Title: To James Madison from Edward Thornton, 6 June 1803
From: Thornton, Edward
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Washington 6th June 1803
I have the honour of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 1st curt. with its inclosures, and shall take an early opportunity of laying them before His Majesty’s Government, to whom I have already mentioned the transaction they allude to. I have likewise taken measures to procure from Captain Douglas his statement of the details. Not that I pretend that any circumstances can justify a want of attention and respect to the territorial rights of the United States; but the personal character of this officer leaves no room to imagine, that he could be guilty of intentional disrespect to the country affording him its hospitality, and the exemplary correctness of his conduct on other occasions persuades me that he must have received some gross provocation to make him deviate from it in the present instance.
Should it here after appear, as I strongly suspect, that the master of the French vessel (who from his name and language is most probably a native of the United States or of the British dominions) has availed himself of the impunity, with which every species of seduction is employed in Norfolk to withdraw and to screen from detection seamen deserting from His Majesty’s service, to practise a similar conduct, I venture to hope, Sir, from the justice of the President of the United States, that he will not allow it to pass unnoticed, as it is the real cause of most of the vexations complained of by masters of Ships, and has in every particular an equally injurious tendency to interrupt the harmony so happily subsisting between the two countries. I have the honour to be with perfect truth and respect, Sir, Your most obedient humble servant,
Edwd Thornton.

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Great Britain, vol. 2); Tr (PRO: Foreign Office, ser. 5, 38:193–94). First RC docketed by Wagner: “outrage upon the French vessel Ann.”

   Thornton had reported to Hawkesbury a conversation he had had with JM on 29 May, in which JM first brought this complaint to Thornton’s attention (Thornton to Hawkesbury, 30 May 1803 [PRO: Foreign Office, ser. 115, 11:120–21]). On 25 June, Thornton wrote Hawkesbury further, enclosing JM’s letter and his own reply and informing Hawkesbury that he hoped to receive from the commander in chief of the British navy “in the North America Station” explanations that would satisfy the U.S. that “no intention was entertained of infringing the territorial rights of the United States” (ibid., 11:122–23).


Title: From James Madison to A. B. Due, 6 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Due, A. B.

6 June 1803, Department of State. “The Secretary of State has received your letter of the 3rd. inst. [not found] with its enclosures. As the latter prove yourself and Messrs. Matry and Letailleur to be residents of the United States and not citizens, it is out of his power at present to grant the passports you request. If you have any other evidence to prove you to be citizens, you will be pleased to transmit it, and they will be issued on the receipt of it. The enclosures contained in your letter are herewith returned.”

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). 1 p.; addressed to Due in Baltimore. Enclosures not found.

   At JM’s behest, Wagner instructed Robert Purviance on 14 June 1803 to issue passports “to A. B. Due, I. B. Letalleur and P. Martry, on their respectively producing … proof of their having resided about 13 Years in the United States and that the two first held commissions in the Militia of Ohio” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14).


Title: From James Madison to Andrew Ellicott, 6 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Ellicott, Andrew

6 June 1803, Department of State. “A voucher has been transmitted to the Treasury Department, enabling you to receive three hundred and fifty Dollars for expenditures specified in your letter of the 27th. Decr. last.”

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

   On 4 June Jefferson issued a certificate, “by the representation of the Secretary of State,” to serve as a voucher for the $350 “disbursed by Andrew Ellicott for objects in relation to the duties of the said Department and to promote the interest of the United States” (ibid.; 1 p.). JM presented the voucher to Albert Gallatin the same day (ibid.; 1 p.). For the disbursement of this money, see Wagner to Patrick Ferrall, 11 June 1803 (ibid.; 1 p.).

   For Ellicott’s letter to Gallatin, 27 Dec. 1802, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:388 n. 1.


Title: From James Madison to William Savage, 7 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Savage, William

Sir.
Department of State, June 7th. 1803.
I duly received your letter of the 5th. of April last, and enclose a copy of the act of Congress passed at the last session to prevent the importation of certain obnoxious persons. As its object is to reinforce the laws of the individual States, these laws are the criterion of the exclusions. I also enclose proof of Thomas Holland, who is detained on board the frigate Decade, being a Citizen of the United States, and entitled to be discharged. Be pleased to forward the letter which accompanies it.
Your accounts, except those contained in your letter of the 5th. April last, have been examined at the Treasury and Navy Departments. The three enclosed Schedules exhibit the present state of them, and that a considerable part of your charges could not be admitted. I am &c.
James Madison.

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

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:480–81.

   JM referred to “An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain states, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited,” which barred the bringing of “any negro, mulatto, or other person of colour” who was not a U.S. citizen into U.S. ports in states that prohibited the same on pain of a fine of $1,000 per person imported (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:205–6).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 7 June 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Sir
Paris June 7. 1803.
I inclose you a view which I have taken of the question whether W. Florida is comprized in the cession lately made to the UStates by France of Louisiana, in which I am led to conclude that it is. Indeed I think that the doctrine is too clear to admit of any doubt. The bargain is proportionally a more advantageous one to us.
You will see by our joint letter the propriety of an early decision on and complyance with the stipulations in the treaty & conventions, to which I have only to add that nothing has occurrd to diminish the force of what is there urged. I most earnestly hope that our dispatches will reach you in good time and that you will hasten to perform every act which is provided for on the part of the UStates.
I have still great difficulty in deciding whether I ought to proceed immediately to spain or remain here till I hear from you after you have become acquainted with what has been concluded with France. The arguments for either course have weight. I shall however certainly not go, if at all, till I see that every thing is adjusted here in the fullest manner possible. I am with great respect & esteem yr. very humble servant
Jas. Monroe

[Enclosure]
1st. October 1800. Treaty between France and Spain of St. Ildephonso. His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part to cede back to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations above mentioned, relative to His Royal Highness, the Duke of Parma “the Colony or Province of Louisiana; with the same extent that it actually has in the hands of Spain, that it had, when France possessed it, and such as it ought to be after the Treaty passed subsequently between Spain & other States.”

30 April 1803.
France ceded to the United States all the Territory which she had thus acquired of Spain. Of what extent is the acquisition? The question is suggested by a doubt whether it comprizes the territory which was called by the British West-Florida: to decide it, a view must be taken of the facts & principles on which it depends.
When france possessed Louisiana formerly, that is, prior to the Year 1762, its eastern boundary extended to the River Perdigo. All the country which she possessed in that quarter was called & Known by the name of Louisiana, and it is a well established fact that it extended Eastward to that limit. Vide charts, authorities &c.
By a secret Convention bearing date 3d. of November 1762, between France & Spain, the former ceded to the latter the Island of New-Orleans, and the west-bank of the Mississipi, that is all that part of Louisiana, which lies East-ward of what was called by the British W. Florida. This Convention has not been published that I kno⟨w⟩ of, for I have not been able to get a Copy of it.
On the 21 April 1764, the King of France gave an order to his Governor Monsr. d’Abbadia, at N. Orleans, to surrender the said territory to such officer as the King of Spain might appoint to receive it. The surrender did not take place till some years afterwards, according to an account which I have seen, the 18 of August 176⟨9⟩.
10 Feby. 1763. In a treaty to which France, Britain, Spain & Portugal were parties, France ceded to Brita⟨in that⟩ territory lying Eastward of the Island of N. Orleans, that is, the territory calle⟨d⟩ afterwards by Britain West-Florida, & Spain ceded to Britain in ⟨the⟩ same treaty Florida, that is the territory which Britain afterwards called East-Florida. It was after Britain had thus become possessed of this territory that she laid off that portion of Louisiana, which lies between the Island of N. Orleans & the River Perdigo, into a separate province, & called it W. Florida, calling the other Ea⟨st⟩. The preliminary articles of this Treaty bear date on the 3 Nov. 1⟨762⟩ the same day with the secret Convention. See Martin’s Coll. vol. 1 p. 17.
3 Sept. 1783. In a Treaty between Britain & Spain, the former cedes to the latter East & West-Florida.
27. Octr. 1795. In a Treaty between the United States & Spain, the latter stipulates in favor of the former the free navigation of the Mississipi, with the right of deposit at N. Orleans.
The above are all the facts which belong to the question, on which it remains to decide whether W. Florida is comprized in the Cession of Louisiana, lately made by Spain to France, & by the latter to the United States.
The intention of the parties is to govern in all treaties, as in other contracts; to ascertain that intention in the present Case, it is necessary to take into view the whole article, & construe it so as to give to each part its fair & obvious import.
The article consists of three distinct parts or members, the 1st. stipulates that the Cession shall comprize Louisiana in the same extent that it actually has in the hands of Spain: 2d. that it had when France possessed it: 3d. as it ought to be after the treaties passed subsequently between Spain & other powers.
The import of the first member of the article seems to be clear & distinct, & to depend on a single fact, what Louisiana was in the hands of Spain, at the time this Treaty was made. To establish that fact, it seems to be necessary only to ascertain what the limits of the Province then were, by the Regulations of Spain, respecting it, which it is presumed may be easily done. Has Spain considered West-Florida, since her Treaty with Great-Britain, in 1783, as a part of Louisiana? What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Governor established at N. Orleans? Does it go to the river Perdigo, or is it confined to the island of New-Orleans, and western bank of the river Mississipi? What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Governor of St. Augustine? Does it comprise E. Florida only, or both the floridas? I am informed by good authority that since the Treaty of 1783, between Britain & Spain, by which the latter became possessed of the whole of Louisiana, & also of East-Florida, that she has governed it as it was governed by France, comprizing W. Florida, as a part of Louisiana, or in other words, that the distinctions between East & W. Florida, which was created by and Known only to the British, ceased.
The import of the 2d. member of the article “that Louisiana shall comprize the same extent that it had, when France possessed it,[”] is also obvious. That also depends on a fact which it is presumed is not controverted. We are however led to inquire why were two clauses, which are supposed to mean the same thing, introduced into the article. To this question, a very satisfactory solution may be given, one which tends more fully to shew the intention of the parties, as to the territory ceded to France by this Treaty. That Spain should cede the Province of Louisiana, as she held it, is not strange; her motive for inserting a clause to that effect is therefore too obvious to require explanation. But why insert the other? Had the Cession of that part to Britain, which was by her afterwards called West-Florida, and the subsequent transfer or Cession of it by Britain to Spain, created any doubt of what was meant by the Province of Louisiana, or was it likely to create any? The apprehension that such a doubt might exist, suggested the propriety of the second Clause, to reduce to certainty what might otherwise be uncertain. With that view it was thought expedient to go back to an anterior state of things, to a period which, by preceeding the possession of G. Britain, would preclude all reference to that power, or her regulations relative to the territory. This was done by stipulating that the limits or extent of Louisiana should be ascertained by reference to what they were, when France possessed the Province; and that was the motive for introducing the clause.
It is a sound doctrine in the construction of Treaties, which is equally applicable or indeed more so to a single article, that where there are too [sic] passages having in view the same object, the one of equivocal or doubtful import, the other clear & explicit, the latter should prevail. Indeed this is the obvious dictate of common sense; there can be no motive for introducing a second passage in a treaty, or an article of a Treaty, on the same subject, for the same purpose, but to explain what was doubtful in the first: that the second member was introduced into this article with this view, & for the reason above stated, is obvious; It would be absurd to attempt to construe an intelligible passage in a treaty by an unintelligible or doubtful one. This doctrine is fully illustrated by writers on the Law of Nations, particularly by Vattel, p. 235–6.
Thus it appears clear by the obvious import of the two first members of the articles referred to, that W. Florida is comprized in the Cession made by Spain of Louisiana to France, & by the latter to the United States. Is then the import of those Clauses detracted from or changed by the 3d. or last one, which stipulates “that it shall be such as it ought to be after the Treaties passed subsequently between Spain and other powers?” Let us examine the Treaties referred to, and their effect on the point in question.
The only Treaties which Spain formed after the secret Convention with France, of 3d. Nov. 1762, relative to Louisiana or any part of it were that of 1783, with G. Britain, whereby that portion called by her W. Florida was ceded to Spain, and that of 1795, with the United States, whereby the free navigation of the River Mississipi, & the right of deposit at New-Orleans were stipulated in favor of the latter. The term subsequently is relative & refers to the possession of france, prior to that Treaty or secret Convention. These therefore were the Treaties contemplated by the parties in this member of the article.
If either [of] those Treaties is relied on as exempting W. Florida from the said Cession of Louisiana, it must be the British treaty, since that alone can be considered as having any reference to the subject. But how can that Treaty justify such a pretention, a Treaty which did not sever W. Florida from, but united it to Louisiana in the hands of Spain? By it the two first clauses of the article referred to are made to have their due effect; since by it spain became possessed of Louisiana, in the same extent that France held it, except what portion the United States had lawfully acquired by their independence. Had that Treaty not been formed, the contrary would have been the Case; the description given in the most important & ruling Clause in the article, would have been inapplicable. Does not this then prove that the two first Clauses, especially the second, were introduced into the article on due consideration, and for a definite object; that the British Treaty was referred to in the third, on account of the Cession of the W. Florida made by it to Spain, and with a view to comprize it in the Cession of Louisiana, then made to France?
If the Treaty between Spain & England had dismembered Louisiana by separating W. Florida from it for ever, the pretention would be well founded, because Spain could not cede Louisiana otherwise than as she held it, after the Treaties passed between her and other powers. There might be some pretext to the claim, even had W. Florida afterwards been returned to Spain by another Treaty, tho’ in my opinion not a solid argument in its favor against the obvious intention of the parties, as expressed in the two first Clauses. But that Treaty, as already mentioned did not separate W. Florida from, but united it to Louisiana in the hands of Spain.
Let us suppose this clause standing alone and unconnected with any other; what would its import be? Spain cedes to France Louisiana “such as it ought to be after the treaties passed subsequently between Spain and other powers.” Could the Treaty with Britain, which enlarged the limits of the Province in her hands, be construed as lessening the extent of the Cession? No part of Louisiana was hers by discovery: she acquired it of France and Britain, making the last acquisition of the latter nation: the Treaty making which, with that with the United States, which imposed on the territory certain Conditions, the observance of which it was proper to stipulate in their favor, were the Treaties referred to in the last member of the article.
When a Cession is made of a tract of country or territory, comprehended under a certain description or name which con⟨ve⟩ys an idea of definite limits, from which Cession it is ⟨int⟩ended to except a certain portion of said territory, the restrictive Clause should be made explicit, as well to shew the intention of the party ceding, to make the exception, as the part he intends to except. Such exemption can never be made by inference against the positive terms of the Cession. In the present case there is not the slightest ground to infer that an exemption was contemplated, while the terms of the Cession are general, positive & clear. Is it presumable, if Spain had intended to exempt West-Florida from the Cession of Louisiana, that she would have used the terms adopted in the article, to accomplish it, Terms that would fail of the Object, if they stood alone in the Treaty? Is it not more presumable that she would have restricted the Cession in express terms to that portion of the territory which she had received from France? As that Cession was made in a Treaty to which those powers alone were parties, it was natural to expect that in a subsequent Treaty between them on the same subject, they would confine themselves to the Treaty and Cession formerly made, if such had been their intention. It was the more to be expected as by so doing it was the readiest mode of expressing in the clearest manner what their present intention was. Or if Spain had intended to make the exception, and to rely on the British Treaty distinction as the Rule & limit of it, would she not have me⟨ntio⟩ned it in express terms, by reserving W. Florida by name from the Cession? Would she have used terms which instead of detracting from or exempting any portion of the Territory from the Cession, tended essentially to illustrate the construction, and confirm the import contended for in the preceding clauses?
It remains to examine whether France had so dismembered Louisiana, while she possessed it, that the reference to the state in which it was in her hands, applied to a part & not the whole of the province. By the Treaties above referred to, by which she ceded it to Spain & Britain, the first bearing date on the 3d. Novr. 1762, the 2d. on the 10th. Feby. 1763, I was led to apprehend that some doubt might exist on the point; but fortunately there is room for none, since the preliminary Articles of the Treaty of 1763 were entered into & dated on the 3d. of November 1762, the same day with the secret Convention. France therefore parted with the whole territory at the same time; the treaties which transferred, dismembered it, but that was in the hands of other powers, not in those of France. It was Known in her possession as the entire province of Louisiana, & not otherwise.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8A); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of first enclosure (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC docketed as received 22 Aug. Also enclosed with the RC but not mentioned by Monroe are copies of King to Hawkesbury, 15 May 1803, announcing the U.S. purchase of Louisiana from France, and Hawkesbury to King, 19 May 1803, expressing Great Britain’s pleasure at the American acquisition (4 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received in Monroe to JM, 7 June 1803; printed in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 4:262–63).

   Livingston and Monroe to JM, 7 June 1803.

   Italicized words are in an unidentified hand.

   Monroe no doubt meant to write “westward” here, as in the letterbook copy.

   Italicized words are in an unidentified hand. The reference is to one of the many editions of Georg Friedrich von Martens’s Recueil des principaux traités d’alliance, de paix, de trêve,… conclus par les puissances de l’Europe … depuis 1761 jusqu’à présent (7 vols.; Gottingue, 1791–1801).

   The pages cited by Monroe refer to book 2, chapter 17 (“Of the Interpretation of Treaties”), in which Vattel notes that we ought to interpret the treaty writer’s “obscure or vague expressions, in such a manner, that they may agree with those terms that are clear and without ambiguity, which he has used elsewhere, either in the same treaty, or in some other of the like kind” (Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations; or, The Principles of the Law of Nature [London, 1793], p. 235).


Title: To James Madison from Noah Webster, 7 June 1803
From: Webster, Noah
To: Madison, James

Sir,
New Haven June 7th 1803
Accompanying this is a Copy of a revised & improved Edition of the Prompter, which I transmit to be deposited in the Office of State, in pursuance of the Statute, for securing copyright. As the Certificate of Register in the Clerks Office could not be printed on the back of the title page, it has been added at the end of the Work; altho, with deference to your opinion, it appears not to be within the letter of the Law—it may however be agreeable to the spirit of the law & answer the purpose intended. I am, Sir, very respectfully your Obedt Servt
Noah Webster

   RC (CtY). Docketed on cover with the notation: “Recd: & ansd. 11th.”

   The Prompter … A New Edition, Improved and Enlarged (New Haven, 1803; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 5562).


Title: To James Madison from James P. Watson, 7 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Watson, James P.
To: Madison, James

7 June 1803, Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe. Wrote JM on 3 May [not found] “respecting the impresment of american Seamen.” Since that time the commandant has prevented impressments. Has opened a store in this city and has the only consignments from American merchant vessels in this port. Requests appointment “as a Publick agent,” promising that JM may rely on his fidelity. Refers JM for recommendations to Benjamin Stoddert, John Mason of Georgetown, F. Dusar of Philadelphia, and John Murray & Sons of New York. Has been granted some privileges by the commander in chief, General Ernouf.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 1 p.; docketed by Wagner “7 Jany. 1803.”

   This was possibly James Pyott Watson, a New Yorker who was commissioned a U.S. Navy lieutenant in 1799 and who served on the Insurgente, Congress, and Constellation before his discharge in 1801 (Knox, Naval Documents, Quasi-War, 7:355).

   For Flanmand Dusar, see JM to Dusar, 20 Jan. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:270, 271 n. 1).

   Jean-Augustin Ernouf (1753–1827), a brigadier general in the French army, was sent to Guadeloupe in 1803 as captain general and remained until he surrendered the island to the British in 1810 (Tulard, Dictionnaire Napoléon, p. 672).


Title: From James Madison to John Francis Mercer, 8 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Mercer, John Francis

Sir
Department of State Washington 8th. June 1803.
I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 4th. inst, but having no recent information from London respecting the Maryland Bank Stock I can only assure you that when any is received I shall lose no time in communicating it to you. With great respect &ca.
James Madison.

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


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 8 June 1803
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

Private No 16
Dear Sir
London June 8 1803
I have had the pleasure of receiving your (private) Letter of Ap. 4. 1803.
Mr King has finally left this without availing himself of the priviledge which it Seems the President intended that he shoud exercise. In fact I have reason to think that Mr Gore himself had been made sensible of the impropriety of his acting as chargé des affairs & that he declined the offer of Mr King to appoint him: Mr Pinkney assured me (perhaps in a moment of Warmth) that if Mr G. did accept he Mr P. woud not consent to sit with him at the Board: Thus Mr King not being able to appoint as he woud, chose not to appoint at all; I do not know whether Mr Williams! also declined to act, but it was for some time supposed that Mr King woud appoint him; indeed it was so mentioned in the Newspapers; but probably this course was after due consideration thought too indecorous. Since my last nothing important has occurred with a communication of which I need trouble you, for the dispatches which I forward by this conveyance from Govr Monroe & Mr Livingston will communicate every thing material & interesting relating to France & our connection with her. I will not say the War, but the taking of prizes goes on here with great spirit; the clangor & din of Arms has not yet commenced; I doubt too whether the great efforts which are making to rouse the national zeal & spirit on this occasion will succeed to the extent desired; it will be no Easy matter to make them believe that they are to submit to military conscriptions to support their ministers in their claim of Malta; there is however manifestly no wish in the government to accept of the mediation of Russia, but in the conduct of this delicate point, if they shoud not act with better faith than what appears to have characterized the Negotiations of Lord Whitworth, they will certainly get into a difficulty which in the outset they did not calculate upon. I have sent to you by way of Liverpool both the English & French statements, by which I think you will see that the English ministers have not been as heretofore outwitted, but that they have placed themselves in the wrong. No change of this Ministry is now contemplated, the present men seem to think themselves Equal to the undertaking; To help them in their financial operations Mr Tierney has been admitted as “Treasurer of the Navy”—they may possibly Engraft one or two more of the old Opposition; but Pitt the Grenvilles & the Wyndhams have now no chance. The Dutch are not yet engaged in the War, but their ships are nevertheless detained; Two or three of ours have also been brought in for examination, one of them dismissed, & the others I understand will probably be also permitted to proceed. Be so good as to Excuse the Extreme haste with which I have written this & believe me always respectfully & very faithy yours
George W Erving

   RC (MHi: Erving Papers). Docketed by JM.

   Letter not found.

   For Gore’s interim assumption of the post of chargé d’affaires, see Pinkney, Christopher Gore, pp. 79–80, and Gore to JM, 4 June 1803.

   For the negotiations, see Rufus King to JM, 19 Apr. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:536–38 and n. 1).

   Erving referred to “The Official Correspondence between Great-Britain and France, on the Subject of the Negociations subsequent to the Treaty of Amiens” (Annual Register for 1803The Annual Register, or A View of the History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1803 (London, 1805)., pp. 652–734; also printed in the National Intelligencer, beginning 6 July 1803, as “Foreign Intelligence,” under a 19 May dateline). The French statement was Napoleon’s 30 Floréal an XI (20 May 1803) message explaining the outbreak of war with Great Britain, printed in the Moniteur universel of 1 Prairial an XI (21 May 1803). The Moniteur also printed, in a supplement to that day’s edition, “Pièces officielles relatives aux préliminaires de Londres et au traité d’Amiens” (24 pp.), which was later published as a book under the same title (see the advertisement in the Moniteur universel of 6 Prairial an XI [26 May 1803]; Sowerby, Catalogue of Jefferson’s Library, 3:175).

   George Tierney (1761–1830), a member of Parliament noted for his political and personal opposition to William Pitt the Younger, served in the Addington ministry until May 1804 (Thorne, History of Parliament, 5:384–99).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 8 June 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

private
Dear Sir
Paris June 8 1803.
In our publick communications we have been so full that little is left to be added here. I inclose you a letter open addressed to Genl. Mason, W. C. Nicholas & Mr. Breckinridge containing a statment of facts relative to what has occurr’d here which I have thought it proper to put under yr. controul. You may either deliver or retain it to be returned to me when I get back to America. Circumstances may occur to make a knowledge of those facts necessary, in wh. case it is possible there may be an advantage in their being known, without its being supposed they came from you. Of this you will judge and dispose of the inclosed as you think best. You will readily conceive how much to be avoided every thing like a discussion of the kind referrd to is to be. I sincerely wish my colleague to derive all the advantage & credit which his good exertions & intentions entitle him to, but the transaction ought to rest on its true ground, as a memorable incident in our history tending to prove the wisdom of the measures of the last session. I am of opinion that it imports the credit of the admn. to treat him with kindness & attention. Having sufficiently explained myself in my private letter—by Mr. Hughes I say nothing on this occasion other than to refer you to that. I shall inclose to yr. care a letter to Mr. Jones & probably others to be sent after Mr. Jay to Havre; having no time to write them at present or even to inlarge in this. Sincerely I am yr. friend & servt
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers).

   Enclosure not found, but Monroe’s draft, dated 25 May (DLC: Monroe Papers; 3 pp.), announced the signing of the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana and gave all the credit for the negotiation to “the wise and firm tho’ moderate measures of the Executive & Congress during the last session.”

   See Monroe to JM, 14 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:610–15).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 8 June 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

No. 7.
Sir
Paris. June 8th. 1803.
Since my letter of yesterday I have had an interesting communication with the minister of foreign affairs. Our letter had been restored to Mr. Livingston by Mr. Marbois in a casual interview who also shewed him the order to Mr. Pichon which was substituted to it. To see that order and receive one to him for the surrender of the country to the United States I called yesterday evening by appointment on the minister where I found Mr. Marbois also. They had expected Mr. Livingston and myself together but on my observing that we had not so understood it he having already seen the paper the minister read the order to me and asked how I liked it. I replied that it was not for us to say it being the act of his government only but says he comparatively which do you prefer this mode of proceeding or the other I replied this without doubt he said it was on the idea it would be more agreeable to us and our government that it was adopted since suppressing our letters it became as it ought to be entirely the act of government and in his opinion strictly a justifiable one the consul having a right to annex a condition to the ratification in the spirit of the treaty at any time before the exchange. I told him that having discussed the subject already I had only to repeat that I preferred much this mode to the other he added that he hoped no difficulty would take place hereafter that we had sufficient time to perform what we had stipulated and that he sincerely wished we might do it in due time as his government and himself had much at heart the future harmony of the two nations. I replied that similar sentiments animated the government of the United States that I was persuaded the treaties would be ratified that even before the creation of the stock I was confident that the president far from delaying the payment of what was stipulated would if his power after the ratification promote aids which might be useful to them in the United States to evince his desire of a prompt execution of the treaty that on our part and on our own responsibility if it was desired we would prevail on the house of Baring and Hope to advance the first payment that is six millions of livres before we heard from our government in confidence that our conduct would be approved. I told him I thought my colleague would unite in this sentiment he expressed himself highly gratified with the communication which he considered as a strong proof of the friendship of the government of the United States for the nation and government of France declared that as it was made after every thing was concluded it was the more honorable to us and would affect in a greater degree the sensibility of the first consul to whom he would make it known tho he knew that he would accept nothing but as it became due in strict conformity to the treaties. I should deem it fortunate for the United States if this payment was made as being an act of liberality on our part and in the degree a prompt execution of the treaty it would bind this government more completely to the execution of it on its part. I am happy however that the offer was refused since while it cannot fail to produce a good effect it avoids all responsibility on our part or that of the president tho indeed in the payment here the responsibility would be entirely on us it is proper to inform you that the treaty and conventions bear date from the period when they were agreed on the thirtieth of April but as it required time to reduce them to writing the treaty was signed on the second of May and the convention concerning the claims of our citizens the ninth or tenth which will explain why they were not sooner dispatched from Paris. I am Sir with great respect & esteem your obt. servant
Jas. Monroe

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8A); letterbook copy (DLC: Monroe Papers). Both RCs in a clerk’s hand, signed by Monroe. Italicized words are those encoded by a clerk and decoded here by the editors (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:352 n. 1). First RC docketed by Wagner as received 22 Aug.; decoded interlinearly by JM. Second RC docketed by Wagner as received 29 Aug.; decoded interlinearly.

   For the letters exchanged between Barbé-Marbois and the U.S. ministers, see Livingston and Monroe to JM, 7 June 1803, and n. 2.

   Monroe probably referred to the instructions given to Pichon for the exchange of ratifications (see Denis Decrès to Pichon, 6 June 1803 [NHi: Livingston Papers]).

   This word was omitted by the encoding clerk and is supplied here from the letterbook copy.

   Miscoded “thing was.”

   “Required time” was not encoded by the clerk but was supplied by JM in brackets in the left margin. The letterbook copy has “took time” here.


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Barnes, 8 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Barnes, Joseph
To: Madison, James

8 June 1803, Paris. Wrote JM last on 20 Dec. 1802 from Leghorn; expected to be in Sicily at his post by now. The loss of his business caused the delay but has given him the opportunity to travel to Paris and speak with Monroe and Livingston “on objects of the United States.” Hopes “good will result from it.” After the date of his last letter, went to Naples and presented his commission to the king of The Two Sicilies. In a previous interview with the prime minister, General Acton, Barnes had “suggest’d the necessity of some commercial arrangements” between the U.S. and the Sicilian states, given “the rapid increase and very advantageous commerce of the U. S.” to Naples and “the many inconveniences” American ships are forced to undergo. Acton promised to convey this message to the king. “In his Letter Acknowledging me as consul of the U. S. in Sicily, (A copy of which is enclosed to M Jefferson) he observes” that the king will receive a minister plenipotentiary from the U.S., or any person “bearing proper powers, to enter into a Treaty of commercial relations with the U. S. immediately.” Believes he is highly qualified to carry out these negotiations because of his knowledge of “the commerce & the chief commercial men of the Sicilian States” and his “interest with the first Bankers & principal officers of State.” Congratulates JM and his “fellow Citizens” on the purchase of Louisiana, an event that “will enable us to adhere to our great Political Maxim of Peace & friendship with the whole World.” Regrets the renewal of war between France and Great Britain, the consequences of which are “beyond the power of calculation.” The British captured two French ships before the declaration of war; the French made every Englishman within their territory a prisoner of war, took possession of Hanover, and “Shut the Elbe & the Weser against the English.” They have ordered an army to Naples and Sicily and will close all the ports from Hamburg to Trieste. The British “will declare all those ports in a state of Blockade, which will be necessarily very detrimental to our Commercial interest.” Expects Napoleon to invade Great Britain. Will proceed in a few days to his post by way of Leghorn and Naples. Congratulates his “fellow citizens … on the happy events which have result’d from the influence of M Jefferson”: the repeal of the internal taxes and the “vexatious” Alien and Sedition Acts, the reform of the courts, and the payment of “Nine Millions” of the national debt. The citizens of the U.S. “will be so perfectly Satisfied who are their real friends” that “opposition of any consequence” will cease and there will be “one party that of the People & the Public Weal.” Adds in a postscript that a fifteen- to twenty-day quarantine has been announced in all Mediterranean ports for American ships in consequence of the “Malignant fever” reported in some U.S. ports. It is essential that the master of every vessel carry a certificate from the board of health giving “the State of the health of the port from which it clears out.” Suggests that JM send a copy of the quarantine laws of the U.S. to all consuls. Reminds JM of the request in his last letter to be sent a copy of the laws of the U.S.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Palermo, vol. 1). 5 pp.; addressed to JM “pr favor of Mr jay”; docketed “April 8th 1803” and as received 22 Aug. Enclosure not found.

   Barnes no doubt meant his letter to JM of 10 Dec. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:185–86).

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


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Pulis, 8 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Pulis, Joseph
To: Madison, James

8 June 1803, Malta. Reports that on 18 Jan. the schooner Enterprize captured the imperial polacre Pauline [Paolina], loaded with goods for Tripoli, and brought it into this port, where it awaits orders for its disposition. Since the beginning of May several ships have arrived in quarantine carrying British troops from Alexandria and one of the four principal pashas of Cairo. The frigate John Adams arrived on 19 May accompanied by a prize that had been granted a safe-conduct by Simpson to carry goods to Tunis but had abused the privilege to trade with Tripoli. It awaits the arrival of Commodore Morris. On 23 May Mr. Smith, former envoy to Portugal, arrived in this port on the frigate Adams from Naples. He hopes to travel to the U.S. on the first frigate that returns home. The prince of Pantelleria, sent by the court of Naples with two thousand soldiers, returned home in April after a stay of seven months; the troops will be evacuated soon. Has heard of the declaration of war between France and Great Britain by a British frigate that arrived in Malta on 7 June. The French minister and consul have left the island, as has the grand master, leaving the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in charge of the government. Admiral Nelson arrived in Malta for a stay of two days, then left immediately to take command of Mr. Bickerton’s squadron. In coming here he took six prizes. Another British frigate brought in a brig and another merchant ship. Learns from reports from Alexandria that the Mamelukes have revolted against the Turks again. The John Adams chased a Tripolitan corsair into the port of Tripoli, and the two ships exchanged cannon fire. Encloses a list of the arrivals of U.S. vessels in the port of Malta for the past six months.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Malta, vol. 1). 3 pp.; in French; docketed by Wagner. Enclosure not found.

   By the twelfth stipulation of article 10 of the Treaty of Amiens, the Kingdom of Naples was asked to provide two thousand soldiers for one year to garrison the military installations of Malta (de Clercq, Recueil des traités de la France, 1:488).

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


Title: To James Madison from Stephen Cathalan, Jr., 9 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Cathalan, Stephen
To: Madison, James

9 June 1803, Marseilles. Last wrote on 27 May by way of Cette, enclosing a letter for the president and a packet from the U.S. consul at Tunis. This letter is carried by Benjamin Mumford, who returns to New York, and concerns the forgery of American ship’s papers that took place in Barcelona “about two years ago.” Was first informed of it by William Willis’s letter of 13 Oct. 1802, of which he encloses a copy. One month later Charles Pinckney passed through Marseilles and showed him a set of the forged papers; no such papers have appeared in Marseilles. Informs JM that Capt. Thomas Lewis and William Baker made affidavits to him under oath on 8 and 15 Apr. and 6 June; he is sending one set of these documents, which “are of a very Serious nature,” to Robert R. Livingston to pass on to JM; copies will go also to Pinckney and Willis.

   RC, two copies, and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Marseilles, vol. 2). First RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 24 Aug. with the notation: “Forgery of American papers for vessels imputed to Mr. Willis &c.” For enclosures, see nn. 1 and 2.

   The enclosed 13 Oct. 1802 letter from Willis (1 p.) reported the escape of Thomas Lewis from Barcelona and accused him of holding false ship’s papers. Willis warned Cathalan not to clear any ship of which Lewis owned a part or on which he acted as supercargo or master and asked Cathalan to let him know should Lewis appear in Marseilles. Cathalan noted in the bottom margin: “I answered him on the 25th: octob. & was Since very Cautious about american Vessels arriving here, Since that denunciation towards Capn. Lewis & Baker.”

   Cathalan enclosed copies of two depositions taken from William Baker on 8 Apr. (3 pp.) and 6 June 1803 (1 p.; docketed by Wagner). In the first, Baker stated that in August 1801 William Willis had offered him part share in the ship Chatham in return for Baker’s agreeing to be supercargo on a voyage. Willis bought the ship and, despite its multiple ownership, signed ship’s papers indicating that Baker was the sole owner. Willis then asked Baker to copy the register, sea letter, and Mediterranean pass of the ship Catherine of Baltimore and told Baker that he would have the blanks filled; Baker later saw these papers in the hands of Thomas Lewis, filled with his name as master of a ship called the Pomona of Newport. Lewis said he had gotten the papers from Willis. After the voyage had been completed and Baker had returned to Barcelona, Willis had him arrested and charged with “a deviation in the Voyage.” After eighteen days in prison, Baker was summoned to the consulate for interrogation. He left soon after for France. The second affidavit added that Baker did not know who had filled in the blank documents but that the plates and seals for the documents had been sent by the engraver to Willis. Cathalan also enclosed an affidavit sworn to by Thomas Lewis, 15 Apr. 1803 (4 pp.), in which Lewis stated that he had been offered the command of a ship by Willis, who subsequently purchased the Chatham in August 1801, furnished it with false papers that cited James Mumford as the owner, and changed its name to the Pomona. Lewis also testified that he had seen a packet of blank sea letters, ships’ registers, and Mediterranean passes that had come from Willis. Lewis acknowledged making several voyages on the Pomona, after which he had surrendered the ship and its papers to Willis.

   Cathalan wrote Livingston on 5 July 1803 (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8A; 2 pp.), confirming his previous letters of 22 June and 1 July, which probably contained the set of depositions aforementioned, and enclosing a letter he had received from Willis of 25 June (ibid.; 1 p.). He requested instructions from Livingston about how to proceed and asked that Willis’s letter be forwarded to JM after examination.

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


Title: To James Madison from Robert W. Fox, 9 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Fox, Robert W.
To: Madison, James

9 June 1803, Falmouth. Received JM’s “printed letter” and duplicate of 9 Apr. In accordance with JM’s instructions, has sought the “needful information” from the ports in his district. American ships “pay double the Light money” that British ships do; “all other Shipping are on the same footing as Americans.” “As to paying double duty,” harbor dues for British ships are 2s. 6d. per ship and for Americans 4s. 6d. per ship; “the Pilotage varies.” The “one grievance to which American Shipping are liable” is the imposition of quarantine duties on ships touching British ports “to learn the best market.” In two cases, the details of which are annexed, duties were paid regardless of time spent in quarantine. Presumes “no Quarantine duty should be charged unless their Cargoes were landed in Great Britain.” “Many Men have been impressed in this district, under an idea that they were Englishmen.” Has passed on the information to his “friend Erving.” Some have no certificates, so it will be difficult to get them released. Recommends that seamen be furnished with certificates of citizenship before they leave the U.S., as it will save them from impressment “in most cases.” Expects American shipping to be “in great demand” because of the renewal of war between France and Great Britain. Many French, Dutch, and neutral vessels have been sent to western ports “within the last two weeks.” Gives prices of some commodities; rice and tobacco “sell pretty well.” Grain prices are rising in the Netherlands and the Baltic, but a glut exists in Italy, Spain, and Portugal. “Our Harvest promises pretty well, but the prices rather looking up, in consequence of the War.” Reports that a British fleet is blockading Brest.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Falmouth, vol. 2). 3 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 12 Aug.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:491–93.

   The cases noted were those of the ship Margaret of New York, Phineas Lewis, master, which paid £32 14s. in quarantine duties in January 1803, and the ship Richmond of Philadelphia, William Hathaway, master, which paid £51 19s. 6d. in quarantine duties at the same time.

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


Title: From James Madison to Asher Robbins, 10 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Robbins, Asher

Sir
Department of State 10 June 1803.
In answer to your letter of the 27th. ult. I enclose copies of two letters written to Captain Eldred from this department in the year 1798, whence you will collect the Suggestions on which the doubt respecting his case rests. As long as the facts to which they refer remain unshaken, it is not perceived how he can justify his claim to the rights of an American citizen on general principles.
For it is stated that during the revolutionary war he commanded an English vessel, which circumstance is conceived to affect his allegiance in a two fold manner.
1st. It is understood that by the British navigation-laws none but a British subject can command a british vessel whence it follows that he considered himself and was admitted to be a British subject: and
2nd. His voluntarily remaining with the enemy of the United States, accompanied by the above and doubtless other acts of the same tendency, denoted his adherence to Great Britain and a renunciation of the American confederacy, at a time when, if no positive regulation of his native State intervened, it was free for him to take his election, between the contending parties.
But as the laws of Rhode Island may have made special provisions respecting the effects of the Revolution upon the right of citizenship, and as those made before the exclusive assumption of the power of naturalization by Congress are operative now, it is open for you to show any such provision in his favor, as well as to disprove the facts on which the above conclusions are founded. I have the honor to be &ca.
James Madison.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14); Tr (DLC: Causten-Pickett Papers, box 14); Tr (NjP). Enclosures not found, but see n. 1.

   Secretary of State Timothy Pickering wrote Thomas Eldred letters on 11 Sept. and 22 Oct. 1798, refusing to acknowledge the latter’s American citizenship. Pickering noted that not only had Eldred been the captain of a British vessel during the American Revolution, but, according to the testimony of Robert Montgomery at Alicante, Eldred had claimed to be an Englishman and had commanded a British ship on a 1796 voyage to that port. Nor would Pickering accept a birth certificate made out by the town clerk of Jamestown, Rhode Island, as proof of Eldred’s citizenship (Allis, Timothy Pickering Papers [microfilm ed.], reel 9).


Title: To James Madison from François Barbé-Marbois, [10 June] 1803
From: Barbé-Marbois, François
To: Madison, James

Monsieur,
Paris, le 21. Prairial An XI de la République[10 June 1803]
Des circonstances heureuses pour nos deux Republiques m’ont mis dans le cas de concourir encore une fois a des operations emménes avantageuses à toutes deux. Les traités qui viennent d’être conclus sont comme une suite des premieres liaisons que j’ai vu commencer entre votre pays et le mien et doivent les consolider. Je me suis felicité d’un evenement qui rapeller à votre Souvenir un des plus anciens et des plus Sinceres amis de votre pays et j’éprouve une grande Satisfaction a pouvoir vous renouveller l’assurances de l’estime et de la consideration que nos rapports m’ont inspirés pour vous pendant la guerre qui a fini pour l’independance des etats unis.
Je vous prie, Monsieur, de presenter a votre President, l’hommage de ma veneration.
Hatés, je vous prie, en ce qui dependra de vous les expeditions pour la nouvelles orléans—celles qui s’y rapportent. Je vous prie Monsieur d’agréer l’assurance de mon Sincere attachement et de Ma consideration distinguée
Barbé Marbois

Condensed Translation
Happy circumstances have placed him in the position to concur once again in operations eminently advantageous to their two republics. The treaties that were just concluded continue the first relations he witnessed between France and the U.S. and should strengthen them. Flatters himself that the event will recall him to JM as one of the oldest and sincerest friends of the U.S.; feels great satisfaction in being able to renew assurances of the esteem and consideration their relations inspired in him for JM during the war for American independence. Asks JM to present to the president his highest respects. Also requests that JM hasten the dispatches relating to New Orleans.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, NFL, France, vol. 1).


Title: To James Madison from William Lee, 10 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Lee, William
To: Madison, James

10 June 1803, Bordeaux. Encloses a letter he received “yesterday” from Monroe. Acknowledges JM’s letter of 9 Apr.; believes the regulations “therein contained” will stop the “improper discharge of Seamen in foreign ports.” Feels gratified in being able to force compliance with these regulations; they will help “in alleviating the suffering of a useful class of citizens.” Called on the commissary of marine to enlist him in the effort to stop American seamen from serving on board privateers: “he assured me that he would not permit a single American Seaman to ship on board any french Vessel whatever without a special permission from me which I shall in no case grant.” Encloses a form of a certificate to grant protection to ships purchased by Americans abroad; until the renewal of war he had no need of such a document. Hopes it meets with JM’s approbation. Fears some of these documents will be used fraudulently but sees no help for it. Has earned the displeasure of some Americans by refusing to issue papers for vessels “which though american built have been sailing for near two years past under French Colours.” Was guided in his decision by the act concerning the registering of vessels passed by the Second Congress. Finds his duties “arduous” but promises JM his “best endeavours for the public service.” “During the War I am determined not to own directly or indirectly in whole or in part any ship or Cargo that if the accusation of covering property should be made I may prove it to be false.” Has been prevented by illness from a regular correspondence but, having sufficiently recovered, will forward all his accounts on 30 June. Encloses a file of the Moniteur.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bordeaux, vol. 1). 5 pp. Enclosures not found.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:491–93.

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


Title: To James Madison from Samuel Snow, 10 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Snow, Samuel
To: Madison, James

10 June 1803, Providence. Encloses “two semi-annual Reports of Vessels arrived at Canton between the 31st December 1801, and the 9th of January 1803.” On 1 Jan. 1803 at Washington, “agreeably to our previous conversation,” wrote JM a letter stating the difficulty of establishing a residence at Macao. The governor was not authorized to permit him to live there unless permission was granted by the Portuguese court. Requested that JM write to the U.S. minister at Lisbon “to endeavour to obtain it.” Has not heard from JM since. Asks that JM forward the permission, should it be granted, to him before his departure, which he expects will be before the end of July.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Canton, vol. 1). 2 pp. Enclosures not found.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:233–34.

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


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 11 June 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Paris June 11. 1803.
I forward the inclosed to Havre in the hope it may find Mr. Jay there & be conveyed with our other dispatches by him. I shall now decide in a few days on the question relative to my trip to Spn. & inform you of it by the first opportunity. I shall certainly not go unless I find I may with safety as to things here & with some hope of advantage there. The French are in complete possession of Hanover by capitulation. A son of the King of Engld. who was there it is thought has got out of the way. Yr. friend & servant
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8A).

   Enclosure not identified, but it may have been Monroe’s private letter to JM of 8 June 1803.

   George III’s son Adolphus, the duke of Cambridge, had been sent to Hanover to command its defense against the French (Annual Register for 1803The Annual Register, or A View of the History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1803 (London, 1805)., pp. 283–87).


Title: To James Madison from John Thomas Ricketts, 11 June 1803
From: Ricketts, John Thomas
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Cameron Mills near Alexandria 11th June 1803
I do myself the pleasure, at the Earliest date To forward you the Enclosed letter From a Friend, Resident at new Orleans, a Physition of Emenence and Character and a native of this commonwealth That on Enquiry you will find Entitled to confidence and Faith, and From His Practice and Intimacy in the First Families, under my own knowledge in may 1802 last preceeding. I know of no Other person more likely to come at correctness.
No doubt you are well Informed on the Occasion in question, you will nevertheless oblige me To lay this letter, or such Extracts before the President That you may think proper, and at your leasure Return me the Origenal, Tis superflus to Remind you of the necessity of Secrecy as to the writer, which If know[n] at Orleans would confine him in chains.
Though numerous, I found the Greater Bulk of Americans in that place High Flying Federalists, openly abusive, with Real or Imaginary Dissatisfaction at the present order of things in our Government, To Which Flood was almost the only Exception of weight and Enfluence Your Obdt & Very Hble Sert
Jno: Thos. Ricketts

   RC (DLC). Enclosure not found.

   William Flood was a Virginia-born physician who practiced in New Orleans as early as 1801. In 1805 Governor Claiborne appointed him to the territorial council, and he served as physician of the port of New Orleans in 1806 and 1809 (Hodding Carter, ed., The Past as Prelude: New Orleans, 1718–1968 [New Orleans, 1968], p. 104; Carter, Territorial Papers, Orleans, 9:386, 426, 601, 836).

   John Thomas Ricketts was an Alexandria merchant and a director of the Little River Turnpike Company who patented a rice huller in 1808 (Miller, Artisans and Merchants of Alexandria, 1:337; CVSPWilliam P. Palmer et al., eds., Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts (11 vols.; Richmond, 1875–93)., 9:338; WMQWilliam and Mary Quarterly., 2d ser., 2 [1922]: 150).


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, 12 June 1803
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
In Madrid June 12: 1803
In my last dispatch I had the honour to inform you of the representations I had made to this Court conformably to your instructions on the subject of our claims & to inclose you a copy of the Propositions transmitted to the Secretary of State including the Arbitration of those arising from the captures of the French Privateers & the condemnations of the French Consuls in Spanish Ports.
While this subject was under deliberation I recievd dispatches from Mr Livingston & Mr Monroe acquainting me they had concluded a Treaty with the French Republic for the cession of Louisiana & that Mr Monroe would shortly arrive here to join me in a Negotiation with this Court for the cession of such Part of the Floridas as remained to Spain. Supposing that in the Treaty which might possibly be formed on this subject our claims would necessarily be included & that it would be the best opportunity to present them to advantage I have postponed urging them again until the offers Mr: Monroe is authorised to make are known & until he arrives. I am now hourly expecting him as he informed me he would leave Paris in a few days after the 16 May. In the interim by his Desire I communicated officially to this Court his appointment & at the same time Mr Cevallos conversed with me on the Subject of the Cession of Louisiana & frankly told me he never was more astonished than to hear of this Cession. That the French in recieving it from Spain had promised never to part with it, & that not having heard of it from their Ambassador in Paris, nor recieved any intelligence of such a measure being even in contemplation he was utterly at a Loss to account for the reasons which could have produced such an arrangement. In a conversation I afterwards had with the Prince of Peace he nearly expressed himself in the same manner & it appears from every thing I have been able to collect this Court are extremely surprised & chagrined at the Cession. They now see how much better it would have been for them to have kept this Colony & made the Arrangement themselves with the United States for it’s sale & I am hopeful the Cession of Louisiana will produce such a change in their Opinions & Views as to make the acquisition of the Floridas less difficult than before. If Spain is brought into the War of which there can be little doubt she will still think more seriously of obliging us & as there can never be a more favourable opportunity than the present I am anxiously expecting to hear from Mr Monroe.
It is confidently reported the French are collecting a large army at Bayonne for Portugal. This army will have to pass through Spain & their Entrance & being suffered to march through for the purpose of attacking Portugal will doubtless be considered by England as a cause of War. The Spaniards are averse to War & will do every thing they can to preserve their Neutrality, but this appears impossible.
In another Dispatch just recieved from Mr Livingston & Mr: Monroe they inform me they consider West Florida as included in the Cession of Louisiana & the Territory recieved or to be recieved by us in consequence of the late Treaty—as the Opportunity by which this Letter goes offers immediately I have not yet had time to sound Mr Cevallos & the Prince of Peace on their view of the extent of the cession & how far they concieve West Florida as now belonging to us this I shall endeavour to do to morrow & transmit their answer or the conversation we may have upon the subject by the best Opportunity which offers. It will be important for You to give me Your Opinion fully upon this subject, because if it clearly belongs to us & the Spaniards concede the Point it appears to me there will be little Difficulty in our obtaining the Eastern one & on the terms we wish. I request my Best & most affectionate respects to the President & remain with the sincerest regard Dear Sir Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 6A). Docketed by Wagner as received 29 Aug.

   For Pinckney’s last dispatch, dated 12 May 1803, and the 23 May propositions referred to, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:595–98 and n. 3.

   One of the letters to which Pinckney referred was Monroe to Pinckney, 16 May 1803 (see Monroe to JM, 20 July 1803, and n. 8). Livingston drafted a joint letter to Pinckney, dated 28 May 1803, officially announcing the purchase of Louisiana (NHi: Livingston Papers [two copies]; DLC: Monroe Papers), but Monroe objected to it as being too detailed. One of the two drafts in the Livingston Papers is docketed as not sent. A shorter version of that letter was sent on 4 June 1803 (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 5).

   See n. 2, above.


Title: To James Madison from Wade Hampton, 12 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Hampton, Wade
To: Madison, James

12 June 1803. “The bearer, Mr. Ward, a friend, & neighbour of mine, is on a jaunt through the Northern, & Eastern States. He proposes to take the City of Washington in his way.… Any Civilities you may find it convenient to shew him, will be gratefully acknowledged.”

   RC (owned by Charles M. Storey, Boston, Mass., 1961). 1 p. Undated; date assigned on the basis of JM’s docket.

   This was probably Henry Dana Ward (1768–1817), a Harvard-educated lawyer turned South Carolina planter who served three terms in the state House of Representatives, served two terms in the state Senate, and cast a vote as a Jefferson-Burr presidential elector in 1800 (Bailey et al., Biographical Directory of the South Carolina Senate, 3:1672).


Title: To James Madison from Frederick Jacob Wichelhausen, 12 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Wichelhausen, Frederick Jacob
To: Madison, James

12 June 1803, Bremen. Refers JM to his last letter of 7 Mar., in which he enclosed “the usual semi-annual list.” Acknowledges receipt of the laws of the first session of the Seventh Congress and JM’s circular letter of 9 Apr., to which he will “return a full answer” with his next semiannual report. The renewal of war between France and Great Britain “has caused the greatest alterations in the Electorate of Hannover.” “As part of said Electorate the Dukedom of Bremen … nearly surrounds this city, I think it my duty to give you some information respecting the entering of the french troops into this country.” General Mortier entered Hanover with about 20,000 men on 28 May and was in possession within fourteen days. The French accomplished this without violating the neutrality of the city of Bremen but “with much difficulty and with much loss of time.” This action “caused the greatest pleasure amongst the inhabitants of this city.” Encloses a copy of Mortier’s demands on the citizens, which “caused the greatest consternation again, amongst the whole commercial body of this city.” “The demands were unanimously rejected by the assembled Senate and citizens of bremen, as inconsistent with their neutrality,” and they hope that “the reasons alledged to in their answer, will be considered as sufficient by the french Government, to withdraw at least the demand respecting the british property in this city.” Apprehends that British navigation on the Elbe and Weser Rivers will be entirely stopped by the French. Four British merchant ships that arrived in the Weser “a few days ago” turned back when they heard of the French advance. Will not fail to inform JM of any future events.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bremen, vol. 1). RC 3 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 31 Aug. For enclosures (2 pp.; docketed by Wagner), see n. 4.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:397–98.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:491–93.

   Édouard-Adolphe-Casimir-Joseph Mortier, duc de Trévise (1768–1835), began his military career in the National Guard in 1789, rising swiftly through the ranks to brigadier general in 1799 and, after numerous combat commands, to marshal of France in 1804 (Tulard, Dictionnaire Napoléon, p. 1202).

   In his letter to the Bremen Senate, dated 14 Prairial an XI (3 June 1803), Mortier demanded that all British ships and goods in the city be confiscated and all British officers, seamen, and soldiers arrested. Also enclosed was a copy of Mortier’s “Note explication des Volontés du General en Chef,” 16 Prairial an XI (5 June 1803), which reiterated the orders expressed in his letter.

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


Title: From James Madison to George Joy, 12 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Joy, George

Letter not found. 12 June 1803. Acknowledged in Joy to JM, 3 Aug. 1803. Explains the dismissal of Samuel Williams as U.S. consul in London. Responds to Joy’s offer of service as a U.S. commissioner of claims in Spain (Joy to JM, 3 Feb. 1804 [DLC; filed at the end of February 1804]).


Title: To James Madison from John Norris, 13 June 1803
From: Norris, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Salem, June 13, 1803.
I receiv’d your esteemed favour of the 2d. Inst. and note the Contents. Inclosed you have a Copy of the Letter of Attorney & Assignment, from Capt. Ingersoll to me—The Original being sent on to Cadiz. On my transmitting to you the Assignment from Capt. Ingersoll, you observe, that you will direct the amount to be paid to my order. I should take it kind, if proper, that you would give me an order on our Collector here.
It appears by Mr. Young’s statement, that he received the money for the Award 6th. Decr. 1799. and then held it subject to the orders of our Government, this being the case, and the money actually applied for the use of our Government, as Mr. Young says in his Letter, “already mortgaged for current expences,” which his accounts, he observed will manifest, I am of opinion, that it will be but just and right that I should be allowed Interest—I leave it with you, after you have perused the papers to adjust the business in such a manner, as you may think proper, and right. I am, with great respect, Your Obedt. Servt.
Jno. Norris

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, ML). For enclosures, see n. 2.

   An asterisk was placed here and a note added in the bottom left margin: “Papers not enclosed. N.”

   The enclosures are John White to Norris, 4 Dec. 1802 (2 pp.), reporting Moses Young’s inability to pay the money in question without orders from the secretary of state; Young to Joseph White, 14 Dec. 1802 (2 pp.), explaining his reasons for not making the payment and suggesting that Norris make direct application to JM for the money; and Joseph White to Norris, 14 Mar. 1803 (2 pp.), enclosing Young’s letter.


Title: To James Madison from Isaac Cox Barnet, 13 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Barnet, Isaac Cox
To: Madison, James

13 June 1803, Paris. Wrote JM on 1, 2, and 3 June by the ship Philadelphia and brig Betsey from Antwerp. Livingston appointed him “Commissioner under the late convention with france.” Left Antwerp on 29 May; appointed his secretary, John Robertson, deputy commercial agent “with the approbation” of Livingston. Encloses a copy of the commission. Robertson will, “in order to reconcile the fallacious restriction of the french Constitutional code, sign all local acts and Correspondance in my name.” Would have appointed an American if Ridgway or Thompson had been “disposed to accept this charge.”
Calls JM’s attention to the case of the ship Mac, John Bryant, late master, and to the enclosed documents. In one of his last, transmitted a copy of his letter (no. 1) to Livingston, to which Skipwith replied: refers JM to paper no. 2 and Skipwith’s letter [of 6 May] (no. 12). “When this letter reached me the Mac had not commenced unloading.” Hoped to repair “an involuntary fault in having recognized her as an American and at same time, if Possible, to obtain reparation by a retribution upon the goods (as well as upon the Ship.) for the benefit they had enjoyed by an abuse of the flag of the U. States.” To retract his “Certificate of entry would have exposed both Ship & Cargo to confiscation, the one for not being duly authorized to navigate as an american, the other, under the french revenue laws for being brought from England.” This “would have distressed the owners of the cargo,” who were Antwerp merchants, while offering no benefit to the U.S. “Still the thing was in fault, however innocent the Persons might be considered,” and though “several of the owners of the Cargo who had before suffered from seizure of Property coming from London, made Propositions through Mr. Ridgway to Pay £800 stg. (about 9 ⅌ Cent upon the value of the goods,) … the other owners, native antwerpers, would not accede to any compromise Preferring the risk of losing all.” Being advised that the cargo, not being French property, could not “be made answerable for the fault of the master,” the owners “had the Ship hastily hauled into the wharf and Commenced unloading.” On hearing this, Barnet wrote the ship master (no. 3). “Learning next morning that Capt. Bryant had treated my order with contempt, I wrote the commissary of Marine (No. 5.) requesting he would stop the discharging of the Cargo, and to that effect, Post a guard on board and cause Capt. Bryant to attend at my office.” In his absence from the office, Bryant called and left a letter (no. 4). On his return Barnet sent a soldier to bring Bryant back. Barnet “reprimanded him in Proper terms for not obeying” the warrant. “He replied that ‘he could not Prevent the merchants from taking their goods—that he had nothing to do with the ship having sold her and that indeed she was Partly sold some time ago.’ To this I returned that every Master could command his Hatches to be Shut—that he was sole master on board—that I should not regard his Pretended sale and that he must give me full reparation for bringing his ship & cargo under the flag of the U. S. without authority to Navigate her as such.” Demanded that Bryant be kept under guard and that he pay “$22,000—this sum being by approximation, about half the value of ship & cargo.” “Captain Bryant then returned to his consignee who took him from the guard and here I conceived my duty fulfilled as to his Person for the Contempt of my order.”
“My Pretentions on the cargo excited much agitation among the merchants.” “The next day” three of the Antwerp shippers threatened him “very loudly” to raise the arrest on their property. “To this I could only reply that I had no claim upon them, but upon the Master of the ship, and that I could not know whose Property was on board—it was enough for me to know that there was Property on board—that I would be sorry they should be exposed to loss, but that I had no account to render of my conduct, but to my own Government.” Encloses “a notorial Protest (A)” and other similar acts “under the idea of their giving fuller elucidation of the affair.”
Was “Aware that mis-representations would be made,” so he decided to go to Paris and consult Livingston. Arrived on 16 May and explained the matter to him. Soon after, one of the merchants interested in the affair presented a petition to Livingston, who referred the matter to Skipwith. Met “the next morning” with Skipwith, who said that Bryant was “an old Sinner in this way and that he ought not to be spared.” Conferred with Livingston and Monroe and was soon made sensible that agents of the U.S. “ought not to enter into any composition.” Monroe’s “judicious observation,” given “with that nobleness of mind and dignity of sentiment,” was that “Governments cannot compromise for interest—they Punish to Prevent abuses and not to Profit by them—that in this Case if the ship & Cargo are in fault they ought to suffer the Penalty without a mean, and that if a Consul U. S. Could Compound for £1000, there was no reason for anothers not doing it for £10. &c.”
Was saved “from a great faux pas” by his trip to Paris. The opinion of the U.S. ministers was that he could not hold the cargo without great difficulty; thus he should raise the arrest after a retraction of the protest (B). Returned to Antwerp on 21 May and found the cargo stored under the authority of the customhouse, to which Robertson had properly acquiesced (nos. 9 and 10). On 23 May wrote the marine department [no. 11] to raise the arrest on the cargo, while still maintaining the arrest on the ship. Interrogated the crew on 25 May; the interrogatories are enclosed, along with the ship’s bill of sale, Bryant’s letters, and his certificate of citizenship. These form the basis of the libel on which Barnet solicits a decision. These need no comment from him, other than “to repeat that Capt. Bryant was Possessed of no other document to Justify the quality and ownership of the ship Mac, than this Bill of Sale.”
Encloses papers C, D, E, and F, which demonstrate the fraudulent use to which the ship has been put as well as the fraudulent basis of the ship’s sale. The paper G is one of Bryant’s letters.
“The ship has been dismantled and put into Dock” and its property stored. Barnet has discharged and paid the crew. Requests permission to sell the ship to reimburse the $600 he has expended in the case. Asks JM to preserve any claim he has to proceeds under a confiscation. Believes this case, together with the embezzlement on board the Philadelphia “last April,” will “be a valuable step towards repairing some defects in our Consular System.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 1); enclosures, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Antwerp, vol. 1). First RC 10 pp.; marked “Triplicate”; docketed by Wagner as received 19 Sept. For surviving enclosures, see n. 2.

   Barnet was presumably referring to his letters to JM of 1 and 3 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:563–65, 569–70).

   The surviving enclosures are copies of letters taken from Barnet’s letterbook, marked nos. 1 through 12, which correspond to Barnet’s descriptions in the text. Also included is a page headed “No. 13” that is a copy of the Mac’s entry certificate.

   See Barnet to JM, 1 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:563–65 and n. 4).

   For the Philadelphia embezzlement, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:565 n. 2.

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


Title: To James Madison from John M. Forbes, 13 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Forbes, John M.
To: Madison, James

13 June 1803, Hamburg. Encloses a copy of his last letter of 7 June. “It was very early to be foreseen that, in the prosecution” of the war, “violent aggressions of the rights of the nations professing peace and neutrality would often be committed”; of this he has had “an experimental Confirmation.” Even before the outbreak of hostilities, a British frigate was sent to Cuxhaven and men were impressed from British merchant ships in the harbor. The British chargé d’affaires and vice-consul even proposed that officers be allowed to search private homes for British seamen. “This was immediately refused,” as was “permission to visit American Vessels for the same purpose.” “An American Seaman, Richard Buley [Baley],” was impressed into service on the frigate La Constance; Forbes has made a claim for him to the British chargé and through Erving in London. The American schooner Astrea was boarded by a press gang from the British frigate Amethyste “with many Circumstances of violence,” and William Brown, a native of Massachusetts, was taken. Forbes’s efforts with the chargé and vice-consul to liberate him were unavailing. Has “expostulated with these Gentlemen in the most friendly and Conciliatory manner on these repeated abuses of power” but received “no Consolation.” Could get “no promise of redress for the past or of security against future aggressions of the same kind.” Was told to apply to the Admiralty in Great Britain and given “the untenable argument” that because some seamen’s protections had been found fraudulent, none would be respected. Insisted on “the territorial rights of Hamburg” and threatened “to enter a public Solemn protest,” but this was treated with “levity.” On 10 June, Nicholas, the British vice-consul, called on Forbes to persuade him not to issue a protest, arguing that it would give an advantage to France over Great Britain. Forbes replied that it was his duty to protest violations of the U.S. flag’s right to protection in a neutral harbor and that “questions of national right were not to be discussed at the Convenience of the aggressor.” Nicholas threatened, in “an unofficial and private opinion,” that should Forbes issue the protest, “the whole influence of the British Government in the U. S. would be employed” against him. “I expressed … my Contempt for any foreign influence and assured him … that I was very Confident in the support of my own Government and of public opinion in my own Country, in the measure I had taken.” “In a subsequent conversation … the menacing insinuation of British influence to remove me [was] not omitted.” Encloses copies of the protest and correspondence on this subject. “I hope to have your opinion on my Conduct in the present Case, to serve as a guide in such as may hereafter occur.” The French occupy Hanover but remain inactive. At the moment Hamburg’s security is pledged by Prussia, with the backing of Russia, and negotiations are ongoing in France for the “permanent Security” of the city. Requests again an extension of his powers to include Lower Saxony.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Hamburg, vol. 1). RC 4 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 7 Sept. For enclosures, see n. 1.

   The numbered enclosures (8 pp.; docketed by Wagner) are “true Copies” of (1) Richard Baley to Forbes, 22 May 1803, reporting his impressment and requesting help; (2) Forbes to George W. Erving, 5 June 1803, informing him of Baley’s impressment and the detaining of Baley’s letter until after the ship had sailed; (3) Forbes to Sir George B. Rumbold, British chargé d’affaires at Hamburg, 6 June 1803, complaining of the practice “of detaining and in some cases totally suppressing the applications of our Seamen to their public Agents for protection” in cases of impressment and expressing outrage at “the Insinuation that the protection of the United States has been basely sold” by Forbes; (4) Rumbold to Forbes, 6 June 1803, assuring the latter that there are no grounds “for any personal remonstrance” and that “a quiet and friendly enquiry” will show “that there is misunderstanding every where”; (5) Petaliah R. Bowers and Charles Babson to Forbes, 6 June 1803, describing the circumstances of William Brown’s impressment; (6) Forbes to Rumbold, 10 June 1803, informing the latter that Forbes will order “a public remonstrance and protest” against neutrality violations perpetrated by the British; (7) Forbes to Syndic von Sienen, 10 June 1803, enclosing a protest and demanding that the city of Hamburg “take such means as shall prevent the future infraction” of American rights and also “obtain a suitable reparation of the injury already sustained”; (8) Forbes’s 10 June 1803 protest against the impressment of William Brown; (9) Rumbold to Forbes, 10 June 1803, acknowledging receipt of Forbes’s letter of the same date; (10) Forbes to Erving, 10 June 1803, enclosing a copy of Forbes’s protest and noting that he is “threatened with the Vengeance of the British Ministry” and relies on Erving to vindicate him should he “be attacked in England”; (11) Forbes to Rumbold, 11 June 1803, enclosing a copy of the protest; and (12) a translation of von Sienen to Forbes, 11 June 1803, informing the latter of the action of the Hamburg Senate in this affair.

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


Title: To James Madison from John Mitchell, 14 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Mitchell, John
To: Madison, James

14 June 1803, Le Havre. Encloses duplicate dispatches from the U.S. ministers in Paris; the originals and a copy of the treaty with France are carried by Jay of New York, who leaves this city in a few days on board the Oliver Ellsworth, Captain Henry. Le Havre harbor is guarded by British frigates that have stopped several neutral vessels, among them the ship Providence, Captain Waterson, from Charleston, and the brig Diana, both under American colors. Two other American vessels were boarded and “suffered to pass” after their ship letters were opened. Asks to be confirmed in his appointment by Livingston and Monroe as commercial agent for Le Havre. Adds in a postscript that Hughes, carrying the original of the treaty, left Le Havre in the brig Experiment on 23 May.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Havre, vol. 1). 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 14 Aug. with the notation: “American vessels stopped.”

   See Mitchell to JM, June 1803, n. 1.

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


Title: From James Madison to Isaac Hite, 15 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Hite, Isaac

Dear Sir
Washington June 15. 1803
I have not heard from you since you left Orange but conclude that you will now be found at home. The delays to which I have been subjected, determine me at length to abandon my visit, till the first of August. I hope I shall then be more fortunate in the oppy. of meeting you.
The accts. from Europe are down to the 6th. of May. The preparations for war were not then relaxed and the prevailing [sic] was that peace could not be maintained. It is probable that the mutual appeals to Russia contributed to the procrastination of the issue between England & France. Every moment may be expected to bring us final information on the subject.
I have letters from Paris as late as Apl. 19th. Mr. Monroe had been there about a week. There had not been time eno’ for any decisive negociations. In general appearances were by no means discouraging; and if nothing should take place in Europe to vary the course of our affairs there, I hope the event, as well as the calculations which led to the Mission, which [sic] justify it.
We have had extreme heat for a few days after a cool season. I understand the latter weather has made your crops beyond the Mountains good. Every where they have succeeded. But generally they will be remarkably short including Pena. N. Jersey & N. York.
I hear nothing of the family matters in Orange. Has Potter given up the idea of taking the Mill. Let me hear from you on these subjects, and accept my sincerest friendship. Yrs. truly
James Madison

   RC (NBuHi).

   JM had intended to make his usual post–congressional session visit to Montpelier in May, where he hoped to see his brother-in-law Isaac Hite (JM to Hite, 5 and 13 May 1803 [PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:573, 599–600]).

   Russia’s offer to mediate the question of Malta was spurned by the British (Ward and Gooch, Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1:323–25).

   JM probably referred to Monroe’s letter of 19 Apr. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:538–39).

   For the Madison family mill, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:125 n. 1. For Ebenezer Potter’s decision not to buy the mill, see his letter to JM, 23 June 1803.


Title: To James Madison from Albert Gallatin, 15 June 1803
From: Gallatin, Albert
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Treasury Department June 15th. 1803.
The law of the 3d. May 1802 having directed that the sums payable by virtue of the convention of the 8th. day of January 1802, between the United States of America, and his Britannic Majesty should be paid in such Instalments, and at such times as are fixed by the said Convention; it seems necessary that this department should be furnished with an official copy of the Convention, and of the date of its ratification. I have the honor to be very respectfully Sir, Your Obed: Servt:
Albert Gallatin

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). In a clerk’s hand, signed by Gallatin; docketed by Wagner.

   “An Act making an appropriation for carrying into effect the Convention between the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty,” 3 May 1802, provided for the payment of $2,664,000 to Great Britain in installments “as are fixed by the said convention” (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:192).

   The “Convention Regarding Articles 6 and 7 of the Jay Treaty and Article 4 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace,” 8 Jan. 1802, called for payment to be made in three equal, annual installments, beginning one year after the ratification of the convention (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:488–90).


Title: To James Madison from David Gelston, 15 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Gelston, David
To: Madison, James

15 June 1803, New York. Has been informed that the consulate at Le Havre is vacant and recommends Frederick Jenkins “as a proper person to fill the office.” Jenkins is a resident of Le Havre and the son of Thomas Jenkins, the mayor of Hudson, New York, “who is a Gentleman of the first respectability.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Jenkins”). 1 p.; marked “Private”; docketed by Jefferson.

   Thomas Jenkins and his sons, Elisha, Frederick, and Gilbert, were prominent merchants from Hudson, New York. Thomas was a Federalist; Elisha served in the New York Assembly as a Republican (Syrett and Cooke, Papers of Hamilton, 15:665–66 and n. 2; Alfred F. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York [Chapel Hill, N.C., 1967], p. 227; Craig Hanyan, De Witt Clinton: Years of Molding, 1769–1807 [New York, 1988], p. 107).


Title: From James Madison to John J. Murray, 16 June 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Murray, John J.

Sir.
Department of State, June 16th. 1803.
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 31 July, 26 August, 10 January & 14th. of March last. In that of the 26 August a difficulty is stated respecting the certificates in relation to drawbacks, whether in cases of exportation to other ports of the Clyde than Glasgow, such certificates ought to be executed and the oaths administered by you? The letter of the law strongly indicates that your agency is not necessary; and the forms of the oaths & certificates as established therein would require variation, if a contrary exposition could be admitted: nor is it perceived that the advantage of a Consular interference would in such case be at all balanced by the inconveniences it would impose on trade. Should you however think proper to appoint Consular Agents at those other ports, there can be no doubt that their functions would attach in this respect. As Mr. Grant is absent from Leith and is understood to have been so for a considerable time, there will be no objection to your appointing them within his Consulate, wherever none is acting under his own appointment; Their Agencies to cease on his assuming the powers of his commission. The dispute between the Magistrates of Leith, and Capt. Farning [sic] seems to indicate an appointment to that place as requisite.
The two questions you put in the close of the letter may be answered together; for an American Register can be held only in the character of a Citizen and not of a trader. There can be no doubt, that on the same principle which admits of aliens being naturalized in the United States, they may afterwards cast off the character of American Citizen and resume their former allegiance or take that of any other Country. In case of a return to the British dominions, under the circumstances which the first question comprehends, and as the doctrine of perpetual allegiance is there maintained, it is highly probable that our tribunals would adjudge the loss of Citizenship to be incurred. Enclosed you will receive the statement of the owners of the Vessels designated in the last list of arrivals at your port and referred to in the letter of the 10th. January. I am &c.
James Madison.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1). Enclosure not found.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:448, 521–22, 4:249, 420.

   For the case of Capt. Henry Fanning and the Young Eagle, see Murray to JM, 14 Mar. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:420 and n. 1).


Title: From James Madison to George W. Erving, 16 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Erving, George W.

16 June 1803, Department of State. “You will receive herewith a certified copy of a deposition of Alexander Wiley concerning his son, William Wiley, which you will please to make use of to procure the discharge of the latter, who is stated in the deposition to have been impressed into the British service some time ago, and to have been lately detained in the Leopard, ship of war, supposed to be on the English station.”

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1). 1 p. Enclosure not found.


Title: To James Madison from John Walker, 16 June 1803
From: Walker, John
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 16 June 1803. Calendared as a one-page letter in the lists probably made by Peter Force (DLC, series 7, container 2) and offered for sale in Stan. V. Henkels Catalogue No. 694 (1892), item 123.


Title: To James Madison from DeWitt Clinton, 17 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Clinton, DeWitt
To: Madison, James

17 June 1803, Newtown, Long Island. Recommends Frederick Jenkins “as meritorious and well-qualified” for the consulate at Le Havre. [Nicholas N.] Quackenbush of Albany has resigned as commissioner of bankruptcy; recommends Abraham Ten Eyck of that city “as a very proper successor.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Jenkins”). 1 p.; docketed by Jefferson with the notation: “Ten wyck Abraham to be Commr bkrptcy Albany.”

   Abraham Ten Eyck (1744–1824) was a Revolutionary War veteran and co-owner of a glassworks in Coeymans, New York, just outside Albany (Looney and Woodward, Princetonians, 1791–1794, p. 236; Joel Munsell, The Annals of Albany [10 vols.; Albany, N.Y., 1855], 6:181).


Title: To James Madison from John Gavino, 18 June 1803 (Abstract)
From: Gavino, John
To: Madison, James

18 June 1803, Gibraltar. No. 123. Confirms his last dispatch of 10 June [not found] and acknowledges JM’s circular of 9 Apr. Believes the laws that accompanied the latter will “put a stop to the shamefull proceedings of late of some of the Masters of our Trading Vessels who has gone for the U. S. without paying their anchorage due the British Goverment.” Encloses a copy of a letter received “yesterday” from Commodore Morris dated Malta, 19 May. Considered it critical that Morris’s letter for Consul Simpson be delivered. “I freightd a small Boat for 30$ to go with it, also Copy of the one to me, and to bring his answer. Hamet who the Commodor Mentions, is the agent for the Empr:, also Tripoly.” Captain Escamiche in a Portuguese seventy-four cruised off Algiers to try “to retake the 44 Gun frigate Captured last Summer.” He captured and sank a xebec and pursued a frigate and a brig close enough to the port to exchange gunfire with the mole batteries. “He is now here on his way to Lisbon.” The “first Rate” British ship Victory arrived at Gibraltar and is gone to Malta in search of Admiral Nelson; it will be his flagship. “The remainder of the Army from Egipt is now in this Bay, partly to relieve some Troops here, the others are bound home.” Encloses “a note of the Quarantine Charges at this Port.” Notes in a postscript dated 21 June that a lack of conveyance gives him the opportunity to enclose a letter just received from Simpson [not found]. “He says it was a lucky Circumstance my sending the Express, and his geting the first account of the retention of the moorish ship in question.” On board the xebec taken by the Portuguese “there were 12 Neopolitans who they were carrying to slavery.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Gibraltar, vol. 2). RC 4 pp.; docketed by Brent as received 19 Aug. For enclosures, see nn. 2 and 3.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (5 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:491–93.

   Enclosed is a copy of Richard V. Morris’s letter of 19 May 1803 (1 p.), enclosing a letter to Simpson and describing the detention by the John Adams of a Tripolitan ship claimed by Morocco. The ship was taken outside Tripoli with contraband. Morris added that “Hamets prediction, he made the Day we saw him so D——nd Drunk is come to pass.”

   Gavino enclosed a one-page list of quarantine and port charges at Gibraltar.

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