Title: To James Madison from John Cotton Smith, 23 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Smith, John Cotton
To: Madison, James

23 February 1804, “Committee-room.” “I am directed by the committee of claims to transmit to you the petition of William Eaton, late Consul at Tunis, and the documents accompanying it. The committee are strongly impressed with a belief that the case comes fairly within executive cognizance, and of course that no legislative interference can be necessary. If you entertain the same view of the subject, they will recommend it to the petitioner to withdraw his application in order that he may submit his claim to the consideration of the proper department. Should you, however, Sir, think otherwise, you will oblige the committee by communicating any further information you may possess affecting the case, together with your opinion of its merits.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 1 p.; docketed by Wagner. Enclosures not found, but see n. 1.

   Eaton’s 16 Feb. 1804 petition and supporting documents are included in the 29 Feb. 1804 report of the Committee of Claims (printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Claims, pp. 299–307). The report, praising Eaton for his services but recommending that he be allowed to withdraw his petition, since his case was still being examined at the Treasury Department, was submitted to the House on 12 Mar. 1804 (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 1167–68).


Title: To James Madison from Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, 23 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de
To: Madison, James

23 February 1804, Washington. Received orders from his government some time ago to inform the U.S. government that some of its citizens had aided and were still aiding the black rebels of Saint-Domingue with munitions and provisions, and that the king hoped, in view of the fatal consequences of such aid, that the U.S. would take measures to suppress a commerce which could cause great damage to the European colonies in this part of the world. Refrained at that time from taking the step, knowing that the U.S. administration does not have sufficient authority to remedy the damage and believing that Congress would exercise its authority to take measures similar to those desired by Spain that would defend the U.S. from the risk to which it also is exposed. States that he was mistaken and that, having had his attention turned to the matter by his 22 Feb. meeting with JM, he now represents to JM the lamentable results that could follow from the continuation of such a practice by U.S. citizens and demands in the king’s name that the appropriate department or branch of government give the orders necessary to cut off or at least diminish an evil that menaces the U.S. as well as European possessions. States that Spain demands the most decisive measures to this effect on the part of the U.S. government, founded on its right of self-defense, and does not doubt, because of the conformity of American and Spanish interests on this point, that the U.S. government will accede to a demand as just as it is important, as important as it is urgent, and which cannot help but receive the support of the leading nations of Europe.

   RC and Tr (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Spain, vol. 2); partial Tr (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls, vol. 1); Tr, three copies (NHi: Livingston Papers). RC 2 pp.; in Spanish; in a clerk’s hand, except for Yrujo’s complimentary close and signature. First Tr in Spanish. Last Tr in French.


Title: To James Madison from John Gray Blount and Thomas Blount, 24 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Blount, John Gray,Blount, Thomas
To: Madison, James

24 February 1804, Washington, North Carolina “Amongst other Claims which we conceive the late Convention with France authorises us to expect payment for, we have one for the Brigantine Russell and Cargo captured by a French Privateer in the year 1796.” Sent the “original Protest of the Captain and Condemnation by a French Tribunal at Cape Francais” to Timothy Pickering on 25 July 1797 and received a 22 Aug. 1797 letter from Wagner acknowledging receipt of the protest and a copy of the condemnation. “Our memory and Letter accompanying them induce us to think we sent the Original of both Protest and Condemnation.” Ask JM to have the documents sent to John Gray Blount at Washington, North Carolina, so that they can be transmitted “with other necessary Papers to the Commercial Agent of the United States at Paris as speedily as possible.” Enclose copies of their letter and Wagner’s reply as proof that the requested papers “were deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 143, France, Adjudication of Unsettled Spoliation Claims, Unbound Records, folder “Brig Russell, Owners John G. & Thomas Blount”). RC 2 pp. For enclosures, see n. 2.

   John Gray Blount (1752–1833) and Thomas Blount (1759–1812), together with their brother William, owned John Gray and Thomas Blount, Merchants, “one of the largest mercantile concerns of North Carolina.” They owned mills, tanneries, and cotton gins, as well as vast tracts of land; held various national, state, and local offices; and were influential in community affairs (Keith et al., John Gray Blount Papers, 1:xvii–xxiv, xxv–xxvii).

   The enclosures (1 p.; docketed by Wagner) are a copy of the Blounts to Timothy Pickering, 25 July 1797, covering the original protest and condemnation of the Russell, and a copy of Wagner’s 22 Aug. 1797 reply, acknowledging receipt of the protest and a copy of the condemnation and listing other documents that would be needed to support the claim.


Title: From James Madison to Mr. Steinmetz, 24 February 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Steinmetz

Letter not found. 24 February 1804. Described as “enclosing certain documents” (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls, vol. 1, index).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 25 February 1804
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

No. 20.
Sir
London Feby 25. 1804.
The king has been several weeks and still continues to be dangerously ill. The report of his phisicians has been latterly favorable to his recovery, but the result by those who pretend to be best informed considered doubtful. No communication on the subject has been made to Parliament, nor will be while it can be avoided. It is said that the house of commons has been well attended lately in the expectation of such a communication. His disorder is known to be the same that formerly afflicted him, aggravated according to report, with the other very dangerous disorders the gout & dropsy in the stomach. I was led to believe by the conversation of some about him, that he was first seized with the gout which was called the rheumatism, and that the suspicion of the dropsy proceeded from some bilious simptoms, which together, aided with other causes brought on his old malady. If this view of his disorder is correct he may probably recover. The presumption that it may be of some duration, has revived the idea with the publick of a regency, which derives much support from the actual situation of affairs, the Executive power being in some of its most important functions suspended at a time when an invasion is menac’d & apparently expected. If the P. of W. comes into power it is generally believed that the ministry will be changed. In that case many think that an administration will be formed with Mr. F⟨ox⟩ at its head: that Ld. Moira will be one: that Ld. Corn⟨wal⟩lis will have the command of the army. It is positive⟨ly⟩ asserted that the Prince has refused to receive the D. of yk. since the indisposition of his father: Those who think ⟨the⟩ above arrangment probable, speak of an union betw⟨een⟩ the Grenvilles Wyndham & Fox. The idea of an associati⟨on⟩ between Pitt & Fox does not seem to be entertained by m⟨a⟩ny. No approximation of them had been known that I ha⟨ve⟩ heard of. Before the indisposition of the king the present Mi⟨nis⟩try seemed to treat each party with equal attention, & it ⟨was⟩ suspected to be its policy to preserve the means of calli⟨ng⟩ to its aid, or joining either at pleasure, if driven to that extremity. The king was believed to be equally si⟨n⟩cere & ardent in his hatred to both Pitt & Fox, so that while he remained, and no publick disaster force⟨d⟩ a change, the present ministry was likely to keep i⟨ts⟩ ground. But since his indisposition this kind of bala⟨nce⟩ seems to have been somewhat affected. It is understoo⟨d⟩ that Mr. Addington gave offence to the Prince by th⟨e⟩ part he acted on his late application for a comman⟨d⟩ in the army. It is also generally beleived that altho⟨‘ the⟩ warmth of early friendship may have been abated ⟨by⟩ many causes, yet that the Prince has more regard ⟨for⟩ Mr. Fox than Mr. Pitt. Hence the association of the f⟨or⟩mer with the characters above mentioned has been ⟨pre⟩sumed, and a better understanding between the presen⟨t⟩ & late chancelor of the Exchequer inferr’d, for I ca⟨n⟩not think that an union has been agreed betwee⟨n⟩ them. Such an union would not be likely to take place here but to preserve or acquire power. If the king lives Mr. Addington has no motive for it, & probably nothing to offer to inspire Mr. Pitt with one. And if he dies it is presumeable that neither would be willing to connect his fortune with that of the other in paying court to his successor. Should a new order of things take place and leave these gentlemen in the opposition, they will find a motive of union there which has often brought together the greatest enemies.
I have not yet obtained an answer to the note which I addressed to Lord Hawkesbury some time since, respecting the impressment of our seamen, of which I transmitted you a copy. I have understood that it was sent to the admiralty for a report, the day after it was received, which has not yet been made. At my suggestion an application for one was promised me, and as early an answer to the note as could be given. I expressed a strong desire to receive one, that I might communicate it to you during the present session of Congress, before whom the subject was known to be. The state of the admiralty from which Sir Evan Nepean has been lately removed, and the indisposition of Ld. St. Vincent were suggested as causes of the delay. It is probable that the indisposition of the king, & the situation of publick affairs in general may have also contributed to it.
On the subject of impressments, neutral rights, and our intercourse with the W. Indias, there is a strong motive for some equitable & amicable arrangment with this governmen⟨t.⟩ They are severally topicks of the first importance to bot⟨h⟩ parties and ought to be adjusted on such fair and li⟨be⟩ral principles as to leave no cause of future varian⟨ce⟩ behind. It happens unfortunately that in each case, we have to contend with the practice and the prejudice of this country. It is however to be hoped that a more correct view of its interest, and a greater respect for our rights, will induce its governmen⟨t⟩ to agree to an arrangment, which will prove equa⟨lly⟩ advantageous to both nations. Mr. Baring is not yet arrived, but is daily expected, by whom I expect instructions on these and other subjects in which we are interested. I am with great respec⟨t⟩ & esteem yr. obt. servant
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 12); letterbook copy (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC docketed by Wagner as received 21 Apr.

   For the background to these political events, see Donald Grove Barnes, George III and William Pitt, 1783–1806 (New York, 1965), pp. 420–26.

   In the summer of 1803, following the renewal of war between France and Great Britain, the Prince of Wales had applied through Henry Addington for an appointment to a military command commensurate with his position, arguing that it would inspire the people and remove any stigma attached to his remaining a dragoon colonel while his younger brothers moved up in the military ranks. Addington presented the request to George III, who refused it. The prince then wrote directly to his father, who again refused the request (A. Aspinall, ed., The Correspondence of George, Prince of Wales, 1770–1812 [8 vols.; London, 1963–71], 4:348–49, 386–88, 391–96).

   See Monroe to JM, 14 Dec. 1803, and n. 3.


Title: To James Madison from William Eaton, 25 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Eaton, William
To: Madison, James

25 February 1804. “As I have it in contemplation to publish the statement and document submitted to the committee of claims, accompanying my petition, I request you will be pleased to give it your perusal and signify to me whether it contains any thing improper to be laid before the public.
“The solicitude I feel to be relieved from the state of suspense and accumulation of expenses which I now suffer must plead my apology for soliciting as early a decision, from the Department of State, to the questions referred by the Committe[e] as comports with the attention due to objects of national concern. Am fearful lest Congress should rise without having acted on my claims.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tunis, vol. 2, pt. 2). 1 p. Filed with this letter is a printed copy of the 29 Feb. 1804 Report of the Committee of Claims, to Whom Was Referred, on the Twentieth Instant, the Petition of William Eaton (Washington, 1804; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 7600) (see John Cotton Smith to JM, 23 Feb. 1804, n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 26 February 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir,
New Orleans February 26. 1804
The mail due on last evening from the northward arrived, but brought me no official dispatches. I fear the post has become an uncertain conveyance, and under this impression I shall cause duplicate copies to be taken of all my official communications to you, and will forward them by Mr. Isaac Briggs, who will leave this city for the seat of Government in two or three days.
No unpleasant event has occurred since my last letter. The French Brig Argo left this port on yesterday, taking with her a few French officers, and I understand will also convey to France the French soldiers who were detained at Fort Plaquemines.
I dined on this day with the Marquis de Casa Calvo. He told me that on this morning he received dispatches from his Court which announced the prospect of a continuance of peace between Spain and the European powers. It was also mentioned to me by a member of the Marquis’s family, that he (the Marquis) was now constituted the sole Commissioner on the part of Spain in Louisiana; and that his late colleague Governor Salcedo was discontinued, and permitted to retire to the Canary Islands with the pay for life of a Colonel. I was also informed by a Spanish officer, that in two or three days the Spanish forces would commence a movement for Pensacola, and that in about twenty days the Spaniards would remove all their troops and military stores from this City.
It is said here that Pensacola is to be strongly fortified, and that a reinforcement is ordered from Havanna to St Augustin. It is also stated with confidence, that a large force is moving from Mexico to the Province of Tacus. I will not be answerable for the truth of these reports; I communicate them to you as they came to me, and if they be correct (which I am inclined to believe) you can as well as myself form an idea as to the objects of these military preparations.
General Wilkinson contemplates taking his departure for Washington in twelve or fourteen days, but I much question whether he will be enabled so soon to set out.
Mr. Laussat has not yet delivered to the American Commissioners all the archives &c. appertaining to the sovereignty of Louisiana.
The emigration from the West India Islands to this Province is considerable; there are now on the Mississippi several hundred French emigrants from Jamaica, and two or three other vessels filled with passengers are daily expected. Accept assurances of my great respect and sincere esteem.
William C. C. Claiborne

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 4 Apr.


Title: To James Madison from John J. Murray, 26 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Murray, John J.
To: Madison, James

26 February 1804, Glasgow. “However reluctant to me, I am nevertheless obliged to request leave of the President to return home in all this year—the climate ⟨o⟩f Scotland disagreeing much with the health ⟨o⟩f my family—& the manners of the people, amongst whom we live, differing so widely from what we have been accustomed to in America—that it would seem too great a sacrifice for my family to make to remain any longer in a situation possessing so little ⟨o⟩f the agreeable—without indeed I could ⟨r⟩ender some distinguished service to my country by continuing here in my official character—in which case all opposing Considerations would immediately be removed. Yielding to none in love of Country and respect & admiration of the illustrious chief who presides over our most favord land—I cannot therefore Conclude this com⟨mu⟩nication before I invoke the God of the Universe to continue to the United States the blessings of Peace & good Government which they have so eminently enjoyed for some years past—and to our Illustrious President, to whose wisdom an⟨d⟩ Patriotism, America owes so much, the lasting confidence & affection of his fellow citizens.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Glasgow, vol. 1). 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 4 May.


Title: To James Madison from Peder Pedersen, 27 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Pedersen, Peder
To: Madison, James

27 February 1804, Washington. “I have received by the Brig Saunders from Madeira arrived at Philadelphia, 1½ pipe of Madeira Wine, and now herewith beg leave, Sir, to request, that you will desire the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to direct the Collector of duties at the port of Philadelphia to grant a permit for the landing of the said 1½ pipe of Madeira Wine; agreeably to the privilege allowed Ministers and Chargé d’affairs of foreign Nations; and the same to be delivered to my Agent Mr. John Maybin Mrct. of Philadelphia, in whose hands is the Bill of invoice.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Denmark, vol. 1). 1 p.; docketed by Wagner with the added notation: “duties on 1½ pipe wine.” JM replied to Pedersen on 28 Feb. 1804 (not found) (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls, vol. 1, index).

   Because Pedersen had not arrived with a proper letter of credence, he was “admitted to enter into every official relation with the government of the U: States, which might be necessary to promote the interests of his own” but was not, under U.S. law, allowed the exemption from duties extended to formally authorized diplomats (JM to Christian Gynther Bernstorff, 16 Sept. 1804 [DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1]).


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Pulis, 27 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Pulis, Joseph
To: Madison, James

27 February 1804, Malta. On the return of Mohammad Elfi, bey of Cairo, to Malta from London after the completion of his affairs there, Pulis paid him a courtesy visit during which the bey stated that after he achieved his independence from the Porte, he wished to establish a close and lasting friendship with the U.S. As soon as he arrived in his dominions he would write to the U.S. about the matter, and he believed his proposal would be accepted. Pulis hurries to do his duty by submitting the bey’s communication. The bold action of the burning of the frigate at Tripoli, news of which has just been received, gave the Maltese the greatest pleasure, which demonstrates the general leaning of that nation toward the glorious superiority of the U.S.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Malta, vol. 1). 2 pp.; in French; docketed by Wagner: “recd. 22 May / ouvertures of the Bashaw of Cairo.”


Title: To James Madison from James Simpson, 28 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Simpson, James
To: Madison, James

28 February 1804, Tangier. No. 73. Received the original and duplicate of JM’s letter of 31 Oct. 1803 with postscripts of 4 and 10 Nov. The original was delivered on 22 Feb. “by Mr William Thom, together with Charter party of the Schooner Citizen and Bill of lading for One hundred Gun Carriages by that Vessel, destined as a Present from the United States to His Imperial Majesty Muley Soliman.” His letters subsequent to that of 5 Sept. 1803 reported that differences between the U.S. and Morocco had been settled “on such a footing as left me no room to hesitate at the immediate delivery of these Gun Carriages.” “In consequence I lost no time in dispatching an Express for Morocco with advice to the Emperour of their arrival, which will no doubt be highly satisfactory to him: at receipt of the answer I will have the honour of transmitting to you translation thereof, together with copy of the Letter I wrote His Majesty on the occasion. Captain Hull in the Argus is here to give assistance in landing the Cargo of the Citizen and if Weather permits it will be all on shore tomorrow.” Regrets that the carriages sent are not the kind the emperor wanted. “The twelve pounders can be but of little use to him, as the Batteries thro’out his Empire are almost all mounted with Guns of 24 & 18. I must also mention the whole yet landed being for Sea Service and the circumstance of but one handspike sent for each Carriage. To remedy the latter mistake in the person who was encharged with Shipment of the Stores, I have written Mr Gavino to endeavour to procure a hundred more of the suitable sizes, which I shall deliver into the Kings Stores so soon as I get them, to prevent any unpleasant Remarks on a matter of so trifling a value. Carriages for Sea Service having been sent in place of those suitable for land Batteries I fear may not be so easily got over; however as happily they have none other of same make for land Service in the Country, I may be able to Keep them satisfied with what they have got.
“By No. 71 [26 Dec. 1803] you will have seen the unpleasant busyness agitated respecting losses pretended to have been sustained by Passengers on board the Meshouda. I sent back the Messenger came to me, on the fourth of January and urged every argument I thought would have weight against the claims set up, since when I have not heard any farther on the subject.” Rais Omar of Tetuán offers Captain Smith and Lieutenant Cox as witnesses to part of his loss. Has requested that Preble ask Captain Smith what he knows of the story.
“If it be found the people have lost their property, it will remain for the Wisdom of Government to find a means of Redress and if on the contrary (as I much wish) the allegations prove to be false, I am satisfied the Emperour will punish those within his power.” The Dutch have sent “A very small present” for the emperor. “As it consists only in twelve Cases, two Casks and a Bale there can be but little hopes of its proving equal to expectation.” The Dutch consul awaits the emperor’s commands before going to Morocco for negotiations. “In the mean time he has desired permission of Our Governour (at present at Tetuan) to send his Family to Europe, to which no answer has been Returned, and I have reason to believe it will not be granted.
“When the Emperour went to Morocco he appointed Sidy Muhammed Selawy Bashaw of the Province of Beni Hassan with Residence at Salle, encharged also with the Government of that Town.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 2). First RC 3 pp.; marked “Triplicate”; docketed by Wagner as received 11 May. Second RC marked quadruplicate; docketed by Wagner as received 28 May.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:593–94.

   See JM to Simpson, 4 Nov. 1803, which includes a 10 Nov. postscript.

   Ibid., 5:379–80.


Title: From James Madison to Robert R. Livingston, 29 February 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Livingston, Robert R.

Sir,
Department of State 29th February 1804
Mr Fitzsimons of Philadelphia, on behalf of those interested in the ship New Jersey has requested me to recommend their case to your attention. This vessel was condemned in the course of the late war by an Agent of France residing at the City of St Domingo and it is the expectation of the applicants by obtaining a revocation of the condemnation to qualify their claim for adjustment by the Board of Commissioners under the Convention respecting Louisiana. The applicants are apprized that business of this nature falls more particularly within the scope of Mr Skipwith’s functions, and they will therefore not ask your assistance in any part of its details; but an occasion may emerge in its prosecution of a nature to render useful and proper such interposition as you may think fit to adopt; and with a view to this contingency permit me to ask your good offices for them. I have the honor to be &c
James Madison

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

   See Thomas FitzSimons to JM, 14 Jan. 1804, and n. 1.

   On the same date JM wrote to FitzSimons enclosing duplicates of his letter to Livingston and adding: “Instructions have been some time past transmitted to Paris calculated to promote a modification, if possible, of the Convention of the 30th. of April last, so as to divide the sum payable under it more equally among the claims than may happen from its operation in its present form” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14; 1 p.).


Title: To James Madison from Cato West, 29 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: West, Cato
To: Madison, James

29 February 1804, Mississippi Territory. “I take leave to request that the Laws of the United States, Pass’d at the Several Sessions of Congress, since the year 1800, may be furnish’d, for the use of the Judges, and other officers of this Government. None of those Acts, except a very few of the Last Session, have been receiv’d to my Knowlege.
“Permit me Sir, to Suggest the propriety of distributing some copies of the Laws of the United States among the Inferior officers of the Territorial Government.
“Governor Claiborne, previous to his departure from this Territory to New Orleans, wrote you respecting some writing done by Mr. Edward Turner—will you please to advise me of your determination thereon.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Mississippi, vol. 1); FC (Ms-Ar). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner.

   Letter not found. Edward Turner, Cato West’s son-in-law, had written two newspaper articles “pointing out the corruption of the federal party at an election in July 1802” and had helped draft a petition to Congress requesting changes in the territorial government (Edward  Turner to John C. Breckinridge, 2 Nov. 1803 [printed in Carter, Territorial Papers, Mississippi, 5:264–78]).


Title: From James Madison to Thomas M. Willing and Thomas W. Francis, 1 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Willing, Thomas M.,Francis, Thomas W.

Gentlemen.
Department of State March 1st. 1804
I have received your letter of the 14th. ult. requesting that the bonds you exicuted as sureties for Mr. Cathcart as Consul of the United States at Tripoli, and for Mr. Wollaston as their Consul at Genoa may be cancelled. The Offices of both those Gentlemen have ceased: Mr. Cathcart has rendered his public accounts from time to time but they are not settled, tho’ no doubt is entertained that they will be, on his return to the United States, which is shortly expected to take place: it is not known that Mr. Wollaston ever received any monies belonging to the public. But on recurring to the 6th. Section of the act of Congress of the 14th. April 1792, you will observe that the bond given by Consuls is intended not only to secure the faithful exicution of their offices towards the U. States, but their “truly accounting for all monies, goods and effects which may come into their possession in virtue of that act,” in which individuals have an interest. Bonds of this nature therefore are not considered such as may safely be cancelled, since breaches of them may have taken place of which the Executive is not apprized and which future circumstances may disclose: Moreover, if, in any given instance no breach has been committed, the sureties can in no respect be injured by the bond remaining; but in the opposite supposition to cancel it would be a sacrifice of the right of those who may have sustained loss by the unfaithful conduct of the Consul. I am &c.
James Madison.

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

   For the cited section of the 14 Apr. 1792 “Act concerning Consuls and Vice-Consuls,” see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 1:256.


Title: From James Madison to Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, 1 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de

Sir,
Dept of State, March 1st 1804.
I have laid before the President your letter of the 23d Ult, in which the United States are called upon, in the name of His Catholic Majesty, to control the commerce of their Citizens, in provisions of every sort, with Negroes of St Domingo, in rebellion against the French Republic; with an intimation that in this demand His Catholic Majesty will be supported by some of the first powers of Europe.
You, Sir, must best know the grounds on which such an intimation is given. The respect which the President entertains for Nations between whom and the United States exist all the relations of friendship and frank communication would not have permitted him hastily to presume their resort to the intervention of a third Power, for explaining their views on an occasion so little requiring a departure from the ordinary and direct channels, which seem to be suggested not less by respect for themselves, than by that to which the example of the United States entitles them.
In the demand itself, to say nothing of the manner of it, the President sees much less than was to be expected, of that attention to the rights of the United States, which they have invariably shewn to those of Spain. The questions presented by a Commerce from the ports of the United States to the Island of St Domingo; as a part of the French Dominions, belong to France and the United States, only; with the exceptions made by the law of Nations, in time of war, in behalf of a belligerent party. Spain, as a Neutral nation, cannot be permitted to assume to herself these exceptions; much less to extend them to cases not within the rights of a belligerent Nation.
The friendly appeal which His Catholic Majesty is pleased to make to the interests of the United States, as a source of his expectations, is regarded by the President with that sensibility and reciprocity, which the disposition of the United States to favor the interests of Spain requires. But, as Spain will, doubtless, in all cases, judge for herself in what concerns herself, the President cannot for a moment forget that the United States have the same right; nor doubt that both Nations will be sensible, that in no case ought the exercise of this right to be more scrupulously left by each to the other, than in their respective concerns with other Nations.
I have only to add, Sir, the request of the President, that your Communication of these sentiments to your Government may be accompanied with assurances of the sincerest disposition of the United States to maintain with Spain those ties of friendship, which must gain more and more of strength, as the mutual interest of the two Nations shall be more and more developed. I have the Honor &c &c.
(signed)   James Madison.

   Tr (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls, vol. 1); Tr (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Spain, vol. 2); Tr, two copies (NHi: Livingston Papers). First Tr docketed by Monroe: “1 March 1804 / with Spn. minister / respecting St. Domingo / & threat of Latter— / French minister.” Second Tr docketed by Monroe. Last Tr is a letterpress copy of second Tr.


Title: To James Madison from Arthur Campbell, 1 March 1804
From: Campbell, Arthur
To: Madison, James

Sir
Washington Cot. March 1st. 1804
In a late publication I have read with delight the following Sentiment of the President of the United States. “Sensible as we are of the superior advantages of civil life, of the nourishment which industry provides for the body, and Science for the mind and morals, it is our duty to associate our Indian neighbours in these blessings, and to teach them to become fit members of organized Society.”
Before the peace of 1763, the British government seems to have had no idea of the utility of such policy. France attempted some regulations in Canada, and Louisiana, that had a temporary effect, to attach the Indian Tribes to her interests, for the purposes of trade, and hostility. The U. States has done more good in a few years past, than either of the other powers, did in a century. But may it not be worth while now, seriously to consider, whether our regulations will have a permanent operation to make the Aborigines fit members for civil Society, or in other words, a suitable people to be incorporated into the American Family. The present measures seems auspicious to promote peace; but freedom and self-government, cannot be attained without the light of science, at least such a degree of it, as will make savage Men, fit members of an organized free government.
The U. States cannot have all the Indian nations within her present limits, pensioners to her Treasury and events may await us, at no very distant period, that those who now are, may have to be struck off the List.
Learning than, I mean to read and write, seems a necessary measure, to make all our humane regulations permanently useful, for knowledge will excite industry, to provide not only food for the mind, but plenty of nourishment for the body, and thus we may form the civilized Man. But the great matter of all seems yet to be developd: how this necessary learning is to be accomplished. Schools at some future day, would be of more utility than Trading Houses, yet we can never expect the national government, will establish Schools in all the Villages, and if it did, it might be a vain work, until a change of manners, and even language would precede it.
The government of France, once made the attempt to change the manners of these savage Tribes. She calculated on introducing the benign spirit of the Christian religion, by Teachers who wore a black dress, spoke the Indian tongue imperfectly; and by some showy ceremonies, that the untutored Men of the Wilderness, did not comprehend.
A few years since, I conversed with an American Missionary, on his way to preach to a very friendly southren Tribe; the good Man could not speak the Indian dialect, but mentioned he would procure an Interpreter: He went on and urged with zeal the peculiar dogmas of his Sect; but neither he, nor his Interpreter, could make his audience understand what he meant, or how faith alone would conduce to their happiness.
Another plan seems to present itself, which will favour the acquisition of Individual, and Family property; of course promote peace, and natural population. I had the hint from an intelligent lay-Man who was sent, as a Missionary by a religious Society, in Kentucky, to a Tribe of Indians in the neighbourhood of Detroit: He spoke the Indian language fluently, and understood their customs and manners, and was received among them with not only civility, but with an affectionate attention. The reasoning of an Indian Chief, with him, proves that reading and writing must precede preaching, as a means of reformation. However as the Scheme is not matured in my own mind, I will reserve it for some future communication. Something like it has succeeded in other Countries, in the eastern part of the World, and as it will cost our Treasury little, the experiment may be made, by a gradual progression. Excuse my troubleing you with these effusions, I know such communications, might properly be made to the head of another Department; but as I am unacquainted with that Gentleman, you will please to receive it as a private letter, from an old Friend. I am Sir Your most obd. servant
Arthur Campbell

   RC (DLC).

   Arthur Campbell (1743–1811) served with JM in the Virginia Convention of 1776 and was later active in separatist movements in the region that became Kentucky (PJMWilliam T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (1st ser., vols. 1–10, Chicago, 1962–77, vols. 11–17, Charlottesville, Va., 1977–91)., 4:125–26 n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 1 March 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir
New-Orleans March 1st. 1804
Having understood that there were several Parishes or Districts in Louisiana, whose former Commandants had declined acting under the American Government; that the inhabitants were becoming discontented and in some instances that disorders had ensued, I deemed it adviseable immediately to appoint the necessary Civil Officers, and by some verbal communications to endeavor to impress the minds of the Citizens favorably, towards the change of Government. My acquaintance with Characters being too limited, to enable me promptly to take the first measure, and my necessary presence in this City, preventing me from executing (in person) the other, I solicited Doctor John Watkins to proceed on a mission to these Districts, and which he was pleased to undertake.

Doctor Watkins was formerly of Kentucky; but having married a lady of this Province, has settled in this City; he is perfect master of the French and Spanish languages, possesses good general information and supports the character of a very honest man.
The enclosure No. 1, is a Copy of Dr. Watkins’s Instructions; that No. 2, of his Credentials, and the enclosure No. 3, of the Doctor’s Report; to this latter document, I beg leave particularly to refer you. It states the wishes of the people on several subjects highly interesting to Louisiana, and which will no doubt receive the attention of the General Government.
With respect to the importation of Slaves from Africa, which is mentioned in the report, I think it my duty to state, that on this subject, the people generally appear to feel a lively interest, and the prevailing opinion expressed here is, that a prohibition would tend greatly to the injury of the Province. I believe also that the solicitude of the people on the coast for a Delegate to Congress (which Doctor Watkins mentions) is not greater, than that of the citizens of New-Orleans; perhaps in the formation of a Government for Louisiana, Congress may make provision for a Delegate and extend to him like privileges, with those enjoyed by Delegates from other Territories. Such a provision would certain⟨l⟩y give general Satisfaction here, and I hope Congress may deem it adviseable. Accept assurances of my respectful Consideration
William C. C. Claiborne

   RC, two copies, and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of third enclosure (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 4 Apr. and with the added notation: “Dr. Watkins’ tour & report.” Second RC marked duplicate. For enclosures, see nn.

   Claiborne enclosed a copy of Claiborne to Watkins, 9 Feb. 1804 (3 pp.; docketed by Wagner; printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 1:367–69), instructing him to proceed to the parishes above the city on the island of New Orleans and as far as Baton Rouge on the west bank of the Mississippi to appoint commandants. The old commandants were to be reappointed if they wished it and if their characters were good. Watkins was to administer them an oath of allegiance to the U.S.; assure the populations that their liberty, property, and religion would be protected under U.S. law; and stress that “whatever some mischievous or wicked men may insinuate the Province of Louisiana will never revert to France.”

   Claiborne enclosed a copy of his 9 Feb. 1804 open letter (1 p.; docketed by Wagner; printed ibid., 1:369), announcing that Watkins had been sent out under Claiborne’s authority.

   Claiborne enclosed a copy of Watkins’s report (16 pp.; dated 2 Feb. 1804; docketed by Wagner; letterbook copy filed at 2 Mar. 1804; printed ibid., 2:3–13). Watkins described the various parishes he had visited in the German Coast and Acadian Coast districts; named and described the commandants reappointed and those newly appointed; mentioned criminal behavior among both black and white inhabitants and the neglect of the levees and roads, all of which he attributed to poor government; noted the strong desire of the inhabitants to be allowed to import African blacks; and reported the wish of the commandants for more government assistance, including aid for the local churches.


Title: From James Madison to Tench Coxe, 1 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Coxe, Tench

1 March 1804, Department of State. “On the receipt of the proceeds arising from the sale of the guns and other articles lately made thro.’ Messrs. Pettit and Bayard, you will be pleased to account with and pay over what may remain, after deducting the expenses, to the Treasury.”

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

   This is a clerk’s error for “gums” (see Coxe to JM, 3 Feb. 1804, and n. 2).


Title: To James Madison from William Lee, 1 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Lee, William
To: Madison, James

1 March 1804, Bordeaux. “I have the honor to transmit you ⟨enc⟩losed the returns of the Vessels which have entered ⟨an⟩d cleared at this Office from the 1st. July to 31 Decr 1803.
“The numerous and heavy failures in this City have ⟨c⟩aused great distress among the Americans at this ⟨p⟩ort, the Custom house having seized several of their ⟨C⟩argoes which were in the hands of the Bankrupt Consignees. But as according to the Laws of this Country a person has a right to his property whenever it can ⟨b⟩e found if he has not recd. some consideration therefor ⟨I⟩ am in hopes of recovering these Cargoes for my countrymen ⟨h⟩aving commenced a suit against the Collector of this ⟨p⟩ort for the same and in the Case of the Cargo of the Brig Sally of Charleston owned by Capt Pratt and valued ⟨a⟩t 20,000$ consigned to Strobel & Martini have recovered ⟨ju⟩dgment in favor of the owner for the amount of Invoice with damages. The Collector however has appealed to the Tribunal of premier Instance where no doubt this judgment will be confirmed.
“The Cargo of the ship Columbine of Boston ⟨co⟩nsigned to the same unfortunate Strobel & Martini having been also seized by the Receiver General of the Customs for debts due him by that house I advised Mr Mansfield the supercargo to repair to Paris and pursue his claim through Mr Livingston before the minister of the public Treasury which he has done without success it being t⟨he⟩ opinion of the administration that the seizure is legal—we shall however convince them to the contrary having already commenced a process against the Receiver and the situation of this Cargo being precisely the same as that of the Sally we shall without doubt recover.
“The ship Young Eagle arrived here a short time since from New York via Bristol having been carried into that port by a privateer. This Vessel is clearly entitl⟨ed⟩ to an entry here according to the modifications of the Laws of the 1st of Thermidor and 1st. of Messidor she having been forced into England and her Cargo not having undergone any change there yet for want of a certificat⟨e⟩ of Origin the Vessel and Cargo has been seized by the Director of the Customs who was about to proceed to the sale of the same when by the advice of an eminent Counsellor I arrested his proceedings by putting the seals of the Consulate on the Vessel until the judgment of the Tribunal or the decision of the minister of the Interior ⟨s⟩hall be had thereon and I have good reason to think the Vessel will be admitted.

“It is but within a few days that your circular under date of the 1t. Octr came to hand. The explanation given by the Comptroller of the Treasury of the several laws respecting the transfer of Registered Vessels has been long wanted and will prove useful. I wish however he had laid down some rules for our guide in issuing Consular Certificates. Following your instructions of the 1st. of August 1801.—it would seem as though any American Citizen not domiciliated in a foreign Country has a right to own a vessel under the Consular Certificate provided such vessel is bound to the United States. But if the 3d article of the Comptrollers remarks is intended to extend to all Vessels registered or not I fear I have erred in two or three instances. A Captain or Super Cargo of a Vessel who may be here three or four months for the purpose of selling a Cargo must be considered by the Comptrollers remarks as temporarily residing or itinerant in a foreign Country and must therefore be deprived of the advantages which might arise to themselves and owners by a remittance in the purchase of a foreign Vessel not being ⟨e⟩ntitled to a certificate for the same without which such Vessel cannot proceed to the United States—this is a point I hope you will do me the honour to instruct me on.
“Great exertions are making at this port in building flat bottomed boats and equiping transports, for which purpose an Embargo has existed here for near three months except for the interval of two or three days whic⟨h⟩ I was fortunate enough to obtain in order to permit several american Vessels to depart whose cargoes had been on board for some weeks.
“There appears to be a great movement in the political world but we are so badly instructed here on the events of the day that I never dare to attempt to give you any information of that nature.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bordeaux, vol. 2). First RC 4 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 21 May and with the added notation: “quer. ought there to be any difference among vessels wearing the flag of the U States, Whether registered or not.” Second RC marked duplicate. Enclosures not found.

   For the arrêté of 1 Messidor an XI (20 June 1803), restricting foreign trade, see Livingston to JM, 25 June 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:119–21, 122 n. 2). The arrêté of 1 Thermidor an XI (20 July 1803) decreed that “there shall not be received, in the ports of France, any vessel which has cleared out from an English port, nor any vessel which has touched at an English port” (Cobbett’s Annual Register 4 [1803]: 400).

   For JM’s 1 Oct. 1803 circular to consuls and the enclosed letter from Gabriel Duvall, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:479 and n. 1.

   Circular Letter to American Consuls and Commercial Agents, 1 Aug. 1801 (ibid., 2:1–4).


Title: To James Madison from John Robertson, 1 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Robertson, John
To: Madison, James

1 March 1804, Antwerp. Encloses a copy of his 11 Nov. 1803 dispatch as well as (1) “a report list of the american Vessels enterred & cleared at this port from the first of July last to the 31st Decr: 1803” [not found]; (2) “Original Interrogatories relative to the Suspected Embezzlement on board of The Ship Mary of Cohasset in December last & the Brig Cherokee of Boston in February”; (3) a “Copy of my Letters relative thereto / To the Director of the Customs / the Administration of the Marine / a Commissary of Police, the result of which has been the Detection and punishment of the man therein designated as inticing the Crews to disorder”; and (4) a “Copy of my Correspondence with the Commissary General of the Marine of this Department relative to the obligation exacted by this Government from every American Captain Coming direct from the United States to remain on board of their Vessels and Suffer no part of their Cargoes to be landed until the Visit by the board of health of this Place be effected on board their Vessels notwithstanding their having performed quarantine before enterring the river: This quarantine is generally limited to ten or twelve days.”
“You will no doubt, Sir, have been informed, ere this reaches you, of the Conspiracy against the Life of Bonaparte in which Moreau is inculpated: It is the wish of many and Especially of the army, by whom this famous General is adored, that he may be innocent; He is arrested.
“The Agitation which this news caused in the minds has Soon made place to Security and felicitations from the Principal authorities to the first Consul on the discovery of the Conspiracy.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Antwerp, vol. 1). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 1 June. For surviving enclosures, see nn.

   Robertson enclosed the 2 Dec. 1803 interrogatories (7 pp.) of several crew members of the Mary, Samuel Stoddard, master, stating that they knew nothing directly of the theft of a chest of tea from the ship but had heard “John the workman,” who had a bad character, tell Stoddard that crewman Joseph Chips had taken six pounds of tea ashore. Chips denied having done so.

   Robertson enclosed the 12 Feb. 1804 interrogatories (6 pp.) of several members of the crew of the Cherokee, William Pratt, master, regarding the theft of some coffee from the ship. Also enclosed are copies of the 13 Feb. 1804 deposition of first mate Job Pike (1 p.) and Robertson’s 13 Feb. 1804 judgment (1 p.) that sailor Thomas Randall was guilty “of Embezzlement of about Six pounds of Coffee” and that crew member John Bush was guilty “of having concealed the Same.” Randall and Bush were to be taken to prison by the local authorities and there confined for one week.

   The enclosures are a copy of Robertson to customs director Blutel, 3 Dec. 1803 (2 pp.; in French), reporting the theft from the Mary, describing his interrogation of the crew, whom he judged innocent, and imputing the guilt to one John, a mulatto workman, who had a bad reputation and had been often on board the ship; a copy of Robertson to commissary of marine Le Chanteur, 5 Dec. 1803 (2 pp.; in French), describing John as the probable perpetrator of the theft and noting that he had been borrowing money from crewmen before the theft and was later seen well dressed and spending freely; and a copy of Robertson to police commissioner Bonis, 15 Feb. 1804 (2 pp.; in French), enclosing the interrogatories, describing John, a Dutch seaman, as the likely perpetrator, adding that many American captains had reported him as mingling with their crews in order to corrupt them and borrow money, and noting that John was reported to have left the country.

   The enclosures are copies of commissary general of the marine Malouet to Robertson, 30 Nivôse an XII (21 Jan. 1804) (1 p.; in French), complaining that the American ship Diana had entered the harbor without giving the required notice of arrival and of the condition of the crew to the harbormaster, in violation of strict regulations regarding these matters, and adding that the captain, crew, and cargo were not to leave the ship; Robertson to Malouet, 30 Nivôse an XII (21 Jan. 1804) (2 pp.; in French), stating that the Diana had anchored at Antwerp the night of 26 Nivôse, that Capt. Philip Mingles had brought his papers to Robertson the following morning, that as all the papers were in order and as Robertson had sent the customary certificates to the proper officials, the public safety was not threatened, and that he would notify consignees J. Ridgway Mertens and Company of the restrictions placed on the captain, crew, and cargo; Robertson to Mingles, 21 Jan. 1804 (1 p.), informing him of the restrictions; Robertson to Mingles, 23 Jan. 1804 (1 p.), stating that he had met with Malouet, that the required visit of inspection would be made that day, and that Mingles had permission to come ashore and continue the clearance of the ship; Malouet to Robertson, 2 Pluviôse an XII (23 Jan. 1804) (1 p.; in French), stating that he had just learned that Capt. William Pratt of the Cherokee had left his ship at Fort Lillo and was traveling to Antwerp and asking that the captain be ordered to explain a step so completely contrary to the latest rules of the minister of marine; Robertson to Malouet, 23 Jan. 1804 (2 pp.; in French), explaining that Pratt had come that morning to Robertson’s office and had exhibited his papers, which included a quarantine certificate from Hellevoetsluis, that Robertson was awaiting the ship’s arrival at Antwerp to make the customary declarations, that Pratt, having fulfilled the quarantine and received permission at Fort Lillo to proceed to Antwerp, was unaware of any further requirements, that Robertson had issued an order (enclosure “A”) for Pratt and his crew to remain on board until the prescribed inspection visit, and that Robertson had written his colleague at Flushing [Vlissingen] to notify American captains bound for Antwerp that they were to remain on their ships until after this visit; enclosure “A,” 23 Jan. 1804 (2 pp.; in French), certifying that Pratt had exhibited his papers, including the certificate of quarantine, and that he and his crew would remain on board the Cherokee until the visit by the marine commissioner; and Malouet to Robertson, 2 Pluviôse an XII (23 Jan. 1804) (2 pp.; in French), stating that in view of Pratt’s conduct and of the existence of the certificate of quarantine from Hellevoetsluis, he had revoked the order for Pratt’s arrest and adding his approval of Robertson’s order to Pratt.


Title: To James Madison from Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, 1 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de
To: Madison, James

1 March 1804, Washington. JM’s letter of today in reply to his of 23 Feb. obliges him to make some reflections on the points to which JM refers. Observes that his own letter must have been very badly translated, as only this can explain those of JM’s observations that are difficult, if not impossible, to apply to the object and expressions of his own letter. The first inaccuracy he observes is in the expression JM uses in referring to the articles of commerce that the king wishes kept from the black rebels of Saint-Domingue, to wit, “provisions of every sort.” Suggests that if JM takes the trouble to examine his letter, JM will see that the trade whose prohibition the king solicits is that in munitions of war and provisions, an expression that carries a significance different from that which JM employs in his response. Attributes this lack of exactness to the translator, since an error of this nature is not to be looked for on JM’s part. Believes the remarks JM makes in his second paragraph, on Yrujo’s supposed attempt to be the medium of the views of other powers, are based on an inexact supposition. Points out that JM takes as their basis the assertion “that in this demand, His. Cath. Maj. will be supported by some of the first powers of Europe.” Sees here again the lack of fidelity in presenting the true sense of his words. Repeats the expression he used, to which he believes JM wishes to refer: “y que no puede menos de recivir el apoyo de las naciones interesadas.” Calls this not an assertion of action but purely a presumption based on the manifest interests of those powers, not an intimation, as JM calls it, but a strong indication of probability or of moral certitude. Such is, in his opinion, its obvious and natural meaning. Argues that the meaning JM gives it, which alone could justify JM’s observations, is for these same reasons very improbable. States that he neither pretends nor has pretended to be the organ of the intentions of other powers toward the U.S. in ways that might offend the one or the other; adds that prudence is necessary in making inductions that, lacking foundation, must appear offensive.
Cites the third paragraph of JM’s response, which begins, “in the demand itself, to say nothing of the manner of it.” Confesses that he has cogitated much but in vain to find the true meaning of “to say nothing of the manner of it.” Asks what JM finds extraordinary in the manner, since his letter went through the accustomed channel of the secretary of state. Asks whether there was in it some expression slightly indecorous or indicating a lack of respect toward the U.S. government. It not seeming so to him, he wonders to what the expression can have reference. If there is no error in words in the third paragraph of JM’s letter, concludes that there evidently is in the sense that JM gives to his words. States that the king does not attempt to violate the rights of any power, much less those of the U.S., which he looks on as a friendly nation. Points out that the very act of soliciting the U.S. government and the manner of doing it, the king judging this act necessary for the preservation of his colonies, contradict such a presumption. States that the king desires that provisions and munitions of war not be carried to the rebellious blacks of Saint-Domingue for obvious reasons and that he has made this request in a friendly manner, believing that because of the conformity of his interests with those of the U.S. on this point, no difference of opinion could exist between the two governments. Argues that this does not indicate that the rights of the U.S. have been disregarded, as JM believes, and that one would not expect an attempt to extend those rights to the arming of an ignorant, savage, and raging multitude of blacks who, because of these circumstances and their location, create danger for neighboring nations. States that Spain cannot on this point consider itself neutral in relation to Saint-Domingue. Declares that the right of self-preservation, which is without dispute the first law of nations and as inherent in the body politic as it is in individuals, authorizes and even obliges Spain to prevent the dagger’s being brought to the hands of the assassin and the torch to those of the incendiary. Calls it incredible that JM would designate as rights of the U.S. actions which, if not prevented, could very probably be converted into the means of devastation and pillage, or that JM would wish to authorize conduct that could bring about the complete subversion of the colonial system. Argues that this is the evil that must be anticipated, the methods for remedying which the king has demanded, and that if for this reason the king has mentioned risks of a similar nature that menace a great part of the U.S., it has been because of a cordial sympathy and unity of interests between the two powers, not as an attempt to intervene in any way in the internal actions of the U.S. government. Adds that the confirmation of the friendly dispositions of the U.S. toward the king can only bring satisfaction to a monarch who is the friend of peace and justice. Assures JM of the sincere reciprocity of similar sentiments toward the U.S. and its government on the part of the king.

   RC and Tr (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Spain, vol. 2); Tr, three copies (NHi: Livingston Papers). RC 4 pp.; in Spanish; in a clerk’s hand, except for Yrujo’s complimentary close and signature; docketed by Wagner: “Trade with St. Domingo.” Last Tr in French.

   “And which cannot help but receive support from all interested nations” (editors’ translation).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 2 March 1804
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

private
Dear Sir
London March 2. 1804
I enclose you several letters on subjects wh. are explained by the parties, better than I can otherwise do. That of our friend La Fayette is no further material than as it mentions his not having recd. the copy of the grant by Congress. You will return it to me when we meet. Respecting those of Mr. Forbes I can only say that I think him a worthy man, very attentive to the enterest of his country, & that his opinion merits in such cases attention. He has been here since the blockade of the Elbe sick the greater part of the time with the Rheumatism or gout. Mr. Nicholas was recommended to me by Mr. Brent while at Washington as a person of merit; he came here on his own business. I saw him frequently & thot. him deserving of what Mr. Brent had said.
Mr. Preble is I believe the brother of Commodore P. a good kind of man, but as I presume not altogether in political sentiment with the admn. As I have known him sometime & in the above light, he has requested me to state what I know. The place is important, & if he is not appointed it ought to be given to some very respectable new man from america, who wod. be steady at the place, not an adventurer.
I have heard it often said by our merchants that our commerce suffers much in Holland by the want of some political agent there, and will continue to suffer during the war. The interruption of vessel’s, some wh. are carried in, wh. might be removed at once, by the application of such an agent, lasts till a communication is made to Mr. L. at Paris, & is then recd. less favorably than an application wod. be by one accredited there. If any thing is done wod. it be well to send an Envoy for the term, Extry,? or send a chargé des affrs. In the latter case how wod. Mr. Erving answer? I do not think from the political collision of our late agents here with him & there better standing for obvious reasons with the govt., than [sic] in case of my absence, it wod. answer well to place him in that situation. His attention to business is exemplary, his integrity sound, his compensation here by no means adequate, for not being a merchant he makes nothing by the consulate: on that point I hope he will be allowed some thing additional for his agency for seamen, at least half what the former agents had, to commence with the war. His talents are very respectable. Perhaps in the line suggested some attention might be shewn him with advantage, for tho’ it might not be safe to advance him here, yet a proof of attention to him might produce a good effect here. If a person of different grade shod. be sent, I am still of opinion that an attention to the gentn. formerly mentiond, wod. produce a good effect in the southern states, where he stands very high. Perhaps however a more equitable occasion may be found to shew that attention soon. These are hints wh. are communicated to no other person. Sincerely I am Dear Sir yr. fnd. & servt
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers). Docketed by JM. For probable enclosures, see nn. 2–4.

   Lafayette’s letter has not been found. For the grant of land to Lafayette, see JM to Monroe, 1 Mar. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:361–62 and n. 5).

   Enclosures not found, but the letters were probably from John M. Forbes, U.S. consul at Hamburg, who had previously applied for an appointment (see Forbes to JM, 11 Nov. 1801 and 6 July 1802 [ibid., 2:235, 3:381]).

   Enclosure not found, but it was probably Edward C. Nicholls to Monroe, 14 Dec. 1803 (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Nicholls”). See Nicholls to JM, 12 Jan. 1804.

   The enclosure was probably Henry Preble to Monroe, 2 Jan. 1804 (ibid., filed under “Preble”), asking to be appointed consul at Le Havre.


Title: To James Madison from William Blackledge, 2 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Blackledge, William
To: Madison, James

2 March 1804, Washington. “The Act which has passed this Session amendatory of the Acts heretofore passed for levying & Collecting a direct tax, injoining certain duties to be performed by the Collectors in a short time after the ratification of the Act, & inflicting heavy penalties for a failure; it is much to be wished that it should be published as early as possible. Thinking it probable that the more important duties of your office might prevent your particular attention to this circumstance I hav⟨e⟩ ventured to mention it, & hope the great distance of my constituents from the seat of government, & the necessity of their being as early as possible informed of the law will plead my excuse.”

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

   For the “Act further to amend the act intituled ‘An act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States,’” regulating the sale of lands for nonpayment of taxes, see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:262–64.


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 2 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

2 March 1804, New Orleans. “The northern mail arrived on last evening, but brought me no official letters from the Seat of Government.
“Perfect tranquility continues to prevail here; but really the burdens of the temporary Government are at present peculiarly hard upon me; and are becoming more so every day.
“I am compelled to exercise more authority than I had contemplated. I fear my Decrees or rather Ordinances will present a novel appearance at the Seat of Government, and I can assure you, I venture on this species of legislation with reluctance, and only in cases, where the interests of the society is involved, and the wishes of the people invite me to act.
“On my first arrival in this city, the solicitude of the inhabitants for some tribunals of Justice appeared to be universal, and the general complaint was, that no debts could be recovered. I immediately organized an inferior tribunal, and all parties seemed pleased with the institution. Debtors however have recently complained of the zeal and promptitude with which the Justices discharge their duties, and beg that some delay in the hearing and determining causes may be prescribed: I have endeavored to accomodate Debtors on this point, in prescribing certain rules of proceeding for the Court, which will produce in part the delay solicited.
“From the great variety of characters which are in New-Orleans; from several attempts which have been made to fire the City, and from several robberies which have occurred, I have been induced to direct a strict watch at night for the purpose of securing the City from fire and the designs of evil disposed persons.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). First RC 2 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 4 Apr. Second RC marked duplicate. Printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 2:15–16.

   For Claiborne’s 3 Mar. 1804 ordinance establishing a night watch for New Orleans, see ibid., 2:16–19.


Title: From James Madison to Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, [3] March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de

Sir,
Department of State March [3] 1804.
It gives me pleasure to find by your letter of the 1st instant, that you did not intend by any thing in that of Feby 23d to detract from the rights of the United States, or to be regarded as an Organ in any degree of the views of other Nations towards them. In justice nevertheless to the observations contained in mine of the first instant, I cannot admit that they did not result from the apparent import of the expressions which you had employed.
Be so good, Sir, as to review the expressions with more leisure than might be allowed by the short interval taken for your last letter, and you will certainly not dissent from this opinion. Dismissing all minute Criticisms, the meaning which clearly offers itself is, that the United States were called upon to take the most decisive measures for restricting a trade from their ports to a French territory, and that as one of the motives thereto they were admonished of the support which some of the first Nations of Europe could not fail to give to the demand of his Catholic Majesty.
The peremptory terms in which this demand was made, as from Spain herself, (La Espana reclama las medidas mas desesibas a este efecto, &c.) would sufficiently explain the “manner,” of which it was thought proper “to say nothing”; and the strong terms in which the support expected by his Catholic Majesty, from some of the first powers of Europe was presented (y qe no puede menos de recivir el apoyo de las naciones interesades en las medidas qe.) could not be otherwise understood than as an intimation, though not a direct assertion, that Spain would be seconded in her object by those nations.
Taking the intimation in any sense which the terms will bear, it is impossible not to see in it the appearance of an experiment to awe the Counsels of the United States, by presenting to their attention the power and policy of other nations; nor less impossible to reconcile such an experiment, either with the respect due to those nations, if the reference to them was without their privity, or with the respect due to the United States, who ever ready to listen to justice and reason ought to be presumed the less so to yield to the influence of less honorable considerations.
In proof of the want of attention to the rights of the United States, ascribed to the demand in your first letter, I shall leave to your own construction the following terms of it, “Spain requires the most decisive measures for this purpose, authorised to do so by the sacred right of self defence” (fundada in al [sic] dro sagrado de su propria defensa). The demand is here addressed not to the friendship or the interest of the United States. It is founded on the assertion of an absolute right on the part of Spain; and consequently denies the right of the United States to decline a compliance with the demand. It amounts in fact to a declaration, that the United States are bound not only to abandon to Spanish authority their Citizens trading to a French territory; but moreover to co-operate with Spain against them by positive and compulsive acts.
You understand too well, Sir, the law of Nations not to be aware that were Spain at war with France she would have no right to make such a demand. Not being at war, she has no right on the subject.
I do not enter into the plea of self preservation interposed in this case; because a plea superseding all law and all right cannot be urged without an extremity of danger, which can the less be admitted as being incompatible with the conduct observed by Spain herself thro’ the course of events in St Domingo. I must observe however that there was the less occasion for bringing into view the example of putting poignards into the hands of Assassins, or torches into those of Incendiaries; since the prohibitory measures required from the United States related not only to munitions of war, but to provisions also, in the proper sense of the word, to wit articles of subsistence (municiones de boca) which by no figure of Rhetoric can be called either torches or poignards. I must further observe that altho’ in one place it is stated to be the object of His Catholic Majesty to solicit from the United States the precautions which their Government may judge necessary, it is in other places signified that Spain does not consider herself as neutral in relation to St Domingo; and that under the analogy of keeping poignards and torches from Assassins and Incendiaries, she will be authorised and even obliged to superintend the Commerce of American Citizens on the high seas, and consequently to make herself a judge where France or her enemies have the sole right of interfering and deciding. And finally, I must repeat that Spain cannot be regarded as having at the same time both neutral and belligerent rights; that much less can she be permitted as a neutral nation to extend the Claim to capture and condemn the trade of American Citizens, beyond the right belonging to a belligerent nation.
The candor and love of Justice which characterize His Catholic Majesty are pledges that His Catholic Majesty will not contend for so illigitimate a principle; more especially against the United States, who have given so many proofs of the value they place on his friendship, and of their disposition to strengthen all the ties which secure the harmony of the two nations. I have the Honor &&C.
(signed)   James Madison

   Tr (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls, vol. 1); Tr (NHi: Livingston Papers). Second Tr dated 3 Mar. 1804.

   “Spain demands the most decisive measures to this effect” (editors’ translation).

   “And which cannot help but receive support from all nations interested in the measures that” (editors’ translation).

   “Based on the sacred right of its own defense” (editors’ translation).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 3 March 1804
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

private
Dear Sir
London March 3. 1804.
I wrote you on the 26th. ulto a private letter which was sent with my publick one of the day before by Liverpool, respecting some objections wh. had been made to me by some friends to the arrangment abt. our citizens creditors of France in the late treaties with that power. I promised you in that letter one to some friends, open to be delivered or withheld as you thought fit, explanatory of the points to which those objections applied, which is accordingly here enclosed. It is addressed to W. Nicholas alone, as if delivered it will answer all the purposes to be desird by such a communication. The objections did not come from him, which however is not material. I could not but disapprove of Mr. L.s conduct in communicating with Mr. Marbois on a subject committed to us jointly, after I arrived at Paris, especially as Mr. Marbois’s agency was then only in contemplation, referr’d to or rather grew out of a decision taken after my arrival at Havre was known, to cede the territory, which decision was actually produc’d by my arrival; and the more so as I was at his house when Mr. Marbois called on him, when if an interview: at that time was at all proper, under the then circumstances, it wod. have been as easy to have arranged a joint as a seperate one. To Mr. Marbois it was equally agreeable as was evident by his entering into conversation with me with the same freedom immediately afterwards at Mr. Talleyrands, as you were informed in my official letter of that period. Still I had no reason to think, but was on the contrary strongly impressd with the opposit opinion, that any application that we cod. have made of the two millions of dolrs. wod. have lessend the total amount. In my correspondence with him respecting the guaranty, I told him that, had I been the sole agent, I shod. most certainly have provided for an advance of that sum to France for the reasons stated in one of my letters: and I find intimated that he was not so anxious for that advance as myself, which was true: but yet it was not my intention to imply that such advance wod. have diminished the sum. I presume his desire was to apply it to the creditors, indeed I am convinc’d of it; from a fear that if the advance was made to France, the payment of their claims must have been postponed. The affair ended as I shod. probably have plac’d it had I been sole agent, by securing by guaranty, the advance of that amt. by the bankers, on the credit of the stock sold them. A principal motive for the private interview above referr’d to, I always supposed was a desire to give to the transaction the fallacious appearance which was afterwards attempted in the UStates & elsewhere. So much I have thought proper to state on this subject; in questions of character the most liberal constructions shod. be given to the acts of those in the service of the government. If the enclosed letter is delivered be so good as instruct Mr. Nicholas to shew it to his colleague, to Mr. Breckenridge & Brown if with the latter he is on a good footing & no other objection occurs, to Mr. Macon, Nicholson, John Randolph & Mr. Dawson; he will mention that it is shewn at my request with that kind of confidence wh. is proper. He will also show it to Major Butler & Col: Taylor when he sees him; and to the Senators of Maryland Georgia & whom you & he think proper, observing again that the whole is under your controul.

On the subject of Etiquette I will add something. The opposition of Mr. M. to what is understood to have been the arrangment of the President, was severely censured & ridiculed by Cobbet, the other papers inserted paraghs. from the federal prints in the UStates without a comment. In conversation with indifferent people it was invariably admitted, that if a question was made, the govt. & heads of departments were always superior at home. Those in place here never spoke to me on the subject & wod. I have no doubt have acquiescd in any general arrangmt. that might have been made on it: tho’ disappointed as they were at our adjustment with France &c, I am inclined to think it was a circumstance wh. vexed them. The accomodation wh. is now reported has excited more surprise, as it was not expected; but I do not know that it will lessen us any where. It is a proof of moderation and respect for other powers, wh. they are not disposed to shew. There is a ground on wh. it may be plac’d that the govt., being at home shews attention like every well bred host to strangers. On my own part I have no reason to be satisfied, with the station we appear to have held & now hold here in that respect, that is in case a question is to [be] made of the kind. We have no fixed place, and precedence seems to be given to the most subaltern powers, even Portugal, to Naples, Sardinia, &ca, powers wh. have not one hundredth part the political weight in the affairs of the world that we enjoy, even at this court. The ministers here expect visits from but never return them to foreign ministers as I am told, at least only one of them has to me, Mr. Yorke. Neither Ld. nor Lady Hawkesbury have returned Mrs. M. or my own visits. We accepted their invitation to dinner, and repeated the visit to Lady H. lest the first shod. have been misunderstood, but without effect. Since that we have been again invited to dinner but declined accepting it. Mrs. M. has been very sick lately, but is now better. We intend as soon as she recovers to invite them to a dinner, & if they come endeavor through some suitable channel to obtain an expln. My object has been to excite no discussion or question on such a subject if to be avoided without real degradation. I know that we shall pass by them soon, and it is little worth our while to discuss such light topicks, especially to give them importance at the present time. Sometimes remarks are made respecting our country, and in one or two instances in my hearing wh. were very disgusting to me. The Queen, at the time the Etiquette story was in circulation, I thought passed me in the crowd intentionally. It might not be so, as her drawing room is without order, a confused multitude, & those are sooner dispatchd who have most strength of body & nerves, and as she is old and might see or se[e]ing not know me. In all cases of the kind I have commanded myself, being resolved, to make them subordinate to great objects, or if ever notic’d to do it on a suitable occasion. In profession the King, the old Lady & the ministers have not been wanting, so that if any thing of the opposit kind has been intended I know, it was the impulse of antient feelings excited at present by light causes, in wh. I had no part; for I was never so exact in attention to these things or careful in the whole of my conduct, as I have been here; and not the part of a system.
Relative to presentments at court I cod. wish to have some instruction: perhaps a general instruction might be proper. It appears to me it ought to be confined to those who have held or actually hold certain offices under our government. I found on my arrival here that there was no rule, & that the practice was to present every one, of good appearance & decent society who wod. incur the heavy expence of a court suit. Hence I have been troubled on that subject. I expect to commit this to Mr. Gore who sails in a day or two for Boston the comn. having concluded its business. If he stays longer I will write you again especially if any thing material occurs. I am sincerely yr. friend & servt
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); FC (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC docketed by JM. FC is a letterpress copy.

   Enclosure not found, but it was probably Monroe to Wilson Cary Nicholas, 22 Jan. 1804 (printed in Hamilton, Writings of MonroeStanislaus Murray Hamilton, ed., The Writings of James Monroe … (7 vols.; New York and London, 1898–1903)., 4:135–40), explaining the financial arrangements that he and Livingston had agreed to in the claims convention connected with the Louisiana Purchase.

   For Livingston’s description of his meeting with Barbé-Marbois, see Livingston to JM, 13 Apr. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:511–15).

   Monroe to JM, 19 Apr. 1803 (ibid., 4:538–39).

   For Monroe’s correspondence with Livingston regarding his willingness and Livingston’s reluctance to advance the $2 million, see Monroe to JM, 31 Aug. and 22 Oct. 1803 (ibid., 5:363–66, 367 nn. 3–4, 562–64, 565 n. 3), 9 Jan. 1804, and n. 3, and 12 Jan. 1804, and n. 1. For Livingston’s description of the disagreement, see Livingston to JM, 17 Sept. 1803 (ibid., 5:430–32 and n. 2, 433 nn. 6, 8–11).

   Monroe probably referred to the 18 Feb. 1804 issue of Cobbett’s Political Register, in which Cobbett attributed the beginning of the etiquette dispute to Elizabeth Merry’s desire to take precedence over the wives of cabinet ministers and stated that he had always considered Merry “an improper person for such a mission” (Cobbett’s Political Register 5 [1804]: 239, 250–51).


Title: From James Madison to Aaron Burr, [ca. 5 March] 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Burr, Aaron

Dr. Sir
[ca. 5 March 1804]
The voyage referred to by Mr. Vanderkemp was undertaken and conducted by individuals, in whose hands the journal and other papers, which he desires to peruse, must remain. Mr. Barrill of Boston had a concern in the voyage and may be therefore resorted to in order to trace their place of Deposit. With very high respect, I have the honor to remain, Dr Sir your most obed. servt.
James Madison

   RC (owned by Profiles in History, Beverly Hills, Calif., 1990). In a clerk’s hand, signed by JM. Undated; date assigned on the basis of Burr to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 6 Mar. 1804 (reproduced in Mary-Jo Kline and Joanne Wood Ryan, eds., Papers of Aaron Burr [microfilm ed.; 27 reels; Glen Rock, N.J., 1977], ser. 1, reel 5).

   Burr had doubtless forwarded to JM a 15 Feb. 1804 request from Dutch minister and writer Francis Adrian Van der Kemp for information dealing with American voyages of discovery and exploration to the northwest coast of North America. Boston merchant Joseph Barrell was one of the financial sponsors of the ship Columbia, in which Robert Gray discovered the mouth of the Columbia River (Harry F. Jackson, Scholar in the Wilderness: Francis Adrian Van der Kemp [Syracuse, 1963], pp. 160, 167–68; Burr to Van der Kemp, 6 Mar. 1804 [reproduced in Papers of Aaron Burr (microfilm ed.), ser. 1, reel 5]; Samuel Eliot Morison, The Maritime History of Massachusetts, 1783–1860 [Boston, 1925], pp. 46, 49–51).


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 5 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Sir,
Department of State. March 5th. 1804
Since my last of Feby. 14th I have received yours of November 16. The accounts of some jar between you and the British administration, republished from the English newspapers had begun to excite here considerable attention, and comments of different kinds from different quarters. As we knew that neither your disposition, nor instructions could lead to any unfriendly or unnecessary discussions on the points said to have produced them our conjectures did not go beyond the possibility that some such discussions might have incidentally grown out of your efforts for putting an end to the impressment of seamen and other maritime irregularities. It is however remarkable that statements having no basis whatever should have first appeared in papers considered as Ministerial vehicles, and that they should have been so long kept afloat as to create inquietude in the world of business.
It appears by letters from Commodore Preble to the Navy Department that he had proclaimed the port of Tripoli to be in a state of blockade, on the grounds and in the form of British proclamations, used in cases where no effective blockade had taken place. That this measure may not be cited against the principle of blockades maintained by the United States, it is proper you should know that no instruction was given to the American Commander to that effect, and that the instructions since transmitted him will set and keep him right on that subject.
From a letter lately received by this Department from Mr. Jarvis our Consul at Lisbon, it appears that he has fallen into an error on another subject which might tend to mislead the British Government in their estimate of our principles and policy with respect to their claim of seamen serving in vessels of the United States. In a spirit of liberality he signified to a British Naval Commander at Lisbon that in order to prevent a resort to impressment by British Commanders, he was willing, on proper application to deliver seamen from American vessels, who should appear to be British subjects. You too well know the principles maintained by the United States on this subject to be at a loss in repelling any inference that may be drawn from this circumstance, or from any others, in favor of a claim which can be reconciled neither with our national rights, nor the honor of our flag.
In a late Conversation with the Marquis D’Yrujo, it was hinted to him that the use of Spanish ports in the West Indies, particularly Cuba, were allowed to French cruizers capturing American vessels, and that I should soon be under the necessity of claiming his interposition in cases where vessels had been actually sanctioned and sold as prizes within Spanish jurisdiction. He answered that the vessels in question were probably taken in a trade with the negroes of St Domingo; that this trade by supplying such a description of people with arms &c was dangerous to all the West India Colonies, and that from the proximity and exposure of those of Spain, in particular, she would be justified in contributing to put an end to it. My reply was that the commerce between the United States and a French Island was to be regulated between France and the United States, and that Spain would be responsible to the latter for whatever proceedings might take place under her authority, contrary to the law of Nations and not permitted by Treaty. This is the substance of what passed in a desultory discourse of some length. The day following I received his letter of the 23d of Feby of which a copy is inclosed, and to which the answer was given of which a copy is also inclosed. As not only France but Great Britain are implicated in the Extraordinary language held by the Spanish Minister, it has been thought proper to make a frank communication of this correspondence not only to Mr Pichon but to Mr Merry, and it is still more proper that it should be understood by you. The Communication of it to the British Government will not only be a proof of our candor and confidence towards it, but will afford an occasion for collecting with more precision its relations to Spain as well as its dispositions towards the United States. From the complexion of the Marquis’s letter it would seem that all the great powers having Colonies in America, not excepting G. Britain, were in concert to invite or to force the United States into a co-operation against the negroes of St Domingo. The presumptions against such a concert are sufficiently obvious. But it is in every view desirable that the matter should be thoroughly understood by the United States.
This occurrence, with other considerations incident to the mutual posture of Spain and the United States to each other, as well as to the general state of things in Europe, incline the President to think the present moment not adapted to the experiment which is the object of your proposed mission to Madrid. You will therefore keep your arrangements for it in suspence, without forgetting that more favorable appearances may quickly produce instructions for your repairing thither.
The Treaty of 1794 so far as it relates to commerce having expired on the 1st day of October last, (that being the date of the preliminary articles) the commercial intercourse between the two Countries is left to the regulations which the parties separately may think fit to establish. It may be expected however that the friendship and mutual interest between them will produce a continuance on both sides of such regulations as are just and equal, and an accommodation to these principles of such as on either side are otherwise than just and equal. On the side of the United States their Commercial regulations place Great Britain in every respect on the footing of the most favored nation. Great Britain cannot say as much with respect to hers. One instance at least is explained in a letter from this Department to Mr King, of which a copy is inclosed, in which you will see that altho’ the act of Parliament to which it refers, be no longer a breach of Stipulation, it is not less a violation of equality, than it is of sound policy. With respect to the British West Indies, it is not known that the United States are on a worse footing than other nations, whatever want of reciprocity there may be, to the liberal regulations of the United States. With respect to the East India Trade, it is understood that the Treaty of 1794 by denying to American vessels both the coasting branch of it and a direct intercourse between India and foreign Countries other than America, the United States were in both instances placed on a worse footing than other nations, and even on a worse footing than they themselves enjoyed prior to the Treaty. The expiration of the Treaty, and the friendly and favorable equality allowed by the United States to Great Britain in every branch of their trade, ought certainly to restore what the Treaty suspended.
These observations are made not with a view to any negotiations whatever leading at the present moment to a Treaty on those or any other Commercial points, or to discussions which might be misconstrued into a wish to take unreasonable advantage of a critical moment, but to enable you to present the ideas of your Government with more precision, to vindicate our commercial policy against misconceptions, and to avail yourself the better of fit occasions for obtaining from the British Government such relaxations, as may be due to our example, and be calculated to cherish amity and useful intercourse between the two nations.
In my letter of  I stated the reasonableness of admitting American Consuls in the dependencies of Great Britain whenever and wherever the American commerce should be admitted. The principle urged in this case is applicable to the East as well as to the West Indies. During the last war an American Agent, was informally at least, allowed to reside at Calcutta, and take care of the trade of his countrymen. Mr Jacob Lewis who was appointed to succeed him, proceeded to London on his way thither, but peace having intervened, his application for an Exequatur was refused. It is of real importance to our trade with that Country that such a functionary should be permitted to reside in it, the more so, if it be true that the rule forbidding foreign factors to do so, be enforced there. Be so good as to sound the British Government on this subject and communicate its sentiments, for the information of the President.
March 9th. I now add the sequel of the correspondence with the Marquis D’Yrujo on the trade to St Domingo. You will observe that he disavows all pretension to speak the intentions of the great powers of Europe holding West India Colonies. It is hence less necessary to make to the French and British Ministers here the formal communication which I had proposed. I have already however disclosed the matter to Mr Pichon and shall take occasion to do so to Mr Merry; and it is left with your discretion to make any or no use of it with the British Government as you may think fit.
The interposition of D’Yrujo against the trade to St Domingo has led Pichon to the same step, as you will find by his letter of this date of which a copy is inclosed. Altho’ he highly disapproved of D’Yrujo’s correspondence, particularly as it insinuated the views of other Governments he thought the occasion called on him to assert the policy and expectation of his own, as far as he was possessed of them. To shew you the ground taken by the President, and to which the answer to Pichon will be accommodated, I inclose an extract from late instructions given to Mr Livingston on this subject.
The late Act of Congress for collecting the revenue in Louisiana authorized the President to erect a district comprehending the river and Bay of Mobille with their shores, when he should deem it expedient. As the other district was created by the law itself, whilst this was provisionally committed to the President, the distinction was thought a sufficient reference to the presumed objections of Spain to our claim to the territory between the Iberville and the Perdido, which has not been delivered to France and consequently not to the United States. D’Yrujo has remonstrated against the act both verbally and on paper, in a stile so insolent as to produce a painful dilemma. I leave for future communication what it may be useful for you to know concerning the matter. I have the honor to be &c.
James Madison.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6); extract (DNA: RG 46, President’s Messages, 10B-B1). For probable enclosures, see nn. 4, 6, and 8–10.

   JM doubtless referred to various articles in the Federalist press that had as their basis an item in the 12 Nov. 1803 London Courier (see Monroe to JM, 16 Nov. 1803, and n. 6). On 24 Feb. 1804 the National Intelligencer printed a 15 Nov. 1803 item from the London Morning Herald refuting the Courier article and stating that the U.S. and Great Britain were in perfect agreement on matters covered by the recently expired Jay treaty.

   Robert Smith wrote Preble on 4 Feb. 1804 acknowledging receipt of Preble’s 12 Nov. 1803 letter with his “circular notification of the blockade of the Port of Tripoli” (Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 3:389).

   Jarvis to JM, 14 Nov. 1803.

   JM no doubt enclosed copies of Yrujo to JM, 23 Feb. 1804, and JM to Yrujo, 1 Mar. 1804.

   For the limits on Articles 11 through 28 of the Jay treaty, see Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:264.

   The enclosure was probably a copy of JM to Rufus King, 23 Dec. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:216–18).

   Blank left in letterbook. See JM to Monroe, 5 Jan. 1804.

   JM presumably included copies of Yrujo to JM, 1 Mar. 1804, and JM’s 3 Mar. 1804 reply.

   JM probably enclosed a copy of Pichon to JM, 9 Mar. 1804.

   JM probably enclosed a copy of that section of JM to Livingston, 31 Jan. 1804, which dealt with French rights in relation to U.S. trade with the black rebels of Saint-Domingue.

   For Section 11 of the “Act for laying and collecting duties on imports and tonnage within the territories ceded to the United States …” (Mobile Act), which authorized the president to establish a revenue district that included “the shores, waters and inlets of the bay and river Mobile, and of the other rivers, creeks, inlets and bays emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, east of the said river Mobile, and west thereof to the Pascaguola,” see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:251–54. The wording of the act, implying as it did that the Spanish colony of West Florida was included in the Louisiana Purchase, led to a controversy between Spain and the U.S. that delayed the ratification of the Convention of 1802 until 1818 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:262 n. 4).

   See Yrujo to JM, 7 Mar. 1804.