Title: To James Madison from Thomas Newton, 22 June 1802
From: Newton, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dr Sir
Norfolk June. 22. 1802
I Received your favor the wine similar & of the same cargo was shipped & expect with you before it came to hand. The Brasil wine I think superior & price $350 dollars little of such wine is imported; the President has had some of the quality, but most here, give a preferance to the last importation; what is sent, if it gets to hand as shipped, I have no doubt will please; I have some of the Brasil wine in Hds. It will give me pleasure to supply you & friends with what you may want from this place, I have some Citron with the wine ⟨in⟩ boxes of 14 lb. each it comes high, but a box will serve three or four large families & is a scarce Article, if you wish any please to let me know. I am respectfully ⟨Y⟩r. Obt Servt
Thos Newton

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   Letter not found.


Title: To James Madison from Daniel Clark, 22 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Clark, Daniel
To: Madison, James

22 June 1802, New Orleans. Informs JM of the state of affairs in Louisiana “in compliance with your direction, to point out such objects as would require the interference of our Government, with this of Spain, to ascertain our rights, and procure redress, and at the same time to have your instructions to regulate my own conduct.” Notes that JM is already aware of “the disagreable predicament in which I am placed, by the refusal of the Spanish Government, to recognize a Consul for the U. S., in any port in their American dominions, and of the new order from the Governor of Luisiana, to the Vice Consul, to Suspend the exercise of his functions”; feels confident the U.S. will insist on recognition by the court of Spain of an official character to protect U.S. interests. Outlines previous regulations on U.S. trade and mentions the intendant’s plan to close New Orleans to Americans upon promulgation of the definitive treaty with Great Britain, “limiting our Commerce in this quarter, to the Supplying of our own Settlements on the river, & exportation of their produce deposited in New Orleans.” Complains of security deposit requirement and other impediments to trade, including a 3 percent duty on money brought into New Orleans which was ordered on 24 Mar. and has already amounted to $552 as indicated in enclosure no. 1. “On no pretence whatever, can this duty be demanded. It is not warranted by Treaty.… It is an abuse of too great a magnitude to admit of delay, as it may take root & require a violent remedy.… The Paper No. 2, the Protest of a Mr. Cushing, is intended as an official document on the subject.” Has complained to the intendant that if persisted in, the duty “would probably occasion a very serious misunderstanding” between the two countries. “From this you may Judge, Sir! of the necessity of making such representations to the Court of Spain as will put it in mind of its engagements with us.”
Assumes JM knows the situation of the residents on the Tombigbee River, who are denied the right to carry goods by way of Mobile and must instead ship from New Orleans where they are subjected to a duty of 6 percent on importation “& as much more on exportation.” Discusses problem of Spanish right to embargo American shipping on the Mississippi, an example of which is set forth in enclosure no. 3, a statement of Robert Lowry of Baltimore. Suggests that other points the U.S. government should raise with Spain are the passport fee required of all American boatmen and the disposition of the property of Americans who die intestate on the Mississippi. Cites impediments set up to the free movement of slaves in and out of Spanish territory. Observes that trade with Louisiana is open to the nations of Europe; “the exception seems singular in respect to us.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, New Orleans, vol. 1); Tr and Tr of enclosures (DLC: Monroe Papers). RC 18 pp.; docketed by Brent. Printed in “Despatches from the United States Consulate in New Orleans, 1801–1803,” American Historical Review, 32 (1927): 815–22. Tr and Tr of enclosures in the hand of Daniel Brent; docketed by Monroe. A letterpress copy of the Tr is in the Livingston Papers (NHi).

   Enclosure no. 1 (1 p.) is a “Memorandum of Sums of money imported into New Orleans in American Vessels from foreign Ports & in Boats from the Settlements on the River on which a duty of three ⅌ Ct. has been exacted by the Intendant of New Orleans for Liberty to deposit it, from 20th. March to 22 June 1802,” totaling $18,804 for a duty of $552.12.

   Elijah Cushing’s deposition (4 pp.), taken by Clark on 21 June 1802, complained that he had been forced to pay a 3 percent storage duty on money he had deposited, according to custom, in New Orleans before shipping it to Philadelphia, and Clark added his own protest that the “aforesaid illegal and exorbitant exaction” amounted to a violation of article 22 of the Pinckney treaty.

   Robert K. Lowry’s statement, dated 28 Feb. 1802 at Philadelphia (3 pp.), described events in July 1800, when the schooner Volunteer was detained near New Orleans. Lowry and the captain of the ship were treated with “extreme insolence” and threatened with physical harm by Spanish officials and were forced to pay $45 before obtaining leave to clear the Mississippi River. In the Tr, Brent miscopied the signature as “Thomas Lowry.”

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


Title: To James Madison from Tobias Lear, 22 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Madison, James

22 June 1802, Walnut Tree Farm. In compliance with Brent’s request, transmits to JM “copies of my correspondence with General Leclerc concerning Captain Rogers and Captain Davidson, which you will find enclosed under Nos. 1. 2 & 3.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cap Haitien, vol. 4). RC 1 p. The enclosures, numbered by Lear and docketed by Brent, relate to the imprisonment in Saint-Domingue of John Rodgers and William Davidson. Enclosure no. 1 is a copy of Lear to Leclerc, 13 Apr. 1802 (2 pp.), in which Lear appealed to the French general’s “justice and humanity” on behalf of the two Americans. Enclosure no. 2, a copy of Lear to Leclerc, 14 Apr. 1802 (3 pp.), is a more strongly worded complaint on the same subject. Enclosure no. 3 is a copy of Leclerc to Lear, 27 Germinal an X (17 Apr. 1802) (1 p.; in French), which officially informed Lear that Leclerc was unable to recognize him in the capacity of U.S. commercial agent in Saint-Domingue and replied to Lear’s protests about the treatment of the two American captains (see n. 1).

   JM had already seen at least part of this correspondence shortly after Lear’s arrival in Washington on 5 May. On 7 May JM sent Livingston copies of Lear’s 14 Apr. letter to Leclerc (enclosure no. 2) and Leclerc’s reply (enclosure no. 3). JM also copied the paragraph in Leclerc’s letter concerning Rodgers and Davidson and sent it to Pichon and Jefferson (see JM to Livingston, 7 May 1802, and n. 1; JM to Pichon, 6 May 1802, and n. 3; JM to Jefferson, 7 May 1802, and enclosure).

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


Title: From James Madison to Arthur St. Clair, 23 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: St. Clair, Arthur

Sir,
Department of State June 23d. 1802.
The several charges against you as Governor of the North Western Territory with the vindication offered in your several communications ending 17th. June 1802. have been duly considered by the President. Altho’ he is disposed to view with much indulgence the transactions of an officer, who has stood in so many honorable and interest[ing] relations to his country, he has judged it indispensible that his particular disapprobation should be expressed to you, of your conduct in granting to your son an illegal tenure of office; and in accepting yourself illegal fees, an abuse which he expects will be immediately rectified by proper notice to the agents collecting them. He has charged me also to make known to you, that in continuing, since the commencement of the Legislative power under the second grade of Government, to lay out Counties and fix their seats of justice by your sole authority, you have not pursued the construction put by the Executive on the Ordinance constituting the Territorial Government.
From the regret which the President has felt at an occasion for the animadversions now conveyed, you will be sensible how much you will contribute to his satisfaction by such a line of official conduct as may best obviate discontents among the people under your administration, foster their respect for the laws, and coincide with the benevolent policy of the federal Government towards their rights and interests. I have the honor to be &ca.
James Madison.

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


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 23 June 1802
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

Dr. Sir
London June 23 1802
I yesterday recd. by the foreign mail the enclosed letter from Leghorn. As I have no information relative to the extraordinary project of the Consul at Tunis, except what is contained in this Despatch, I can form no very precise notion of the Propriety of the means by wh. Peace is expected to be restored with Tripoli.
Whether the president has in any shape authorised the measures wh. are in view is more than I know; if not, it is to be hoped that some discreet man is the Commander of our naval force in the Mediterranean, as whatever shall be done or attempted will be ascribed to our Govt. Faithfully yr ob. Set
Rufus King
By the Enclosed letter from Leghorn you will perceive that this Despatch was sent open to Degen Purviance & Co. who also put it in that state to me.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10). Docketed by Brent as received 13 Sept.

   Enclosure not found, but it was possibly William Eaton to JM, 18 Mar. 1802, which provided details of the former’s plan to use the brother of the pasha of Tripoli to launch a coup d’etat in that regency. The possibility is enhanced by the fact that Eaton wrote King on the same day and enclosed the letter in his dispatch to JM. Copies of both letters were enclosed in Eaton to JM, 4 Apr. 1802.

   The commercial firm of Degen, Purviance, & Co. was agent of the U.S. Navy in Leghorn, Italy (Robert Smith to James Barron, 31 Aug. 1802, Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 2:260).


Title: From James Madison to Martin Parry, 24 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Parry, Martin

Sir,
Department of State June 24. 1802.
I have received your letter of the 12 Inst. stating the case of your schooner the rising sun which with her cargo was condemned in New Providence for trading  Teneriffe to New Orleans, and in behalf of which an appeal was instituted.
The opinion of Counsel inclosed in your letter concurs with other evidence in discourageing so much an expectation that the principle however wrong, on which the condemnation was founded, will be overuled by the Courts in Great Britain, that I am unwilling to recommend the expence of a further prosecution of the claim in that channel. It is to be apprehended also that the British Government will not easily yield to a call from ours to enterpose redress against a principle to which an attachment has been manifested. This is the course of proceeding however, next to be resorted to; and which requires that you should forward your case with the proper documents and explanations to Mr. King the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to Great Britain who will without question give every useful attention to the subject. I am respectfully &ca.
James Madison.

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

   Letter not found.

   Left blank in letterbook.


Title: From James Madison to Louis-André Pichon, 24 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Pichon, Louis-André

Sir,
Department of State June 24th. 1802.
Captain Davidson, whose case with that of Captain Rodgers, was the subject of a late communication to you, has produced an order from the General then commanding at Cape Francois, by which it appears that besides the severities inflicted on him, he was peremptorily forbidden at any to St. Domingo. He represents also that he has certain interests of much importance to him remaining in that Island which cannot be arranged & secured without his personal attentions.
Without recurring to the transaction in a general view, or discussing any question incident to such a mode of excepting individuals from the benefit of a general regulation, I persuade myself, Sir, that in addition to public considerations, your benevolence will suggest the steps most likely to effect a recall of the order referred to, and a readmission to the footing of other american citizens one whose good character is so well known in his own country, tho’ it has been so much misunderstood elsewhere.
The injurious delay which must attend the measures confidently expected from the justice of the French Government will sufficiently explain this second resort to your interposition. I am &ca
James Madison.

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

   JM’s clerk evidently either omitted several words here or miscopied “entry.”

   Davidson was “interdicted from a personal intercourse with the Island of Hispaniola, and that under a severe penalty, no less than the pain of death,” as he indicated in a memorial addressed to the president, 10 June 1802 (DNA: RG 76, France, International Commission on Claims, box 19). Davidson believed he was a scapegoat for American merchants who had unwisely angered French officials by accusing them of bungling the invasion of Saint-Domingue. Leclerc had imprisoned him, Davidson wrote, because the commander-in-chief believed he had spread rumors of French incompetence in the U.S., “added to which the General by this time had received information that the head of my Ship was the Effigy of Toussaint and (as he told an American in a private conversation since) that he had been informed that the Ship belonged to that Chief and had brought Powder and Arms for his use.”


Title: From James Madison to John Steele, 24 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Steele, John

24 June 1802. “Mr. Madison having perused the letter of Mr. Steele to the Secy. of the Treasury which he was so good as to communicate for that purpose, herewith returns it. Mr. M. gave the President an opportunity of perusing it also, as intimated by Mr. Steele.”

   RC (Nc-Ar: Steele Papers). 1 p. Printed in Wagstaff, Papers of John Steele, 1:283–84.


Title: To James Madison from Levi Lincoln, 25 June 1802
From: Lincoln, Levi
To: Madison, James

Sir
Washing[ton] June 25th 1802
Since I forwarded you the papers respecting the schooner Peggy, Mr Pichon has furnished me with the opinion of the supreme Court, on which, their decree was founded, and which, connects their decision with the treaty. Had I have seen this opinion before, I should [have] given my own, in defference to it, with less confidence, but still differing from it. Our convictions depend on the views, we have of a subject, and the force with which evidence & reasonings impress our minds. The Court give no opinion on the only questions which the record of the cause put in issue, between the parties. Was the Peggy armed? was she taken on the high seas? & was the decree of the circuit Court definitive, or final, in the sense of the treaty, were the questions argued at the Supreme Court. The negative of either of the two first, would in my opinion, have controuled the conclusion, which the court appear to have drawn from the negative of the last, and yet the court seem to infer, that the case was within the provisions of the treaty, merely, from considering the judgement which they reversed, as not being final. This could not be correct, but on the idea that the treaty was designed to embrace captures of all descriptions, & was not confined to those taken under the non intercourse laws. This construction would be injurious to sufferers who had been captured without probable cause, as it would deprive them of their claim of damages; and on the idea, of the circuits judgement’s being final, of the benefit of a writ of Error, which might restore the property, on the reversal of a final judgment. […] Going out of the meaning of the term definitive or final as fixed by its use in the law which gives a writ of error to reverse a final judgmt into the provisions of the treaty, and it appears to me to mean the same. The opinion of the Court says, “the terms used in the treaty seem to apply to the actual condition of the property, and to direct a restoration of that which is still in controversy between the parties. On any other construction the word definitive would be rendered useless and inoperative. Vessels are seldom if ever condemned but by a final sentence. An interlocutory order for sale is not a condemnation. A stipulation then for the restoration of Vessels not yet condemned, would on this construction, comprehend as many cases as a stipulation for the restoration of such as are not yet definitively condemned. Every condemnation is final as to the Court which pronounces it—and no other difference is perceived between a condemnation, and a final condemnation, than that the one terminates definitively the controversy between the parties, and the other leaves that controversy still pending.” It is necessary, to determine the exact force of this reasoning, to know the prize processes, and their incidents, in France as well as in this country. If in that country, there is any previous examination, which condemns, or exempts captured property, to, or from further trial it renders the distinction necessary. The opinion admits a judgment of an inferior court is final, if aquiesced in. But the foregoing construction excludes all proof of an acquiescence, if the right of bringing a writ of error militates with it, & proves it not to be final.
In cases w[h]ere there is no limitation for a writ of error there could be no definitive judgment. The present instance, is limited to five years on the judgt of the cir[c]uit court. But a writ of error, may be brought, on a writ of error, to correct an error, in the proceedings on the first writ of error—of course the judgment is not yet definitive, on legal principles, & on the above construction. If you look beyond that judgment, on which Exon. can, & does issue, & puts individuals into the possession of the property, which is adjudged to them, for a final judgment, it will be difficult to find it. To extend the treaty construction, beyound this, would be confounding all the distinctions which it seemed to make, in reference to us—and its operation, would restore the whole of the property, we had ever taken from France, however it might have been, before the making of the treaty, condemnied [sic], abandoned by its former owners, distributed, & spent. Surely our commissioners would not have stipulated to have given up all we had taken, & to have received but a part, of what had been taken from us, nor would our Government have ratified one so unequal, without the attempt, to amend it. This construction also confounds, & renders nugatory, the distinction made between national ships mentioned in the 3d., & the captured property, which is to be restored, by the 4th Article. The court I think are mistaken, in supposing there is no ground for a distinction on the construction which I contend for between a condemnation & a final condemnation. A libel decided upon in a district court, is liable to be carried to the circuit court, by an appeal, the judgt appealed from is final, in the first court, in reference to interlocutory Judgments—but not, as it respects the process—the same process goes to the circuit Court—no execution can issue—And the judgment which would have been final, had there have been no appeal, is as much suspended thereby, as if a new trial had been granted. Not so with a writ of error to the Supreme Court. There the judgt. is not suspended, & except in the case, of a bond’s being given, within ten days, execution may issue, & the judgt be carried into complete effect. How far a bond, which would suspend the Exon., would bind together the judgt in the circuit Court, and the writ of error, which is, quasi, a new process, so as to make them a continued one, is not now necessary to consider, as it is not our case.
But however this general principle may be determined It can have little, or no effect on the case of the schooner Peggy. The Supreme Court who were competent to decide this principle, have determined it, in her case. It must therefore be considered as binding in this particular instance. Altho, they have fixed the principle, for themselves, & thereby bound others, in reference to the case on which they have adjudicated—It can, I conceive, extend no farther. In all other cases, in which the executive, or other courts, are obliged to act, they must decide for themselves, paying a great defference to the opinions of a court of so high an authority as the supreme one of the United States, but still greater to their own convictions, of the meaning of the laws & constitution of the United States, and their oaths, to support them.
It appears by a certificate of the Clerk, that no bond was given by the Plaintiffs in error, and indeed the distribution of the property, is proof of it, by the circuit court. I have been informed, that Mesrs. Bayard and Griswold appeared in the S Court, and argued the cause, for the Captors, If so, it [illegible] the want of notice to them. Government, I conceive, are now immediately, or in the event, that the owners cannot recover, from the captors the other moiety of the avails of the Schooner Peggy & her cargo, liable for it. In strictness, I beleive with the court, their judgment divest the property, and entitles the owners to recover from them, their distributed shares. How far under the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable, for Government, to make them compensation, you are much more capable of determining, than myself. Accept Sir assurance of the high esteem with which I am most respectfully your most obt Sevt
Levi Lincoln
Be pleased to let Mr Pichon have the copies of the courts opinion after you have done with them.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LOAG). Docketed by Brent.

   Lincoln apparently enclosed with this letter the copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of the U.S. v. Schooner Peggy certified by Supreme Court clerk E. B. Caldwell and marked by him “for Mr. Pichon” (ibid.). Caldwell appended to the six-page opinion a one-page note headed “Answer to the interrogatories of M Pichon Esqr.,” in which he made two points: (1) there did not appear to be any bond filed in his office with the papers on the case of the Peggy; and (2) he received the writ of error—which was dated 2 Oct. 1800—with the record and other papers on 7 Feb. 1801. The opinion of the Supreme Court is printed in Johnson et al., Papers of John Marshall, 6:99–102.

   Two or three words are missing here from the lower right corner of the page, which has been broken or trimmed.

   Article 3 of the Convention of 1800 between France and the U.S. provided for the restoration of “Public Ships, which have been taken on one part, and the other.” Article 4 dealt with the restoration of “property captured, and not yet definitively condemned, or which may be captured before the exchange of ratifications” (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:459).


Title: To James Madison from Sylvanus Bourne, 25 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Bourne, Sylvanus
To: Madison, James

25 June 1802, Amsterdam. Reports that his health is better and he is again performing his official duties. “But the Doctor strongly advises me to try to pass the seas to America before Winter with my family—as in his opinion being the best possible remedy to benefit the state of Mrs Bs mind & to give strength to my nerves. Should I resolve on this measure I shall claim & hope for the indulgence of Govt for a short absence.” His consular duties will be attended to by H. H. Damen, “who had my Official powers when I last visited America.” Will bring “the Gazettes you desired & full answers to your late question⟨s⟩ as to discriminating duties &c.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Amsterdam, vol. 1). 3 pp.; docketed by Brent as received 16 Sept.

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


Title: Agreement with Nicholas Voss, 26 June 1802
From: Voss, Nicholas,Madison, James
To:

Memorandum
June 26. 1802
J. Madison agrees with Mr. Voss to take his house at the rent of 500 drs. per year—on condition of Mr V’s agreeing that J M may have it as long as J. Madison resides in the City of Washington, & may give up the House whenever he ceases to do so. It is further agreed that Mr Voss shall build a Brick Stable for four horses & a carriage before October next, in consideration of which J. M agrees to advance half a years rent in July & the other half on the first day of Ocr. or as soon thereafter as the Stable shall be finished—and as what remains to be done to the dwelling house shall also be finished
Nicholas Voss
James Madison

Mr. Voss has been promised a half yearly advance of the rent and admits that he is to pay all taxes.

   Ms (DLC). In JM’s hand, signed by Voss and JM. Docketed by JM. For JM’s previous arrangement with Voss, see William Thornton to JM, 15 Aug. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:45, 46 n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from James Simpson, 26 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Simpson, James
To: Madison, James

26 June 1802, Gibraltar. No. 43. Transmits a copy of his dispatch no. 42 [17 June 1802]. Is “extremely sorry” to report that he was “compelled by the Governour of Tangier to retire from thence on thursday Evening, in consequence of positive orders from His Imperial Majesty to that effect, received on the evening of the 22d, accompanied with advice of his having declared War against the United States.”
As indicated in his letter of 17 June, Simpson had informed Commodore Morris of the state of affairs, and Morris arrived in the Chesapeake off Tangier Bay on 20 June. On 21 June “I was with him on board, when he acquainted me the reasons prevented his gratifying His Imperial Majestys wishes in regard to sending Wheat to Tripoly; which was extremely distressing, as I saw great cause to dread the consequences. At landing I had another interview with the Governour of Tangier, when I succeeded in obtaining his promise to suspend again the execution of His Majesty’s Orders received on the 16th for my expulsion, untill he could represent to His Majesty, the impossibility he was then satisfied had always existed to my granting the required Passports.” States that his chief aim was to gain time until the Adams arrived, hoping it would “bring such dispositions from Government, as would have enabled me to quiet the Emperours Irritation.” On “Tuesday morning” [23 June] the governor sent a message to the emperor, but the same evening a soldier came with a second order for Simpson’s immediate expulsion “in a state of War.”
“It appears the Emperour declared at his … Public Audience on the 19th. that he was at War with the United States, and directed that the utmost expedition should be used, in fitting out his Cruizers.” Finds it difficult to believe that the emperor would declare war over such a “trivial” object as sending “some Cargoes of Wheat, to be distributed in Charity to the poor at Tripoly” but admits that no demands had been made of him before this or any communications of an “unfriendly nature,” except for the exchange with Pasha Hackmawy in December 1801 described in dispatch no. 35. Thinks it best to wait for the Adams before writing to the emperor so that “I may not fall into the error of giving His Majesty room to hope for more, than I may be authorised by you to do.” Will remain at Gibraltar until the arrival of the Adams and will be “extremely attentive to strive at obtaining the best information of what may happen in Barbary, respecting their sending out armed Boats, which is my chief fear; for it will be some time before either the Frigates at Rhabat, or half Galleys at Tetuan, can be ready for Sea.” Encloses a copy of a circular he sent to consuls in all the main seaports of Europe advising of this “new danger” to American vessels.
Believes the property he left behind in Tangier will be safe, owing to “the very Friendly footing on which I was with the Governour.” Has left his house and garden at Mount Washington in the care of the Spanish consul. “No agreement has been fixed for the House in Tangier, I was in Treaty for, which in the actual situation of Public affairs is fortunate.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 1). RC 4 pp.; marked “Triplicate.” Printed in Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 2:185–87. Enclosure (3 pp.) is a copy of Simpson’s 25 June 1802 circular announcing Morocco’s declaration of war against the U.S., with a list of cities to which Simpson sent copies (printed ibid., 2:183–84). Jefferson communicated an extract of the RC to Congress with his annual message on 15 Dec. 1802 (printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:466).

   Simpson to JM, 8 Jan. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:378–80).

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


Title: From James Madison to John Rodgers, 28 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Rodgers, John

Sir,
Department of State June 28th. 1802.
I have received and laid before the President your narrative dated June 1802; of the outrages committed on you in St. Domingo, under the administration of that Island. The proper use will be made of the facts stated in this document, to support the remonstrances to the French Republic, and to urge the satisfaction due from it to the United States, and which ought equally to flow from its own sense of justice. In the mean time, I am authorized to assure you of the particular sensibility with which the President has received this detail of the injuries and indignities offered to you, and that he takes all the interest in your case which ought to be inspired by that of so respectable and deserving a citizen. I am &ca.
James Madison.

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


Title: To James Madison from Benjamin Grayson Orr, 28 June 1802
From: Orr, Benjamin Grayson
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir!
Monday morng 28. June 1802.
The inclosed letter from Mr Walter Jones is the result of my consultation with him on the subject of the negro Plato. I beg you to consult your own convenience entirely in your determination in this business—except a voluntary surrender of the property to the present Claimant, I am willing to do any thing that you will suggest. With great esteem I am Dr Sir Yr. mo Obedt Servt
Benj G. Orr.

   RC (DLC).

   Letter not found.


Title: From James Madison to Benjamin Grayson Orr, [28 June] 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Orr, Benjamin Grayson

Dr. Sir
[28 June 1802]
I have just received yours of this morning inclosing Mr. Jones’ opinion on the subject of Negro Plato. I am sorry on the negro’s account as well as yours for the claim on him which has emerged. I admit also that having counted on his service for a particular purpose, during a given time, some inconveniency would result from a loss of that service. The course most agreeable to me would certainly be that of an amicable adjustment between you & the other party. If this cannot be done, my wish to avoid becoming a party to a legal controversy suggests the idea of my re-conveying the negro to you at the price given for him, and retaining him for the present on hire. In the event of your successful defence of your title, I can have full confidence in your reselling him to me on like terms.
In answer to Mr. W Jones letter I have written the inclosed, which you will be so good as to seal after perusal, & send to the post office. I presume you will write also to Mr. Jones, without delay.

   Draft (DLC).

   Letter not found.


Title: To James Madison from Louis-André Pichon, 28 June 1802
From: Pichon, Louis-André
To: Madison, James

Monsieur,
Georgetown le 9. messidor an 10.(le 28. Juin 1802.)
Parmi les affaires de prises demeurées pendantes Se trouve celle de la Diane, bâtiment de la République armé et commissionné à la Guadeloupe; Monsieur le Sécrétaire de la Trésorerie a differé de la regler, afin d’éclaireir la nature de quelques réclamations dont cette prise fait l’objet. Les Recherches ont fait connaitre que des Sujets Britanniques, habitans de l’isle de Nevis, ont présenté requête à la cour du district de Pensilvanie à l’effet d’obtenir la restitution du navire qui parait avoir appartenu primitivement aux réclamans: ceux ci appuyent leur demande.
1e. Sur ce que ce Bâtiment, originairement armé en course par eux avec commission de Sa Majesté Britannique, a été enlevé par partie de Son Equipage du port de Nevis, conduit à St. Eustache et de là à la Guadeloupe où il a été commissionné par les agens de la République Française.
2e. Sur ce que rien ne prouve que le bâtiment ait été condamné Judiciarement, Sous l’autorité de la france, avant d’être commissioné par elle.
La Diane a été condamnée par la cour de District le 2 9bre. 1800 (postérieurement au traité): c’est le 9. Xbre. Suivant que l’action Susditte a été intentée et, en ce moment, les demandeurs Sont occupés à recueillir les preuves nécéssaires au Soutien de leur requête.
Tel est l’éxposé que Mr. le Sécrétaire de la Trésorerie à bien voulu me transmettre et dans Sa lettre d’envoi il m’invite à intervenir dans ce procès de concert avec les Etats Unis qui Sont défendeurs, et à réclamer, devant la cour, le bâtiment comme devant être tendu à la République en vertu du traité: c’est Sur cet état de choses que Je prends la liberté, Monsieur, d’appeller vôtre attention.
L’action intentée devant la cour de district, par les propriétaires primitifs de la Diane, a pour but de prouver que ce bâtiment n’était pas légalement Français au moment de Sa capture et Si l’action était admise l’opinion de Mr. Le Sécrétaire de la Trésorerie semble être que les Etats Unis n’auraient rien à restituer à la France.
Vous verrez, Monsieur, au premier coup d’œil que Je ne pourrais intervenir dans un procès dont l’objet est de mettre en doute la propriété de la République Sur la Diane Sans admettre des principes que Je regarde comme dérogatoires au respect que Se doit tout Gouvernement. Je ne puis croire d’après cela que Mr. Le President des Etats Unis fasse dépendre de l’issue de ce procès la restitution à laquelle la République a droit.
Je n’entrerai point, Monsieur, dans le detail des raisonnemens qui viennent à l’appui de ces opinions. Il me Suffit de dire que l’action intentée devant la cour de district me parait être absolument étrangère à la République Française dont les droits Sont constatés par le traité, la commission du Bâtiment et la date de Sa condamnation. Si, comme Je m’en flatte, Monsieur, cette opinion est celle de Mr. le Président des Etats Unis Je vous prie de vouloir bien en obtenir les directions nécéssaires pour lever les obstacles qui S’opposent à la restitution de cette propriété. Agréez, Monsieur, l’assurance de mes Respects et de ma haute consideration.
L. A. Pichon

Condensed Translation
Among the prize cases still undecided is that of the Diane, a French public ship commissioned in Guadeloupe. The secretary of the treasury has declined to decide this case until certain claims, of which this prize is the object, are cleared up. Some British subjects from the island of Nevis have petitioned the district court of Pennsylvania for restitution of the vessel, which appears to have belonged to them originally. They support their claim with the following: (1) that the ship, originally commissioned as a privateer by the king of Great Britain, was taken by a part of its crew to St. Eustatius and then to Guadeloupe, where it was commissioned by agents of the French republic; and (2) that there is no proof that the ship was legally condemned, under French authority, before being commissioned by France. The Diane was condemned in U.S. district court on 2 Nov. 1800 (after the treaty); it was on 9 Dec. 1800 that the aforementioned action was brought. At this moment, the petitioners are occupied in collecting the necessary proofs in support of their petition.
States that this is the explanation given him by the secretary of the treasury, who invited him to intervene in this process in concert with the U.S., which is the defendant, to claim the ship for France by virtue of the treaty. The object of the action brought by the original owners of the Diane is to prove that the ship was not legally French at the moment of its capture. If this is the decision, then the opinion of the secretary of the treasury seems to be that the U.S. would have nothing to restore to France.
Explains that he cannot intervene in a process by which French ownership of the Diane is put in doubt without admitting to principles that he regards as derogatory to the respect owed all governments. He cannot believe that the president would make the restitution, to which France has a right, dependent on the outcome of this proceeding. Observes that he will not enter into the reasoning that supports this opinion but will only say that the action brought before the district court appears to be completely irrelevant to the French republic, whose rights are established by the treaty, the ship’s commission, and the date of condemnation. If this opinion is that of the president, asks JM to obtain the necessary directions to restore this property to France.

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


Title: From James Madison to Albert Gallatin, 28 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Gallatin, Albert

28 June 1802, Department of State. Requests that payment of $250 from the fund for Barbary negotiations be made to Thomas Thompson of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, “to enable him to pay the storage which has accrued upon a parcel of oars that he procured by the request of the late Secretary of State, and which are still on hand.”

   RC (NHi: Gallatin Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). RC 1 p.; in Brent’s hand, signed by JM. Reproduced in Papers of Gallatin (microfilm ed.), reel 7.

   Thompson had requested payment in a letter to JM of 9 June 1802 (not found, but acknowledged in Daniel Brent to Thompson, 2 July 1802 [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14]). Brent instructed Thompson to send his account and vouchers to the Treasury Department for settlement and to deliver the oars to the naval agent in Portsmouth.


Title: From James Madison to Ebenezer Stevens, 28 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Stevens, Ebenezer

28 June 1802, Department of State. “Your letter of the 22d Instant has been duly received. The arrangement which you suggest for settling with Mr. Daniel Cotton, on account of the freight of his vessel, is quite satisfactory, and you will be pleased to take measures for carrying it into effect.”

   RC (NjP: Crane Collection); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). RC 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM.

   Stevens’s letter has not been found, but it was no doubt written in reply to a letter from Daniel Brent, 19 June 1802 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14), stating that Daniel Cotton of New York had asked JM to settle his “claim against Government, for the Charter of a vessel to Tunis” and requesting Stevens to provide “a short statement of the case, containing the material facts.”


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Aborn, 28 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Aborn, Thomas
To: Madison, James

28 June 1802, Providence. Informs JM that he left Cayenne on 9 Apr. “On my arrival at that Port which was on the 5th. Feby 1802 I waited upon the Governor Victor Hugues and acquainted him of my appointment as Vice Commercial Agent of the United States.… The Governor observed to me that he was not authorised to receive an Agent from the United States, as he conceived the American Government had no Right by the late Treaty between France & the United States to send Consuls to the French Islands, he then requested of me a Copy of my Credentials in order to send to France and wait an answer from his Government.… On account of my ill state of health and the unpleasant situation I should have been placed [in] to have remained there unacknowledged by that Government I thought it most prudent to leave the Colony for the present.” Encloses a copy of the law imposing duties on foreign vessels trading to Cayenne. Reports that American vessels are subject to “many impositions” under the present government; the people are dissatisfied, and they “expect when they shall receive from France the new laws for the Colony of Cayenne, the American Trade will be placed under the same regulations as it was previous to the Revolution.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cayenne, vol. 1). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Brent as received 5 July. Enclosure (9 pp.; in French) is a copy of an arrêté issued by Hugues consisting of fourteen articles restricting foreign trade at Cayenne.

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


Title: To James Madison from John Gavino, 28 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Gavino, John
To: Madison, James

28 June 1802, Gibraltar. No. 92. Informs JM that “the faltering hopes given us the 22d: Inst: by Consul Simpson & Communicated to you in mine of 24th. No: 91 [not found] respecting our affairs with Morrocco are Vanishd.” Simpson arrived at Gibraltar 25 June, “fresh orders having reachd Tanger the 24th: Currt: for his quiting the Country immediately. He tells me the Empr: had mentiond in publick that his Cruisers were to be fitted out against the Americans.” Refers JM to Commodore Morris and Simpson, “who no doubt will inform you how he has disposed of the $1000 he called for Account publick Service, which I sent him the 23d: Inst: and drew on you for same the 24th.” Sir James Saumarez in the Caesar arrived 25 June with “part of the Troops from Mahon, which was entirely evacuated the 17th: Ulto.” The governor of Gibraltar, the duke of Kent, “is Encamping some of the Troops belonging to this Garrison.” Lord Keith has gone home. Notes in a postscript that he has written circulars to all U.S. consuls “advising the Empr. of Morroccos final Determination regarding us.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Gibraltar, vol. 2). 2 pp. Printed in Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 2:189.

   See Richard V. Morris to Robert Smith, 26 June 1802 (printed ibid., 2:185), and Simpson to JM, 26 June 1802.

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


Title: To James Madison from Anthony Haswell, 28 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Haswell, Anthony
To: Madison, James

28 June 1802, Bennington. Has published the laws of the last session of Congress, according to JM’s order, as well as “a resolution relative to Capt. Sterritt” and the treaties between the U.S. and the Choctaw and the Chickasaw.

   RC (DNA: RG 217, First Auditor’s Accounts, no. 13,611). 2 pp. RC written below Has-well’s account; Brent added a note dated 12 July, “The foregoing account is conformable with the direction of the Secretary of State.” Brent wrote Haswell on 12 July 1802 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14) that after settlement of his account at the Treasury Department he would be paid $94.50. Brent wrote similar letters to Joseph Gales, 13 July 1802, and to Wilson & Blackwell, 24 July 1802 (ibid.), in response to letters to JM which have not been found.


Title: To James Madison from John Gavino, 29 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Gavino, John
To: Madison, James

29 June 1802, Gibraltar. No. 93. “After referring you to mine No. 91 & 92 ⅌ this Conveyance, still detaind by Contrary Wind, have now to inform you that Yesterday Saml: Moor Commander of the English Brig Mary from Mahon, who parted Company on the 24th: Inst: to the Eastward of the Rock with the American Brig Rose whose Commander deliverd him the following note, Vizt: ‘Captain Andrew Morris, Brig Franklin bound to Martineca, belonging to Summaril & Brown of Philadelpa: taken the 17t: June Inst: off Cape Palos in Compy: with the Rose—signd Willm: Whitehead.’
“Capn: Moor further told me … that the Capturing Vessel was a Galliott with three Latin Sails.… We have also accot: of a Galiott boarding a Swedish Schooner.… A Gibraltar armed Vessel being in Sight Cheased the Galiott, but she got off, after which took the Schooner into Port, from which Circumstances it is Supposed the Galiott is a Pirate.”

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

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


Title: To James Madison from William Kirkpatrick, 29 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Kirkpatrick, William
To: Madison, James

29 June 1802, Málaga. Forwards a copy of his 10 May dispatch and encloses a return of U.S. shipping that arrived at Malaga between 1 Jan. and 29 June. Commodore Morris has sailed from Gibraltar to Tangier “on some Business of Consequence Which you must Already be acquainted with, I sincerely Wish He may … prevent a rupture With the Emperor of Morocco.” Reports that “there has been for some time past, a coolness between this Government, and the Regency of Tunis, [and] I am informed some Spanish Frigates are now fitting out with an Intention to cruise on the Coast of Barbary, and be prepared to Act, in Case of the Worst.” Encloses ship’s register, Mediterranean pass, and sea letter of the brig Two Friends, John Magrath, master, which was stranded on the coast near Málaga in December 1801. Thinks proper to inform JM that the ship and cargo belong not to Magrath but to a Spanish merchant at Cadiz. Also encloses papers for ship Astrea of New York, which was disposed of by its owner. In a postscript, states that John Watkins, mate of the Two Friends, drowned while attempting to reach shore. “As it is supposed by his Relations at Bristol, [England,] that He was married in New york I give you this Information, that the proper Representative may come forward, and demand [his] Property.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Málaga, vol. 1). 3 pp. Enclosures not found.

   On 15 Oct. 1802 Daniel Brent sent David Gelston an extract from Kirkpatrick’s dispatch relating to Watkins and asked him “to give [it] such publicity … as the nature of the case may render proper and necessary” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). Gelston replied on 18 Oct. that he had not placed a newspaper advertisement, having ascertained that Watkins had never married and had no relatives in the U.S. (copy enclosed in JM to Kirkpatrick, 21 Nov. 1802 [ibid.]).

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


Title: From James Madison to Roger Gerard van Polanen, 30 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Polanen, Roger Gerard van

Sir
Department of State June 30th. 1802.
The ship Mary, belonging to Mr. Jeremiah Yellott of Baltimore, whereof Isaac Phillips was master, was, with a very valuable cargo, captured on the 4th. of February. 1800. by a French privateer, & carried into Curracoa. As the ship was bound from Batavia, a Dutch port, to Baltimore, a neutral port, restitution was due, and was claimed from the Governor of Curracoa but without effect, under the articles of the proclamation of the intermediate Executive power of the Batavian republic dated august 12. 1798. In pursuance of instructions given to the American Minister at the Hague, he represented the case to the Batavian Government, & in September last received from the Minister of Foreign relations, an answer assuring him that a just attention should be paid to the subject as soon as a report of the proceedings at Curacoa which had been called for, should be transmitted. By information lately recd. from that Island, by the parties interested, it is found that this report which was made by the Batavian Government, a preliminary to its discussion, had never been forwarded.
The object of this letter Sir, is to request that the claim in question may have the benefit of your favorable interposition in stimulating a transmission of the report by the Governor of Curracoa, as well as in promoting an early decision of your Government in behalf of the sufferers. Persuading myself that your regard for justice and for the cordial relations subsisting between the United States and the Batavian republic, will under this interposition as ready, as I trust, it will be effectual, I have the honor to remain &ca.
James Madison.

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

   Jeremiah Yellott (d. 1805) emigrated in 1774 from Great Britain to Maryland, where he built a fortune as a privateer and trader during the Revolutionary War. He solidified his position as one of the foremost merchants in Baltimore in the postwar period and served as naval agent in that city during the Adams administration (John Bosley Yellott, Jr., “Jeremiah Yellott—Revolutionary War Privateersman and Baltimore Philanthropist,” Md. Historical Magazine, 86 [1991]: 176–89).

   The U.S. minister to the Netherlands, William Vans Murray, informed Secretary of State John Marshall on 1 Oct. 1800 that he had received instructions regarding the Mary and had passed the case on to the Batavian minister of marine (DNA: RG 59, DD, Netherlands, vol. 4). On 10 Nov. 1800, Murray wrote Marshall that he believed the Batavian government would restore to Yellott the money from the sale of the ship and cargo (ibid.).

   JM’s clerk no doubt should have written “render” here.


Title: From James Madison to Jeremiah Yellott, 30 June 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Yellott, Jeremiah

Sir
Department of State June 30th. 1802.
Your letter of May 30th. with the documents to which it refers were duly received.
The case of the ship Mary, I find, was committed to the patronage of Mr. Murray, the Minister of the U. States then resident at the Hague, by a letter from this Department of June 16. 1800. A letter from Mr. Murray of Septr. 2. 1801. shews that he had repeatedly pressed the claim on the Batavian Government, and that he had just received from the Minister of foreign relations an answer expressing the strongest disposition to do whatever right might require, as soon as the Government should receive from Curacoa a report which the Governor had been instructed to forward, of the proceedings which had then taken place your efforts therefore to stimulate the transmission of this report were well directed. Perhaps they may be repeated now with more effect, the change of circumstances having removed the obstacles or the pretexts heretofore existing, with a view to the same object, as well as to promote an early & favorable decision by the Batavian Government. I have stated the transaction to Mr. Van Polanen the Batavian Minister resident in the United States, and have requested his co-operation. I have &ca.
James Madison.

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

   Letter not found.

   John Marshall to William Vans Murray, 16 June 1800 (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 5).

   William Vans Murray to JM, 2 Sept. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:80).


Title: To James Madison from Edward Thornton, 30 June 1802
From: Thornton, Edward
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Philadelphia 30th June 1802.
You were so good as to promise before my departure from Washington, that you would give me a definitive answer on the subject of the Transport Ship Windsor in time for the sailing of the July Packet. I propose to dispatch my final letters on the 7th of next month, and I am anxious to learn the decision of the President on this matter.
I have already had the honour of mentioning to you verbally, that the Ship has been transferred by sale more than once contrary to the express stipulations of the Treaty of 1794, and I cannot forbear to repeat my hope that the President will see in the original irregularity of the capture and in the illegal proceedings subsequent to it sufficient motives for making adequate compensation for the loss of the vessel to the original proprietors. I have the honour to be with perfect truth and respect, Sir, Your most obedient humble servant,
Edwd Thornton

   RC (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Great Britain, vol. 2).


Title: To James Madison from Isaac Cox Barnet, 30 June 1802 (Abstract)
From: Barnet, Isaac Cox
To: Madison, James

30 June 1802, Bordeaux. Addresses JM “on the subject of various claims mentioned in my former letters from 25th September 1800 to 24 December 1801, to none of which I have yet received an answer.” Requests JM’s attention to the accompanying accounts and vouchers. “I have presumed upon the validity and justice of these claims, by drawing on the Department of State for my reimbursement in the following Bills of this date,” amounting to $3,578.62; hopes that in consideration of the services he has rendered to his fellow citizens these bills will be honored. His hopes of obtaining an appointment and his “state of suspence from receiving no answer to my numerous letters” have prevented him from settling in business, and he has a large family to provide for. Will delay drawing for the balance of his account until he hears from JM. Refers to his letter of 25 Sept. 1800 on the subject of a salary or compensation and asks JM to support a petition he intends to submit to Congress next session for his services as agent for prisoners between November 1796 and April 1801; “certainly I have an equal claim with Mr. Skipwith to whom Congress has rendered that justice.” Asks for a determination from the president on his request for an appointment to another post. “My Agent, Mr. Aubrée, still acts at Brest—his services since my departure, have been wanted in only one instance.… That agency therefore has produced nothing.” Sends under separate cover eight memoirs of the council of commerce at Bordeaux on the subject of French trade. “I received them from the Council as a new mark of the good opinion of the authorities of Bordeaux.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bordeaux, vol. 1). 4 pp.; docketed by Brent as received 15 Sept. Enclosures not found.

   For Barnet’s letters to JM between 20 Mar. and 24 Dec. 1801, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 1:32, 257–58, 312–13, 364, 2:18–19, 211, 317, 337.

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


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, 1 July 1802
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Madrid 1st July 1802
In my last, I inclosed you all the correspondence, I had then had, with Mr Cevallos the first Secretary of State here, on the several Subjects committed to me. At that time I had considered the Subject of our Claims for Spoliations as agree’d to be submitted to arbitration by Commissioners, upon those general principles which would include every description, and so supposing, I drafted the inclosed Convention, agreeing to insert two, instead of one Commissioner, as the Spanish Government wished it—to which draft no objection being made, (except as to the place of their sitting): for the reasons given in my last, I consented that Madrid should be inserted—had two fair Copies of it made out and prepare’d for signing and transmitted them to the Secretary. To my surprise however instead of naming a time when I should call to sign the Convention, as I had requested—I received from him the inclosed Letter marked No 1 requesting an explanation of my meaning of the words “y otros en sus Dominios” previously to the signing. Immediately upon the receipt of this Letter I furnished him with the explanation he desire’d (inclosed & marked No 2) and requested a conference with him.
He appointed the Wednesday following at the Palace in Aranjuez at which day I attended him, and entered fully into an explanation of the nature of our Claims as well for Spoliations made by the Subjects of Spain, as by the Subjects or Citizens of other powers, who had been permitted to arm & equip their Privateers in Spanish Ports and condemn & Sell the Vessels they had taken, under the authority of French Consulates exercising the powers of Courts of Admiralty—that this permission to arm & equip, & to condemn and sell had for the reasons I stated to him, rendered the Spanish Government responsible to our Citizens for all the Losses accruing thereby to innocent & legal Traders—that precisely the same thing had occurred at the commencement of the War between England & France, in some of the American Ports—that our Government as soon as they were informed of it, had interfered & prevented it, and agree’d to pay for such as had been previously taken and brought in & condemned, and that having done so themselves they had a right to expect it from others—particularly from a Government whose Justice & Honor they had always held in the highest Respect.
He replied that it certainly was very honorable and generous in the American government to do this; but he did not conceive they were bound to do it by the Laws of Nations or agreeably to the dictates of Justice—that His Majesty had fully considered the Subject, and was ready to submit all the Captures, Detentions or other Acts committed by Spanish Subjects, to arbitration, but that he could not consent to do so, with respect to the Captures by French Privateers—and that he was ready to sign a Convention with the exclusion of the words y otros en sus Dominios.
I answered, I was extremely sorry to find His Majesty had thus determined, because our Government held a very different opinion on the Subject of the Captures & condemnations by the French Privateers equipped in Spanish Ports, and where opposite & different opinions of such importance were held by nations having equally a right to think & judge for themselves—I saw no amicable mode of determining the dispute, but by arbitration—that as my powers did not extend to the surrendering of our claims for the Captures made by the French, and he said His Majesty was determined not to include them, I wished to know if His Majesty would consent to a convention for the appointment of commissioners to arbitrate the Spanish Spoliations, and insert an article expressly reserving to the American Government the right to demand and negotiate hereafter on the Subject of the French Spoliations. He said he would mention it to His Majesty and send me his answer. Upon my return however to my House I thought it adviseable to make another attempt to procure the admission of such words as might enable the Commissioners to arbitrate all our claims, and I wrote him the Letter a copy of which is inclosed (No 3) and thus this affair stood at the end of the conference.
I then stated to him the anxiety of our Government to be informed of His Majestys determination on the subject of the Floridas—that I had in my Memorial to him very fully gone into the reasons which made the United States wish the cession and Sale of these Provinces, and that I was sure His Majesty could see in the offer, nothing but the sincerest wishes on the part of our Government to remove all grounds of difference on these important Subjects either with the Spanish or French nations—that in this memorial I had mentioned to His Excellency our information respecting the cession of Louisiana and requested him to inform me officially of the nature of the Treaty as it respected the Limits of Louisiana, and that I was particularly anxious to know whether in the cession to the French His Majesty had stipulated for the undisturbed exercise, by the United States of their right to navigate the Mississipi, which His Majesty had by his Treaty confirmed to them, so far as he could, or Spain, or those to hold under her were interested, and also the right to deposit our Merchandize and Produce at New Orleans, or some other convenient place on its banks—that His Excellency must certainly suppose, we viewed these Rights as so vested that Spain could not properly cede Louisiana to another Power, without ceding it subject to the Exercise of these Rights by us—that if he would have the goodness, to examine the Treaty he would find the Articles so clear on these points of the right to navigate and deposit, as not to admit a doubt—that at the time France received them, she received them subject to these limitations—that however the best and most certain way, was to have their free exercize recognized by France, and that we hoped His Majesty had done so, and that not having received any answer to this part of my Memorial, I would now be much obliged to His Excellency to inform me verbally whether in the cession of Louisiana to France any Notice had been taken of our right to Navigate the Mississipi and deposit our Merchandize and Produce on its banks, as had been stipulated by His Majesty in his Treaty with us—he replied No, that nothing had been said in the Treaty ceding Louisiana on that Subject, and added that with respect to the Sale of the Floridas & their limits, which was the other subject of my enquiry His Majesty had directed the Governor of the Florida’s and the Persons concerned in the administration of that country to be written to, for all the Information necessary to enable him to form a correct and proper Opinion, on the Nature of our proposition to purchase them, and that as soon as they could receive Answers, he would inform me—that it was an affair of such great Importance, our Government, he was sure, could not expect an Answer in so short a time; but assured me repeatedly it was His Majestys wish upon all occasions to manifest the highest Esteem, and most sincere affection for the American Government whose true Interest he would always consider as inseparable from his own.
I shall continue my communications on the 6th by Mr Gibson & in the interim I remain With much respect & regard Dear Sir Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 6A, misfiled at end of 1803). In a clerk’s hand, except for last paragraph and signature in Pinckney’s hand. Enclosures not found, but see n. 1.

   See Pinckney to JM, 20 Apr. 1802, n. 14.

   “And others in his dominions.”

   For Pinckney to Cevallos, 24 Mar. 1802, see Pinckney to JM, 6 Apr. 1802, n. 3.

   Article 4 of the 1795 Pinckney treaty guaranteed the free navigation of the Mississippi River to the subjects of the two countries. Article 22 permitted Americans to “deposit their merchandize and effects in the Port of New Orleans,” or after a three-year period Spain would provide “on another part of the banks of the Mississipi an equivalent establishment” (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:321–22, 337).


Title: To James Madison from Stephen Pleasonton and Others, 1 July 1802
From: Pleasonton, Stephen
To: Madison, James

Sir
Department of State July 1st. 1802
With great reluctance we take the liberty of appealing to your candor, in laying before you a Statement of our situation as clerks in this Department. The Congress not being able to discriminate between the merits of the inferior officers in the various Departments, & yet being fully impressed with the propriety of making provision more adequate to the support of the public servants, very wisely left the distribution to the Heads of the Departments. They have acted accordingly, & have generally increased the salaries of their agents. There were many years in this Department eight clerks. The duties no doubt increase in proportion to the increase of our Foreign & Domestic Relations. We are at present but four in number & the duties have required unremitting attention. Of this we shall never complain, but we submit to your candor & liberality whether an increase of duty, more than double, does not demand a consideration, & whether we may not be deemed, in strict justice to the Public, duly entitled to as liberal compensation as the Congress have authorized, & have left to your discretion. We submit this with great deference, not doubting that while you are strictly conforming to your official duty, you will keep in view the justice due to faithful public servants. We are Sir with the highest consideration Your Obedt Servts.
Stephen Pleasonton
William Crawford
Christopher S. Thom

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   In May 1802 Congress appropriated $11,360 for the compensation of State Department personnel (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:184).


Title: From James Madison to Charles Simms, 2 July 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Simms, Charles

Sir
Washington. July 2. 1802
In answer to your letter of yesterday, I am enabled to assure you that the report to which it alludes is entirely destitute of foundation. I am very respectfully Yr. obedt. servt.
James Madison

   RC (RPJCB).


Title: To James Madison from Albert Gallatin, 2 July 1802
From: Gallatin, Albert
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Treasury Department July 2d. 1802.
In the case of the Snow “Windsor,” the Collector of Boston was, in conformity to the Presidents instructions, directed in September last, to order her to depart. She was at that time abandoned by her Crew, and a mere hull. A compliance was physically impossible. She was not repaired nor fitted for sea, untill after the preliminaries of Peace had been signed between Great Britain and France. No obligation of restoration or indemnifaction [sic] can attach to the Government of the United States on that account. It is true that she has been sold by the Captors, and was by last advices, in possession of Messrs. S. Higginson & Co. That sale being contrary to the Treaty with Great Britain, and that Treaty being the law of the land, the sale is considered by the executive Officers, and will be considered by the Courts as a nullity. Her present pretended owners will therefore receive neither clearance or any Kind of Papers from the Custom house Officers, in their own name. But that sale being only a nullity and no penalty being affixed by law to the nugatory attempt of selling, the United States have no claim or plea under which they can arrest or libel the vessel. It is the business of the original British Owners to libel the vessel before our courts, if, on account of the pretended sale, and consequent abandonment by the Captors, they are entitled to her under the Treaty. That Treaty is binding on the Federal and State Courts, and there is no doubt of their carrying it fully into effect. The attorney General is of opinion that the remedy is at common Law, before the State Courts; in as much, as Messrs. Higginson & Co. the present Possessors cannot plead against the British original owners, the title of the Captors, which is not vested in them.
It is proper to add that we cannot be answerable for the departure of the vessel without Papers or clearance. I have the honor to be with respect Sir, Your obdt. Servant
Albert Gallatin

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

   For Gallatin’s order to Benjamin Lincoln, dated 3 Sept. 1801, see The Struggle to Maintain Neutrality, 8 June 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 1:270–71). See also JM’s letter to Gallatin, 29 Aug. 1801, requesting the departure of the Windsor, and Gallatin to JM, 23 Sept. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:73 and n. 1, 129–30 and n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from Edwin Gray, 2 July 1802
From: Gray, Edwin
To: Madison, James

Sir
Jerusalem. 2d. July. 1802
I take the liberty to enclose to you at the request of the friends of Mr Benjamin Wood, a certificate of his being a Citizen of the United states.
Mr Wood states by letters recently received from him that he is at this time detained against his will onboard an English Ship of War, having been impressed into that service some time past. Presuming that he can be speedily released, thro’ your Official aid; and understanding that an application to the British Government, can not with propriety be made but thro’ the Secretary of State, I have taken the liberty to trouble you on this occasion, requesting the enclosed letter may be permitted to accompany such communication as you may think proper to send forward in behalf of the unfortunate young man. I have the honor to be sir, with sentiments of great respect Yr. Obt Sert
Edwin Gray

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, Records of Impressed Seamen, 1794–1815, box 11). RC docketed by Brent. For surviving enclosure, see n. 1.

   Gray enclosed a letter from Mary Wood to her son Benjamin Wood, dated July 1802 at Southampton County, Virginia (1 p.). In it, she acknowledged her son’s letters of 12 Aug. 1801 and 15 Mar. 1802, informed him of his father’s death, and assured him that a certificate of citizenship obtained by Gray would accompany her letter, “so that I doubt not but you will be set at liberty.”

   Edwin Gray (1743–1814?), a former burgess from Southampton County, Virginia, and later member of the House of Delegates and state Senate, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1799 as a Federalist. He served in the House until 1813, supporting, along the way, James Monroe’s challenge to JM’s election to the presidency in 1808 (Fischer, Revolution of American Conservatism, pp. 373–74).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 2 July 1802
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Richmond July 2. 1802
It is understood that the functions of the marshall here ceased on the last of June, by virtue of the late law repealing the former Judiciary law of the UStates. By the former Law this State was divided in to two districts, an Eastern and a western district, & Major Scott was appointed marshall of the Eastern. By the 13. Sect: of the last Law that division is abolishd, the whole State is made but one district and otherwise designated in reference to the general system of districts & circuits, so as to make his commn. totally inapplicable to the present state of things. His delicacy has prevented his writing to you on the subject, for reasons wh. will readily occur to you. But hearing the above, as that he had not written, I take the liberty to communicate it to you, that you may examine into the affair, and apply with the least possible delay the remedy wh. the case requires. You will readily perceive the inconvenience attendant on such a state of affairs. All Judicial process is suspended &ca. The merits of Major Scott are too well known to require commendation from me. If he was not in the office he is precisely the man who ought to be called into it, or some office which is due to extry. merit, in a person who is still capable of performing the duties of any he wod. undertake. Sincerely I am yr. fnd.
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   Section 13 of the “Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States,” signed into law 29 Apr. 1802, provided for the removal of all marshals and district attorneys from “districts which were divided or within the limits of which new districts were erected” by the Judiciary Act of 1801 (U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:156, 164).

   Jefferson made an interim appointment of Joseph Scott to be marshal of the district of Virginia on 8 July 1802; he submitted this appointment to the Senate on 11 Jan. 1803, and that body confirmed Scott a week later (Jefferson to Daniel Brent, 1 Aug. 1802 [DNA: RG 59, ML]; Senate Exec. ProceedingsJournal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America (3 vols.; Washington, 1828)., 1:433, 437).


Title: To James Madison from Israel Whelen, 2 July 1802 (Abstract)
From: Whelen, Israel
To: Madison, James

2 July 1802, Philadelphia. “A draft in favour of Steven Kingston for $5,200 at 15 days sight, drawn by Ebenezer Stevens Esqr. of New York, was this day presented for acceptance, accompanied by a letter from Mr. Stevens enclosing sundry documents, and stating that in obedience to Instructions from you he had refered the dispute with Mr. Kingston to Arbitration, and in consequence of the Award had given the above draft. I enclose the documents, and if you are pleased to order the draft to be paid, request you will direct the amount to be remitted to me for that purpose.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 45, Purveyor’s Office, Philadelphia). RC 1 p. Enclosures not found, but listed in the letterbook: “Consul at Tunis Rect. for the Cargo & certificate of 8 days demurage. / Do. at Algiers Certificate of the Ships detention at that place. / Do. Do. Letter to Capt Wood respecting the same. / Stephen Kingstons Accot. for Demurage. / Do. Bond & Receipt—with the Award of the Arbitrators.”


Title: To James Madison from Frederick Jacob Wichelhausen, 2 July 1802 (Abstract)
From: Wichelhausen, Frederick Jacob
To: Madison, James

2 July 1802, Bremen. “My last respects waited on you the 6th. Janr: last. … Inclosed I now do myself the honor, of transmitting you again the semi-annual List of american arrivals at this port, the number of which you will observe is very inconsiderable, the commercial adventures from the United States to this place having greatly decreased since the event of peace.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bremen, vol. 1). 1 p. Enclosure not found.

   Wichelhausen probably referred to his dispatch of 25 Jan. 1802, in which he enclosed his report of American shipping for the second half of 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:421).

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


Title: To James Madison from John Willard, 2 July 1802
From: Willard, John
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 2 July 1802. Mentioned in Daniel Brent to Willard, 21 July 1802 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14), as a request to be furnished with a set of the laws of the U.S. Brent replied that JM had directed him to point out that a congressional resolution of 3 Mar. 1797 required the marshal’s predecessor to hand over any and all materials he had received from the State Department.


Title: To James Madison from Levi Lincoln, 3 July 1802
From: Lincoln, Levi
To: Madison, James

Sir
Washington July 3d 1802.
I have the honor to submit to your consideration my Ideas, generally, on the questions which arise, in the case of the Brig Los Amigos, without being able finally, to form an opinion, satisfactory to myself, on all of them.
It appears from the papers, that this Brig was owned by a Spanish subject, and in the prosecution of a voyage, from Jamaica to Cabello, was captured by Capt Maly of the public armed schooner Experiment, carried in to Cape Francois, and afterwards sent to America, for adjudication, In july 1800, she was libelled, in the District Court of Pennsylvania, as a vessel owned, hired & imployed, wholly, or in part, by some person resident in the United States, in a trade against the non intercourse laws. It appears, she had been purchased, not long before her capture, of an American citizen; and that the judge, finding no grounds for the capture & seisure, under the acts of Congress mentioned in the libel, and finding the alligations therein not supported, decreed, a restoration of the vessel & cargo, to the owner, with cost.
The owner, states that he has sustained great damages by the capture, but, made no claim of them, at the district Court, and he now claims them, from the U. S.

The question is, if they a[re] bound, by the law of nations, to recompense the owner for these damages.
Vessels rightfully captured, under the non intercourse law, are to be distributed, one half, to the U. S, the other, to the captors. Public armed vessels are by law, directed & authorized, to seise every vessel, which there is reason to suspect is engaged, contrary to this law in commerce, and on examination, it appearing that she is so engaged to send her to the nearest convenient Port, of the U. S to be there prosecuted &c &c.
The libel, as it ought, appears, to be a prosecution in behalf of the United States, & the captors, in the shape of a qui tam, in which, Govt., in case of failure, in ordinary cases, never pays cost, or damages.
To secure peace between nations not involved in an existing wa⟨r,⟩ and to guard against frauds in the collection of duties, & to enforce commer⟨cial⟩ regulations, it seems to be admitted, that a ship of war, or other authorized vessel, may bring to, an unarmed vessel, & examine her, and if she appears to be liable to capture & condemnation, to send her in. All nations, especially, commercial, have an interest in the admission of, & support of these principles, however individuals of their subjects may, in some instances, suffer by their operation.
The Ship experiment, was authorized by the Govt, to capture & send in for prosecution such vessels only, as, on examination, were engaged in a traffick, in violation of the non intercou[r]se law, It is the fault, or misfortune, of any vessel, to place herself under circumstances, to furnish reasonable presumptions of her being thus engaged when in fact, she is not. In such a case, the captured vessel ought to suffer the damages resulting from her own acts, or omissions, & not the captors, or their Govt. who have done, or caused to be done, only what they had a right to do. If there is a capture when there is not an apparent probable cause, the captor is the wrong doer. He captures at his peril; no blame can attach to the Nation. They have neither directed, nor authorized such a capture, as is made. The captor has violated this trust, reposed in him, by his Govt. as well, as the rights of individuals; and is liable for all the consequent loss, or damage, for which he may be assessed, by the decree on a libel, or, by an action at law.
In the present case, It does not appear there was probable cause, nor, clearly, that there was not, no claim in the district court, on the part of the owners, no damages, and it is certain, the Brig was not long before her capture, an American vessel, and had she in fact continued American & been covered, her papers would have probably been, as they were.
But the question still is, admitting the owner is entitled to Dam[a]ges, are the U. S. held to pay them—the captor having refused, or being unable.
I can find, neither principle, or precedent, which will support this position as a matter of rigid right. Nations may, in some instances, have practiced on this principle from national policy, when it, has been, demanded, by the Goverment of a suffering subject—or, in conformity to the practice, of some particular country. But never, I beleive, as a matter of national justice. The usages & customs of nations, seem to go no further, in ordinary cases of suffering neutrals, than to secure to them, fairly, the benefit of resorting to competent courts, and that remedy & redress of injuries, which can be obtained, in the ordinary course of justice. These usages, I conceive, no more recognize the principle, or obligation, to indemnify, a suffering subject of a foreign nation, against the insolvency of their own subjects, than they do, one individual of their own subjects, against the insolvency of another. If foreigners have the same measure of justice, and the same remidies, as citizens, ought they to complain? It, may be said, It is more reasonable, that a Government should suffer, from the misconduct of One of its subjects, than that the subjects of foreign Governt should. Perhaps, the idea, of the subjects of all Governments, which are subject, to a common principle, or to one code of national laws, forming one great society, will furnish an answer to the remark. It is beleived, when one nation, makes compensations, for such injuries as are done by its subjects to the subjects of another & which involve no insult to the nation; it is always done in pursuance of some treaty, or on mere principles of policy; and not, as demanded, by the law of nations.
This law, seems to be satisfied, by the punishment, or the giving up, for punishment, offenders against it; By a nation’s not conniving at the injuries of its subjects; by taking every seasonable measure, & making reasonable provisions, to prevent them, or to redress them, in a regular course of judicial proceedings.
These, are my general impressions, on the subject, & as to the strict principles of the law of nations from the investigation I have been abble to make—I am sensible, yours are, in some respects different, I therefore express mine, with reluctance, & great diffidence. I had gone into a more lengthy disquisition, But was not satisfied with it, on reflection—I reviewd it, revised it, disapproved of it, and burnt it. I am Sir with the Greatest respect your most Obt. Sevt
Levi Lincoln

   RC (DNA: RG 76, Spain, Treaty of 1819, Misc. Records, ca. 1801–24).

   The papers referred to probably included the protest by William G. Latimer on behalf of Robert C. Latimer of Philadelphia, agent for Don Luis Garcia of Porto Cabello (present-day Colombia), dated 12 Sept. 1800 (ibid.). Garcia, owner and commander of the brig Los Amigos, protested against the action of Capt. William Maley of the U.S. armed schooner Experiment in capturing the brig and taking it first to Cap Français and then to Philadelphia. The brig had been ordered restored to its owner by U.S. district court judge Richard Peters in 1800, but the protest asked for payment of costs and damages. JM subsequently informed Latimer that the case should have been pursued in the judicial system and that the executive was powerless to grant the requested relief (Knox, Naval Documents, Quasi-War, 5:219–20; JM to Robert C. Latimer, 11 Jan. 1803 [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14]).

   Filed in the State Department records is Robert C. Latimer to William Jones, 2 Mar. 1802, enclosing a “Statement of Loss on the Brig Los Amigos” amounting to $4,400.13 (DNA: RG 59, ML).

   Qui tam: “an action brought on a penal statute by an informer, who sues for the penalty both on his own behalf and on that of the crown” (OEDOxford English Dictionary.).


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 3 July 1802
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

No. 46
Dear Sir
Paris 3d July 1802
The letter from Genl Le Clerk which you will find in the Moniteur having excited some emotition [sic] here I thought it proper to address the enclosed note to the Minister to which I recd the reply also enclosed. As this was put in to my hands just as I was going into his house I replyed to it verbally. I took notice that the compt of Genl Le Clerc related to supplies furnished before his arrival that any interposition of the American government was rendered at that time impossible from the Congress not being in session but if otherwise that it would have been very extraordinary in them to volunteer in a business of that nature without any request on the part of the french government—that Toussant professed to hold his powers from them that he was acknowledged by them that any opposition on his part could not be forseen by the American government—that under these circumstances to have laid restrictions upon the commerce of their citizens would have been equally invidious to them & to France in case which there was every reason to suppose no opposition had been made—that the free commerce between the United States & the Islands had alone preserved them to France & that as no peace was definitively concluded a check on their supplies might have had in the Eyes of france herself an unfriendly appearance. He admitted the force of these observations & in some sort appologized for his note. We have been much injured here by a publication of Duanes relative to the conduct of the late administration with regard to St Domingo & a detailed account of all the causes of irritation we had given to France. Foreign nations will not enter into distinctions between one administration & another they consider every act of government as the act of the whole people. Our affairs stand as they did when I wrote you last except that I have Tallerands most solemn assurances that they shall meet with the earliest consideration he added that I knew that in all governments money matters go slowly but that he hopes to have them satisfactorily settled & that my notes shall certainly go into the hands of Flerieu in a few days. He yesterday informed me that he was going to drink the waters & would be absent tho not long this I suppose will put another stop to our business. I shall call upon Flerieu this morning & see whether he has yet got my papers if not I shall make a full statment of the business & apply directly to the first Consul if I find I am any longer put off tho I know such a step will not be well recd. by the minister. It will however be necessary for my justification & perhaps for yours that we take measures to convince our people that nothing has been neglected on the part of Government to obtain Justice for them.
Many of the St Domingo bills have arrived they give me the most positive assurances that they shall be paid. Mr Marbois called upon me a few days ago to inform me that he had remitted 1000000 frs. to Mr Pichon thro an english house to whom he was compelled to give the security of some bankers here as a counter security for the money—two pr Ct. for their credit & the usual commission in America which he complained of as a loosing bargain tho I think on the whole it is one that they shd. be satisfied with considering the state of their credit. In a conversation with Tallerand relative to Lousiania I could get not thing [sic] positive but I think I collected from him that at least West florida was not yet theirs. I have some projects on that presumption that I only wait to hear from Mr. Pinkney to determine whether it will be proper to bring forward.
I shall draw upon our banker for the price of two Swords ordered by Govr. Monroe on account of the State of Virginia & for which he says that he has loged 300$ in yr hands I have not yet got the accounts but they will fall short of that amount. Enclosed is a memorial of an unfortunate gent. who has been in our service He is now here with a family of Children such were his necessities that I have advanced him ten guin[e]as as the facts stated in his memoire are vouched to me by Genl Le fayette I have no doubt that Congress will at least give him pay for the time he was in our service. He was a man of great property & is now absolutly without a farthing. I have taken his note for the money advanced & shall draw for it if however the president thinks it can not be paid I shall be content to loose it, tho I should wish to have his permission to keep this family from starving till some thing was done with his memoire.
I have yet recd no answer as to the permission I solicited to make an excursion to England or elswhere not remote from this capital I shall only avail myself of it when I can be well spared & as it is not my intention to stay long in Europe I could wish to be indulged with this permission as early as possible.
Bonaparte has just concluded a treaty with the porte by which france gains some important commercial advantages & the free navigation of the black sea. This will furnish them with naval stores of the best quality upon much more advantagious terms than they can be got for from the Baltic or America. Every thing succeeds in Bonapartes hands. The business of the indemnities which occasioned so much difficulty in Germany—Was settled by him here in a few days. We are to have a great fete on the 14h when many look for changes in the government. They will come but not so soon as I am assured that the first Consul has not yet sufficiently matured them. An abuse by which our commerce with the Batavian republic greatly suffers has just come to my knowledge but to which some immediate remedy should be applied, and I doubt not will be found if either myself or any other minister is empowered to take the necessary steps for that purpose. By our treaty with them our trade is put upon the footing of that of the most favoured nation. Yet we have constantly paid & still continue to pay nearly twice the duty that is paid upon the same articles brought from any other country. The Goods being entered at the west india company & at the admiralty. The pretence for this is that this company once held possessions in the now territory of the United States. This company is at present rather nominal than existant—they having no exclusive trade but becoming bankrupt were allowed the priviledge of collecting certain duties on goods coming into holland from places that had once been within their charters & on this shadow pretence they have collected a tax upon our commerce which has exceeded a million of dolls. & still continue this oppression. I enclose a list of the duties now collected compared with those paid when imported from any place in Europe. I am surprized this matter has remained so long unnoticed & if it is tho’t that I can be of any use in negotiating this business either here or in Holland I shall with pleasure undertake it. It will not I believe be sufficient to leave a matter of this importance to be treated by the consul whose commerce renders him in some sort dependant for favors. Nor is it likely to be effected unless the United States should appear to attach such importance to it as to induce a belief that they will retaliate or take measures to do themselves justice in case it shd be denied. I am Dear Sir with the most perfect consideration Your Most Obt hum: Servt
RRL

   Draft (NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy and copies of first and second enclosures (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1); third enclosure (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8). RC not found but acknowledged in JM to Livingston, 15 Oct. 1802 (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6). For first and second enclosures, see n. 2; for third enclosure, see n. 5.

   General Leclerc’s letter to Napoleon, dated 18 Floréal an X (9 May 1802) appeared in the Paris Moniteur universel, 24 Prairial an X (14 June 1802). Leclerc accused U.S. government agents of being in the service of Toussaint and insisted that his measures regulating U.S. commerce had been necessary because American merchants were supplying the rebel forces with guns, cannon, powder, shot, and other military supplies, as well as forcing the French army to pay ludicrously high prices for needed goods.

   Livingston’s letter to Talleyrand of 15 June 1802 (3 pp.) protested the publication of Leclerc’s letter (see n. 1) as “calculated to make improper impressions on the public mind.” He argued that Talleyrand was fully aware of Tobias Lear’s instructions to cooperate with French officials in Saint-Domingue because he himself had given Talleyrand Lear’s original letter of 5 Mar., which the French minister still retained (see Livingston to JM, 10 May 1802 [first letter], and n. 3). Livingston also enclosed copies of JM’s letters to Pichon and Villaret as evidence that “no agents authorized by the american government could be justified by their principal in giving improper advise to Toussaint” (see JM to Livingston, 26 Mar. 1802, and n. 6). Talleyrand replied on 9 Messidor an X (23 June 1802) (2 pp.; in French) that he had forwarded Livingston’s complaint to the minister of marine. He noted in Leclerc’s defense that no American commercial agents were authorized in Saint-Domingue, that the extreme measures used by the resisting blacks might explain in part the harsh actions taken by Leclerc, and that given the friendly relations between the U.S. and France, the U.S. government would have been better advised to forbid Americans all contact with the rebels.

   The editors have been unable to identify this publication, but it may have been William Duane’s A History of the French Revolution … Containing a Free Examination of the Dispute, between the French and American Republics (Philadelphia, 1798; EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography … 1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 48414).

   On the swords ordered by James Monroe for John Jouett and William Campbell, see Monroe to JM, 17 Nov. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:246–47 and n. 2); for delivery of and payment for them, see Livingston to Monroe, 3 July 1802, and Monroe to Livingston, 4 Nov. 1802 (NHi: Livingston Papers).

   Livingston enclosed in this letter the marquis de Vienne’s petition to the U.S. Congress (6 pp.; in French; docketed by Brent) asking for reimbursement of the cost of his Revolutionary War service in the Continental army of 1778 (1,900 guineas), a gratification of 75 guineas, and a pension of 70 guineas per year. Initially a volunteer aide-de-camp of Lafayette’s, he received no salary while serving in the Monmouth campaign. Congress appointed him a colonel, and he later fought at Newport, Rhode Island. A bill for his relief was reported to the House of Representatives, 11 Dec. 1818 (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Claims, p. 614).

   The treaty between France and the Ottoman Empire was signed on 25 June 1802 (de Clercq, Recueil des traités de la France, 1:588–90).

   The annexation by France of the German states on the left bank of the Rhine River had introduced the question of compensation into the complicated calculus of the relations between the larger states of the Holy Roman Empire. The indemnities problem would be used by Napoleon to reduce the number of polities in the empire and to reorder the balance of power among Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, and other German states (Deutsch, Genesis of Napoleonic Imperialism, pp. 38–55).

   A review and presentation of the colors was held on 14 July, the national day of celebration. The political changes Livingston anticipated took place some weeks after, when Napoleon was elected first consul for life (Thompson, Napoleon Bonaparte, pp. 204, 205).

   The list of duties has not been found, but according to Livingston’s “Journal of correspondence with the Secretary of State” (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 7), he enclosed with this dispatch “an extract from Mr. Ridgeways letter from Holland respecting abuses on the American trade.”

   Sylvanus Bourne had already brought this matter to JM’s attention (see Bourne to JM, 20 Jan. 1802, PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:412).


Title: To James Madison from Peter Foster, 3 July 1802 (Abstract)
From: Foster, Peter
To: Madison, James

3 July 1802, Havana. Refers JM to his application to government in December 1801 for “a short detail of my Sufferings; that then existed, & which at this remote period of almost eight Months, have not ceased to pursue me, with unrelenting Cruelty.” Has been released from prison but his case is still pending and his “little Funds have at length become entirely exhausted, in the payment of Lawyers, & expences of collecting Testimony.” Asks JM to inquire into the affair “as far as is consistent, with the existing connections, between the two Countries” and help him obtain a release from the charges against him. In a postscript states that he also wrote to JM on 26 June.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 3 pp. Cover postmarked at Savannah, Georgia, 23 July. Docketed by Brent as received 5 Aug.

   Letter not found. Foster renewed his application for help in a letter to JM of 1 Apr. 1803 (not found), to which JM replied that he was in the process of making inquiries (JM to Foster, 8 Apr. 1803 [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14]).