doubtless from Paris, that a Treaty has been signed there by which New Orleans and the rest of Louisiana is conveyed to the United States. The Floridas are not included in the Treaty, being, it appears still held by Spain. The inclosed copy of a communication from the Spanish Minister here contains a refusal of his Catholic Majesty to alienate any part of his Colonial possessions. A copy of the answer to it is also inclosed.
At the date of this refusal it was probably unknown that the Cession by France to the United States, had been or would be made. This consideration with the kind of reasons given for the refusal and the situation of Spain resulting from the war between Great Britain and France, lead to a calculation that at present there may be less repugnance to our views. The Letter herewith addressed to Mr. Monroe, gives the instructions under which the negotiations are to be pursued. Being for your use as well as his, it is unsealed and in your cypher; a copy in his having been forwarded to Paris.

In case Mr Monroe should not have arrived, but be expected at Madrid, you will forbear to enter into negotiations on this subject, unless they should be brought on by the Spanish Government, and the moment should be critical for securing our object on favorable terms. The maximum of price contemplated by the President will be found in the instructions. At this price the bargain cannot be a bad one. But considering the motives which Spain ought now to feel for making the arrangement easy and satisfactory, the certainty that the Floridas must at no distant period find a way into our hands, and the tax on our finances resulting from the purchase of Louisiana which makes a further purchase immediately less convenient, it may be hoped as it is to be wished, that the bargain will be considerably cheapened. Under such circumstances it would not be proper to accede to terms, which under others might have been admissible.
In case Mr Monroe should be obliged to decline or postpone his visit to Spain, I have requested him to give you his ideas on the expediency of your proceeding or not in the negotiation. The advantage given him by his opportunities of scanning the policy of Great Britain and France in relation to Spain, and of estimating the course of the war, will render his opinion on that point particularly worthy of your confidence.
You will observe in the answer to the Marquis D’Yrujo communication a merited animadversion on the motives assigned for the restoration of the deposit. The United States can never admit that this was by a favor, not of right, nor receive as a favor what they demand as a right.
As the indemnifications claimed from Spain are to be incorporated in the overtures for the Floridas, it will be advisable to leave them, altho’ within Your ordinary functions, for the joint negotiations of yourself and Mr Monroe. In these as proceeding from an extraordinary mission the subject can be pressed with greater force, and more probable effect. Should Mr Monroe however, not be likely soon to join you, and there be a prospect of extending the Convention not accepted here, to the claims omitted in it you will continue to urge them on the justice of the Spanish Government, and in terms and a tone that will make it sensible of the impolicy of disappointing the reasonable expectations of the United States. I have the honor to be &ca.
James Madison

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6).

   Blanks left in letterbook.

   See Yrujo to JM, 2 July, and JM to Yrujo, 8 July 1803.

   JM to Monroe, 29 July 1803.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 29 July 1803
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Baltimore July 29. 1803—nine at night
I arriv’d here about an hour ago—soon after I saw Commodore Barney, who presented to me Mr. Dalbart, on the latter’s withdrawing, the commodore informd me that he was Jerome Bounaparte, who was here with his Secretary, and a son of General Reubell on their return to France—they stay at Barney’s, whose character you know. He has purchas’d a carriage and horses for them, and Reubell has already ask’d the permission of a gentleman, a Mr. Paccho, to marry his daughter.
Barney say’s, that Bounaparte is much discontented with Mr. Pichon, who he says will be dismissed on the arrival of General Bournadote—that Capn Maury of the British navy had made application to our goverment for permission to return in one of our frigates, which had been refus’d, and that Bounaparte meant to do the same—Maury, who is in the house with me, I am told, says that he shall give every information respecting Bounaparte, and that every exertion will be made to capture him. I think it unfortunate that he has fallen into the company and acquir’d confidence in a man as impudent and violent as Barney.
I thought it might be usefull to give you this information—shall set out on tomorrow for N. York, where I shall be happy to hear from you. With much esteem Your frie⟨nd &⟩ Sert
J Dawson

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   Joshua Barney (1759–1818) was a Continental navy captain in the Revolutionary War who spurned a commission in the postwar navy to take service in the navy of revolutionary France. Barney returned to the U.S. in 1802 and played an active part in the defense of Washington, D.C., in 1814 (Footner, Sailor of Fortune, pp. 2, 193, 202, 234, 280–87, 303–5).

   Jerome Bonaparte (1784–1860), the youngest brother of Napoleon, was a naval officer at the time of his visit to the U.S. and his marriage to Elizabeth Patterson of Baltimore on 24 Dec. 1803. The alliance, which caused a great stir in Washington social circles, so angered his brother that Jerome was recalled to France and the marriage was annulled. Jerome later married Catherine of Württemberg and became king of Westphalia, 1807–13 (Tulard, Dictionnaire NapoléonJean Tulard et al., Dictionnaire Napoléon (Paris, 1987)., p. 245).

   Jean-François Reubell (1747–1807) was a lawyer, diplomat, and revolutionary politician who, as a member of the Directory, advocated France’s expansion to its “natural frontiers” and engineered the formation of “sister republics” to buffer France from the attentions of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. His son, Jean-Jacques Reubell (1777–1847), was a general in Napoleon’s Grande Armée (ibid., pp. 1455–56).

   Louis Pascault was a Baltimore merchant. His daughter, Henriette, married Jean-Jacques Reubell (Francis F. Beirne, The Amiable Baltimoreans [New York, 1951], p. 106).

   For John Murray, see Robert Liston to JM, 12 Oct. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:20–21 and n. 2).


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 30 July 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear Sir
Washington July 30. 1803
I recd your favor of  by Mr. Hughs, the bearer of the public dispatches from you & Mr L. The purchase of Louisiana in its full extent, tho’ not contemplated is received with warm, & in a manner universal approbation. The uses to which it may be turned, render it a truly noble acquisition. Under prudent management it may be made to do much good as well as to prevent much evil. By lessening the military establishment otherwise requisite or countenanced, it will answer the double purpose of saving expence & favoring liberty. This is a point of view in which the Treaty will be particularly grateful to a most respectable description of our Citizens. It will be of great importance also to take the regulation & settlement of that territory out of other hands, into those of the U. S. who will be able to manage both for the general interest & conveniency. By securing also the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mississippi to the mouth a source of much perplexity & collision is effectually cut off.
The communications of your colleague hither, have fully betrayed the feelings excited by your mission and that he was precipitating the business even after your arrival without respect to the measure of the government to yourself or to the advantage to be expected from the presence and cooperation of the more immediate depository of the objects and sensibilities of his country. It is highly probable that if the appeal to the French government had been less hackneyed by the ordinary minister and been made under the solemnity of a joint and extraordinary embassy the impression would have been greater and the bargain better.
What course will be taken by his friends here remains to be seen. You will find in the gazettes a letter from Paris understood to be from Swan inclosing a copy of his memorial representing it as the primary cause of the cession praising the patriotism which undertook so great a service without authority and throwing your agency out of any real merit while by good fortune it snatched the ostensible merit. This letter with the memorial has been published in all our papers some of them making comments favorable to Mr. Livingston others doing justice to you others ascribing the result wholly to the impending rupture. Another letter from Paris has been published which makes him the magnus Apollo. The publication of the memorial is so improper and in reference to the writer invites such strictures that a sanc[tion?] from him is not to be presumed. The passages against England have not escaped the lash. It would not be very wonderful if they were to be noticed formally or informally by the British legation here.
My public letter will shew the light in which the purchase of all Louisiana is viewed, and the manner in which it was thought proper to touch the policy of Mr. L in complaining that the commission did not authorize the measure notwithstanding the information given that he was negotiating for more than the east side of the Mississippi. The pecuniary arrangements are much disrelished particularly by Mr. Gallatin. The irredeemability of the stock which gives it a value above par the preference of the creditors to the true object in the cash payment and the barring of a priority among them, are the errors most regarded. The origin of the two last is easily understood. The claims of the different creditors rest on principles clear[ly] different.
Governour Mercer has taken the field as a candidate for the State Legislature agst. four with whom he has been in the same party. The inclosed print will give you an idea of the violence of the contest, and of the personalities growing out of it. His object is to set the State to rights on certain points. He expects to accomplish it by a skilful management of parties. It is difficult to calculate the precise result of this project either as it relates to the public or to himself. It is probable that he will sink under it or that he will throw the state off its center; and possible that both may happen.
I have recd no letter from you or Mr L since the arrival of Mr. Hugh’s & consequently know nothing of your subsequent movements. The public letters by this conveyance are written under an ignorance whether you would be found at Paris London or Madrid. I observe a paragraph from an English paper says you had left Paris for Madrid which I presume to be founded in fact. I hope you will give the proper care to Spain, and carry all our points with her. Avoid the error committed with France with respect to the Creditors.
The President has been gone home abt. ten days. I am on the wing, and obliged therefore to omit many things which I might say in cypher. Your uncle was well some days ago. I meant to write on the furniture & send a list of wts. &c, but conclude it best to address communications ⟨on⟩ that head to Paris, where alone you can attend to it. Accept for Mrs. M. & yourself our affece. adieus
James Madison

   RC (DLC: Monroe Papers). Italicized words are those encoded by JM and decoded here by the editors (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:352 n. 1). Decoded interlinearly by Monroe; docketed by Monroe “private.”

   Left blank in the RC, but JM referred to Monroe’s private letter to him of 14 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:610–15).

   Miscoded “greater and bargain be”; Monroe supplied the missing words and letters.

   For the letter purportedly written by James Swan, see the New York American Citizen, 2 July 1803. For the publication of Livingston’s essay in the U.S., see, for example, the Aurora General Advertiser, 7 July 1803, the National Intelligencer, 11 July 1803, and the Philadelphia Gazette of the U.S., 13 July 1803.

   JM encoded and Monroe decoded “sane” here.

   The British government did indeed consider the memorial offensive, and in his letter of 16 Sept. 1803 Hawkesbury instructed Anthony Merry to protest it (Mayo, Instructions to the British Ministers, p. 199).

   JM to Livingston and Monroe, 29 July 1803.

   Enclosure not found, but the “print” JM referred to was published in the Washington Federalist, 8 Aug. 1803. Mercer’s bitter personal attacks upon fellow Republican Edward Hall led to a split among the Republicans, as the governor sought to unite moderates of both parties into a legislative majority (L. Marx Renzulli, Jr., Maryland: The Federalist Years [Rutherford, N.J., 1972], pp. 233–34).


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 30 July 1803
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

Sir
New york July 30. 1803
As well on account of the State of Affairs between England and France, as at the pressing desire of our minister at Paris, I prolonged my Residence in London from the 20th. of Ap. to the 19th. of may.
By the charter party made in my behalf with the owner of the Ship engaged to bring me home, I was bound to pay £560. Sterling for my passage, to have my Effects on board, and be ready to embark on the 20. of April, and more over to pay £10. Sterling a day in case I detained the Ship after that date.
My Goods were all shipped within the limited time, and I was ready and engaged to imbark as soon as the ship should arrive at Cowes in her way down the channel; by reason of adverse winds she did not arrive there before the 7th of may, when for the reasons before stated I was obliged to detain her till the 21st—and thereby became liable to pay Thirteen days demurrage—for this Sum I have taken the Liberty to draw upon you, it appearing to me just, as I flatter myself it will do to you, that this Expence should be defrayed by the Public. With perfect Respect & Esteem I have the honour to be Sir Yr. ob. & faithful Servt.
Rufus King

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10). Marked “No 100” in an unidentified hand; docketed by Wagner.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Newton, Jr., 30 July 1803
From: Newton, Thomas, Jr.
To: Madison, James

Sir.
Norfolk July 30th 1803
I have made many efforts to procure you some Crab Cyder, all have proved unsuccessful. Should You wish to have any by the winter, you will please to inform me, as I shall be enabled to obtain that which is good by speaking in time for it.
I now do myself the pleasure of transmitting to you a publication of this morning—by it you will find that the British Ships of War have already renewed their former practices of pressing our Seamen. The Boston, Capt. Douglas—I believe is in Hampton roads and his conduct in this instance has produced much irritation. Topham is said to be a native of one of the Northern States—the rest it is said have protections and are believed to be Americans. No communication having taken place with the British frigate nor with the men detained on board of her, no facts are yet ascertained to authorise me to speak positively on this subject, except that the men mentioned in the printed paper were taken from the Charles Carter by force. Should any further information reach me relative to the men now on board I will witho⟨ut⟩ delay make you acquainted with it. With assurances of the highest consideration I remain yr. obt: Servt
Tho: Newton Jr
July 31st 1803
Since writing the above I have procured a Copy of Topham Diposition sworn to before my Father. Proof is I believe in possession of our Collector that Topham is a Native of New port Rhode Island. Hudson is still detained on board the Boston Topham says he believes him to be a Native of the United States. Yrs.
Tho Newton Jr

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   According to a 6 Aug. notice in the Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, said to be taken from the Norfolk Herald, four sailors were taken out of the ship Charles Carter on 23 July by Captain Douglas of the British frigate Boston. The four were Augustus Topham, Joseph Hudson, Thomas Hodgins, and the ship’s carpenter. On 27 July, as the Boston returned to Hampton Roads, Topham escaped by swimming to shore and two others were released back to their own ship. At the time of the report Hudson was still being held on the Boston.


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, August 1803
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

(Private)
Dear Sir
In Madrid August 1803
By Mr Codman you recieved the Contingent accounts of this Mission up to that time & by the route of Lisbon were transmitted those to December last which are no doubt long since recieved by Mr Young I now transmit those from February to May & duplicates of those from December to February last which were rendered some what higher by the continual movements of the Court & the frequent visits to the royal sitio occasioned by the affair at New OrLeans & the rise in the hire of post mules for the different routes.
The affair of the postage still remains unsettled & I am obliged to pay as usual sometimes 40 & 45 Dollars for a Bundle of Newspapers. Mr Young the Bearer of this paid for me yesterday 48 Dollars for Newspapers alone sent me from the Printers at New York & Washington by Your Orders as I believe. War having now recommenced it is to be expected the Contingent Expences of this Mission may be increased should our Vessels be again taken or brought in by the belligerent powers to the ports of this Kingdom as they were during the last War—hitherto as far as I know our Flag has been very much respected indeed.
I beg leave to recommend the Bearer Major Young to You in the most particular manner as an excellent public officer & one who deserves every thing of our Government for his industry & activity, as well as his firmness & integrity in their service.
Please present our excellent President with my most affectionate respects & best wishes—recieve them my dear sir for Yourself & believe me always with the sincerest regard Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney

   RC and enclosure (DLC). For enclosure, see n. 3.

   Pinckney to JM, 28 Aug. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:525–26).

   Letter not found.

   The enclosure (1 p.) is Pinckney’s “Contingent account from December 1802 to February 1803,” amounting to $398 and including mule hire, postage, annual presents to public officers, stationery, and “Mr Grahams extra expences on account of the Business of New OrLeans.”


Title: From James Madison to Levi Lincoln, 1 August 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Lincoln, Levi

Sir
Department of State 1st. August 1803.
Be pleased to favor me with your opinion upon the 8th. section of the Act of the last session, entitled, “An Act regulating the grants of land and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the state of Tennessee,” whether every written document, copy or original, exhibited by any party for that purpose, ought to be recorded on the payment of the fees: what are the exceptions: and whether any and what proof of authenticity ought to be required previously to recording any written document? I have &ca.
James Madison.

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

   U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:229–35.


Title: From James Madison to Ebenezer Stevens, 1 August 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Stevens, Ebenezer

Sir.
Department of State August 1. 1803.
Mr. Cotton having waved his claim for the detention of the Ann Maria at Tunis, and exhibited the enclosed account against the United States for liquidation, and as the two latter items are founded on representations entirely opposite to your own statements, I have thought it most consistent with justice to the United States and Mr. Cotton, that you should enter into an amicable suit with him in the proper tribunal at New York; in which his right to compensation as stated in his account may be litigated and decided. If he chooses to avail himself of the reference to which you were authorised to agree by my letter of the 20th. June 1802, in preference to including it with the two other charges in the amicable suit, he may do it. I have &c.
James Madison.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). Enclosure not found. RC (misdated 6 Aug. 1803) offered for sale as item 172 in Charles Hamilton Catalogue No. 147 (1 July 1982).

   For Daniel Cotton’s claim, see ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Claims, pp. 322, 337–41.

   JM no doubt meant his letter to Stevens of 28 June 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:347).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 1 August 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
London Augt. 1. 1803.
I have seen Ld. Hawkesbury & expect to be presented to the King soon. I shall mention in my next publick letter what passed, which was not material, otherwise than as it alluded to the state in wh. I found the negotiation when I arrived at Paris, & the late treaty formed with G. B. for admitting her into the mississippi by Mr. King as I understand is the case of which I had heard nothing & of course could say nothing. The enclosed letter from Mr. Talleyrand to Mr. Livingston connected with the letter of the latter to me at Havre, shews how that affr. stood on my arrival. I did not obtain a copy of that letter till just as I left Paris, altho I was entitled to a copy of what had passed after my appointment and wished one as soon as we had leasure after the business was concluded. I shall write you soon more fully on this subject, for the business of taking a house moving &ca with publick duties have occupied me closely since I arrived here. I am very sincerely yr. friend & servt.
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers).

   Enclosure not found, but it was doubtless a copy of Talleyrand to Livingston, 22 Mar. 1803 (see Livingston to JM, 24 Mar. 1803 [PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:448 n. 3]).

   For Livingston’s 10 Apr. 1803 letter to Monroe, see Monroe to JM, 14 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:610–15 and n. 2).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 1 August 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

London Augt. 1. 1803.
Jas. Monroe has the pleasure to enclose to Mr. Madison a power of attorney from Genl. La Fayette relative to whom he will shortly write him more fully. He can not omit adding here that that respectable & virtuous character merits all the regard which America has never ceased to entertain for him.

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers). Docketed by JM: “Monroe Js. Aug. 1. 1803. inclosing Fayette’s papers.”

   Enclosure not found.


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, 2 August 1803
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Madrid August 2: 1803
My last Dispatches & those which preceded them will have conveyed to you the propositions I submitted to this Government on the subject of our claims & particularly the captures & condemnations by the french. They will also have informed you of the anxious manner in which I have been expecting the arrival of Mr Monroe since the 20 of May hopeful that the instructions he would bring might enable me to add such offers a [sic] bring the Question of the Spoliations by the French in some manner before the Government to tempt them to accede to our propositions. After waiting until nearly the beginning of this month I recieved a Letter from Mr Monroe & Mr Livingston acquainting me with the cession of Louisiana & another from Mr Robert L. Livingston yesterday saying that Mr Monroe was gone to London to reside there as Minister from the United States. In consequence of this I have again pressed upon this Government a decision with respect to the french captures & condemnations & have desired an audience on Tuesday.
While I expected Mr Monroe & supposed that in treating respecting Florida something could have been proposed which might have induced this Government to include our claims for french spoliations & condemnations, notwithstanding I had in pursuance of your instructions brought them forward I forbore to push them lest I might injure the other & more important parts of the negotiation but the moment I recieved official information from Mr Monroe & Mr Livingston that Louisiana was ceded & that they considered the Cession as including West Florida & that Mr Monroe was not coming I then pushed the new propositions respecting our claims in that positive & decided manner which the Circumstances of Europe & the particular situation of Spain seemed to me to warrant. In my letter Number 1 You will perceive the manner in which the new Propositions were submitted & the copy of the new Convention. These went in the last Dispatches. After waiting some time to see whether Mr Monroe would arrive with the extraordinary Commission & finding it doubtful I wrote the Letter Number 2 & immediately on being informed that Mr Monroe would not come I demanded an audience of Mr Cevallos the secretary for the foreign Department in which I went over the whole ground of our difference in Opinion & repeated to him at length not only all the arguments used in my letters but such others as occurred in the course of conversation or as I thought the particular & doubtful situation of Spain at present, warranted.
I entered fully into the impropriety of Spain’s having suffered her ports to be used for the purpose of equipping privateers to cruise upon our Vessels & bringing them in as Prizes & permitting the Consuls of France to condemn them by which means her territorial sovereignty was not only violated, but her Ports which we ought to have considered not only as the Ports of a neutral and a Friend But of a Nation in treaty with us was by that means converted into those of an Enemy—for what could France do more with her Ports against us than equip & man privateers in them & bring in & condemn our Vessels? Spain did not permit us to do so & if she had offered it, she well knew the offer was of no consequence to us, because the Distance from the United States & the contiguity of the French coasts created a Difference in the Exercise or use of the permission which made it extremely important to the one & of very little consequence to the other. That there can be no doubt that any Nation which lends the aid of its ports for the purpose of arming Privateers aids in annoying the Commerce of those against which these Privateers are intended to cruise—that farther any Nation which vests within its Dominions a foreign Tribunal with the power of condemning & selling the Property of a Neutral nation assists in depriving the Citizens of that nation by force of their Property—hence it would seem a permission to arm privateers & sell prizes granted to one belligerent power is inconsistent with the impartiality due to both by a Nation which professes to be neutral. That it would not destroy the argument to say the same privileges might be granted to both—that in our late differences with France it could not for the United States never suffered their public or private Vessels to capture the merchant Ships of France & it is believed in no instance could the privilege operate equally in favour of two nations. From their maritime strength, local situation or other cause the one must always benefit by it more than the other, hence one of them must be materially injured if it was granted to both. For Example Suppose Spain & Russia were engaged in War. Would the United States do them equal justice by opening her ports for the arming of their Privateers & the sale of their Prizes? Nobody would suppose she did, when he recollected that all or nearly all the rich commerce of Spain passes before the Ports of the United States, & that Russia has no commerce in that Quarter of the World. Again, if unfortunately there was a War between the United States & Spain would England do equal justice to both if she opened the Port of Gibraltar to both for the purpose of arming Privateers & selling Prizes? Certainly not for by doing so she would give to the United States the most advantageous position from whence to annoy the Commerce of Spain & to Spain she would give the use of a Port 3000 Miles Distant from the United States & not more useful to her than her own in the Mediterranean.
From these & other Examples I endeavoured to convince him how peculiarly Spain is situated & how important it is to her to put an End to a practice so contrary to the Principles of justice & strict neutrality. I repeated to him that these observations together with those which have been from time to time during the last five Years offered by my Predecessor & myself to the Consideration of his Majesty are believed to be sufficient to entitle us to demand Compensation from his Majesty for the Property Wrested from us by those whose actions he had a right & most certainly the Power to controul. That the respect which the Government of the United States had for his Majesty had enduced them to urge the point, which they considered as a Point of national honour with the greatest moderation as was proved by their offering to refer the Question to Arbitration although they were perfectly conscious of their right to demand Payment without a reference of which they had given a Proof before they had become interested themselves. But that if Spain will not agree to the principle of Neutral right & chooses to adopt as a part of her public law, the practice of opening her ports for the arming of Privateers & selling of Prizes I am sure the United States would in point of mere interest be benefited by following the Example after obtaining compensation for the Losses they have already sustained.
In order to meet the observations he made before that his Majesty was not by the law of Nations liable for the condemnations by the French Consuls I repeated to him the Observations of Vattell in his 3d. Book & particularly in the Ps. 15, 95: 97: 102 & 104 & endeavoured to shew him how incompatible these aggressions were with the duties therein enjoined to Neutrals that at the time Vattell & others had written on the Laws of Nations no such case had occurred—no such new extraordinary or unwarrantable attempts had been made to erect within any country, tribunals independent of it’s Authority. I endeavoured to impress upon him the manner in which Our Government had defeated a similar attempt upon them at an earlier period of the War, well knowing that to permit such an exercise of the rights of War within their Cities would be to make their Coasts a station of hostility—to shew him that We did not stand alone in our opinions on this licentious attempt to exercise the rights of War within neutral Countries where no such rights have ever before been exercised I read & explained to him the Doctrines laid down in the English Court of Admiralty by Sir William Scott in the celebrated Case of the Flat Oyer Martinsee Master & which as you no doubt have seen I shall not trouble You with reporting. I concluded with informing him that our Government considered this as a point of national honor which they could never relinquish—that a War had again commenced between Great Britain & France the Decision of Spain on this subject was become now indispensable. That we knew not to what other parts its flames will soon extend, That our Commerce must never again be exposed to similar depredations & that our Government were determined upon this occasion to shew how far they would protect it that having arranged all their Differences with France and England it now rested solely to do so with Spain—that to do this they had offered an equal and amicable arbitration & that I had waited with great patience for their Decision. That however being now instructed to transmit his Majestys Answer so that it might be received by the meeting of Congress the period had arrived when I could delay no longer applying to his Excellency for a prompt & decisive one which I was hopeful he would give me in a few days as I had two American Gentlemen only waiting to take it to America.
In his answer he went over the old Ground that Spain not having authorised but expressly forbidden the exercise of this power by the french Consuls was not in his Opinion liable to make reparation—that the more he had considered the subject the more he was convinced & that in his View of it the Quotations I had made from Vattell did not apply. That since the last Year he had been informed from the best sources, that many leading men in our (the American) Government were in sentiment with him that Spain was not liable & that even some of our best informed Lawyers had given the same opinion. I replied it was incredible to me, that any men of information whether in our Government or among our Gentlemen of the Bar could have given such an opinion. That if they had I had never heard of it—that it was always safest for his Excellency to take the sentiments & Views of our Government, as they respected Spain, from me. That I could assure him, Every Branch of our Government was not only decided in their Opinion as to the liability of his Majesty to make compensation but determined never to relinquish it, at least so far as to insist upon its being included in the Arbitration. That the Senate not having ratified the Convention ought to be full proof of their Determination upon this subject—that it was time our Government should know his Majesty’s Decision & I must request to have it by the day Mr. Young sailed. He said that was impossible as the Royal Feasts & other occupations of his Majesty for this Month in which he was obliged to attend him, would put it entirely out of his power, but that he would give it as soon as he could. I then informed him that I considered it as my duty to write & asked him “whether I was to transmit to our Executive as his Majestys final decision that he could not consent to include in the Convention the Captures & Condemnations by the French & their Consuls.” He hesitated & said, no. The serious manner in which I put the Question seemed to have affected him—he added “The subject with your representations are now before his Majesty & I will state what has passed further this Evening” at the same time assuring me I should have a very speedy answer. He then went on to converse with me on the subject of the Cession of Louisiana by the French to Us in which he expressed an Opinion so important & extraordinary that I made a point of transmitting it to You by the post the next Day By the route of Lisbon & which I trust You will soon recieve. The substance was this that in the Cession of Louisiana by Spain to France there was a secret article that France never should part with Louisiana except to Spain, that if she (France) should ever wish to dispose of it, Spain should always have the right of Preemption—from which he argued that France had not the right to make such Cession without the consent of Spain & that he was astonished our Commissioners had not applied to their Government to know the actual terms upon which France was to recieve Louisiana & in fact to examine their title. I answered him by saying that he could not be more astonished at their not doing so than I was at his remark—that he well knew Mr. Livingston & myself had been applying for upwards of a year incessantly to the Governments of France & Spain to know if Louisiana was ceded & upon what Terms? That for more than a year the most guarded silence was observed by both & that at last when Spain had answered & avowed the Cession, not a Word was mentioned in his (Mr Cevallos’s) Letter to me of any secret article—that the letter only avowed the Cession & that it had been made subject to the Conditions of our Treaty—that I had transmitted this to Mr Livingston & Mr. Monroe & I asked him, whether after the Sight of this letter from him acknowledging the Cession, they could for a moment doubt the perfect right of France to sell. I then further asked him whether if Spain still continued in possession, & our Government ratified the Treaty, there would be any hesitation on the part of his Majesty to give us the possession, to which he made no positive reply, nor could I bring him to do so during the whole Evening. I could easily discover in the course of it, that there exists at present much uneasiness on the part of this Court with respect to the conduct of France in the sale of Louisiana & particularly in the Opinions held by our Envoys that it included West Florida which both Mr Cevallos & the Prince of Peace expressly deny & on which I wrote you a separate letter conveying my conversation with them on this subject.
August 30. Not recieving the answer of the Secretary as soon as I expected & anxious to transmit you the result I followed the Court to San Ildefonso & had another conference with him on the 24 instant. In this he apologized very much & said he was extremely sorry so much delay had been occasioned in his reply—that it was owing to the removal of the Court & the particular urgency of the moment alluding I suppose to the state of things occasioned by the War. That the answer was now prepared & would be transmitted in a few days—that I would see in it the two Grounds upon which his Majesty concieved he was not liable to make compensation for the french condemnations & that several very respectable & learned gentlemen in the law had expressed the same opinion a copy of which he would send me inclosed in his reply. The Grounds were the inability of Spain to prevent it & the general relinquishment of our claims to France for every thing done by frenchmen so far as respects the Seizure of our Vessels & their condemnations & that he was convinced when our Government came to see these Opinions & to reconsider the Question they would think with his Majesty & his ministers that Spain was only liable for the acts of her own subjects. I told him I had reason to believe our Government would be not a little surprised to find Spain resorting to the plea that she was not able to prevent it. That if he pressed this argument & contended she was not then a free agent & of course ought not to be a responsible one & could prove it to be so it only remained for me to transmit his reply to You for the future directions of our Government. That the relinquishment he spoke of, to France had nothing to do with our claims on Spain. That we never considered ourselves as having any right to demand compensation from France for these violations of the territory & sovereignty of Spain by the Cruisers & Consuls of France. That they were by no means included in the claims relinquished but were as separate & distinct as claims could be—that we had received from France a very valuable compensation in her acquiescing in the dissolution of the treaties of commerce & alliance previously existing between the two nations—an alliance by which we were bound to Guarantee her Islands in the West Indies & to be liberated from which was inestimable to the United States. That from Spain we had recieved no compensation & that it would be found a great part of our claims had even originated since the date of the Convention. That I still hoped he would consent to include them in some manner convinced that if they were not provided for in some way our government would remain extremely dissatisfied. That merely from motives of conciliation I would consent to insert them with the addition of the Words he offered the last year—segun los principios que constituyen la moralidad de las acciones. He said he was rather of opinion from the intelligence he had recieved from the United States that the thing would now be viewed in a different light & that the Government would not now insist on so hard terms, even if they had the right, as to call upon them for condemnations they could not prevent, or not one shilling of which ever went into the pockets of his Majesty or his subjects. That he never meant the last year in what he said respecting the arbitration subject to the limitation of segun los principios &c &c. to apply it to the condemnations of the french consuls or to have left it to the Commissioners to decide upon them, but only to the violation of territory & had I admitted the limitation he would have expressly excepted the Condemnations. That for the acts of his own subjects & the violations of territory by foreign Cruisers his Majesty had been always ready to arbitrate as appears by his letters to me on this subject of the last year. That he wished me to transmit the reply he would send me with the Opinion of the American Lawyers the claims & that he had no doubt the future instructions of my Government would be such as would tend to promote the harmony of our two nations. On the morning following he sent me the inclosed answer to my several verbal & written applications accompanied by an opinion which I also inclose given by Messieurs Ingersoll Rawle Mackean Du Ponceau & Livingston on an abstract question submitted to them as I suppose by Order of this Government. I thought proper to send Mr Cevallos an answer wherein you will find most of the arguments insisted upon that had been before used & in which I object to the statement submitted to our lawyers as not expressing either fully or truly the state of facts. That in relinquishing our claims on France we had done so for a valuable consideration & that in so doing We had by no means relinquished our claims on Spain as they were separate & distinct. That for the truth of this we refered him to the letters of my Predecessor by which it appears the Government of Spain was continually warned of the illegality of these captures & condemnations & informed that his Majesty would be held liable to make compensation. That in resorting to the plea that Spain could not prevent it it was incumbent on her to shew she really could not either by force or influence do so & that she had exerted herself as far as she was able to effect it & that after all if it was true she could not prevent it but to avoid a War or a renewal of the War with France was under the necessity of submitting to it & sacrificing to the preservation of peace the Commerce & property of the Citizens of the United States, on every principle of justice & national honour she ought now to make compensation—that the tacit sacrifice of the property of our Citizens was the price she paid for a peace inestimable to her in every respect & that in my judgment she ought now most chearfully & gratefully to submit to our proposition for an arbitration, rejoicing that we have been so moderate as to acquiesce in this mode & not to demand not only immediate compensation for the losses but satisfaction for the injury to our national honour. That it should be recollected, the Opinions of Gentlemen of the Law however respectable as professional men were not to direct our Government—that they was supposed to be the best judges of our public rights & had alone the authority to treat respecting them & when necessary to devise the means of asserting & protecting them & that even the Opinions he produced could easily be proved to be in our favour, or at least some parts of them might as I would shew him.
As I cannot now expect that Spain will agree to include the claims for the condemnations by the French Consuls it will remain for You to direct me further, or to inform me of the Presidents Wish & opinion upon the subject. You will consider how far her plea that she could not prevent entitles her to consideration & whether it appears that in any of our applications to the french Government previously to the signing of the Convention of 1800 We applied to them for compensation for those Captures & Condemnations by the french Privateers or consuls or included them in those claims which we afterwards relinquished. In determining this much will depend upon the correspondence of our Envoys with the french commissioners at that time & I will thank you for the necessary information & copies of such of the letters as may be proper.
From the above you will see the state of the negotiation as it respects the claims for the captures & condemnations by the french & how extremely unwilling the Spanish Government are to arbitrate them. I have no doubt that Mr Yrujo in the United States & Mr Azzara in Paris have been exerting themselves to collect intelligence to prove, if possible that our Envoys in France claimed as well for these & the other captures & condemnations by the French & that they are included in the general relinquishment to that nation. As I have no doubt it is otherwise & that they are not included I have always considered them as separate & distinct & have accordingly urged them as such.
Upon the whole of this Business—considering the present state of Europe: how extremely uncertain it is when & in what manner the War will end, that it is extending itself every day & that in all probability there will be a general continental War by the Spring. That amidst this general wreck of states property & morals, it is of the deepest importance to our country to be at peace I am under these circumstances clearly of opinion that it would be politic in our Government to endeavour to compromise all our claims by the purchase of what you shall be [of] opinion still remains to Spain in the Floridas for I shall certainly soon hear from you respecting what you now consider as our Limits under the late Cession from France & what you are determined to insist upon as belonging to us in the Floridas. The present appears to me to be the time for us to attempt this purchase again because we are now sure of the aid & the influence of France as General Bournonville the French ambassadour told me lately he had recieved directions from his Government to promote as far as he could a disposition in Spain to sell us the Floridas—it was I am pretty certain owing to them We did not get it before. They had obtained Louisiana & were anxious to have the Floridas—their Views however are now changed & I believe we may depend upon their influence in our favour. Should this be still the Opinion of the President I should suppose the best way would be to ratify the Convention which you already have, conditionally, striking out the sixth article & adding one including the arbitration of the claims you are still determined to insist upon & accompanying the conditional ratification with an offer to purchase Florida in which purchase it is probable Spain will agree to allow us a certain sum as France did in lieu of our claims, or to agree to the arbitration of the french captures & condemnations or make some just arrangement on that subject. In this case I will thank you for the most explicit instructions as in important pecuniary concerns in which the public are interested I wish as little left to my discretion as possible. As Mr Cevallos has chosen to resort to the Opinions of some of our own lawyers it might not be amiss to send me the Opinions of the Attorney General & some other experienced & eminent gentlemen of the Law on this Question.
I am very anxious to hear from you it being now within three or four days of six months since the date of your last dispatch & you have no doubt much to say on the great change which has since taken place in the European World. As far as my intelligence reaches at present our Flag appears to be much respected & the agents of the lovers of peace & quietness who have nothing to do with the Quarrels & intrigues of Courts & Governments & who are fatigued with War & its attendant miseries are turning their longing eyes to the only Land of tranquillity & true liberty & safety now on Earth. That we may long enjoy this envied state depends entirely on ourselves. Our Citizens must be very happy in reflecting that under our present administration there can be little doubt of it.
By Mr Young & by the way of Lisbon also I send you the Draught of the new Convention I proposed & my letters Numbers 1, 2 & 3 & copies of this. I therefore have not inclosed them now, as one of those two sets will certainly arrive safe.
I must request you to present me affectionately & respectfully to the President & our friends & to believe me always with the sincerest friendship & esteem Dear Sir Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney
From what I have heard I believe there will be no objection if you make the alterations in the Convention You suggested respecting the Wording of some part of it & the lengthening the time. The main difficulty is about the french condemnations & their proceedings in the Spanish Ports for which this Government is extremely unwilling to pay.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 6A); RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 46, Unbound Records, Foreign Relations, 8B-B4). First RC marked “Original: Duplicate & Triplicate Via Lisbon & Cadiz with Mr Young & Mr Yard”; docketed by JM. Second RC partly in a clerk’s hand; docketed by Wagner. For enclosures, see nn. 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10.

   Pinckney’s last surviving public dispatches to JM were of 12 June and 18 July 1803.

   Enclosed is a copy of Pinckney to Cevallos, 23 May 1803 (DNA: RG 46, Unbound Records, Foreign Relations, 8B-B4; 7 pp.; docketed by Wagner), in which the former announced the U.S. government’s decision not to sign the draft convention previously drawn up because it did not include all the U.S. claims arising from acts “of Aliens or Foreigners within the Spanish Territory.” Instead, in consequence of JM’s “precise & positive instructions,” Pinckney proposed a new convention and outlined his reasons for expecting the king to sign it. In addition, Pinckney enclosed copies of the proposed claims convention with Spain in English (3 pp.; docketed by Wagner) and in Spanish (3 pp.). For the new convention, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:598 n. 3. Also enclosed is a copy of an undated letter from Pinckney to Cevallos (DNA: RG 46, Unbound Records, Foreign Relations, 8B-B4; 3 pp.), requesting a reply to the above representations.

   Enclosed is a copy of Pinckney to Cevallos, 15 July 1803 (4 pp.; docketed by Wagner), in which Pinckney argued that the king of Spain was “expressly liable for every Condemnation & Sale, which the [French] Consuls were permitted to make in his Dominions” and requested a “prompt & decisive answer” to the question of the American claims.

   Pinckney referred to various sections of book 3 of Vattel, The Law of Nations (1796 ed.), pp. 298, 327, 328, 330, 331–32. Section 15 proscribes the recruitment of soldiers in a foreign land without the permission of the sovereign. Sections 95 and 97 define an associate of an enemy, or a nation that succors one’s enemy, as an enemy. Section 102 proclaims the right of a nation to wage war on the associate of an enemy. And section 104 defines neutrality as “an exact impartiality between the parties at war,” that is, the obligation to give “no succours” to either power at war.

   The 16 Jan. 1799 decision by Sir William Scott in the case of the Flad Oyen, Martenson, master, stated: “An English prize ship taken to Bergen, condemned there by the French consul and sold, is not deemed to have been legally condemned in a neutral country. The ship restored to the former owner on salvage” (Christopher Robinson, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Admiralty … [6 vols.; Philadelphia, 1800], 1:114–23).

   See Pinckney to JM, 18 July 1803.

   “According to the principles which constitute the morality of actions.” For Cevallos’s insistence on including this wording in the convention, see Pinckney to JM, 6 July 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:375–81 and nn.).

   Enclosed is a copy of Cevallos to Pinckney, 23 Aug. 1803 (3 pp.; in Spanish; docketed by Wagner; printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:603–5), in which the former argued that the U.S. had already renounced its claims in this matter by its convention with France of 1800 and, in further defense of his position, cited the opinion of several celebrated American lawyers to that effect (see n. 9, below).

   Enclosed is a copy of an “Abstract Question” (2 pp.; printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:605) posed to Jared Ingersoll, William Rawle, J. B. McKean, P. S. DuPonceau, and Edward Livingston in November 1802, to which hypothetical question they answered: “the power A is not liable to the power B for acts done upon the vessels belonging to the subjects of power B by the power C within the ports of A, the latter not being able to prevent it. Nations are not any more than individuals, bound to perform impossibilities.”

   Enclosed is a copy of Pinckney to Cevallos, 28 Aug. 1803 (DNA: RG 46, Unbound Records, Foreign Relations, 8B-B4; 4 pp.; docketed by Wagner), replying to the latter’s 23 Aug. letter (see n. 8, above). Pinckney reasserted the U.S. claims, denying that they had been relinquished by the Convention of 1800 with France. He also argued that the hypothetical question upon which the American lawyers had commented (see n. 9, above) had been so wrongly constructed as to take “for granted the very thing to be proved,” thus making “any deductions drawn from such premises … inadmissible.”

   For article 6 of the Convention of 1802 between the U.S. and Spain, see Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:494–95.

   For JM’s proposed alterations to the Convention of 1802, see JM to Pinckney, 22 Mar. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:442–43).


Title: To James Madison from Robert C. Gardiner, 2 August 1803 (Abstract)
From: Gardiner, Robert C.
To: Madison, James

2 August 1803, Gothenburg. Wrote last on 6 Apr., in answer to JM’s circular of 26 Aug. 1802, begging to be advised how he should act in support of distressed U.S. seamen, “the Sum stipulated by Congress being inadequate to their support in this Country.” Has since received the act of Congress of 28 Feb. 1803, “which makes the necessary provision required.” Reports that since the commercial treaty with Sweden expired, U.S. ships arriving in Gothenburg have been “subjected to inconveniences” and that the situation cannot be resolved “until a renewal of the former, or a new Treaty be agreed on.” Informs JM that since April a four-shilling tax, “about four cents pr Ton,” has been imposed on foreign vessels “for the support of the poor.” Requests that his credentials be forwarded so that he may be “duly recognised” as consul.

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

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:486.

   See Albert Gallatin to JM, 16 Aug. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:489–90 and n. 5).

   See John J. Murray to JM, 22 June 1803, n. 1.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: To James Madison from John Gavino, 2 August 1803 (Abstract)
From: Gavino, John
To: Madison, James

2 August 1803, Gibraltar. No. 125. Has not heard from JM since his last letter, no. 124 [15 July 1803]. Informs JM that “the Portuguese have sent a Person to Alicante to solicit from thence leave to go to Algeir for the purpose of treating about a Redemption of their Captives and terms of Peace: he has Presents and Cash with him to pave the way.” “Admiral Campbell who was Cruising off Cape St: Vincent has sent the squadron to England, & he is now here in the Canapuss. A 74 will go up along.… The Emperour of Morrocco has two of his ships at Sale ready for sea, one of 20 Guns has already the Consuls Passports.” Adds in a postscript: “This moment I received the inclosed from Consul Simpson [not found], he tells me Comodor Morris was early in June on shore at Tripoly under Protection of the French Consul, but could settle nothing.” Also reports “An English Convoy of about 40 Sail now coming in from England.”

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

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.