Title: Jay’s Treaty, [6 April] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[6 April 1796]

   On 31 March, the day after Washington had rejected the call for Jay’s instructions and papers, Blount (North Carolina) moved that the president’s message be referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. He wished to allow the House to record on its journals its reasons for seeking Jay’s papers. JM then voted with a majority of 55 to 37 in favor of the motion and did so again on 6 April in a majority of 57 to 26, after opponents had tried to delay the debate. In the Committee of the Whole, Blount proposed two further resolutions to the effect that while the House claimed no treaty-making powers, it did have a right to deliberate and act if the execution of a treaty required legislation; and that the House did not have to state reasons to the president in seeking information from him (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 760, 762, 768–69, 770–72). JM then spoke.

When the message was first proposed to be committed, the proposition had been treated by some gentlemen not only with levity, but with ridicule. He persuaded himself that the subject would appear in a very different light to the committee; and he hoped that it would be discussed on both sides, without either levity, intemperance or illiberality.
If there were any question which could make a serious appeal to the dispassionate judgement, it must be one which respected the meaning of the constitution; and if any constitutional question could, make the appeal with peculiar solemnity, it must be in a case like the present, where two of the constituted authorities interpreted differently the extent of their respective powers.
It was a consolation however, of which every member would be sensible, to reflect on the happy difference of our situation, on such occurrences, from that of governments, in which the constituent members possessed independent and hereditary prerogatives. In such governments, the parties having a personal interest in their public stations, and being not amenable to the national will, disputes concerning the limits of their respective authorities, might be productive of the most fatal consequences. With us, on the contrary, although disputes of that kind are always to be regretted, there were three most precious resources, against the evil tendency of them. In the first place, the responsibility which every department feels to the public will, under the forms of the constitution, may be expected to prevent the excesses incident to conflicts between rival and unresponsible authorities. In the next place, if the difference cannot be adjusted by friendly conference and mutual concession, the sense of the constituent body, brought into the government through the ordinary elective channels, may supply a remedy. And if this resource should fail, there remains in the third and last place, that provident article in the constitution itself, by which an avenue is always open to the sovereignty of the People for explanations or amendments as they might be found indispensable.
If, in the present instance, it was to be particularly regretted, that the existing difference of opinion had arisen; every motive to the regret, was a motive to calmness, to candor, and the most respectful delicacy towards the other constituted authority. On the other hand, the duty which the House of Representatives must feel to themselves and to their constituents, required that they should examine the subject with accuracy, as well as with candor, and decide on it with firmness, as well as with moderation.
In this temper he should proceed to make some observations on the message before the committee, and on the reasons contained in it.
The message related to two points: first, the application made for the papers; secondly the constitutional rights of Congress and of the House of Representatives, on the subject of treaties.
On the first point, he observed that the right of the house to apply for any information they might want, had been admitted by a number in the minority, who had opposed the exercise of the right in this particular case. He thought it clear that the house must have a right, in all cases, to ask for information, which might assist their deliberations on subjects submitted to them by the constitution; being responsible nevertheless for the propriety of the measure. He was as ready to admit, that the executive had a right under a due responsibility also, to withhold information, when of a nature that did not permit a disclosure of it at the time. And if the refusal of the President had been founded simply on a representation, that the state of the business within his department, and the contents of the Papers asked for, required it, although he might have regretted the refusal, he should have been little disposed to criticize it. But the message had contested what appeared to him a clear and important right of the house; and stated reasons for refusing the papers, which, with all the respect he could feel for the executive, he could not regard as satisfactory or proper.
One of the reasons, was, that it did not occur to the executive that the papers could be relative to any purpose under the cognizance, and in the contemplation of the house: The other was, that the purpose for which they were wanted, was not expressed in the resolution of the house.
With respect to the first, it implied that the executive was not only to judge of the proper objects and functions of the executive department; but also of the objects and functions of the house. He was not only to decide how far the executive trust would permit a disclosure of information; but how far the legislative trust could derive advantage from it. It belonged, he said, to each department to judge for itself.
If the executive conceived that in relation to his own department, papers could not be safely communicated, he might on that ground refuse them, because he was the competent though a responsible judge within his own department. If the papers could be communicated, without injury to the objects of his department, he ought not to refuse them as irrelative to the objects of the House of Representatives, because the House was in such cases the only proper judge of its own objects.
The other reason of refusal was, that the use which the house meant to make of the papers, was not expressed in the resolution.

As far as he could recollect, no precedent could be found in the records of the house, or elsewhere, in which the particular object in calling for information was expressed in the call. It was not only contrary to right to require this; but it would often be improper in the house, to express the object. In the particular case of an impeachment referred to in the message it might be evidently improper to state that to be the object of information which might possibly lead to it, because it would involve the preposterous idea of first determining to impeach, and then enquiring whether an impeachment ought to take place. Even the holding out an impeachment as a contemplated or contingent result of the information called for, might be extremely disagreeable in practice, as it might inflict a temporary pain on an individual, whom an investigation of facts might prove to be innocent, and perhaps meritorious.
From this view of the subject he could not forbear wishing that, if the papers were to be refused, other reasons had been assigned for it. He thought the resolutions offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, one of which related to this subject, ought to stand on the Journal along with the message which had been entered there. Both the resolutions were penned with moderation and propriety. They went no farther than to assert the rights of the house; they courted no reply; and it ought not to be supposed they could give any offence.
The second object to which the message related, was the constitutional power of the house on the subject of treaties.
Here again he hoped it might be allowable to wish, that it had not been deemed necessary to take up, in so solemn a manner, a great constitutional question, which was not contained in the resolution presented by the house, which had been incidental only to the discussion of that resolution and which could only have been brought into view through the inauthentic medium of the newspapers. This however, would well account for the misconception which had taken place as to the doctrine maintained by the majority in the late question. It had been understood by the executive, that the house asserted its assent to be necessary to the validity of treaties. This was not the doctrine maintained by them. It was, he believed, fairly laid down in the resolution proposed, which limited the power of the house over treaties, to cases where treaties embraced legislative subjects, submitted by the constitution, to the power of the house.
Mr. M. did not mean to go into the general merits of this question as discussed when the former resolution was before the committee. The message did not require it; having drawn none of its reasoning from the text of the constitution. It had merely affirmed that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested by the constitution in the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. Nothing more was necessary on this point, than to observe that the constitution had, as expressly and exclusively vested in Congress, the power of making laws, as it had vested in the President and Senate the power of making treaties.
He proceeded to review the several topics on which the message relied: First, the intentions of the body which framed the constitution; Secondly, the opinions of the state conventions who adopted it; Thirdly, the peculiar rights and interests of the smaller states; Fourthly, the manner in which the constitution had been understood by the executive and the foreign nations, with which treaties had been formed; Fifthly, the acquiescence and acts of the house on former occasions.
1. When the members on the floor, who were members of the general convention, particularly a member from Georgia and himself, were called on in a former debate, for the sense of that body on the constitutional question, it was a matter of some surprize; which was much increased by the peculiar stress laid on the information expected. He acknowledged his surprise also at seeing the message of the executive appealing to the same proceedings in the general convention, as a clue to the meaning of the constitution.
It had been his purpose during the late debate to make some observations on what had fallen from the gentlemen from Connecticut and Maryland, if the sudden termination of the debate had not cut him off, from the opportunity. He should have reminded them, that this was the ninth year, since the convention executed their trust, and that he had not a single note in this place, to assist his memory. He should have remarked that neither himself nor the other members who had belonged to the federal convention, could be under any particular obligation to rise in answer to a few gentlemen, with information not merely of their own ideas at that period, but of the intention of the whole body: many members of which too had probably never entered into the discussions of the subject. He might have further remarked that there would be the more delicacy in the undertaking, as it appeared that a sense had been put on the constitution by some who were members of the convention, different from that which must have been entertained by others, who had concurred in ratifying the treaty. After taking notice of the doctrine (of Judge Wilson, who was a member of the federal convention, as quoted by Mr. Gallatin) from the Pennsylvania debates; he proceeded to mention that three gentlemen who had been members of the convention were parties to the proceedings in Charleston, S.C. which among other objections to the treaty, represented it as violating the constitution. That the very respectable citizen, who presided at the meeting in Wilmington, whose resolutions made a similar complaint, had also been a distinguished member of the body that formed the constitution. It would have been proper for him also to have recollected what had, on a former occasion, happened to himself during a debate in the house of representatives. When the bill for establishing a national bank was under consideration, he had opposed it as not warranted by the constitution, and incidentally remarked that his impression might be stronger, as he remembered that in the convention, a motion was made and negatived for giving Congress a power to grant charters of incorporation. This slight reference to the convention, he said was animadverted on by several in the course of the debate, and particularly by a gentleman from Massachusetts, who had himself been a member of the convention, and whose remarks were not unworthy the attention of the committee. Here Mr. M. read a paragraph in Mr. Gerry’s speech, from the Gazette of the United States, p. 814, protesting in strong terms, against arguments drawn from that source.
Mr. M. said he did not believe a single instance could be cited in which the sense of the convention had been required or admitted as material, in any constitutional question. In the case of the bank, the committee had seen how a glance at that authority had been treated in this house. When the question on the suability of the states was depending on the supreme court, he asked whether it had ever been understood that the members of the bench who had been members of the convention, were called on for the meaning of the convention on that very important point; although no constitutional question would be presumed more susceptible of elucidation from that source.
He then adverted to that part of the message which contained an extract from the journal of the convention, shewing that a proposition “that no treaty should be binding on the United States, which was not ratified by law,” was explicitly rejected. He allowed this to be much more precise than any evidence drawn from the debates in the convention, or resting on the memory of individuals. But admitting the case to be as stated, of which he had no doubt, altho’ he had no recollection of it; and admitting the record of the convention to be the oracle that ought to decide the true meaning of the constitution, what did this abstract vote amount to? Did it condemn the doctrine of the majority? So far from it, that as he understood their doctrine, they must have voted as the convention did: For they do not contend that no treaty shall be operative without a law to sanction it; on the contrary they admit that some treaties will operate without this sanction; and that it is no further applicable in any case, than where legislative objects are embraced by treaties. The term ratify also deserved some attention, for altho’ of loose signification in general, it had a technical meaning different from the agency claimed by the house on the subject of treaties.
But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in the expounding the constitution. As the instrument came from them, it was nothing more than the draught of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it, by the voice of the people, speaking through the several state conventions. If we were to look therefore, for the meaning of the instrument, beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution. To these also the message had referred, and it would be proper to follow it.
2. The debates of the conventions in three states, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and N. Carolina, had been before introduced into the discussion of this subject, and were he believed the only publications of the sort which contained any lights with respect to it. He would not fatigue the committee with a repetition of the passages then read to them. He would only appeal to the committee to decide whether it did not appear from a candid and collected view of the debates in those conventions, and particularly in that of Virginia that the treaty making power was a limited power; and that the powers in our constitution, on this subject, bore an analogy to the powers on the same subject, in the government of G. Britain. He wished as little as any member could, to extend the analogies between the two governments. But it was clear that the constituent parts of two governments might be perfectly heterogenous, and yet the powers be similar. At once to illustrate his meaning, and give a brief reply to some arguments on the other side, which had heretofore been urged with ingenuity and learning, he would mention as an example, the power of pardoning offences. This power was vested in the President. It was a prerogative also of the British king. And in order to ascertain the extent of the compound and technical term “pardon” in our constitution; it would not be irregular to search into the meaning and exercise of the power in Great Britain; yet where is the general analogy between an hereditary sovereign, not accountable for his conduct, and a magistrate, like the President of the United States, elected for four years, with limited powers, and liable to impeachment for the abuse of them.
In referring to the debates of the state conventions as published, he wished not to be understood as putting entire confidence in the accuracy of them. Even those of Virginia which had been probably taken down by the most skilful hand, (whose merit he wished by no means to disparage) contained internal evidences in abundance of chasms, and misconceptions of what was said.
The amendments proposed by the several conventions, were better authority and would be found on a general view to favour the sense of the constitution which had prevailed in this house. But even here it would not be reasonable to expect a perfect precision and system in all their votes and proceedings. The agitations of the public mind on that occasion, with the hurry and compromise which generally prevailed in settling the amendments to be proposed, would at once explain and apologize for the several apparent inconsistencies which might be discovered. He would not undertake to say that the particular amendment referred to in the message by which two states required that “no commercial treaty should be ratified without the consent of two thirds of the whole number of Senators; and that no territorial rights &c. should be ceded without the consent of three fourths of the members of both houses” was digested with an accurate attention to the whole subject. On the other hand it was no proof that those particular conventions in annexing these guards to the treaty power understood it as different from that espoused by the majority of the house. They might consider Congress as having the power contended for over treaties stipulating on Legislative subjects, and still very consistently wish for the amendment they proposed. They might not consider the territorial rights and other objects for which they required the concurrence of three fourths of the members of both houses, as coming within any of the enumerated powers of Congress, and therefore as not protected by that control over treaties. And although they might be sensible that commercial treaties were under that controul, yet as they would always come before Congress with great weight after they passed through the regular forms and sanctions of the treaty department, it might be deemed of real importance that the authority should be better guarded which was to give that weight to them. He asked whether it might not happen, even in the progress of a treaty through the treaty department, that each succeeding sanction might be given, more on account of preceding sanctions than of any positive approbation? And no one could doubt therefore that a treaty which had received all these sanctions would be controuled with great reluctance by the Legislature; and consequently that it might be desirable to strengthen the barriers against making improper treaties, rather than trust too much to the Legislative controul over carrying them into effect.
But said Mr. M. it will be proper to attend to other amendments proposed by the ratifying conventions, which may throw light on their opinions and intentions on the subject in question. He then read from the Declaration of Rights proposed by Virginia to be prefixed to the constitution, the 7th article as follows.
“That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws by any authority without the consent of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.”
The convention of North Carolina, as he shewed, had laid down the same principle in the same words. And it was to be observed that in both conventions, the article was under the head of a Declaration of Rights, “asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and inalienable rights of the people” according to the language of the Virginia convention; and “asserting and securing from encroachment the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of the people” as expressed by the convention of North Carolina. It must follow, that these two conventions considered it as a fundamental and inviolable and universal principle in free governments, that no power could supercede a law without the consent of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature.
In the Maryland convention also, it was among the amendments proposed, tho’ he believed not decided on, “that no power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, unless derived from the Legislature, ought to be exercised or allowed.”
The convention of North Carolina had further explained themselves on this point, by their 23d amendment proposed to the constitution, in the following words, “That no treaties which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed, or made conformable to such treaty; nor shall any treaty be valid which is contradictory to the constitution of the United States.”
The latter part of the amendment, was an evidence that the amendment was intended to ascertain, rather than to alter the meaning of the constitution; as it could not be supposed to have been the real intention of the constitution that a treaty contrary to it should be valid.
He proceeded to read the following amendments accompanying the ratifications of state conventions.
The N. York convention had proposed,
“That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace without the consent of two thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each house.”
“That no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States without the assent of two thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each house.”
“That the Congress shall not declare war without the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each house.”
The N. Hampshire convention had proposed,
“That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace unless with the consent of three quarters of the members of each branch of Congress.” In the Maryland convention a proposition was made in the same words.
The Virginia convention had proposed,

“That no navigation law, or law regulating commerce shall be passed without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses.”
“That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses.”
“That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war.”
The convention of N. Carolina had proposed the same three amendments in the same words.
On a review of these proceedings may not, said he, the question be fairly asked, whether it ought to be supposed that the several conventions, who shewed so much jealousy with respect to the powers of commerce, of the sword, and of the purse, as to require for the exercise of them, in some cases two thirds, in others three fourths, of both branches of the Legislature, could have understood that by the treaty clauses in the constitution they had given to the President and Senate, without any controul whatever from the House of Representatives, an absolute and unlimited power over all those great objects?
3. It was with great reluctance, he said, that he should touch on the third topic, the alledged interest of the smaller states in the present question. He was the more unwilling to enter into this delicate part of the discussion, as he happened to be from a state which was in one of the extremes in point of size. He should limit himself therefore to two observations. The first was, that if the spirit of amity and mutual concession from which the constitution resulted, was to be consulted on expounding it, that construction ought to be favoured, which would preserve the mutual controul between the Senate and the House of Representatives, rather than that which gave powers to the Senate not controulable by, and paramount over those of the House of Representatives, whilst the House of Representatives could in no instance exercise their powers without the participation and controul of the Senate. The second observation was that whatever jealousy might have unhappily prevailed between the smaller and larger states, as they had most weight in one or other branch of the government, it was a fact, for which he appealed to the journals of the old congress from its birth to its dissolution, and to those of the Congress under the present government, that in no instance would it appear from the yeas and nays, that a question had been decided by a division of the votes according to the size of the States. He considered this truth as worthy of the most pleasing and consoling reflection, and as one that ought to have the most conciliating and happy influence on the temper of all the states.

4. A fourth argument in the message was drawn from the manner by which the treaty power had been understood in both parties in the negociations with foreign powers. “In all the treaties made we have declared and they have believed, &c.” By we, he remarked, was to be understood, the executive alone who had made the declaration, and in no respect, the House of Representatives. It was certainly to be regretted as had often been expressed that different branches of the government should disagree in the construction of their powers; but when this could not be avoided, each branch must judge for itself; and the judgment of the executive could in this case be no more an authority overruling the judgment of the house, than the judgment of the house, could be an authority overruling that of the executive. It was also to be regretted, that any foreign nation should at any time proceed under a misconception of the meaning of our constitution. But no principle was better established in the law of nations, as well as in common reason, than that one nation is not to be the interpreter of the constitution of another. Each nation must adjust the forms and operation of its own government: and all others are bound to understand them accordingly. It had before been remarked, and it would be proper to repeat here, that of all nations Great Britain would be least likely to object to this principle, because the construction given to our government, was particularly exemplified in her own.
5. In the fifth and last place, he had to take notice of the suggestion that every House of Representatives had concurred in the construction of the treaty power, now maintained by the Executive; from which it followed, that the House could not now consistently act under a different construction. On this point it might be sufficient to remark, that this was the first instance in which a foreign treaty had been made, since the establishment of the constitution; and that this was the first time the treaty making power had come under formal and accurate discussion. Precedents therefore, would readily be seen to lose much of their weight. But whether the precedents found in the proceedings preparatory to the Algerine treaty, or in the provisions relative to the Indian treaties, were inconsistent with the right which had been contended for in behalf of the House, he should leave to be decided by the committee. A view of these precedents had been pretty fully presented to them by a gentleman from New York (Mr. Livingston) with all the observations which the subject seemed to require.
On the whole, it appeared that the rights of the House on two great constitutional points, had been denied by a high authority in the message before the committee. This message was entered on the journals of the House. If nothing was entered in opposition thereto; it would be inferred that the reasons in the message had changed the opinion of the House, and that their claims on those great points were relinquished. It was proper therefore that the questions, brought fairly before the committee in the propositions of the gentleman (Mr. Blount) from North Carolina, should be examined and formally decided. If the reasoning of the message should be deemed satisfactory, it would be the duty of this branch of the government to reject the propositions, and thus accede to the doctrines asserted by the Executive: If on the other hand this reasoning should not be satisfactory, it would be equally the duty of the House, in some such firm, but very decent terms, as are proposed, to enter their opinions on record. In either way, the meaning of the constitution would be established, as far as depends on a vote of the House of Representatives.


Title: Naval Armament, [7 April] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[7 April 1796]

   By the law of 27 March 1794 Congress had authorized the president to construct six frigates during difficulties with the Algerine pirates, with the proviso that peace would terminate any proceedings under the law. On 15 March 1796 Washington informed both houses of Congress that although a peace had been concluded with Algiers, he wished the legislature to reconsider the suspension of all naval construction. The Senate, on 23 March, responded with a bill allowing for the completion of three frigates, but the House, as early as 29 January, had received a report calling for only two frigates, with the remainder of the 1794 appropriation to be applied to reducing the national debt. The House considered the Senate bill in a Committee of the Whole on 7 April, with Smith (South Carolina) moving for the completion of six frigates and Bourne (Rhode Island) supporting the Senate bill (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 52, 54, 60, 61, 788, 791, 802, 869–77).

Mr. Madison said he was one of those who set great value upon marine strength, and would not, therefore, object to any prudent and proper means of supporting it. But it did not appear to him when the frigates were originally authorized by law to be built, that they would be sufficient to answer the purpose for which they were said to be intended. This opinion had undergone no change. It had been said that the law of Congress for building the frigates had had considerable influence in obtaining the late peace with Algiers; but, judging from the amount of money paid for it, he must be induced to believe that the pecuniary provision alone, and not the naval one, had brought about that event. At present, the subject seemed to present itself under different circumstances from those in which it was formerly placed. A new object was presented to their consideration. It was now said to be desirable to employ some of those vessels on the coast, as a defence against pirates and privateers, and not send them to a distant sea, to effect an object to which they would be inadequate. Under this consideration, he did not say that it would be improper to agree to the bill, nor did he wish to show a want of means to build such vessels as might be necessary for the security of our coasts. On the other hand, he did not wish to determine that the frigates should all be completed, so as to add unnecessarily to our present expenditures. The farthest he could go at present was, to agree that the three frigates most advanced, should be finished; and that a final decision as to the others should at least be postponed, until they had gone into the subject of the finances.
There was a modification which would be necessary in the bill. He did not think that if the building of the three remaining frigates was left to the discretion of the President, that it would be proper to give him the unlimited discretion proposed by the Senate. He might let the frigates lie over 20 years, and then build them. This was a question proper for legislative decision; or, if they parted with it at all, it should be for a limited period of two or three years. This was a motion, however, which could not be made at present, he only remarked upon it for consideration.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Southcomb, 8 April 1796
From: Southcomb, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Sir.
Fredericksburg April 8th. 1796
About two months Since Mr. Jones of this Town informed me, you would pay Messrs. Philips Cramond, & Co: in Philadelphia, for my benefit, Some Cash on account of two Bonds, I hold of Mr. Munro’s in Paris. I have received a Letter from those Gentlemen dated the 8th. march they mention nothing of it in their Letter. I Should not have taken this Liberty of troubling you; but on my return from Richmond where I have been for Some time, I found Mr. Jones was gone up the Country, and would not return, for 6 weeks or 2 months. I Shall esteem it a particular favour; if you will inform me; if any monies has been paid, or likely Soon to be, and to what amount. I am Sir with due respect your most obedient Humble St.
Thos: Southcomb


Title: Naval Armament, [8 April] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[8 April 1796]

   The House continued the debate from 7 April. The motion to build six frigates was rejected 36 to 55, with JM voting in the majority. Smith (South Carolina) then proposed a subsidy for merchants to construct vessels more easily convertible to privateering in wartime (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 886–87).

Mr. Madison thought there were many strong objections to the present measure. In the first place, he conceived with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it would not be easy to construct vessels so as to make them easily convertible into vessels of war, without sacrificing the œconomy of navigation. A vessel built in such a manner, at the same expense, would not carry the same cargo. The amendment itself seemed to contemplate this, by offering a bounty. A question would arise, whether the bounty given, would be equal to the loss with respect to the construction to the merchant, or whether it would not be a greater expence to government than the advantage which could be derived from the measure would warrant. It would be going into a plan in time of peace that would constantly keep war in view. He objected to the immense discretion proposed to be vested in custom-house officers; it would be a great discretion to be placed any where. A gentleman had mentioned Virginia packet boats as best fitted for war and trade. If so, he said they would recommend themselves. All that remained was to make the advantage evident. The subject was new, and it could hardly be supposed that such a measure could be decided upon immediately. It would be best to lay the proposal on the table.


Title: Indian Intercourse Bill, [9 April] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[9 April 1796]

   In response to problems arising from the 1795 treaty of Greenville and raids by Tennessee settlers on the Cherokee nation in 1791 and 1793, Smith (South Carolina) moved, on 10 December 1795, that the House make further provision to secure the frontiers and to protect Indians from unlawful attack. A bill reported on 25 January 1796 attempted to define in law an Indian boundary, penalized settlers for unlawfully trading with Indians or encroaching on their lands, and authorized the president to appoint agents to reside among the Indians. This bill was discussed, recommitted, and reported back to the House between 2 and 24 February, before debate began again on 8 April over the penalty clause which enacted a forfeiture of any right to preempt Indian land for violation of the law. Several members then questioned whether this clause conflicted with the provision of the Constitution limiting forfeitures to the life of the person attainted (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 131, 266, 286, 288–90, 325, 328, 364, 892–93, 894–99).

Mr. Madison said it was not necessary to investigate the Indian mode of occupancy in opposition to that of civilized society. The natives are understood by the nations of Europe possessing territories on this continent, to have a qualified property only in the land. If they had an unqualified title they could not be prevented from ceding to foreigners their lands lying within the limits of the United States. In that point of view, he thought the doctrine of the gentleman last up particularly objectionable. He thought the clause of the constitution which had been referred to, was worthy of attention. There could be no doubt, when the constitution forbid forfeitures in case of treason, the forfeiture of that property was forbidden, of that kind of property incident to the corruption of blood. They must resort to the technical phrase, and they would find that forfeitures meant real estates. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Crabb) said, that the prohibition of the forfeiture of property, where life was not forfeited, was just, and not against the constitution. This remark was of more weight than any other offered, though he did not admit it to be satisfactory. On examining the bill, he believed both life and property might be forfeited. It was true, there might be a case in which the forfeiture of private property would be greater than real estate; but this was a general rule, and they obtained the benefit of the general rule, and paid the price of the exceptions for it. This law, he said, was against the spirit of the constitution; he would not say that it was against the letter, but it was certainly against the spirit of the constitution; for, if they allowed the forfeiture of real estate in any case besides treason, they might do it for treason also, by calling the crime by another name.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 11 April 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Pha. Apl. 11. 1796.
Since my last the inclosed was recd. from J. B. The sample of rod must wait for a private conveyance.
Yours of the 27th. has been duly recd. You already know that the call for papers was refused, and reasons assigned more extraordinary a great deal than the refusal. This measure of the Ex. produced two propositions asserting the right of the House to judge of the expediency of Treaties stipulating on legislative subjects, & declaring that it was not requisite in a call for papers to express the use to be made of them. It was expected that a long and obstinate discussion would have attended these defensive measures. Under that Idea I entered into a free, but respectful review of the fallacy of the reasons contained in the Message and the day being nearly spent the Come. rose & an adjt. succeeded. The next morning instead of a reply the question was called for & taken without a word of argument on the subject. The two resolutions were carried by 57 agst. 35, & six members, who not foreseeing the early call for the question had not taken their seats, soon appeared & desired to have their names added to the Majority. This was not permitted by the rules of the House; but the case is explained in the Newspapers. Today is fixed for taking up the Treaties. We shall separate the Spanish & other Treaties from the British, & proceed to make for them the necessary provisions. With respect to the latter, it seems at present probable, that it will be hung up on a recital of the vices of the Treaty itself, the want of information, & the perseverance in seizing our Ships & seamen, which ought to have the same influence on our decision whether viewed as consistent with or an infraction of the Treaty. An Embargo on Indian Corn is proposed, but has not been discussed. Nothing very material from Abroad. Bache is publishing the Treaty Debates in nos. for an 80. vol: I inclose the 1st. no. under address to Mr. Carr. Adieu
J. M.


Title: Execution of Treaties, [14 April] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[14 April 1796]

   On 31 March, Washington nominated commissioners for the implementation of articles 5, 6, and 7 of Jay’s treaty, and the Senate confirmed them the next day. Sedgwick (Massachusetts) then moved in a Committee of the Whole on 13 April that the House ought to make provision by law to carry out the treaties concluded with Algiers, Great Britain, Spain, and the Northwest Indians. Republican members objected both to the consolidation of the treaties under a single resolution and to the proposed order for their consideration. Gallatin (Pennsylvania) moved that the treaty with Spain be taken up first, while JM suggested that the Indian treaty come first and the Algerine last. Gallatin’s motion was carried, after which Blount (North Carolina) proposed striking from Sedgwick’s resolution the words relating to the treaties with Algiers and Great Britain. Continuing the debate on 14 April, Dayton (New Jersey) argued that the requirements for the British evacuation of the Northwest posts by 1 June dictated that the House give consideration first to the Jay treaty, while Hillhouse (Connecticut) brought forward three separate resolutions to the effect that it was expedient to pass laws to carry out the treaties with the Northwest Indians, Algiers, and Great Britain (Senate Exec. ProceedingsJournal of the Executive Proceedings of the
          Senate of the United States of America (3 vols.; Washington, 1828)., 1:204–5; Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 940–48, 949–51, 951–55).

Mr. Madison would submit to the gentleman from Connecticut, to whose candour the committee were indebted, whether the question was not decided against a lumping vote on all the treaties, by the singular number, “the treaty,” being inserted instead of the treaties, and therefore, that his resolutions were unnecessary.
He did not understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gallatin) in the same way in which the gentleman from New-Jersey (the speaker) had understood him. He mentioned the interests of his constituents as inducements with himself for proposing and not to the house for deciding, to take up the Spanish treaty. But he would explain to the gentleman of New-Jersey and to the committee, why the Spanish treaty should first be taken up, and not the British. That treaty had excited no opposition, and would probably pass through the house without debate, and a select committee could prepare and bring in a bill for carrying it into effect; whilst the British treaty should be under discussion, but, if they began with a treaty which might occasion a lengthy discussion, nothing would be done with the other treaties before that was gone through; whereas, if they took up the other treaties before the British, little time would be spent before they came to that treaty. If the gentleman from Connecticut concurred with this idea, he could agree to let the question before the committee be taken, and then move his resolutions in the order he proposed.


Title: To James Madison from A. Robertson, 16 April 1796
From: Robertson, A.
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Newyork 16 April 1796.
Altho I have not the honour of being Personaly acquanted with you, I have taken the Liberty to Write you as a Member of our National Assembly and Man of good Sence and Abilites in the important Station you fill as a Reprensitive in Congress Now my Dear Sir Think Seriousely what your about in the Settling the Matter of the Treaty with Britian in which the Peace and Tranquality of this Country at present Depends let not party Sperit lead you into an error have Cherity for you bretheren who cannot See Matters in the Same light you do bear with one another and Study the general good of the Country and not our own privite Intrest and party Sperit to gain this and the other point that will favour our Partey My Dear Sir too much of this party Sperit apears in the Management of our Counterys Goverment and No fear of God in the Hearts of the Most of our Rulers being led by carnal and Selfish Principals which will end in there fall and Disgrace at last for they Nether regard God nor mind the State of there own Soul that they are made for an Eternal State either of Hapieness or Misery let these things have there due wight with you in Makeing Concence of doeing what is your duety at this Critical Junture of Publick afairs considering what an unpleasent fealling you will have in your own mind to have had an Active hand in renting & tearing this great New growing Nation in not Makeing provision for the Treaty and Adopting healing Measures for the Pace of the Country altho you See many things about the Treaty that is not good yet for the Union Pace and Safty of the great Whole look over these its imposible We can See all in the Same light every National Question there must be a giveing up and Makeing an allowance for our Brethren Sentements as We would have them to have for Us in this Manner Meet as brethren and consult the publick Will I Shall conclude with all Due respect Dear Sir Your Most Obedent Sert
A Robertson


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 17 April 1796
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Apr. 17. 1796.
Yours of the 4th. came to hand the day before yesterday. I have turned to the Conventional history, and inclose you an exact copy of what is there on the subject you mentioned. I have also turned to my own papers, & send you some things extracted from them which shew that the recollection of the P. has not been accurate when he supposed his own opinion to have been uniformly that declared in his answer of Mar. 30. The records of the Senate will vouch this. I happened at the same time with your letter to recieve one from Mazzei giving some directions as to his remittances. I have not time to decide and say by this post how Dohrman’s paiment should be remitted according to his desire & existing circumstances, that is to say, whether by bill on Amsterdam to the V. Staphorsts, or by bill on London to himself. I will write to you definitively by next post. We are experiencing a most distressing drought. The ground cannot now be broken with the plough. Our fruit is as yet safe, but the spring is cold & backward. Corn is at 25/ here, but greatly higher in some parts. Wheat 16/ at Richmond at 90. days. Tobo. 40/. My respects to Mrs. Madison. Adieu affectionately.

[Enclosure]
Extract verbatim from last page but one, & the last page.
‘Mr. King suggested that the journals of the Convention should be either destroyed, or deposited in the custody of the President. He thought, if suffered to be made public, a bad use would be made of them by those who would wish to prevent the adoption of the constitution.
Mr. Wilson preferred the 2d expedient. He had at one time liked the first best: but as false suggestions may be propagated, it should not be made impossible to contradict them.
A question was then put on depositing the journals & other papers of the Convention in the hands of the President, on which
N. H. ay. M. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pena. ay. Del. ay. Md. no.
   This negative of Maryland was occasioned by the language of the instructions to the Deputies of that state, which required them to report to the state the proceedings of the Convention.
 Virga. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay Georgia ay.
The President having asked what the convention meant should be done with the Journals &c whether copies were to be allowed to the members if applied for, it was resolved nem: con: “that he retain the Journal & other papers subject to the order of the Congress, if ever formed under the constitution.”
The members then proceeded to sign the instrument.’ &c
‘In Senate Feb. 1. 1791.
The Commee. to whom was referred that part of the speech of the Pr. of the US. at the opening of the session which relates to the commerce of the Mediterranean, & also the letter from the Secy. of state dated 20th. Jan. 1791. with the papers accompanying the same, reported, Whereupon
Resolved that the Senate do advise & consent that the Pr. of the US. take such measures as he may think necessary for the redemption of the citizens of the US. now in captivity at Algiers, provided the expence shall not exceed 40,000 Dols. & also that measures be taken to confirm the treaty now existing between the U. S. & the emperor of Marocco.’

The above is a copy of a resoln. of Senate referred to me by the P. to prepare an answer to, and I find immediately following this among my papers a press copy from an original written fairly in my own hand ready for the P’s signature & to be given in to the Senate the following answer.
‘Gent. of the Senate.
I will proceed to take measures for the ransom of our citizens in captivity at Algiers, in conformity with your resoln. of advice of the 1st. inst. so soon as the monies necessary shall be appropriated by the legislature & shall be in readiness.
The recognition of our treaty with the new Emperor of Marocco requires also previous appropriation & provision. The importance of this last to the liberty & property of our citizens induces me to urge it on your earliest attention.’
Tho’ I have no memm. of the delivery of this to the Senate yet I have not the least doubt it was given in to them & will be found among their records.
I find among my press copies, the following in my hand writing
‘The committee to report that the President does not think that circumstances will justify, in the present instance his entering into absolute engagements for the ransom of our captives in Algiers, nor calling for money from the treasury, nor raising it by loan, without previous authority from both branches of the legislature.’ Apr. 9. 1792.
I do not recollect the occasion of the above paper with certainty. But I think there was a commee. appointed by the Senate to confer with the P. on the subject of the ransom, and to advise what is there declined, and that a member of the commee. advising privately with me as to the report they were to make to the house, I minuted down the above, as the substance of what I concieved to be the proper report after what had passed with the Pr. and gave the original to the member preserving the press copy. I think the member was either mr. Izard or mr. Butler: and have no doubt such a report will be found on the files of the Senate.
On the 8th. of May following, in consequence of Questions proposed by the Pr. to the Senate, they came to a resolution, on which a mission was founded.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 18 April 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Philada. Apl. 18. 1796
My last requested your orders relating to Dohrman’s payment to Me for Mazzei; & I impatiently wait for them.
Resolutions have passed for carrying into effect, the Spanish, Indian & Algerine Treaties. The British is now depending. I inclose the proposition in which the opponents of it, will unite. According to present calculation, this proposition will be carryed by nearly the same majority as prevailed in the vote asserting the Rights of the House on the subject of Treaties. The debate is but just commenced. Those who at first were for a silent question, will probably now spin out time for the purpose of calling in the mercantile interference in behalf. You will see the expedient on foot in this City. The petition of the Merchts. &c will be signed by 7 or 800 as is said. An adverse petition will be signed by 3 or 4 times that number. In N. Y. & Boston it is hoped the counter petitioners will equally preponderate. Baltimore which was at first most opposed to the Treaty is become most generally reconciled to the execution. The hope of endimnification [sic] for past losses, & the fears for their floating speculations, which have been arranged on the idea that the Treaty would go into effect, bear down with that class all attention to the general & permanent good of the Country, and perhaps their own real & comprehe[n]sive interest. The Country also is under an operation for obtaining petitions for the Treaty. The Western Counties, have yielded a number; being dextrously alarmed for the Spanish Treaty as involved in the fate of the British. I expected to have Sent you my observations on the Presidents Message, which the Printer told me shd. certainly be out this morning. He thought Mr. Iredell’s charge & the eccho of the G. Jurey, entitled to priority.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 18 April 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear Sir
Philada. Apl. 18. 1796.
A letter chiefly on private subjects written about 10 days ago will accompany this, which I have postponed to the last moment of the oppy. by Mr. Fulton. This will relate chiefly to the British Treaty & to subjects connected with it. For a general view of the proceedings of Congs I refer to the Newspapers &c. which Mr. Fulton will receive for you, from myself, & other friends. You will find that the British Treaty was after long delay laid before the House. It gave rise to a motion calling for the instructions to the Envoy, his correspondences, and other Documents relating to the Treaty. This unqualified form being objected to, the Motion was varied (by the mover Mr. Livingston) so as to except from the papers called for, such of them as might relate to existing negociations. In order to render the motion perfectly unobjectionable, & the more justifiable to the public in case of a refusal of the papers, I moved to enlarge the exception to all such papers as the P. might deem it inconsistent with the interest of the U. States, at this time to disclose. This accomodating amendment was opposed by the whole Treaty party, who being joined by the warmer men on the other side succeeded in rejecting it. The principal motion was then discussed at full length, and was made to turn in the debates principally on the constitutional power of the House in relation to Treaties. The debates will shew you the ground taken on both sides. They were spun out to a duration of several Weeks. When the question was at length taken, the majority for the call was very decided, not less than twenty. Every eye within & without doors, was then turned to the President. The prevailing belief was that he would send a part if not the whole of the papers applied for. If he thought any part improper to be disclosed, or if he wished to assert his prerogative without coming to a rupture with the House, it was seen to be easy for him to avoid that extremity by that expedient. You will find by his Message in answer that he not only ran into the extreme of an absolute refusal; but assigned reasons worse than the refusal itself. I have no doubt that the advice & even the message itself were contrived in New York where it was seen that if the rising force of the republicans was not crushed it must speedily crush the British party and that the only hope of success lay in forcing an open rupture with the president. It is to be lamented that he so easily lent himself to the stratagem. It was expected that the message would have produced long & animated discussion. In that expectation I entered into a full comment on it, and in support at the same time of the two Resolutions asserting the rights of the House, which you will find in the Newspapers. No reply however was given to me, & the question on the Resolns. was taken without any thing more on the subject. They were carried by about 60 agst. 35. The next step was to go into a committee of the whole on all the Treaties. An attempt to lump them all, or at least the British & Spanish, was made, but readily defeated. The Spanish, Algerine & Indian Treaties were then decided on separately, and bills are ordered for carrying them into effect. The House is now engaged on the British Treaty. This is the third day of its discussion. I refer to the Motion of Mr. McClay for the form in which it is proposed to get rid of the Treaty. If no defections take place the motion will succeed by a majority of about twenty. But vast exertions are on foot without and within doors. You will observe the Memorial proposed by the Mercantile interest of this place. A counter-one it is said will be circulated & will be signed by the greater number. It is probable the example on both sides will be followed in the other large Towns. The Country also is stirred up to join in petitions for carrying the Treaty into effect. The 4 insurgent Counties of this State, have been alarmed by a dextrous combination of the Spanish & British Treaties, into petitions in favor of both. This has been the manoeuvre of Ross the senator. What the result of the whole is to be is among the arcana of time. I trust without being sure that the House will be firm. If so the public mind will rally under their auspices: If not you can appreciate the consequences which will be mischievous but I hope temporary.
April 19. Another day has passed in discussing the British Treaty. The event will probably be procrastinated for the sake of the experiment makg out of doors. I have put off closing this to the last moment, & thence am obliged with the truest cordialities in which my partner joins, to Mrs. M. & yourself to bid you adieu.


Title: To James Madison from Edmund Randolph, 22 April 1796
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Madison, James

My dear friend
Richmond April 22. 1796.
For reasons, which I assigned to you on our interview near Balto, I have not written to you, since your sojournment at Phila. The inclosed notice presents a subject, not influenced by those reasons. It is a branch of the Phila. system, which underwriters, merchants and the devotees of the administration invariably inforce; and unless counteracted, will throw every thing at their feet. The meeting on monday will in great measure be composed of British; and Scotch, who have no freeholds: of those, who are at the beck of the treasury, and of those, who are dependent on them. They will be met in argument; but will be victorious. However, a paper will be drawn up for countersignature, and dispersed. Tell Mr. Clopton, he stands firm. The tories had set up an opponent to him, long before they heard of his vote; and it is not worth his while to expect the smallest shadow of their favor. Yrs. very truly
E. R.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 23 April 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Apl. 23. 1796
I inclose another number of the Debates on the Treaty. The subject is still going on in the House, as well as the press. The majority has melted, by changes and absence, to 8 or 9 votes. Whether these will continue firm is more than I can decide. Every possible exertion is made as usual on the other side. A sort of appeal has been made to the people, with an expectation that the mercantile force would triumph over the popular sentiment. In this city the majority of petitioners has appeared agst. the Mercantile party. We do not know the event of the experiment in N. York. Petitions on both sides are running thro’ the adjoining States of Delaware, & N. Jersey. Among other extraordinary manoeuvres, the Insurance Companies here & in New Y. stopt business, in order to reduce prices & alarm the public. The Banks have been powerfully felt in the progress of the petitions in the Cities for the Treaty. Scarce a mercht. or Trader but what depends on discounts, and at this moment there is a general pinch for money. Under such circumstances, a Bank Director soliciting subscriptions is like a Highwayman with a pistol demanding the purse. We hope the question will be taken tomorrow. But if carried agst. the Treaty, the game will be played over again in other forms. The Senate will either send it down by itself, or coupled with the Spanish Treaty or both. Nothing of importance from Europe. Adieu.
Js. Madison Jr


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 24 April 1796
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Apr. 24. 96.
Yours of the 11th. is recieved, with the letter from Bringhurst. On consideration of all circumstances, I find that the advantages of taking iron from the manufacturer will be more than countervailed by disadvantages. I give up Sharpless therefore. Lownes I must abandon. Above a month ago I wrote to him for an additional ton of rod, merely to furnish a decent occasion to call for nearly that quantity still unfurnished tho paid for so long ago as October last. I find it is not furnished because it was paid for before hand. I therefore conclude to open dealings with mr. Howel, to whom I have written the inclosed letter, which I have left open for your perusal, merely that understanding the ground of my application, you may have the goodness to call on him, and just make us as it were acquainted in the offset, which will start us with that degree of good understanding that might otherwise require a course of time & dealing to establish. This single office performed, I will give you no further trouble with the business.
With respect to Mazzei’s money, I think it safest on the whole to remit it to the Van Staphorsts & Hubbard of Amsterdam, with whom Mazzei is on the best & most confidential terms. I will therefore ask the favor of you to invest it in bills on Amsterdam; not in London bills, as in a former remittance of bills on London payable to the V. S. & H. the drawee availed himself of mr. Pitt’s law forbidding paiment. I will write to V. S. & H. and also to Mazzei by this or the next post, to inform them of what we do, so that you need only put the bills under cover to V. S. & H. and refer them to the explanations they will recieve from me. Nothing new in politics. We are withering under an unparraleled drought. Adieu affectionately.
P. S. I have written the letters to V. S. & H. & P. M. which I will pray you to have forwarded, for which purpose I inclose them.


Title: To James Madison from Edmund Randolph, 25 April 1796
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Madison, James

My dear friend
Richmond April 25. 1796.
The meeting, which I mentioned to you in my last letter, was this day held at the Capitol. Between 3 & 400 persons were present; a large proportion of whom were British merchants, some of whom pay for the British purchases of horses, their clerks, officers, who hold posts under the President at his will, stockholders—expectants of office—and many without the shadow of a freehold. Notwithstanding this, the numbers on the republican side, tho’ inferior, were inferior in a small degree only; and it is believed on good grounds, that the majority of freeholders were on the side of the house of representatives. Campbell and Marshall were the principal combatants, Arranged, as you know, without being told. Marshall’s argument was inconsistent, and shifting; concluding every third sentence with the horrors of war. Campbell spoke elegantly and forcibly; and threw ridicule and absurdity upon his antagonist with success. Mr. Clopton will receive two papers; one signed by the treaty men, many of whom he will know to have neither interest nor feeling in common with the citizens of Virginia, and to have been transplanted hither from England or Caledonia since the war; interspersed pretty considerably with fugitive tories, who have returned under the amnesty of peace.

The notice, which I sent you the other day, spoke of instructions and a petition; but Marshall, suspecting, that he would be outnumbered by freeholders, and conscious, that none should instruct, except those, who elect, quitted the idea of instructions, and betook himself to a petition, in which, he said, all the inhabitants of Richmond, tho’ not freeholders, might join. Upon which Campbell gave notice, that it would be published, that he (Marshall) declined hazarding the question on the true sense of the country. Very few of the people of the county were present; but ¾ of those, who were present, voted with Campbell. Dr. Foushee was extremely active, and influential. Shew this to J. Nicholas, to whom Wilson, now here, means to write. Yrs. very truly
E. R.


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Jones, 26 April 1796
From: Jones, Joseph
To: Madison, James

Dr. Sr.
Fredg. 26th. Apr: 1796.
Having a few days to spare between the courts of K. & Q. and Williamsburg I have (by way of a short cut) taken Fredg. in the way—on my arrival here I recd. your letters of the 28. & 30th. March with the papers inclosed. I was satisfied the p. meant not to comply with the request of the House by his answer to the Com:tee. I had supposed untill then he wod. not refuse the papers. Altho’ when he has taken his ground he is firm in maintaining it yet I conceived he wod. be very unwilling to hazard a breach with the house of representatives. I fear he receives bad Council or he imagined his popularity too firmly established to be shaken even in a contest with the representatives on constitutional ground. He shod. not have remarked on the discussion in the house or declared his Opinion what was the meaning of the Convention—with equal propriety might you and every other member of the Convention do the same, and be governed in your conduct by the Opinion you then espoused and not by the language of the instrument on a fair construction of its meaning—to avoid this misconduct legislative and Judiciary Have been separated. I find the plan of petg. by the Merchts. is adopted and in progress through the States. If they shall in general breath the sentiments of that of Philadelphia their effort will rather inflame than moderate the passions. I am told there has been a meeting here. You have a difficult and embarrassing business to go through, which I hope will be prosecuted with temper and proper firmness for the credit of our Country as well as the permanent advantage of the people. I must again trouble you with a packet for Monroe. Has pickering and Bache done any thing. Monroe speaks of geting a patent for 2000 acres military land over the Ohio, wch. has been surveyed and that the P. by an Existing law will grant the patent. Wishing your family the blessing of health I am yr. friend & Servt
Jos: Jones
I set out this afternoon for the Bowling green to take the stage in the morning for Wms.burg.


Title: To James Madison from John Langdon, 28 April 1796
From: Langdon, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sr.
Portsmouth. April 28th. 1796
Before this comes to hand you’ll see by the petitions, that will be laid before you; that the Treaty or British party are makeing every exertion to obtain their object; The Cry is war, war, no Insurance to be had, Vessells hauled up, no employment for the people; they modestly declare that the Treaty is a very bad one, and that they dislike it as much as those who oppose it, but our Situation is such that we must take it, they are sorry that the Senate ever agreed to it, but as its’ done there is no help for it. By such Arguments suddenly bro’t forward, and the Influence of all their party upon the Spur of Occasion hurry people into an opinion, that upon Reflection, they must condemn.
I understand the Circular letter from Philad. Signed by Fitsimmons, (who has a thousand a year as Commiss[i]oner) has been received here but I beleive nothing will be Attempted, as a Vast Majority of the people are Opposed to the Treaty—and are lookg up to the House of Representatives, to save us from Distruction. Firmness (my Dear Sr.) in the House, is every thing we have to depend on, and Notwithstandg. all the petitions of Anglo American Mercha[n]ts, old Tories, and Speculators; the great Body of Truely American people, will ever Rejoice and rise up and call you Blessed.
Haveg just got home have not time to write you fully. If any thing further turn’s up will info[r]m you. Mrs. and Miss Langdon Join me in our best Respects to Mrs. Madison and the young Ladies of your House. Beleve me always with the Highest Respect and esteem Dr. Sr. your mot Obt Sert.
John Langdon


Title: To James Madison from William Walker, 28 April 1796
From: Walker, William
To: Madison, James

Sr
Madison County 28th Aprill 1796
Last November Colo. George Hancock on his Way to Congress Cawl’d on Me ad. prevail’d on me to Give up pattans for Abought five thousand Eight hundred Acres of Land Which Was in pardnership Betwen him and my Self Which he Was to Sell But Was Not to take Less then four Shillings per Acre for my part and if he Sold it he Was to Lodg the Money for my part With you; I then Rote to you Informing you of the Matter; But as I have Never heard a Word from you Nor him I have Made free to Wright to you again and Should Be Glad to Be Informd Somthing abought the Business and if he Should Sell any troble you Should Be at in Recveing the Money and Sending it to me or William Lovell of fredericksburgh Will Be thankfully Paid By your Most humle. Servt.
William Walker


Title: From James Madison to John Langdon, 1 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Langdon, John

Dear Sir:
Philadelphia, May 1, 1796.
The question, the result of which you wished me to drop you, though hovering towards a close for some time past, was not actually decided till yesterday. The day before, the Committee of the Whole divided on it, on the form of a simple resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect. The votes were equal—49 & 49. The Chairman, Mr. Muhlenberg, said he did not like the proposition, at least unmodified; and would decide for it, that it might pass into the House, when modifications might be made. The equality of votes was occasioned by the sickness of one member, and a casual absence of another; both of whom were certainly against the proposition. In the House, yesterday, General Dearborne moved as a preamble, “that altho’ the Treaty was objectionable, yet, considering all circumstances, particularly that 18th art.; one to be in force for two years, &c., & confiding in the efficiency of measures that may be taken for producing a discontinuance of spoliation & impression,” Resolved, &c. This is the sum, tho’ not the words of the motion. According to every rational rule of voting, all those who wished if the Treaty should be executed the evil might be mitigated, ought to have voted for the preamble. A number, however, of the most determined opponents of the Treaty took it into their heads to be in the negative, whereby the motion was lost by one vote. The main resolution was then carried by 50 against 48. The consideration which turned the scale on that side seems to have been an unwillingness to oppose a bare majority to a measure presenting itself under all the circumstances of the Treaty. Your own reflections will supply all the comment I could make on the event of this business. Mrs. M. takes the occasion of offering her best regards to Mr. & Mrs. L., to which you will please to add the tribute due from Dr. Sir yrs. respectfully & sincerely,
J. Madison.


Title: From James Madison to James Madison, Sr., 1 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Madison, James, Sr.

Hon’d Sir
Philada. May 1. 96.
Inclosed is a letter from Mr. Chew, with the papers to which it refers. I have not yet recd. the subsequent letter promised. I have thought it best to put every thing he has sent into your hands, that you may be the better able to take the steps which his interest requires. The Letter for Z. Taylor, will go with more safety by private hands from Orange, than thro’ the post office from this place.
The Treaty was yesterday carried by 51 agst. 48. You will see the course of the business in the Newspaper. I begin now to hope for an end to the Session: but hardly expect to be in Orang⟨e⟩ within the present month. I inclose to brother Wm. a continuation of the debates on the Treaty;


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Jones, [ca. 1 May] 1796
From: Jones, Joseph
To: Madison, James

Dr. Sr.
[ca. 1 May 1796]
On my arrival here on the 28th. I recd. your favors of the 18th. & 22d. and last evening that of the 25th. ult. and thank you very kindly for the communications they contain. I wish you may take the question on the app: for the British treaty as soon as you expect, as I am apprehensive the delay will prove dangerous, and greatly diminish the respectable number of the former majority if not reverse the vote. The proceedings of the Phila. Merchts. have been circulated for similar meetings through all the Towns and great exertions are made every where to obtain petitions with numerous signers—they have been much opposed at the meetings in the Towns here and counter petns. circulated for signature. Many yield to the applications on the part of those friendly to the treaty merely from an acquiescence in the act of the Executive rather than hazard the consequences of rejecting the Treaty which they are fearfull and are taught to believe will produce War. It is really wonderfull to hear the observations of some persons, those particularly attached to the president either from having served under, and acted with him in the field, or unwilling or unable to comprehend the purport and tendency of the Treaty follow implicitly the decision of the Executive majestrate from a respect for his former services and established Character. I am really astonished at the sentiments now maintained by the friends of the present administration so contrary to the principles of republicanism and the rights of the people, that had I not lived and been acquainted with the sentiments and opinions that regulated our conduct in the course of the late revolution I could not believe such sentiments had ever existed. I have heard that lately in the County of K. Wm. some persons so Wholely devoted to the influence of a certain person talked of addressing him to persevere in his determination of carrying the treaty into effect and that they and the people of that class wod. support him in it. Such declarations shew (if such were made) to what lengths some creatures of the government are disposed to go. Altho’ there are those heretofore unfriendly to the Treaty who in the present stage of the business are willing to acquiesce in its operation they wod. by no means censure or oppose the conduct of their representatives shod. that Body disapprove the treaty conceiving it not only to be the right of the house to think and act for itself in a contest with another departmt. of the government, but that the representative Body can have no object in contemplation other than the future welfare and happiness of the people. I saw The Bishop the day before yesterday at Mr. Prentis’s at dinner he was well and I presented him your compliments—he went yesterday for Richmond to attend the Convention of the Clergy. I have written a few lines to Pickering to save you the trouble of repeated applications which may probably prove a spur to him. Mr. Prentis begs his respects to be presented to you accept those of Dr Sr. yr. friend & Servt
Jos: Jones


Title: From James Madison to William Thornton, 5 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Thornton, William

Dear Sir
Philada. May 5. 1796
I put a few lines into the hand of Mr. Volney, rather that he may be the bearer of my friendly respects, than that he needs any introduction to you, who are always so much disposed to do justice to merit, & who are already so well acquainted with his. He is on a ramble Southwardly, & will make your nascent metropolis a resting place of his observations for a few days. I hope he will carry from it every favorable impression; as I am sure he will that of your polite & kind attention. With great sincerity, I am Dear Sir your friend & Servant
Js. Madison Jr.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 9 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
May 9. 1796
I have your letter on the subject of Mr. Howell & seen the old gentleman who interests himself in it. I think it probable you will find reason to be satisfied with the change you have made in your merchant. I have not yet been able to procure bills on Amsterdam for Van Staphorst. They can be got I am told, but not with so much ease or choice, as on London. I shall not intermit my attention to that object.
We have had a calm ever since the decision on the Treaty. Petitions however continue to arrive, chiefly in favr. of the Treaty. The N. England States have been ready to rise in mass agst. the H. of Reps. Such have been the exertions & influence of Aristocracy, Anglicism, & mercantilism in that quarter, that Republicanism is perfectly overwhelmed, even in the Town of Boston. I hope it will prove but a transitory calamity; and that the discovery of the delusion, will ultimately work a salutary effect. The people have been every where made to believe that the object of the H. of Reps. in resisting the Treaty was—War; and have thence listened to the summons “to follow where Washington leads.” Nothing late from abroad. We expect to adjourn abt. the 20 or 25 inst: Adieu Yrs. affy
Js. Madison Jr
We has [sic] just had a most plentiful rain after a drought nearly as severe as that with you.


Title: To James Madison from Stephen Moylan, [9 May] 1796
From: Moylan, Stephen
To: Madison, James

[9 May 1796]
… The room now occupied as an office has undergone no alteration [and if] applied to any other purpose it would need repairs.…


Title: Sale of Prizes, [11 May] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[11 May 1796]

   On 7 May, Smith (Maryland) moved that no nation be allowed to sell prizes in United States ports, there being no provision to prevent Great Britain from selling Spanish prizes in the event of an Anglo-Spanish war. Debate began on a bill in a Committee of the Whole on 11 May (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of
          the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 4th Cong., 1st sess., 1329, 1339, 1340–45).

Mr. Madison believed, that if a war were to break out between Great Britain and Spain, we should then be as free to make such a regulation as we are during the war at present; and if so, he did not see the necessity of going into such a measure at present.
He thought there was some weight in the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Swanwick) that if this was an advantage given to Spain, we ought to have something in return; and though she might, from a principle of magnanimity, grant us a similar regulation, it would be more certain to have it secured by treaty. As he did not see the necessity for this measure, he did not like a legislative interference, of any sort under present circumstances. The executive was charged with the application of the laws of nations, and were responsible on that subject; the legislature were to define them. This would induce hesitation at least. He had not thought much on the subject; but he believed there was nothing in the present case, that could require the interference of Congress, in a manner to assume a responsibility belonging to the executive department.


Title: Receipt from Stephen Girard, 11 May 1796 (Abstract)
From: Girard, Stephen
To: Madison, James

11 May 1796. Acknowledges payment of $57.33 for a cask of claret.


Title: To James Madison from Timothy Pickering, 12 May 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Madison, James

Sir,
May 12. 1796.
I have this morning received a letter from Colo. Monroe, covering the account of the sums paid for books &c. for the department of war, amounting to 2570 livres & 6 deniers. I have sent the letter and account to the Secretary of War, on whom is devolved the duty of making payment. The account transmitted with the books was made out in Assignats. That now received gives the rates of depreciation, & the above mentioned sum must be the value in specie. I am very respectfully sir, yr. obt. servt.
T. Pickering


Title: From James Madison to Arthur Breese, 13 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Breese, Arthur

Sir
Philada May 13. 1796
Since I last communicated with you on the subject of the lot of land on the Mohawk, I have disposed of it to Mr. Bailey & Mr. Vanwyk; and have made it a part of the bargain that the lot shall be resurveyed at the joint expence of the parties, in order that the price may be adjusted to the quantity. The estimated quantity (nine hundred acres) was brought into doubt, by finding that the given lines reduced it considerably. Under this impression the resurvey was agreed on. It has since however been found, by consulting the line common to this lot, & the adjoining one belongg. to Col. Floyd, that the error has proceeded from an abridgment of one of the lines, not from a protraction of another. I consider it more probable therefore now, from the liberallty of original surveys, that a more accurate resurvey, will rather increase than diminish the quant[it]y. Whatever the event may be, I have to request the favor of you to represent me in the steps necessary for determining it. Mr. Bailey will be kind eno’ to make any advances which may be requisite on my part, & I shall not forget any of the kinds of obligation which your trouble in the business will lay me under. I will thank you to let me know the result as soon as the survey shall be finished by a line addressed to “James Madison Jr. Orange Court House to the care of J. Blair Esqr Fredg. Virga.[”]


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 14 May 1796
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear Sir
Philada. May 14. 1796
My last with some pamphlets & Newspapers was put into the care of Mr. Fulton, who, I had hoped was half across the Atlantic, when he reappeared here in consequence of shipwreck. I avail myself of his second departure to add a little more to the printed budget, as well as to the narrative in my letter. At the date of it, the British Treaty was in full discussion, and the event hanging in uncertainty. It soon appeared that the majority was not entirely composed of materials firm enough for the crisis. It daily melted down till the day of the question when Mulenberg in the chair of the committee gave very unexpectedly a casting vote in the affirmative observing that he did so with a view to some modification in the House. It is to be remarked that when the vote was taken Patton was ill & Varnum casually not present both of them firm against the treaty. In the House a proposition was made by Mr. Dearbourne reciting as a preamble, “that altho the Treaty was objectionable & injurious, yet considering all circumstances, & particularly that the 18 last articles will be of short duration, and confiding in the efficacy of measures that may be taken for bringing about a discontinuance of spoliations & impressments, Resolvd. &c.” This was lost by a single vote only; seven or eight of the stiffest antitreaty men taking a wrongheaded course. Such a preamble would have been a bitter ingredient tho it would have transferred a few votes. On the main question, there was a majority of three, 51 & 48. for carrying the Treaty into effect. Many of the means by which this majority was brought about will occur to you. But it is to be ascribed principally to an appeal to petitions under the mercantile influence and the alarm of war. A circular letter from the merchants of Philadelphia gave the signal to all other towns. The people were everywhere called on to chuse between peace and war and to side with the treaty if they preferred the former. This stratagem produced in many places a fever & in New England a delirium for the treaty which soon covered the table with petitions. The counter petitions tho powerful from Philadelphia & respectable from some other quarters did not keep pace. Indeed there was not time for distant parts where the treaty was most odious to express their sentiments before the occasion was over. Besides the alarm of war in the smaller states a great excitement was produced in them by the appeal of the president in his message to their particular interest in the powers of the Senate. What the effect of this whole business will be on the public mind cannot yet be traced with certainty. For the moment at least it presses hard on the republican interest it probably would have been better if the great majority existing at one moment had been taken advantage of for a strong preface in the tone of Dearborn and if the treaty party had then carried their object with the consequences on their own heads. The final turn of the majority, ought at least to [have] been sooner prepared for. This was in fact contemplated. But before some were ripe for the arrangement others were rotten. As soon as the subject was finished an explanatory article signed by Bond and Pickering marked with sundry curious features was laid before the Senate and has been ratified. The avowed object is to declare that the Indian treaty which requires a special licence to Traders residing at the Indian Towns, shall not affect the British privileges under the third article. This when made public will justify an important ground of opposition to the treaty. Adet seems to [have] conducted himself with great circumspection throughout the crisis here nor do I know what or whether anything escapes him since the conclusion of it. It will be deeply interesting to know how France will take it all. I hope no rash councils will prevail with her. You can foresee the consequences of such here. Whilst the war lasts England will command most attention because she can do this country most harm. In peace France will command most attention because she can do it most good. This view of the subject, may perhaps be worth your development on fit occasions. Among the bills just passed the H. of Reps. is one prohibiting the sale of prizes in our ports. It did not pass, without doubts & opposition. The real object with most was to protect Spanish & Dutch vessels as much as possible, on the supposition that the British Treaty protected hers in this respect agst. all nations. It is now generally understood that the president will retire. Jefferson is the object on one side Adams apparently on the other. The secondary objects still unsettled. The general result rendered doubtful by the probable complexion of the New York legislature and by a late law of Pensylvania for chusing electors by a general ticket. If the decision should result to the H. of R. it will be safe. I have just recd. your’s of Novr. 8th. Your last was of Jany. 20. The papers will inform you, that Fitzimmons & Innis are the American Commissrs. for the Debts & Pinkney of Maryland & Gore of Massts. for the spoliations. The tediousness of the Cypher obliges me to close in haste. I will write again before I leave this, which I hope will be in about 10 days, there being now a general impatience to adjourn. Our best respects & regards to Mrs. M. & yourself. Adieu. Yrs. affy.
Js. M. Jr
If you can procure a Chimney clock for me, within reasonable limits I will thank you [to] do so, sending it however to Fredericksburg (not to this place) to the care of Js. Blair Esqr. It will be necessary to have it packed to bear the Waggon from Fredg to Orange.


Title: To James Madison from Walter Jones, 15 May 1796
From: Jones, Walter
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir.
May 15th. 1796.
I have to thank you for your favours of the 1st. of May, which I r[e]ceived on the 12th.—the printed observations have obtained all the approbation from me, which their Temper & Matter So justly claim. But, my dear Sir, Temper & argument lose much of their Force, amid the Conflicts of party, exasperated by the Spirit of Faction, and to Such I fear, is the fate of these States, at present, Committed. Surely a preference is due to the Success of popular rather than of executive or prerogative Party, in as much as the disquiet & turbulence of eternal contest, or even the hazards of revolution, are preferable to the tremendous order and Stillness of executive despotism. But hac urget Lupus, hac Canis angit. A Philanthropist must Consider it as a choice of two Evils; and look with insatiate longing, to an order of Things, wherein the prevalent Habits of the Citizens shall be such, as both to meliorate the moral dispositions of the whole, and to withdraw the Temptations, which the powers, Emoluments, & distinctions of Government, now presents to its Functionaries. I know that the order of things here alluded to, is generally dismissed with the Epithets of Visionary, Utopian, impracticable: yet inlightened & Scientific as this age deems itself, its Fitness to make Such a decision is extremely questionable for 1st. The Systems of Ethics (and Politics is a troublesome appendage of Ethics) are as various as their authors, and generally at variance with each other. Ten thousand effects of Institution are daily mistaken, for unavoidable propensities of our nature. 2y. It has been long & wisely observed, that men are born with much more equality of moral & intellectual Capacities, than is generally Supposed or admitted. All are most eminently the Subjects of Habit. Habits are, for far the greatest part, the offspring of Institution. The great Sources of Institution are Education, Theology, Commerce & Government; and Some of the most generally pernicious Institutions are thence derived. The Science respecting these topics is almost in Embryo; if there be extant even a tolerably Complete History & analysis of the human mind & its moral powers it is to me unknown. Under these Circumstances, is it reasonable to look only to the Causes of Evil Habits for their remedies? Is it not highly precipitate & presumptuous, to pronounce, that a moral Condition of human Society, that is natural, possible, and, in the extreme, desirable, shall be for ever unattainable?
It grieves me when I see Virtue & Talents waisting their unavailing Energies, in Stemming public Vice and promoting public happiness, by Such defective, clumsy Instruments, as the checks & modifications of written Forms of public Rule. As well might we hope by Abracadabra, or other words of Incantation, to mend a broken Limb, or heal Corrosions in a vital Organ. It is time we should quit the retrospective Process, of deducing the excellence of our own Institutions from a Comparison with worse that have preceded them. We Should take a Commanding Station at the point, to which our predecessors have conducted us, and rather look forward to what Mankind may do & may be, than backward to what they have done & have been. I am persuaded that a few hundred Individuals, united in Common principles, measures & Efforts for the moral Improvement of our Citizens, in any one of these States, would render more real Service to Social happiness, than all the Kings, Presidents, Senators & legislators that ever existed. In all ages the great Importance of manners in a State has been acknowledged & recommended; but there the matter has rested; because the Instruments for beginning the work, have been Constantly mistaken—the Subject⟨s⟩ of manners are only Individuals, the Interest is individual, and individuals can alone become effective Instruments—to make positive & coercive Institutions the Instruments, is to Constitute a wolf the Sheperd of the Flock.
We Seem So to Confide & triumph in our modern Improvements of elective and representative Government, as to mistake the diminution of an Evil, for a Substitution of positive good—we are apt to overlook the powerful Counterpoise to these Improvements, which the Ingenuity & vigilance of executive Government has at the Same time invented; and which operates more Slowly, but more Surely in atchieving despotism, than the Satellites of a Dionysius or the Legions of a Cesar. It will be readily imagined that I mean a monied Interest, built upon public Debts & Funds, and these upon Taxation. This rivets the alliance between prerogative & Commerce, naturally enough leaning to each other, from a Spirit of monopoly Common to both—let us imagine one of these improved Governments beginning to Act. The Theorists have provided Checks & ballances enough to Satisfy the wishes, even of the vice-president, Mr. adams—the Executive, as it [sic] its nature, begins to arrogate & to acquire all the power it can—the Equipoise is disturbed; the Ligatures of the checks are Strained—the Representatives oppose these pretensions—Contest ensues—the arrival of despotism is procrastinated, but not endangered—this Struggle, in its progress, displays examples of vigour, Capacity and Virtue; in time too of vigour Capacity & vice—characters of the latter Sort, ingender the Venom of Faction, and are as criminally ambitious as the Executive departments—the occasional developement of the bad motives of a factious opposition, bring the whole into disrepute & distrust—the faction perhaps succeeds in disposessing their adversaries, & take the Helm—they practice the very arts they reprobated in their predecessors—representative Confidence is weakened, executive Rule is proportionably fortified. In the meantime what is become of the Soveriegn People? They, poor Souls, were told they had formed a Government—that a due number of checks and balances were provided—they confide in the Magic of these checks & balances—they indulge an Apathy to public Concerns & Information—they persue, with extreme avidity, the objects of Self Interest and Self injoyment, in which are Swallowed up their Benevolence & public Spirit. If they are appealed to, in the contests of Government they have no intellectual Light to guide them—about the Period of Elections, or at the Crisis of Some interesting measure, they may be roused into temporary motion from the Impressions of vicious popular Candidates or of Government-runners, as those Impressions may happen to Strike—if excited to more durable exertions, it will be with Zeal without Knowledge—they are become fit Subjects to add fuel to the Flame of popular Fury, or Force to the Sword of executive ambition; they manifest by their precipitancy & Passion; that they mistake the Dissoluteness of opinion & principle for the manly expressions of rational Liberty, and an Impatience of restraint & order for a magnanimous disdain of oppression.
Reflixions of this Sort frequently occupy my Mind, and nothing would give me more pleasure, than an Interchange of observations from you & Mr. Page, when you are retired from the present busy Scene. I am illy placed for any useful discussion. The Gross of our people are political Paralytics; and most of those who are more capable of Conversation, and with whom I have most intercourse & Intimacy, are So diametrically opposed to me in opinions, that we avoid topics that would produce nothing but unavailing Dispute. Present me most kindly to Mr. Page, Shew him this Letter, and beli[e]ve me Dear Sir yours with Esteem & affection
Walt: Jones

May 17th. This Letter, waiting for the Post, has remained with me, till I have Seen the account of a Memorial from the County of westmorland presented by your Speaker. I have as little reason to respect the Qualifications of our member, or the arts by which he became Such, as any person in existence, but I really detest the mixt motives of arrogance, Spite & littleness of mind, that could Suggest a measure So calculated to degrade & give pain to a man whose Sin was merely political. Knowing as well as I do the manner in which the thing was moved & effected, I confess had I been the representative, I should have been ashamed to present it—but that is not the Case with the member. The Stockjobbers and mercantile people find an alliance with executive Government at present uneligible, but Seem not to reflect how dangerous a Connexion it is. When they have aided its Growth, to a Certain extent, it will infallibly Swallow up its weaker associate. My observations ⟨rela⟩tive Government respect the Function and not the Functionary I think the present man as venerable virtuous and able as any we could have chosen. The Esprit de Corps incident to the office, is too Strong for the officer—it will fashion him generally & very Seldom can the officer fashion it. The distinction & power are personal & Captivating—the Duties too extensive for any Single Capacity—he must too often have Eyes & See not, Ears & hear not, an understanding & not perceive—in a thousand Cases he must depend on others for all this.
WJ.


Title: Act respecting the Mint, [21 May] 1796
From: Madison, James
To:

[21 May 1796]

   The Senate bill respecting the Mint was passed on 20 May and received by the House. It was referred the next day to a committee including JM, Swanwick, and Smith (New Hampshire) (JHRJournal of the House of Representatives of
          the United States (9 vols.; Washington, 1826)., 2:567, 569).

Mr. Madison, from the committee to whom was referred the bill from the senate respecting the mint, reported the bill, with an amendment limiting its duration to two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of congress.