Title: To James Madison from Rufus King, 22 December 1803
From: King, Rufus
To: Madison, James

Private
Dear Sir
New York Decr. 22. 1803
I lose no time in replying to the queries contained in your letter of the 18. thoh I fear I may not be in time for the mail of today.
Q. 1. All foreign ministers pay the first visit to the ministers of England: immediately after being presented to the King the new foreign minister goes round in his carriage, and leaves a card with his name and Quality at the house of each of the Cabinet ministers, without asking for them—this visit is rarely if ever returned!!!
Q. 2. As neither the foreign ministers nor their wives are ever invited to the Balls, musick & Card Parties, or any other entertainment given by the Queen (none is given by the King) the King’s Levee is almost the only occasion in his presence, where questions of Precedence affecting foreign ministers and those of the country can arise; At the Levee the foreign Ministers, the ministers of the Country, the dignified Clergy, with the Lord Chanceller and Judges of westminster Hall assemble in a room adjacent to the Kings bed-room, all other persons meet in an outer room, as soon as the King is ready, the door of his Apartment is opened, when the foreign ministers take precedence by going first into the Kings bed-room, and being there first spoken to by the King; the English Ministers the Arch Bishops & Bps. together with the Lord Chancellor and judges enter the room afterwards pêle mêle with all other persons who attend the Levee—with the exception of the Minister for for. Affairs, little intercourse takes place between the foreign ministers and those of England; the Minister for for. Affrs. gives two annual entertainments on the birth-days of the King and Queen, to which the corps diplomatique, without their wives, with the under secretaries of his department, but no other persons, are invited—the dinner is served at six OCk, and finishes between Eight and Nine, by the Minister for for. Affrs, rising from table and retiring to his Cabinet—if a personal acquaintance chance to be formed between the family of a for. Minister and that of any of the English Ministers, their social intercourse is placed upon the footing observed amongst the people of fashion of the Country—in the house of a foreign Minister precedence is given to the Eng. Minister, and vice versa in the house of an English Minister, subject always on the side of the English to an habitual and confused preference in favour of hereditary Titles, which generally obtain for those who bear them, whether national or foreign, precedence over those who have them not.
Q. 3. The rank of foreign ministers in England seems to be better understood than that of their wives. At the queens drawing room, at which the King is present, there is no precedence in favour of foreign Ministers, their wives, or any other person, the assembly being literally a Scene of Confusion. On occasions however when some ceremonial must be observed, as at the marriage of one of the Royal family in the King’s chapel, the wives of foreign ministers are placed on the same rank with their husbands; but in the intercourse of Society, persons of Title, whether English or foreign, take precedence of the wives of foreign ministers without Titles. Mrs. King reminds me that this was always the Case at the Dinners of the Lord Chamberlain, as well as at those of the late and present Minister for for. Affrs. Mrs. & Mr. Merry were present the last time we dined with Lord Hawkesbury, where Lady Melville wife of the late Minister Dundas, had precedence and was conducted by Lord Hawkesbury to the dining Room Mrs. Merry and Mrs. King following her. But where no Lady of Title is present (though the case does not often occur, and I suspect nothing precise respecting is generally understood) the wife of a foreign Minister would from the Courtesy shewn to Strangers receive Precedence. Hence you will perceive that it is Title and not office which is chiefly regarded in the Ceremonial of England.
On the Continent as with us the Gentlemen conduct the Ladies from the drawing room to the dining table: this custom does not prevail in the higher english Circles—the Ladies there all go out of the drawing room first, the highest Title taking the lead, and the Gentlemen follow them: this is the usage at the Lord Chamberlains, and was never departed from by the late Minister Lord Grenville, and notwithstanding the present minister for foreign Affairs, in this instance deviates from the practice of his predecessor, the precession of the Ladies at Dinner Parties is the unrefined fashion of the country—a fashion which probably originated in the want of a sufficient acquaintance with the Rules of precedence, and the desire to avoid mistakes—the truth unquestionably is, that the English thoh a cold and proud people, place little value amongst themselves upon the knowledge or observance of mere Ceremony. Etiquette as they often say is good for nothing, except as a Guard to keep off impertinence, conceit, and rudeness—they live very little with the Corps diplome. and few foreigners travel, none reside in their Country. With sincere Esteem & Respect I have the honour to be Dr Sr Yr. ob. & faithful srvt
Rufus King
P.S. The wives of foreign Ministers receive the first visit from the wives of the Eng. ministers: differing in this from the Course observed by their husbands.

   RC (DLC: Jefferson Papers); FC (NHi: Rufus King Papers).


Title: To James Madison from Stephen Cathalan, Jr., 22 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Cathalan, Stephen, Jr.
To: Madison, James

22 December 1803, Marseilles. Last wrote on 7 Oct. 1803 by the Ulysses of Salem, forwarding JM a dispatch “from our Consul at tunis.” On 18 Dec. received from Thomas Appleton at Leghorn a letter from Preble. Transmits a copy. Has given official notice “to the Prefect of this Department, who is the president of the Chambre du Commerce of Marseilles, to the prefect Maritim at Toulon, to the Commissary of Marine, the agent of the minister of foreign relations & to all the Commissaries or Agents of foreign Powers in this Place, [of] the Blockade of Tripoly & the Coast belonging to that Regency, in order the masters of the Merchant Vessells of Neutral Nations, may be advertised of it—allmost all have acknowledged me receipt of this notification.” A Ragusan polacre arrived from Tunis on 21 Dec. with the news that the Philadelphia had run ashore. Has asked the Ragusan agent to write to the captain for particulars. “This Vessell being, now, in quarantine at Pomegue’s Island, in this Road I Cannot have an answer before to morrow in the afternoon.
“But Messrs. Dolier & Co. merchants of this Place, to whom this Cargo is Consigned, have handed me the following Paragraph of a Letter to them dated Tunis the 19th. November 1803—[‘]The U. S. fregate of 40 Guns, Philadelphia, manned with 360 men Cruising before Tripoly, ran on Shore in pursuing too near of the Coast a Cruise⟨r⟩ of that Regency, the Gun boats went out already from Tripoly and fired at the fregate, which being unable to attend the tackling after having fought against them, was obliged to surrender—the officers were Carried to the house formerly of the american Consul & the Seamen & Soldiers Sent to the Castle of Tripoly.[‘]” Has just received from the Danish consul a copy of a 2 Nov. 1803 letter from [Nicolai C.] Nissen at Tripoli notifying him of the grounding of the Philadelphia on 31 Oct. “‘on the point of Tajoura, near this Port at ½ past 11 õclock, A.M. in chasing a Cruizer.’” “‘After useless Efforts to put her afloat again and having bravely fought till ¼ after 4 P.M. the fregate Surrendered. There is no need to mention the advantage this Bashaw will draw from So rich a Capture and So many prisonners amongst Whom there are more than 25 officers. The Bashaw Sent them to the U. S. house on their Parole of Honor and their treatment is as Soft as possible, but the Populace had Striped them off of Every thing, as soon as they Came on Shore and before they were Carried into the Castle So they had nothing but what they wore on, as the U. S. House is quite Close to that of Denmark I do all what I Can, to render the Situation of these unfortunate, Supportable.’” Cathalan adds: “I take the deepest Concern in this Event & I think it is my duty not to loose a moment to inform you of it Via Bordeaux & I have desired our Minister Plenipy. & Commal. Agent of the U States at Paris to send you Copies of my Letters to them on that Subject, by other ways; All the Ships from the Coast of Spain which have touched at Malaga are Sent from the Spanish ports, to Perform here, their quarantine, Which is very Severe, on account of the dreadful] Epidemical disorder at Malaga. The american Vessells from Newyork and other U. S. Ports are Submitted here to that same quarantine, which is 20 @ 25 days after the landing into the Lazarett of the Packages Subject to Contumacy.” Adds in a postscript that he encloses a dispatch from Cathcart “now at Leghorn.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Marseilles, vol. 2). 3 pp.; marked “Copy.”

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:499–500.

   Cathalan here quoted in its entirety Preble’s 12 Nov. 1803 circular announcing the blockade of Tripoli (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)., 3:215–16).

   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)., 3:182.

   This was probably Cathcart to JM, 15 Dec. 1803.


Title: From James Madison to DeWitt Clinton, 23 December 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Clinton, DeWitt

private
Dear Sir
Washington Decr. 23. 1803
Your favor of the 13th. has been duly recd. As it seems to partake as much of a private as public character, I take the liberty of answering it in the former. Should an answer in the latter be desired for any particular reasons, it shall be added.
As the U. States are not bound by Treaty in any case to give up deserting seamen whether from public or private ships, and no such general obligation is imposed by the law of nations, and as Congress, if possessed of the power have made no provision on the subject, it has been always understood to be a question to be d[e]cided according to the laws of the several States. In some of the States, the laws have either expressly or constructively authorized the delivery. In others no such provision exists. You know better than I can do how it is in the State of N. York. I will make but one observation more, which is that altho in particular instances, deserting seamen, it is said, have been delivered to American vessels, a refusal of Magistrates, in others to interpose assigning for the reason, the want of legal authority, is a proof that it has been effected by means not within the regular course of law. Very respectfully I remain Dear Sir Yr obedt. hble servt
James Madison

   RC (NNC).


Title: To James Madison from Robert Taylor, 23 December 1803
From: Taylor, Robert
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Decr. 23d. 1803
In answer to your favour of the 6th. inst: I have to say—that the one five dollars was intended to repay you for the like sum you advanced to the national Intelligencer the last year, the other for the present year. Nothing has been done in the family subjects intended to be submitted to me. Doctr. Rose withheld his signature from the agreement of submission & sent it to me inclosed in a letter signifying that he would not sign unless your brother Wm. would execute some deed contemplated by him—this was communicated to your brother who then directed me to deliver the agreement to him and to consider myself only as counsel to be consulted. A few days past Doctr. Rose informed me he would now sign the agreemt., but from the conversation with your brother thinking it not to be his wish for a reference of the subjects to me my answer to Doctr. Rose was accordingly. I was very much pleased to observe that our dispute with Morrocco was accommodated & hope it will have some effect of [sic] Tripoli. Notwithstanding the newspaper accounts of the resistance to be expected from the Spaniards to our taking possession of Louisiana—it has been considered by me rather as the federal wish than truth—inasmuch as no communication to that effect had ever been made by the executive to Congress—which I felt very certain would be the case if any official information to that purpose had been possessed. Be pleased to accept to yourself & lady from my wife & self the best compliments of the season. I am yrs afftely
Robert Taylor

   RC (DLC).

   Letter not found.

   For Taylor’s actions to settle the conflicting claims against the estate of James Madison, Sr., see Taylor to JM, 24 Oct. 1801 and 31 Aug. and 17 Sept. 1802, and William Madison to JM, 1 Nov. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:197, 3:529–30, 588–89, 4:72–73).


Title: To James Madison from Louis-André Pichon, 24 December 1803
From: Pichon, Louis-André
To: Madison, James

Georgetown le 24. xbre. 1803
Le Soussigné, chargé d’affaires de la République française, d’après le contenu des dépèches qui lui sont parvenues et qui sont parvenues à Monsieur le Secrétaire d’Etat de la nouvelle Orléans dimanche dernier, croit de son devoir de rappeller l’attention de Mr. Madison sur le contenu et sur l’objet de la note que le Soussigné a eu l’honneur de lui adresser sous la date du 27. Octobre.
Le chargé d’affaires de la République Française, par des considérations de convenance respective, s’est abstenu depuis ce moment et d’après les réponses qui lui ont été faites, de presser davantage le Gouvernement Américain d’anticiper sur les termes du Traité pour la remise des Stocks. Aujourdhui, la manière dont tout se passe à la Nouvelle Orléans, ayant dissipé toute inquiétude, et rendu sans objet les calculs sur lesquels on s’était fondé pour attendre la prise de possession effective, de quelque manière qu’elle se fut opérée, avant de remettre les Stocks; le soussigné croit devoir presser Monsieur le Secrétaire d’Etat de soumettre à Mr. le Président de nouveau les considérations qu’il a fait valoir dans cette note et que le Prémier Consul a fait présenter directement par l’intermédiaire du Ministre des Relations Extérieures, pour déterminer Mr. le Président à accélérer, autant que les convenances le permettent; l’exécution du Traité de la part des Etats Unis.
Le soussigné, étant dans la confiance que le courrier de demain apportera l’avis officiel que la france a pris possession par son commissaire croit pouvoir témoigner le désir que cet avis décide la déliverance des Stocks: cette nouvelle fournira des donneés d’après les quelles l’époque de l’intéret pourra être fixé; et le soussigné ajoute à cet égard, qu’il ne serait pas juste que le Gouvernement Américain se prévalut de l’omission de cette fixation dans le Traité pour retarder indéfiniment et jusqu’a l’expiration des termes du Traité, la remise des effets en question. Une fois la france eu possession, tous délais ne peuvent être causés que les Etats Unis et leurs commissaires: et Monsieur le Président des Etats-Unis, ne considérant que le Traité, ne croira surement pas devoir s’arrèter à des difficultés qui pourraient être suggèrées par des actes, qui, quant à la France, ne peuvent être que Subordonnés à ce Traité.
Le Soussigné, en priant Monsieur le secrétaire d’Etat de soumettre le contenu de cet office à Monsieur le Président des Etats Unis, prie Monsieur Madison d’agréer l’assurance de son respect et de sa considération distinguée.
L. A. Pichon

Condensed Translation
After having received dispatches from New Orleans the previous Sunday, believes it his duty to call JM’s attention to their contents and to his note of 27 Oct. Has refrained since then from pressing the U.S. government to accelerate the delivery of stock under the terms of the treaty. But the manner in which everything has occurred at New Orleans has dispelled all uneasiness and rendered it unnecessary to wait for possession of the territory before delivering the stock. Asks JM to resubmit to the president the considerations in his note that the first consul presented directly through Talleyrand so that the president might accelerate as much as possible the execution of the treaty on the part of the U.S.
Is confident that the next day’s post will bring official notice that France has taken possession of New Orleans, which will furnish a basis on which to fix the interest. Adds that it would not be just for the U.S. government to delay indefinitely, or until the expiration of the treaty terms, delivery of the stock in question. Once France has possession, regardless of any delays created by the U.S. or its government officials, including the president, France will not allow itself to be hindered by problems that can only be subordinate to the treaty.
Requests that JM submit the contents of his note to the president.

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

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:584.


Title: From James Madison to Jeremiah Yellott, 24 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Yellott, Jeremiah

24 December 1803, Department of State. “In answer to your letter of the 22d. Ult. [not found] I have to inform you, that I have recd. no intimation of the forms in which claims for restitution under the French Treaty are presented & prosecuted other than what it points out: but if the claim for the Mary were transmitted to Mr. Skipwith the public Agent or your private Agent at Paris it would doubtless be placed by them in the necessary train.”

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

   The Mary, Capt. Isaac Phillips, was bound from Batavia to Baltimore with a cargo of coffee and specie when it was captured by a French privateer on 4 Feb. 1800 and carried into Curaçao, where the vessel and cargo were sold. The government at Curaçao held the proceeds while awaiting a decision from the Batavian Executive Directory (John Marshall to William Vans Murray, 16 June 1800 [DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 5]).


Title: To James Madison from Richard Harrison, 24 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Harrison, Richard
To: Madison, James

24 December 1803, Treasury Department, Auditor’s Office. “Having examined the papers in relation to the claim of Dr. Edward Stevens [not found] it appears to me that although he went to St. Domingo with the commission only of a Consul general, his powers were in fact those of a Minister and that his Expenses while on the mission were to be reimbursed by the United States.
“Of these expenses the items charged for travelling, and for the maintenance of his Household amount to Dolls. 20350. agreeably to the enclosed abstract [not found]; but as no Vouchers are exhibited to support them, they cannot be admitted consistently with the Rules which generally govern in settlements at the Treasury. I do not perceive therefore how an adjustment of the Doctors accounts can be effected unless the same authority by which the original agreement was made should see fit so to modify it as to fix the annual allowance of a sum whic⟨h⟩ may, under all the circumstances of the case, be judged reasonable, & sufficien⟨t⟩ to cover the said expenses. This also is the opinion of the Comptroller.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 2 pp.


Title: To James Madison from John Chew, 25 December 1803
From: Chew, John
To: Madison, James

Dear sir
Montreal 25th. December 1803
From your very friendly letter to me of February 1800, in reply to my enquiries respecting my fathers Claim to Lands in the State of Kentucky, I am induced to trouble you with a letter for Mr Taylor, from whom I have not heard these two Years past and am pretty certain that my last letter to him must have Miscarried. By a letter which Sir John Johnson lately received from Mr Watts, I learn that nothing final, has yet been done by Mr Taylor in establishing my fathers Claim, and I am fearful that great difficulty will be found to effect it. I shall be extremely obliged to you to forward my letter to Mr Taylor by a sure conveyance, the gentleman by whom I send this proposes going to Washington very shortly and has promised to be particular in sending it to you. My Mother and sister desire their sincere respects, & wish you the Compliments of the season, my Mother is growing old but I assure looks remarkably well and is even active. I must beg you will excuse the trouble I have taken the liberty to give you on this occasion, being with greatest respect and esteem Dear sir Your faithful friend & humble Servant
John Chew
I am still jogging on in My Appointmt. as Secy for Indian Affairs, which enables me to give my Mother & sister a comfortable Support.

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   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)., 17:362–63.

   For the Chew family lands in Kentucky, for which Hubbard Taylor acted as agent, see Chew to JM, 31 Mar. 1797, and Taylor to JM, 8 Oct. and 24 Nov. 1797 (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)., 17:1, 49–50 and n. 1, 56).

   New York Loyalist Sir John Johnson (1741–1830) fought for the British in the upstate New York region during the Revolution. After the Peace of Paris he was named superintendent of the Six Nations Indians and the Indians in Quebec and was given cash and a large grant of land in Canada.

   This was probably Robert Watts of New York, son of Loyalist John Watts, who was to have been appointed by Sir John Johnson to attend to Kentucky lands assigned to Johnson by Chew. Johnson was married to Watts’s sister Mary (Joseph Chew to JM, 2 Dec. 1796 [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)., 16:420–21 and n. 3]).


Title: From James Madison to James Leander Cathcart, 26 December 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Cathcart, James Leander

Sir,
Department of State December 26th. 1803.
I have duly received your numbers from 11 to 14 both inclusive and a subsequent one of the 19th. October last.
The President has not fixed upon a person as Consul for Tunis; but when the appointment takes place as the occasion would not invite nor circumstances justify any reference to yourself of a nature to wound your sensibility, you may dismiss every apprehension on that subject. On the subject of future Office, it is impossible to say any thing precise; but whenever a proper occasion shall arise, you will be remembered, and your talents and claims be fairly compared with the pretensions of others.
A snuff box of the value of $500. ornamented with the arms of the United States and brilliants is to be prepared by [illegible] as a present for Mr. Nissen in consideration of his friendly services at Tripoli.
The Bills to the amount of $22.222 22/100 which you drew preparatory to your leaving Leghorn for Tunis have been duly paid. The transfer of the cash and public property in your possession to Mr. Lear completing all the calls upon your Agency in the service of the public relatively to their Mediterranean concerns, your return to the United States may take place as soon as your convenience and wishes may dictate: but a sum equal to three Month’s Salary will be allowed you to commence from the day of your receiving this letter. With great respect I am, Sir, Your most Obt. Servt.
James Madison

   RC (owned by Steven G. Barnett, Provo, Utah, 1972). In a clerk’s hand, signed by JM; docketed by Cathcart as received at Leghorn 7 May 1804.

   Cathcart to JM, 30 Aug., 9 Sept., 18 Sept., and 25 Sept. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:360–62, 391–98, 448–49, 460).

   Ibid., 5:550.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 26 December 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

private
Dear Sir
Washington Decr. 26. 1803
I have recd I believe all your letters public and private down to that of October 22, written merely to say that all continued well. I have taken due care of the communications on the subject of your . Every thing seems to be well understood on this side the water. I can not say more now as I write of necessity without cypher.
Mr. Merry has been with us some time. He appears to be an amiable man in private Society, and a candid and agreeable one in public business. A foolish circumstance of etiquette has created some sensibility in Mrs. Merry and perhaps himself; but they will find so uniform & sincere a disposition in all connected with the Govt. to cultivate a cordial society with them, and to manifest every proper respect for their characters and station, that if any unfavorable impression has happened, it must be very transient. It would be unfortunate if it were otherwise, because a dissatisfaction of whatever sort, or however produced, might mingle itself with his general feelings, and thro’ them, with the agency committed to him.
We have had several conversations both incidental & formal on the topics most interesting to the two Countries. I have taken pains to make him sensible of the tendency of certain proceedings on the British side, and of their injustice as well as impolicy. I communicated to him a few days ago, the intention of the president to explain our views fully to you on these topics, and to authorise you to negociate such conventional eclaircissements and arrangements, as may put an end to every danger to which the harmony between the two countries is now subjected. His ideas appeared to be moderate, & his dispositions conciliating. As he will doubtless communicate to his Govt. what passed between us, I think it proper, in order to place you on a level of information, to observe briefly, that the plan will be to get rid of impressments altogether on the high seas, to define blockades & contraband according to the last Treaty between G. B. & Russia, to regulate visits & searches of our vessels, according to the Treaty of 1786 between G. B. and France, to put aside the doctrine, that a Colonial trade, not allowed in time of peace, is unlawful in time of war; and in return to agree to a mutual surrender of deserters from ships and from garrisons, and to a legislative provision agst. exporting articles enumerated as contraband to places within the jurisdiction of an enemy. This will be the outline, excepting a few minor propositions. The subject is now before the Cabinet, and it will not be long before it will be forwarded to you in its details. It is much to be desired that something may be done to consolidate the good understanding between the two nations, and I really believe that there is nothing aimed at by us that is not for the true interest of both parties. I am not without hopes that Mr. Merry sees the business in a good degree in the same light, and that his representations will co-operate with your reasonings on it. I am glad to learn that in Europe violations of our maritime rights are so much mitigated in comparison with the former war. It is a good omen. In the American seas, however the scene is very different, and I fear is growing worse & worse. Impressments and other outrages on our flag are multiplying, and the depredations under pretext of blockades, are going on in rivalship with all the extravagances of the last war. I will send herewith if I can, certain documents, both as to impressments, and blockades which will explain the justice of these remarks, and satisfy you, as they ought to do, the British Govt. that the friendship & patience of this Country are put to a severe trial. A Bill has been brought into Congress with a view to some remedy. It proposes to forbid the use of our pilots, our ports, and our supplies & hospitalities to any Ship of war which shall be proved & proclaimed to have impressed or otherwise insulted those on board our vessels. Whether it will be pursued into a law is uncertain; but if it should not the forbearance will proceed merely from a hope that a remedy to the evil is contemplated by negociation. The public mind is rising to a state of high sensibility, and no other consideration than such a hope would I am persuaded, suspend the effect of it on the Legislative Councils. It is to be wished that the introduction of the Bill may not be misconstrued into any unfriendly disposition towards G. Britain. I have every reason to believe that the supposed necessity of it is deeply regretted, and that a just accomodation of all differences with G. B. will give the most sincere and general satisfaction. Louisiana was delivered by the Spanish Authorities at N. Orleans to Laussat on the 30th. of Novr. Our Comssrs. Claibourne & Wilkinson with their troops were at Fort-Adams on their way to receive the transfer to the U. States. All difficulties are therefore at an end, in that quarter. Nothing appears to have passed in relation to W Florida, or the boundaries in general. It is understood that Spain does not include any territory E. of the Misspi. except the Island of N. O. in the idea of Louisiana. It will be an easy matter to take possession according to our idea. The mode alone can beget a question. You omitted the bill of the Paris Silver Smith, referred to in your last. Yrs.
J. M.

   RC (DLC: Monroe Papers); FC (DLC). RC docketed by Monroe. FC is a letterpress copy.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:562–64.

   Blank left in RC. JM may have referred to Monroe’s arrangements for paying his private debts. See Monroe to JM, 22 Oct. 1803 (ibid., 5:562–64).

   See JM to Rufus King, 18 Dec. 1803, and n. 1. Although both JM and Jefferson attributed the difficulties over etiquette mainly to Elizabeth Merry, Merry was personally distressed at the treatment accorded him and his new bride, and he continued to complain to Hawkesbury about the issue (Jefferson to Monroe, 8 Jan. 1804 [Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 8:286–92]; Merry to Hawkesbury, 6 and 31 Dec. 1803 [PRO: Foreign Office, ser. 5, 41:54–57, 92–94]).

   Merry reported to Hawkesbury that JM had requested the 22 Dec. 1803 meeting to present U.S. complaints regarding impressment and the declaration of blockades. Concerning the former JM “observed, that the Sensibility of the Legislature, and of the People at large, of the United States, was awakened to a great Degree by the repeated Representations of the Distresses which the American Ships were daily suffering not only from the Loss of their Seamen, but from the Manner in which they were treated by the Officers of His Majesty’s Ships, and those of British Privateers, who had, in several Instances, obliged the Masters to quit their Vessels in their own Boats in perilous Weather upon the high Seas, to save the Ships of War from the Inconvenience and Danger of sending their Boats on board.”

   JM then exhibited the register of an American ship on which a British officer had written a declaration of blockade, adding that he had received particular directions from the president to write to Merry on the case (see JM to Merry, 24 Dec. 1803). JM stated “that the frequent Repetition of these Grievances had rendered it necessary for this Government, to take immediate Steps to endeavour to procure a Remedy for them, whence Instructions to that Effect would be transmitted with as little Delay as possible to Mr Munroe.” JM expressed the wish of the U.S. government for a convention covering “every Point of Navigation in which either Country felt a material Interest, so as to produce a general Arrangement which should be satisfactory to both Parties.” “He stated, that, on the Side of this Government, their Wish would be (indeed on this Point they could never desist from their Pretension) that the American Flag should give complete Protection to whatever Persons might be under it, military Men, being Enemies to Great Britain, only excepted, that the Right of visiting Ships at Sea should be exercised, as nearly as might be agreed upon, in the Manner prescribed by the Twenty Sixth Article of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and France of the Year 1786, that Declarations of Blockade should be confined to the Exercise of that Right as it has been defined by the late Conventions between Great Britain and the Northern Powers of Europe, that, considering the Distance at which America is placed from the Rest of the World, the Ships of the United States should be allowed to clear out for a Port that had been notified to be in a State of Blockade because their Trade must suffer considerably by waiting to receive an Account of the Prohibition being removed, and finally, that American Citizens having acquired as their Property any of the Productions of France or of her Colonies, or of any other Power at War with Great Britain, should be allowed to carry them in their Vessels straight from France to her Colonies and vice versâ, and the same with Respect to the Productions of any other Power.”

   JM acknowledged the wish of the British government to obtain “Acquiescence in the Restitution of all Deserters by Sea and Land.” “He was therefore authorized to say that his Government was disposed to make such an Agreement a Part of the general Arrangement, and that it would be acceded to unconditionally, that is to say, without any of those Exceptions to it which had prevented the Settlement of this Object when it was under Consideration during Mr Liston’s Residence in this Country; and he had farther to offer, as a Matter which he considered might be agreeable to His Majesty’s Government, that, in order to prevent as far as possible every Danger of Articles Contraband of War being conveyed, by the Means of false Clearances, to an Enemy’s Port, Measures would be taken here to oblige all Masters of Vessels, carrying such Articles, to produce a Certificate of having landed them at the Places for which they were declared to be destined.” Merry replied that JM’s point regarding absolute immunity of all persons under the American flag would provide a cover for treasonable dealings with the enemies of Great Britain and that allowing trade between France and its colonies would be “opening a Door to a most extensive Fraud.” JM “still contended that no Right could possibly be claimed, or admitted of, to take any Persons whatsoever, under any Circumstances, or in any Situation, from under the American Flag, unless it might be in particular Cases, where the Ship should be in a British Port, saying, in Reply to my Observation upon the Report made to the Senate [see ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:593–95], that Pains had been taken to render it as little inflammatory as possible, but that Cases of similar Complaints, and of other Distresses brought upon the American Trade, were daily multiplying to such an Extent, and were actually producing so strong a Degree of Sensation throughout the United States, that the Government felt themselves called upon to exert their Endeavours to Obtain the most speedy Remedy for the Evil, and that he hoped that upon a Re-consideration of the Matter, and of the Importance attached to it in this Country, His Majesty’s Government would consent to wave the Difficulty which had prevented this Object from being brought to a Settlement whilst Mr King was in London, by including in the Agreement the narrow Seas, where in Fact the greater Part of the Injuries and Inconveniences occurred.” “In Regard to the Conveyance of the Productions of the Enemy’s Dominions, being American Property, to and from their Colonies, he observed that it already took Place in a circuitous Manner, and that the direct Conveyance of them was the only new Advantage which was solicited, for which, and for the other Facilities to the American Navigation contained in his Propositions, he had offered, by Way of Bargain, as an equivalent Advantage to Great Britain, the Stipulations which he had mentioned respecting the Restitution of Deserters (which, he explained, should be understood to be reciprocal) and the Security against the Conveyance of Contraband Articles of War.”

   Merry added further “that whilst Mr Madison dwelt strongly throughout his Conversation upon the Necessity of the Two Governments coming to an Immediate Understanding upon those Points which had occasioned so much Irritation in this Country, his Language was perfectly temperate and conciliatory, and that he expressed the strongest Desire, on the Part of his Government, to arrive at an amicable Adjustment of the Differences which at present existed, as well as to improve by every possible Means the friendly Relations between the Two Countries” (Merry to Hawkesbury, 31 Dec. 1803 [PRO: Foreign Office, ser. 5, 41:60–68]).

   Article 3, Section 3, of the Anglo-Russian Convention of June 1801 defined contraband as “cannons, mortars, fire-arms, pistols, bombs, grenades, balls, bullets, firelocks, flints, matches, powder, saltpetre, sulphur, helmets, pikes, swords, sword-belts, pouches, saddles, and bridles” in quantities greater than were needed for the defense of the ship and crew carrying them. Article 3, Section 4, stated that the denomination of a blockaded port could be “given only to that where there is, by the disposition of the power which attacks it with ships stationary, or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering” (Annual Register for 1801, p. 213).

   Article 26 of the 1786 Treaty of Navigation and Commerce (Eden Treaty) decreed that warships and privateers of either party, on meeting with a merchant ship of the other, were “to remain out of cannon-shot, and to send their boats to the merchant-ship which may be met with, and shall enter her to the number of two or three men only, to whom the master … shall shew his passport … and the ship … shall have liberty to continue her voyage, and it shall be wholly unlawful any way to molest or search her, or to chase or compel her to alter her course.” Articles 27 and 28 stated that if there appeared to be legitimate cause for suspicion, the captain must also show the certificates listing the cargo and that if any contraband goods were listed, “it shall be unlawful to break up or open the hatches, chests, casks, bales, or other vessels found on board such ship, or to remove even the smallest parcel of the goods … unless the landing be brought on shore, in the presence of the officers of the court of admiralty, and an inventory made by them of the said goods” (Annual Register for 1786, p. 276).

   The House version of the bill “To provide for the further protection of American Seamen” denied all hospitality in U.S. waters to vessels whose officers had seized seamen, foreign or American, from U.S. vessels; levied fines against the offending officers if the incident occurred “within any of the bays, ports, harbors, or rivers of the United States, or of any of the territories of the United States, or within one league of the coast thereof”; required the president to prohibit the supply of any aid or provisions to the guilty vessels; and prescribed punishment for any American offering aid or provision after the proclamation of the prohibition. The milder Senate version authorized, but did not require, the president to prohibit the supply of aid or provisions to, the landing of goods from, or the loading of such vessels. On 29 Feb. 1804 the Senate postponed consideration of the bill until the following December. The authority of the president to ban “at pleasure” the entry of foreign captains and vessels into U.S. ports was incorporated into Sections 4–6 of “An Act for the more effectual preservation of peace in the ports and harbors of the United States …,” which was enacted on 3 Mar. 1805 (A Bill to Provide for the Further Protection of American Seamen [Washington, 1804; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 7485]; A Bill Further to Protect the Seamen of the United States [Washington, 1804; Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 7442]; Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 264; U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:339–42).


Title: From James Madison to Edward Preble, 26 December 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Preble, Edward

Sir,
Department of State December 26—1803
I have had the honor to receive your letters of the 23d. Septr. and 15 October last. The President’s sentiments concerning the event communicated in the latter, and respecting yourself as having had a principal Agency in bring⟨ing it about⟩ have been expressed in his message to Congress ⟨of the 5th. inst.⟩ which will doubtless have been forwarded ⟨to you from the⟩ Department of the Navy: and I have ⟨the⟩ pleasure to add that the terms of the peace and the honorable manner in which it was restored have equally impressed the public mind in your favor.
The letter from the Emperor to the President came to hand and by this conveyance an answer is transmitted to the care of Mr Simpson. This will not be the sole expression of our sense of the reconciliation, as the gun carriages, formerly written for by Mr Simpson, will probably arrive and be presented about the same time. They left the Chesapeake towards the close of last month in the Schooner Citizen bound to Gibraltar, but ordered to touch at L’Orient to land the ratification of the Treaty with France respecting Louisiana. ⟨I am &c.
James Madison⟩

   RC (DLC: Preble Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IC, vol. 1). RC in a clerk’s hand; signature clipped. Letterbook copy dated 24 Dec. Text removed by clipping is supplied within angle brackets from the letterbook copy.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:458–59, 532–33.

   Jefferson’s 5 Dec. 1803 message informed Congress of the reestablishment of amicable relations with Morocco and praised the actions of James Simpson and U.S. naval captains Rodgers, Campbell, Bainbridge, and Preble (ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 2:592).

   See James Simpson to JM, 15 Oct. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:533, 534 nn.).

   See JM to Simpson, 26 Dec. 1803, and n. 5.


Title: From James Madison to James Simpson, 26 December 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Simpson, James

Sir,
Department of State December 26th 1803
I have received your letters numbered from 63 to 69 both inclusive.
My last was of the 31st of Octr. continued to the 10th of Novr., the original of which was forwarded by the Schooner Citizen, which carried the gun carriages to the Emperor: but as she was to touch at L’Orient in order to land the ratification of the Treaty respecting Louisiana, she may not perhaps reach Tangier before this. In the mean time the duplicate which was forwarded from Norfolk will convey to you the President’s instructions regarding the rupture with Morocco, wherein it must give you pleasure to find the steps you have taken in conjunction with the Naval Commanders, anticipated and authorized. The inclosed copy of the President’s message to Congress of the 5th instant will evince to you the distinguished manner in which he has thought proper to approve of your proceedings. I also inclose his answer to the Emperor’s letter, which you will convey to him in a manner suited to its contents. You will find herewith a copy for your own information. On a late review of the allowances and expences of the Consuls on the coast of Barbary, it has been determined that the following be admitted: Beside the Salary an outfit equal to a years Salary, and on the termination of their missions, a sum equal to a quarters Salary for the expence of their return; house rent on a moderate but decent scale, the expence of Couriers, postage, printing and translations when necessary. As it does not appear that your accounts have ever been fully stated and settled, I must request you to have it done, if possible thro’ your correspondent in the United States; but if that would not be convenient they may be transmitted to this Department, and the vouchers forwarded by one of the returning frigates. It is probable that on winding them up, the drafts you have made in advance will be covered, and on this presumption they will be paid without the security indicated in your No 69, I remain Sir, With great respect your most Ob Sert.
James Madison

   RC (MnHi). In a clerk’s hand, signed by JM; docketed by Simpson as received 24 Mar. and answered 26 Apr. Enclosures not found, but see nn. 4 and 5.

   Simpson to JM, 6 Sept., 26 Sept., 6 Oct., 8 Oct., 15 Oct., and 17 Oct. 1803 (two letters) (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:383, 461–62, 498, 503, 533, 536–38, 539).

   For JM to Simpson, 31 Oct. 1803, see ibid., 5:593–94. JM to Simpson, 4 Nov. 1803, includes a postscript dated 10 Nov. 1803.

   See JM to Simpson, 4 Nov. 1803.

   See JM to Edward Preble, 26 Dec. 1803, n. 2.

   In his 20 Dec. 1803 letter to Mawlay Sulaiman, Jefferson expressed concern about the clashes that had occurred between American and Moroccan vessels and praised the emperor for acting to prevent the misunderstanding from progressing. He noted that the “wide ocean” separated European nations from the U.S., which did not share their practices and principles of intercourse. All religions were equal in the U.S., and the treaty which Mawlay Sulaiman’s father had made with the U.S. and which he had recently recognized was based on these principles of justice and reciprocity. Jefferson promised that the U.S. would uphold the treaty, assist Moroccans whenever the occasion arose, and show friendship and respect to the emperor (DLC: Jefferson Papers).


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 26 December 1803
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

No 93
Sir
Paris 26th December 1803
I have received quadruplicates and Triplicates of your favor of the 6th October; the First & Second not having yet reached me previous to the receipt of that letter, I had receivd two from Mr Pichon, covering letters to the Minister for Exterior Relations. In one of those he explains only Shortly the nature of his communications to the Minister: This was the first intimation that I had received of any formal opposition to the Treaty by the Spanish Court. Mr Pinkney, tho’ I had three letters from him lately not having mentioned the Subject it was certainly very important, & had it been Sent by express at the time that the Prince of Peace was endeavouring to reestablish himself in the good graces of [t]his court I could have obtained any declaration that I wished upon the Subject. On receiving Mr Pichon’s letter I called on the Minister & asked him what communication he had received on that Subject; he Shewed me Mr Pichon’s letter, & expressed great Satisfaction for the idea that Mr Pichon held out, that it would make no delay in the arrangements for taking possession of the country. He treated the protests with the utmost contempt as not having the least foundation of right. I asked him, whether any remonstrances had been made here upon the Subject. He assured me most Solemnly that none had been made. I insisted with him that Some explanation Should be demanded from the Court of Spain he told me that he would not demand explanation but that he would offer the most pointed complaints and demand satisfaction for their conduct. Thus the matter Stands at present: I do not know that I can do any more, Since the receipt of the notes & your conclusive answer to them—had the Subject a doubtful aspect, it might be well to bring forward your reasoning, but as they not only have no doubts, but are displeased that Spain Should have any, I see no use in urging the matter further, Since I believe you will hear no more of it from Spain. If you Shoul⟨d⟩ I will avail myself of your reasoning. The fact I believe is that this business was taken up by Spain at the time that the prince of peace was out of humour with France and had some idea of leaning upon England this fit is past and the cabinet of Spain is now reestablished in Paris where all great matters relative to her must be treated. It was with this view I broke as I have mentioned the affair of East Florida here; But as your letters inform me that Business is put to rest for the present; I Suppose Mr Monroe & Mr Pinkney will not avail themselves of the dispositions I find here to promote it. I Should observe that the copies I have received of your favor of the 6th October do not contain any other extracts from Mr Pinkney’s letter to which you refer than that of 4th may 1803.
You mention accounts from Paris that Say that Spain is Solliciting the concurrence of France in this measure: I can find no Such accounts here, & the Minister most Solemnly denies the fact. Would it not be right, Sir, if you have other channels of communication with this Court than those I am acquainted with; to inform me of them, that I might if they were really worth any thing avail myself of them, or that I might at least tell you what they were worth: It is So common with foreigners to endeavour to acquire a consequence by pretending an interest on both Sides, that little relyance can be made on their communications, & much mischief often results from their interference. I know one Gentleman, that is in that predicament who is here considered as a visionary, & has no Sort of interest with or information from the present Government, of which you may judg⟨e⟩ when I assure you that he did not know that our treaty was opened formally, when to his great apparent mortification I told him it was Signed: Upon the whole I feel rather pleased tha⟨n⟩ otherwise at the interference of the Spanish Minister, Since it fully justifies what the President has So prudently determined, the taking possession in force, & marking out our limits. You may be persuaded that there is no disposition here to violate the Treaty in any Sort, & no attempts of Spain to do it will meet with Support here. I have Spoken to Mr Skipwith about Mr Millar claim which he thinks to be a doubtful one—measures however will be taken in case it Should be liquidated to Secure if possible the interests of the United States.
The letter mentioned in Mr Gallatin’s letter as inclosed for Mr Millar was not contained in the copy that has been received. When I understand this business more fully I Shall do myself the honor to write to Mr Gallatin.
The note of books has also not reached me; but I will cause the Moniteur to be Searched & execute your Commission tho’ it is very difficult to Send any thing from here to the Sea Ports Since Havre is Blockaded. I have in obedience to the President’s commands put in the note he directs on the Subject of the renewal of the war, in which I have pursued the words of your letter, had this been in my discretion I Should have left the thing to my first answer, Since I find nothing more has been done by other powers. I enclose the note. I have the honor to be Sir with the highest esteem Your most Obt hum: Servt
Robt R Livingston

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 9); draft (NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Livingston; docketed by Wagner as received 4 May. Italicized words and letters are those encoded by Livingston’s secretary and decoded here by the editors or supplied within square brackets from the draft (for the code, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:304–5 n.). RC decoded interlinearly by Wagner.

   Ibid., 5:491–96.

   Pichon wrote Livingston on 5 Oct. 1803 (NHi: Livingston Papers) enclosing dispatches for Talleyrand relating “to the execution of the Treaty of the 30th april last.” He informed Livingston that Yrujo had protested to JM that the French were unable to transfer title to Louisiana because they had promised not to alienate it and because they had not fulfilled all the terms of the treaty of cession regarding the king of Etruria. Pichon wrote again on 11 Oct. 1803 (ibid.) enclosing further dispatches on the subject. Livingston transmitted the dispatches to Talleyrand, asked to be kept abreast of any new information, and requested an appointment to discuss the situation (Livingston to Talleyrand, 13 and 16 Dec. 1803 [NHi: Livingston Papers]).

   Miscoded and interlinearly decoded “his.”

   For the decision not to send Monroe to Madrid to negotiate for East Florida, see JM to Livingston, 6 Oct. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:491–96).

   For Joseph J. Miller’s claims against France and the U.S. government’s claim against Miller, see Gallatin to JM, 11 Oct. 1803 (ibid., 5:507 and n. 1).

   For the books advertised in the Moniteur universel, see JM to Livingston, 6 Oct. 1803 (ibid., 5:491–96 and n. 10).

   See Livingston to JM, 3 June 1803 (ibid., 5:52–54 and n. 5).

   Enclosure not found, but on 26 Dec. 1803 Livingston wrote Talleyrand (NHi: Livingston Papers) expressing the U.S. position on the commencement of the war and on neutral rights in Jefferson’s words as relayed by JM (see JM to Livingston, 6 Oct. 1803 [PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:491–96]).


Title: To James Madison from Littleton Waller Tazewell, 26 December 1803
From: Tazewell, Littleton Waller
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir;
Norfolk. decr: 26th. 1803.
Yours of the 18th Instant, covering a duplicate check for $80., was yesterday received. The check was duly honor’d, and its amount was long since passed to Colo. Munroe’s credit in our accounts.
I regret the additional trouble that the negligence of my clerk has given you in this affair, and hope that the arrangement with the Bank at Washington has submitted you to no responsibility on my account. If it be so however, or if there be any other act necessary to be done by me to indemnify them or you, I will with pleasure take care to have it performed, so soon as I am informed what is required.
May I take the liberty of inquiring confidentially of you sir, through what channel it will be most proper to make application (if indeed any application will be proper) for an appointment in the Customs here. My reason for making this inquiry is, that the fast declining health of the present Collector, justifies the belief, that ere long a vacancy may be expected in this office. In this event, I should be desirous of being consider’d by the President, as one of those who would wish the appointment, provided there exists no better claim than the humble pretensions which I could prefer. I am so totally unacquainted with the forms to be pursued in cases of this sort however, that I am compelled to ask for information upon the subject.
In making such an application to you sir, I hope I shall not be consider’d as impertinent: or if in doing so I have presumed too far on our slight acquaintance, I beg you to excuse me. For I assure you that such impropriety procedes but from ignorance, and not from the want of high respect and sincere regard, which I have ever entertained for you, and with which I am dear Sir your mo: obdt. servt.
Littn: W. Tazewell.

   RC (DLC).

   Letter not found. For the check, see Tazewell to JM, 8 Dec. 1803.

   Although JM mentioned Tazewell’s pretensions to Gallatin, he did not received the appointment. On 12 Nov. 1804 Jefferson appointed Wilson Cary Nicholas to the position (Gallatin to Jefferson, 11 Feb. 1804 [Adams, Writings of Gallatin, 1:176–77]; Senate Exec. ProceedingsJournal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America (3 vols.; Washington, 1828)., 1:471, 473).


Title: From James Madison to George Davis, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Davis, George

26 December 1803. “Whatever may be Mr. Eaton’s individual claims upon the Sardinian lady he ransomed, you will carefully abstain from representing either to the Regency of Tunis, or otherwise, that the United States possess any right or claim to hold her in the condition of a slave. It has not been considered how far Mr. Eaton could charge her ransom to the public, nor is it known that he intends to do so; but it is certain that, if they are chargeable with it, it would neither comport with their sentiments, nor those of their Government, to enforce any claim involving the disposal of her person. It, therefore, depends upon your own judgment how far, as an individual, the friend of Mr. Eaton, or his agent, you will take any steps, and what they may be, for securing his reimbursement.”

   Extract (DNA: RG 233, Transcribed Reports of the Committee on Claims, 8th Cong., 2d sess. through 11th Cong., 3d sess., 3:290-91 [8C-A1]).

   For Davis’s questions concerning the ransom paid for Maria Anna Porcile, see Davis to JM, 3 July 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:142–43 and nn.). For the origin of Eaton’s involvement with her, see Jacob Wagner to JM, 7 Sept. 1801 (ibid., 2:89–90 and n. 2).


Title: To James Madison from Isaac Cox Barnet, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Barnet, Isaac Cox
To: Madison, James

26 December 1803, Paris. “I received a few days ago your favor of the 30th. Septr. in which you are pleased to submit once more to my choice, the Commercial Agency of Antwerp or Havre.
“The circumstances of the War—a proper view of the probable trade of the United States to both places and a due regard to my own Situation on the score of Commercial competition leave no longer any doubts on my mind—but command me to retain in preference the Agency at Antwerp.” When notifying Livingston and Mitchell of his decision, he will not “inform them of that part of your Letter which concerns the latter, in order that no possibl⟨e⟩ inconvenience might result from his having a knowledge of what you have not directed me to communicate.” Suggests that his new commission specify “those contiguous Ports or Departments (including if possible the Island of Walcheren,) which it might be desirable should be comprized within the District of Antwerp—my present Exequatur confining it Simply to the Department ‘Des Deux Néthes.’” “The Island of Walcheren, tho’ in the Dutch Territory is under the french Government and the port of Flushing highly important in connection with the trade of the U.S. to Antwerp.
“A momentary recurrence to the Sentiments expressed in my former Letters will best Shew you, Sir, how much I appreciate this new testimony of confidence and favor on the part of our Governmt. as well as for that evinced by the approbation of my appointment here; and whilst I shall be executing the duties of this one—my watchfulness and solicitude for the general interest and conduct of the other shall not abate.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 1). 2 pp.; docketed by Wagner.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:475.


Title: To James Madison from John Mercer, Isaac Cox Barnet, and William Maclure, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Mercer, John,Barnet, Isaac Cox,Maclure, William
To: Madison, James

26 December 1803, Paris. Having been informed by Livingston on 23 Dec. of the ratification of the treaty with France and the president’s confirmation of their appointment, they transmit a report of their business.

[First Enclosure] § Report of the American Commissioners
26 December 1803, Paris. “On the 29th. of June, two of the undersigned being in Paris, received from the American Ministers, Commissions to carry provisionally into execution the object of the Convention.
“Upon perusing this Instrument and recollecting the principles of the Constitution of the United States, they were of opinion that no final act could be performed by them in relation to the objects embraced by it, until its Ratification by the competent authorities in America was known. Though this opinion precluded all definitive decisions upon the Claims intended to be provided for, the Commissioners then present did not deem it to be inconsistent with the Duty which that opinion prescribed to adopt certain preparitory measures which might be useful in hastening the ultimate settlement of the Claims within the time limitted by the Convention, in the event of its being ratified in the United States.
“The second article of the Convention declaring its object to be the payment of certain claims, whose result was comprized in a Conjectural Note annexed to it, and there being no note accompanying the Copy which the Commissioners received, they felt the necessity of possessing that document. A Paper was presented to them by the Agent of the United States, with information of his having received it from one of the American Ministers for the Conjectural Note referred to. Though there could be no doubt of the correctness of this information, it was supposed proper to ascertain officially the true character which belonged to that Paper; it was accordingly inclosed to Mr. Livingston and Mr. Monroe with the Letter of the 7th. of July hereunto annexed and marked No. 1. The Paper was returned by Mr. Livingston with his answer marked No. 2. An exact Copy of the Conjectural note, thus ascertained to be the one intended by the Convention, is annexed to this Report, and marked No. 3.
“The Convention having provided that the original documents upon which the Claims of American Citizens were founded, should not be removed from the Office of the French Government in which they were deposited, only two modes presented themselves by which the necessary knowledge of their Contents could be obtained; either that the Undersigned should be present in the French Office, or that they should obtain correct and authenticated Copies of the documents and vouchers to be examined apart from the French Department.
“In considering which of these modes would be best suited to attain the object in view, the two Commissioners then present gave the preference to the latter. The office in which the Papers relating to American Claims are placed, is the depository of other public documents, where other business of the French Government is daily transacted; and of course always occupied by the proper officers, and frequently attended by other individuals interested in the proceedings of the office. The inconvenience attending the deliberations of two separate Commissions, engaged in different business in the same Apartments, presented considerations which did not appear favorable to that attentive examination which it might become the duty of the undersigned to give to the questions arising under the Convention.
“In taking the course which has been pursued, the two Commissioners were influenced also by the circumstance, that these authenticated documents would be transmitted to the United States, and would hereafter furnish to their Government the evidence upon which the decisions of the undersigned in each particular case were formed.
“Having had an interview with the Chief of the French office, assurances were received of his readiness to aid in furnishing the documents required. In consequence of which the Letter of the 9th. July hereunto annexed, and marked No. 4 was addressed to the Agent of the United States.
“In the view which the two Commissioners above referred to took of the Convention, they were of opinion that the sixth, seventh & eighth articles might be understood as pointing out the order in which the Claims ought to be examined and decided upon. These articles designated claims that were supposed to be ‘Liquidated’ when the Convention was signed; others that were ‘prepared for verification,’ and others that were ‘prepared for liquidation.’ In the Letter therefore of the 9th. July to the Agent of the United States, he was requested to attend, in the first place, to the Class of Claims called ‘liquidated.’
“While the Commissioners were waiting for the documents belonging to these claims, they received from the Agent of the United States the Letter dated the 20th. July, a copy of which is herewith sent, and marked No. 5.
“The information contained in this Letter being derived only from the special Director of the fourth Division of the Council of Liquidation, it was not thought proper to consider it as conclusive. The Contents was at the same time communicated to the Minister of the United States, and other steps were taken to ascertain from the higher authorities of this Department of the French Government the real state of the American Claims on the 30th. of April, and how far the different stages which they were supposed to have attained towards a settlement would be considered as marked by the terms used in the Convention. The Letter of the 16th. of August hereunto annexed and marked No. 6. relates to this subject and was received from Mr. Skipwith in his Characters of Agent and Chargé d’affaires of the United States, the latter of which he then filled in the absence of Mr. Livingston. This information having shewn that the arrangement in the Convention was without an object so far as the terms used in the sixth and seventh articles might have been intended to designate two particular descriptions of Claims, that the Claims intended to be provided for were not susceptible of an examination in the order which seemed to be prescribed and could derive no superior pretensions to consideration from the state of forwardness to which it was supposed they had been advanced in the French office, it became the Duty of the undersigned in pursuing the main intention of the Convention, to establish some principle for the investigation of the Claims, whose operation would be found uniform and just. After the most attentive consideration which the Commissioners then present could give to the subject, they were of opinion that the Claims found upon the Conjectural Note ought first to be examined and ultimately decided upon according to the respective dates at which they originated against the French Government.
“This opinion has been concurred in by the third Commissioner who has since taken his seat at the Board. As there were no dates found on the Conjectural Note, the Agent of the United States was requested to obtain from the French Office a Statement of these Claims arranged under their respective dates. While this statement was about to be prepared, the authenticated vouchers in sundry Claims were, between the 6th. & 26th. of August, belonging to the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years, presented to the Board with information that they were arranged in conformity to the principle which had been established & contained the whole number found, independent of the Embargo, in the four first years.
“This information was derived from the best view of the Papers which the Agent of the United States could then get. It shewed but one claim to be in the first year, four in the second, twelve in the third, and seven in the fourth year. Having no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement, the two Commissioners proceeded to the examination of these Claims, and after postponing such of them as they deemed it proper to require further information upon, they had directed on the 26th. of August the liquidation of one in the second year, four in the third year, and three in the fourth year, intending to suspend any further proceedings upon them, and to withhold their final Certificate untill the ratification of the Convention in the United States was known.
“The next communication of documents received from the French Department, shewed that the first information was entirely incorrect; for instead of there being only one claim in the first year, others were presented which belonged to that period, and to what number they might be found to amount could not be ascertained untill the general statement which had been required, was received. The same error ran through the other years within which any claims had been presented. Whether this proceeded from a desire to hasten the examination of particular claims, or from the want of order and arrangement in the French Office, it was important that the Commissioners should not be subject to the same inconvenience in future. A majority of the Board, (the third Commissioner having joined it on the first of September,) therefore determined to confine their attention to the examination of the documents, without directing the liquidation of any other claim untill the statement of the dates should be obtained; by which the undersigned themselves would be enabled to arrange the Conjectural Note, to understand whether the vouchers were presented in the order prescribed, and to decide upon them according to the principle which had been established. This statement being now received, the Paper marked No. 7. exhibits the Claims on the Conjectural Note, except those arising from the Embargo, arranged under the several years within which they originated against the French Government.
“The Cases found upon the Conjectural Note, in which the documents have been presented to the Board, and Reports thereupon made by the Agent of the United States stands this day in this Office,

Year
1°.
—
2.

2°.
—
19.

3°.
—
34.

4°.
—
11.

5°.
—
3.

6°.
—
0.

7°.
—
0.

8°.
—
 0.

69.
—

“From this statement it will be seen that the Claims belonging to no one year are yet fully before the Board.
“Other Claims have been reported upon by the Agent of the United States, which not being embraced by the Conjectural Note, will not, according to the construction which the undersigned give to the Convention, be entitled to an examination, untill those found upon the note shall have been settled.
“The Cases which arise from the Embargo, belong to the second year, and are understood to be in considerable forwardness.

“The Statements annexed to this Report, connected with No. 7, & marked No. 8, shew the Claims which were in the French Office on the 30th. of April ulto., but not included in the Conjectural Note: and also some which have been presented since that period: others are likewise daily coming in.
“It will be observed that no prize cases are found upon the Conjectural Note. The Paper No. 9. contains the probable estimate of current expences which will be incurred by this Board.
“Though the Undersigned believe that the principles of the Convention will cause certain deductions to be made from the Conjectural Note, they cannot at present pronounce with any degree of certainty that the Claims which it embraces, including the Interest due upon them, will be covered by Twenty millions of livres; beyond this sum they will not consider it their duty to direct any liquidation to be made.
“The undersigned have no reason at present to doubt but that they will be able to discharge the Duties which have been assigned them within the time limitted by the Convention.”

   RC and enclosures, two copies (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 119, France, Convention of 1803 [Spoliation], Correspondence); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of enclosures (ibid.); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of enclosures (Fredericksburg, Va., Courthouse: John Francis Mercer Letterbook). First RC 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Mercer, Barnet, and Maclure. First enclosure 9 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Mercer, Barnet, and Maclure; marked “(Duplicate.).” For remaining enclosures, see nn. 3–8 and 10–12.

   Isaac Cox Barnet and John Mercer.

   For the 18 May 1803 commission, see Moore, International Adjudications, 5:214–15. For the terms of the Claims Convention of 30 Apr. 1803, see Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:516–23.

   Enclosure no. 1 is a copy of Barnet and Mercer to Livingston and Monroe, 7 July 1803 (1 p.; printed in Moore, International Adjudications, 5:227), enclosing a “conjectural Note” they had received from Skipwith and asking whether it was the one designated in the convention. They reported that they had appointed Nathaniel Cutting of Massachusetts secretary to the board, requested that the U.S. and French governments be notified, and asked how “the immediate expences of the Board [were] to be defrayed.”

   Enclosure no. 2 is a copy of Livingston to Barnet and Mercer, 7 July 1803 (1 p.; printed ibid., 5:227), stating: “The note delivered you by Mr. Skipwith was, (as he informed you) received directly from me as the conjectural note referred to in the Treaty.” Livingston added that there was no need for formal notification of Cutting’s appointment and that an order for $5,000 would be issued on 8 July on the U.S. bankers at Paris in favor of the commissioners. He urged them to proceed to an examination and settlement of the accounts as quickly as possible. Filed with this letter is a copy of the commissioners’ 8 July 1803 reply (1 p.) assuring Livingston that there would be no delay.

   Enclosure no. 3 is a copy of the conjectural note (8 pp.; in French; printed ibid., 5:164–67), listing 122 claims totaling just over 19,889,303 livres.

   Enclosure no. 4 is a copy of Barnet and Mercer to Fulwar Skipwith, 9 July 1803 (1 p.; printed ibid., 5:228), asking him to procure from the French government as soon as possible “Copies of all the original documents, accounts and vouchers of the different American claims already liquidated by the Bureaux established for that purpose by the French Republic, together with the certificates of liquidation and any evidences which may exist in those Bureaux of the Citizenship of the Claimants,” authorizing him to hire clerks for the purpose, and asking that the copies be certified by Skipwith and M. Guillaume, director of the fourth division of the French Council of Liquidation.

   Enclosure no. 5 is a copy of Skipwith to Barnet and Mercer, 20 July 1803 (1 p.; printed ibid., 5:228), stating that he had intended to submit the requested copies to the commissioners “to day” but that Guillaume, who had charge of the copies, said he had been instructed to await the decision of the Council of Liquidation, whose members now wondered whether they should revise all formerly liquidated claims listed on the conjectural note. Skipwith was therefore unable to say when the commissioners would receive their copies. He added that he had notified Livingston of the “impediment.”

   Enclosure no. 6 is a copy of Skipwith to Barnet and Mercer, 16 Aug. 1803 (1 p.; printed ibid., 5:229), repeating his earlier information that Jacques Defermon had declared “that no liquidation whatever of American Claims by the late Commission of Comptabilité Intermédiaire were or can be considered definitive untill they should be revised and acknowledged by the Council of liquidation, of which he, Mr. Defermon, is Director, and consequently that there did not exist the Class called liquidated claims by the 6th. Article of the Convention.”

   William Maclure.

   Enclosure no. 7 (8 pp.) is a “Copy of the General List of those American Claims against the French Government that were in the French Bureaux on the 30th. April, 1803,” with a supplement (see n. 11, below). The list contains 117 numbered claims and six additional claims that were on the conjectural note but were not on the list obtained from the French government.

   Enclosure no. 8 (4 pp.) is a list of American claims that were in the French bureaus on 30 Apr. 1803 but were not listed on the conjectural note, together with a supplementary list of claims received after 30 Apr. 1803.

   Enclosure no. 9 is a copy of the estimated expenses of the commission up to 31 Dec. 1803 (1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 7 May; printed ibid., 5:229), including room rent, furniture and supplies, engraver’s charges for seals, wages for a doorkeeper-messenger, fuel for three fires, and clerk hire for copyists employed at the French offices, totaling 6,222 livres.


Title: To James Madison from John Mercer, Isaac Cox Barnet, and William Maclure, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Mercer, John,Barnet, Isaac Cox,Maclure, William
To: Madison, James

26 December 1803, Paris. “We send you inclosed Copies of certain Letters which have passed between the Minister of the United States & ourselves.”

   RC and enclosures, two copies (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 119, France, Convention of 1803 [Spoliation], Correspondence); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of enclosures (ibid.); letterbook copy and letterbook copy of enclosures (Fredericksburg, Va., Courthouse: John Francis Mercer Letterbook). First RC 1 p.; docketed by Wagner as received 30 Mar. Second RC marked duplicate; docketed by Wagner as received 7 May. For enclosures, see n. 1.

   The enclosures (37 pp.; printed in Maclure, To the People of the U.S. [Shaw and ShoemakerR. R. Shaw and R. H. Shoemaker, comps., American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801–1819 (22 vols.; New York, 1958–66). 12968], pp. 14–26) are copies of Robert R. Livingston to the commissioners, 25 Oct., 30 Oct., 2 Nov., 12 Nov. (with enclosed notes from Jacques Defermon and M. Guillaume), 16 Nov., and 23 Dec. 1803; and the commissioners to Livingston, 29 Oct., 1, 3, 15, and 17 Nov., and 23 Dec. 1803. Livingston wrote to the commissioners demanding their reasons for delaying their examination of the claims, since by doing so they were inconveniencing the American creditors and the French government, and urging them to expedite the fulfillment of the convention terms. Although Livingston argued that because he was the resident American minister and a negotiator of the claims convention, his interpretation overrode theirs, the commissioners refused to accept his view. The exchange became more acrimonious as it continued and was ended on 17 Nov. by the commissioners’ statement that they would “At a proper season” convey to Livingston and to the French and American governments the reasons for their actions. On 23 Dec. 1803 Livingston informed the commissioners that he had received official notice of the ratification of the treaty and of the president’s approbation of their appointment to the board. Copies of several of these letters were also enclosed in Livingston to JM, 23 Nov. 1803.


Title: To James Madison from James Simpson, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: Simpson, James
To: Madison, James

26 December 1803, Tangier. No. 71. Refers to his last dispatch, no. 70 of 4 Nov., sent by way of Lisbon and Gibraltar. Has since learned from Gwyn that the emperor sent two messengers to Mogador with confirmation of orders for the release of the Hannah, “which I mention as a proof of his sincerity in that matter.” “Captain Williams applied to me for payment of his Seamens maintainance and certain other expences had been occasioned by the Seizure of his Vessel; the former I should have paid had the Brig not been restored, but as that was the case and Captain Williams was bound home I conceived it more proper to leave the whole claim to be laid before Government by the Owner of the Vessel, than to pay any part of it here.” The emperor’s ships are all dismantled at Larache and Sale. The emperor is at Fès but will go to Morocco “after the Festival at close of the present Moon.” Received on 20 Dec. an official letter with “a list of sundry Articles of Merchandize and One hundred and seventy six dollars in money, three Tripolines have represented to His Majesty they lost on board the Meshouda, the whole amounting to $1440 ¾,” for which the secretary of state demands satisfaction. “He also complains of Arraez Omar of Tetuan having had a tooth beat out by a blow given him on board the Meshouda.” “Having directed my Agent at Tetuan to enquire into the matter he acquaints me that it appears to be true and Omar accuses a Mr Bellet as the person who gave him the blow. I dont know who this person is or what Ship he belonged to. The fact respecting the pretended loss of property will not be so easily ascertained.
“I have requested my Friend at Larach to make every enquiry respecting what articles of Merchandize were landed at that Port out of the Meshouda; at this place I find several of the Passengers landed Goods, and the Comptroller of the Customs assures me that at that time they mentioned to him some of their packages having been opened and goods taken out. I am not yet sufficiently prepared to make a full report to you on this unpleasant busyness, nor have I yet sent back the Messenger but I soon shall, and endeavour in my answer to the Minister to do away the unfavourable impression the representation may have made on His Majestys mind.”
At Preble’s request Simpson obtained Rais Omar’s release, “for which he appears to be very thankfull and asserts he never would have mentioned the loss of his tooth, or what else happened to him on board the Meshouda had not the Emperour been made acquainted with it by the Passengers.” The house Simpson proposed to purchase from the emperor for a consular residence has been given to the agent of the Spanish merchants: “there is nothing now to be done but to build one, which I shall hope I may be instructed to do as my present Residence is not only enjoyed at the will of another, but realy the Walls are rent in different places insomuch that necessity alone compells me to remain in it.” Will soon have to draw for $800 for contingent expenses, as the feast of Lesser Bairam occurs in mid-January.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tangier, vol. 2). 3 pp.; marked “Duplicate”; docketed by Wagner as received 2 Apr.

   Ramadan.

   This was probably Edward Bennet, midshipman aboard the John Adams, which captured the Meshouda (Dudley W. Knox, ed., Register of Officer Personnel, United States Navy and Marine Corps, and Ships’ Data, 1801–1807 [Washington, 1945], p. 4).

   For Simpson’s negotiations to purchase the house, see Simpson to JM, 19 Mar., 13 May, and 26 June 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 3:50, 222, 343).

   The Islamic feast of Id al-Fitr is a three-or four-day festival following the breaking of the fast of Ramadan during which gifts are exchanged (Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3:1007).


Title: To James Madison from Cato West, 26 December 1803 (Abstract)
From: West, Cato
To: Madison, James

26 December 1803, Washington, Mississippi Territory. “The administration of this Govt. having devolv’d on me (the Govr. being absent) has oblig’d me to employ a Clerk at 40 Ds. pr. Month & I presum[e] to hope that I may be allow’d for this expense indeed have no doubt, when it is recollected that I am bound to perform the double duties of Govr. & Secy., without any increase of Sallary. But I request that you will be pleas’d to write me upon this subject as soon as may be convet.”

   Draft (Ms-Ar). 1 p.

   On 28 Jan. 1804 JM replied: “The President approves of your employing a Clerk at the rate of forty dollars per month to aid you in the discharge of your duties during the absence of Governor Claiborne” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 27 December 1803
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir
New Orleans Decr. 27th 1803.
Since my last I have been as busily engaged as circumstances would admit, in making such arrangements for the temporary government of this province as I esteemed most consonant to the intentions of the President, and the expectations of the inhabitants. The difficulties I meet with in this undertaking are peculiarly embarrassing on account of the neglected state in which I found the colony. The functions of government have been nearly at a stand for some time; and considerable arrears of business have accumulated in every department. The French Prefect, during the time he held the country, exerted himself to remedy this evil, and his efforts were so happily directed as to give pretty general satisfaction. But he could feel only a temporary interest in the concerns of the country: and his time was too short for extensive operations. There is one of his measures however to which I feel myself not a little indebted. He abolished the Cabildo. This body was created on principles altogether incongruous with those of our government. It was in part an hereditary council; in action, feeble and arbitrary; and supposed to be devoted to the vices of the Spanish government.
In their place I found a municipality established, consisting for the most part of approved characters and well disposed to the expected change of government: and I therfore did not long hesitate to sanction the new arrangement. Being a stranger in the Country I of course stand in much need of local information as I proceed: and the suspicions which I have too much reason to apprehend from latent interests in almost every quarter to which I can look, have often induced me to deliberate perhaps longer than is consistent with the promptitude expected from me.
Among my principal difficulties I have to mention the re-organization of the Militia. I have to regret that the Prefect was not so fortunate in his arrangements on this head as I could have wished. I have found several very young men holding rank above their years, and some others who are unpopular as officers, and under whom the Militia will serve reluctantly, if at all. But my principal difficulty arises from two large Companies of people of color, who are attached to the service, and were esteemed a very serviceable corps under the Spanish government. On this particular Corps I have reflected with much anxiety. To re-commission them might be considered as an outrage on the feelings of a part of the Union; and as opposed to those principles of policy which the safety of the southern states has necessarily established. On the other hand, not to re-commission them would disgust them, and might be productive of future mischief. To disband them would be to raise an armed enemy in the very heart of the Country: and to disarm them would savour too Strongly of that desperate system of government which seldom succeeds. Should no necessity urge me to a hasty decision on this point, I shall await some opinion and instructions from the department of State; and have therfore to beg that I may be favored with them as soon as possible.
In my first proclamation I did not insert the treaty, as was intended by the draft forwarded to me some time since. I omitted it, because in the course of the week before my arrival, it appeared in the several New Orleans papers in the French and English languages, and had already got into general circulation. The insertion of it in my proclamation would more over have considerably retarded the publication; and the lively anxiety of the people at that interesting Crisis forbad the delay of my proclamation.
I had formed very favorable expectations of this country: but I have had the satisfaction to find them surpassed. The banks of the river from Baton Rouge to the City exhibit almost uninterrupted streets of comfortable and frequently magnificent houses, with every appearance of prosperity around them. The principal streets of the City are well built: many of the buildings are elegant: and improvement seems to progress. New Orleans appears to me not unlike what Baltimore was four years ago, with every prospect of rapid advancement. The Governor’s house is large, and, I am told, Commodious. I took an early opportunity of communicating to the late Governor, thro’ his eldest son, that I wished him to consider that house as his own, until it was perfectly convenient to him to leave it. I however learn that he means to quit it in the course of a few days.
I yesterday paid a visit of Ceremony to the convent here; and returned, I assure you, deeply impressed with the importance of that establishment at the present period. There is an Abbess and eleven nuns, the Sole object of whose temporal Care is the education of female youth. They at present accommodate 73 boarders, and 100 day scholars, each of whom contribute to the support of the house in proportion to the means and condition of the respective parents: and many receive tuition gratis. In the name of the President of the U. S. I undertook to give the nuns a solemn assurance that they would be protected in their persons, property, and Religion & they in return expressed the highest confidence in the government. They even indulge an expectation that several of the nuns who on the arrival of the French officers, retired to the Havannah would return; it being now certain that nothing is to be apprehended from the French, and that with us they would enjoy the advantages of just and mild laws.
Our army here is so small that General Wilkinson has not yet thought it expedient to dismiss the Militia of the M. T. I think necessary to mention that the General at my request furnished many of them at Fort Adams with cloathing, blankets, &c. as the men were too poor to provide themselves, and the weather was inclement and severe. For the sake of these patriotic men I have to entreat that the articles furnished may be considered by the government as a present: they deserve well of their Country: they turned out in the middle of winter when a serious Campaign was apprehended. Their duty has been hard: and at the expiration of their time, if the price of their equipment be deducted from their pay, they will go home poorer than they came, with the fatigues of the expedition the only reward of their services. Accept assurances of my esteem and high Consideration.
William C. C. Claiborne

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 2); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne. Second RC marked duplicate.

   The second RC and letterbook copy have “or City Council” following “Cabildo.” For a detailed description of the establishment, history, and functions of the cabildo, see Gilbert C. Din and John E. Harkins, The New Orleans Cabildo: Colonial Louisiana’s First City Government, 1769–1803 (Baton Rouge, 1996).

   The second RC and letterbook copy have “views.”

   See Daniel Clark to JM, 29 Nov. 1803 (first letter), n. 2.

   See Claiborne to JM, 20 Dec. 1803, n. 2.

   For the draft copy of a proclamation, see JM to Claiborne, 31 Oct. 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:589–92 and n. 1).

   The Ursulines had arrived at New Orleans in 1727 to establish their school for girls and operate the Charity Hospital (Roger Baudier, The Catholic Church in Louisiana [New Orleans, 1939], pp. 103–4).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne and James Wilkinson, 27 December 1803
From: Claiborne, William C. C.,Wilkinson, James
To: Madison, James

Sir
New Orleans December 27th. 1803
Our Letter of the 20th Inst. informed you of the Delivery of Louisiana to the United States, and we now inclose an original Copy of the Process Verbal, or minutes of the transaction, which was signed on the occasion by the Commissioners of France and of the United States. The Barracks Magazines Hospital, and public Store Houses in this City, yet remain in the occupancy of the Spanish Authorities & are appropriated for the accommodation of their Forces, and the safe Keeping of their Military Stores. We have considered these Buildings as appendages of the Military Posts and essential to their defence, as such we have urged their immediate evacuation, which under the Treaty we suppose ourselves authorized to demand. The Prefect is enclined to a contrary opinion, and supposes that until the three months allowance for the final evacuation by the French & Spanish Forces shall have expired, we are not authorised to demand the immediate possession of them as a matter of right. He however assured us of his readiness to enter into the views & Interests of the United States, and has promised to hasten the movement of the Spanish Troops, and the final evacuation of the Public Buildings as much as may be in his power.
The Public Records, Archives &c recognised in the Treaty, are not yet delivered. The Prefect has given us assurances that these documents are now arranging, and will soon be in a state for delivery. The Fort at Placquemines and the Block House at the Balice have been taken possession of by a Detachment of our Troops, and measures will immediately be taken by General Wilkinson to occupy the Post at Natchitocks on the Red River.

We understand that the Troops of Spain now in this City amount to about 300 Men, and until they shall be withdrawn, we conceive that it would be imprudent to dispense with the Services of the Volunteer Corps of Militia from the Mississippi Territory. For if this Corps were dismissed the Regular Troops remaining in the City would be inferior in number to the Spanish Forces, and of consequence the Possession of the City somewhat precarious.
For the want of Barracks, the Troops of the United States have been much exposed, and subject to serious Inconveniences. For the Want of Public Store Houses and Magazines the Military appurtenances such as Arms, Ammunition Provisions &c could not all be landed, and the Schooner which had been impressed at Natchez for the Transportation of the Militia &c has been necessarily detained as a place of deposit for the Articles, which circumstance will encrease the expence attending the Vessel.
In a private conference with Mr Laussat we sounded him as to the limits of the ceded Territory; he stated positively that the Eastern Boundary was the same as had been established at the Treaty of Paris (1763) through the River Iberville and the middle of the Lakes Maurepas & Pontchertrain to the Sea; that France had strenuously insisted to have it extended to the Rio Bravo as high as the 30 degree of Latitude; but it was understood that Spain did not fully recognise the Claim to that extent, that it was not the intention of France to leave the Western Boundary from the 30th Degree of Latitude on the Rio Bravo Northward undetermined, because it was an extravagance to think of tracing a line from thence to the Source of the Mississippi, at this day through Countries, which had not even been visited by the most enterprizing Travellers. He mentioned that he had been inform⟨ed⟩ of the Spaniards having raised additional Forces on the Mexican Frontier since they had been informed of the Cession and that they would probably take this opportunity of incroaching on the ceded Territory.
He requested us to consider this as a confidential Communication, but had no objection to our communicating on the same to our Government. With respect to the Floridas he was of opinion that Spain would readily exchange them for a small portion of our Territory West of the Mississippi. Accept assurances of our high Consideration & Respect.
William C. C. ClaiborneJa Wilkinson

   RC and enclosure, two copies (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 2). First RC 4 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne and Wilkinson; marked “(Duplicate)”; docketed by Wagner as received 29 Jan. For enclosure, see n. 1.

   The enclosure is a procès-verbal of the transfer (4 pp.; in French and English; signed by Laussat, Claiborne, and Wilkinson; docketed by Wagner as enclosed in the commissioners’ 27 Dec. 1803 letter). For a description of the contents, see Claiborne and Wilkinson to JM, 20 Dec. 1803, n. 1.

   For the boundary between West Florida and Louisiana established by the peace preliminaries to the 1763 Treaty of Paris, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:351 n. 3.

   Interlined here in the first RC is a printer’s fist with the note “a Mistake & omission in our Copy.” Filed with the letter is a slip of paper containing another printer’s fist and this note: “Observation. A mistake owing to the hurry of business was committed in taking the Copy which was preserved of this Letter, which will account for any Variation which may appear between this and the original of which it purports to be a duplicate.

   “The Communication ought to have been, & we presume was, ‘That France had strenuously insisted to have it extended to Mobille, but that Spain had peremptorily refused it: that on the South Western Side, the claims of France extended to the Rio Bravo as high as the 30 Degree of Latitude &c.’” The second RC has the correct text.