Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 16 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Sir
Department of State: 16 Feby. 1802.
I have the honor to enclose a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to me, together with the documents accompanying it, containing an account of the monies drawn out of the Treasury under the several appropriations made for defraying the expenses incident to the intercourse with the Mediterranean powers, and statements of the credits obtained or claimed at the Treasury by the persons to whom they were advanced.
It would have been very desireable to separate the whole amount expended into the several subordinate heads of expense, intimated in the close of the Secretary’s letter: but apprized of your wish to communicate, as soon as possible, such information as that letter affords, I forbear to detain it, especially as an opinion of the present scantiness of materials to effect the separation referred to, does not encourage the hope of its being rendered perfect. With the highest respect, I have the honor to be, sir, Your most obed. servt.
James Madison

   RC (DNA: RG 233, President’s Messages, 7A-D1). In Wagner’s hand, signed by JM. For enclosures, see Gallatin to JM, 30 Jan. 1802.

   Jefferson sent JM’s letter and its enclosures to Congress on 16 Feb. 1802 (see ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:368–81).


Title: To James Madison from Horatio Gates, 16 February 1802
From: Gates, Horatio
To: Madison, James

My dear Friend
N York 16th: Febry: 1802:
This will be presented to you by my Old Friend, & Companion in the War, General Ebenezer Stevens; for particulars more explanatory relating to Him, I must refer you to my Letter to The president, which goes by the same conveyance. Read that, with attention; and you will be satisfied with the Information I wish you fully to understand. The less his political Merit, the more generosity in your Bounty. Take him for this once by the Hand; He has a large Family, & his Success in the Business he goes to Solicit, will be of considerable Benefit to Them. Dr: Eustace who served with me, & immediately attached to the Corps General Stevens Commanded, will give every information in regard to the General you may wish to know.
Mr: D’Wit Clinton, Elected into The Senate in the place of General Armstrong, goes with Gen: S. to Washington. Inclosed I send you Armstrongs last Letter to me; it will convince you of the Steaddiness, and just intention of General Armstrong; this, is a Secret communication which I wish you to know; when you have Leizure, send me Armstrongs Letter. I wrote to you lately. When you please drop me a line of acknowledgement. Believe me always Your Faithfull, & Affectionate Friend,
Horatio Gates

   RC (NjMoHP); Tr (owned by Mrs. George B. Cutts, Wellesley, Mass., 1982).

   In his 13 Feb. letter to Jefferson, Gates recommended Stevens for an appointment, describing him as having been “a most decided Whigg” during the Revolution but adding that he may have wavered from principle since then under the influence of local “Torys.” Gates also informed Jefferson that he had written to JM and he assumed JM would show him the letter, adding that he believed DeWitt Clinton would replace John Armstrong in the U.S. Senate (Gates to Jefferson, 13 Feb. 1802 [DLC: Jefferson Papers]).

   Armstrong had written to Gates on 14 Feb. 1802, explaining that he had resigned his Senate seat for health reasons, having “indeed passed a most uncomfortable winter thus far” with what his doctors had diagnosed as either “Dyspepsia” or “the Atonic gout.” He denied complaints, apparently made by Aaron Burr, that he had delayed his resignation in order to play off “any little finesse between the parties on the Judiciary, or other questions” (NN: Emmet Collection).


Title: To James Madison from John Francis Mercer, 16 February 1802
From: Mercer, John Francis
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Council Chamber Annapolis February 16 1802
Samuel Chase, Esquire, Agent for the recovery of the Bank Stock of Maryland, in the British Funds, has transmitted to the Executive of this State, the letter which you favoured him with of the 13 Instant; intimating that the British Ministers had discovered a design to exclude this subject from the Negotiation pending between the two Governments, with an intention of remanding it to their Courts of Justice.
Sensible as this Executive are of the deep interest of the State in this Communication and of the implicit confidence, which the Legislature have always reposed in the Government of the United States, it has not failed to excite the strongest solicitude. A sensibility will be felt here from this disappointment, proportioned to the sanguine expectations of success, which the communicated progress of the Diplomatic Agency has from time to time excited; and its failure at the moment of its expected completion, from the inconstancy of a foreign Nation, may give rise to conclusions unfavourable to the Administration of our own.
Under these impressions, the Executive of Maryland, feel an unimpaired confidence, that the Government of the Union will never abandon this Claim of their State, more especially if the[y] consider that the loss of time consumed in this Negotiation altho’ a serious disadvantage, is of little moment when compared to that of the favorable conjunctures which have passed away, never probably to recur—the one when to the pressure of a foreign War so formidable as to threaten the national existence of Great Britain, and which rendered highly desirable every amicable adjustment of differences which might increase her Enemies; has now succeeded the security and confidence of a general peace—the other when Motives of prudence as well as honour which gave pointed force to the Claims of this State on the British Government, which they were urging against us, the doubtfull demands of their own Citizens, are now or will be silenced by complete success on their part. With what prospects, under these circumstances, may we be permitted to ask, will the State of Maryland re:appear in British Courts of Justice with the implied discountenance of their Government and the manifest desertion of our own?
The Executive of Maryland cannot for a Moment indulge the belief, that the President will ever consent to the abandonment of a Claim, the Justice of which he so strongly urged when placed in the department you now fill.
Permit me Sir, to solicit your serious attention to the foregoing general considerations, and to refer you to the particular observations made by Mr. Chase, in his letter to this Executive, Extracts from which I do myself the honour to inclose, and receive the assurances of the profound respect with which I am Your Obedient Servant
John. F. Mercer

   Letterbook copy (MdAA: Executive Letter Book); FC (MdAA: Blue Book 3); Tr (CSmH). Tr sent as enclosure in JM to Rufus King, 25 Feb. 1802. Minor differences between the copies have not been noted. Enclosed extracts not found, but see n. 3.

   See JM to Chase, 12 Feb. 1802.

   In the FC this sentence reads, “The sensibility arising from this disappointment, will be proportioned here, to the sanguine expectations of success, which the diplomatic Agency has from time to time afforded.” The last part of the sentence, included in the letterbook copy and Tr, was omitted from the FC.

   Chase, after having received JM’s 12 Feb. letter, wrote to Mercer on 13 Feb., expressing his uncertainty about whether the obstacles to the Maryland claim had come from the king or from private individuals. If the former, Chase could not understand why the king would seek a decision from the lord chancellor; if the latter, the ministers, he presumed, must know that Chancellor Thurlowe had already decided against the claim. Chase apparently concluded that if there was no alternative to a decision in chancery, the Maryland legislature would have to accept it, adding, “If Mr. King cannot succeed, of which I have little hopes, I believe I shall not live to see the end of this business” (Chase to Mercer, 13 Feb. 1802, summarized in Morris L. Radoff, The Bank Stock Papers, no. 5 of Calendar of Maryland State Papers [Annapolis, 1947], p. 25).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 16 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

16 February 1802, “Near Natchez.” States that he does not know whether his frequent letters to JM have been received as he has had no communications from the State Department since his arrival. Reports that an election for the territorial legislature will be held in July and the people are already agitated. “Popular favor is uncommonly fluctuating; the population of the District, is composed of a very heterogenous mass, and their political principles & opinions are as different as the customs & prejudices which prevail in the different States or Nations from whence they emigrated, and from this cause (if no other existed) the Acts of each Succeeding legislature, will be deemed exceptionable.” A majority of the people are “Americans in principles and attachments,” but there are some whose former habits have made them “favorable to Monarchy, and inimical to every Government that recognizes the Rights of Man.” Mentions that several families from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi have recently emigrated to Louisiana and it is feared others may follow their example. “The facility with which lands may be acquired under the Spanish authority, and the prevalence of an opinion, that the Subjects of Spain are exempt from taxation, are probably the principal Inducements to this abandonment of their Country.”

   Letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal). 2 pp. Printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W. C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 1:46–47.


Title: From James Madison to Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, 16 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de

Letter not found. 16 February 1802. Acknowledged in Yrujo to JM, 18 Feb. 1802. Inquires about eight American citizens arrested in Havana and requests that Yrujo send Clement Biddle a copy of his reply.


Title: To James Madison from Christopher Gore and William Pinkney, 17 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Gore, Christopher,Pinkney, William
To: Madison, James

17 February 1802, London. Gore and Pinkney enclose copy of the minutes of the 15 Feb. proceedings of the reassembled Board of Commissioners. Board wishes to have Cabot and Glennie continue their services as assessors. They believe Glennie will “act as heretofore,” but since Cabot went to America “at a time when the functions of the Board were suspended, with our consent, and with the expectation on our part, and without which we should not have consented to his going, that he would return here,” they ask that the U.S. government “hold out to him a specific and adequate Inducement to do So.” They ask the president to consider “how far a just regard to the Interests of the Complainants under the 7th. article of the Treaty and to the prompt and satisfactory Execution of the Commission may render it expedient to afford such an Inducement.” King has sent them a copy of JM’s 27 July letter mentioning that G. W. Erving has been appointed to replace Cabot. Although this is the only notice they have received of the change, they are assuming that the U.S. government intended Erving to replace Cabot only “so far as the latter derived his appointment from the Government of the United States” and that Cabot’s salary from the government is at an end. Cabot will now receive income only from the board contract, of which they enclose a copy [not found]. “If this Remuneration, … less in our Judgment than it ought to be, shall be found sufficient to procure us the aid of his Services, we do not desire that it should be augmented: but if it shall eventually appear to be otherwise we … Hope that such a reasonable addition will be granted by the Government as will make it competent to its object.” They would not have brought this matter before the president if they did not believe that Cabot’s knowledge, diligence, and experience were necessary to promote “sound Economy” as well as individual and public advantage. He is the more essential to them as their knowledge of men with the necessary qualifications is “unavoidably too scanty to justify us in seeking [a replacement] on this side of the Atlantic.” “A more than ordinary portion of mercantile Information is indispensable” for the position, “and a person so qualified, having … the requisite Leisure Diligence and Industry is not readily to be found among those whose Inclinations are not adversary to the Claims of our Citizens.”

There are fifty-seven cases already reported on by Cabot and Glennie awaiting revision and final adjustment. The amount of these “will probably be equal to any Sum we should choose to include in any one sett of awards.” Cabot would arrive in time to help with subsequent cases. They enclose copies of the original orders of the board creating the office of assessor and describing its duties [not found], and they also include a sketch of the duties of these officers in order to show government how necessary it is that one officer should be knowledgeable in the field of commerce, particularly that of “the Voyages and Trade of the American Merchant.”

   RC (DNA: RG 76, Great Britain, Treaty of 1794 (Art. 7), Papers Relative to the Commissioners, vol. 4); enclosures (DNA: RG 76, Great Britain, Treaty of 1794 (Art. 7), Unbound Records, ca. 1790–1820). RC 6 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Gore and Pinkney. Extract printed in Moore, International Adjudications, 4:77–78. Enclosures 8 pp.; docketed by Brent.

   Federalist Christopher Gore (1758–1827), a staunch supporter of the Jay treaty, was U.S. attorney for Massachusetts when Washington appointed him in March 1796 to the Anglo-American arbitration commission provided for in article 7 of that treaty. Following the commission’s close in February 1804, he returned to Massachusetts where, after serving in the legislature for three years, he was elected governor in 1809 and appointed senator in 1813 (Pinkney, Christopher Gore, pp. 51, 62–63, 65, 81, 101, 116, 122).

   Maryland lawyer William Pinkney (1764–1822) was also appointed by Washington to the arbitration commission in 1796 and remained on the board until its close. Although originally a Federalist, he subsequently became an active Republican. Named co-commissioner with James Monroe for treaty negotiations with Great Britain in 1806, he succeeded Monroe as minister in London from 1807 to 1811. On his return, JM appointed him attorney general and later named him special minister to Naples and minister plenipotentiary to Russia in 1816. From 1820 to his death, he served as senator from Maryland (Frank A. Cassell, Merchant Congressman in the Young Republic: Samuel Smith of Maryland, 1752–1839 [Madison, Wis., 1971], pp. 134, 175; Henry Wheaton, Some Account of the Life, Writings, and Speeches of William Pinkney [New York, 1826], pp. 25, 50, 65, 68, 107–8, 147, 149, 166, 172).

   See PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (2 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 1:482 n.


Title: From James Madison to John Francis Mercer, 18 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Mercer, John Francis

Dear Sir
Washington Feby. 18. 1802
Mr Wilmot has just handed me your letters of the 15 & 16 instant with the extract accompanying the latter, which I will take a very early occasion to answer, remaining in the mean time your friend & servant
James Madison

   RC (owned by Robert F. Kennedy, McLean, Va., 1961). A postscript added to the RC in an unidentified hand reads: “N. B. The letter of the 15 February noticed above was private.”

   John Wilmot was employed by the Maryland Council as an express rider (Archives of Maryland [72 vols.; Baltimore, 1883–1972], 72:308, 318).


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 18 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

18 February 1802, London. No. 54. Encloses copy of bill proposed in Parliament by Vansittart concerning countervailing duties on American ships and cargoes. Expects that privy council will issue an order suspending countervailing duty on tobacco for six months as soon as bill passes. Commissioners under article 7 of Jay treaty have reassembled and are proceeding with business.

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10); letterbook copy and copy of enclosure (NHi: Rufus King Papers, vol. 55). RC 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by King. Printed in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 4:72. Enclosure 2 pp.


Title: To James Madison from John M. Forbes, 19 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Forbes, John M.
To: Madison, James

19 February 1802, Philadelphia. Thanks JM for encouraging his application for a consular appointment and accepts the nomination to the post at Hamburg—“in time of war, unquestionably the first Commercial situation under the Government of the United states—in time of peace, highly respectable and inferior to few, if any.” Will embark at New York for England in the first vessel that sails after he receives his commission and instructions. Regrets that JM’s indisposition “prevented the pleasure of seeing you after my appointment”; hopes that JM’s health and strength are restored.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Hamburg, vol. 1). 1 p.

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


Title: To James Madison from Andrew Ellicott, 20 February 1802
From: Ellicott, Andrew
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Lancaster Feby. 20th. 1802
At the request of Mr. Delambre one of the Secretaries of the National Institute of France; I want to forward to him some observations on the eclipses of Jupiters satellites to compare with his new Tables, which he is anxious to publish soon; but is at the same time desirous to make them as perfect as possible. As this exchange of Astronomical observations is of importance to a useful branch of science, I wish to give certainty, and expedition to the conveyance. If it should therefore not be inconsistent with the arrangements of your Office, I will thank you to have the packet forwar[d]ed with your despatches to our Minister at Paris. The packet will be ready by the first of next month. I am sir with sentiments of sincere esteem and respect, your friend and Hbl. Servt
Andw; Ellicott.

   FC (DLC: Ellicott Papers).

   Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Delambre (1749–1822), the noted blind astronomer and member of the Institut National de France, was the author of several astronomical treatises on the movements of Jupiter and Saturn (Biographie universelle [1843–65 ed.], 10:297–301).


Title: To James Madison from James Simpson, 20 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Simpson, James
To: Madison, James

20 February 1802, Tangier. No. 37. Owing to the “very great delay” in arrival of George Washington, has sent his no. 35 [8 Jan.] to Gavino to forward; transmits a copy. Has heard nothing further of the demands Pasha Hackmawy made on 14 Dec., which augurs well. Hackmawy “has been succeeded in the Command of this place by the Governour of Tetuan, who now holds both Govermts.—he is an acquaintance of mine of many years standing.” The Tripolitan ambassador, who asked the emperor for wheat, has gone to Rabat with permission to load it, but he will not find vessels to charter for transporting it so long as Tripoli remains blockaded. The emperor has also promised a crew and provisions to get the Tripolitan brig still at Gibraltar to Tripoli. The governor sought passports for this brig from Simpson and the Swedish consul. They persuaded him that it was not in their power given the present situation at Tripoli but agreed to write to Admiral Cederström and Commodore Dale instead. Encloses an account from Spanish vice-consul Lewis Goublet for his expenditure on behalf of American seamen in 1784–85. Announces the death on 23 Jan. of the governor who preceded Hackmawy and suggests that his house would be suitable for purchase as consular residence. Has asked the minister to let the emperor know of his wish to obtain the house. Refers to his no. 36 advising of his 25 Jan. draft on JM. Hopes for a speedy answer to request in his no. 35 regarding the allowance to be made him.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 1); partial Tr (DNA: RG 233, President’s Messages, 7A-D1). RC 3 pp. Partial Tr communicated by Jefferson to Congress on 15 Dec. 1802 and printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:465. Enclosure not found.

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


Title: From James Madison to William C. C. Claiborne, 22 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Claiborne, William C. C.

Sir,
Department of State: Washington 22nd F⟨ebruary⟩ 1802
I have the honor to enclose you a Commission, ⟨con⟩stituting David Latimore a Member of the Legislativ⟨e⟩ Council of the Mississippi Territory, in the room of ⟨Adam⟩ Bingaman, & request that it may be forwarded to h⟨im.⟩ With much respect, I have the honor to be Sir, Your most obt. Servt:
James Madison

   Tr (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal).

   Winthrop Sargent had described Bingaman in November 1800 as enjoying “a considerable share of public Esteem” but lacking the “essential qualification” of a legislator. Physician David Lattimore had moved from Norfolk, Virginia, to Natchez in 1801 (Sargent to John Marshall, 12 Nov. 1800, Rowland, Mississippi Archives, 1:307; John F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi, as a Province, Territory, and State … [2 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1880], 1:262 n.).


Title: To James Madison from Israel Whelen, 22 February 1802
From: Whelen, Israel
To: Madison, James

Sir
Philadelphia February 22d. 1802
General Stevens of New York called on me on Friday evening on his way to Washington and informed me that Messrs. Stewart & Co, had received the Certificate of our Consul at Tunis, of the delivery of the Cargo of the Grand Turk at that Port, and that a draft would probably be presented the ensuing day for the Freight yet due. I have to day received a letter from Mr. Gordon (on Genl. Stevens’ behalf) stating that Messrs. Stewart & Co. were urgent for payment at a shorter period than usual (fifteen days) but as the draft has not made its appearance I cannot state the precise amount, but presume it is about seven thousand dollars: I therefore respectfully request you will be pleased to direct that sum to be remmitted to me on the above Account. I am very respectfully Sir your obedient Servt.
Israel Whelen

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 45, Purveyor’s Office, Philadelphia). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Whelen.


Title: To James Madison from William Eaton, 22 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Eaton, William
To: Madison, James

22 February 1802, Leghorn. Has received information from Tripoli to 9 Jan. that there had been no captures of American vessels. The pasha is dispatching his corsairs to different ports in the Morea to avoid American attack. Reports that discontent in the interior of Tripoli has “arisen to insurrection” and that the capital suffers famine. The pasha has “made overtures of reconciliation to his brother in Tunis,” but Eaton promises to “defeat this project if I arrive at my port in season—shall depart hence in three days.” Eaton’s health has not improved since his arrival at Leghorn, though he found some relief at sea. Believes only “pure air and exercise” will save him from consumption.
Assuming that some consideration will be given to his complaints against John Mathieu, Eaton recommends that Frederic Degen be charged with the U.S. agency at Naples. Degen is Prussian by birth, a respectable merchant, and connected in business with Purviance and Degen in Leghorn; he is “in principal a man—and in sentiment and in heart an American. Not one of these qualities is to be found in Matthieu.” Suggests Degen because he does not believe that the office is sufficient to tempt an American citizen “of adequate talents.” Will stop at Naples to receive that government’s answer to his 9 Jan. proposal.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tunis, vol. 2, pt. 1); letterbook copy (CSmH). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner.

   See Eaton to JM, 3 Feb. 1802.

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


Title: From James Madison to John Francis Mercer, 23 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Mercer, John Francis

Sir,
Department of State February 23d. 1802.
Having acknowledged by the return of the bearer the receipt of your letter of the 16th. instant, with the extract from Mr. Chase’s letter to you enclosed in it, I have now only to add that both of these documents will be forwarded to Mr. King, with an instruction to avail himself of their contents, in pressing to a just result, the negociation with the British Government, relating to the Maryland Bank Stock.
The difficulties, which, according to the last communication from Mr. King; had been started against closing an arrangement both on this subject, and on the controversy produced by the 6th. Article of the Treaty of 1794, were so sudden and so unsatisfactorily explained by the British Ministry, as to leave it doubtful what final turn may be given to the negociation. We are willing as yet to expect that it will be a favorable one. In any event, I trust it will be found that the claim of Maryland in this case, will have had its just share in the solicitude of the Executive of the United States, for every class of public interests confided to its superintendence. With sentiments of great esteem & consideration, I have the honor to remain, Sir Your most Obt. servant,
James Madison

   RC (MdAA: Blue Book 2). In a clerk’s hand, signed by JM.


Title: To James Madison from Sylvanus Bourne, 23 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Bourne, Sylvanus
To: Madison, James

23 February 1802, Amsterdam. Transmits papers and states that as physicians think his wife’s health “will not sustain the fatigues of a voyage across the Atlantick very soon I shall conclude to let her go into the Country for her benefit in this regard & remain in the wonted exercise of my Official Duties.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Amsterdam, vol. 1). 1 p. In another note of 23 Feb. to JM (ibid.), Bourne repeated the substance of his 22 Feb. letter.

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


Title: To James Madison from Samuel W. Dana, 23 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Dana, Samuel W.
To: Madison, James

23 February 1802. “Mr. Dana” presents for JM’s acceptance a bill of exchange for $2,000 “payable to J. Gavino or order, and drawn at Tangier 15. Nov. 1800, by J. Simpson, together with a letter of advice accompanying the same.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 1). 1 p.; written in third person, in the hand of Connecticut congressman Samuel W. Dana. The enclosure may have been a copy of James Simpson’s 15 Nov. 1800 letter to the secretary of state (ibid.), reporting his having drawn a $2,000 bill of exchange for the purchase of land for a consulate.

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


Title: From James Madison to [Albert Gallatin?], 24 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Gallatin, Albert

24 February 1802, Department of State. States that Cabot’s salary was to begin on the day of his embarkation for Great Britain at an annual rate of $2,500, with an additional $500 allowed for the first year “by way of outfit.” Lacks information to fix the day of embarkation. The salary is to cease 1 Aug. 1801, and the allowance for his return should not reasonably exceed $500. Returns the papers referred to him.

   RC (owned by Raymond E. Burdick, New York, N.Y., 1961). Addressee not indicated. In Wagner’s hand, signed by JM.

   See Samuel Cabot to JM, 30 Dec. 1801, and n. 1.


Title: To James Madison from Bird, Savage, and Bird, 24 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Bird, Savage, and Bird
To: Madison, James

24 February 1802, London. Refers to 13 Jan. letter to JM. Commends Jefferson’s message at opening of Congress on tightening financial arrangements but suggests that “the distance of your foreign relations with Europe will require some latitude to contingencies, … which the public service requires should be provided for in a manner more consistent with the dignity of the United States than a dependance on unauthoris’d advances made by Agents in Europe.” Believing JM wishes to avoid the necessity of such unauthorized advances, firm calls his attention to the unsatisfied demands of the proctors employed in prize and appeals cases, the amount of which will have been communicated by Erving.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, Letters Received from Bankers). 2 pp.; marked “(Copy).”


Title: To James Madison from Louis-Philippe Gallot de Lormerie, 24 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Lormerie, Louis-Philippe Gallot de
To: Madison, James

24 February 1802, Philadelphia. Recalling their discussion of the welfare of the country when JM was in Philadelphia, hopes JM will accept a plan he has formed for the peace and prosperity of the southern states. More than ever foreign enemies can now excite the blacks to a revolt which would affect the union and its finances in ways that cannot be foreseen. Has no other interest in the South but that of the general good. Requests in recompense for his efforts a letter on his behalf from JM to Thomas Todd, clerk of the Court of Appeals at Frankfort, Kentucky, to whom he has written three times with no response. Seeks to know if 5,277 acres of land in Hardin County, Kentucky, was not registered in someone else’s name before his own registration of it in 1797 and, secondly, the date and wording of the registration for that land or a larger tract that previously belonged to Henry Banks of Richmond and Richard Claiborne. His fortunes have been greatly changed by paper money, and the suppression of his office in France without reimbursement leaves these lands his sole support for his old age. Admits in a postscript that people will say his plan is useless and that the terror of black insurrection is fanciful, but he urges adoption of the precautions. In 1785 and 1787 he foresaw the famine of 1789–95 in France and warned officials, who claimed want of finances. Argues that officials concerned with the present can sometimes be blind to future dangers; thus, it is not necessary for him to prove that the blacks in the South will revolt and massacre the population. His plan tends to prevent or to discover plots by impressing on blacks the salutary terrors of religion. Has now fulfilled his obligation. In another postscript requests JM to return the plan for the southern states if it is not adopted or to send him a copy in English if it should be adopted. Also asks JM to send the other communication, entitled “Wool, far more important than cotton,” to the editor of the Aurora.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, ML). RC 5 pp.; written in French, except for second postscript, which is written in English on a small piece of paper. For enclosures, see nn. 2–4.

   Lormerie claimed to be a member of the agricultural societies of London and Paris, and he had corresponded with Jefferson during the latter’s tenure as U.S. minister to France. In 1787 Lormerie had purchased Kentucky land through Samuel Blackden in France, and JM became involved in Lormerie’s subsequent efforts to register the land in Virginia (see Boyd, Papers of JeffersonJulian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (22 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950—)., 11:528, 554–55, 15:155, 478; Samuel Emlen, Jr., to JM, 17 Aug. 1792, PJMWilliam T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (1st ser., vols. 1–10, Chicago, 1962–77, vols. 11–17, Charlottesville, Va., 1977–91)., 14:353 and n. 1).

   Lormerie enclosed his “Plan pour la Sureté & prospèrité des Etats du Sud, de l’union” (2 pp.; in French), which maintained that the best security for the southern states against slave insurrections similar to those that had occurred in Surinam and Saint-Domingue was religion. He advocated sending American missionaries to the slaves to instruct them in the divinely ordained nature of their work as well as to warn them of divine punishment in the event of their failure to fulfill their duties. Lormerie also believed that masters should be similarly enlightened about the need to treat their slaves in a humane fashion by not depriving them of the benefits of religion. To the objection that there would not be enough missionaries for the task, Lormerie responded that any pious or virtuous person could be a missionary, and he pointed to the example of a Philadelphia cabinetmaker of his acquaintance who performed good works by his preaching and exhortations. A few such men in every county, he believed, would suffice, and they should, moreover, be paid by the U.S. if the legislatures of the southern states failed to provide for their expenses. The cost would be less than the loss of revenue that would result from slave insurrections.

   Lormerie enclosed a note in English (1 p.) containing similar questions about his Kentucky land.

   Lormerie enclosed a note headed “highly important,” dated 25 Feb. (2 pp.; in English), in which he claimed that the cultivation of wool would be more beneficial to the U.S. than that of cotton. He pointed out that British policy tended to destroy wool and linen manufactures in the U.S. and that wool supported a greater range of industries with less harm to the land than did cotton. He believed that the cultivation of cotton should be confined to the southern states of the U.S.


Title: From James Madison to Rufus King, 25 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: King, Rufus

Sir,
Department of State February 25th. 1802.
Accounts from London having reached Baltimore, that the negociation in your hands with the British Government had been broken off, Mr. Chase was led by them to ask, in the character of Agent for recovering the Maryland Bank Stock, for such information from this Department as might with propriety be furnished. My answer to him produced the letter and the extract, of which copies are herewith enclosed. They are transmitted to you in fulfilment of a promise given to the Governor of Maryland, and with a view to impress on your attention, both the solicitude felt by that State for the just claim in question, and the facts stated by Mr. Chase in relation to it. I add only that the President has a just participation in the solicitude expressed on the part of Maryland, and relies on a continuance of your exertions for the accomplishment of this as well as of the other important objects of your negociation. With sentiments of the highest esteem and consideration, I remain, Sir, your most obt. humble servant,
James Madison

   RC (CSmH); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM; docketed by King. For surviving enclosure, see n. 1.

   John Francis Mercer to JM, 16 Feb. 1802. For the extract (not found), see ibid., n. 3.


Title: From James Madison to Tobias Lear, 26 February 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Lear, Tobias

Sir
Washington, Department of State, February 26th 1802.
Your letter of the 17th January has been received since the date of my last which was on the 8th of the same month, and of which Triplicates were forwarded. I hope the ideas stated in it will enable your discretion to pursue a proper course amid the critical circumstances which surround you. It is particularly the wish of the president that no just ground or specious pretext may be left for complaint or suspicion on the part of the French republic of a want of due respect for its authority in the government of the United States. I repeat this observation because recent conversations with Mr. Pichon have led to positive assurances to him that the conduct of the United States will be guided by a strict conformity to all the legitimate regulations emanating from that authority as well as [to] the friendly relations now subsisting between the two nations and because it is foreseen that the arrival of the armaments and new civil agents from France at St. Domingo will exact from our consuls the utmost circumspection in avoiding both by the places of their residence and their official acts and deportment every equivocal appearance on this subject. It will, as has been already intimated to you, be better to leave the island altogether than to remain under circumstances which might hazard the confidence or good will of the French government. Still, however, if this hazard can be avoided and there be no objection unknown here to your continuance the president retains his opinion that it may be made very beneficial to our commercial rights and interests.
As yet no official information has been received either of the extent of the armament allotted for St. Domingo or of its departure from France. According to very probable accounts it sailed within the month of December and consisted of between 15 and 25 sail of the line and between 20 and 30 thousand troops. You will find in the enclosed paper the views avowed [by] the French government in relation both to the dependence of the island and the condition of the negroes.
Enclosed I send you a commission for yourself and another for Mr. Caldwell issued in consequence of the Senate’s confirmation of your appointments and ⟨also⟩ Mr. Dandridge’s commission for Port Republicain which was omitted in my former letter. The two latter may be delivered or not according as in your opinion circumstances may require or if you should find it necessary you may assign to those gentlemen such appointments in the nature of commercial agencies and in lieu of their commissions as you may think more suitable [to the] posture of affairs.
Reports as you well know have long prevailed that a cession of Louisiana has been made to France by Spain. It is now conjectured by some that a part of the force allotted for St. Domingo is directly or eventually destined to take possession of that territory. Should any discoveries be made by you with respect to either of these points You will be so good as to communicate them and in cypher if the nature of the communication require that precaution.
Tho’ the Consular Act allows but twelve Cents a day to shipwrecked, sick or Captive seamen, other laws have been since passed, from year to year, allowing a Reimbursement to the Consuls who may necessarily exceed that sum. No appropriation for the purpose has been passed for this year, but it is hardly to be doubted that it will be done before the Session closes. I remain, with great consideration, Sir, Your Very Obedt. Servant,
James Madison
It will be proper for yourself and Messs Dandridge and Caldwell to renew your Bonds upon receiving your new Commissions.
Mr Caldwells Commn. will go under another and a separate cover.

   RC, three copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cap Haitien, vol. 4); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM. Second RC is a letterpress copy of first RC. Third RC, in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM, varies slightly (see nn. 2 and 4). Italicized words are those encoded by JM’s clerk and decoded here by the editors using a key from the Lear family papers (owned by Stephen Decatur, Garden City, N.Y., 1958). The coded passages were decoded by Lear in a two-page partial transcript of the letter (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cap Haitien, vol. 4). Letterbook copy not encoded. Words in square brackets were omitted in coding and are supplied from letterbook copy. Enclosures not found.

   See JM to Pichon, 15 Feb. 1802, and n. 1.

   In all three copies of the RC, only “Cal” was encoded for “Caldwell.” In the third RC the clerk skipped a line, omitting the section from this point to “Mr. Dandridge’s”; this section is also missing from Lear’s transcript.

   The preceding paragraph and the postscript are not included in Lear’s transcript.

   The third RC contains a different postscript (in a clerk’s hand): “A duplicate Copy of Mr Caldwell’s Commn. will be sent under another and a separate cover. Duplicate Copies as well as the originals have already been sent of the others. The other enclosure does not go either by this conveyance, having been sent by the others.”


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 26 February 1802
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Paris 26 Feby. 1802
I have written to you by the way of havre & by that conveyance you will receive packets &c. but as I would wish to omit no opportunit[y] I send this to L’Orient from whence I am told that a vessel is about to sail for Norfolk. You will find by the notes I sent you at different times that the administration here preserve the most absolute silence as to every point on which I press them & I am told by the other foreign ministers that they act in the same manner by them notes remaining for months unanswered. On the subject of Luissania I have nothing new. The establishment is disapproved by every states man here as one that will occasion a great waste of men & money excite enmities with us & produce no possible advantage to the nation. But it is a scheme to which the first consul is extreamly attatched & it must of course be supported. You find by the enclosed note that I have pressed an explanation on that subject but I have recd no answer. I have it how[ev]er thro’ a friend from the first consul that it is by no means their intention to obstruct the navigation of the river or violate our treaty with Spain. Genl Bernadotte is understood to be designated for the command & to have asked for that purpose 10000 men. On the subject of the debts I am almost hop[e]less for I find that this government are still anticipating on the next years revenue & that at the enormous interest of 12 & 18 pr Ct. Supposing that the state of affairs in America wd render this moment the proper one to press our demand I sent in the enclosed note in addition to those before sent in on the subject of Claims & prizes. I yet have no answer. The verbal ones I receive amount to nothing. I submit it to you whether it will not be proper by some act of goverment to guard our mer⟨c⟩hants from granting new credits which will no doubt be eagerly ⟨s⟩ought by the agents of the fleets & Armies. Bil[l]s that have been drawn by Mr. Pichons direction remain unpaid even for the most urgent & necessary services & tho they promise that they will pay yet they allow no interest & this together with the disappointment & the expence of soliciting absorbs half the value when they are pd. How far it may be in the power of our government to do themselves justice by commercial impositions is a question of profound policy on which you will judge better than I can, but I have no doubt as to the propriety of puting a stop to credits as one means of geting some attention paid to us here & as at least securing some compensation for our supplies for as they can not do without them they must remit money the difficulty of doing this may make them sick of Luissania.
I have had no letters since my arrival from you nor any sort of instructions I wish you to be particular as to Mr Otto who stands very high here. He will be charged with instructions to make a commercial treaty with us. I heretofore enclosed a note relative to Mr. Sottin should he be sent notwithstanding my objections to him I presume the president will withold his exequatur. Lequino who goes to providence is a good kind of man but I fear that his writings on religious subjects will make him very unacceptable but I had no ground on which to object to him.
I have letters from Mr. Pinkney but they contain nothing of political moment. No conclusion is yet had at Amiens where the Spaniards are very reluctant in their concessions particularly of Trinidad it is generally believed that France will give Martinique instead of it & obtain so favorable stipulations with respect to Luissania from England in return—but every thing of that kind you will have from England here a man who has no money to lay out for secret service can know but little. I pray you to Obtain permission for me to pay a vissit to England sometime in the course of the summer. I shall not avail myself of it except when I can be spared from here without the smallest inconvenience. I am Dr. Sir with much essteem & the highest consideration &c.

   Draft (NHi: Livingston Papers); first enclosure (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8); letterbook copy and copies of enclosures (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1). RC not found but acknowledged in JM to Livingston, 1 May 1802 (DNA: RG 59, IM). Minor differences between the draft and the letterbook copy have not been noted. Italicized words are underlined in the draft; Livingston apparently intended them to be encoded. For enclosures, see nn. 1 and 2.

   Livingston enclosed a copy of his 20 Feb. 1802 note to Talleyrand in which he warned of the harmful effects the arrival in Louisiana of a large number of French troops would have on the western U.S., inquired whether East and West Florida had been ceded to France by Spain, and hinted that these two territories might be sold to the U.S. (4 pp.) (DNA: RG 59, DD, France; letterbook copy, NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1; printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:513–14).

   Livingston’s note to Talleyrand of 24 Feb. 1802 sought answers to two previous inquiries, the first about American claims against the French government and the measures that government intended to take to liquidate them and the second about the injustice of decisions of the Council of Prizes that were issued with “entire disregard for the provisions of the treaty. When a vessel is even acquitted, it is done in such a manner as to amount to a total loss to the owner” (letterbook copy, NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1). Livingston also appears to have enclosed with the RC a copy of his 26 Feb. note to Talleyrand asking him to order immediate payment of the claim for the Pégou and reminding him that he had not yet received answers to any of his earlier notes (letterbook copy, ibid.).

   See Livingston to JM, 15 Feb. 1802, and nn. 4, 5.

   Joseph-Marie Lequinio de Kerblay (b. 1740), a minor politician and pamphleteer who had been distinguished for his antimonarchical and anticlerical sentiments during the French Revolution, took up the post of commissary of commercial relations at Newport on 15 June 1802. He remained there for several years (Biographie universelle [1843–65 ed.], 24:243–44; Abraham P. Nasatir and Gary Elwyn Monell, French Consuls in the United States: A Calendar of Their Correspondence in the Archives Nationales [Washington, 1967], p. 551).


Title: To James Madison from Beers & Judah, 26 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Beers & Judah
To: Madison, James

26 February 1802, Fairfield, Connecticut. Convinced that JM will be as willing as his predecessors, Randolph and Pickering, to provide information, they notify him that they had a vessel and cargo valued at more than $15,000 captured by the British and condemned at St. Kitts over eight years ago. Following the directions of Randolph and Pickering, they committed their claim to Samuel Bayard at London and, after Bayard’s return, to Samuel Cabot. Cabot wrote them on 26 Jan. 1799 that the London court of appeals had reversed the sentence of condemnation in the case and directed that their property or the value thereof be returned to them. After Cabot returned to the U.S., their business was entrusted to Samuel Williams, who informed them on 3 Oct. 1801 that he was no longer acting as agent, that unless they received compensation from the commissioners they would never receive it at all, that the commissioners had suspended their proceedings, and that it was unknown when they would reconvene. “Now sir our wish is, to know, what occasions the delay of the commissioners: what prospect there is of their resuming business, & your opinion of the ultimate event of their proceedings.”

   Tr (DNA: RG 76, British Spoliations, 1794–1824, Unsorted Papers). 1 p. In September 1802 the American claims agent in London notified Beers, David Judah, and Joshua Bouton that they could expect to receive a total of £1,194 14s. 1d. sterling for their claim (DNA: RG 59, CD, London, vol. 8).

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


Title: To James Madison from Israel Whelen, 26 February 1802 (Abstract)
From: Whelen, Israel
To: Madison, James

26 February 1802, Philadelphia. Since his letter of 22 Feb. regarding the balance due Stewart & Company for the freight of the Grand Turk, General Stevens’s draft for $7,350 has been presented. Encloses copies of the consul’s certificate of delivery, a statement of the account, and receipt for the draft, which he has received from Gordon, the general’s agent. If the $7,000 requested in his previous letter has been remitted, it will not be necessary to send the additional $350; if not, requests full amount.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, ML); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 45, Purveyor’s Office, Philadelphia). RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner, with his notation: “Quer. whether the money was remitted.” Enclosures 2 pp.


Title: To James Madison from W. F. Gordon, 27 February 1802
From: Gordon, W. F.
To: Madison, James

Sir.
New York 27th. February 1802
I have the Honor of acknowledging the receipt of your letter, of the 18th. Inst. which came to hand yesterday, enclosing the Instructions to Capt. Laughton, with his letter and that of Consul Gavino, relative to his putting into Gibralter.
Messrs. Stewart & Co. has suggested to me his intention of claiming Demurrage, whilst the Grand Turk lay at Gibralter. I shall in conformity with Your request, lay the papers before the District Attorney, for his opinion, the result of which, will be duly communicated to You.
The Certificate, from the American Consul at Tunis of the delivery of the Cargo, was presented me, on the 18th. Inst., from which date, Messrs. Stewart & Co. had the promise of my draft, (for the freight & primage due them) on the purveyor at 15 days sight, it was suspended a few days, on Account of their having encouragement of your giving me liberty to draw at a shorter sight—not receiving any advise, from You so soon as was expected, they insisted on having the draft, made agreeable, to my engagement.
I accordingly drew on the purveyor, for the Sum of Seven thousand three hundred & fifty Dollars at 15 days, from the 18th. Inst. being in full for Amoun⟨t⟩ of Freight and primage, due, on the Cargo.
The accounts, were transmitted the purveyor on the 25th. Inst. with advise of the draft, of which I expect, he has informed You.
Enclosed, herewith, you have a duplicate account of the Amount, with Messrs. Stewart & Co. Receipt annexed. I have the Honor, to be Sir with great respect Your Hble Servt.

for Ebenr Stevens
W. F. Gordon

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, ML). In a clerk’s hand, signed by Gordon. Enclosure (1 p.) is Ebenezer Stevens’s 25 Feb. 1802 draft on Israel Whelen for $7,350 and James Stewart & Company’s receipt for the same.

   See Ebenezer Stevens to JM, 18 Feb. 1802, and n. 2.


Title: To James Madison from Elias Vander Horst, 2 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Vanderhorst, Elias
To: Madison, James

2 March 1802, Bristol. Transmits copies of his letters of 12 and 13 Feb., since which nothing worth communicating has occurred. Forwards four letters from Rufus King and encloses newspapers and the latest London price current.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bristol, vol. 2). 1 p. Written at the bottom of Vander Horst to JM, 12 and 13 Feb. 1802. Copy (ibid.) dated 3 Mar. 1802. Enclosures not found.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:464 and n.

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


Title: To James Madison from James Leander Cathcart, 4 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Cathcart, James Leander
To: Madison, James

4 March 1802, Leghorn. No. 2. Has learned that the U.S. ship George Washington, which arrived 31 Jan. from Tunis and Naples and sailed a few days later with merchant vessels under convoy, reached Marseilles safely. The President was repaired at Toulon and has sailed for Gibraltar. Eaton arrived in Leghorn on the George Washington and remained until 28 Feb. He will stop at Naples “to determine a point of some importance full details of which is forwarded by him to the department of State by this conveyance” and then proceed directly to Tunis. Before his departure from Leghorn, Eaton received reports from Turner at Tunis that “no alteration had taken place” there. Encloses copies of latest reports from Tripoli and observes that “the very elements seem to have declared in our favor, & if government thinks proper to decree the destruction of Tripoli for the iniquity of their Bashaw, never did, & probably never will so favorable an opportunity present itself.” Swedish admiral Cederström arrived in Leghorn “some days since” after consultation with Commodore Dale; “the result I am not inform’d, but from the circumstance of his taking onboard here a large quantity of cash I presume he will act similar to the Danes.” Is anxious to receive instructions from the president.

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tripoli, vol. 2). RC 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner; 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)., 2:78. Enclosures include a copy of a 20 Dec. 1801 letter to Cathcart from Nicolai C. Nissen at Tripoli discussing the formal protest he made against the Tripolitan Jews for not paying an obligation of $1,929 when it became due, relaying rumors of a reconciliation between the pasha of Tripoli and his brother, reporting a defeat sustained by the pasha’s troops, and describing the “deplorable situation” in Tripoli owing to two years of drought (4 pp.; docketed by Cathcart as received 19 Feb. 1802 “& forwarded to Dept. of State March 4th. 1802”; on the last page Cathcart addressed a note to JM, dated 4 Mar. 1802, in which he commended Nissen’s conduct relative to the Jews and criticized Richard O’Brien’s “system of dependance & implicit faith in the Sanhedrim [sic]”). Cathcart apparently also enclosed an extract from another letter to him from Nissen, 25 Dec. 1801, reporting that a “most violent gale of wind” had destroyed several ships, including the pasha’s thirteen-gun corvette, and inquiring whether an action for debt should be brought against the Jews in Europe (1 p.; Cathcart appended the note, “I am of opinion that no action ought to be brought against the Tripoline Jews at Leghorn, the debt ought undoubtedly to be paid by those who contracted it”); and a copy of a note from Nissen headed, “Departure & arrival of Cruisers at Tripoli Decr. 25. 1801,” describing the movements and appearance of Tripolitan cruisers (1 p.; filed with Cathcart to JM, 28 Dec. 1801; printed ibid., 1:645–46). Cathcart may also have enclosed a copy of a letter to him from Capt. Samuel Barron at Malta, 9 Jan. 1802, commenting on the violent winds he had encountered on his voyage from Leghorn and conveying news from Tripoli received through Joseph Pulis, the consul at Malta (2 pp.; printed ibid., 2:15–16), to which Cathcart appended a “Memorandum” stating that he felt “highly sensible of the honor confer’d on him by the President & Senate in their appointment of Mr. Pulis merely from his recommendation” and that although Pulis did not speak English, “to counterballance that inconveniency he corresponds with all the Barbary States & has it in his power more than any other person to procure us accurate intelligence.”

   See Eaton to JM, 22 Feb. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:483).

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


Title: To James Madison from Obed and Aaron Mitchell, 4 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Mitchell, Obed,Mitchell, Aaron
To: Madison, James

4 March 1802, Nantucket. “We the Subscribers being owners of the ship Minerva Sailed from this place on a whaling voyage to the Brazils & Woolwick [Walvis] Bay in 7th Mo 1799, upon her return with a full load of oil … the 5th of 10th Mo 1800 was captured by a French Privateer of 12 Guns.” The vessel was ordered to Guadeloupe, but on 14 Oct. it was retaken by the British ship Gaite and “ordered for the Port Saint Johns [St. John, Antigua] arrived there the 17th. of the same.” On 1 Nov. a British vice-admiralty court condemned the Minerva. “And seeing she was taken by the French after the Treaty was signed in France we think it not improbable that our demand may be good upon the French.” Requests JM’s advice on how to proceed.

   Tr (N). 1 p.; marked “Copy.” A marginal note in an unidentified hand reads, “NB. I cannot find at the Dept: that any answer was written to the above letter. I. A. C.”

   The Mitchells owned a large whaling firm in Nantucket that produced illuminating oil and spermaceti candles. In 1846 the Mitchells’ claim was described: “Ship Minerva, Fitch, 1,500 barrels of oil on board; value $30,000; one of the original owners living, sixty-eight years old, poor; master still alive, seventy-eight years old, with small means and many dependants; one of the crew alive, poor; claims never sold” (Robert A. Davison, Isaac Hicks: New York Merchant and Quaker, 1767–1820 [Cambridge, Mass., 1964], pp. 86–87; Alexander Starbuck, History of the American Whale Fishery [2 vols.; 1878; New York, 1964 reprint], 1:91 n.). The U.S. was still pursuing this claim as late as 1886 (see House Documents, 49th Cong., 1st sess., 1:18).


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 5 [March] 1802
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

No. 55.
Sir
London Feb. [March] 5. 1802
Commodore Dale while at Toulon having informed me that he might have occasion to draw upon Messrs. Mackenzie and Glennie for more than the amount of the Funds in their hands subject to his Draughts, I communicated the same to these Gentlemen, who have assured me that the Commodore’s Bills shall be duly honoured.
The arms which have been making by Mortimer for the Bey of Tunis are completed; and I shall desire Bird Savage & Bird to have them sent by the earliest opportunity to our Consul at Gibraltar with Instructions to him to deliver them to the first American Frigate which touches there on her way up the Mediterranean.
On account of the double execution of the order for Cloths, the mounting of a Tagan, and I believe an excess in the Costs of the arms and Jewels above the Estimate, the Funds remitted to Bird Savage and Bird for this Service will prove deficient between two and Three Thousand Pounds: the money on hand will be wholly applied, and I shall desire Bird savage & Bird to give their acceptances at two months for the Balance. As they will advise the Secretary of the Treasury of the particulars of this Business, it is unnecessary that I should trouble you farther with it.
Lord Pelham a few days ago shewed me a Letter from Mr. MacDonough the British Agent at Tripoli, exculpating himself from the charge of having excited the Bashaw of that Regency to make war upon the United States. He explicitly denies the charge, and encloses a Certificate to the same effect, signed by the Bashaw himself. Mr. MacDonough having thought it necessary to solicit this Certificate from the Bashaw will serve to shew him that his hostility to the United States may not be agreeable to Great Britain.
The Bill authorising the Crown to suspend the Tonnage and Countervailing Duties upon American Ships and Cargoes is still before Parliament, but will without doubt pass in a few days. The Debate to which it has given rise, so far as regards General Gascoigne, one of the Members from Liverpool, appears to have been for mere electioneering purposes; and with respect to Doctor Laurence and Mr. Wyndham the occasion, however unconnected, was made use of as an opportunity to talk about the Negotiation at Amiens, and the dangerous Dominion of France.
I have seen a Letter dated Paris Feb. 26. which says “it is definitively settled to send a Colony to Louisiana and Florida. General Bernadotte is to have the direction and command of it: preparations are making for the first Expedition whose departure will perhaps depend upon the accounts expected from St. Domingo. It is asserted that the Indian Nations adjoining to Florida have Agents now here for the purpose of making Treaties with this Country to unite themselves with the Troops and Settlers that may be sent from hence. The establishment of this Colony is a darling object and will be pursued with ardour and upon a great scale, unless the affairs of St. Domingo shall for the moment derange the plan. Louisiana, Guiana and the desert Island of Tristan de Cunha are each spoken of as places to which the rebellious and untractable Negroes and people of Colour may be sent from St. Domingo and the other french Colonies.” With perfect respect and Esteem, I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedt. & faithful Servt.
Rufus King

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10); letterbook copy (NHi: Rufus King Papers, vol. 55). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by King; docketed by Brent. Letterbook copy dated 5 Mar. 1802—the correct date according to internal evidence.

   For Richard Dale’s letter to King of 5 Jan. 1802, see 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)., 2:13–14.

   This was probably an approximation of yataghan (or ataghan), a long dagger sheathed in a silver or gold scabbard, worn by men in the Ottoman Empire.

   On the charges against Bryan McDonogh, see King to JM, 14 Dec. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:316–17 and n. 2).

   In his 5 Mar. remarks before the House of Commons, Isaac Gascoyne complained that the bill “would infringe upon the Navigation act, which, next to the great charter of our liberties, ought to be kept inviolate.” French Laurence countered that “whatever might be the expediency or inexpediency of the measure, we must adopt it, if we were bound to do so by good faith.” He repeated the rumor that the French planned to “carry on a war of Customhouse duties with us, and, if possible, to ruin our trade.” William Windham stated that although he had no doubt the countervailing duties should be removed, he was uncertain “whether it was proper to pass an act to take them off before it was known that the duties in America had been abolished.” As to the French, he said, Great Britain now had to contend with a power “which had not been seen since the time of Charlemagne” (Parliamentary History of England, 36:351, 354–55, 357–58).


Title: To James Madison from Bartholomew Dandridge, 5 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Dandridge, Bartholomew
To: Madison, James

5 March 1802, Aux Cayes. Received news of the arrival of twenty-five to thirty thousand French troops at Cap Français and Port Républicain about 10 Feb. First reports indicated the French troops met a friendly reception. Subsequent reports—that “at both places the Troops arriving from France were opposed & fired upon at their landing by the troops of Toussaint & Dessalines” and that both towns were “burnt & all the white & mulatto inhabitants without exception were butchered by the negroes”—caused the “greatest anxiety among the whites for the safety of their lives & properties.” The most accurate information available indicates Toussaint’s troops destroyed Cap Français on the French approach. Has heard nothing from Lear. States that French troops were fired at during their landing at Port Républicain. General Dessalines, in his retreat from that town, “carry’d off much treasure,” destroyed all plantations in his path, and burned the town of Léogane. At Jacmel he “showed evident intention of burning the town & murdering the white & mulatto inhabitants,” but the black commandant of the place and “the soldiers, shewing no disposition to execute his bloody & inhumane orders,” he retreated to the mountains. Dessalines had ordered General Laplume, commander of the southern department, to defend Aux Cayes as long as he could but if overpowered to destroy the town and its white inhabitants. “It is impossible for me to express the gratitude that is due by me & all the americans residing in this Department, to our benevolent & humane Generl. Laplume,” who was prepared to oppose the “savagely cruel mandate” of Dessalines. “A few days since Genl. Darbois arrived here with 700 or 800 men from Port republican & every thing is now perfectly tranquil in the south Department.” Leclerc has ordered an embargo on all American vessels, reportedly occasioned by the discovery of an American ship at St. Marc bearing gunpowder and arms for Toussaint. The embargo “will be attended with much delay & expence to several of our vessels now laden with produce & ready to depart for the Ud. States.” This letter is sent by a schooner bound for Baltimore, which has liberty to depart because it has been engaged to transport one hundred soldiers to Jérémie. Lear’s last letter informed him of his appointment as U.S. commercial agent at Port Républicain in place of Ritchie; has not received any communication from JM on the subject.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cap Haitien, vol. 4). 6 pp.; docketed by Brent. Extract printed in the National Intelligencer, 5 Apr. 1802.

   On 29 Jan. 1802 a French invasion force of twelve thousand men under the command of Gen. Charles-Victor-Emmanuel Leclerc arrived off the east coast of the island of Hispaniola. The attempt by the French to retake and pacify the island’s black population through two years’ bitter fighting ultimately failed (Ott, Haitian Revolution, pp. 139–62; see also Tobias Lear to JM, 28 Feb. 1802, PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:499–522).

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


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 6 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

6 March 1802, London. Private No. 8. Has reported in an accompanying letter “all that has passed upon the subject of my appointment.” Is “perfectly satisfied” with the situation; has full schedule of responsibilities without assessorship. But “upon the score of Emolument—here is certainly a very great deduction without any proportionable deduction of business.” Notes Pinkney’s assertion that Cabot was not overpaid at a salary of $2,500 a year plus payment for his reports; suggests that Cabot was “most profusely overpaid” for his reports and “the arrangement had very much the appearance of a job.” In response to Gore’s statement that Cabot’s office “sunk into that of Mr Williams,” suggests that Williams should receive a pay increase or perhaps Cabot should refund a portion. Truth is Cabot and Williams “made what the Law calls ‘Hodge-podge’ of their Offices & salaries”; Cabot “was as much agent for claims after his appointment to the assessorship as before.” Suggests that there have been irregularities in the commission’s use of contingency funds and excessive clerical staff. King’s secretary is also a secretary to the commission at a salary of £160 a year. Erving had expected to be nominated to the assessorship by the American commissioners and accepted by the British commissioners “without difficulty.” However, King declined to introduce him to the commission, expressing “his unwillingness to ‘interfere,’” and wrote to them with reluctance only after “I wrote to him pretty urgently in the letter which inclosed the Extract of yours.” Pinkney “denied all responsibility in his situation to the American government, he sat there as an independant judge”; Gore agreed. If this impartiality, rather than support of American claims, had been shared by the commissioners under article 6 of the Jay treaty that met at Philadelphia, it would have cost the U.S. “some millions of dollars.” Given this attitude, the commission might as well be “composed altogether of Englishmen.” States that even King admits the motives of Pinkney and Gore in shutting him out of the assessorship are based on partisan politics. “In fine tho’ English federalism is defeated in America, amongst our public officers here it yet triumphs.”
State of negotiations at Amiens remains a “profound Mystery.” The ministry “has been obliged to pluck up Courage Enough to send something like a spirited Remonstrance” to complain of the delay; it is said, though “scarcely to be beleived,” that Addington “demanded an immediate conclusion of the treaty.” Napoleon is “improving Every moment, & shoud the war recommence will be found in a much more formidable attitude.” Erving anticipates categorical demands upon the British by Napoleon in the near future. Hopes, however, that “both parties will see their interest in terminating this contest,” for peace “must be productive of great political advantages to us.” Mercantile losses will be more than offset by “improvements of the interior.” French mercantile policy in the West Indies is more “liberal & rational … than under their old Government”; the British are sure to “follow their Example.” Speeches in Parliament “begin to hold a proper language with respect to the United States,” even though “the real disposition is not changed.” Observes that King has “great apprehensions” about Louisiana. It appears that France has “so many objects of immediate & pressing interest to attend to, that no apprehensions of mischeif can be Entertained from that quarter for some time.” Hopes differences may be negotiated; France can have no interest in pursuing a plan “so odious & offensive” and one leading to such a “misunderstanding.” “These ghosts however which we conjure up are very agreeable to people here, who will help us to get or guarantee to us any thing, providing that we will connect ourselves with their desperate fortunes.”

   RC and triplicate (MHi: Erving Papers); duplicate (CSmH). 8 pp.

   Duplicate copy has an additional sentence here: “In Mr Pinckneys situation a man may perhaps be so upright as to bend backwards.”

   In the duplicate copy this sentence begins: “These phantoms however which we conjure up are very agreeable to the people here, who woud help us to get, or guarantee to us territories in the moon …”


Title: To James Madison from Louis-André Pichon, 7 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: Pichon, Louis-André
To: Madison, James

7 March 1802. Sends a report of the secretary of the treasury on the claim of [Paul] Coulon, a French merchant. Asks JM to interest himself in the case to see that Coulon receives justice.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, NFL, France, vol. 1). 3 pp.; in French. Enclosure not found, but see n. 1.

   Gallatin’s report, dated 22 Jan. 1802, which looked unfavorably on Coulon’s demand for payment, is printed in ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Claims, pp. 251–55. The House passed a bill for Coulon’s relief on 12 Apr. 1802, but the Senate failed to concur (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 7th Cong., 1st sess., 266–67, 1163). For Coulon’s petition to Congress asking for compensation for his loss as owner of the prize ship Betty Cathcart, detained in Wilmington, North Carolina, see Pichon to JM, 29 Sept. 1802.


Title: From James Madison to Andrew Ellicott, 8 March 1802
From: Madison, James
To: Ellicott, Andrew

Dear Sir
Washington Mar. 8. 1802
Having been lately a good deal out of health, & the Chief Clerk confined by the same cause for some days past, several letters have been unavoidably unanswerd, & among them yours asking the aid of the Dept. of State in exchanging scientific information with a Correspondent in Europe. You will now please to accept the information that whatever facility can be properly afforded for the purpose will readily be so, and particularly that of transmitting your letters in the manner you suggest. With great respect & esteem I am Dear Sir Your obedt. servt.
James Madison

   RC (DLC: Ellicott Papers).

   On Ellicott’s correspondence with Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Delambre, see Ellicott to JM, 20 Feb. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:480).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 8 March 1802
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Richmond March 8. 1802.
Since my last respecting mr. Skipwith’s claim to reimbursement of the money advanc’d by him to replace what was robbed from him in Paris, of the sum entrusted to him to be remitted to our bankers in Holland, I have been in Albemarle & brought down with me many documents, most of which are original, relative to that affair, which are forwarded you by the mail. In these you will receive the original letters of the bankers to me, of the ministers of foreign affrs. & finance in answer to my application for leave to export the money, statments of their agencies in the business by Mr. Van Staphorst & Mr. Purviance, a decln. of Mr. Skipwith relative to the deposit, & his report of the amt. & circumstances attending the robbery, as also some letters of the Secry. of the Treasury. All these documents being original belong to me. Some of them such as Mr. Van Staphorsts & Purviance’s statments, & Skipwiths decln., are of a private nature, intended for use only in case they became necessary to expose the authors of certain calumnies which you intimated were circulated, to my prejudice, in a certain stage of that affair. I communicate them to you that you may see the precise ground on which every thing appertaining to it stands. A view of the other original documents is only necessary that they may be compard with the copies heretofore furnished, that a possibility of error may be guarded against. After you have made what use of them you think fit I shall be glad to receive them back, tho’ that may not be till we meet in the summer in Albemarle. You will observe that till the payment of the money wh. took place between the 27th. or 8th. of Octr. & 5th or 6th. of Novr. 1795. the business was entirely in the hands of Mr. D’allarde, managed on my part by Mr. Van Staphorst & Mr. Purviance. At the moment the payment was made the convention was giving ground to the directorial govt., wh. was not organised for several days: I recd. from Mr. de la Croix a notification of his appointment to the office of foreign affrs. on the 9th. bearing date on the 7th which I answer’d on the 10th. as you will see in my publication pa: 295. My letter asking permission to export the money was on the 12th. In addition to the formal official applications by me, others were daily made by Mr. Skipwith & Mr. Van Staphorst or some of my family for leave to export the money. These gentln. were in daily communication, I mean the two first, with the Treasury department, and incessantly pressed for the permission which I had formally asked. You will readily conceive I had other objects to attend to at the time, and that I had a motive for prefering informal applications for such an accomodation as that wh. was sought: tho’ I am persuaded I cod. not have been more attentive to the object, than I was, under any circumstances. It is still matter of surprise to me that the Secry. of the Treasury shod. send me a bill to Lubbert & Dumas at Hamburg, wh. they were to pay, in a letter addressed to them, sealed, which of course I cod. not see, for which funds were at the time provided, and let me know nothing abt. it: it is more surprising that he shod. let that bill rest in that state for a year, without giving any order respecting it. D’allarde I recollect suspected foul play as to the fund deposited in London with Cazenove & Co:. I think Harrison & Sterret were connected with it: it occurs that D’allarde informed me that when he applied to Cazenove for the money he evaded payment, tho’ he was to have had the benefit of it, on payment of the bill on him. However I know nothing as to the real merits of that part of the transaction. Among the papers sent you is an answer of mine to a letter of D’allarde on that subject, which I wish preserved. I expect I have his letter in Albemarle. Mr. Skipwith’s claim rests on its own merit. I presume all the necessary documents are now before you respecting it. He undertook the business without a view of profit, as you will see by many documents, to save expence to the U States, and in the hope of rendering an useful & acceptable service to his country. I do not think that he used one farthing of the money while it was in his possession. Indeed it was impossible for him to do it, being boxed up immediately for transportation & permission to transport it daily expected. The subterfuge on which his claim to reimbursement was evaded, was worthy the character who practic’d it, and peculiarly becomes the epoch in our history to which it belongs. I say this on the idea that the documents presented were satisfactory to prove that the loss was actually sustained, and that no neglect or misconduct was attributable to him on that head. I do not know how far it may be proper to confine the report to the case of the loss simply & the claim of reimbursement, or to take into view a summary of the whole transaction. Of this you will judge and act accordingly. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference. If the affr. is entered into generally you will also judge how far it will be proper to present the whole or any part of the papers sent you. We desire our best regards to Mrs. Madison & the family. Sincerely I am yours.
Jas. Monroe

   RC (NN: Monroe Papers).

   Monroe to JM, 5 Feb. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:445–46).

   Among the documents Monroe forwarded were probably Charles Delacroix to Monroe, 15 Nov. 1795; Willink, Van Staphorst, and Hubbard to Monroe, 24 Dec. 1795; John Henry Purviance to Monroe, 31 Dec. 1796; Jacob Van Staphorst to Monroe, 25 Dec. 1797; statements of Fulwar Skipwith, 28 July 1796 and 8 Mar. 1797; Skipwith to Monroe, 27 Mar. 1796, with a note by Monroe dated 8 Mar. 1802; Oliver Wolcott to Monroe, 23 June 1795 and 16 Sept. 1796; and Monroe to d’Allarde, 11 Mar. 1797 (NN: Monroe Papers).

   Monroe here refers to accusations made against him in 1796 while he was U.S. minister to France that he speculated in French property and had been criminally neglectful in the theft of U.S. bullion destined for the payment of American loans in Holland (PJMWilliam T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (1st ser., vols. 1–10, Chicago, 1962–77, vols. 11–17, Charlottesville, Va., 1977–91)., 16:302–3, 304 n. 4).

   Pierre-Gilbert Leroy, baron d’Allarde (1749–1809), was a political economist who contributed to the debates over monetary policy and public credit in Revolutionary France. For a time he was the partner of James Swan in the firm d’Allarde, Swan et Cie (Biographie universelle [1843–65 ed.], 1:493–94; Howard C. Rice, “James Swan: Agent of the French Republic, 1794–1796,” New England Quarterly, 10 [1937]: 464–86).

   Monroe, A View of the Conduct of the Executive … (Philadelphia, 1797; EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography … 1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 32491).


Title: To James Madison from “A Plain Man,” [8 March] 1802
From: “A Plain Man”
To: Madison, James

Sir,
[8 March 1802]
The system of the administration generally, but especially that part of it which respects the courts, is believed to be so hostile to the Union, and so opposed to your former opinions on the subject, that I cannot resist the inclination I feel, to ask your attention to a few observations, on a point so universally interesting.
The friends of the constitution, who consider that instrument as a law limiting the powers of the legislature, have maintained, with unanswered and unanswerable force of argument, that the general clause which says, ‘the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior’; is obligatory on the legislature. That being descriptive of the tenure of office, and not restrictive of the power of a particular department; being intended to preserve purity in the administration of justice, by securing the independence of those who administer it, and not merely to prevent a particular department, from the exercise of a particular power it would otherwise possess; the clause forms a barrier round the judiciary, which neither the legislature nor the executive can rightfully overleap.
In opposition (I will not say in answer) to this reasoning, the ministerial band contend.
1st. That if the legislature violate the constitution, yet the act is obligatory, not only on individuals, but on the courts likewise, and that judges sworn to support the constitution, must give to such acts the effect of laws legitimately enacted, and be governed by them in opposition to the instrument which its friends consider as the sacred source from whence all the powers of every department are derived.
2d. That the words ‘the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior,’ are intended to restrain the executive and not the legislative power.
With respect to the first argument, I shall not stop to demonstrate its direct tendency to prostrate the constitution at the feet of the legislature, and to introduce, in all its force, the principle of Parliamentary omnipotence, a principle heretofore so much reprobated, and which it is the great object of a written constitution to resist. Nor shall I employ myself in marking to these gentlemen, the palpable contradiction of maintaining, that the judges are bound by a law violating the constitution, and yet that the juries are at liberty to deny its force. It would be unnecessary to dwell on these contradictions, because inconsistency must be habitual with men who believe all means may be used to effect the end desired, and because the motive for this inconsistency is too apparent to escape the slightest observer—They have already adopted means to select their jurors, they are only adopting means to pick their judges! But I will ask you, sir, can this be your opinion? Have you so entirely surrendered your judgment? Have you put yourself so completely in the hands of your party, or its chief; have you so totally effaced from your mind all its former correct course of reasoning; as to embrace this new doctrine?

If this be possible, it would be in vain to urge you to reflection; it would be time misspent to press you to summon up your powers, and to make one manly, one patriotic effort, to relieve your country from a principle, which, in a state of independence you would believe to be more fruitful of evil, than any which, if I may refer to ancient allegory, ever escaped from the box of Pandora.
Unwilling to take up this opinion of you, I shall pass to the second proposition.
It maintains that the clause of the constitution which ordains that ‘the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior,’ is intended to secure their continuance in office against an executive, and not against a legislative act.
In vain has it been urged that the terms are used without limitation, without being applied to any particular department, and consequently that they must be so understood. That there is not a syllable in the constitution restraining their operation merely to the executive, nor a syllable which gives to the legislature the power of removal. That to contend for this application, is, capriciously, to set up a mere arbitrary distinction, which prostrates every principle of sound construction, and destroys the use of language, by taking from words their plain signification. The ministerialists insist on so understanding the constitution because they will so understand it, and they, unfortunately for America, constitute a majority.
Let me then ask you sir, who must possess some influence with your party, to check for a moment the mad career you are running, for one instant to resume your former self, and think systematically and virtuously.
The words of the constitution, if obligatory on the legislature as well as the executive, must be admitted to protect the judges as well against a legislative, as executive removal from office. There being in the constitution no words to counteract them, it can only be by mere implication, that a power over the continuance of judges in office is to be attributed to the legislature.
Will you sir, admit, that express words of the constitution are to be overruled by implication? Implication not founded on any words whatever—not on any specific grant of power which can by any possibility be construed to comprehend a control over the existence of the judicial department, but on the broad undefinable nature of legislative powers? Will you admit this construction to be made by the legislature itself, which, in making it, enlarges its own power? If the legislature may imply powers in itself, against the express words of the constitution, what are its limits and where are we to search for them? Is not the constitution itself a mockery, and are not the oaths, taken to support it, worse than a mockery.
But let us examine what the ministerialists term a reason in support of this till now unheard of construction.

They say that but for this restriction, the general power of removal from office given by the constitution, in all cases, to the executive, would have enabled that department to remove the judges, to prevent which this clause was inserted, declaring that they shall hold their offices during good behavior.
The truth of this proposition has been very properly denied—but let us for the sake of the argument admit and examine it. To a mind capable as yours has been of correct reasoning, this may not be time entirely thrown away.
What, let me ask you, is, in truth, the sum of this argument?
It amounts, if I understand it, to this. The words though general, could only be designed to check and limit a power given by the constitution, and therefore apply only to the executive, to whom alone the power of removal is given.
Reflect, sir, turn the subject in your own mind, and if it amounts to any thing more, say what that any thing is.
If this be its amount, is it possible for any man possessing a distinguishing mind, to hesitate one moment in pronouncing the argument conclusive against those who urge it?
If it be intended as a restraint on the power of removal given by the constitution, then the restriction being expressed without limitation, must apply to any or all the departments, to which the power designed to be restrained, is given. I ask you sir, if this be not the plain and inevitable conclusion from the words used and from the argument.
‘The judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.’ This say gentlemen is only to restrain the implied power of removal given in the constitution. Then, does it not restrain that power in any department implied to possess it? And can it be exercised by a department, to which the constitution neither gives it expressly nor by implication?
Let us suppose the implied powers of removing officers generally, to have been expressed, and then apply to them the restrictive clause of the constitution, as it is actually expressed.
They would stand thus. The legislative or executive may remove at pleasure all officers who shall be appointed, except the judges; but ‘the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.’
Or thus:
The executive alone shall possess the power of removing at pleasure all officers except the judges who ‘shall hold their offices during good behaviour.’
If the implication be conformable to the first statement; if under the constitution the power of removal may be exercised by either the legislative or executive, then the man would be thought insane himself, or to suppose those he addresses to be so; who, in any other times than these, would pronounce the restraining, not to be co-extensive with the empowering clause.
If the second statement be supposed to express what the constitution implies, then let me ask with what propriety can the legislature exercise in any form, the power of removal? If the power of removing from, like that of nominating to office, be exclusively in the executive, is it not usurpation in the legislature to claim it?
The restraining clause, accompanying and limiting the power of removal wherever it is to be found, restrains the exercise of that power wherever it may be placed, so far as respects the judges. If it be in the legislature then the legislature is forbidden to use it as to the judges; if it be not in the legislature, then to usurp it is tyranny.
Can the legislature exercise a power not given by the constitution? You, I am inclined to think, will admit that it cannot. The ministerial party, however disposed to sophisticate away the plain meaning of words, will not yet, in direct terms, aver that it can. If so, the power of removal from office must be given by the constitution, or it cannot exist. I call that given which is fairly to be implied from the nature, of powers expressly granted. If it be given either in express terms or by implication, then it is restrained so far as respects the judges, by the clause declaring that they shall hold their offices during good behavior. If it be not given to the legislature, but is exclusively bestowed on another department, so that the restriction on the power applies to that other department, then it is not less a violation of the constitution to usurp it.
Than this my mind is incapable of conceiving a clearer proposition.
If it be a power incidental to legislation, I answer that an incidental power cannot be stronger, or less subject to limitation, than one granted by express words; an express grant to the legislature of the general power of removal from office, would, it has been shown, be restrained by the clause declaring that power not to extend to the judges, who are to hold their offices during good behavior. Then an incidental power of removal must be restrained by the same clause.
The delusion of the moment must pass away. The Genius of America only sleeps. It cannot be dead. It will arouse itself, and shake off the thick veil of prejudice now cast over the public mind. When that shall happen, what sir, will be the opinion entertained of you, if it shall be believed that you were the advocate of the present system?
A Plain Man.

   Printed copy (Washington Federalist, 8 Mar. 1802).

   Article 3, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

   The writer was probably referring to JM’s support of the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which JM advocated a federal judiciary “co-extensive” with the executive and legislative branches of government, where judicial power was “made effective for its objects” and where judges would “hold their tenures during good behavior, by virtue of the constitution” (PJMWilliam T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (1st ser., vols. 1–10, Chicago, 1962–77, vols. 11–17, Charlottesville, Va., 1977–91)., 12:367–68). The constitutional debate over the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 is discussed in Ellis, The Jeffersonian Crisis, pp. 36–52.


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 8 March 1802 (Abstract)
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

8 March 1802, London. No. 56. Reports that Austria is “highly dissatisfied, as justly she may be, with the issue of the meeting at Lyons.” Obstacles delaying conclusion of definitive peace treaty and the “unexampled stagnation of the Trade of this Country” have abated ardor for peace in Great Britain as well. This change in the “temper of the public mind” is attributed to Napoleon, whose views are “inconsistent with the Repose and independence of every part of Europe.” Adds that “Instructions have been sent to all the Naval Arsenals to prepare the Ships of War for actual Service; the channel fleet will immediately sail, and … these demonstrations are accompanied by an explicit Demand on the part of England that the definitive Treaty … be signed without any farther Delay.” Still believes that peace will be concluded; England will not “depart from the Preliminaries”; France will sign because it is extremely advantageous to do so.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10); letterbook copy (NHi: Rufus King Papers, vol. 55). RC 2 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by King; docketed by Brent. Printed in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 4:78–79.

   For the result of the Lyons council, see King to JM, 27 Feb. 1802, PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:496 and n. 1.


Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 9 March 1802
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

No. 57.
Sir,
London Mar. 9. 1802.
As your Letters to me concerning Mr. Ervings appointments do not explicitly state the Presidents intentions in respect to his being employed as an Assessor to the Commission under the seventh article of our Treaty with this Country, I desired him to send to the Board an Extract of his Instructions which define his Duties and which would be Sufficient to shew the Presidents expectation on this point. I at the same time wrote a Letter to the Board Copies of which, and of their Answer, you will find annexed.
I likewise subjoin the Copy of a Note from the Prussian Charge d’affaires, to which I have answered, that I would lose no time in apprizing you of its Contents. With perfect Respect and Esteem, I have the honour to be, Sir, Your ob. & faithful servt.
Rufus King

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, Great Britain, vol. 10); letterbook copy (NHi: Rufus King Papers, vol. 55). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by King; docketed by Brent as received 31 May. For enclosures, see nn. 2 and 3.

   JM wrote to King on 27 July 1801 regarding Erving’s appointment (see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (3 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 1:482 n.; printed in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 4:80 n.).

   King enclosed a copy of an 8 Mar. 1802 letter to him from the Board of Commissioners (3 pp.), signed by John Trumbull, Maurice Swabey, John Anstey, Christopher Gore, and William Pinkney, stating that they could not receive Erving as assessor on the grounds explained in the enclosed extract (5 pp.) from the minutes of their proceedings of 2 Mar. The minutes included transcripts of JM’s 27 July 1801 letter to Erving and King’s letter to the Board of Commissioners, 27 Feb. 1802, stating that Erving was appointed to replace both Samuel Williams as agent for claims and appeals and Samuel Cabot as assessor. The board concluded that the two appointments were incompatible, and they forwarded a 4 Mar. letter Erving wrote to them after being informed of their decision (1 p.), offering to withdraw from the office of assessor (see also Erving to JM, 6 Mar. 1802 [two letters], and Pinkney and Gore to JM, 9 Mar. 1802).

   King enclosed an 8 Mar. 1802 letter to him (1 p.; in French) from Louis Balan, informing him that Jacob Eberhard August Steinmetz had been appointed Prussian consul at Charleston.