Title: To James Madison from James Gillespie, 5 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Gillespie, James
To: Madison, James

5 March 1804. “I am requested by some of the most reputable of my constituents to make application in behalf of a Mr. Roger Moore, who resides near Wilmington. North Carolina for an appointment in the civil government of the United States. This Gentleman stands high in the estimation of all who know him—for my self I can with candor corroborate the character given of him in a letter from our late Governor Samuel Ashe, as follows.” Quotes at length Ashe’s letter describing Moore as possessed of a “fair and unsullied” character and “political principles [that] are truly republican,” and as devoid of vice. Ashe states: “I have known him from his infancy and his life has been irreproachable. As to his capacity for business he has never had an opportunity of disclosing it except whilst he acted as my secretary, which character he discharged with integrity and industry, and having a pretty liberal education I persuade myself he would soon be equal to the duties of any office, he might have conferred on him.”
Gillespie continues: “The character of the Writer of the above letter is well known to all our state as a lawyer Judge and Governor, in all those stations his conduct has been upright and uniform as the friend of man and supporter of their rights, and whose Son John B. Ashe was formerly in Congress and I presume is not unknown to you.
“Mr. Moore has a small family and is willing to remove to whatever place he may be appointed—from his standing in life and from his connections, I with freedom assert, that his claim to a respectable appointment is well founded, and his succ[e]ss would be very gratifying to all with whom he is acquainted.… I would not recommend to your notice for an appointment any person whose character or whose talents did not fully justify it.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Moore”). 3 pp.; docketed by Jefferson.

   Jeffersonian Samuel Ashe (1725–1813), a respected lawyer and jurist, had served as governor of North Carolina from 1795 to 1798 (Powell, Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, 1:54).

   Revolutionary veteran John Baptista Ashe (1748–1802) held several offices in North Carolina and represented the state in Congress from 1790 to 1792. He was elected governor shortly before his death (ibid., 1:52–53).


Title: To James Madison from James Simpson, 5 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Simpson, James
To: Madison, James

5 March 1804, Tangier. No. 75. “As I never untill now have been able to find an opportunity of passing Bills since the date of the particular Letter I had the honour of addressing you the 17h October last year, I have but this day drawn a Sett of Bills on you to order of Messrs Khun & Green of Gibraltar payable thirty days after presentation for Two thousand dollars, being the sum mentioned in that Letter.
“The great difficulty we commonly experience to obtaining money against Bills on America had enduced me to avail of this opportunity of drawing also another Sett of Bills on you, of this date and payable as the others to order of Messrs Khun & Green for One thousand dollars on Account of the last half years Sallary.
“I have to request you will be pleased to direct these two Bills being paid accordingly. As payment of the Bills for two thousand dollars, the Interest on the Stock they have allusion to will of course cease and determine; unless it shall have pleased Government to order their being provided for otherwise.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 2). 2 pp.; marked “Duplicate.”

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:539.


Title: To James Madison from Fulwar Skipwith, 5 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Skipwith, Fulwar
To: Madison, James

5 March 1804, Paris. “Just at closing these dispatches I received from the Minister a letter dated three days back in answer to mine here annexed. Notwithstanding, as you will see by the Copy of his letter also annexed, that he threatens to cause my Exequatur to be withdrawn from me, & my Consular Powers to be Suspended, if I do not enter into a justification of myself with him, & in fact arraign myself at the bar of his Inquisitorial Majesty⟨;⟩ Could I view him, after what has passed, in any other light than that of a deluded or a malicious Accuser, I would most certainly employ, as he demands, my means of defence, & attempt to remove doubts & Suspicions concerning my conduct, which I am confident he does not in truth entertain. Nor, can I answer his letter without expressing more or less the indignation which fills my heart at his degenerate proceedings towards me, therefore unless his base attempts Should Succeed in causing my exequatur to be withdrawn from me, & myself forced at the point of the bayonet from the Seal & functions of my Office, I shall in Silence, & with patience, continue the discharge of my official duties untill the pleasure of our Government be known.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 1). RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 29 June. For enclosures, see nn.

   For Skipwith to Livingston, 1 Mar. 1804, see Skipwith to JM, 3 Mar. 1804, n. 4.

   Skipwith enclosed a copy of Livingston to Skipwith, 2 Mar. 1804 (4 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received in Skipwith’s 5 Mar. 1804 letter), stating that it was Livingston’s duty to pursue the truth of the accusations, that he had preferred to have a private discussion with Skipwith rather than take matters to the government, and that it would be his duty to request the withdrawal of Skipwith’s exequatur if the charges proved true. Livingston outlined the main points of the accusations, suggested that Skipwith obtain written answers from Cottrau to a series of specific questions about Haley’s case, and stated his desire to see Skipwith completely exonerated.


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 7 March 1804
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

Private No 19
Dear Sir
London March 7t 1804
In my public letter (No 28) I took the liberty of observing that tho’ a great deal has been done by the late laws & regulations to purify the ownership of Vessels, yet something further might be done to advantage: The comptrollers remark of Sep. 10 forwarded with your circular of Oct. 1. does away all doubts as to the description of persons who are Entitled to receive by purchase abroad “Vessels of the United States,” which have been registered; this Explanation will be of vast service to our fair trade; but the temptations to do wrong are so strong, that no sooner is one course of fraud stopped up, than a new channel is discovered & made navigable; thus our itinerant citizens finding that they are not entitled to purchase “Vessels of the United States” will purchase foreign vessels & send them to the United States, where they will procure a certificate, a Sea letter, or some document which will Enable them to carry the flag: I have been therefore disposed considering the spirit of the Laws taken in Mass, to refuse in this place my sanction to purchases of any sort; however on more mature consideration, I have concluded that I shoud not be justified in going so much beyond the letter. I have just had occasion to give this subject particular attention in the case of the “Catherine” a British ship now purchased by Mr Waterman of Boston, & which will soon proceed to New York; the Seller (the Same Merchant referred to in my letter No 28,) is also at the same time agent for the buyer; Mr Waterman having quitted London for some other part of England immediately after I had consented to give the certificate, leaving the whole business of the ship to be done by the seller; from this & a variety of small circumstances connected, & my having also been informed that the Merchant in question (Mr Thomas Wilson) has carried on an Extensive & profitable commerce under American Names at different periods, particularly during the last War; as well as from the transaction referred to in my letter before mentioned, I am well persuaded that he is yet the Owner or part Owner of this Ship “Catherine”; or “Rufus” as Mr Waterman now chuses to have her called. Perhaps she gets freight to the United States, for the Law does not say that she shall go in ballast (which woud be some check) & from thence it is likely she will go to S. America the destination of Mr Wilsons last Cargo; thus the Object of our Laws is completely defeated to the great injury of our own commerce; & it may possibly happen that Mr Thomas Wilson Engaged in a contraband or smuggling trade under our flag may disgrace it, or may Even bring into danger the National peace.
Aware of my weakness upon subjects of Commerce, which is not my metier, I fear to Suggest these things in public communications; but yet it is a duty to state them to you, & you will give them just as much consideration as they deserve. Allow me to suggest two smaller circumstances which if any additional regulations shoud be Established may be thought worthy of attention. I have known a very hard case of a Captain’s (of a ship) being discharged here in Consequence of a private Order sent from the apparent owner to the consignee the circumstances attending which (I will not trouble with more details) convinced me that the Ship was owned by the Scotch Consignee, the Law does not give the Captain two months advance in this Case, & he may be left in a very destitute situation, & become as much an object of legislative care as a common Seaman; tho it is true that the Captain has very much the means, & in almost all cases entirely the means of securing himself.
To prevent disputes between Master & Men as to the terms of the Articles, it woud be useful that the Articles shoud be filled up as to the destination of the Vessel, by the Collector; & that he shoud cause them to be fairly read & Explained to the Crew; for sometimes Erasures appear which Excite suspicions, & frequently the men complain that the Articles have not been read, or have been misread to them.
As a matter of mere curiosity & amusement I take this opportunity of inclosing Cobbetts observations on the late Etiquette difficulty at Washington. I am Dear Sir Always Very faithy & respectfully your obt st
George W Erving

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, London, vol. 9).

   Erving to JM, 27 Jan. 1804.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:479.

   Erving probably enclosed a copy of the 18 Feb. 1804 issue of Cobbett’s Political Register. For a description of Cobbett’s comments, see Monroe to JM, 3 Mar. 1804, n. 5.


Title: To James Madison from Albert Gallatin, [post 7 March] 1804
From: Gallatin, Albert
To: Madison, James

[post 7 March 1804]
… yet there is reason to believe that the authorised district, even as described in the 11th section, Was not understood necessarily to comprehend places not within the acknowledged limits of the U. States, in as much as the words “Bay of Mobile” used in that Section & favoring most that construction have been considered as a ⟨generic?⟩ term applicable to the Mobille waters as high up as the head of the tide and therefore to waters within those acknowledged limits. It might be added that &c.

   RC (DLC). Unsigned. A note on the verso in Gallatin’s hand reads: “Offered in lieu of the words between crotchets.” Docketed by JM: “Scope of the Act of Cong. relating to Mobille complained of by Spanish Minister as violating Spanish Jurisdiction”; damaged at fold. A second docket in JM’s hand, perhaps added at a later date, reads: “By Alb. Gallatin.” Words in italics are inserted interlinearly in JM’s hand. Undated; date assigned on the supposition that Gallatin wrote this sometime between JM’s receipt of Yrujo’s 7 Mar. 1804 letter and JM’s 19 Mar. 1804 reply.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 8 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

private
Dear Sir
Washington March 8. 1804
Since my last which went by duplicates, & will therefore I hope have been recd. yours of Novr. 25. which like this is private, has come to hand. Your public letter accompanying it, is answered publickly by this opportunity.
It is very agreeable to find the British Ministers so candidly acknowledging the justice of our general conduct towards their nation and the fairness particularly of our Treaty obtaining Louisiana. If as they admit, the sole ground of complaint against us was the Memorial of Mr. L, there remains no longer a single exception to be taken; an explanation having been given to M Merry which he thought would be satisfactory to his government.
The Bill in the Senate on the impressment of seamen, of which you have been apprized, was a few days ago postponed generally, with reasons assigned, which were meant to render such an issue conciliatory witht. renouncing the right, or the eventual necessity, of some such remedy. The British functionaries here consider all that has passed on this subject as the effect of concert between the Executive and leading members of the Legislature, and as meant to operate on the apprehensions of England without the appearance of provoking a collision with her. In general the idea of such an understanding between the Executive & Congress, prevails among the Foreign Agents, more especially on their first coming, and it is not easy to correct the error. You know that a mutual independence exists, precluding a responsibility on either side for the separate measures of the other. Nothing is more common in fact than for those who in general form the majority in Congress to divide among themselves on questions in which it is known that the Executive have taken an interest. In the case of the two bills concerning impressments, they were introduced under the general impulse of the Country, and the personal or local sentiments of the Movers; and the destiny of them is to be referred to a like explanation. This Country wishes for justice, and thinks it has efficacious means in its own hands. It wishes at the same time not to resort, without absolute necessity to any means that may interrupt harmony, or even wear an unfriendly aspect. This is certainly the sentiment of the Executive in common with the other branches of the government, and with the nation. Among more general considerations favouring this temperate & solid policy, it merits attention, that as the present administration in G. B. appears more liberal & cordial towards the U. S. than any preceding one, as the admtion. here is certainly more so towards G. B. than was there anticipated, and as no formal experiment has been made since the commencement of the present war to adjust by negociation the question of impressments, it is proper to make a fair experiment in that form, before redress be pursued in any other. I have not learnt whether the bill in the House of Reps. has yet been postponed. That it will be is probable; and if it should not, the sense expressed by the Senate will be a bar to its passage into a law.
In a conversation with Mr. Merry on these bills he intimated the danger of their being considered in G. B. as leading to a state of violence, if passed into laws; and if postponed as still leaving a menace more likely to excite pride that [sic] compliance. Without admitting the first inference, the second was easily repelled by an appeal to the operative negotiation of M Jay notwithstanding the strong posture taken by Congress at the moment, and the existence of an embargo well understood to be levelled British misconduct.
My public letter answers your enquiry relating to the E. & W. India trade. The case of French prisoners taken in American vessels can not be more affected by the Treaty, than that of French property so taken, and must depend on the same principles of public law. If not in military service the capture of them was wrong, and right requires that they should be discharged. It will be well at the same time to avoid interference in such cases, as far as will consist with the obligation and honor of the U. States.

Your trip to Madrid has become a perplex[ing] subject. The present moment is not favorable to it and the other object presented to your view by the President’s letter becomes every moment more pressing for such services as yours. Whilst you hold yourself ready therefore for a trip to Spain in case events should prescribe it you will hold yourself still more so for taking a station at New Orleans whither it is more than probable you will be summoned to repair the instant your negociations at London shall be closed. In several views the situation of the ceded territory is critically interesting. Should you go to Spain it will evidently reconcile private with public œconomy, and both with the comfort of your family, to place them in the asylum you contemplate, and thereby stop the whole expence of your London establishment. As to the modifications of outfit I can add nothing to what I have heretofore said. To be prepared for every turn which the settlement of your allowance may take, your expences can not be too exactly noted & vouched.
When I communicate finally your destination, I will communicate also the sentiments of the President as to the person into whose hands you are to deposit your papers &. In the mean time authorise no particular expectation in anyone. The President retains his favorable opinion of Erving but it is of importance to respect his standing with the British ministry and also not to flatter pretentions beyond his standing in this country to which his present grade is thought to be commensurate. Perhaps it will be found best to name no charge and leave the necessary business with him as consul making the proper communica [sic] and request to Lord H.
I have recd your list from the silversmith at Paris, but have not liquidated, or even estimated with much attention the amount accruing to you. I have paid Genl. M. of Georgetown 1200 dollars. I had before advanced to others between 5 & 600 dollars. It is probable these sums will satisfy, possibly exceed the value of all the articles obtained from your stock of furniture.

   RC (DLC). Unsigned; docketed by Monroe. Unless otherwise noted, italicized words and letters are those encoded by JM and decoded here by the editors (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:352 n. 1). RC decoded interlinearly by Monroe.

   Underlined in RC.

   JM to Monroe, 14 and 16 Feb. 1804.

   Monroe to JM, 16 Nov. 1803.

   See JM to Monroe, 5 Mar. 1804.

   See Monroe to JM, 25 Nov. 1803, and n. 4.

   See JM to Monroe, 5 Jan. 1804, and n. 8.

   Interlinear decoding inserts “agst.” here.

   See Monroe to JM, 25 Nov. 1803.

   Miscoded “perplex hand”; interlinear decoding has “perplexing.”

   Jefferson had written in January offering Monroe the position of governor of Louisiana (Jefferson to Monroe, 8 Jan. 1804 [printed in Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 8:286–92]).


Title: From James Madison to the Senate, 8 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Senate

Department of State March 8th. 1804.
The Secretary of State to whom was referred by a Resolution of the Senate of the 25th. of January last, the petition of Moses Young, to consider the merits of the same, has the honor to make the following report.
It appears that Mr. Young was appointed Consul of the United States at Madrid on the 11th. of April 1798, having been previously, (Viz, about the month of October preceding) by Mr. Humphreys the minister Plenipotentiary of the United States appointed his private Secretary and charged with the Superintendance of claims upon the Spanish Government in behalf of Citizens of the United States; that on the recall of Mr. Humphreys his appointment of private Secretary to the minister ceased and thereupon he was allowed by the Executive a compensation at the rate of 1350 Dollars per annum to induce him to continue in the public service in the capacity of Agent for claims; but it also appears that this allowance was not satisfactory to him.
It is certain that during the last War and ever since a body of claims against the Spanish Government has been constantly pressing upon the attention of the representatives of the United States at Madrid. It has not been usual nor could it be expected, that their ministers to foreign Governments should devote themselves to prepare such business for reception at the proper Offices and to attend its passage through them. Hence at various times during the last War, Agents were assigned at London and Paris to aid them in this branch of the public service, the ministers themselves considering it their duty to do no more than patronise and direct these Agents and fix general principles with the respective Governments, whenever cases should happen involving new considerations. The Agents at London were provided with Salaries, and were allowed to receive Commissions on their receipts for individuals who had appointed them their special private Agents, but not otherwise. The Agents at Paris on the other hand received no Salaries (until within a year or two past) but it is understood that they satisfied themselves with commissions on their receipts.
That the services of Mr. Young, as Agent at Madrid, were valuable and necessary to the public service, cannot be doubted: for these until the recall of Mr. Humphreys he received no compensation from the United States, and he informs me that he never charged nor received compensation from the individuals to whom he had rendered himself useful in his Official capacity.
The Secretary of State therefore respectfully submits to Congress his opinion that Mr. Young be allowed a compensation as Agent of claims at Madrid at the rate of  from the Date of his appointment by Mr. Humphreys, until the time when he ceased to be the private Secretary of Mr. Humphreys.
The Secretary has also examined the other claim of Mr. Young for an additional allowance as Secretary to Mr. Laurens on his mission to Holland in the year 1779, and finds that it has been barred by the Act of limitation of the 12th. February 1793. Should that obstacle be surmounted either by a general provision or with reference to the peculiar circumstances of Mr. Young’s case, the Secretary could add nothing to the inducements to a favorable consideration of his case beyond what is contained in the certificate of Mr. Laurens Dated 29th. October 1792, a copy of which is among the papers transmitted to the Secretary with the order of reference. All which is respectfully submitted
James Madison

   RC (DNA: RG 46, Reports and Communications Submitted to the Senate, 8A-F1); Tr (DNA: RG 46, Transcribed Reports and Communications Relating Chiefly to Claims, 1789–1814). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM.

   Blank left in both copies.

   On 26 Mar. 1804 Jefferson signed a bill ordering the liquidation of Young’s accounts for services rendered as claims agent at Madrid, from his appointment by Humphreys to the time he ceased to act as Humphreys’s secretary, at the rate of $2,000 per year, provided he presented to the treasury a certificate from Humphreys stating that Young had “received no pay or emolument from individuals for said services” (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 6:55). On the same day JM asked Gallatin to issue a warrant in favor of Young for $603 “upon the appropriations for prosecuting American claims in prize causes; before the Tribunals of Foreign Nations” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14; 2 pp.).

   For the act barring the payment of claims originating before 4 Mar. 1789, see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 1:301–2. On 25 Apr. 1810 a bill was approved authorizing payment of Young’s claim for reimbursement for his services as Laurens’s secretary of legation (ibid., 6:89–90).

   For Laurens’s certificate, see Young to JM, 9 Jan. 1804, n. 5.

   JM’s report was submitted to the Senate on 10 Mar. 1804 (JM to the Senate, 10 Mar. 1804 [DNA: RG 46, Petitions and Memorials, 8A-G1; 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand; unsigned]).


Title: To James Madison from Franklin, Robinson and Company, 8 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Franklin, Robinson, and Company
To: Madison, James

8 March 1804, New York. In March 1798 their ship Hunter with its cargo “was captured by a Spanish Privateer in the Straits of Gibraltar, and carried into Algesiras.” “The Spaniards, conscious there had been no legal cause to arrest the Ship, wanted to alter the nature of the case by making it appear that she had been taken by a French privateer which was in sight at the time of the capture & came alongside of the Hunter more than half an hour after she was in possession of the Spaniards who however remained with the undisturbed & full command of their Prize.” Their agent appealed to the Spanish court of admiralty at Algeciras, which decreed that that court alone “had a right to take cognizance of the arrestation and detention of the Hunter, that the Spaniards had wilfully and maliciously delivered her papers over to the French privateer, violating thereby the privileges of the Court, and that a formal demand of said papers should be made to the French Consul,” who returned the papers. On 14 Apr. 1798 the Spanish court “decreed that the papers of the Hunter were perfectly regular and such as required by the laws of Spain as well as by the treaty existing between that Country and the United States, that consequently said Ship with her cargo should be restored to the Owners with full power to proceed on her voyage, and that the Captors were to remain answerable for all costs, losses & damages accruing to said Ship & Cargo, because by maliciously giving up the aforesaid papers to the French they were the Authors of those incidents from which arose contests of Jurisdiction & delays in the detention of said Ship.” Neither the Spanish privateer nor the French agent appealed, and “said Sentence of acquital became of itself unalterable & definitive, which was also decreed by a subsequent Sentence of the Same tribunal.”
“As the French continued, nevertheless, to prevent the Hunter from Sailing by Keeping on board a number of armed men, it was then agreed with the French Consul that … the proceedings had in the Spanish Court of Admiralty, together with the Ship’s papers, would confidentially be entrusted to him in order that he might bottom thereon a Sentence whereby he would again declare himself incompetent, but … no sooner was he possessed of those papers than he began to assume the character of a Judge.” Their agent and the American consul protested. The Spanish court passed several decrees in their favor and notified the military commandant general “that any act or Interference from the French Consul were encroachments and outrages on their Jurisdiction and they required officially of said Commandant to remove every obstacle & impediment to the perfect & entire liberty of the Ship, this step however remained without effect, and our agent, being left defenceless, was reduced to protest against the Spanish Captor & the French Consul as well as against the Spanish Court of Admiralty & the Commandant General for denying protection & tolerating the Insults offered by the former to the Sovereignty of Spain and to the American Flag.” The Spanish court, “at length, sensible that their tame submission to the open violation of their privileges and those of America made them liable for its consequences, presented a petition to the King praying for the full execution of their definitive sentence in favour of the Hunter; meanwhile the French consul gave also a Sentence wherein he again acknowledges that the Spaniards were the first Captors and that there was no reason to detain the Ship, but the French Privateer having appealed from this Sentence, & no Supreme order being given with regard to said petition although more than four months had elapsed since it was laid before the King, our agent found himself under the painful necessity to come to a compromise with said privateer who did not withdraw his pretensions & leave the Ship, ’till after receiving a certain Sum of Money.”
“When by this Kind of ransom, extorted within the Spanish dominions by an insolent and imperious Foreigner, the Hunter was actually liberated an account of Costs losses & damages against the real Captors was laid before the Spanish Court.” The Spanish privateer did not appeal the court’s sentence, “but all the efforts of our agent to obtain this final justice proving ineffectual both from the Know[n] insolvency of said captors and from the slowness of the Spanish Court in acting, we were obliged to suspend our prosecution” and await more favorable circumstances. Ask JM whether their claim “comes within the Purlieu of the late convention between the United States and Spain, or whether it is comprized within the exception contained in the 6th Article of said convention.” Believe they have “a title to demand the execution of said sentence; but as the prosecution of the claim will necessarily be attended with expences, we wish thou wouldst be so Kind as to favour us with thy Ideas on the subject and its probable Issue.”

   RC (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 316, Spain, Treaty of 1819 [Article XI] [Spoliation], Disallowed Claims, vol. 25); Tr (DNA: RG 76, French Spoliations, envelopes D and E, folder “Diaz”). RC 4 pp.; marked “NN”; docketed by Wagner. Tr marked “B.”; docketed in an unidentified hand: “with Jos. L. Dias’ Letter of 23 Sep: 1826.” Headnote on Tr reads: “Copy of the letter written by Franklin, Robinson & Co, to the Honorable James Madison, Secretary of State, of which the original, marked NN, is among the documents filed in the case of the Ship Hunter, laid before the Board under the 11th, Article of the Floriday treaty.”

   The partners in Franklin, Robinson and Company, one of the first New York companies to trade with China, were Abraham and Samuel Franklin and William T. Robinson (Barrett, Old Merchants of New York City, 2:247–48).

   The Hunter, Capt. William Whitlock, valued at $18,000, which had sailed from New York bound for Genoa and Marseilles with a cargo of oil, nankeens, and logwood valued at $92,000, was captured on 12 Mar. 1798 (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:455–56).

   Article 6 of the Convention of 1802 stated that because of the inability of the negotiators to agree on a means of settling claims resulting from “the excesses of foreign Cruizers, Agents, Consuls, or Tribunals,” each government reserved to itself and its citizens all present and future rights to pursue such claims. On 7 May 1804 JM replied that the case did not appear to be among those excepted by Article 6 but that this and all other aspects of the claim would be decided officially by the board to be set up under the treaty (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:494–95; JM to Franklin, Robinson and Company, 7 May 1804 [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14]).


Title: To James Madison from Louis-André Pichon, 9 March 1804
From: Pichon, Louis-André
To: Madison, James

Georgetown 18. Ventose an 12. (9. March 1804)
Le soussigné, a plusieurs fois eu l’honneur d’entretenir Mr. le Secrétaire d’Etat du Commerce illégitime qui depuis l’époque ou l’armée française est arrivée à St. Domingue en 1802, et où l’Etat de révolte de cette Colonie a été notifié au Gouvernement Américain, s’est fait publiquement des divers Ports des Etats Unis avec les points de l’isle que les révoltés ont successivement occupés, et qui a pris une étendue et une publicité sans limites depuis que les troupes françaises ont évacué cette possession. Le soussigné croirait manquer à son devoir si, dans les circonstances présentes, il ne constatait de manière à prevenir toute équivoque, les représentations qu’il s’est cru obligé de faire à Mr. Madison à ce sujet, pour revendiquer et conserver les droits & la dignité de son Gouvernement.
Le soussigné a eu l’honneur de faire remarquer à Mr. Madison que le commerce dont il s’agit se fait non seulement avec la plus grande publicité, mais encore sous la sanction des Etats-Unis, puisque, journellement, les bâtimens Américains sont expédiés aux Douanes pour divers ports de St. Domingue et reçus aux mêmes Douanes comme en revenant. Ce commerce a donc fourni, dans ces derniers tems aux révoltés, les moyens de combattre la france et le soussigné indépendamment des présomptions fondées sur le cours d’un commerce aussi libre a la certitude que dans ce moment ils font aux Etats-Unis, par des agens, des approvisionemens de munitions de guerre destinés à repousser les efforts futurs qu’elle pourrait faire pour rétablir dans cette colonie, son autorité.
Pour faire ressortir d’une manière plus frappante les sentimens que ce commerce est de nature a exciter dans l’esprit du Gouvernement français, le soussigné prendra la liberté de supposer que la population noire des Etats méridionaux des Etats Unis après s’être révoltée se soit emparée des Ports de ces Etats. Si, dans de pareilles conjonctures, il se fesait publiquement des expéditions de tout genre pour ces Ports, soit de france, soit des Colonies françaises; un pareil commerce toleré, sanctionné même par le Gouvernement francais, paraitrait, sans doute, à celui des Etats Unis peu conforme aux devoirs réciproques des Etats entr’eux, et les sentimens qu’il exciterait dans les Etats Unis, sont faciles à imaginer.
Le soussigné, en consignant ici les observations qu’il a eu l’honneur de présenter à Mr. Madison, s’empresse de reconnaitre que Mr. le Secrétaire d’Etat, a, de la manière la moins équivoque, déclaré que le Gouvernement des Etats Unis considérait ce commerce comme illégal et contraire au droit des gens, & que les Etats-Unis abandonnaient à l’action de celui-ci, et à celle des mesures de police de la france, les individus qui s’y livraient. Le soussigné a recueilli & transmis avec bien du plaisir ces déclarations à son Gouvernement & il ne doute point qu’elles n’aient dans l’esprit du Premier Consul, toute la valeur qu’elles sont capables de recevoir dans cette discussion. Néamoins, le chargé d’affaires de la République française pense que ces déclarations dictées par un esprit de justice et de paix, ne peuvent pleinement atteindre leur but tant que des individus sont tolérés protégés même par les loix des Etats-Unis, pour suivre des rélations dirigées contre la dignité et les droits de la france, et tant que par suite du silence que le Gouvernement observe, ces relations prennent une consistance & un caractère qui les rendent de plus en plus propres à troubler la paix qui régne entre les deux Etats.
Il est naturel de penser que des procédés aussi ouvertement attentatoires à la sureté et aux prérogatives de la france provoqueront de sa part contre la personne et la propriété des délinquans, des mesures de rigueur et que ces mesures exciteront aux Etats-Unis autant d’irritation que les actes qui les provoquent en excitent en france. Mr. le secrétaire d’Etat a pu voir que, dernièrement, il y a eu quelque cas où des bâtimens qui font ce commerce s’étaient armès pour se défendre contre la visite des croiseurs français. Sans parler du caractère de ces armemens, les suites qu’ils peuvent avoir, ne peuvent qu’aggraver le mal. Sous le rapport donc de la tendance qu’à cet état de choses à frustrer les vues de bonne intelligence qui animent les deux Gouvernemens, Le soussigné a un nouveau motif de désirer vivement que celui des Etats Unis puisse y obvier.
Le soussigné n’a pas oublié qu’en répondant aux notes qu’il adressa en 1802, sur des matières liées à celle qui fixe en ce moment son attention; Mr. Madison annonça dès lois les principes de la conduite du Gouvernement américain par rapport à St. Domingue. D’après ces principes qui ont été reproduits dans les dernières conférences du soussigné avec Mr. Madison les Etats Unis regardent ce commerce du même œil que tout autre commerce déclaré illégal ou de contrebande par le droit des gens, et ne croyent pas devoir prendre envers le premier plus de mesures repressives qu’envers le second.
Le soussigné prendra la liberté d’observer que cette assimilation ne semble être justifiée, ni par la nature des deux commerces, ni par l’opinion ni par la pratique connues des Etats. Un commerce avec des révoltés, sans parler de la qualité des personnes que cependant les Etats Unis semblent, autant que tout autre Etat Européen, devoir admettre pour quelque chose dans cet éxamen, un tel commerce parait au soussigné différer essentiellement d’un commerce de contrebande fait avec une nation indépendante; le premier, viole des droits essentiels et reconnus; c’est une sorte de guerre dirigée contre l’Etat qui en est l’objet. Le second, ne froisse que des droits adventices passagers et même incertains. Cette différence inhérente en a produit dans l’opinion & dans la pratique des nations; les Etats Unis eux mêmes déférent à cette opinion en admettant que quoique la France n’ait pas une force présente pour combattre les révoltés et reprimer efficacement le commerce qui se fait avec eux, ce commerce néamoins est, par la nature même de la circonstance, illégitime. Quant à la pratique des nations, le soussigné, sans citer tous les cas analogues qui sont constatés, se bornera aux événemens qui amenérent la guerre qui éclata entre la france et l’Angleterre en 1778. Si le soussigné ne se trompe pas; dans cette circonstance, qu’il est loin de vouloir comparer dailleurs à celles du moment, l’une des deux nations invoqua et suivit des principes analogues à cette opinion. Si ces déductions sont exactes, il parait donc que le Gouvernement des Etats Unis pour être conséquent à ses propres principes et pour agir d’une manière conforme aux droits qu’il reconnait à la france, devait adopter des mesures répressives envers ce commerce, ou dumoins ne pas laisser plus long terns ceux qui s’y livrent, dans un doute qui ne peut que les porter à des actes propres à compromettre de plus en plus la paix.
Le soussigné, quoique pleinement autorisé par la nature même de la chose, par les ouvertures qui ont déjà été faites à Paris au ministre des Etats Unis et par la sollicitude que son Gouvernement lui a plusieurs fois témoignée, à faire ces représentations, aurait cependant attendu, vu l’importance du sujet et des circonstances, des instructions expresser pour les mettre sous cette forme, s’il n’avait craint que le silence supposé du Gouvernement français ne tirât à conséquence et n’eut des inconvéniens graves. C’est donc, comme l’a déja dit le soussigné, pour remplir un devoir; c’est aussi par un désir sincère d’obvier à tout ce qui pourrait altérer la bonne harmonie entre les deux Etats, que le soussigné a l’honneur d’adresser à Mr. Madison ces observations. Il le prie de vouloir bien les porter à la connaissance de Mr. le Président des Etats Unis & d’agréer l’assurances de son respect et de sa considération distinguée.
L. A. Pichon

Condensed Translation
Has many times discussed with JM the illegal commerce that has been conducted openly between various ports in the U.S. and rebel strongholds in Saint-Domingue since the French army arrived there in 1802 and the U.S. government was notified of the revolt. Since the evacuation of French troops from the colony, this trade has been carried on without limit. His duty requires that he assert unequivocally the rights and dignity of his government.
Has pointed out to JM that this illegal commerce is conducted not only with the greatest openness but with the sanction of the U.S., since American ships are daily cleared through customs for various ports in Saint-Domingue and received at customs when they return. This commerce has lately furnished the rebels with the means of fighting France, and he is certain that at this moment they are obtaining in the U.S., through agents, military supplies destined to repel France’s future efforts to reestablish its authority over the colony.
To demonstrate more strikingly the feelings this commerce provokes in the French government, he will take the liberty of supposing that the black population of the southern states of the U.S. revolted and seized the ports. If, in this similar case, expeditions to these ports were made openly from France or from French colonies and tolerated or sanctioned by the French government, such commerce doubtless would appear to the U.S. government to conform very little to the reciprocal duties due to each state from the other, and the feelings it would excite in the U.S. are easily imagined.
He recalls that JM has declared unequivocally that the U.S. would consider the trade with Saint-Domingue illegal and against the law of nations and would not protect individuals who conducted it from governmental or legal action by France. He received and transmitted these declarations to his government with pleasure and does not doubt that the first consul appreciated their significance. Though these declarations were dictated by a spirit of justice and peace, they can never fully achieve their purpose as long as individuals are tolerated and even protected by U.S. laws in their pursuit of a trade that conflicts with the dignity and rights of France, and this trade will be more and more likely to trouble the peace that exists between the two states so long as the U.S. government maintains silence.
These proceedings, so threatening to French security and rights, will provoke rigorous measures against the person and property of the lawbreakers, which will excite as much irritation in the U.S. as this trade does in France. Mentions recent cases in which merchant ships engaged in such commerce were armed to defend themselves against French cruisers. The possible consequences of this can only aggravate the problem. Has a new motive, beyond the tendency of this state of affairs to frustrate good relations between the two governments, for strongly desiring its prevention by the U.S.
Has not forgotten that in response to notes he sent in 1802 on related matters, JM announced the principles of the American government’s conduct toward Saint-Domingue. According to those principles, which JM reiterated in their most recent meetings, the U.S. regards this commerce in the same way it does any other illegal or contraband trade under the law of nations and employs the same measures against it.
He observes that this comparison does not seem justified by the nature of the two trades, by opinion, or by common practice among states. The U.S., as much as every European state, must admit that trade with rebels seems essentially different from contraband trade with an independent nation. The first violates essential and recognized rights; it is a sort of war directed against the state that is its object. The second hurts only transient, or even vague, additional rights. This inherent difference is reflected in the opinion and practice of nations; even the U.S. defers to this opinion by admitting that if France does not have a force present to combat the rebels and effectively repress trade conducted with them, this commerce is still unlawful. As to the practice of nations, without citing all the analogous cases, he will limit himself to events that led to the outbreak of war between France and Great Britain in 1778. If he is not mistaken, in that circumstance, which he is far from wishing to compare to this one, one of the two nations invoked and followed principles analogous to this opinion. If these deductions are correct, it seems that the U.S. government, in order to be consistent with its own principles and to act in a manner that conforms to the rights it recognizes as belonging to France, must adopt measures to repress such trade or at least not to let those who carry it out continue acting in a way that increasingly risks compromising peace.
Although he was fully authorized by the nature of the case, by overtures already made in Paris to the U.S. minister there, and by the solicitude with which his government has repeatedly urged him to make a representation on this issue, the importance of the subject and the circumstances would have made him wait for instructions had he not feared that the presumed silence of the French government would bring on grave disadvantages. It is to fulfill a duty and from a sincere desire to prevent any alteration of the good harmony between the two states that he makes these observations to JM and asks that they be brought to the attention of the president.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, NFL, France, vol. 1); Tr (AAE: Political Correspondence, U.S., 56:412–15); Tr, two copies (NHi: Livingston Papers); Tr (DNA: RG 59, Misc. Duplicate Consular and Diplomatic Correspondence, 1791–1906, box 2, folder 9). RC docketed by Wagner: “Trade with St. Domingo.”

   For JM’s previous communications with Pichon on the issue of trade with Saint-Domingue, see JM to Pichon, 15 Feb. 1802, JM to Tobias Lear, 26 Feb. 1802, and JM to Pichon, 25 Mar. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:469 and n. 1, 489–90, 3:68–69).

   For earlier French complaints about U.S. trade with Saint-Domingue, see Robert R. Livingston to JM, 24 Mar. 1803 (ibid., 4:447–48, 449 n. 4).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 10 March 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir
New-Orleans March 10th. 1804
In a paper which was received by the last mail from the Seat of Government, it was stated that a law had passed the Senate prohibiting the foreign importation of Slaves into this Province. This intelligence has occasioned great agitation in this city and in the adjacent Settlements.
The African trade has hitherto been lucrative, and the farmers are desirous of increasing the number of their Slaves. The prohibiting the importation of Negroes therefore, is viewed here as a serious blow at the commercial and agricultural interest of the Province.
The admission of Negroes into the State of South Carolina has served to increase the discontent here. The Citizens generally cannot be made to understand the present power of the State Authorities with regard to the importation of persons; they suppose that Congress must connive at the importation into South Carolina, and many will be made to believe, that it is done with a view to make South Carolina the Sole importer for Louisiana.
An adventurer of the name of Tupper, a native of Boston, (and if report be true of little respectability) who arrived in this City from France about three weeks ago, taking advantage of the agitation of the public mind has proposed a meeting of the people on Monday next, in order to state their greivances to Congress, and to elect an Agent to be the bearer of their memorial. This Mr. Tupper (it is said) is solicitous to be the Agent, and therefore he invites the meeting. I have however taken measures to impress the better part of Society with an opinion, that at this particular period, the proceeding was wrong, and I believe but few (if any[)] respectable Citizens will attend the meeting. In the present unsettled state of things public assemblages of the people might lead to riot and disorder. The public mind here may easily be inflamed, and when the inhabitants are put in motion it would be difficult to restrain them from outrage. The success which this man Tupper has met with, is a strong proof of the mischief a designing unprincipled man may do in Louisiana. The prohibition of the African trade, the continuation of the export duties, the want of Registers for vessels, and the delay in extending to the Louisianians like priviliges with those enjoyed by Citizens of the United States, have been the themes of discussion with this Adventurer. I hope however, his designs will be counteracted, and that the quiet of the city will remain uninterrupted. I must confess Sir, I apprehend more trouble from some imprudent Americans who are here, than from any of the natives.
My former Congressional acquaintance Edward Livingston is now in New-Orleans, and has acquired considerable influence among the inhabitants, he manifests the best disposition towards the Government, and a desire to render my administration pleasing, and the present state of things acceptable to the people. Accept assurances of my great respect and esteem.
William C. C. Claiborne

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 11 Apr. and with the added notation: “discontinuance of the Slave Trade.”

   The “Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof,” which forbade the importation of slaves into the territories of Orleans and Louisiana, originated in the Senate on 28 Nov. 1803 and was signed into law on 26 Mar. 1804 (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:283–89). For references to the legislative history of the bill, see Carter, Territorial Papers, Orleans, 9:202–3 n. 93.

   South Carolina had legalized the importation of slaves on 16 Dec. 1803 (Charleston Courier, 21 Dec. 1803).

   Claiborne probably referred to Boston merchant Benjamin Tupper, who died in New Orleans later in the year (Boston Columbian Centinel, 1 Dec. 1804).

   Edward Livingston (1764–1836), the younger brother of minister Robert R. Livingston, had resigned his positions as federal district attorney and mayor of New York following a scandal involving the embezzlement of funds from the district attorney’s office and had come to New Orleans to rebuild his finances and reputation (Hatcher, Edward Livingston, pp. 4, 93–94, 97, 106–7, 459).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 10 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

10 March 1804, New Orleans. Has been informed by Daniel Clark that he considers himself no longer authorized to expend the sums appropriated for the relief of seamen in New Orleans. Presumes Clark is correct and asks “that this humane duty be re-committed” to Clark or another person. “There cannot any where exist a greater necessity for a provision of the kind alluded to, than in this port. During the Summer months, the health of the inhabitants is ⟨very⟩ insecure, and the Climate proves particularly ⟨unsafe⟩ to Strangers. New-Orleans is already a great Commercial City, and thousands of Seamen and Boatmen from the United States visit it annually. When they fall sick or become disabled, they frequently experience an accumulation of distress, and many have heretofore died for want of the common comforts of a sick bed. There is in this City one Charity Hospital, supported entirely by private bounty, but its funds are too limited to render the institution extensively useful: Until therefore the Government of Louisiana is organized, and adequate territorial provisions are made for unfortunate Strangers, I trust Congress will retain them under their humane protection. I have already observed in this City (among Strangers) much private misfortune; and objects of distress often present themselves at my door.
“Adequate relief, can (at present) alone be afforded them by the General Government, and I pray that the provisions heretofore made, may be continued.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC 2 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 11 Apr. and with the added notation: “Continuation of the relief to Seamen & Boatmen.” Printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 2:23–24.

   For U.S. government guidelines for consular spending for the relief of seamen in foreign ports, see Albert Gallatin to JM, 16 Aug. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:489–90 and nn. 2–4).

   For the charity hospital in New Orleans, see ibid., 2:29 n. 1.


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne and James Wilkinson, 11 March 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.,Wilkinson, James
To: Madison, James

Sir
New Orleans 11. March 1804.
Since our last of the 27. ulto. a Duplicate of which goes under Cover, the Spaniards have sent off a small Part of their Troops; and we have received repeated verbal Assurances from several of their Officers that a final Evacuation by them is fixed for the 20 of the present Month; and appearances seem to indicate the Reality of their Intention.
We have received two Letters from the Commissioner of France of the 2d inst. in one of which he informs us, that he shall leave in this City a Commissioner charged with the commercial Relations of the Republic and with the unfinished Business of the Commission, and in the other he observes, That France had expected us to take her Cannon & military Stores; that being disappointed in that Expectation, and the War which is now raging, preventing their being transported to the Territories of France, he shall reserve a Portion of the public Store Houses & Magazines for the Preservation of the Property of France.
To the former of these Letters we replied that by our Constitution & Laws the Prerogative of accrediting public Agents of every Kind was vested in the President of the United States, and that the proposed Delegate could not be recognized in a public Character here by any other Authority. To the latter we answered by proposing to receive the Cannon & military Stores of France in this City by way of Deposits and to keep them in Safety, ready to be restored, when it might be more convenient to remove them from the Province.
We have this Morning received Replies to our Letters on these Subjects. The Commissioner of France still insists upon the Right of naming a commercial Agent to remain in this City, after his Departure to execute the Business of the Commission which may remain unfinished; he however concludes by mentioning, that he had written to Mr Pichon, Chargé d’Affaires at Washington City & expected that he would obtain an Exequatur from the President of the United States, for the Cit. Blanque whom he has designated to remain in character of commercial Agent here.
He still persists in his Determination to reserve a Portion of the Store Houses and Magazines for the Use of France.
We have not yet made our Protestation grounded on the Nondelivery of that Part of West Florida as far as the River Perdido which was formerly a Part of French Louisiana. We think it best to postpone that Measure to near the close of the Business, lest it might create some Embarrassment. We renew to you the Assurances of our sincere Respect & high Consideration.

William C. C. Claiborne
Ja Wilkinson

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne and Wilkinson; docketed by Wagner as received 11 Apr. and with the added notation: “evacuation by the Spaniards. / Agent of Commerce to be left by Mr. Laussat / Retains part of the public buildings.” Second RC marked duplicate; docketed by Wagner.

   For Laussat to the commissioners, 2 Mar. 1804, concerning the retention of the storehouses, see Kukla, Guide to the Laussat PapersJon Kukla, ed., A Guide to the Papers of Pierre Clément Laussat, Napoleon’s Prefect for the Colony of Louisiana and of General Claude Perrin Victor at the Historic New Orleans Collection (New Orleans, 1993)., pp. 137–38. The letter regarding the commercial agent has not been found.

   For Laussat’s 10 Mar. 1804 letter reporting his nomination of Jean Paul Blanque as commercial agent and outlining the duties of the position, see ibid., p. 140.

   For Laussat’s 10 Mar. letter about the transfer of property, see ibid., p. 141.


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 11 March 1804
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

Sir
Newyork Mar 11. 1804
As my mission abroad had no other connexion with the money department of our Govt. than wht. arose from the payment and receipt of my annual appointments, I made it a point carefully not to have the custody, or to become accountable for any money belonging to the public. Hence I have concluded that I have no accounts to settle with the treasury. But as however this department keeps the accts. in such manner as it may deem expedient I am not sure that it may not have accounts with my name—on this subject I took the Liberty to speak to the Secy. of the treasury when he was in this quarter during the last summer, and he was so obliging as to say that he wd. look into the question on his return to Washington—from the variety of his Engagements I apprehend the subject has escaped his recollection and I am therefore under necessity of begging you to inform yourself and me, whether there is any unclosed account with me, either in your department or that of the Treasury. With sentiments &c
signed   Rufus King

   FC (NHi: Rufus King Papers).


Title: From James Madison to Albert Gallatin, 11 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Gallatin, Albert

11 March 1804, Department of State. Asks that a warrant for $200 “be issued in favor of Peleg Wadsworth … to satisfy a Bill for that sum drawn by Mrs. Rebecca Arundel, mother of Richard OBrien…, to be paid out of the fund applicable to the salaries of the Consuls of the U. States with the Barbary Powers, and to be charged to Richard OBrien.”

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


Title: To James Madison from William Sharpe, 11 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Sharpe, William
To: Madison, James

11 March 1804. “By my information it is learned that a Treaty or Treatyies is to take place between the United States and sundry Nations of Indians on the Western waters. If the president of the United States through the medium of you my good Sir, would think proper to appoint me one of the Commissioners for that porpose, I flatter myself that it would not reflect the least discredit to the government which I love and admire.”

   RC (DLC). 1 p.; docketed by JM.

   William Sharpe (1742–1818) was a member of the Revolutionary committees and congresses of North Carolina and represented the state in the Continental Congress from 1779 to 1781. He had been a member of the committee that negotiated the Treaty of Long Island of Holston with the Cherokee in 1777 (Powell, Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, 5:321–22).


Title: To James Madison from John Francis Brenan, 11 March 1804
From: Brenan, John Francis
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 11 March 1804. Acknowledged in Daniel Brent to Brenan, 16 Mar. 1804 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14), as a request for a passport.


Title: From James Madison to William C. C. Claiborne, 12 March 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Claiborne, William C. C.

Sir.
Department of State, March 12th. 1804.
Your letter of the 31st. of January has come to hand. The information it conveyed respecting the importation of Negroes was communicated to Congress together with the letter it enclosed from Mr. Leonard. The doubts which have arisen respecting the Ship from St. Domingo have relation, as far as yet appears, to two points—1st. whether the passengers ought to be permitted to come up to New Orleans; and 2ndly. whether they ought not to be required to depart? The first ought to be regarded in relation only to the safety of the City from maladies which might be the consequence of their too ready admission, and to the political security of the place as it might be affected by the presence of such a body of Strangers under such circumstances. With this view therefore of the first point, it is not to be doubted that in the decision you adopt, prudence will sufficiently guard the public interests which turn upon it, at the same time that every indulgence which humanity and courtesy require is extended to them, as far as those interests permit. On the second point, were it not for the turn your correspondence appears to have taken, with respect to the duties which the neutrality of the United States impose it would have been agreeable to await the communication of the documents you intend to transmit: but as you appear to have conceived those duties as requiring a rigor not warranted by the law of Nations, it is proper to communicate without delay the principles which ought to govern on the occasion.
The passage in Vattel, to which you refer, contains an ingredient not known to prevail in the case of this Vessel, Viz, that the Neutral Territory is not only used as a place of refuge from the enemy, but that a second attack is meditated from it. If this last circumstance does not characterize the case in question, the passengers who are willing to retire in the Vessel in which they came, or in any other not armed or equipped in an American port, are not to be prevented, or if the[y] chuse to disperse or settle in the Country they may be permitted to do so, as far as may consist with our own interior policy & safety, the laws of Neutrality not forbidding such an indulgence.
Permit me to refer you to the Act of Congress of the 5th. of June 1794. for the general provisions deemed proper by the Legislature to guard the neutrality of the United States. I am &c.
James Madison

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13).

   Jefferson sent Claiborne’s letter with its enclosure to Congress on 8 Mar. 1804, commenting that he did not believe he had the power to interpose (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 1123).

   For the act dealing with the outfitting of privateers and military expeditions within U.S. jurisdiction, see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 1:381–84.


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 12 March 1804
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Paris 12h. March 1804
I received from Mr. Paterson your favor of 28th Octr yesterday. I had previously been honoured by one from the president on the same subject. On hearing of Jerome Bonapartes marriage I broke the business to some of the ministers & to Mr. Joseph Bonaparte. They all agreed in sentiment with each other, & believed that the first Consul would be very much irritated & extreamly hurt, tho they promissed to soften the matter as much as possible. It was the general sentiment here that the mariage would be annulled as Contrary to the laws of france the husband being a minor. You may be assured that I used every argument in my power to prevent what I considered & represented as cruel & unjust & so dishonourable to Jerome as to render it impossible that he should submit to it. You will not however wonder at the irritation of the Consul who holds the first rank in Europe & must naturally wish to connect his family with the first grades in society. Madame le Clerc has married one of the richest princes in Italy & no doubt a more distinguished match was designed for Jerome. Matters have however taken as I hope a turn that will I think be satisfactory to the lady & her connections.

Two days agone Joseph Bonaparte called upon me & entered upon the subject of the mariage. He told me that his brother was extreamly irritated & that he had determined that Jerome should remain in America. That he (Joseph) came to consult me about his establishment.
I hinted at a plan I had digested fo[r] connecting this establishment with the purchase of East Florida which I hoped to obtain thro this channel. He told me it was his brothers intention that Jerome should only be placed upon the footing of an American citizen & he inquired into the details of the necessary expence of living genteely among us. I told him that he must set out wh giving him a good town & country house which I estimated at 55000$ that he must have an income of not less 15000$ a year. He asked me whether he could purchase this revenue in Landed property that would bring five per Cent I told him that it would be difficult to procure a landed estate producing a regular revenue to this amount & if he could it would not yield more than 3 pr Ct. that we were content with this because we recd a much greater interest in the rise of our Lands. I advised him to place his capital in the new stock as soon as it should arrive at least to the amount of 10000$ pr annum & to vest if it could be found the remainder in Land as an increasing estate. It is unnecessary to trouble you with the details of a long conversation the result of which was to recommend to his brother to make the purchase I advised, & to vest the money in our stocks. He asked me among other things whether it would be more agreeable to us that Jerome should remain in America or return to Europe. I told him that we had no choice on the subject, that if he remained in the United States we should consider him as a pledge of the first consuls friendship, & if he returned to Europe we should hope to find him upon every occasion our advocate at Court. But I expressed to him my doubts whether Jerome could live happily in America & advised him to procure his recall & to make his peace. He said that this was also his sentiment but that it was by no means adviseable at present to make the attempt that if he returned the consequences would be such as would be very disagreeable to him & peculiarly so to the young lady & her connections. I hinted at an enlargement of his allowance thro’ the means I had mentioned for this he referred me to Mr Tallerand who he said would spea[k] to me of it but upon looking at our instructions as to the price of Ea[s]t Florida I find they confine us to so small an amount as to render [it] [im]possible to make the purchase under them & as I know nothing so pressing as to justify my exceeding my instructions or steping out of my line this bussiness being now in other hands, I shall say nothing on the subject but content myself with aiding as I have done such negotiations as you may set on foot at Madrid.
Mr. Paterson gave me with your letter one for the first Consul, from Mr. Jerome, & one from Genl Smith to me I sent this morning to ask an audience of Joseph Bonaparte with a view to renew the subject & to give him the letter for the first Consul as well as to state such facts as you & Genl Smith have furnished me with, but he was gone into the country & as the gent that takes charge of this goes immediatly I can add nothing on the subject I shall write to genl Smith in a few days when I hope the bussiness will be reduced to some certain form in the meantime I pray you to present my comp⟨s.⟩ to him & assure him that I shall neglect nothing that may tend to the satisfaction of the parties or their american connections. You will be pleased also to communicate to him in confidence the contents of this letter.
You will find by the papers that the plot I mentioned to you has develloped itself very seriously. Pichegrue two sons of the duke de Polignac Georges La Riviere & about 30 others have been arrested in Paris, some of them avow assassination to have been their object & no doubt is entertained here of the agency of England in this black bussiness. Mr. Marbois informed me this morning that Demourrier & one of the princes of the blood were upon the frontiers waiting the event, which has been publickly spoken of as what was to happen in London for some time past. The state of our commerce overwhelms me with bussiness since almost every ship requires a particular & special application one half of them acting in direct violation of the laws of France & many being stopped on frivolous pretences. I hope my dear Sir that before this reaches you, the president may have named me a successor. It is high time for me to return & I know nothing of sufficient consequence to detain me here. I broke off here to call upon the minister before I closed this that I might hear if he had any instructions on the subject. I found he had none & when I mentioned what had passed between Joseph Bonaparte & me, he said the consul had taken no part in it. This however I somewhat doubt but shall know with certainty tomorrow. He asked me if we could not make provission for him out of Louisiana? This I discouraged, tho I think it would not be bad policy. I have the honor to be dear Sir with sentiments of the highest essteem & regard Your Most Obt hum: Servt
Robt R Livingston

   RC, two copies (DLC); draft (NHi: Livingston Papers). Second RC marked duplicate and private; docketed by Brent as received 30 July. Draft marked private. Italicized words and letters are those encoded by Livingston and decoded here by the editors or supplied within square brackets from the draft (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:304–5 n.). First RC decoded interlinearly by JM. Second RC partially decoded interlinearly by Brent.

   Ibid., 5:586–87.

   For Jefferson to Livingston, 4 Nov. 1803, announcing the impending marriage of Elizabeth Patterson and Jerome Bonaparte, see Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 8:277.

   Pauline Bonaparte Leclerc married Prince Camillo Borghese on 31 Aug. 1803 (Tulard, Dictionnaire NapoléonJean Tulard et al., Dictionnaire Napoléon (Paris, 1987)., p. 1314).

   Second RC and draft describe the conversation as lasting two hours.

   Miscoded “bad lu possible”; interlinear decoding has “barely possible.”

   Smith’s letter to Livingston has not been found.

   Second RC has “I shall write to Genl Smith & shall refer him to you for information as I shall not have time to enlarge.” Second RC and draft omit the remainder of this paragraph.

   Second RC and draft omit the preceding sentence. Rumors that Gen. Charles-François Dumouriez, who had defected to Austria in 1793, was lurking on the borders of France were supposedly due to the presence in the duc d’Enghien’s retinue at Baden of the marquis de Thumery, whose name, as pronounced by the Germans, sounded like Dumouriez’s (Louis-Adolphe Thiers, History of the Consulate and the Empire of France under Napoleon, trans. D. Forbes Campbell [20 vols.; London, 1845–62], 4:309–10; Scott and Rothaus, Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1:331, 333).

   Second RC and draft omit the remainder of this sentence.

   Second RC has “you will have appointed.”

   Second RC and draft end here.


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 12 March 1804
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

private
Dear Sir
London March 12. 1804.
I have recd. yr. communications by Mr. Baring, & shall write you in reply by Mr. Smith who sails the day after tomorrow (son of Genl. Smith) to New York. I shall avail myself of the same opportunity to write the President an acknowledgment of his. The object of this is to make known to you the bearer, a Mr. Herries, who visits our country with a view to make an establishment in the western or more southern part of it. His Lady is sister to Mrs. Skipwith, to wh. circumstance it is owing that I am acquainted with him: Personally however it is slight, tho’ his connections are good, & what I am told, is quite favorable to the entegrity of his character & views. He is brother of Sr. Robt. Herries who commands a regt. of volunteer horse here, a thing of no weight but wh. I mention that you may know who he is. I wish you to treat him with some degree of civility. I do not wish him to be presented to the President because so totally perverted are the understandings of men, by a false prejudice, in this region that the facility with which subalterns from it, are recd. by those in the highest stations among us, does harm instead of good here. I do not suppose that it wod. produce such effect in this case, but having occasion to give this gentn. a letter to you, I have taken it, to give you this hint. I am dear Sir yr. friend & servt
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers).

   This was probably John Spear Smith.

   William Herries (Herrissé) had been a banker in Brussels and was married to Theresa Josephine van den Clooster, sister of Fulwar Skipwith’s wife, Evelina Louisa Barlié van den Clooster Skipwith. He later moved to West Florida, where he managed property he and Skipwith owned (Walter Prichard, “Selecting a Governor for the Territory of Orleans,” La. Historical Quarterly 31 [1948]: 303–5; Cox, The Parisian American, p. 155).


Title: From James Madison to Levi Lincoln, 13 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Lincoln, Levi

13 March 1804, Department of State. Asks “whether the accompanying certificates will warrant a change of the name of the grantee of the within patent as required in the enclosed letter?”

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


Title: To James Madison from John J. Murray, 13 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Murray, John J.
To: Madison, James

13 March 1804, Glasgow. Avails himself of a direct opportunity from Greenock to Philadelphia to send a copy of his 15 Feb. 1804 dispatch, along with his 31 Jan. letter to Monroe and Monroe’s 9 Feb. reply. “A little before I wrote to our minister—Mr Campbell, one of the owners of the Mary Ann, called at my office & said that he had understood that some information had been lodged with the government of the United States ag⟨ainst⟩ him, & his right of owning American Vessels, on account of his being a magistrate &c.… I instantly told him that he was not entitled to ⟨the⟩ rights of Citizenship, because he was a British subject—and, that in my opinion his Ship was liable to seizure. He candidly acknowledged that he was always of opinion that he could not (by any act of his whatsoever) do away his allegiance to his native Country &, that he considered himself a British subject immediately as he returned home to it from America yet, he insisted that by the Law of 1792 … he was fully entitled to own American Ships.” Murray refused to return the Mary Ann’s papers without Monroe’s orders. Campbell promised to return on 10 Feb., when the Mary Ann was to sail for Charleston. “If they were not then delivered up, he would adopt such measures as he might deem proper on the occasion.” Monroe’s answer not arriving until 14 Feb., Murray came alone to a decision “(formed on the conviction that the property of the Mary Ann was vested in British subjects & therefore forfeited to the United States),” which he gave to Campbell and “Mr. Lamb (who owns a Vessel under similar circumstances with the former)” on 10 Feb. Murray told them “that without our Minister advised the return of their Ships papers or, that they would agree to give … an obligation purporting that their Vessels should return direct to Charleston with all convenient dispatch, & in case that they did not arrive, that they would be accountable for their Value to be paid in any Court in the United States, in which a prosecution against them might be instituted in the event of condemnation,” he would detain their ships. On 12 Feb. Lamb and Campbell returned but refused to meet Murray’s conditions, offering instead to write him “a letter declaring that their Vessels should clear direct for Chaston as soon as possible, & in case of their not being taken there, the danger of Seas &ca excepted, they would forfeit their Value to the United States.” Murray delayed answering, hoping to hear from Monroe, whose letter arrived “a little before Mr Lamb called again to get my final decission.” “Altho I had felt much hurt by the Conduct of the Gentn & Mr. Campbell—and was still sensible that their Vessels were illegally held, and, that I had a discretionary power to act with the papers as I thought best for the Interests of my Country—I nevertheless cheerfully yielded” to Monroe’s advice “& immediately notified Messrs. Campbell & Lamb that their ships papers were ready for delivery.” Here the “disagreeable business” rests. “I sincerely hope if their are good grounds for prosecutions, and I cannot doubt that their are, that they will be instituted in the United States without delay—they would certainly tend to check at least, if not effectually stop, the evil complained of.”
Is “not discouraged from remaining in Scotland on account of what has recently passed & herein alluded to, but to causes of much greater importance.” Is confident of the government’s support when he acts rightly and fears no injury to his “Character from the attacks of such men as are herein refered to.” Awaits JM’s further instructions.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Glasgow, vol. 1). RC 5 pp. For enclosures, see n. 1.

   The enclosures are copies of Murray to Monroe, 31 Jan. 1804 (3 pp.), stating that he has had no answers to his several letters to JM and asking Monroe’s advice about the Mary Ann, and Monroe to Murray, 9 Feb. 1804 (2 pp.), acknowledging Murray’s 31 Jan. letter, stating that the 1792 law would serve as a basis for deciding the question, expressing a belief that the U.S. government would eventually answer Murray’s questions, and advising Murray to let the ships proceed to the U.S. and to inform JM of what had occurred.

   For the 31 Dec. 1792 “Act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels,” see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 1:287–99.

   See Murray to JM, 15 Feb. 1804.


Title: To James Madison from Arthur Fenner, 14 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Fenner, Arthur
To: Madison, James

14 March 1804, Providence. Encloses a copy of the act of the Rhode Island General Assembly ratifying the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution.

   FC (R-Ar). 1 p. A copy of the act is filed in the general records of the U.S. government at the National Archives (DNA: RG 11, U.S. Documents Having Legal Effect, Ratified Amendments).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 15 March 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir
New-Orleans 15th March 1804
Two men of the names of Sutton and May were lately convicted in the Mississippi Territory of piracy and felony, and have since been executed. These men were two of Mason’s party; who committed such frequent outrages on the Mississippi river, and on the Wilderness road. This banditti had become a terror to all persons who navigated the Mississippi river or travelled the Wilderness road, and a reward of four hundred dollars for apprehending them was offered by the Secretary of War, and five hundred dollars by myself, in my character as Governor of the Territory.
Sutton and May were arrested previous to my leaving Natchez, but no part of the reward, has I believe been claimed. The jail in which these felons were confined being very insecure, I directed (with a view to their safe keeping) a guard of Militia on constant duty; their trial was necessarily delayed for som⟨e⟩ months, but they were lately convicted of, and executed for, offences, Committed without the limits of the Territory against the laws of the United States. I therefore think that the expense attending their confinement and trial Should be paid by the United States, and I pray you Sir, to ascertain upon this subject the opinion of the accounting Officers of the Treasury, and to advise me thereof. This expense will indeed be a trifling charge against the United States, but if it should devolve upon the Territory, I fear it will prove embarrasing to her Treasury, against which there are already more claims, than its present resources can meet. Accept assurances of my respect and esteem!
Wm C. C. Claiborne

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner: “expense of confining & trying May & Sutton.”

   John Sutton (or Setton), who apparently was the notorious criminal Wiley “Little” Harpe, and James May were arrested after having delivered the head of Samuel Mason to the authorities. They were tried at Greenville, Mississippi Territory, and hanged on 8 Feb. 1804 (Otto A. Rothert, The Outlaws of Cave-in-Rock [Cleveland, 1924], pp. 157, 255–57, 261). For an earlier reference to Mason’s gang, see Claiborne to JM, 26 July 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:224–25).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 16 March 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir
New-Orleans March 16th. 1804
The meeting of which I advised you in my letter of the 10th inst. has taken place. The assembly was more numerous than I had expected, and was composed principally of respectable merchants of New-Orleans, and farmers in its vicinity; but few Americans were present.
The meeting was held at the house of a private gentleman, and conducted with some decorum. Through the polite attention of a gentleman who attended the assembly at my request, I am enabled to give you the following particulars.
Mr. Boré (the Mayor of the City) presided, and having called to order, he submitted to the meeting propositions to the following effect—”That this assembly take the necessary measures to send on a Commissioner or Commissioners to the Government of the United States to represent the grievances of Louisiana, but especially the desire of the inhabitants for the continuation of the Slave-trade, and their great Solicitude for Speedy relief from their present commercial embarrasments.” The President of the meeting, then requested that any person having other propositions to offer, would Submit them. A Mr. Detryon a Sugar planter, then took from his pocket a paper and read to the assembly his Sentiments. After eulogizing the Government of the United States, and expressing his high opinion of the virtues and talents of the President, he proposed; “that the assembly authorize the Commandants of the different Districts to call the inhabitants thereof together for the purpose of electing deputies to convene in this City with all possible dispatch; (the number of delegates from each District, and from the City was Specified)—those deputies to have authority to elect two of their body as Commissioners to Congress, and also a permanent committee whose duty Should be to give instructions from time to time to the Commissioners, more particularly upon the Subject of the Slave-trade and the present commercial embarrasments; and that the Governor of Louisiana be requested to use his influence in support of these measures.”
Mr. Detryon’s propositions were apparently well received, and the approbation of the company expressed by a very general clapping of hands.
Mr. Tupper (the Adventurer) who had invited the meeting, next rose and observed; “that there seemed but little difference in opinion; he had thought one Commissioner to Congress sufficient, but if two was prefered, he had no objection;” he then expatiated on the burthens and oppressive grievances, under which the people of Louisiana labored; the unfortunate consequences which might attend the suppression of the Slave-trade; and added that Congress was too neglectful of the important interests of Louisiana and uninformed thereof, and that the people Should take Some measures to give the Government information, and concluded an inflamatory and foolish Speech by observing that he Should vote for Detryon’s propositions. It may be proper here to mention that while this Mr. Tupper was Speaking much discontent was manifested; it was asked by some French gentlemen, “Who is this man? Who has authorized him to Speak about our interests? Let us put him down!” But to prevent tumult, he was permitted to proceed without further interruption.
Doctor John Watkins who had attended the meeting, with a view of using his best efforts to give a proper direction to their deliberations next claimed attention, and delivered (in the opinion of Several gentlemen present) a very ingenious, prudent and judicious Speech; The Doctor in his exordium reminded the meeting of his situation and Standing in this Society and declared his interest was so intimately connected with the happiness and welfare of Louisiana, that he was certain, no one could believe that the observations he Should make, proceed’d from other considerations than the public good: He then took a general view of the former and present Situation of the Province; suggested a doubt whether this meeting was not in itself highly improper and Stated the necessity there was for temperance in discussion, prudence in decision; and deprecated the Consequences which might arise from a contrary conduct.
Mr. Detryon’s propositions were much disapproved of by the Doctor he pointed out their disorganizing tendency, enlarged on the impropriety of inviting general meetings of the people, the public agitation which such a measure might produce, and the Scenes of tumult which would arise; he then explained to the meeting Some of the principles of our Government, Shewed the necessity there was for deliberation in the framing of laws, and the permanent good which might flow from measures, not the production of the moment, but of Sound reason, and mature reflection.
Upon the Slave trade, the Doctor observed that it was one on which the Government had full information; that the wishes of the people upon that Subject, had already been conveyed to the Seat of Government, in the Official communications of Governor Claiborne, and that the decision of Congress had no doubt already taken place. If however, the Citizens were desirous of conveying their Sentiments to Congress upon Subjects interesting to the Province they had this right and all he wanted was that the mode of doing so Should be prudent and the manner respectful. The Doctor proposed, “that a Committee of three Should be appointed to draft a memorial to Congress, to be reported to their next meeting and that after being signed by such gentlemen, as should approve its contents, it be transmitted to the Governor, with a request that he would forward the Same to the General Government[”] When the Doctor had finished the President of the meeting observed “that this was a French Assembly and although from respect for the last speaker, he had not prevented him from delivering his Sentiments in English, yet he trusted the example would not be followed but knowing the gentleman to be perfectly master of the French, he desired him to Speak in that language;” to which request the Doctor acceded, and again rising delivered in French; nearly the same Sentiments which he had previously done in English.
Doctor Watkins’s Speech was well received and had a great effect; Mr. Detryon’s motion, which had excited Such general plaudits was rejected, not a Single person rising in its favor, and Doctor Watkins’s motion carried unanimously. The Doctor, a Mr. Merieult and Mr. Petit (two respectable merchants) were appointed the Committee to draft the memorial, and then the meeting broke up without fixing upon another day for their assembling; the probability therefore is, that the Committee will not frame the memorial, or if they do, that the body which appointed them will not again be called together to receive it.
I am well pleased with the issue of this meeting; the prime mover of this business is a troublesome man, and if he had talents would be dangerous; his object was to be appointed the Commissioner to Congress, and to gratify his ambition, he cared not how much commotion was excited in this present tranquil District; I understand that this Mr. Tupper is known to the northward as a Swindler, and that a Mr. Moreton a merchant of Boston has suffered much by his fraudulent conduct; Tupper passes here for a man of fortune, and being very much of a Parisien in his manners and politic’s, has acquired some influence among the uninformed of the French Society: I hope however that his real character will soon be known, and that he will Sink into contempt.
I will again take the liberty to observe that the continuation of the Slave trade for a few years is viewed by the inhabitants as essential to the welfare of this province and no act of Congress would excite more discontent, than an immediate prohibition. My private feelings with respect to this trade it is not necessary to express, but it seems to me to be my duty to convey to the President, the wishes and Sentiments of the inhabitants upon subjects of general interest.
The Commercial embarrasments of which the merchants complain, I trust will speedily be removed; and I was pleased to find in the proceedings of Congress, that provision was likely to be made for admitting citizens of Louisiana, to obtain Registers for their vessels. This privilege was expected and will be highly gratifying.
I believe also, that the Citizens of Louisiana would be well pleased in having some voice in their local Government; perhaps the mode proposed in the Senate of choosing forty four Delegates twenty four of whom shall be selected by the Governor as one branch of the Legislature might be pleasing, and if this branch had the power of electing a Delegate to Congress with authority to speak but not vote, it would tend still more to conciliate the confidence of the people in the General Government.
If at the late meeting the general wish had been expressed in a memorial, I am sure, Congress would have been solicited to give the people some voice in their local Government and a Delegate to Congress; to ascertain the general sentiment of the District on interesting subjects, at any other time than the present, I should not regret the people’s peaceably assembling together; but at this particular period, when the State of things is unsettled, and there are yet so many characters in the province, who propose speedily withdrawing from it, and would take delight in exciting (previous to their departure) tumult and disorder, I am not solicitous for any public meetings.
Perfect good order prevails in this City and the people generally appear to be in a fine humor. The reflecting part of society are much occupied with the Bank; and the young and giddy are engaged in a Charivari, at the expense of the feelings of an Old Widow who has lately married a young man. The Widow, was a Mde. Don André, whose annual income is about forty thousand dollars, and the young men are determined to persecute the married pair with the Charivari, until they agree to give a Splendid fète to the genteel part of society and one thousand dollars to the poor of the City; it is expected that these terms will be acceeded to. Accept assurances of my great respect & sincere Esteem!
William C. C. Claiborne

   RC (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC in a clerk’s hand, except for Claiborne’s complimentary close and signature; docketed by Wagner.

   Jean Noël Destréhan de Tours (1754–1823) was a wealthy planter who was active in early Louisiana territorial politics (Glenn R. Conrad, ed., A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography [2 vols.; New Orleans, 1988], 1:242).

   Jean François (or John Francis) Merieult had imported over 450 African slaves into Louisiana between the signing of the Treaty of San Ildefonso and the transfer of Louisiana to France. He later was named a director of the state bank and a territorial justice (Carter, Territorial Papers, Orleans, 9:172, 368, 599).

   Merchant Pierre Petit was later recommended for appointment to the legislative council of the territory (ibid., 9:158, 277).

   See Claiborne to JM, 9 Mar. 1804, and n. 1.

   For the suggestion that the legislative council of the territory be chosen by the governor from delegates elected by householders, a motion which was defeated in the Senate, see Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 238–39.

   Claiborne referred to the marriage of Louise de la Ronde Almonester, widow of Andrés Almonester y Roxas, and Jean Baptiste Castillon. The bride was seven years older than the groom (Christina Vella, Intimate Enemies: The Two Worlds of the Baroness de Pontalba [Baton Rouge, 1997], p. 101).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 16 March 1804 (Abstract)
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

16 March 1804, New Orleans. “I enclose you a copy of three Ordinances which I have lately passed; one of which contains a Charter for a Bank.
“The establishment of a Bank in this city was much wished for by the inhabitants and I believe will prove of great utility: but I must confess I should not have ventured upon the measure from these considerations alone.” Learned of efforts to make the populace discontented and to convince them that Congress did not attend to their interests “and that Louisiana had gained nothing by the late change.” “I thought … that the best means of speedily allaying public discontent was the passing (on my part) some popular Ordinances.” Sanctioned a bank “from the best of motives.” “The Subscriptions were opened on this day and I am told near one hundred thousand dollars was Subscribed in a few hours.” The bank is “very pleasing to the people.” “I was unwilling to do any thing which would require permanency and thus commit the Government; In granting a charter therefore, I yielded reluctantly to existing circumstances; but I trust the measure will be viewed as perfectly justifiable on the ground of political expediency, and that my conduct in this particular will meet the Presidents approbation.”
Passed the ordinance regarding pilots on the advice of Trist, the port collector, and has “no doubt but this measure, will give additional security to the Commerce of New-Orleans.”
“A Light-house is much wanting at the Balize; it would tend greatly to the safety of vessels, and I understand a very eligible position could be selected. If Congress should make an appropriation for this object, I believe a suitable building might be erected in two or three months.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). RC 3 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, except for Claiborne’s complimentary close and signature; docketed by Wagner: “Light House at the Balize.” Printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 2:41–42. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   The enclosure (1 p.; docketed by Wagner: “Governor Claiborne’s charter of a Bank”) is a clipping from the 16 Mar. 1804 Supplement to the Union, New-Orleans Advertiser and Price Current containing Claiborne’s 12, 13, and 15 Mar. 1804 ordinances chartering the bank and establishing regulations for attorneys and Mississippi River pilots (ordinances printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 2:29–37, where that of 13 Mar. is dated 30 Mar.).